Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1996-11-04SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1996 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 1. 0 Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9 (b): a. Rafael Racquet Club Neighbors' Alliance for Reasonable Growth vs. City of San Rafael City Attorney Ragghianti announced no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:05 PM INTRODUCTION OF KENNETH NORDHOFF, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, EFFECTIVE 11/4/96 - File 9-3-20 Mayor Boro introduced and welcomed Kenneth Nordhoff, newly appointed Director of Administrative Services. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. Monday, October 7, 1996 (CC) 4. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 1702 - An Ordinance Repealing Chapter 2.24 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, "Finance Department" and Enacting a New Chapter 2.24, "Administrative Services Department", and Related Code Changes (CM) - File 9-3-20 5. Resolution of Appreciation to Janet Walker, Public Works Department Typist Clerk II, TO Employee of the Quarter Ending 9/30/96 (CM) - File 7-4 x 102 x 9-3-40 EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING 9/30/96. Approved final Ordinance No. 1702. RESOLUTION NO. 9734 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION JANET WALKER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TYPIST CLERK II, 6. Resolution Authorizing Appointment of RESOLUTION NO. 9735 - Kenneth Nordhoff as City Treasurer (CM) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING - File 9-3-15 x 9-3-20 x 7-4 APPOINTMENT OF KENNETH NORDHOFF AS CITY TREASURER (effective 11/4/96). 7. Appropriation Transfer for One Time RESOLUTION NO. 9736 - Costs From Unallocated Reserves to RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFER Facilitate the Reorganization of the OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE Finance Department to Administrative FISCAL YEAR 1996/1997, FOR Services Department (Admin. Serv.) ONE TIME COSTS FROM - File 8-5 x 9-3-20 UNALLOCATED RESERVES TO FACILITATE THE REORGANIZATION OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO ADMINISTRATION SERVICES. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 2 8. Approval of Street Closure for Fourth Approved staff recommendation. Annual Italian Street Painting Festival from Thursday, June 12 to Sunday, June 15, 1997 (RA) - File 11-19 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following item was removed from the Agenda for further discussion: 3. VOLUNTEER PROGRAM AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT (CM) - File 235 Councilmember Miller stated he was fortunate to have had the opportunity to be involved with this program since its inception, when the Federation of Neighborhoods first began to discuss such a program. He stated once the great work of the Neighborhood Associations was brought forward to the Council, Council approved the concept and then staff took over. Mr. Miller stated Volunteer Coordinator Lynn Emrich, Assistant City Manager Suzanne Golt, and Personnel Director Daryl Chandler took on the project, and worked it through with the entire committee. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to accept the report as submitted. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Heller stated she had enjoyed working with the Volunteer Program, and pointed out they had conducted the second Clean-up Day this past weekend, congratulating Volunteer Coordinator Lynn Emrich and Assistant City Manager Suzanne Golt on the wonderful job they did on this project. Assistant City Manager Golt acknowledged that Ms. Emrich had done a wonderful job on the Clean-up Day project, noting they had approximately 250 volunteers, with many school age children participating in the cleaning. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 9. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JANET WALKER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CLERK TYPIST II, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING 9/30/96 (CM) - File 7-4 x 102 x 9-3-40 Mayor Boro explained to the members of the public that the City had an Employee Recognition Program, and each calendar quarter the employees select an Employee of the Quarter, noting Janet Walker had been selected by the Employee Recognition Committee as Employee of the Quarter for the third quarter ending September 30, 1996. He noted $100 is awarded to each Employee of the Quarter, and they are then in contention for Employee of the Year, with the winner receiving a $500 award. Mayor Boro stated Janet's award was unique, as she had only been an employee of the City for sixteen months, noting it told a lot about her and her enthusiasm, and how she does her job, that her fellow employees have paid this tribute to her. On behalf of the Council and the citizens of San Rafael, Mayor Boro congratulated Mrs. Walker, and thanked her for the wonderful job she does in the Public Works Department. MONTHLY REPORTS: 10. CITY WORK PLAN REVIEW (CM) - File 237 City Manager Gould noted that after adopting the goals and objectives which were developed by the Council and the Department Heads at a special retreat in August, the Council directed staff to report back with updates on how the departments were working together to carry out the Council's stated priorities. He stated Assistant City Manager Suzanne Golt had prepared this report, which was similar SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 3 in format to the one used for the past six months, which he noted provided a quick rundown of the efforts being made to carry out those priorities. Assistant City Manager Golt stated there were approximately sixty goals and objectives listed in the report, noting to review them all might become overwhelming; therefore, staff was attempting to hit the key, major projects so the Council would be aware of what was happening in the various departments. She stated that if the Council had any comments or changes they would like to see incorporated into this report, she would be happy to work them in. Mayor Boro stated he felt the report was very readable, noting there were a lot of projects currently underway, and we are making good progress on them. He thanked staff for their efforts, and Ms. Golt for keeping the report before the Council. 11. DEPARTMENT REPORT - CITY ATTORNEY (CA) - File 237 x 9-3-16 Mayor Boro explained that once a month one of the Department Managers brings the Council up to date on what was happening in their department, and the report tonight would be given by the City Attorney's Office. Mayor Boro stated he felt the report from the City Attorney's staff was quite good and very enlightening. City Attorney Ragghianti introduced Legal Secretary Marilyn Pecunia, stating she was a delight and a dedicated City employee, and he and the other attorneys appreciate everything she does, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the office to run without her. Mr. Ragghianti introduced Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan, noting he began working for the City in 1994, and serves the interests of the City very well. Mr. Ragghianti stated he was very glad to have Mr. Guinan with him, noting he was a wonderful individual, a great lawyer, and someone who works very hard at always attempting to keep the interests of the City foremost in the decisions he makes. Mr. Ragghianti reported Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis, who was unable to attend this meeting, was the intellectual part of the office, noting he does a lot of legal research for the office . Mr. Ragghianti pointed out Mr. Davis has a Master' s Degree in Agricultural Economics from UC Davis, along with degrees from Cornell, and law degree from Northwestern. Mr. Ragghianti stated Mr. Davis was also a delight, both personally and professionally, and was a wonderful individual to share the office with. Mr. Ragghianti reported the Organizational Chart had not changed for a long time, noting there was one full-time in-house lawyer, Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan; and one half-time person, Deputy City Attorney, Eric Davis, who was on the way to becoming three-quarter time, and may someday soon become full-time, given the Code Enforcement issues the City has been discussing. Mr. Ragghianti reported the duties of the staff were divided, noting he started out and continues to work primarily on issues involving Land Use and Permitting, as well as from time to time working on issues involving conflict of interest, litigation, and consultation on a daily basis with any one of the departments that might have questions, usually the Planning Department, on such issues as land use entitlements, or issues which they are faced with on a day to day basis. City Attorney Ragghianti noted he does have an office outside of the City, but he is here more and more. He stated Mr. Guinan spends the great balance of his time on personnel matters, and administration of the Liability Claims Management Program. He noted Mr. Guinan was also the person who, everyday, answers the questions of department personnel who come into his office, asking if he can help them with their questions involving the interpretation of documents, or questions involving individuals who are employed by the City, questions from the Police Department, questions from the Department of Public Works, etc. Mr. Ragghianti stated that when a task occurs which requires a concentrated bit of time, sometimes it is necessary for Mr. Guinan to shut his door to get the time to do what he has to do. Mr. Ragghianti stated Mr. Guinan enjoys a personality that is wonderful, and one which is accommodating to all members of the staff. Mr. Ragghianti noted that was part of the entire package which he brings, a part of the individual and the type of person that he is. Mr. Ragghianti stated Ms. Pecunia runs the office, noting she is the one who gets the budget together and assists them with the weekly staff report, listing the cases and the projects they are working on. He stated she administers the office and tracks the budget, tells them how they are doing each month in terms of spending, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 4 and does all those things that are much more than just a legal secretary does, noting she is more of a legal secretary and assistant. Mr. Ragghianti explained it is the job of the City Attorney's office to support City staff, and they have no function other than to give legal advice and represent the City. He recalled that when he was appointed to this job as City Attorney twelve years ago, he made the statement that he felt the City Attorney's job was to serve the Council as a professional advisor, not to be a politician or to become involved in policy matters. Mr. Ragghianti stated he felt very strongly about that, and hoped it had been one of the hallmarks of his career with the City. He stated it was the job of those in the City Attorney's office to practice law, not to take positions on matters affecting the public interest, as that was the job of the Council and staff. Mr. Ragghianti reported the lawsuits his office handles are primarily lawsuits involving land use, although they do handle some of the lawsuits against the City involving tort and other matters. Mr. Ragghianti stated Mr. Guinan and Mr. Davis spend a lot of time handling motions brought by individuals seeking to discover the contents of Police Officers' personnel files, usually in criminal cases, but sometimes in civil cases. He noted Mr. Guinan also spends approximately 20% of his time in connection with the Risk Loss Committee, noting 92 claims have been filed against the City of San Rafael so far this year. He stated it was the objective of the City and a goal of the City Attorney's Office to manage, control and make sure these claims are handled in an efficient way. Mr. Ragghianti explained the section of the report, "A Day in the Life", illustrated how Mr. Guinan spends his time, noting his day is packed from 8:30 AM until 5:00 PM with telephone calls and individuals seeking his advice. Mr. Ragghianti stated that while there may be days when he is not in the office at all, or in for only three or four hours, he speaks with Mr. Guinan or Ms. Pecunia every day by telephone, and often to Mr. Davis and Planning Director Pendoley and his staff, with regard to matters that are pending before the City, or matters that will come before the City. In direction for the future, Mr. Ragghianti stated his office recognized we are in the process of restructuring the departments of this City, and they look forward to cooperating with the City Manager, as well as all members of staff, to do whatever they can to implement the programs they believe are necessary, and those the Council enacts into law. Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Ragghianti for his presentation, noting his staff does an excellent job, working very hard and serving many needs and many people. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 12. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.55, "PURCHASING POLICY", TO CONSIDER BUSINESSES AND VENDORS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (CM) - File 9-3-12 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing, noting it had been continued from the City Council meeting of October 21, 1996. City Manager Gould reported since July, the Chamber of Commerce has sought an Ordinance that would give preference to local businesses and vendors, as far as City purchases for goods and services necessary for the operations of the City. He noted Council had considered this at the last Council meeting on October 21st, and at that time Chamber President and CEO, Elissa Giambastiani, suggested some revisions, and Council directed staff to consider those. He stated since that time, Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan had made some revisions to the proposed Ordinance, and Ms. Giambastiani has expressed her full support of the proposed Ordinance now before the Council. Mr. Gould stated this Ordinance strongly encourages the City to seek San Rafael based businesses and suppliers for goods and services necessary for our operations, and asks that the Purchasing Agent identify, solicit, and consider vendors located in San Rafael; and in the case of a tie, when all else is equal, award the contract or bid to San Rafael based businesses. Mr. Gould noted City staff strongly supports the letter and intent of this new Ordinance, and strongly suggests Council's adoption. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 5 Mayor Boro invited members of the public to comment. Elissa Giambastiani, President and CEO of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, reported she had shown the revised Ordinance to the members of the Chamber's Board of Directors, and they were all very pleased with the revisions. She stated this was a much stronger statement, indicating the City' s real intention to do business with local vendors. Ms. Giambastiani stated the Chamber was very appreciative, and offered to assist staff in developing a list of local businesses, and making this known to the community. Don Foster, Secretary of the Bahia de Rafael Homeowners Association, stated he had been wondering about this issue for quite a while, and asked if any specific preference would be given, in terms of percentage points or additional pricing variations, in favor of local businesses versus others? He also asked if the City actively seeks and gets bids from vendors or contractors in other parts of the Bay Area, particularly in the area of Public Works construction projects? He noted it seemed as though all of this kind of work was done by one local contractor, which he stated was fine, if they were the most competitive and the most qualified; however, he felt it was ironic that they seemed to get all of the work. City Manager Gould responded to Mr. Foster's first question, explaining this Ordinance does not provide for a numerical or percentage preference given to San Rafael based businesses, noting that if the Council wished to grant a percentage preference to local business, we would have to back it up with a study that showed San Rafael businesses were at a disadvantage in competing for these contracts with other businesses from outside the City. Mr. Gould stated this matter had been discussed with the Chamber of Commerce, and it had been decided an Ordinance that strongly encouraged City staff to purchase goods and services within San Rafael, and give the benefit of the doubt to local businesses, was the proper way to proceed. Regarding Public Works contracts, Mr. Gould stated the City certainly solicits bids from local vendors, but in cases where the low bid comes from a contractor outside the City, we are obligated under State law to accept that bid. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING CHAPTER 2.55 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, TO ADD SUBSECTION "E" TO SECTION 2.55.070, TO AMEND SECTION 2.55.010, AND TO AMEND SECTION 2.55.170" Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1703 to print, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 13. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE THE PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ON PUBLIC STREETS (PW) - File 11-8 x 9-3-40 x 11-1 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing, announcing it had been continued from the meeting of October 7, 1996. Public Works Director Bernardi reported Council was being presented with a revised Ordinance, which takes into consideration some of the comments made at the Council meeting of October 7, 1996, and noted the staff report contained copies of a number of letters and comments for Council's consideration, which raised a number issues concerning the Ordinance as it was originally proposed. Mr. Bernardi pointed out the staff report also included a notification list, which shows that those interested were notified and given ample time to comment on this issue. Mr. Bernardi explained he would attempt to address the various concerns and questions raised in the letters staff had received. Referring to the question of the 10,000 pound gross vehicle weight referred to in the Ordinance, Mr. Bernardi stated the California Vehicle Code limits the City's ability to regulate the parking of vehicles to 10,000 pounds or more, and that is why we cannot regulate "tar pots" and pick-up trucks, and other vehicles smaller than the vehicles this Ordinance is targeting. Mr. Bernardi stated it had originally been the Council's intent SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 6 to deal only with big rigs, as opposed to the smaller vehicles, so their actions are supported by the California Vehicle Code. Addressing the issue of notification, Mr. Bernardi stated some of the Homeowner Associations suggested they be notified as well as the neighboring residents, and he noted staff does not have a problem with that, stating it would be a prudent thing to do. Mr. Bernardi reported there had been some questions about the time limits, noting it had been suggested we allow the parking of commercial vehicles only between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, and no other time. Mr. Bernardi stated there may be circumstances where that might not be appropriate, such as if someone were moving into a house, and for some reason it was going to take longer than 7:00 PM to unload the truck. He stated staff recommended the flexibility be there, noting the Ordinance provided that a truck cannot park in a residential zone for more than an hour, or as long as it is continuously unloading or doing whatever it needs to complete its business. Mr. Bernardi stated there had been some comments made that the exception process had not been sufficiently defined, noting he and Assistant City Attorney Guinan felt there needed to be a specificity from the person who was appealing the request for exemption, and they felt this would be sufficient enough to allow a protest to be filed and considered by the Council. He noted there had also been a request to change the time limit for appeals from ten to thirty days, and while he noted that would be strictly a Council decision, he stated staff felt ten days would be more than ample for a response with regard to an appeal of a proposed exception. Mr. Bernardi stated staff had also made some changes to the Ordinance because there had been some confusion, noting in Section C there was a reference to the wrong section, and this had been corrected; also, they revised the description of the parking in a "Dual District", so it would be a little clearer on where and when a vehicle can and cannot park. Councilmember Miller referred to the terms for requesting an exception, noting he had been asked by one of the truck drivers to find out if there would be specific places where they can park their trailers if they get the permit? Mr. Miller noted he did not see a provision for this in the report, and stated the driver he spoke with had been very concerned that there should be specific places which are posted so the drivers know where they can park if they have a permit. Mr. Bernardi stated it was not staff' s intent to designate certain streets where rigs could be parked, and this was going to be dealt with on an individual basis. He noted Mayflower Moving and Storage on Grange Way and Francisco Boulevard as an example, pointing out they had expressed a need to be able to park some of the trucks and big rigs that come in overnight when they are delivering or transferring goods to a smaller vehicle on Grange Way, and Mr. Bernardi stated they had been very specific about what their needs were for an out-of-town hauler who wants to come in and drop off one of his trailers so he can make other deliveries in the area, perhaps to Novato or Mill Valley. Mr. Bernardi stated the Ordinance did not propose to designate specific areas where those out-of-towners could come and drop off a trailer, noting if they wanted to request a specific location, the City would consider it under the auspices of this Ordinance. Councilmember Miller stated the concern had not been regarding deliveries outside the area, they were concerned with deliveries within the area, noting they were worried about managing their customers' accounts properly and getting the freight in there by dropping one trailer while they made deliveries, or when they have ten to twelve items to pick up, and they know they will need a second trailer, so they bring an extra trailer and drop one in the morning while they are doing their deliveries, and then pick it up again when they are ready to make their pick ups. Mr. Miller stated the drivers were concerned about where they would be able to park if they did get an exception, and he did not see it addressed in the Ordinance. Mr. Bernardi stated it was staff's intention to require the trucking firm to request a specific location, noting if Viking Freight, for example, wanted to park their trailers on Pelican Way, they would apply to the City to park their trailers on Pelican Way. Mr. Bernardi stated once we go through the notification process and there are no negative comments received, then we could issue a permit at that location; however, if someone objects, then they would have to find another place to park their trailers. Mr. Miller asked how the cross-country drivers were going to learn about this Ordinance? He noted this was potentially where the real problem lies, as they come in and complete their full route, and then park their trailers for two or SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 7 three days before they have recouped and gotten ready to drive back. He asked how these drivers would know there was an Ordinance unless something was posted? Mr. Bernardi stated the City would have to rely on the individual vendors to inform their out -of- town truckers that this Ordinance exists. Mr. Bernardi noted he and Assistant City Attorney Guinan had reviewed the penalty portion of the Ordinance, and at this point in time, violation of the Ordinance would be an infraction, which involves issuing a ticket, and he noted that whatever the fee was for a parking ticket, that was what the trucker would get. Mr. Miller asked if we had a specific amount of the fee for this type of violation? Assistant City Attorney Guinan noted it would be included in the bail schedule with the fines and penalties for all of the other violations of the Municipal Code. He noted there was a section setting out this penalty as an infraction in another chapter of the Municipal Code, and that penalty was already in place, which was why there was no penalty specifically enacted within this particular Ordinance. Mayor Boro felt it was important that we not lose sight of what had brought all this about again. He noted we do have the occasional people who come in from out of town and have a problem, and we do have some vendors, like the moving companies, who obviously have problems, especially near their warehouses; however, he stated the main thrust of this Ordinance was to deal with people who were bringing their trailers and leaving them on our streets, in both Residential and Commercial areas, for days and weeks on end, and that was why this Ordinance was written in the first place. Mayor Boro invited members of the public to address the Council. Ralph Crocker, resident of Spinnaker Point, stated he was disappointed in the response to concerns regarding the 10,000 pound weight limit, noting it was incredible that the law states a 9,000 pound "tar pot" or a large delivery truck could park on a residential street. Mr Crocker introduced the other residents who had collaborated on the letter of October 29th sent to Mr. Bernardi; Don Foster, Marilyn Nissen, Jan Bonfilio, Gloria Gasperov and Ron Patterson. Mr. Crocker referred to some of the recommendations made in their letter, and noted one of the things that had not been addressed was to treat streets that abut or are adjacent to parks as residential streets, because there would be a lot of residents there, and they did not feel it was appropriate to mix a park where children and other people congregate with large trucks and vehicles of a commercial nature. Mr. Bernardi noted Section A of Section 5.40. 140 stated Parks and Open Space Districts are included within the Residential District Section, so the same rules would apply. Mayor Boro referred to the discussion during the last Council meeting concerning an earlier agreement to post signs in the Northgate area, and asked if that had been taken care of as far as posting the signs? Mr. Bernardi stated the signs had been ordered, and they should be installed within the next six to eight weeks. Don Foster, Secretary of the Bahia de Rafael Homeowners Association, stated he appreciated the opportunity to address the Council; however, he wished he could have been involved earlier, as he believed that might have changed the Council's statement that the main focus of the Ordinance was large vehicles. He stated ever since he has been in the community there have been problems with commercial vehicles, and while large vehicles and trailers have certainly been a significant part of the problem, there has also always been a significant problem with other types of vehicles. He stated he was a little astonished to hear Mr. Bernardi's statement about the 10,000 pound limit, when he had read reports that our sister cities, such as Corte Madera and others, were actively considering measures to ban all sorts of vehicles from their streets, including RV's, and large delivery wagons. Mr. Foster wondered if there had been a mistake in the understanding of the law, noting this was something that certainly should be investigated, as he had read of such limits being imposed in other cities within the State of California. Mr. Foster stated he wanted to make it clear that as homeowners who are active members of the community, they were not opposed to businesses, but support businesses, and like to see them prosper. He noted they all work for businesses and depend on them for their livelihood; however, at the same time, they expect them to try to be good citizens and find ways to conduct their businesses with a minimum of impact in the communities where they live. Mr. Foster stated it seemed many of them do not pay attention to that, but rather do whatever is convenient, handy and cheap for them, and do not show concern for the people who have to live there. Referring to the issue of how we would let people from out of town know about the Ordinance, Mr. Foster stated signs were clearly the answer in areas that could SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 8 be recognized and designated as problem areas, noting often these are Dual Use Districts, and it is quite easy to identify these areas based on complaints, and then place signs to inform the people. Referring to the issue of complaints and notices, Mr. Foster stated their Homeowners Association has had an incredible amount of difficulty in getting their act together on any kind of an issue, and while it may sound very simple and trivial, in this day and age of electronic commerce, the practical matter is that it is difficult just getting a notice to the right people. He urged the Council to give strong consideration to allowing at least thirty days for any kind of appeal or notice of hearings, noting he felt ten days was just too short. Mr. Foster stated he assumed the clock started running when the notice is mailed, but the Ordinance does not make that clear. Regarding the penalties and fines, Mr. Foster stated the answer given to the previous question had not been clear to him, and he asked again what the amount of the fine would be, and if there was an escalation procedure, or was the fine always the same amount? Mr. Guinan stated he was not certain what the fine would be, as the bail schedule was currently going through a revision, and would be brought before the Council within the next three to four weeks. He noted there was no provision for an escalation, or increasing fines for multiple offenses. Mr. Foster stated we should consider the possibility of putting another category on that list, noting if the truckers are going to be fined the same amount as someone just overstaying a parking meter, that was not going to mean a whole lot to some big trucking company, and would not get their attention. Mr. Foster pointed out there was another issue which had been mentioned in their letter to Mr. Bernardi, and was one they felt very strongly about. He stated the focus of a lot of frustration on the part of residents in trying to deal with their government was the complaint response procedure. He stated the Ordinance needs to make clear exactly how someone can complain, who they send their complaints to, and some sort of guarantee that if they take the trouble to file a formal complaint, they are going to get some kind of response telling them what action has been taken. Mr. Foster reiterated the types of vehicles they are having problems with in their neighborhoods, noting big trucks are certainly a major problem, but there are also a lot of moving vans, and people who park two -ton flatbed trucks full of debris and goods of one kind or another. He stated these kinds of things have been going on for quite some time, and it would be very helpful if the City could do something about it. He pointed out that in the area where he lives, particularly the areas of Bellam Boulevard and the lower end of Kerner Boulevard, there are a whole bunch of vacant commercial streets just a block away, and the trucks do not need to park in front of his complex, they could go just one block and find an easy, adequate place to park; therefore, he does not feel it is a valid complaint for them to say they have to park their trucks on his street, unless they happen to be delivering right there. Mr. Bernardi stated they had ordered signs not only for the Northgate area, but also for Bellam Boulevard as well. Jan Bonfilio, resident of Baypoint Lagoons, distributed photographs which showed commercial vehicles parked along their streets, noting these photographs were representative of what the residents see every day as they leave and return to their neighborhood. Steve Merryfield, businessman on Francisco Boulevard, stated he has smaller vehicles and what appear to be day labor type pick-up trucks parked in front of his business all day, and they are making it very difficult for customers to come into his building, as well as creating a bit of a hazard, even for those customers parking in designated parking spaces. He stated the 10,000 pound restriction would cause him to have to take a different approach to his problem, noting the Police Department has done a good job of fielding his requests so far, but now he will have to find another solution, noting the truck he is having the most problem with will probably weigh slightly less than the 10,000 pounds. He asked the Council to consider that smaller vehicles are also a problem. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Boro asked for responses to some of the questions that had been raised, beginning with the 10,000 pound limitation. Assistant City Attorney Guinan stated the California Vehicle Code was a comprehensive system designed to cover all regulation of vehicles statewide, and it specifically pre-empts the field of traffic regulation and parking regulation, noting even Charter Cities can only establish such parking and standing regulations as the Vehicle Code will permit. Mr. Guinan noted Section 22507 of the Vehicle Code SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 9 provides that local agencies shall have the authority to restrict the parking of certain vehicles, on certain streets, at certain times of the day, as long as the particular street is marked and designated with a sign indicating what those restrictions are; notwithstanding that Section, Section 22507.5 allows the local agencies to establish parking regulations and restrictions for vehicles of 10,000 pounds or greater, on residential streets, without having to place any signs. He stated this was where the evolution of this particular Ordinance arose eighteen months ago, and where the 10,000 pound limitation came from, noting it came right out of the California Vehicle Code, so the Residential sections of the City that will have this prohibition will not have to be posted. Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Guinan had any knowledge about what was happening in Corte Madera, noting there may have been something about this in the newspapers recently, but may have referred to parking in driveways, as that has been an issue in Corte Madera and other cities, with people leaving campers and boats in their driveways. Mr. Guinan stated that to get into the area of RV's, boats, and boat trailers, we were then getting into the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with performance standards, and there were some regulations currently in place that do restrict the parking, and location of parking, of some of those types of vehicles. Mr. Pendoley stated Mr. Guinan was correct; through its Zoning Ordinance the City does regulate things that are not really motor vehicles, or are completely different, such as RV's, and trailers for boats, noting there was a limit as to how long those can remain on the street, and this is set by the Zoning Ordinance. However, for other types of vehicles, such as commercial vehicles and just regular cars, the Planning Department was also limited by the 10,000 pound rule, with the same restraint coming out of State law as to what types of vehicles they can deal with, and how. Mayor Boro asked, for example, if there was a motor home parked on Bellam Boulevard for three days, and it did not weigh 10,000 pounds, was there any way we could deal with that in our Zoning Ordinance? Mr. Pendoley stated they could deal with it under the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Guinan noted there was also a 72 hour City-wide prohibition concerning having a vehicle in the same location for that period of time, noting a vehicle cannot be parked longer than that period of time in the same location. He noted many individuals who have such vehicles are aware of this limitation, and after 71 hours they will move their vehicle. Mayor Boro noted the question had been raised as to when the clock would start on the appeal process, pointing out Mr. Bernardi had stated earlier he had no problem in changing the timeframe from ten days to thirty days. Mr. Bernardi stated the time period begins from the date the notification is mailed out, which is fairly typical in legal issues. Mayor Boro referred to the issue of fines, noting the comment had been made, and he agreed, that we would not want the fine for this to be just a $14 parking ticket. He asked that when the schedule of bails comes to Council, Mr. Bernardi also bring something that might more realistically fit this type of event. Councilmember Phillips agreed Mr. Foster had made a good point when he referred to the complaint procedure, and asked who the residents should call when they have complaints? Mr. Bernardi stated the enforcement of the Ordinance would be up to the Police Department, as they are the ones who issue a ticket if there is a violation. He noted the issuance of the permits would be handled by the Public Works Department, and he felt if someone were having a problem with a particular permit, they should contact the Public Works Department; however, if they are having a problem with a vehicle parked at a particular location, then they should contact the Police Department. Further, if the Public Works Department should get a call or a complaint that does not pertain to them, they would refer it to the Police Department right away so they can act on it, and the Police Department will do the same thing, noting they have acted this way in the past when they have had a common or overlapping jurisdiction, and it has seemed to work well. Councilmember Phillips asked if a complaint is made with the Police Department, and a ticket is issued, will the ticket be obvious, so that even if the trailer remains on the street for several days, it will not be assumed that there has been no response to the complaint? Acting Police Chief Boyd explained that whenever someone calls regarding a parking or traffic violation the complaint is logged and an Officer is sent to deal with it. He stated many times they run into a problem with placing the citation on a vehicle, but noted they have found very unique ways of doing this so the citation stays there. He stated there was also a 72 hour notice that is placed on a vehicle, which means the vehicle must be moved within 72 hours, and this is taken care of by the Abandoned Vehicle Officer. Acting Chief Boyd noted this was a standard procedure, so if there is a complaint, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 10 they will send an Officer out, he will issue a notice, and if the vehicle is not moved within 72 hours we will issue a citation. Mr. Phillips asked if the Police Department was prepared to enforce this Ordinance if it is passed? Acting Chief Boyd stated they were, as this would be just another Municipal Code section they enforce on a daily basis. He noted the problem they had in the past, which was one of the reason this Ordinance was being changed, was that there were two conflicting Ordinances, and the Officers tended to back away because of the confusion. He noted the Officers can now be informed of their obligations and deal with these issues on a case by case basis. Mr. Phillips asked if they were prepared to tow the trailers that are left on the streets? Acting Chief Boyd stated they would first attempt to contact the registered owner, and if they do not have voluntary compliance, they will make sure the trailer is towed away. He noted there was a certain delay in this process, because they tow approximately 650 vehicles a year under the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program, so a vehicle is not actually towed right at the end of the 72 hour period; first we go back and mark the vehicle again, and try to make sure the owner has an opportunity to remove it, so there may be a five or six day delay period from the time the vehicle is initially marked with a 72 hour notice. Councilmember Heller stated she was still concerned about getting the information out to the Neighborhood Associations and to the residents regarding exactly what the City can and cannot do. She asked if there were any pamphlets that would explain the 72 hour rule regarding trucks and abandoned cars, which we could give to the residents so they know who to call and how to issue a complaint? She stated she felt this was part of the frustration, not just the problems with the big rigs, but also the smaller pick-up trucks that are on the street. Planning Director Pendoley stated this had been an issue in 1992 when the Zoning Ordinance was updated, noting the specific concern and most common complaint has been with RV's in Residential Districts. He stated the Planning Department worked with a group of RV owners to try to work out an appropriate approach, noting what the group really needed was a way to store their RV's on their property, in a way that was going to be relatively inconspicuous. He noted that since working with the group and coming to an agreement, there have not been any more problems, and it has been a simple matter of going and talking to the RV owner whenever there has been a complaint, and telling them how they need to store their RV. He noted the number of complaints has gone down since the Zoning Ordinance was adopted, and the storage system seemed to work; therefore, the Planning Department has not had a need to notify except on an occasional complaint basis. Mr. Pendoley noted the problem Public Works Director Bernardi was working on was more in the Commercial Area, and takes on a completely different character. Ms. Heller stated she wanted to make sure we talked with the neighbors about both types of problems. City Manager Gould suggested that if the Council takes action on the Commercial Parking Ordinance, then staff could put together a brochure on both this Ordinance and the 72 hour limit, work with the Federation and Coalition to disseminate the information to all of the Neighborhood Associations, and make appointments to appear before the Neighborhood Associations to explain this to everyone. Ms. Heller felt that would be very well received by the Associations, and would help everyone to understand this. Public Works Director Bernardi pointed out that in the Police Department listing of telephone numbers there was a listing for abandoned vehicles, so if anyone has a question, they can call that number and someone will check it out. Councilmember Cohen stated City Manager Gould's suggestion was one which really needed to be followed-up, noting that when reading through the Ordinance, it was not necessarily clear that there were two different departments to contact, depending on whether there was a question regarding a permit or enforcement, and he felt materials should be prepared and disseminated as widely as possible so people know who to contact if they have a question. Regarding the issue of vehicles under 10,000 pounds, Councilmember Cohen asked if the weight limit was tied to the issue of signage, and if we were to post signs in a particular district, could we adopt regulations affecting vehicles of less than 10,000 pounds, or were we simply precluded, in any instance, from regulating vehicles under 10,000 pounds? Mr. Guinan stated it was a limitation addressing certain types of vehicles, noting Section 22507 refers to local authorities being able to "prohibit or restrict stopping, parking, standing of vehicles, including vehicles which are six feet or more in height, within 100 feet of any intersection, on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day. Such an Ordinance or Resolution may include a designation of certain SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 11 streets on which preferential parking privileges are given to residents, merchants adjacent to the streets for their use, and the use of their guests", and continues with another portion referring to residential parking permits, "With the exception of alleys, no such Ordinance or Resolution shall apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice thereof, have been placed." Mr. Guinan noted this section discusses vehicles which are six feet or more in height, within 100 feet of any intersection, on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all the hours of the day. Mr. Guinan stated that with signs we could prohibit more vehicles, and those other than 10,000 pounds. Councilmember Cohen stated Council should go forward with the modifications to the Ordinance, but felt perhaps we could address more of the concerns we have been hearing if we were to examine what it might be possible for us to do on Bellam Boulevard, recognizing Bellam Boulevard is an important entryway to several of these neighborhoods. He suggested we should also look at whether there were any additional restrictions we could place on the parking of commercial vehicles on Bellam Boulevard, and do that through signage, noting this would not be something we would do City-wide but, again, in recognition of Bellam Boulevard's role as an entryway. Mayor Boro asked if he was correct that on streets the City has signed, we would then be allowed to regulate those vehicles Mr. Guinan had described, over six feet tall, within 100 feet of an intersection? Mr. Guinan stated that was correct, although he acknowledged he was being vague in his answer, as this issue has been litigated, and the Attorney General took one position that was very restrictive on what the local agencies could do. He noted, based on that opinion, there was a lawsuit in a city in Southern California, and as result of that case, the Court determined this was a statute of more general application, which gave a more general power to local agencies to regulate vehicles. Therefore, in Mr. Guinan's interpretation, the City would be able to regulate vehicles of more than six feet in height, and we would likely be able to regulate other vehicles as well, as long as we sign appropriately which vehicles we are designating cannot stand or park in a particular location. Mr. Guinan pointed out, as a practical problem, the signage was the problem, but it was a practical problem, not a legal one. Mayor Boro suggested we go forward with the Ordinance, changing the number of days from ten to thirty under Paragraph 4, #E, and also go forward with the educational process discussed by City Manager Gould. He also directed Assistant City Attorney Guinan to pursue the parking and signage issue, and come back to Council with any other options we might have, noting we would notify those persons who are interested, particularly in the Kerner Boulevard area. Mr. Guinan clarified the corrections to the Ordinance would be to change the timeframe from ten days to thirty days for appealing a notice approving or denying a request for exemption. Mr. Guinan stated they would also clarify that the time begins with the date the notification is mailed. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SECTION 5.40.140 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE - PARKING, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND SEMI -TRAILERS" 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. 1704 to print, as amended, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL ERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF BUILDING OFFICIAL'S NOTICE AND ORDER FOR APN 14-162-02, 616 CANAL STREET (PURSUANT TO SECTION 401.2 OF THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS) (HOLIDAY MAGIC BUILDING) (PW/CA) - File 3-3-53 x 1-6-7 City Attorney Ragghianti reported that after a telephone conversation on October 31, 1996 with Perry Litchfield, attorney representing the property owner, it was staff's recommendation this item stand over until December 2, 1996. Mr. Ragghianti stated staff wanted to be absolutely certain the property owner had in his possession, in sufficient time to permit him to respond to the Council as to his intended course of conduct, all of the results from the October 22nd inspection that occurred at the building. Mr. Ragghianti stated the property owner now had all of this information, noting he had been given a copy of the staff report, which forms the basis for the opinions of the individuals who have SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 12 authorized the reports which state the building constitutes a dangerous building within the meaning of the Municipal Code. Mr. Ragghianti noted Mr. Litchfield had been asked to work with staff and come back to them by November 18th with a list of repairs his client had indicated he would make to the building, along with a time table for doing this. Mr. Ragghianti noted the property owner was out of the country, and in order to ensure there was no procedural due process problem in terms of notice to the property owner, he requested Council put this matter over until December 2, 1996. Mayor Boro declared this Public Hearing would be held opened, and continued to the City Council meeting to be held on December 2, 1996. OLD BUSINESS: 15. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS FOR FUNDING RE: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (P1) - File 240 x 10-2 x 9-3-16 Planning Director Pendoley recalled an outline for a Comprehensive Code Enforcement Program had been presented to the Council two weeks ago, with the recommendation that the existing system be completely revamped. He noted important features would be better coordination and empowerment of all the departments that do Code Enforcement, as well as new enforcement remedies, particularly a Hearing Officer. Mr. Pendoley stated there had been general support for the program, but there were a couple of issues on which the Council had questions, such as whether it would really be more cost effective to have a City-wide Housing Program to develop a revenue stream, and if now was the best time to look at permit fees as a revenue source, given that a City-wide cost study had just been commissioned. Mr. Pendoley noted staff had suggested returning to Council with some alternatives. Mr. Pendoley stated staff developed a number of alternatives in-house, but came to the conclusion that the program which would best meet our needs would consist of a Code Enforcement Officer with assistants, a three-quarter time Deputy City Attorney, and a Hearing Officer, noting they had put together a sample budget which was included in the staff report. Mr. Pendoley stated staff felt this budget, particularly with regard to the source of the funds, was a logical and rational way to go, but in the middle of the budget year it was difficult to know how much money would be available from each source. Nevertheless, he stated there was a need to proceed with this program as soon as possible, noting staff' s report recommends a six-month trial period, which would be funded with funds already budgeted from the General Fund, as well as a COPS Grant. Mr. Pendoley stated they had looked a little more closely at the COPS Grant, and determined there would be somewhat less money available than they thought when the report was prepared, which Acting Chief Boyd would explain in detail; therefore, Mr. Pendoley presented a revised six-month budget, noting he would explain how it differed from the budget shown in the staff report. Mr. Pendoley stated the source of funds had originally proposed slightly more than $70,000from COPS Grant funds, and the revised budget was proposing $55,000, noting this would require changes in the level of activity that would be funded. Mr. Pendoley noted there were two important changes; first, rather than bringing in two Assistant Code Enforcement Officers on January 1, 1997, staff was recommending those positions begin sixty days later, on March 1, 1997; and the second change was, rather than fund the Hearing Officer at $12,000, staff was recommending this position be funded at $10,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year. Staff still felt very comfortable in recommending the program be started on a trial basis, funded in part with the COPS funds, as well as the existing General Fund level, and that they be authorized to proceed as recommended in the staff report. City Manager Gould clarified the difference between the grants originally proposed and what was being proposed now. He noted both were COPS Grants; one was a State grant that we were originally examining, and the other was the Federal grant we are discussing now. Mr. Gould explained the State grant, which we had originally talked about using as seed money to start this program, was designated for front line law enforcement, with a provision that it could also possibly be used for crime prevention and community policing. He noted it was to be overseen by a committee made up of the District Attorney, County Sheriff, County Administrator, a City Manager, and a local Police Chief. Mr. Gould reported they examined the applicability of the Code Enforcement Program for this State grant, and concluded it was not a completely good match, and we did not want to risk it. However, the City has just received notification that we have been granted a $55, 000 Federal COPS MORE Block Grant, and this could be used for a variety of law enforcement purposes, including crime prevention, and anything that aids and abets law enforcement officers in their jobs. He noted wide latitude is given to local SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 13 agencies in determining what is an appropriate use. Mr. Gould reported he had asked Acting Chief Boyd to contact the Department of Justice to determine whether or not this program would be an applicable use of these Federal grant funds, and the response we received was positive. He noted Acting Chief Boyd had further reviewed the documents we had received, and concluded this would be an applicable use if we chose to use these Federal Block Grant dollars as seed money for the Enhanced Code Enforcement Program. Mr. Gould pointed out that according to Mr. Pendoley's revised budget, the new Code Enforcement Officers would not start until March, noting that as a practical matter, this was probably as soon as they could start if we had Council's approval to begin recruitment today. Therefore, Mr. Gould felt Mr. Pendoley was presenting a realistic budget for the latter half of the fiscal year, and a realistic estimate of the funds we would actually expend. He stated this budget showed that if the Council was comfortable using the Federal COPS Block Grant as seed money to augment the current General Fund commitment to Code Enforcement, then the City could step up to three Code Enforcement Officers, a full-time Deputy City Attorney focused on Code Enforcement, and the Hearing Administrator Process. Mr. Gould stated this was staff's recommendation. Councilmember Cohen asked if what Council was being requested to approve was the Services Staffing Budget outlined in the staff report, which would mean going into the next budget cycle with a funding gap of $158,000 for this program, which would have to be made up at some point, noting this meant that at some point the Council would have to find another $158,000 to pay for this program next year? Mr. Gould stated this was correct. Mr. Gould noted Councilmember Cohen had pointed out at the last Council meeting that it made sense to conclude the business cost study, determine what the applicable costs were for Code Enforcement, and then have the Council decide how they wanted to allocate those costs. Mr. Gould stated this Spring staff would bring Council a number of alternatives and recommendations, so they could consider whether or not to extend the six-month pilot program into a permanent program. He noted staff felt that between a possible surcharge on permit fees, direct charging for inspections, revenues from citations, possible use of the 20% housing set-aside money, COPS Grant funds, and CDBG funds, the City could put together a package of revenues that would fully fund this program as it has been presented. Mr. Gould acknowledged there were a number of choices for the Council to make, but noted staff felt this was important enough that they would like to jump-start the program now, with the use of these Block Grant funds. Councilmember Cohen stated he supported the concept, but wanted to make sure everyone was clear the issue of funding this program would have to be addressed on an ongoing basis. He stated that by phasing -in this program it would give us a chance to look at it and see it in operation, and then when we figure out how to fund the program, we could point to this and show we had already begun the program and were beginning to see results, and that we wanted to continue. Regarding the COPS Grant, Mr. Cohen stated he would like everyone to be very clear on how we are using these funds, and that we have it in writing that what we are using the funds for is okay. Mr. Cohen asked Acting Chief Boyd if the Department of Justice had given us a response to our request in writing, stating they understand how we plan to use this funding, and stating they feel it falls within the guidelines? Acting Chief Boyd stated the Justice Department had given him verbal approval, noting they set out eight criteria for these Block Grants, and when Acting Chief Boyd told them exactly what we planned to do with the money, and stating we wanted to make sure it fell within their guidelines, they informed him they felt it was a reasonable use of the funds. Acting Chief Boyd reported the Department of Justice felt the "Purpose Area" would fit into and be an appropriate use of funds for hiring, training, and employing on a continuing basis new additional law enforcement officers and necessary support personnel. Therefore, as the Code Enforcement Program works with law enforcement in dealing with these issues, Acting Chief Boyd felt they qualified under necessary support personnel, and the Department of Justice also felt that was appropriate. Mr. Gould added the procedure was that if the Councilmembers were generally comfortable with the use of these funds for this purpose, they would direct staff to return at the next Council meeting with a Resolution stating their intention to do so, and then staff would make a formal application to the Department of Justice and receive notification, probably within sixty days, that we were, indeed, allowed to use the funds for this purpose. Councilmember Cohen stated he would not want to go ahead with this without written approval. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 14 Councilmember Heller asked why the Planning Department Overhead was 18%, while the City's Overhead was 14%? Planning Director Pendoley stated that when calculating the Planning Department Overhead he allocates a portion of his time, a portion of his secretary's time, and all the office supplies, such as paper, pencils, and the charge for the lease on the Xerox machine, at a flat rate of 18%. He noted this was different from the usual overhead notion of indirect cost, and was simply a pro -rata of his time and the department secretary' s time. Ms. Heller asked what the City Overhead represented? Mr. Pendoley stated the City Overhead was a figure the Finance Department submitted every year. Mr. Gould stated the City's Overhead included such things as the City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Office, City Clerk's Office, Xeroxing, liability insurance, and all of those indirect costs that apply to all of the City operations. He noted one benefit of the business allocation costs study the Council approved in concept was that we would get very specific departmental and general overhead rates for all the departments. Councilmember Heller stated she assumed the $79,000 was the State COPS Grant we had been awarded, and noted she did not want to see the enhanced Police protection and facility at Pickleweed going by the wayside, and asked if that was still going forward, and if we would now use the $79, 000 for that project? Mr. Gould responded that this was correct, noting staff would return to Council at the next meeting with a recommendation that we use the $121,000 worth of State COPS Grant money for two purposes; first, to develop the Police Services Center at Pickleweed Park, to do the engineering and design, the construction work, and to equip the new office, so the Police Officers and Code Enforcement Officers could work out of that work area; and second, on the recommendation of Acting Chief Boyd, for an additional officer assigned specifically to support Police operations in the Canal neighborhood, to be located and operating out of that office, with the remainder of those funds, which would be approximately $60,000. Mr. Gould stated this person would be the "spark plug" of the community policing efforts in the Canal neighborhood, and a significant addition to our capabilities in that area. Ms. Heller noted the grant was only for one year, and asked if we would then have to pick up the funding for that Police Officer for the next few years? Mr. Gould stated efforts were underway to make the State COPS Block Grant a permanent part of the State budget, noting there was a fair amount of political support to make that happen; however, Ms. Heller was correct, we would fund this as a one-year trial, and hope that this would, indeed, become an on-going source of funding. Councilmember Phillips stated he felt a trial program was a good idea; however, he was concerned that if we hired people for these positions, and they were told this was only a trial program and might only run for a couple of months, that might impact the perspective candidates, and he asked if we should send a signal that we intended to continue the program? Mr. Gould stated the Council's actions to date, in which they showed strong support for an Enhanced Code Enforcement Program, would help, and perhaps the way we could structure this would be to offer the new Code Enforcement Officers service contracts, until such time as the Council approves permanent, ongoing funding for the program, and we could consider making them permanent employees. Mr. Gould stated he would confer with Personnel Director Daryl Chandler to see if this could be done. He noted if the new Code Enforcement Officers took the positions with the understanding that this was a City priority, and staff was providing a series of alternatives to make it a permanent program, then he felt it would be reasonable to expect we would attract real talent. Councilmember Miller stated that in looking at what had been previously proposed and what was being proposed now, there was a subtle change in program philosophy; the change being that when we began last time, we were funding the program for City-wide Code Enforcement, and it meant we had to take one person and put that person full-time into the inspection business. Now, under this funding mechanism, we are allowing two Code Enforcement Officers to specifically work the immediate kind of nuisance issues, such as barking dogs, eucalyptus trees, abandoned vehicles, and matters such as that, and it changed the focus of the program. Mr. Gould stated this was correct. Mr. Miller stated he liked this very much, because it immediately takes care of those real nuisance needs. Mr. Gould noted the Council had stated at an earlier meeting that the greatest need was in response to these types of ongoing Code Enforcement problems. Mr. Gould stated staff still believed the overall City-wide Inspection Program was warranted, and they would like to bring this to Council in the future for consideration, along with funding alternatives; however, doubling or tripling SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 15 the amount of people we can use for normal Code Enforcement problems was a serious service enhancement, long overdue in the City. Mayor Boro stated there was another component we needed to look at, if we could come up with a source of funding, and that was to do similar inspections throughout the City, not just in the Canal, because the rental stock throughout the City was beginning to age in a lot of areas, and the problems we are experiencing in the Canal will eventually be elsewhere, and we should address them. He noted this would especially make sense if we go into a fee structure, where we assess each unit to provide this service throughout the City. Councilmember Cohen referred to a question which had been asked by Councilmember Phillips, noting he had not meant for his earlier remarks to be taken to mean he viewed this as a trial program, which might end after four months, nor had that been a recommendation in the staff report. He pointed out this had not been his sense, from the discussions between Council and staff, and he felt Council was saying they intend to move forward on this. He noted what he had asked staff to do at the last meeting was to come back with a recommendation on how to fund this, and perhaps not jump the gun on committing to certain directions in funding, but see whether or not there was a way to phase this, in order to buy some time and resolve the funding issues. Mr. Cohen stated his questions tonight about the funding were just to point out that this was exactly what we have done, figuring out a way to fund this for the balance of the year. He noted we still have to get back to the funding issue, because there is going to be a $150,000 funding gap next year, and that is the issue we have to address. He stated unless something completely unforeseen happens, it was his intent to find a way, and the proper source for those funds, to close that gap, fund this program, and keep it going on an ongoing basis. He stated we should reassure anyone who applies for this position that it is our intent to make it an ongoing position. Councilmember Heller noted we show that the Deputy City Attorney is going to become a three-quarter time employee, and asked if our current Deputy City Attorney was going to be able to increase the hours he can give to the City, or if we would have to hire another person for one-quarter time? Mr. Gould stated Deputy City Attorney Davis would be able to give that time to the City, noting staff had been struggling to make this position full-time for quite some time. Steve Patterson, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, applauded staff for proposing the increased Code Enforcement. He stated it was clear there was much to be done in the way of Code Enforcement, and it would be vital that this be an integrated approach which crosses over departmental boundaries, and not just occurring at the department head level, but extending down into the operational level. Mr Patterson stated he had found it interesting that at the last Federation Steering Committee meeting, when a discussion about illegal units occurred, it was the unanimous opinion of the Steering Committee that the problems which are created because of density and parking problems were an out of control epidemic in San Rafael, noting the perception was that the City had done no enforcement on this issue. Mr. Patterson stated he was concerned about the language in the proposal, which states there would be no new City-wide housing inspections. He noted that while there have been RBRIs (Residential Building Reports), they basically have been completely ineffective at dealing with illegal units. Mr. Patterson stated in the next couple of weeks the Federation would be coming to the City Manager with a position paper on this issue, hoping to effectively deal with the problem of illegal units. Reviewing the recommendations being presented, Mayor Boro stated the allocation listed in Item #7 needed to be changed from $80,000 in COPS funds to $55,000 in COPS funds, and all other recommendations remained relevant. City Clerk Leoncini asked if the $55,000 COPS funds should be referred to as Federal funds, and Mayor Boro stated that was correct. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution directing the development and implementation of a comprehensive Code Enforcement Program, as amended. RESOLUTION NO. 9737 -RESOLUTION DIRECTING DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (as amended). SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 16 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: 16. SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 13, 1996 - File 1-4-1 (Verbal) Mayor Boro confirmed the following schedule of meetings to be held on Wednesday, November 13, 1996: 6:00 PM - Closed Session to discuss the "B" Street Redevelopment Project. 6:30 PM - Special Study Session regarding the BRC realignment. 7:00 PM - Special Annual Joint Meeting with the San Rafael Fire Commission 9:00 PM - Citizens Police Academy Graduation. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM. APPROVED THIS DAY OF MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk 1996 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/4/96 Page 16