Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1996-03-18SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MARCH 18,1996 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Barbara Heller, Councilmember Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember David J. Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: None Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Others Present: Suzanne Golt, Acting City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBER Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items. CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 1. 0 Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) Negotiators: Suzanne Golt/Daryl Chandler City Attorney Ragghianti announced no reportable action was taken. • Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a): a. County of San Bernardino, et al. v. City of San Bernardino, et. al., California Supreme Court Case No. S050179. (Request for City of San Rafael participation as amicus party). City Attorney Ragghianti announced the City Council voted unanimously (5-0) to participate as amicus party. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: None CONSENT CALENDAR 8:00 PM Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 4, 1996 (CC) Monthly Investment Report (Fin) - File 8-18 X 8-9 RECOMMENDED ACTION Approved as submitted. Accepted report. 4. Resolution of Appreciation for Robin Sweeny, RESOLUTION NO. 9566 - Councilmember, City of Sausalito (CM) RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - File 102 FOR ROBIN SWEENY, COUNCILMEMBER, CITY OF SAUSALITO (Retiring after 28 years). 6. Deer Valley Apartments Below Market Rate (BMR) RESOLUTION NO. 9567 - Agreement (PI) - File 229 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A BELOW MARKET RATE AGREEMENT RE: DEER VALLEY APARTMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND TCR #412, DEER VALLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 2 The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1694 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLES 14 AND 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AS THEY APPLY TO DOWNTOWN WITH NEW ZONING DISTRICTS, CHANGED PARKING STANDARDS FOR OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USES, DIFFERENT HEIGHT LIMITS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARDS, REVISED CONDOMINIUM REQUIREMENTS, NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES AND MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO HELP IMPLEMENT OUR VISION OF DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL AND MINOR RELATED PERMIT STREAMLINING CHANGES APPLICABLE CITYWIDE (PI)- File 115x 10-3x 10-2 Councilmember Zappetini announced he was abstaining from this item due to conflict of interest. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLES 14 AND 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AS THEY APPLY TO DOWNTOWN WITH NEW ZONING DISTRICTS, CHANGED PARKING STANDARDS FOR OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USES, DIFFERENT HEIGHT LIMITS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARDS, REVISED CONDOMINIUM REQUIREMENTS, NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES AND MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO HELP IMPLEMENT OUR VISION OF DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL AND MINOR RELATED PERMIT STREAMLINING CHANGES APPLICABLE CITYWIDE." Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and approve final adoption of Ordinance No. 1694, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS PUBLIC HEARINGS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro None None Zappetini (due to conflict of interest) 7. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE MERITS OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE MONTECITO/HAPPY VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD (PI) -File 227X 115x 10-3 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and asked for the staff report. Planning Director Bob Pendoley reported the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood residents had presented the Council with a draft of their neighborhood plan, which the Council accepted and referred to the Planning Commission. He stated it was agreed by all that the plan was a model of partnership between the City and neighborhood residents. Mr. Pendoley stated that during the Planning Commission hearings in January and February, twenty-one citizens addressed the Commission. He reported that while most were generally in favor of the plan, six people expressed disagreement or concern with down -zoning, particularly at 625 Belle Street, as well as owners of some properties on Park Street. Mr. Pendoley stated that at the conclusion of the hearings, and after a great deal of discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed General Plan amendments and rezoning, with very minor changes as they came from the neighborhood. Mr. Pendoley explained this presentation would be in two parts; first, Ms. Jackie Schmidt, who was involved with the Coordinating Committee, will discuss the process that got us here, and some of the basic plan recommendations. Secondly, Principal Planner Jean Hasser will explain the basis for the recommended rezonings, which are really the heart of tonight's hearings. Jackie Schmidt, 1210 Grand Avenue, explained four major areas that were addressed in the plan: first, design and beautification. Design guidelines were arrived at so that any new construction or additions to current buildings will blend in with the character of the neighborhood and the older homes, as opposed to being "boxes". Ms. Schmidt stated the design guidelines have been beautifully written, and she believed that if they are followed, they will really prevent any future problems. She reported beautification also goes into trees and plantings, noting a lot of these require neighborhood action rather than City action. Ms. Schmidt noted the neighborhood hoped they would be able to obtain more substantial code enforcement, working and communicating with the City, because if the codes are there but are not enforced, it is not very helpful. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 3 Ms. Schmidt referred to the next section of the plan, which is Safety, Traffic and Parking, all of which are very important to the neighborhood. She stated the plan suggests infrastructure improvements, some of which they hope the City can help with, and some of which the residents realize will need to be financed by the neighborhood. Ms. Schmidt reported neighborhood meetings had been held to discuss setting up an assessment district, noting the thought of an assessment district was strongly supported by all of the neighbors in attendance. Residents of the neighborhood also realize that they will have to do certain things, and have set up committees to look into the subjects such as disaster planning and crime watch, which they can do for themselves. Ms. Schmidt stated the third general topic the plan addresses is under the general heading of Community. This refers mostly to things the neighbors have to do with and for each other. They have made great progress in that respect. She stated the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood Association, which had been fairly inactive, has been revitalized, and now has several pages of dues paying members, they have met and adopted by-laws and elected officers, they have had a neighborhood picnic, and their first neighborhood newsletter will be coming out in a week. Ms. Schmidt stated the last subject the plan addresses is Land Use. She reported the basic approach, which was arrived at after numerous meetings and discussions and was overwhelmingly supported by the neighbors who participated, was that they wanted to stabilize the neighborhood. Ms. Schmidt reported there was very great concern that the neighborhood was already built -out, the zoning was too dense for the neighborhood infrastructure and had already caused traffic and parking problems. She stated the residents agreed they liked the diversity of the neighborhood, noting there are a lot of single-family homes, duplexes and apartment buildings, and the basic bottom line is that they want to keep it that way. She noted the zoning approach was intended to keep the neighborhood as it is, not allow it to become a lot more dense. She stated the neighbors really like their neighborhood, and want to keep it the way it is. She reported some of the problems in the neighborhood have already begun to diminish, just by the neighbors getting together and talking, and by there being more visibility and discussion about some of the problems. She noted some of the eye -sore buildings that were not being maintained are now being maintained. Principal Planner Jean Hasser explained the rezonings reflect the land use approach strongly supported at the neighborhood meetings, to stabilize and protect the existing mix of uses in the multi -family area. She stated the commercial parts of this neighborhood, which are along Irwin Street and Fourth Street, are not changed, and the single-family areas, on the fringes of the neighborhood, also are not changed. Ms. Hasser stated the multi -family area was where the main concern was. She reported the multi -family land use approach considered the neighborhood's desire for smaller scale projects that fit in better with the neighborhood's older homes, and the neighborhood's safety concerns with narrow, crowded streets. She stated this approach also considered that the current zoning maximums are often unrealistically high, given that many lots in this neighborhood are relatively small, narrow, sloping in some cases, and also given newer zoning standards for parking, building height, private yard areas, and site landscaping. Ms. Hasser explained this zoning approach expands the neighborhood's single-family zoned areas, to include either groups of existing single-family homes, or to expand the single-family zoning where there are single-family lots adjacent to existing single-family zoned areas. The City has kept those areas of high density zoning where most lots are already developed at that high density. She noted that in other areas, the plan provides medium density land uses and zoning, which reflect the predominant existing uses and densities in those areas. Ms. Hasser pointed out on the map those areas already developed in the high density zoning area, noting the clusters of single-family in the fringe areas, and also pointing out the areas proposed for medium density. She stated there had been a lot of discussion about the school site, reporting that in the 1988 General Plan there was a consideration of closing either San Rafael High School or Terra Linda High School, and it had been recommended that if that were to happen, the area would be zoned high density residential. However, she noted it now seems fairly certain that both high schools will remain open, so the vast majority of the existing high school site has been re -designated as quasi -public. She stated there was much discussion as to what the surplus school corporation yard should be, and noted after a lot of discussion, the neighborhood agreed to a senior housing proposal on this site, which would also meet some of their other objectives for providing a new gathering area that could be used by the neighborhood, as well as the residents of that project. Ms. Hasser reported the proposed rezoning had been reviewed with the City Attorney, to assure that the City has a defensible proposal that avoids spot zoning. She stated it should also be noted that apartments that already have more units than would be permitted under the new zoning are not affected by the rezoning, explaining the existing units are protected by the City's Housing Conservation Ordinance, and they can even be rebuilt if they should burn down. Mary Ferrario O'Brien addressed the Council, stating she and her mother own a home at the corner of Park and Belle SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 4 Streets. Mrs. O'Brien noted the house was built in 1950, and later an apartment was added, creating a duplex. Mrs. O'Brien stated this property is her mother's security blanket, and that her mother had always hoped she would be able to sell her home, gain income from the sale, and go into some type of retirement home. Mrs. O'Brien reported her mother is now 86 years old, and looking at this as a possibility for the near future; however, by the zoning being changed, she no longer has a piece of property that is worth what it was worth prior to the zoning changes. Mrs. O'Brien stated it is a very difficult thing to have to tell her mother that something that was once, for example, worth $500,000 to her is now probably worth $350,000, because nothing can ever be developed on this beautiful corner lot except for the two units that exist there now. She stated her parents paid taxes on this property for all these years, having bought the property in 1947, and it will be a very sad thing if this happens and her mother cannot gain back what she thought she could, and be able to use it. She urged the Council to consider this in their decision. John Vlahoviannis, 1211 Grand Avenue, addressed the Council, stating that seven years ago he purchased his property, which has a house of approximately 1,700 square feet on a lot of approximately 7,000 square feet. Mr. Vlahoviannis explained that after he married and had two children, he felt they needed more space, and that although the zoning allowed him to build apartments, the cost was tremendously high, and he did not feel he would make a return on his investment. Therefore, he stated that when discussing property values, if someone wants to build apartments on their property for income during retirement, he did not feel it would work, at least not in his case. Mr. Vlahoviannis decided he liked the neighborhood, so instead of building apartments, he expanded his home to 4,000 square feet, and stated he now has a house he is proud of in a beautiful neighborhood, with beautiful neighbors. Mr. Vlahoviannis stated he felt this plan is a fair plan, because it protects people like him who have an investment in a single-family home, and at the same time protects the owners who have apartment units. He stated this stops the area from becoming all apartments, and protects him and other neighbors from being suffocated by being surrounded by apartments. Mr. Vlahoviannis reported he does have three or four apartments around his property, and stated there is a problem with absentee owners, who only want their rent and do not really care what is happening with their units. He noted that in one case, a tree that had fallen during a storm was not removed for two or three years, and the property owner, after several telephone calls, stated he had no idea what was happening. Mr. Vlahoviannis referred to property taxes, noting that when he purchased his home he was assessed based on the market value of the house, which was based on what he paid for the house. Mr. Vlahoviannis stated the assessment was not based on the zoning, or on how many units he might build, or what the future value might be. He acknowledged the value of his home would have a higher value if it were in the Dominican area instead of where it is located, because of the apartment units that are located around it. He stated the value of his property has been discounted because of this fact. Mr. Vlahoviannis asked the Council to consider all of these things as they make their decision, and asked that their vote be a fair vote. Larry Ersland, 196 Union Street, addressed the Council, explaining his home was on the first block of Union Street, between Mission Avenue and Belle Avenue, and he felt his block exemplified some of the best and worst of the neighborhood. He stated the neighborhood is wonderful to live in, being both culturally and economically diverse, noting the diversity in the neighborhood is something he values. Mr. Ersland reported there are also a lot of problems in the neighborhood. Mr. Ersland stated he took part in the planning process, and very much appreciated the City giving the residents the opportunity to participate, noting it was clearly a consensus process, and people were given the opportunity to voice whatever concerns they had. Mr. Ersland stated he wholeheartedly encouraged the Council to adopt this plan, but would like to go one step further and say that he hopes the City will pay some attention to this neighborhood. He stated there are all kinds of issues in the neighborhood that the City could be addressing and, in his opinion, should be addressing. Mr. Ersland mentioned Code Enforcement as an example, reporting there are illegal units all over the neighborhood. He stated he has spoken with the City and the County about this, and gets the impression there is a "laissez faire" attitude about these units, because nothing seems to be happening. Mr. Ersland stated he lives, essentially, next door to a junk yard, noting he has been talking to the City for three years about this situation, and that he has photographs he would be happy to show to the Council. He stated there are car gasoline tanks, mufflers, and tires, and it is literally a junk yard. Mr. Ersland addressed the issue of infrastructure, acknowledging there has been a lot of talk about the assessment district, and stating he hoped this would happen, but was not sure that it actually would. He stated there were issues, exclusive of that, which the City should be addressing; for example, on Union Street there is a big hill that comes down and flattens out at the bottom. Mr. Ersland reported a group of residents met with Public Works Director Bernardi, who brought along a plan of the City's drainage system, and it SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 5 was discovered there is no drainage system on Union Street at all. He stated the water comes rushing down the street and floods the street. Mr. Ersland stated that when Mr. Bernardi brought the City Attorney out to look at it, the City Attorney stated there was culpability, and Mr. Ersland felt the City should be spending its money taking care of these problems, rather than paying attorneys to render opinions. Mayor Boro asked Planning Director Pendoley to follow-up on the code enforcement issue raised by Mr. Ersland, and report back to Mr. Ersland and the Council. Jim O'Brien, owner of property at 24 Park Street, addressed the Council, stating he had read the Montecito/Happy Valley Homeowners' Plan, and acknowledged the great amount of effort that had been put into it. However, he had found a few major flaws to the plan. Mr. O'Brien stated his name had been listed as one of the Plan participants, and although he did attend three of the meetings, none of the meetings he attended discussed land use, and Mr. O'Brien stated he is definitely against the rezoning of the East side of Park Street from high to low density, noting he felt the zoning changes were discriminatory. He reported that on the block of Park Street where his property is located, there are eight lots zoned for low density, and of these eight lots, one lot has a six-plex, another has a duplex, and another has a house with a duplex built behind it. Mr. O'Brien noted that throughout the plan, it states there should be a blending of land use. He stated there is a six-plex next door to his property on one side, a duplex next door on the other side, and as the length of his lot is quite long, there is another triplex that meets his property line on the same side of his property as the six-plex. Mr. O'Brien stated the property line in the rear is shared by a triplex, and across the street from his property is a triplex with a duplex next to it. Mr. O'Brien reported that at the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 1996, Principal Planner Jean Hasser stated some of these may be illegal units; however, Mr. O'Brien felt that even if this were the case, he was quite certain none of the owners would be required to remove the extra units, noting, in fact, the plan states these units would be grandfathered into the plan. Mr. O'Brien stated he had copied the map from the plan, which he enlarged and showed to the Council. He identified his own property on the map, pointing out that it was surrounded by multiple units. Mr. O'Brien stated the largest factor involved in his purchase of this property was the lot size and the high density zoning, noting that, as he had stated before, his lot is the same size as the one the six-plex sits on next door to his property. He reported he and his wife moved into the house in 1983, and as their family grew they were forced to move, but retained this property because it was someday going to become multiple units of affordable housing, and support them in their retirement. Mr. O'Brien stated that, keeping in mind the fact that his property is surrounded by multiple units, he asked if it seemed fair, just because he did not build soon enough, for him to be penalized? He stated this zoning change would greatly reduce the value of his property, by tens of thousands of dollars, noting taxes have been paid on the higher value for over ten years. He asked if the Council is saying that these higher taxes were paid for nothing? Mr. O'Brien stated that when he first heard of this plan, he was led to believe it was sponsored by the Montecito Homeowners' Association and the Happy Valley Homeowners' Association; however, after reading the plan, he found it contained a letter from Acting Executive Director Jake Ours, in which he states "The Agency has funded a major portion of the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan development, and has been an active participant." Mr. O'Brien stated it seemed strange to him that the plan, on one hand, states he will lose his right to build multiple units, yet this Agency, which funded and supports this plan, is proposing a 40 unit complex within a block and a half of his property. Mr. O'Brien noted that in the 1960's, this area was zoned high density, and in 1988 when the General Plan was adopted, this was reaffirmed. Mr. O'Brien stated he did not understand how this could be changed so late in the game, and so suddenly. Mr. O'Brien reported there is a triplex across the street from his property which is just now in the final stages of development. Mr. O'Brien noted it has been stated many times that this area is within walking distance of public transportation, shopping and schools, which, to Mr. O'Brien, makes it an ideal place to live, and he asked why the area should be limited to single-family dwellings? Referring to Page 34 of the Plan, which addresses building heights, Mr. O'Brien quoted, "Provide building heights similar to those of nearby buildings", and reported there is a three-story building next door to his house, and the rest, including those across the street, are all two-story buildings. Mr. O'Brien reported that at the meeting of January 23, 1996, Jean Hasser stated we need to devise a land use proposal which was legal and avoided spot zoning, and she also stated she felt the General Plan used a "broad brush" approach. Mr. O'Brien felt, in his case, it was spot zoning, and stated he knew of no other street that has split zoning like this. He stated this seemed very unfair to him. He reported Ms. Hasser had also stated approximately 30% of the lots have single-family homes that are owner occupied throughout the neighborhood, and using her figures, Mr. O'Brien noted this meant 70% are not single-family homes and are not owner occupied. He reported Commissioner Starkweather stated the problem arises in cases where people have not developed to higher densities, but have future expectations, and pointed out that perhaps these expectations were unrealistic because of other constraints. Mr. O'Brien asked if this should be something decided on by the Design Review Board on a per lot basis, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 6 rather than complete rezoning? Mr. O'Brien reported Planning Director Pendoley had addressed the issue of parking, and referred to Page 75 of the Plan which states, "Parking problems have been carefully mapped out", and then showed the Council a copy of the map within the Plan which shows where the parking problems were addressed. Mr. O'Brien pointed out the block of Park Street where he lives, and noted the areas identified as having parking problems on Union Street, Mission Avenue, and Jewell Street. He added the reason there are parking problems on Union Street is because there are no sidewalks. Mr. O'Brien stated the other issue involves off-street parking and the lack of adequate back-up space. He reported his lot is the same size as the six-plex next door to his property, noting the six-plex has off-street parking, with plenty of room to turn around. Mr. O'Brien referred to Mr. Ersland's complaint earlier in the meeting regarding the parking problem on Union Street, and stated there is a genuine concern with parking in that area, particularly in Mr. Ersland's area on Union Street, between Mission Avenue and Belle Street, because there are no sidewalks in that area. Mr. O'Brien stated he felt the zoning change was a major flaw in an otherwise good plan, noting it was fortunate this flaw can easily be corrected by leaving the zoning as it was. In closing, Mr. O'Brien asked the Council to please put themselves in his place, noting all he was asking them to do was to please be fair. Scott Kaplan, 217 Jewell Street, spoke in favor of the Neighborhood Plan. Suzanne Pinto, 625 Belle Avenue, addressed the Council, stating she and her husband had purchased their home in 1988, making certain compromises in terms of proximity to the freeway and extremely dense apartment buildings behind the house, because of the zoning, which at the time was zoned for a duplex. She stated they had planned to eventually build -out a formal second unit over the carriage house for her mother and her husband's mother, and then eventually rent it out as part of their retirement plan. Ms. Pinto reported that in 1991 she was laid -off after twenty-three years of employment, and the possibility of full retirement benefits disappeared along with the job. She stated the rental potential on her property has become absolutely critical, and if she is unable to build the additional unit, it will be devastating. Vernon Watters, Ms. Pinto's husband, addressed the Council, and stated he did not feel there was a reasonable relationship between what is being proposed and the realistic or legitimate objectives that are going on here. He distributed photographs to the Council which showed his home, the length of his lot, the carriage house, and also two lanes of the freeway and the freeway ramp. Mr. Watters stated one of the reasons he chose his home was because of the size of the lot, which is 16,000 square feet. He noted there is also a buffer to the street, with ten feet on Irwin Street and thirteen feet on Belle Avenue, and another eight feet on Green Street, which is the street alongside their home. Mr. Watters noted this is an additional 4,200 square feet of land that they maintain as if it were their own, although it does belong to the City. Mr. Watters stated that of all the things people talk about in describing how their situations are compromised by density, he felt there was no question that his home was the most severely compromised by the proximity of the freeway. He noted three of the photographs he had distributed showed the extreme high density of the area. Mr. Watters reported they had participated in many of the planning sessions, but missed the meeting when the down -zoning was addressed, as they did not know ahead of time when this issue was to be discussed. He noted he and Ms. Pinto supported many of the other things that were discussed in the Plan. He stated his objection to the mother-in-law unit is that it involves a use permit process, it is not a permanent permit, and it specifies the owner must live in one of the units on the property unless there is a change of employment, in which case the owner would need to go before the Council and obtain special findings allowing the permit to remain in force even though the owner is not living on the property. Mr. Watters stated they want to have the security of mind that the unit is going to be usable, and at the same time, he feels that, realistically, they would want such a unit to be over 1,000 square feet. Mr. Watters stated he and his wife feel oppressed by this. He compared the size of his lot to the sizes of the three lots across the street which have single-family homes on them, and felt the size of his lot should be suitable for two single-family houses; however, he stated he is not asking to have two houses, all he is asking is to maintain one duplex, well integrated with the main house. He stated he believed what he was asking was extremely reasonable. Mr Watters felt he and his wife had been enthusiastic citizens of San Rafael, and asked the Council to please be fair and reasonable. Ray Cox, owner of an apartment on Union Street, addressed the Council, noting he believed there is room for rezoning, because it is a guideline for developers so they can have some idea of what they can build when they buy property. Mr. Cox stated that in his experience with buying several properties in San Rafael, often the zoning does not represent what is capable of being built on the property. As an example, his property on Union Street was zoned for seven units, but he was only able to get parking for six, and on another property on "Y Street he thought they were going to be able to have four units, but they were only able to get three. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 7 Mr. Cox stated, from his point of view, he would like to see realistic guidelines developed for owners and builders, noting they feel as though they are already losing value by having the parking requirements tightened. He suggested looking back at the General Plan to see if the General Plan could guide the zoning on these particular properties, noting the General Plan handicaps narrow lots to ensure there will be adequate parking. He felt something similar might be applicable on Union Street, where the lots are narrow and there are Hillside Standards. Mr. Cox noted it was his understanding that if there are four units or more, a turnaround must be provided on the premises, pointing out that on many of the lots in the Montecito area it would be very difficult to have a turnaround and also provide adequate parking for multiple units. There being no further comment from the public, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Boro referred to the property at 625 Belle Avenue, and asked if the 16,000 square foot site could be subdivided into two single-family residences? Principal Planner Hasser stated, theoretically, that was correct; however, in this case it could be difficult because of the placement of the single-family unit that is on the site. Mayor Boro asked the minimum zoning requirement for a single-family house, and Ms. Hasser responded the minimum zoning requirement is 7,500 square feet. Mayor Boro asked if there was 7,500 square feet on the lot that could be cut out if the owner decided to do that, and Ms. Hasser stated it was possible, but would be better if the existing house were shifted slightly, which would be a big expense. Mayor Boro referred to 24 Park Street, noting that in the staff report the owner of this property had proposed single-family in areas where there are existing groups of single-family homes. Mayor Boro noted that on the map Mr. O'Brien showed the Council, his property is surrounded by multiple units, and he asked Ms. Hasser, if this is the case, what the logic was behind the zoning being proposed? Ms. Hasser pointed out the existing land uses according to the Assessor, stating that with this particular piece of property, there is a discrepancy between the two maps. Mayor Boro asked if Ms. Hasser was stating that not all of the homes around 24 Park Street are multiple, and Ms. Hasser stated they were not all multiple. Mayor Boro noted the map Mr. O'Brien had brought to the Council's attention appeared to show that, and Ms. Hasser stated the only difference between this area on the two maps is that there is a single family unit that T's off of one of the units, and the discrepancy on the one parcel. She stated most of the area across the street is proposed for multi -family, noting it is clear this is a very mixed area. Mayor Boro stated the way the first map had been presented, it appeared as though all the units around 24 Park Street were multiple units, and Ms. Hasser stated that was not quite true, although it is true there are a number of them. Councilmember Cohen noted Ms. Hasser had stated there was a discrepancy between what the two maps showed, and perhaps what the use of the property actually is. He stated he was struck by Mr. O'Brien's comment that he understood the City to be saying we would be grandfathering existing uses whether or not they were illegal. Planning Director Pendoley stated this was not correct, that the City would not be grandfathering illegal uses. Mr. Cohen asked if he was correct that if someone had a multi -unit dwelling that was not constructed in compliance with the existing zoning at that time, and if that building burned down, they could not replace it under this proposal? Ms. Hasser stated that was correct, noting the City's Conservation of Dwelling Units addresses legal dwelling units in existence in 1991, which are considered conforming units and can be rebuilt, but certainly illegal units do not fall under that classification. Councilmember Zappetini asked, of the list of participants involved in this, how many actually live in the neighborhood, and how many are absentee owners, noting he saw that some of those involved do not even live in the area, and he wanted to know the percentage of those involved who were actually residents of the neighborhood, and if there was enough representation. Planning Director Pendoley stated the number of residents among those attending the meetings was not known, but he had felt it was important to have a sign-up sheet each time a meeting was held so the Council could see who had attended the meeting, and follow-up letters could be sent to inform them of upcoming meetings. Mr. Pendoley stated some of the people on the list may not have attended more than one meeting. However, he stated staff did have the impression that the thirty people who stayed very active throughout all of the neighborhood meetings were, in fact, residents. Mr. Zappetini asked if they were residents of single-family units or owners, and Mr. Pendoley stated he thought they were owner occupants. Mr. Zappetini asked how many people lived in the area, and Ms. Hasser responded approximately 2,000 people lived in the area, noting there were seventy-five people who showed up at the first meeting, where they talked about likes and dislikes, which she felt was a very good turn -out for a neighborhood of that size. Ms. Hasser reported the residents were solicited door-to-door, pamphlets were passed out, and notice was placed in the newspaper, noting there was about as much outreach as could be provided for this kind of project. She stated most of these issues, such as the high density, were addressed at the very first meeting, as well as the problems with streets, drainage, and parking, noting this set the stage for the later meetings where actions and guidelines were discussed. Councilmember Phillips stated he felt staff had done a great job, in concert with the community, in putting together this SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 8 neighborhood plan, noting it was extremely well done and he appreciated their efforts. Referring to the issue of property taxes, Mr. Phillips noted comments were made that in the past some of the owners had paid property taxes in excess of what they might have otherwise paid, had the zoning been consistent with what is now being proposed. He asked if that is really the case, or not? Mr. Pendoley stated that this was very hard to say, and it would be very difficult to be certain about that, noting zoning is one of many factors that are considered by the Assessor when the tax rate is set. Mr. Pendoley stated, as he understands it, the most significant factor is the sales price, if the sale has been recent. Mayor Boro asked him to follow-up on this, as he had the same question, and Councilmember Heller stated she also questioned this. Mayor Boro stated it was his understanding that anything sold prior to 1978, and prior to Proposition 13, would have the value frozen at that time, and then increased a certain percentage each year after that, and he noted it seemed as though that would apply to one of the parcels in question. He stated the other parcel was sold in 1983, and noted staff had commented the taxes on this parcel were based on the sales price. Mayor Boro stated the sales price in 1983 could have been influenced by the density, which in turn would have influenced the property tax at that time, so there could have been this kind of connection. Mr. Pendoley agreed that was true. Councilmember Phillips noted the report stated staff is familiar with the arguments being presented, but asked if there had been anything that was brought up in this meeting that might change staff's view on the matter? Mr. Pendoley stated the testimony presented in this meeting was the same testimony the Planning Commission had received, and he noted staff's advice to the Council would be the same as their advice had been to the Planning Commission. He stated it was important to consider the existing Land Use patterns when going through a rezoning like this. He stated that in referring to some parts of this neighborhood, you can see from the map the pattern is very mixed, and he noted it is probably true that the more mixed the pattern, the more discretion you have in making decisions. Mr. Pendoley stated they were very careful in preparing this plan, both before soliciting neighborhood input on individual maps, and after they had neighborhood input, to be sure to check with the City Attorney to see that the City would not be subject to a taking charge or a spot zoning charge. Mr. Pendoley reported that the City Attorney's office has been confident we were strong on both counts. Mr. Pendoley stated it is typical when preparing a plan for conservation, particularly in older neighborhoods as is the case here, that there is a desire to reduce the allowed density, as is being proposed, noting the idea being that you want to give more of a stake, particularly to the homeowners who are there, to preserve their properties and avoid speculation. Mr. Pendoley noted it is hard to give this approach a blanket evaluation; however, it is staffs opinion that in this case it is certainly warranted and well founded. Councilmember Cohen referred to Zoning Map A, and noted there are five or six parcels that are designated for duplex residential. He asked if staff had considered this when addressing some of the residents' concerns, and if they had looked at the possibility of perhaps zoning some of these properties duplex residential? Ms. Hasser explained the duplex zoning was limited to areas where there were already duplexes, primarily because the multi -family zoning gives a little more flexibility to put a multi -family unit in a detached garage or other detached structure, whereas a duplex has to be in the same unit. She stated a number of the buildings have that kind of pattern, with separate structures, so this provides a little more flexibility. She noted an MR -3 zoning provided the same density as duplex zoning, as would an MR -2.5. She reported a duplex zoning requires a 5,000 square foot minimum, or 6,000 square feet on a corner lot, and it must be an attached unit, whereas an MR -3 requires only 3,000 square feet per unit, and an MR -2.5 requires 2,500 square feet per unit. Therefore, on the same size lot you can have the same number of units, but with a little more flexibility in how they are located, such as in a detached building. Mr. Cohen stated he had been referring to the properties that were being addressed tonight, which are single-family being down -zoned to single-family. Ms. Hasser pointed out that nearby properties were being zoned MR -3. Thus this zoning would make more sense, rather than duplex, which would be close to spot zoning. In the case of the property located at 625 Belle Avenue, Ms. Hasser reported the property currently has a duplex zoning, and has been proposed for single-family zoning, which would allow a mother-in-law unit. Mr. Cohen asked if the property at 625 Belle Avenue would support two lots, and if a lot split would be possible. Ms. Hasser responded a lot split might be possible, but would be difficult because of the location of the existing home on the lot. Councilmember Cohen stated he felt it was difficult to do this without the perception of unfairness to someone. He stated he did not know how, other than going through a process like this, the City is ever going to be able to reduce densities in the neighborhoods where patterns of development that have been seen over the years are not now patterns of development the City wants to encourage, and not patterns this Council would want to encourage in any kind of new development, with this mix of uses. He stated that at some point either the City states we are going to give the whole thing over to high density, or at some point we have to draw a line and reduce zoning for the people who did not develop. He referred to an earlier question, asking if it was because it penalizes those who did not do it yet, and felt that, to an extent, that is a reasonable way of looking at it, noting someone who developed when the zoning was multi -family got more development potential out of the same size lot than someone who has not already developed, if the City goes with this down -zoning. Mr. Cohen recalled having served on the Planning Commission in 1988 and 1989 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 9 and adopting the General Plan, when residents of this neighborhood came forward and told the City they had issues in their neighborhood the City really needed to address. He cited the mix in densities, and the potential for it to become a lot worse unless the City did something about it. Mr. Cohen stated it took several years for the City to find the staff time and the funds to allow the Neighborhood Plan process to begin, and another year for the plan process to actually take place. He stated this has taken at least eight years, noting the signals were out there, and there was a strong voice in the community to do this. He reported there has been a lot of notice about this, and the issue certainly has a lot of history, noting those who have advocated taking this step have shown a lot of staying power in terms of their interest. Mayor Boro stated he found it interesting that out of all the parcels, there are only three parcels being protested, and he felt these were very good odds. He noted he had not heard anyone opposing the Neighborhood Plan as such, which he felt was remarkable with 2,000 residents in that community, pointing out they were all noticed. He recognized that the neighborhood has really come together, and felt they were all really trying to look to their future, noting he did not detect a feeling of N.I.M.B.Y. (Not In My Back Yard) in the neighborhood, because the one thing they did agree on as a community, which both pleased and surprised him, was agreeing to build the senior housing on the surplus school site. Mayor Boro felt this showed they were willing to continue some level of mixed use and provide for housing, but to put it in one space rather than have it spread out, and also to protect the integrity of what is there now. Councilmember Zappetini referred to the comment that there were three major controversial issues, regarding these three separate properties, and stated he did not think the Council was really slamming the door if they endorse this plan, noting the property owners can still come back to the City and apply for a zone change. Ms. Hasser stated they could apply for a zone change, but noted that would also require a General Plan change in some cases. Mr. Zappetini asked if there would still be opportunities for those changes to happen, and Ms. Hasser stated there was always the opportunity for a General Plan amendment and a zone change. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration with Findings. RESOLUTION NO. 9568 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GENERAL PLAN (GPA95-4) AND ZONING ORDINANCE (ZC95-7) AMENDMENTS AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENT THE MONTECITO/HAPPY VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt the Resolution adopting the General Plan (GPA95-4) changes to implement the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan. RESOLUTION NO. 9569 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN (GPA95-4) CHANGES TO IMPLEMENT MONTECITO/HAPPY VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution adopting the Montecito/Happy Valley Design Guidelines. RESOLUTION NO. 9570 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING MONTECITO/HAPPY VALLEY DESIGN GUIDELINES. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING CHAPTER 14.25.050 AND THE TITLE 14 ZONING MAP OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO HELP IMPLEMENT THE MONTECITO/HAPPY VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN" Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1695 to print, by the following vote, to wit: SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 10 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARING - TWO APPEALS RE: MONTEVIDEO TERRACE SUBDIVISION (PI) - File 5-1-327 a) APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF FEBRUARY 13, 1996, RE: ED95-100, APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR TWO-STORY DESIGN PLAN 5 FOR LOT #6 OF THE MONTEVIDEO TERRACE SUBDIVISION AT 70 SKYVIEW TERRACE, SAN RAFAEL; AP NO. 165-220-01; WATERFORD ASSOCIATES, LLC, OWNER: AND FARRELL-FABER ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTATIVES (LP), JOSEPH G. BUEL, APPELLANT. b) APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF FEBRUARY 13, 1996 RE: ED95-100, APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON LOTS 1,235,6, OF THE MONTEVIDEO TERRACE SUBDIVISION AT 70 SKYVIEW TERRACE, SAN RAFAEL; AP NO. 165-220-01; WATERFORD ASSOCIATES, LLC. OWNER: AND FARRELL-FABER ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTATIVES (LP). JEROME H. KLEIN AND WILLIAM BYRD, APPELLANTS. Councilmember Zappetini stated he was abstaining from this item due to conflict of interest, and left the Council Chamber. Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Planning Director Pendoley reported two appeals had been received on the Design Review permit, which cover a number of units in the Montevideo Project. He noted that while there is a fairly long list of points in the appeal letters, the basic substance of these appeals boils down to the height of two buildings, those on Lot #3 and Lot #6. Mr. Pendoley reported the Montevideo Project is covered by a Planned District, which means it has its own zoning, does not have conventional single-family zoning, but rather has zoning that was designed just for this project, and this zoning is encompassed in a Master Plan. Mr. Pendoley explained a principal concern of that Master Plan was the size of the buildings, both their square footage and their height, with major emphasis being placed on the view of the property from Las Gallinas. He stated this was the view that was the principal concern to the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council, and noted it is this view which drove many of the design standards that are really at issue in this permit. Also of principal concern was that we not have a wall effect as these homes at the top would be viewed from Las Gallinas. He stated a very conscious decision was made that these homes would be visible, but the view would be broken up by controlling the size of the buildings and doing other things to regulate their mass. Mr. Pendoley reported a very specific standard was put into this Planned District that two of the lots would be single story, and the rest of the lots were given a maximum height of thirty feet, which is the conventional height for two-story buildings; therefore, the zoning provides for two lots at one-story and the rest of the lots up to thirty feet, or two stories, with a Design Review required for each permit. Referring to Lot #3, Mr. Pendoley displayed a drawing of the design as approved by the Planning Commission, stating it is a two-story structure, and noting it was considered by the Design Review Board twice. Mr. Pendoley reported the Design Review Board did not end up making a recommendation, stating they were stuck on this design, noting the principal point of contention was the south elevation. Mr. Pendoley showed a view of the south elevation, noting it was a key consideration. He stated the Design Review Board was concerned with how this south elevation would look from the street, highlighting the driveway that goes into the old school buildings now occupied by non -profits, and noting there is also a change in the elevations. Mr. Pendoley reported the Master Plan also required that there be a six foot fence, which has had to be moved further back from the initial installation on the site. Mr. Pendoley reported staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was that this design should be acceptable. He acknowledged there is a good deal of mass; however, that is largely screened by the change in topography, and by the required fence, and staff suggests this is basically pleasing, and certainly consistent with the standards in the design plan. Referring to Lot #6, Mr. Pendoley displayed a drawing of the lot and reported that when the Master Plan was originally approved, the topography was actually as shown on the drawing, with a large knoll on the property. He stated that, in view of the topography, the original Master Plan required that Lot #6 would have to comply with the requirements of the Hillside Guidelines; however, when the School District sold the property and the developer actually took over the property, the developer proposed a change to the Master Plan, which would eliminate the knoll and drop the grade six feet lower than had originally been approved in the Master Plan. Mr. Pendoley reported that with this change in SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 11 grading, the Master Plan was changed to show the lot would no longer require Hillside Design, as it was now a flat lot the same as all the other lots, none of which require Hillside Design. Mr. Pendoley noted the big advantage here is to make this unit, and this lot, less visible from off-site. Mr. Pendoley reported the Design Review Board had some trouble with this property, and, in fact, as pointed out in the report, there is even confusion in the record of the Design Review Board's considerations. Mr. Pendoley stated that at the end of their first review they seemed to basically like this and were ready to move on it, but he noted there may have been an error in the record as to whether they actually voted for it or not; however, there was a consensus at that point in the design. He stated that later, when they were considering this design, there were some second thoughts, and they thought perhaps it would be better if this unit was single story. Mr. Pendoley stated the Board was advised at that point that this was not what the zoning provided, and that they could not arbitrarily come in and say this shall be a single -story when the zoning states it can be two-story, although they could still deal with all of the design elements. Mr. Pendoley reported that at this point, the Design Review Board was stalled on this issue, and the developer asked the Planning Commission to consider it. He stated that when the Planning Commission considered it, they discussed a number of possible changes and, basically, they rotated the building away from the downhill slope, and asked that a small mound be installed on the property, noting the affect was to push the building, especially the high points of the building, twelve feet further back on the lot and away from Lucas Park, which was an important consideration for the Commission. He noted this was in response to the neighborhood, although as can be seen from the appeal, the neighbors were not satisfied. Mr. Pendoley stated part of the appeal has had to do with advice that he, and staff, had given to the Planning Commission, noting there was no question that after consulting with the City Attorney, he did advise the Commissioners what the zoning standard was, and they were constrained from arbitrarily stating the building on Lot #6 must be one-story when the zoning permitted two-story. Cyr Miller, Chairman of the Planning Commission, addressed the Council, and read the following: ".....I would like to share with you the sense of the Commission on several perceptions of the appeal. 1. The Commission clearly understood the advice of the Planning Director and opinion of the City Attorney that the Commission could not deny the permit for a two-story home on Lots 3 and 6 simply because it is two - stories and not one or one -and -a -half stories. The Commission limited consideration to design guidelines and architecture conditions contained in the Master Plan. The advice and opinion were offered in an accurate and professional manner. The Commission accepted the input and acted accordingly; 2. The Commission understood the discussions of and differing point of view within the Design Review Board and, at the suggestion of the Commission Liaison to the Design Review Board for this project, Dr. Starkweather, used them as a basis to proceed to mitigate the height and mass concerns expressed at the public hearing. After closing the public hearing, the commissioners, planning staff, and the technical advisors to the applicant entered into a collegial, interactive discussion to address the issues. The home on Lot 6 was already reduced in view height by grading and the leveling of the rise of the lot. The home was rotated so as to reduce the visual impact from the north. A berm was developed to reduce the view of the building and to afford greater privacy to the residence immediately down the hill. The mass of the south elevation of the home on Lot 3 was sufficiently mitigated by a fence with additional landscaping elements in front of it and by trees along the south side of the house. With these changes The Commission moved to approve the environmental and design review permits....." Mayor Boro invited the appellants to address the Council. William Byrd, 40 Skyview Terrace, addressed the Council, stating he lived next door to Lot #1. Mr. Byrd stated he had lived there for twenty-eight years, and had no objection to houses being built there; however, he reported that one of the things the residents of his neighborhood do object to are the sizes of some of the homes, particularly on Skyview. Mr. Byrd stated the original plan presented by Guthrie & Company called for Phase III to consist of three one-story houses on the hill, and the San Rafael Park Neighborhood Association approved the plan. He reported it was explained to them that Phase I and Phase II would be different plans, particularly Phase I, which is Skyview, and was to blend in with the other homes. Mr. Byrd stated the next thing they knew Lot #6 had been cut down, and when he asked what had happened to Lot #6, he was told it had been taken off the Hillside Guidelines. Mr. Byrd felt they should have been informed of the change, as they had been attending Planning Commission meetings for the past three and a half years. Mr. Byrd reported that after the grading permits were issued for Lot #2 and Lot #3, he repeatedly told the Planning Commission that water would run off the hill, noting that when the berm was removed they destroyed the cap, and now the water is coming down the hill right onto his property. He stated there is a v -ditch there now, and he cleans out the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 12 drain, but if someone does not install a v -ditch on the second tier and clean out the drain, then the owner of that property is going to have a lot of problems in future storms. Mr. Byrd referred to the Oakview Master Plan, reporting they had discussed front and rear set -backs on the houses on "Daly Ridge Hill", noting this is what everyone calls the hill, referring to Daly City. He stated some of the houses have no set -backs, and the architectural Master Plan states they should have ten foot setbacks. He reported some of the houses have six foot setbacks, and some have three-foot set -backs. He reported on Lots #7 through #20, the Plan states the proposed residences shall not exceed an average of 3,000 square feet, and shall provide a minimum of 20% floor area between the largest and smallest residence. He noted the original plan, with Guthrie and Company, called for 28%. Mr. Byrd stated he felt all along that once you get a building permit, you can go all over the world. Mr. Byrd stated photographs would be presented that showed water run-off and how the street has been torn up, noting he had to call the Public Works Department to have the sidewalk repaired in three different locations, stating that during the storms the sidewalk was left wide open, not even covered with plywood, which he felt was a City and a construction hazard. Mr. Byrd felt this had been a pretty haphazard situation. Mr. Byrd reported the main issues the neighbors disagree on are the height and the sizes of the houses on Skyview. He noted the photographs of Montevideo will show that you leave the nice two-story houses and go to giants. He stated he felt the value of the home owned by Mr. Goodwin, a resident of the area, had dropped considerably, because now he faces a wall of the home built next to his. Mr. Byrd stated he had enjoyed the three and a half years he had spent being involved in this project, noting he wished they could get permanent members on the Design Review Board, as there needs to be stability on the Board. Joe Buel, 63 Lucas Park Drive, addressed the Council, stating he and his neighbors were coming before the Council to appeal to them not to approve what they feel are inappropriate, non -complying, and out of place designs for Lots #1, #2, #3, #5, and #6 of the Montevideo Subdivision. Mr. Buel stated the reasons for their appeal were outlined in a letter filed with the City Clerk on February 16, 1996. He stated their main concerns were that they felt there had been an on-going pattern of improper notification on the part of the San Rafael Planning Department, and that custom designs for Lots #1, #2, #3, #5, and #6 are required, and not production duplicate designs which are not site specific. Mr. Buel also stated the Plan 5 Design, as presented, does not meet the Oakview Master Plan Review Guidelines, with respect to step -backs of the second floor mass and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and that the Planning Commission did not heed the pleas of himself and the neighbors during their February 13, 1996 meeting. Mr. Buel stated much is made of the Oakview Master Plan as the guiding document behind the development, noting this is rightly so, as the document represents two and a half years of hard work on the part of the San Rafael Park Homeowners Association and the Dixie School District. He noted even the developers spent many long and hard hours going to meetings to develop this Master Plan. Mr. Buel referred the Council to a copy of the Oakview Master Plan, as well as a copy of the minutes of the Design Review Board meeting of November 21, 1995. Mr. Buel stated that in reviewing these documents, and by referring to the display of Plan 5 for Lots #5 and #6, it is his contention that a continuing mistake has been made all along by the project architect, the developer, the Design Review Board, and the Planning Commission and Planning Director. Mr. Buel referred to the comments of Design Review Board member Mr. Paul, of the meeting of November 21, 1995, stating those comments show the correct interpretation of the Oakview Master Plan architectural requirement. Mr. Buel quoted from those comments, "That would seem to indicate that there is supposed to be a set -back of ten feet on three of the four sides. Delimont stated that was to avoid the affect of a two-story box". Mr. Buel displayed drawings of Lots #5 and #6, to illustrate what happens if you apply these guidelines to the Plan 5 for Lots #5 and #6. He quoted, "Two-level designs shall provide first floor elements on the front and rear elevations, with a minimum of a ten foot building set -back for the second floor to provide relief to two-level facades. On one side of the property line of each two-level design the second floor shall step back a minimum of ten feet from the side wall of the first floor. The purpose of this set -back is to intersperse non -repetitious voids between homes so that an articulated, long-range view of these homes is provided." Mr. Buel summarized that the Oakview Master Plan requires a ten foot set -back on the front and rear property, and illustrated that if the ten foot set -back was applied to the drawing being shown, the design would have to be changed, noting that not only is there no set -back on the rear of the property, it has actually been projected at the second level. Mr. Buel stated it appeared this standard has not been applied to other designs that have already been built, and felt this was clearly a nonconforming design which is a mistake and should not be approved. Mr. Buel stated the San Rafael Park Homeowners Association contend that this mistake, and other inconsistencies and on-going irregularities, would give them cause of action to ask for injunction against the issuance of permits to build this design. Mayor Boro stated Mr. Pendoley had referred to Lots #3 and #6, and noted Mr. Buel had also referred to Lots #1, #2, and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 13 #5. He asked Mr. Pendoley to clarify what is being appealed before the Council, as Mr. Pendoley had limited his response to the appeals to Lots #3 and #6. Mr. Pendoley stated he had limited his comments to Lots #3 and #6, as they received the majority of the comments at the Public Hearings held by the Planning Commission, and were the focus of most of the discussion in the two appeal letters. He noted, however, the applicants stated they were appealing the full range of permits, but almost all of their comments were limited to Lots #3 and #6, and to keep the report concise, staff reported accordingly to the Council. Mr. Pendoley noted the written staff report addresses each individual point made in the correspondence. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that Mr. Buel had addressed Lots #5 and #6, and noted those two lots are identical, as is Lot #3. Mayor Boro asked, specifically at this point in time, what the Planning Commission has actually approved, and specifically, what are the appellants appealing? Mr. Pendoley stated the lots at issue in the appeal received by Council are Lots #1, #2, #3, #5 and #6, noting almost all of the discussion in the two appeal letters concern Lots #3 and #6. Mr. Pendoley stated the zoning specifies that these lots can all accommodate buildings that are 30 feet tall, and the appellants both ask for one-story buildings, or one -and -a -half story buildings on both lots. Mr. Pendoley stated what is really at issue for the City Council to determine is whether the permits are consistent with the zoning, both as to the overall height and the specific design standards. Mr. Pendoley noted Mr. Buel had spoken about step -backs, explaining those are specific standards that are in the Planned District, stating the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board each reviewed these designs for consistency with those standards, and the Planning Commission found these designs were consistent with the intent of the District. Dan Keegan, 23 Montevideo Way, addressed the Council, noting he lives just below Lot #6. Mr. Keegan stated that prior to coming before the Council he had made note of some of the previous proceedings concerning this development. He reported that on October 4, 1994 at the Design Review Board meeting, staff expressed concern about the wall effect at the top of the ridge, as seen from driving up Las Gallinas on Lots #11 through #20. He reported Design Review Board member Richard Olmstead had felt there was one too many lots on this south side, but the number of lots has not changed. Mr. Keegan reported that at a later meeting on November 17, 1994, Mr. Guthrie stated the plan required at least two single -story homes, which Mr. Keegan felt contradicted Mr. Pendoley's statement the plan required only two single -story homes. He stated Jerome Klein, a resident of Skyview Terrace, remarked that this was inconsistent with the neighborhood pattern of one-third of the houses being single -story and most of the remainder being split-levels. Mr. Keegan reported there are three single -story houses at Montevideo Terrace development, and the remaining seventeen are two stories. Mr. Keegan reported that at the February 13, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, besides the wall effect there was also concern that the roof line coming up Montevideo Way is a smooth line until reaching the nearly completed Montevideo Terrace Lot #11 two-story house. Mr. Keegan reported that at an earlier Design Review Board meeting, member Robert Huntsberry stated he felt it was a mistake to allow a two-story house to start off Montevideo Terrace, since it jumps right up from the house below it. Mr. Keegan stated the homeowner below Lot #11, Mr. Goodwin, describes the new structure as the "Wall of China", and noted the developer and the Planning Director have both commented that nothing can be done about that now. He reported the discussion then turned to Lot #6 across the street, in an attempt to try to prevent the same thing from happening on that side. Mr. Keegan asked if it would not be reasonable to transition into Montevideo Terrace with a one-story house at the perimeter, as the ground level of Lot #6, as with Lot #11, is already above the roof level of the adjoining house below it on Montevideo Way? Mr. Keegan stated this discussion was closed when the Planning Director said that nothing could be done to prevent a two-story home from being built on this site. Mr. Keegan noted that at this same meeting, a letter was distributed by Jerome Klein, in which he stated the Design Review Board has admitted a mistake was made in stating approval of the design for the house on Lot #3 should also apply to Lots #5 and #6, and also pointed out that another mistake, which was also irrevocable, was made in approving three homes to be built on Lots #1, #2, and #3, when there should have only been two. Mr. Keegan noted Mr. Huntsberry also stated at that meeting that if he had the choice to do it over, he would probably recommend that Lot #6 be a one-story home. Mr. Keegan stated it had been pointed out at an earlier meeting of the Design Review Board that the Board has two obligations, one to the School District, and one to the neighborhood in general. He stated the School Board's main interest is in maximizing their return from the sale of the land, and the neighbors' interest is preserving the architectural integrity of the community. Mr. Keegan stated it seemed to him as though all these mistakes and concerns have been resolved in favor of the interests and concerns of the School District. Jerome Klein, Past President of the San Rafael Park Homeowners' Association, addressed the Council, stating the intent of the Master Plan has not been followed. Mr. Klein described the following photographs he presented to the Council; noting he begged to differ with the rendering of the ridge line. Mr. Klein presented a photograph of the ridge line taken a few days prior to this meeting; a photograph of Lot #11 next to Mr. Goodwin's house, noting the base of Lot #11 is above Mr. Goodwin's roof line; a second photograph showing the same; a photograph looking up Montevideo at the new project, Montevideo Terrace; a photograph of Lot #3, which is SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 14 across the street from his own house, noting the total lot footage is approximately 7,500 square with plans for a house that is proposed to be built at a twenty-eight and a half foot height with a huge frontage mass. He stated his house across the street is a single -story which has 10,000 square feet of total lot space. Mr. Klein also submitted two additional photographs of the ridge line. Mr. Klein stated these photographs represent, in his mind, an unsatisfactory result of the intent of the Master Plan, which the San Rafael Park Homeowners' Association approved, and what they felt would be a genuine mix to match the integrity of the neighborhood. Agreeing with the earlier comments of Mr. Keegan, Mr. Buel and Mr. Byrd, Mr. Klein stated the Master Plan has not been followed to the letter. He stated the fact remains that Mr. Pendoley referred to the use of two-story, not just a thirty-foot limit but two-story, to both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. Mr. Klein acknowledged the Master Plan does state thirty feet is the limit, but it does not specifically state that a two-story must be built on every single lot, other than the two that were originally specified. He noted what the Master Plan does say is that there must be those ten foot set -backs that Mr. Buel pointed out, and which have not been followed by the developer, and it states the integrity, design and architecture must be in conformity with the integrity of the existing neighborhood. Mr. Klein reported he had submitted excerpts of the minutes of the November 21, 1995 December 6, 1995 and February, 1996 meetings of the Design Review Board, pointing out these show there was not only confusion, but definitely the feeling that mistakes had been made by them, and that, in fact, they thought they were supposed to be custom design homes because of the fact that they were on Skyview Terrace in a neighborhood that existed and coincided with that neighborhood, and they thought they would be different from the other homes. Mr. Klein noted Mr. Pendoley's report to the Design Review Board stated that if Lots #5 and #6 were approved, then the developer wanted Lot #3 to be just like Lots #5 and #6, and after Lots #5 and #6 were approved but Lot #3 was not, then the developer asked if Lot #3 gained approval, could the same design then be used for Lots #5 and #6? Mr. Klein felt the developer wanted all three of the lots to be built with the same design so that he could save money. Mr. Klein played a portion of the audio tape recording from the Planning Commission meeting at which the motion was passed by the Planning Commission, noting he felt, at the very least, the Council would have to agree it is incredibly ambiguous and is not defined, noting that in the motion itself Lot #3 was not approved, only designs for Lots #5 and #6, and Lot #3's landscaping was approved, as was the landscaping for Lots #5 and #6. After playing the tape, Mr. Klein stated he did not believe Lot #3 was in the design approval. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not agree with that conclusion, noting he had written down some comments as the tape was playing, but would wait until after Mr. Klein had addressed the Council to make his remarks. Mr. Klein played another short segment of tape from the Planning Commission meeting, when staff was giving their review to the Commission prior to the Public Hearing, stating this portion of the tape showed one of three times that Mr. Pendoley claimed he had met and talked with the City Attorney, and that the City Attorney stated this was an indefensible position to change anything. Mr. Klein stated he felt this was very intimidating to the Planning Commission because it was not true, noting he was sure Mr. Pendoley would admit that he did not, in fact, speak to the City Attorney. He reported it was Associate Planner Louise Patterson who had spoken with Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan, and stated that when she spoke to Mr. Guinan, she spoke out of context as to the question that was asked. Mr. Klein acknowledged he was not sure what that question was, but stated it was not to the point in the way that it was presented to the Commission. Mayor Boro stated he had a letter from the City Attorney, dated March 11, 1996, in which he unequivocally states this is his opinion on two-story homes on those lots. Mr. Klein stated he believed that if Mayor Boro were to ask the City Attorney, another interpretation could, in fact, be had with regard to the Master Plan. He stated that with the Master Plan saying what it says, it does allow for a thirty foot limit, but it does not specify that they must be two-story, noting there can be single -story of twenty-three feet, or twenty or twenty-five feet. He stated the fact remains, the intent of the Master Plan, pointing out that he keeps coming back to the word "intent", is that there is to be continuity with the neighborhood. Mr. Klein noted that on the tape, Mr. Pendoley states the Master Plan permitted a two-story building on Lot #3; however, Mr. Klein states "two-story" is not specified in the Master Plan, it actually states a thirty foot limit. Referring again to the ten foot setbacks, Mr. Klein stated these are not adhered to, but are a fact in the Master Plan, and are outlined quite clearly. Explaining he would like to point out some specific facts for the Council to consider in their decision, Mr. Klein referred to Page 7, which discusses the Design Review Board Minutes of their meeting of November 21, 1995; Page 8, referring to Mr. Trapolin's comments; Page 9, referring to the statements of Mr. Byrd, Mr. Olmstead, and Mr. Klein; Page 10, referring to the statement Design Review Board member Paul read from the Oakview Master Plan which states, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 15 "Two-level designs shall provide for first floor elements on the front and rear elevations, with a minimum of ten foot building setbacks for the second floor to provide relief of the two-level facades.", and the statement by Planning staff member Patterson, "The Master Plan also states that exceptions to these standards may be approved by the Planning Commission." Mr. Klein asked, if exceptions can be approved for that, exceptions can be made to two-story, can they not? Continuing, Mr. Klein referenced Page 13 and the comments made by Design Review Board member Paul concerning step -backs on side elevations, and the step -backs between the first and second floors, as well as Chairman Olmstead's comments regarding one too many lots on the strip. Mr. Klein stated these comments illustrate the point, and we should think carefully about the future. He asked, if we are not here to have mistakes corrected, then why are we here? He referred to Page 14, referring to member Paul's statement that he thought Lots #1, #2, and #3 would be more or less custom designed homes treated as hillside homes. Mr. Klein stated we are not seeing an adaptation of other floor plans for these three lots. Referring to Page 15, Mr. Klein cited comments made by member Atchison, Planning staff member Patterson, and Chairman Olmstead. Mr. Klein then referred to the minutes of the meeting of January 17, 1996, citing Mr. Faber's comments on Page 14, in which he referred to Lot #3 and stated there was concern about a two-story element, that the roof line had been broken -up to mitigate it, and then showed the location of window boxes and brick columns. Mr. Klein also referred to Mr. Byrd's comments on Page 14, noting he urged the Design Review Board to ride over to Las Gallinas and see what is being created. Mr. Klein reported members of the Design Review Board actually did visit the site, and noted Planning Commission Chairman Cyr Miller concurred that he was appalled at what he saw going up Las Gallinas. Mr. Klein referred to Page 16, citing Mr. Olmstead's inquiries concerning the height above the curb grade to the ridge height of the houses on Lots #1, #2, and #3, and the response of Mr. Oberkamper, of the architectural firm, that it is thirty-one feet. Mr. Klein reported, as he has previously pointed out to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission on numerous occasions, there are twenty-one homes on Skyview Terrace; of those twenty-one homes six are single -story, and the other fifteen are divided mostly between split-level and two story. He stated that now we are going to have three more huge two -stories, larger than any other houses on those lots. Mr. Klein reported the largest house on Skyview is approximately 2,800 square feet, and these new houses are going to approach 3,400 square feet total. He also noted the height of the highest house currently on Skyview is approximately twenty-five or twenty-six feet, not thirty feet. Mr. Klein referred to member Paul's comments on Page 18 of the January 17, 1995 minutes, and quoted Chairman Olmstead's comments on Page 17, "There is a struggle which is apparent, as mentioned at three meetings. There are three houses on very difficult ground, particularly Lot #1. When seen from the street it always has a one-story feel and is very appropriate", and also referred to Mr. Olmstead's statement that he had "always felt there was one too many lots here, but that seems to be a settled issue." Mr. Klein stated it was quite clear from these remarks, as well as those noted from the meeting of February 6, 1996, that the Design Review Board had obviously struggled with this matter, and then the Planning Commission struggled with it. He stated the Planning Commission is now giving a false impression as to how they can resolve this so, therefore, they resolved it in a manner which they felt would be best, and as suggested by staff, and was, Mr. Klein felt, improperly suggested by staff and improperly brought to the Planning Commission. Mr. Klein thanked the Council for the time given to him, and stated he wished to point out the fact that the Council should carefully review what the Master Plan has said, what he has said, and what they have heard from the tapes. He stated he felt it might be time for this issue to go back to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission for further review to discuss these lots, because he did not feel it was really a settled issue, and was not sure the Council would have an opportunity to settle it here this evening. Elton Mattoon, 54 Lucas Park, addressed the Council, stating he lives below Lot #6, and that he concurs with the statements made by Mr. Buel. He stated he had reviewed Mr. Buel's comments prior to the meeting, and he agrees with him 100%. Mr. Mattoon stated another two-story house on Lot #6, across from Lot #11, is just going to be another monstrosity, noting it certainly will not blend in with the neighborhood in any way. Mr. Mattoon referred to the display of the lot projection, which shows all of the trees and shrubbery, and he reported there were once thirty year old pine trees on the lot, but the developer went in and bulldozed them all out, noting they have already destroyed part of what was a pleasant environment there. Eli Rosner, 46 Lucas Park Drive, addressed the Council, stating he lives directly under Lot #6. Mr. Rosner referred to the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 16 architect's drawing, stating he did not understand how they had drawn the rendering as they had, and noting that currently there is only a small cabin on Lot #6, yet he can still look up the hill from his property and see it, which means whatever building is placed on the lot will be very visible. He stated another thing that really bothers him is that they have cut down the hillside, and it appears to him they are trying to change the hillside so the building can blend, and the line along the hillside can blend with the height of the house. Mr. Rosner stated that, coming from Israel, where the main goal is just to survive, and seeing the concern over such things as recycling, the greenhouse effect, and preserving the beautiful and green forests, it appears to him that all of the beautiful values are vanishing and disappearing the moment someone has a chance to make a little bit more green money. Michael Smith, addressed the Council on behalf of the developer, Waterford and Associates. Mr. Smith stated he was accompanied by the landscape architect Jane Lufkin, the project architect, Shawn Faber, the civil engineer, Lee Oberkamper, and Mr. Smith's partner, Paul Verier. Mr. Smith stated they were here to answer questions, noting there might be some points that need clarification. Mr. Smith reported a couple of changes had been made at the Planning Commission meeting, and he asked Mr. Faber to outline these changes. Shawn Faber, with Farrell, Faber & Associates, Architects, addressed the Council, and displayed a photo montage of photographs taken from 63 Lucas Park Drive looking up the hill at proposed Lot #6. Mr. Faber stated it was important to note that all of the height limits had been honored in the subdivision and are, in fact, two feet lower than the actual allowed height limit, with the highest building being built at twenty-eight feet. Mr. Faber reported the house on Lot #6, as they are proposing it, is actually six feet lower than the approved Master Plan allowed, noting this was accomplished by the grading. Mr. Faber reported there has been no criteria in the Master Plan stating there are to be custom designs on Lots #1, #2, and #3, but noted there is a criteria, however, that Lot #1 conform to the Hillside Guidelines. Mr. Faber reported that had been unanimously approved by the Design Review Board, and noted it has been mentioned several times that this has been successfully achieved in the design that is being presented. Mr. Faber stated it was also important to note, as shown on the photo montage, that Lot #6 is approximately 100 feet from the lower neighbor on the downhill side of Montevideo Way. He stated this is a completely different situation than Lot #11, noting Lot #11 is a two-story plan that is much closer to the downhill neighbor. Mr. Faber noted that on Lot #6 the one-story elevation is on the downhill side facing the neighbors, and is approximately thirteen feet high, while the overall height of the building is twenty-eight feet high. Mr. Faber reported the house is also situated thirty feet at the closest point to the bank, and a three foot high landscaped berm has been incorporated for landscaped screening. Mr. Faber reported the Design Review Board has consistently stated the homes do substantially conform to the existing neighborhood, by the use of materials such as the columns, shutters, siding, and roofing materials. Mr. Faber explained it had been misstated that there were three two-story homes on the Skyview Lots #1, #2, and #3, noting Lot #1 is actually a split-level design similar to several of the homes on that street, with the garage being the only portion of the house underneath. Jane Lufkin, landscape architect for the project, addressed the Council, stating she would like to outline the few changes that had been made based on their meeting with the Planning Commission. Ms. Lufkin stated that when they went to the Planning Commission, they were showing a few additional trees along Lot #3, noting these are tall stature trees which have been placed there to soften and mitigate the view of that side of the building. Ms. Lufkin reported that, based on the comments of the Planning Commission, they have added bishop pines along the side of Lot #6, as well as shrubs that will reach four to six feet tall and will sit on a berm which is approximately three feet tall, with the intent to soften that side of the building. Lee Oberkamper, civil engineer for the project, addressed the Council, referring to Mr. Byrd's concerns with respect to the drainage which would be impacting his property. Mr. Oberkamper stated Mr. Byrd's property is protected at its upper edge by a concrete ditch, which was constructed at the time of the development of Mr. Byrd's home, and goes into a City drainage system. Mr. Oberkamper noted drainage from Lot #1 will be picked up and go into underground pipes, which will be carried and tied into the City's drainage system. Mr. Oberkamper stated if there has been any damage to drainage facilities, which would have the potential of impacting the drainage on Mr. Byrd's property, those will be corrected before the subdivision is completed and accepted by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Oberkamper stated the time of year is not appropriate to go up on the hillside, but prior to the completion of the subdivision this will be taken care of if, in fact, there is a problem there. Mr. Oberkamper assured the Council that Mr. Byrd's drainage situation will be protected so that he will not be impacted further. Mr. Byrd stated the photographs he had shown Mr. Oberkamper were not of Lot #1, which is at the back of his lot. He also noted this was the first overflow in twenty-eight years. Mayor Boro stated Mr. Oberkamper was giving Mr. Byrd a SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 17 commitment that he was not going to have a problem. Mayor Boro asked if the commitment to the drainage on the adjoining properties was a commitment in the report, and Mr. Pendoley stated that was covered in the subdivision report. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Boro addressed City Attorney Ragghianti, stating he felt there were two main issues that continued to come before them; first, the issue of thirty foot homes and whether or not they have to be two -stories, and second, the Planning Commission staffs opinion as to whether the designs are consistent with the intent of the District. City Attorney Ragghianti referred to a memorandum he had written on March 11, 1996. He stated that prior to his memorandum, he had received a call from Mr. Klein advising Mr. Ragghianti that he had attended a Planning Commission meeting and heard that the City Attorney had advised the Planning Director that it was impossible to change a two-story house and reduce it to a one-story house. Mr. Ragghianti had not previously discussed this with Mr. Pendoley, and suggested to Mr. Klein that perhaps Mr. Pendoley had spoken with someone in his office. Mr. Ragghianti discovered Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan had spoken with Associate Planner Louise Patterson. Mr. Ragghianti reported that shortly thereafter, he communicated with Mr. Pendoley, and then met with Mr. Klein and Mr. Buel, noting Mr. Guinan attended as well. He noted that, at the time, Mr. Guinan advised Mr. Ragghianti he had told Ms. Patterson, as a result of his review of the Master Plan conditions, he felt the conditions of approval did not permit the Planning Commission to approve other than a two-story home on the lots in question. Mr. Ragghianti stated he had known nothing about this project, as he had not been following it, noting he listened to what Mr. Guinan stated, and then listened to what Mr. Klein and Mr. Buel stated, as well. Mr. Ragghianti reported he had not been persuaded, when he first spoke with Mr. Guinan, that he was correct, although he was not persuaded that he was incorrect, but rather he just did not know. Mr. Ragghianti stated that when one looks at the conditions of Master Plan approval, he felt it could be said that they may be equivocal. However, subsequent to that time Mr. Ragghianti received an enormous amount of information from staff, reviewed files, spoke with Louise Patterson, with the applicants, with Mr. Pendoley, and spoke again with Mr. Guinan. He stated he concluded that, in fact, the planning approval process indicated that two lots in the subdivision were to be one-story, and the rest were all to be two-story if the developer chose to submit two-story homes. However, all Design Review approvals had to go through the Planning Commission and the Council on appeal, so a two-story house had to pass Design Review, noting that in passing Design Review one looks at the Design Review Master Plan paragraph which states, in pertinent part, that it must be found to be in compliance with these standards, meaning the Master Plan approved standards. Mr. Ragghianti reported he had stated in his memo that he does not believe the Council has the right to force the developer or applicant to build a one-story house on these lots; however, he does believe the applicant must pass through Design Review, and that is a decision they must make, not the City, in terms of whether they believe the evidence supports the conclusion which the Commission reached. In conclusion, Mr. Ragghianti stated he believed the advice given by Mr. Guinan is correct, and based on a review of the records he has seen, Mr. Ragghianti stated he believed his advice is also correct. Mr. Pendoley felt it was clear the advice he gave the Planning Commission was the same advice Mr. Ragghianti has related tonight. Mr. Pendoley stated there certainly was no intent to mislead by saying two-story instead of thirty feet, noting thirty feet might sound like a bureaucratic notion to those who do not do this every day, but two -stories is something we all understand. Mr. Pendoley added his remark was also made in the context of a written record that was in front of the Planning Commission, with a number of people asking that one-story be required. Mr. Pendoley stated it is a practice in all of the City departments that when they consult with the City Attorney's office, no matter which individual lawyer they meet with, they always state, "the City Attorney's recommendation." Mr. Pendoley reported the single piece of data that most directly addresses the issue of design standards is Mr. Buel's memo, which was distributed to the Council, and addresses the issues of setbacks and step -backs, quoting very correctly from the Master Plan. Mr. Pendoley referred to the response from Ms. Patterson, which has not been noted by anyone, quoting "The Master Plan also states that exceptions to these standards may be approved by the Planning Commission when the applicant has demonstrated that the alternative design concepts carry out the intent of these guidelines." Mr. Pendoley clarified the standards go on to explain they do not want to create a single wall on the hillside, rather they want to break it up as much as possible, and that is the intent, noting that with the quote Ms. Patterson has given, the guidelines give the ability to vary a little bit. Mr. Pendoley noted this is what has happened on Lots #5 and #6, which do not sit on top of the ridge line, as viewed from Las Gallinas. Mr. Pendoley noted that in her staff report to the Planning Commission, Ms. Patterson, in speaking of Plan 5, states, "The new single-family, two-story plan (Plan 5) has a single -story element with a second -story stepping back at least ten feet on one side. The second -story is also stepped back to approximately nine feet from the first floor at the entrance, and approximately six feet over the garage at the front elevation. The one-story element of this design provides relief to the two-story facade on the front, rear and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 18 side facades." Mr. Pendoley noted her conclusion, which is echoed in her report to Council on the appeal, is that the intent of the guidelines have been met, noting the Planning Commission concurred with that in their decision. Mayor Boro noted, whenever the Council is presented with a report of this length, it would be helpful if every page was numbered consecutively with a fictitious number at the bottom of the page so the Council could reach the sections being addressed more quickly. Councilmember Cohen felt it might also be helpful to tab the various sections for easier access. Councilmember Cohen stated staff had done a good job in going through and responding to the points raised in the appeals. He referred to Mayor Boro's earlier request for clarification as to which lots were being discussed, and Mr. Cohen stated what we are really talking about are the points raised on the appeals. Referring to Mr. Buel's appeal, Mr. Cohen noted staff had addressed these issues. He stated there were three points raised in Mr. Buel's appeal, and they all seem to be entirely focused on Lot #6, both in the introduction and throughout the text. Mr. Cohen noted Mr. Buel's first point is that the lot had been removed from compliance with Hillside Design Guidelines without proper notification, and Mr. Cohen felt that issue had been adequately addressed by staff, including a copy of the mailing notification to Mr. Buel himself. Mr. Cohen reported Mr. Buel's second point is that the two-story design plan on Lot #6 does not meet the Design Review criteria of compatibility, quoting, "It was so stated by the Design Review Board that they made a mistake." Mr. Cohen acknowledged there have been ongoing discussions about the operation of the Design Review Board, and the fact that there is some work to do there and a need to have clearer record keeping to avoid this; however, after reading the minutes very carefully, he stated it was very clear to him that their comment in terms of making a mistake was, perhaps, a lack of clarity as to which version of Plan 5 they had approved, not that they had made a mistake in approving the design and in finding it compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Cohen stated the comment "made a mistake in the approval" is clearly being taken out of context, and does not refer to their dissatisfaction with approval of the design criteria. Mr. Cohen stated he simply does not agree with point three, that the Planning Commission was intimidated into their approval by the Planning Director, stating he is satisfied with the City Attorney's response on the issue of one-story versus two-story. Mr. Cohen referred to the argument that the Plan does not say two-story, rather it says thirty feet, noting we would not have approved thirty feet in the subdivision approval so that we could have thirty foot one-story homes. He stated it is very clear the height limit is there to allow construction up to that height which clearly, in the industry, allows a two-story home if the standards and the guidelines can be met, and that is the heart of the issue. Referring to the second appeal letter, submitted by Mr. Klein and Mr. Byrd, Mr. Cohen stated there were eight points raised, and noted staff had also commented on these issues. Mr. Cohen read from the letter quoting, "It is clear the Design Review Board had extreme difficulty deciding final design for Lot #3", and noted that as he understood the staff report, the Design Review Board did not approve the design for Lot #3, stating it is important to note that Design Review Board approval is not required, it is advisory and, therefore, it was referred to the Planning Commission. Mr. Cohen stated he disagreed with the second point, which states the Design Review Board admitted mistakes were made pertaining to Lots #1, #2, and #3, noting a member of the Design Review Board had expressed an opinion that when the subdivision map was approved, it should have been two lots at this location instead of three. Mr. Cohen stated it may have been that member's opinion that this was a mistake in approval, in retrospect, but it was not a mistake that needs to be corrected, and it is not a mistake that can be legally changed, as the subdivision map has already been approved long prior to these design review approvals. Mr. Cohen stated this same response applies to the appellants' third point, in which they refer to a member of the Design Review Board stating he thought Lots #1, #2, and #3 were to be treated as custom homes. Mr. Cohen noted that if that could be found in the record, where it states these must be treated individually and their designs must not be like any other, then he would buy this argument, but stated he does not find that anywhere in the record. Mr. Cohen stated the fourth point speaks to the mass of the home on Lot #3, and acknowledged the Design Review Board had a problem with Lot #3. However, Mr. Cohen stated he is satisfied with the City Attorney's comments on the thirty foot height limit and one-story versus two-story, noting the issue gets back to whether or not the design is compatible, and stating he has not heard any argument that convinces him that the design is incompatible with the standards as listed in the Master Plan. Mr. Cohen stated this response also speaks to points five, six, seven and eight, which all focus on the issue. Mr. Cohen stated he listened very carefully to the tape which Mr. Klein played for the Council, noting there is an additional issue that has been raised as to whether or not the Planning Commission, in fact, approved Lot #3, and if they approved it, what they approved. Mr. Cohen stated there was a lot of discussion in the middle of the tape about SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 19 landscaping issues, noting specific lots were called out. He stated that early on in the tape a voice called out, who Mr. Cohen took to be the Chairman, stating, "O.K., the motion has been made", and then another Commissioner, whom Mr. Cohen could not identify, asked "The motion, is it for the whole thing?" and the voice that Mr. Cohen took to be the Chairman responded "It is for the whole thing. We are finding the designs to be specifically compatible with the Master Plan, and in addition we have added the berm and changes to Lot #6 and changes to landscaping to Lot #3." Mr. Cohen stated he took, early in the discussion, Chairman Miller's comment to be that the motion was for the entire design review approval, which is what is stated in the Resolution the Commission approved. Mr. Cohen stated that at the end, after the long discussion, there is some more focus on the landscaping on Lot #3, and one of the Commissioners, again unidentified, states, "And #3 is in the approval, too?", and the answer is "Yes", and then the motion is moved, seconded and carried. Mr. Cohen stated he was satisfied, based on the tape that was played, in addition to the fact that we have the minutes, the Resolution adopted by the Commission, and the comments of Chairman Miller stating the Commission knew what they were doing in approving this Resolution, and that their intent was the design review for Lot #3, in addition to the other lots. Mr. Cohen stated that was their recommendation to the Council, and that is the decision that is being appealed. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution denying the appeals. Councilmember Heller stated she had visited the site, read all of the information two or three times, because she does follow the minutes from the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board as they come out, and she noted that when we talk about a thirty foot height limit it is usually a two-story home; however, she stated she does understand the builders have the option of making these homes one-story or two-story, and she felt it was the option of the builder, not the Council's option, because they have to follow the agreement that was made in the beginning. She stated she agreed that we have to follow design criteria with the designs that were submitted. Councilmember Phillips stated he has followed this issue with interest, noting he had visited the site recently, and found the development to be attractive and an enhancement to the neighborhood, and noted he felt the development, in fact, probably improves or increases the value of some of the homes in the area because of its assimilation into that particular neighborhood. He stated he did not find grounds for the points raised under the appeal, in either of the two appeal areas, including each of the specific points listed under them. He noted there had been some discussion about set -backs not being satisfied, and also the issue of second -stories, stating he can equate thirty feet with being second story, and does not see this as a significant issue. Mr. Phillips stated he, too, would vote to deny the appeals. Mayor Boro stated Councilmember Cohen had done an excellent job of going through the comments, noting he felt the issues came down to the two key points of second -story, which he felt had been addressed, and whether or not the designs comply with the intent of the Neighborhood Plan, stating he felt the record showed they do comply, and that no one had shown they did not. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Zappetini DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Zappetini (due to conflict of interest) (Councilmember Zappetini returned to the Council Chamber) OLD BUSINESS Mayor Boro announced that due to the length of the meeting and the lateness of the hour, he was taking the next item out of order, so as to give those in the audience the opportunity to speak. 11. REPORT ON COMMUNITY MEETING RE: THE PICKLEWEED PARK/BELLAM BLVD. PARK/ CORPORATION YARD SITE PLANNING (PW) - File 12 -4x9 -3-66x9-3-40 Mayor Boro reported a neighborhood meeting was held approximately ten days ago, at which much concern was expressed over the potential of the corporation yard being put on this site. Mayor Boro stated he understood the entire plan had not been explained, but noted staff heard loud and clear about the concerns of the community. He stated staff reported those concerns to him and, in turn, have written to the Councilmembers informing them that, at this point in time, it would appear prudent for the City to see if we can find another site within the City to put the corporation yard. Mayor Boro stated he agreed to place this item on the Agenda with that direction, as long as the Council also puts the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 20 planning process for the park on hold, noting the reason for that is the City has made a commitment to build the corporation yard, has made a commitment to the School District to co -locate both yards on one site, and he wants to be certain that we have a site to go to. He stated he is certain we will be able to find a site, but until we have something locked -up, he does not feel it would make sense to continue the park planning if we have not resolved the ultimate destination of the corporation yard. Ralph Crocker addressed the Council on behalf of the neighborhood and the Friends of Spinnaker Point, and read a letter that had been distributed to the Council, "I wish to express my appreciation to Public Works for recommending a'pause' in the process, and for responding so quickly and reasonably to the concerns of the many residents of East San Rafael, particularly those of Spinnaker Point, Baypoint Lagoons, and Bahia de Rafael, whose opposition to a corporation yard on Windward Way has been made abundantly clear. And that appreciation, I am certain, is shared by the overwhelming majority of residents in the three neighborhoods. "Undoubtedly, our opposition to a corporation yard placed on, next to, or near the Windward Way park site, and for all practical purposes at our very doorstep, bears the burden of appearing to some as simply negative. Not so. We look forward to playing an active and positive role in plans for completing Pickleweed Park and developing Windward Way Park. "I and many others in attendance were gratified by the nature of the workshop session at Pickleweed on March 6, and full credit should be given to the City's project team. To be perfectly candid, when the concept of breaking the session into small groups of ten or so people was broached, I thought to myself, 'ah ha! Divide and conquer!' I couldn't have been more wrong. "Structuring the workshop into manageable units of 8-10 attendees (there must have been nearly 100 at the session), gave all of us the opportunity to express our thoughts and ideas in ways that could not work in a forum involving such a large group as was assembled that night. The session brought many of us to the realization that this kind of teamwork allows everyone the opportunity to provide meaningful input into the eventual design of the parks. "We hope the workshops can be resumed soon so we can address ourselves solely to the varied details of the parks without entangling them with the divisive issues of a corporation yard." Mr. Crocker stated he hoped the Council would consider that alternative. Mayor Boro stated the recommendation has been made to the Council that the City pause at this time, noting the neighborhood has been noticed, those attending the meeting have received a letter, and the next meeting has been postponed. Mayor Boro reported Public Works, Redevelopment, and the Planning Department are looking at other sites, and as soon as something has been determined, the Council will receive a report and begin the process as quickly as they can. Councilmember Cohen stated he agreed with the staff recommendation that the City respond to the clear message from the neighbors. Mr. Cohen felt it was important to state that corporation yards are nowhere near as appealing as parks, but he does believe that in this instance, the City is pursuing an important public goal, noting that one of the things that drives this need for a large enough corporation yard is the desire to do what the public persistently asks the City to do, and that is to operate more efficiently, to share resources, and coordinate with other governmental agencies wherever we can. Mr. Cohen stated what the City is seeking is a corporation yard that will allow us to combine operations with the San Rafael School District, benefiting both districts and, therefore, benefiting the taxpayers, which is the Council's charge. Mr. Cohen stated that the City should do that in the equally good spirit that we do the park development. He stated he felt the City had done that with good intentions, but noted the City must redouble the efforts to find an appropriate site, hopefully well separated from the park site. Councilmember Heller stated she concurred with putting this item on hold, acknowledging this is not an easy issue. She stated she had heard from many of the people who live in the neighborhood, and in talking with them, she tried to get the message across that this was not an easy thing, and that it was like dominos, where if one thing happened another thing happened. She noted she felt that with all of us living in the same City, it was sometimes good for us to perhaps have some disagreements, because then we discover the City is trying to put all of the pieces together and make them work the very best way we can for everyone. Ms. Heller noted she felt this holding session will certainly be a good time, stating she looks forward to going out and looking at alternative sites. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to direct staff to investigate other possible locations to relocate the corporation yard, and to bring the options back to the Council for further evaluation. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 21 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9. WISE CONSULTING SERVICES PRESENTATION ON CITY'S INFORMATION SYSTEMS MASTER PLAN (CM/FD) - File 4-3-296 Fire Chief Robert Marcucci reported that in April, 1994 the Council established a Budget Oversight Committee (BOC), and their initial task was to review and evaluate the City's data processing capabilities, including our service agreement with BRC (Business Records Corporation). Chief Marcucci noted that since the BRC contract was going to expire in September, 1994, the Council extended the agreement through September, 1996. Chief Marcucci reported that following the initial review, the BOC recommended to Council the hiring of a consulting firm to do a comprehensive view of the City's data processing function, and to develop an Information System Master Plan. Chief Marcucci reported an RFP was developed, and the City's Data Processing Committee, along with the BOC subcommittee, worked together and selected Wise Consulting Services to do the job. Chief Marcucci stated Ed Reed, of Wise Consulting Services, conducted the analysis over several months, culminating in a final report in December, 1995. Chief Marcucci noted Mr. Reed was present this evening to discuss the report with Council. Mayor Boro invited Mr. Reed to address the Council, stating he has had previous discussions with the Acting City Manager. He noted his reaction to the plan being presented is that it is a massive undertaking, and a tremendous commitment on the part of the City and the Council. Mayor Boro felt it would be advisable, at this time, for Mr. Reed to make his presentation, but recommended the Council instruct staff to proceed with some of the staff work, and for the Council not to adopt anything tonight, as he felt this should be the subject of a workshop between Wise Consulting Services, members of the BOC, the Council, and any members of the public who may wish to attend. Mayor Boro stated everyone should really sit down around the table and talk about this so everyone truly understands the ramifications of some of these recommendations, not implying they are specifically good or bad, just that some of them are very far reaching, and he wants to make sure that some of those who may be around a few years from now understand today what may be happening in the future. Mr. Reed addressed the Council, stating that on behalf of Wise Consulting Services, they would be delighted to take part in such a workshop. He stated he shared Mayor Boro's concerns, noting the Master Plan and the Appendix together constitute 200 pages of material. Mr. Reed stated there is a lot of material to consider and he felt it was unfair to try to condense it into a fifteen minute presentation, agreeing everyone would benefit from having time to consider the specifics of the plan, and provide an opportunity for asking questions. Mayor Boro asked the Councilmembers if they felt this was something they would want to do prior to the Budget Hearings, and they agreed that it was. Mayor Boro stated Mr. Reed could give a thumbnail sketch of the proposal at this time, and Acting City Manager Golt would schedule a workshop session. Mr. Reed stated he has had the opportunity to discuss some of the key findings and recommendations, either by telephone or in person, with the Councilmembers, so there should not be any surprises in his presentation. Mr. Reed expressed his thanks and acknowledged the participation of the Data Processing Committee, which is chaired by Acting City Manager Golt and Fire Chief Marcucci, and includes of all the department heads, noting Wise Consulting Services' role in this project was really as a facilitator, and to draw out the information from City representatives and put it in the form of the plan. Mr. Reed stated the participation of City staff was excellent, and noted they had arrived at a plan that was reasonable, both from a budget perspective, as well as a performance perspective. Mr. Reed stated the City's Data Processing Committee collectively arrived at a Mission Statement for Information Systems, which states, "The City of San Rafael is committed to providing information and technology systems which support our staff in providing excellent public service and in efficiently and effectively carrying out the City's Mission." Mr. Reed noted they believe this Mission Statement is appropriate, as it states that we are committed to technology, there is an acknowledgement that technology provides for productivity improvement, and in the long run will provide an economic payback on the investment the City makes. Mr. Reed stated it goes without saying that the world, good or bad, would not be where it is today without automation, nor can the City ignore the impact of automation or the necessity of moving forward and staying consistent with the public's expectations in terms of how they wish to access information and communicate with City departments. Mr. Reed noted we have all witnessed the development of the Worldwide Web and the InterNet, stating the City does not have to jump and be the leader or at the forefront of technology, but the City does need to be prepared to respond to changes in the way the public, itself, is used to operating in their own businesses and schools, and in their personal finances, noting that if they are able to use communications and technologies, the City must be prepared to deal with them in like manner. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 22 Mr. Reed stated that in terms of the Information Systems Vision developed by the City's Data Processing Committee, the focus was on nine Vision areas, the first of which was Excellent Public Service to All Community Sectors. Mr. Reed felt it was important to point out the City is not here just to provide adequate services, it is here, to the best of our ability, to provide outstanding services, stating this should be our goal in public service. Mr. Reed reported the second goal relates to a Knowledgeable, Committed City Staff, which he explained meant knowledgeable regarding information technologies and prepared to use those technologies to deliver outstanding public service. Mr. Reed stated the third point was High Personnel Productivity and Job Satisfaction, again an acknowledgement that Information Systems will provide a high productivity return on the investment the City has made, not to mention the fact that the City's own staff will be happier in their jobs if the City provides the right tools, they will reduce turnover and, in the long run, reduce City cost. Mr. Reed reported the fourth point was Integrated/Responsive/User-Friendly Application Systems, noting the key point is the integration aspect, reporting what we are trying to promote is information sharing across departments, and ultimately, with the public. He stated the only way to provide that is to ensure integrated solutions, so that if we are talking geographic information systems for land use, planning, zoning, permitting, and all the other things we are dealing with, it would be nice to be certain that Planning, Public Works, Police, Fire, and all departments that have an interest in geographic based information are dealing with the same data base and the same kind of information. Mr. Reed stated some of the other points would include Providing Adequate EquipmenUTechnologies/Facilities, and noted it is very clear the City needs an improved City-wide communications network, not only to allow departments to communicate better, but to ultimately allow the public to communicate better with the City staff, directly through vehicles such as the InterNet. Mr. Reed reported we need a Responsive Information Systems Support, which means a Data Processing staff, whether it be by contract or employees, but someone who is there to provide the training, guidance and support that City users and City departments need in order to be effective in their jobs. Mr. Reed stated the next point was Comprehensive Information Systems Planning, pointing out that planning is not a one-time activity. He noted the City has a Planning Department which is an on-going function, and the same thing applies to information systems, explaining you cannot do a one-time plan and expect it is going to last forever. Mr. Reed stated that even though projections have been made for the next ten years, it is important to re -visit the plan periodically, and Wise Consultant Services would recommend doing that as part of the annual budget process to update, and to address new technologies and new information needs of the City. Mr. Reed stated the last point is Paperless Office - Electronic Information Access, with his point not being so much the paperless office, but providing electronic information access and distribution capabilities, so that in the future the public will be able to access City information directly, without having the necessity of coming to City Hall and Xeroxing copies of reports, as they would have the information on-line. Mr. Reed stated that in the area of building permit processes, the City could allow the public both access information, as well as submit information to the City. Mr. Reed stated he had shared these major issues with each of the Councilmembers individually, noting the City of San Rafael currently pays BRC approximately $400,000 per year to provide the majority of its information system's hardware, software, and operation support. Mr. Reed reported that in addition to this number, there are additional expenditures the City makes that relate to serving other departments, and buying PC's and other system information expenditures, but noted this was the major capital outlay each year. Mr. Reed stated he and his partner from Wise Consulting Services, as well as all the City staff who were interviewed and participated in this project, firmly and strongly believe that BRC has, in fact, provided a reasonable service at a reasonable cost; however, we should note the current contract does not provide for BRC to offer or deliver a total, City-wide information system solution; in fact, the contract is very specific that they are here to provide public safety systems, financial systems, and limited recreation system support, and they do not address the needs of the City Clerk, City Attorney, Public Works, Planning, the Library, Human Resources, and a number of other departments. Mr. Reed stated it is a limited solution, noting what they were contracted to do, they appear to be doing well and, he would stipulate, at a reasonable cost, considering they are in the profit making business and entitled to make a return on their investment. He stated the result, however, is that because of the nature of the agreement, the City really has very little control over its information systems' function, noting BRC operates very independently, they are here to provide a service, and they do it in the manner they believe is the most appropriate, noting that may be good, bad, or indifferent, but it is their choice in how they choose to deliver services, what kind of hardware they are going to have, what kind of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 23 software systems they are going to select, and the control rests with them and not with the City. Mr. Reed stated the BRC contract does not provide for a complete, integrated City-wide service delivery solution; it is a partial solution for Public Works and Finance, primarily. He noted because of the fact that it is only a limited solution, Wise Consulting Services believes the City may be paying more for the services provided than necessary under other alternative service delivery options. Mr. Reed acknowledged other options have risks, noting the City should be aware of those, but stated if economics are the driving concern, there are cheaper ways of providing this service. Mr. Reed referred to "Key Recommendations", addressing first the BRC organizational issues and facilities management contract that is in place, stating Wise Consulting Services believes very strongly that the City should transition from its current out -sourcing facilities management arrangement with BRC to an in-house, managed Information Systems function, noting this is not to say that BRC cannot be a service provider, or even the primary service provider, but Wise Consulting Services would like the City to exercise a greater measure of controlled direction management and guidance over its Information Systems function. Mayor Boro stated he felt this was actually the crux, and he did not understand why, in order to achieve that, we have to bring this system in-house, and why we cannot do that and still have BRC, or another vendor, do the bulk of the work. Mayor Boro stated it was too late to discuss that issue in great detail tonight, but felt it was something to keep in mind. Mr. Reed stated this was not inconsistent with the heart of their recommendations, and noted Wise Consulting Services was not suggesting the City should develop its own applications, or its own computers or office automation products, noting they are still suggesting that service providers, whether they be BRC or other third parties, be utilized by the City to provide the hardware application, software, office automation software, and communications software. Mayor Boro asked about the operations, and Mr. Reed stated they believed that function should ultimately be transitioned in-house, over a five year transition period. He stated they are not suggesting the City develop application software, the City would still use vendors, such as BRC, to provide those kinds of products and services to the City. Mr. Reed stated the key issue is that at least the leadership should reside in the City, as well as the direction, planning and priority setting. Mr. Reed stated perhaps the only issue the City might actually be debating is not whether we should have an Information Systems Manager, as that may be a given, but whether the BRC staff should be replaced with City staff, noting, from his perspective, the issue is pure economics. He stated BRC is entitled to make a profit on their business, noting the City's contract agreement does not have a break-out of charges to the City, so he could only estimate as to how much of the $400,000 the City pays per year relates to hardware application systems, software, and personnel. However, being a consultant in the business for the past twenty-seven years, he felt he knew something about consulting billing rates and the kinds of services BRC delivers, and his personal estimate is that probably two-thirds to three-fourths of the cost the City bears relates directly to the staffing costs, and only one-third relates to hardware and software. Mr. Reed reported that number would be consistent with other in-house data processing operations that they have witnessed, as well as other contract services they have seen, noting that would basically translate to an approximate $50.00 per hour charge for the three staff resources the City has, which Mr. Reed felt was, in fact, a very low consulting rate by any consulting standards in the industry. Mr. Reed reported it would be fair to say that at least $250,000 to $275,000 of the total $400,000 the City pays BRC is being used for staff, noting it is clear the City could hire its own staff resources for less money. Mr. Reed acknowledged there would be risks, alluding to the risk of turn -over, empire building, and other things, but he felt those risks were controllable, noting other cities have had good success in recruiting staff, and in retaining that staff, with it being a function of finding them the right environment, being reasonably progressive in terms of advancing the state of the art of information technology within the City, because no one wants to work in an environment they consider backward, or where the City is unwilling to make an investment in its future. Mr. Reed stated that assuming the City is committed to moving forward with technology, he felt the City could hire its own staff for less money, noting it is purely an economic issue. He felt the consideration as to whether the City needs an Information Systems Manager is a management issue, as opposed to the economics. Mr. Reed stated whether the City wanted to hire the staff from BRC was purely a matter of dollars, noting they have done a good job of providing staff, have had a low turn -over rate, and seem to have the right skill mix. Mr. Reed stated there are certain issues related to the contract extension with BRC, some of which relate to replacing the staff, if the City chooses to do that, while others relate to the transfer of ownership of the computing equipment to the City. Mr. Reed reported the current contract states that BRC purchases the hardware and owns it, and the City never takes possession, no matter how long the equipment remains installed. Mr. Reed noted most contracts would read that BRC would recover their out-of-pocket cost after five years, and at that point the ownership of the hardware would transfer to the City. Mr. Reed stated Wise Consulting Services would recommend transitioning the role of BRC from being the facilities manager to simply a software and technical services provider, pointing out they might not be the exclusive provider, which SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 24 would give the City the option of considering different bidders for specific applications, such as equipment and communications, noting the long -run benefit for the City would be more competitive pricing on the individual items they would be procuring. Mr. Reed stated a major recommendation is the design installation of a City-wide communications network. He noted Wise Consulting Services believes that by bundling this into the renegotiations, it might offer BRC the incentive to perhaps give up some things in some of the other issue areas. He stated they hope to see the renegotiation process as a win-win situation for both the City and its contractor. Mr. Reed referred to what they consider to be the critical success factors, stating what they are looking for and think are important are City Council and Management commitment to the plan and to the planning process, and noting they are looking for sufficient funding, and noting that may be the most difficult thing in this whole process. He stated he believes a key element of their recommendation is improved training for City staff, noting it is clear the City probably has more technology than people who know how to use it, and the best return on investment the City could make would be to beef -up the training of our staff. Referring to the implementation of integrated City-wide systems, Mr. Reed noted the importance not only in GIS type areas, but also the whole range of financial, payroll, maintenance management, purchasing, and budgeting systems. He stated if those systems are truly integrated, it improves productivity, reduces redundancy, and generally provides for much better data flow. Mr. Reed stated a willingness to re-engineer business processes is necessary, particularly in areas that may be impacted by future technologies, whether they be imaging, InterNet, GIS, or allowing public access, noting all of those may impact the way the City currently does business, and there must be an openness to consider the impact of new technologies and how we might change our current business processes to accommodate them. Mr. Reed stated the next point would be to provide sufficient, qualified, technical staff, noting the main issue is that BRC currently provides three people to support a limited sub -set of the City's total application requirements. Mr. Reed stated if we are going to provide a total City-wide solution, it would seem to him we would need more than three people, because three people are barely keeping pace with the current needs in the areas of Public Safety, Finance and limited Recreation. Mr. Reed stated the plan Wise Consulting Services would propose suggests an Information Systems Manager and three staff members. Mr. Reed referred to the need for a commitment to appropriate implementation schedules, noting technology is something that is sometimes allowed to drift and fall behind, and stating the further you get behind, the more difficult it is to catch up. He stated Wise Consulting Services has set forth a plan, and feel it is important the plan be revisited annually to make certain the City stays on a reasonable implementation schedule. In terms of strategies, Mr. Reed stated they are strongly suggesting the Data Processing Committee or, as Wise Consulting Services prefers to call them, the Information Systems Steering Committee, continue the planning process and act as the gatekeeper for all Information System service requests in the future. Mr. Reed stated the Information Systems Manager should be staff to that committee, noting in the same way the Council's staff provides expert guidance and direction, but the Council makes the ultimate decisions and priorities, the Information Systems Manager would be staff to the Steering Committee. Mr. Reed stated the key recommendation that has been discussed is the City-wide communications network, noting they are talking about using only proven, flexible software, and they do not want to put the City in the applications development business or create a City information systems empire. He stated they want to use packaged software that is available in the marketplace and designed for City Government. Referring to the identification of Information Systems liaisons in each department, Mr. Reed felt is was very clear in a situation where there is limited centralized support staff that the level of knowledge needs to be distributed to the departments themselves, and to the extent possible, if each department can identify its own expert, Wise Consulting Services would recommend that person be provided an extra level of education and training so they can serve in a support capacity to the rest of their departmental staff. Mr. Reed referred to their final recommendation, to pilot test all new technologies and assess their cost benefits before making significant investments, noting the City does not want to be on the leading edge of technology, and wants to make sure that any investments that are made have a significant return on investment, particularly issues such as imaging and GIS, which are big dollar items and may or may not have significance for the City. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 25 Referring to the cost implications, Mr. Reed noted the City's budget for BRC is $400,000 per year, and in addition they estimate the City is spending approximately $100,000 per year for other information systems hardware, software and support service contracts. He stated the result is that the City is spending approximately $500,000 per year, which is 1.5% of the City's total budget of $33 Million. He noted Wise Consulting Services has been in the business for the last five years, and has done strategic plans for approximately twenty other cities, and has a pretty good feel for what cities are spending on Data Processing, as well as other government entities such as counties, special districts, and universities. He reported the range, in their experience, is that Data Processing or Information Technology normally counts for 1.5% - 2.5% of the total operating budget. He acknowledged there is the argument that cities that have utilities are normally going to spend more on Data Processing, but noted those cities also have a larger budget, so the percentages of 1.5% - 2.5% still hold true. Mr. Reed stated the plan they are recommending calls for expenditures, over the next ten years, of $5,910,000, or an average of $591,000 per year. Mr. Reed noted this would be $91,000 more per year than the City is currently budgeting; however, what the City would get for this would be a total, City-wide solution, not just a Public Safety and Financial solution. He stated we would also be getting a communications network, expanded office automation capabilities, extensive user training, planning and building permitting systems, expanded GIS, maintenance management, inventory systems, imaging capabilities, particularly in the City Clerk's office and then expanding into other offices, and lastly, additional support staff, noting there would be one additional person who would support the City. Mr. Reed reported there would be a lot of additional things the City would get for the extra $91,000 per year, and they feel it is certainly a reasonable increase in expenditure, noting the proof is that this figure still only represents 1.8% of the City's total operating budget, well within the 1.5% - 2.5% range. In assessing a worse case scenario, Mr. Reed stated they tried to find anything in the budget that they could cut out which might be considered unnecessary fluff, and arrived at a worse case scenario that called for an expenditure of $532,000 per year, or only $32,000 more than the City is budgeting now. Mr. Reed stated Wise Consulting Services feels that, at a minimum, the City should adopt the worse case scenario, but strongly recommends the best case scenario, and feel the return on investment of the additional $91,000 per year will more than cover the cost they are projecting. Mr. Reed stated they do recognize there are various financing options the City can employ to level the proposed expenditures, and noted their costs are not stable across the board for ten years; in fact, during the first couple of years they start higher and then level out. Mr. Reed noted the City may want to use some financing options, particularly for hardware applications, software, and communications, and noted the City's Finance Director had already considered this, particularly for year one funding. Mr. Reed stated this may come into play more significantly in subsequent years, when we are getting more into the hardware and software procurement of replacement financial systems, and planning and building permitting systems, that are not really being addressed in year one. Mr. Reed stated Wise Consulting Services would be happy to participate in a workshop, and give the Council the opportunity to ask questions, noting they would like to give the Council a chance to become comfortable with the plan they are proposing. Councilmember Phillips stated we have heard so much about privatization, and it seems to be going in the opposite direction. He stated he would be hard pressed to be convinced that this should be brought in-house, noting this seems to be going counter to discussions regarding efficient operations being done in the private sector. He stated he would be interested in Mr. Reed's comments in the workshop, and looks forward to working with him on this. Mr. Reed stated Facilities Management is not a wide -spread trend in City or County Government, noting there are a limited number of cities who use Facility Managers. He noted some of our peers, Solano County being one, are also reconsidering their contracting out options, and contemplating bringing control, at least the management functions, back in-house. Mr. Reed stated he would not dispute issues regarding the actual rank and file staff, but he does feel it is critically important for the City to assume leadership and management oversight of its Information Systems function, noting the evidence is that the downside of the facilities management contract we currently have in place is that they have not really been concerned about serving or satisfying the unmet needs of the other departments, because it is not in their contract to do so. Mr. Reed stated our own information systems manager would be more responsive and aware that they need to serve the needs of all departments, not just a select few. Councilmember Cohen stated he felt one of the things we needed to look at, in terms of contracting out, was the cost associated with managing those contracts, noting it might not be in the City's best interest, and that the Budget Oversight Committee had not jumped on that particular bandwagon. Mr. Cohen noted there may be opportunities out there as we get further into focusing on the analyses of what it will actually cost the City to do some of these things, but he did not feel it was necessarily in the City's best interest, in every case, to contract out and not do some of these things in-house. Mr. Cohen stated although he does not dispute the conclusion that BRC has done a good job within the scope of their contract with the City, it is still amazing to him that the City has been paying for these computers for SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 25 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 26 years and still do not own them. He stated you cannot blame BRC, noting they have done what their contract required, and it was not necessarily in their best interest to point out to the City that sometimes the contracts are written so that at the end of the amortization period the client actually owns the hardware. Mr. Cohen stated that even if we adopted this recommendation and ended up owning the hardware five years from now, he did not know what it would actually be worth at that time, but he noted the City has probably already paid for it at least once over. Mayor Boro felt that probably the reason the customer does not end up owning the hardware is because by the time it is paid for it is outdated and not worth anything. Mr. Reed acknowledged that on the resale market, the equipment might have little or no value, but in terms of its usefulness to the City it may, in fact, provide an adequate solution to the City's needs for several years. Mr. Reed reported they have clients who have IBM System 36's that were purchased twelve to fifteen years ago, and they are still functioning rather well. Mr. Reed stated the potential for the City to extend the useful life of the equipment is very high, suggesting in all likelihood it probably meets the City's needs for longer than a five year period. Mayor Boro noted this would lead to another of the recommendations that the City should establish a $50,000 per year replacement fund for the equipment, an amount the City is not spending now. He stated he did not agree with the premise that BRC has not met the City's needs, noting if they have not met the City's needs it is because the City has not made them meet our needs. He stated the City let them tell us what we needed, rather than having our staff take an active role, noting this was not a criticism, it just seemed to work well and they did what was best, and the City accepted that. Mr. Reed stated the contract could be expanded to have BRC address the needs of the other departments, but he suspected there would also be a corresponding increase in cost that would be even greater than the cost increases Wise Consulting Services is proposing. Councilmember Heller stated one area she would like to explore in the workshop would be having an Information Manager, and exploring the possibility of the City serving the smaller communities around us. She asked if it would be possible for us to put together our services and sell them to the surrounding cities? Mr. Reed stated that opportunity certainly exists, noting once the City gets its act together the potential would be high, but we must be able to deliver quality services to our own departments before we can sell them to third party users. He noted they believe there may be other cities out there who would at least like to participate in selected applications with us, such as GIS, where the costs would be prohibitive for them to consider, but as an extension of our GIS system, it might be feasible for them. Mayor Boro stated that, conversely, perhaps the City should investigate whether the County could meet our needs, and we would not have to get into it. Mr. Reed noted that in areas such as GIS that may be a valid possibility, but in other areas, the functions of the City do not necessarily parallel those of the County and, therefore, they do not have the necessary applications, such as in building permitting, and they would not be able to provide an adequate or appropriate building permit solution for the City. Councilmember Zappetini asked what the timeline would be for the City to make a decision on this, and when we would next have to renew our contract with BRC? Mayor Boro stated the contract with BRC expires in September, noting one of the recommendations is that the City hire someone to renegotiate the contract for us, as well as a potential recommendation that the City hire someone full-time toward the latter part of the coming fiscal year. Mr. Zappetini noted that meant the workshop would have to be scheduled soon, and Acting City Manager Golt stated the workshop should occur within a month, preferably sometime before mid-April, because these issues will also be revisited during the course of the Budget process. She stated we need to hold the workshop as soon as possible so when the Budget does roll around, we will have a better idea of what will fly and what will not, and also, before we renegotiate the contract with BRC, we need to know what we are going to negotiate. She stated time is really of the essence. Mr. Reed agreed, adding we want time to be on our side, and not to be in a situation where we feel as though we have to strike a bargain because the contract is about to expire and we do not have an alternative source of service delivery. He warned the City not to back itself into a corner where we are forced to negotiate on their terms. Mayor Boro stated the Council would not be accepting recommendations this evening, noting staff would continue with preliminary work on the budget. Acting City Manager Golt agreed, noting staff would set up a workshop. Councilmember Cohen stated he would be interested in having an E-mail address associated with the City, and asked that this be considered as part of the project. Ms. Golt stated she would look into it. 10. BUDGET OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (BOC) ANNUAL REPORT (CM/Fin) - File 9-2-48 Acting City Manager Golt complimented the members of the Budget Oversight Committee (BOC) for all of their efforts in working with the City during the past two years, noting many of the committee members were in the audience. Ms. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 26 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 27 Golt reported the BOC is entering its third year, and the purpose of this presentation is to give the Council an update of the past year, and to obtain their input concerning projects for the upcoming year. Charles Stuckey, member of the Budget Oversight Committee, addressed the Council. Reviewing the Budget Oversight Committee's report, Mr. Stuckey reported there were not many changes in the Budget and Budget Process section of the report, noting they have been concerned with the annual basis, as the budget directly related to the Data Processing, and Data Processing is handled on an annual basis. Mr. Stuckey stated the City must look further out, noting Councilmember Phillips had given the Committee additional guidelines, with which they are very much in agreement. Mr. Stuckey stated the Committee had discussed contracting out, noting they were aware Mayor Boro, in particular, was very interested in that. However, they have found it very difficult to obtain the data to compare outside costs to what the City is paying. He stated the Committee will continue working with Finance Director Coleman in reviewing the City's cost accounting. Mr. Stuckey reported they had reviewed what the County's Budget Committee had been working on over the past few years. He stated one of the things the County has been doing, which the BOC felt the City should consider, is giving the Boards and Commissions, who are advising City departments or sub -departments, the duty of reviewing and commenting on the goals, objectives and proposed budget of their departments and sub -departments. He stated the principal idea is to have more citizen participation, noting this would address Council's earlier question of how the City can get the word out and have more people involved, as this would be a major way to get people who are already interested in the City even further involved, and would increase the knowledge of the budget and the City operations beyond the small sphere where it is now contained. Referring to Data Processing, Mr. Stuckey noted what the Council had heard in the presentation by Wise Consulting Services is very much akin to the rest of the infrastructure that it being talked about in the City. He reported the City is falling behind in road repairs, and all kinds of Capital Improvements, but stated that in today's world, Data Processing is as necessary as bricks and mortar, noting that like anything else, the City must be up to date on Data Processing, because if it falls behind, it gets more and more expensive to get back up to date. Mr. Stuckey stated the BOC supports the Wise Consulting Services report, and believe it is something the City should be doing. Mr. Stuckey referred to the Hughes-Heiss report, stating the Committee had reviewed the report, which stated several years ago that the City was not spending enough money to provide all of the services it should be providing. He reported this situation has not changed. Mr. Stuckey noted one of the recommendations that had been made during the past year was a Volunteer Program, which is now up and running. Mr. Stuckey stated it remains to be seen how effective this program will be, noting it is still too early to judge. Mr. Stuckey reported the Committee had talked extensively about alternative sources of revenue, stating there are not very many. He noted there is a flea market that needs a place to locate, and if the City had the property, this would be a good source of revenue. However, he stated there are not many other alternative sources beyond that. Mr. Stuckey stated the Committee felt consolidation of services was a possibility, noting the City already has a lot of Joint Power Agreements. However, he stated the more the Committee talked about this, they realized the factor of consolidation is more a political factor than an economic one. He explained, for example, that joining two fire departments would eliminate a certain level of management and duplication, which would probably result in some savings; however, he stated the real question is, politically, do you want that done? Mr. Stuckey stated the Committee would investigate such things for various departments, if so charged by the Council, but until then, they would not pursue such issues. Mayor Boro noted another Board he and Councilmember Cohen serve on have been looking into the issue of consolidation, and have found this to be a very difficult, and political, issue. Mr. Stuckey reported the BOC prepared an editorial which appeared in the Marin Independent Journal to see what type of response they would receive, stating it is very difficult to get people interested in the budget. He stated the BOC had met with the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods and discussed the possibility of putting an insert in the Marin Independent Journal summarizing the budget. He reported the BOC and the City have also discussed developing newsletters, both externally and internally to the City. Mr. Stuckey stated an internal newsletter was important in terms of employee morale and getting the word around, as the Committee has found that employees from one department do not talk to employees from other departments, noting that is a very limiting thing. Mr. Stuckey stated, in general, the City is running efficiently, providing maximum services given the fiscal restraints. He reported finding programs to be discontinued is very difficult because of how lean the City is right now. He stated that during the next fiscal year the BOC will be working with City Staff to develop cost accounting and performance measurement procedures, and stated that to the extent possible, the BOC would like to work with other Committees, Boards and Commissions on matters relating to the budget and operations. He noted that if the BOC can get other SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 27 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 28 Boards and Commissions involved in this, through the Council's mandate, there would be a much greater citizen participation. Mr. Stuckey reported the BOC will continue working on communications, and the Long Range Budget System, noting they discussed having a more integrated system that goes all the way through the budget process, rather than just the top overview. Mr. Stuckey reported the BOC will continue working with the Data Processing Committee regarding the implementation of Long Range Plans for Data Processing, stating he felt this was very important. Mr. Stuckey, on behalf of the Budget Oversight Committee, thanked the Management of the City and expressed the BOC's appreciation for their patience and knowledge, with special thanks to Finance Director Coleman, Acting City Manager Golt, and Fire Chief Bob Marcucci, noting they had been particularly cooperative and helpful to the Committee. Mayor Boro, on behalf of the City, thanked the members of the Budget Oversight Committee, not just for meeting once a month, but also for all of the additional time they spent on various sub -committees, acknowledging the sub -committees often toil without much recognition, and stating the City is very appreciative of all of their work. Mayor Boro stated he felt it would be helpful for the Council if the Budget Oversight Committee could present their own independent assessment of the City's Long Term Capital Improvement needs, determine priorities, and make suggestions for funding these projects. Mayor Boro noted the evolution of the Budget Oversight Committee came about at the time the Council sponsored Measure K. He reported there had been questions as to how the City knew if we were operating efficiently, and as a result, the City formed the Budget Oversight Committee. Mayor Boro stated that for the last two years the Committee has reported the City is running pretty efficiently, which is great, but noted the City still has a lot of long term needs we have not been able to fund, and he felt the City really needed to look at its infrastructure, which ranges from the library to maintaining the streets. He reported other cities in the County have gone out for specific tax overrides, noting the Committee might make some assessments as to what might work for us. Mayor Boro stated when scheduling the meetings with the various Commissions, we should schedule a workshop with the Budget Oversight Committee, noting one of the goals and objectives identified for this year is for the Council to meet with each of the Commissions to discuss issues of concern to the Council and the Commission, regarding issues in their specific area of expertise. He stated he felt it would be worthwhile doing this with the Budget Oversight Committee as well. Mr. Stuckey stated this would be extremely helpful, because there are wide open areas they can look at, as well as some major constraints within which the BOC is not sure where they can move. Mayor Boro referred to the comment that people are not really interested in some of these issues, but noted there are some who are interested. He stated the Council and staff have developed goals and objectives for the coming year, and felt when the Council meets with the various Boards and Commissions, the first thing that should be done is to take five to ten minutes to review these goals and objectives, so the Budget Oversight Committee has a sense of where the City is going and how their Committee might fit into things. Acting City Manager Golt agreed this was a good idea, noting the BOC had been provided with the City's Vision, Mission Statement, and Goals and Objectives, and felt it would be very helpful to review these with each of the Boards and Commissions. Councilmember Cohen stated he was struck by the recommendation that we involve the various Boards and Commissions more in the budget process, noting the Council has been attempting to get more of a sense of what the charge is for each of the Boards and Commissions. He reported an interesting idea had been presented by the Cultural Affairs Commission to provide a job description for prospective Commissioners, noting the Commission had asked the Council to look for a candidate who was willing to put in the time that is required of the position. Mr. Cohen stated his concern was that there is just not a whole lot to squeeze out of the budget, often taking away from one project to fund another. He felt there had to be some work done with the various Commissions so they understand the context, and suggested perhaps the Budget Oversight Committee could play a role in helping the Boards and Commissions get an understanding of the overall budget picture, so that they can make a contribution and not just come in and say they want more for their particular area. Mr. Stuckey stated one of the concepts of dealing with this is not just that the Boards and Commissions must realize there are limitations and they cannot just ask for anything, but that they have the opportunity to ask for these things and then understand what the difficulties are in getting them, noting it does not take a wizard to look down the road and say that somewhere down the line we have to find another source of revenue, either a big chunk of revenue that comes in all at once, or something that happens every year. Mr. Stuckey stated the more people understand that these things they want cost money, the better chance there is for them to understand that they have to pay for it. Mayor Boro stated he had participated in this type of review while sitting on a County Commission, and felt it might be worthwhile for members of the Budget Oversight Committee to speak with some of the County's department heads, noting that while it is great to talk about these things, the frustration level gets pretty high when going through this kind of effort and then there is no money. Mayor Boro stated if the Boards and Commissions could become more involved SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 28 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 29 so they at least understood the process and become advocates for the City, then when the time comes for their special projects they would understand the need to look for other sources. Councilmember Phillips thanked Mr. Stuckey and the Budget Oversight Committee for their acceptance of the Five -Year Plan, stating they have been very open and willing to discuss the issue. He noted this will be an ongoing issue, and one that will bring into focus some of the things that have been discussed in the past, and in particular some of those items regarding long term capital needs. Mr. Phillips felt we needed to look at how all of these issues inter -relate, and how one event impacts another. He noted the City is talking about $600,000 for a computer system, and now we need to look at how this will impact other decisions the City is facing and other projects we may wish to take on. Mr. Phillips reported he is anxious to see how this progresses, and hopes we do not load too much on the Committee while it is undertaking this project, because this is a fairly major undertaking and it would be easy to become sidetracked on other issues. He stated that if this is a high priority issue, which he feels it should be, then he hopes there would not be too many additional Priority Projects interjected upon this Committee until they really get into this project, as it has many broad ramifications. Mayor Boro again thanked Mr. Stuckey and the members of the Budget Oversight Committee for their efforts, noting they are much appreciated. 12. b. REQUEST FROM SUE BEITTEL, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, FOR SPONSORSHIP OF LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION CONFERENCE 1996 - File 120 Mayor Boro explained this item was being placed on the Agenda as an Emergency Item at the request of Sue Beittel, representative of the League of Women Voters. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to add this item to the Agenda. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro None None Sue Beittel addressed the Council on behalf of the League of Women Voters, asking the Council to consider sponsorship of the Marin -Sonoma Land Use Transportation Conference to be held May 18, 1996. Ms. Beittel stated she has been meeting with a group of environmentalists and business people during the past three months, to put together this conference, which will be held at the Fireman's Fund office complex in Novato. She stated this will be very similar to a conference held in Sonoma County in February of last year, which had a great deal of participation from public officials, as well as people from the environmental and business communities, and leadership groups. Ms. Beittel stated the reason the League of Women Voters is so late in coming to the Council to ask for sponsorship of this conference is that it has taken them a while to recover from Measure A, and to come up with some good discussion points. Ms. Beittel reported the keynote speaker will be Peter Calthorpe, who is leading a Marin/Sonoma Multi -modal Study. Ms. Beittel stated the League of Women Voters would like the City of San Rafael to be listed on the program as a co-sponsor of this conference, noting two other cities have already agreed to co-sponsor the event. She stated the City of San Rafael's financial support would be very welcome, reporting the cities of Belvedere and Tiburon have each contributed $100, which includes two entrances to the conference. Ms. Beittel added the Marin Conservation League is the fiscal agent for this project, and the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents is a sponsor, as is the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce and the North Bay Council. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to contribute $100 as co-sponsor of the Marin -Sonoma Land Use Transportation Conference. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro None None a. FURTHER DISCUSSION CONCERNING MOTION ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON 2/20/96 REGARDING COUNCILMEMBER ZAPPETINI - File 9-1 Mayor Boro asked Councilmember Zappetini if he had anything to report. Councilmember Zappetini stated he has not talked to the developer or heard a word, at all, in the last four and a half weeks. He stated he did not feel that, in his position, he could pursue them, noting SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 29 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 30 they would have to pursue him, and they have not contacted him. Mr. Zappetini reported he had contacted his real estate agent prior to this meeting, but he has not heard a word. Mayor Boro stated he was thinking about the 1090" (Government Code), and if Mr. Zappetini can go after anything, whether he pursues them or they go after him at this point. Mayor Boro stated this was something Mr. Zappetini would have to decide, noting the City Attorney was not in attendance. Mr. Zappetini stated he did not believe there was a problem until a contract is actually discussed, noting you do not know until they say they are interested in pursuing a contract, and then is the time that you make your decision. Mr. Zappetini stated there is no interest at this time. Councilmember Heller stated if she had to make the kind of decision Mr. Zappetini has to make, she would certainly have her lawyer discuss it with her, and give her really good guidelines about what to do and what not to do. Mr. Zappetini reported there are now seven attorneys involved in this. c. POLICE RADIO SYSTEM WORKSHOP (Verbal) - File 4-2-233 x 4-1-467 x 9-3-30 Councilmember Heller announced a Police Radio System Workshop will be held in the Council Chamber on March 21, 1996 at 7:00 PM. She noted the Council had the County's report, and each had received a report from Commander Gene Pennington prior to this meeting. She felt the workshop would be well worth the time, noting the Police Radio Committee had worked very hard, and were looking forward to meeting with the Council. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 AM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1996 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/18/96 Page 30