HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1996-04-15SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 15, 1996 AT 8:30
PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
David J. Zappetini, Councilmember
Absent: None
Others Present: 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. Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Negotiators: Suzanne Golt/Daryl Chandler
• Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation
(Government Code Section 54956.9(c)):
a. The Kaplan Trust
City Attorney Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken.
RE: FILLING OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD VACANCY - File 9-2-39
Mayor Boro announced that at a Special Meeting held earlier this evening, the Council
appointed Peder J. Pedersen, Landscape Architect, to the Design Review Board.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
8:00 PM
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the
recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted.
Monday, March 18, 1996 and Special and Regular
Meetings of Monday, April 1, 1996 (CC)
3. Report on Fair Political Practices Commission Accepted report.
(FPPC) Annual Filings (CC) - File 9-4-3
4. Monthly Investment Report (Fin) - File 8-18 x 8-9 Accepted report.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion:
6. REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT RE: ALBERT PARK/FREITAS PARK TENNIS
COURTS RESURFACING PROJECT NO. 217-6617-8310 (BID OPENING ON TUESDAY, APRIL 9,
1996
AT 2:00 PM) (PW) - File 4-1-479 X 9-3-65 X 9-3-66 X 12-5
Mayor Boro announced this item was being removed from the Agenda and continued to
City Council meeting of 5/6/96, as a protest has been filed.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 2
8. RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST FOR FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
IN ISSUANCE OF OFF -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE AT 981 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD (SPIRIT
ENTERPRISES, INC.) (PD) - File 9-3-30
Mayor Boro announced this item is to be carried over for two weeks, with a Public
Hearing set for 5/6/96, at the request of UNOCAL's attorney.
5. RESOLUTION GIVING NOTICE TO WITHDRAW FROM THE SOLID WASTE JPA AGREEMENT,
APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. 9059 (Fin) - File 13-2 x 115
Councilmember Zappetini stated he was abstaining from this item due to conflict
of interest.
Councilmember Heller remarked this was the end of a long process the City has gone
through with the Joint Powers Agreement, stating this was going to push us forward
into a much better agreement working with the other cities. She noted Acting
City Manager Golt and Finance Director Coleman had worked very hard on this issue,
and they will keep the Council informed as we move into the next portion of the
Agreement.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution giving notice to withdraw from the Solid Waste JPA Agreement, approved
by Resolution No. 9059.
RESOLUTION NO. 9582 -RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL TERMINATING THE
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
Zappetini (due to conflict of interest)
7. RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR ANDERSEN DRIVE (PW) - File 4-15-5 x 151
X
4-1-478 (SRRA) R-246
Councilmember Zappetini stated he was abstaining from this item due to conflict
of interest.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the
Resolution entering into agreement with Marin Municipal Water District for
Construction Management Services for Andersen Drive.
RESOLUTION NO. 9583 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT
WITH MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT FOR BIDDING, CONTRACTING, AND CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT OF ANDERSEN DRIVE PROJECT AND IRWIN STREET DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, STAGE
1.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
Zappetini (due to conflict of interest)
9. Public Hearing - PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE (PPP) (P1) - File 115 (PPP)
Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and asked for the staff report.
Planning Director Robert Pendoley explained the City's General Plan sets Mid-level
of Service "D" as the desired Level of Service for freeway interchanges and major
arterials. The total amount of development that would be allowed in San Rafael
under the General Plan is balanced with planned road improvements, which means
if all of the properties are developed as called for in the General Plan, and
all of the road improvements are completed, then we would never exceed Level of
Service "D". However, the General Plan recognizes it is not possible to build
all road improvements right away and, therefore, the Plan states some type of
process should be set up to ration the amount of traffic capacity that is available
now, down to a Level of Service "D". Mr. Pendoley stated this is the origin of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 3
the Priority Projects Procedure, noting it is essentially a process whereby pending
projects above a certain threshold are evaluated against three criteria, the
ability to
provide affordable housing, to generate tax revenues, or to meet other neighborhood
serving uses. He stated the ability to meet these criteria are then evaluated
against the traffic impacts.
Mr. Pendoley reported three applications have been submitted for this round of
Priority Projects Procedure, Regency Center II Office and Child Care Center on
Smith Ranch Road, the COSTCO Project at 4300 Redwood Highway, and the Oakview
Residential and Office Project, a property which is outside of the City limits
and is before the Council under a Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Pendoley stated
the Planning Commission is recommending the Regency II Office and Child Care Center
be granted priority status. The Commission has recommended against the COSTCO
Project, based on traffic studies which showed COSTCO would cause a Level of Service
at the intersection of Freitas, Civic Center and Redwood Highway to drop to Level
of Service "F", which is obviously below the standard in the General Plan.
Mr. Pendoley reported the Planning Commission has also recommended against the
Oakview Project, simply because it seems very early in the planning process, noting
an Environmental Impact Report is nearing completion on the Oakview Project, and
while the project does offer some affordable housing, it is less than the standard
the City has set for Priority Project Procedure. Mr. Pendoley stated it appears
the Oakview Project will offer child care, but those plans are not fully developed.
It may have the potential of making property available for improvements to the
Lucas Valley/Smith Ranch Road interchange, but this has not materialized in their
plan; therefore, it seems premature.
Mr. Pendoley stated the Planning Commission endorsed the Regency Center II Office
Building because they felt it would meet an important community need, as it would
provide child care, noting the plans as approved by the Planning Commission and
Council include a 4300 square foot child care center, which would provide care
for 60 to 75 young children. Mr. Pendoley stated it has now been discovered the
location of the proposed child care center is over an old landfill site, and
reported there is a very real potential that there would be problems with methane
gas. Mr. Pendoley stated the applicants have presented a letter to the Council
with four options, which staff urges the Council to consider favorably, stating
they consider them all to be realistic, and noting any one of them could be developed
within a reasonable timeframe.
Cecilia Bridges, Attorney, addressed the Council on behalf of Regency Center II,
reporting Regency II had received all of the project approvals, but because of
the delay that occurred with the development of the new North San Rafael traffic
model, the PPP ended up following the project approval rather than preceding it.
She noted Regency II received its first PPP status in 1991, and because the market
was very poor, they did not construct the building at that time, and the PPP expired.
Ms. Bridges stated Regency Center II is in the unfortunate position of coming before
the Council with different data than they had presented to the Planning Commission
two weeks ago. She reported the Planning Commission considered the PPP on March
26th, and on March 28th, at the request of the County, soil borings were conducted
to test the methane gas content, in order to determine the location of the perimeter
of the old landfill. Ms. Bridges stated it was determined the child care center
site, which was to have been in a separate building, was actually planned to sit
on top of the old landfill, and that the methane gas levels at the site were rated
as being at the lower explosion limit level (LEL). Upon this discovery, Ms.
Bridges stated they contacted the Planning Commission, met with Mayor Boro and
Planning Director Pendoley, and have been working on options to satisfy the
community's needs in ways other than placing the child care center on the old
landfill site.
Ms. Bridges reported a letter was sent to the City on April 10th outlining four
options. She noted Option #1, which was placing the child care center on the
proposed site, was still an option at that time; however, with additional data
that has been received, this is no longer a realistic option. Ms. Bridges
acknowledged that Option #2 is very sketchy, but stated it reflected the detail
level available to them at this time, noting they have received information from
Dixie School District to try to determine if there are possible sites at some
of the Dixie Schools where space could be rented, or space that could be improved
and used as a child care center. Ms. Bridges stated it was pointed out to her
that this same question had not been asked of the San Rafael School District,
noting this could be another possibility. She would like the Council to leave
this option open, with the idea that Regency Center II could report back to the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 4
City within sixty days with additional information.
Ms. Bridges reported Options #3 and #4 are funding options; Option #3 is to fund
a scholarship program to the Marin Education Fund Child Care Scholarship Program,
in the amount of $250,000, to be designated for the North San Rafael community
only. Option #4 is a funding option for $250,000 toward a permanent building
for the Canal
Child Care Center, which they understand is a great need of the City. Ms. Bridges
stated the $250,000 contribution would represent one-half to two-thirds of the
amount needed to build the facility. Ms. Bridges stated they believe the City
has the option of choosing the fourth option because when the PPP was first
developed in 1989, the Neighborhood Serving Use category was an additional category
that was added because they knew the Tax Generating Uses served the entire City
and was easy to measure, as was the Affordable Housing category. They had tried
to come up with a category that would address Office Uses, noting at first, they
had tried to address this category in terms of jobs, but were unable to develop
the proper language, so the category was changed to Neighborhood Uses. Ms. Bridges
stated she believes that under the language in this category, the City can provide
City-wide benefits from this PPP designation, and could designate those benefits
to go to the Canal Child Care Center.
Ms. Bridges asked that the Council give Recency Center II the ability to pursue
these three options, noting she would like to have at least two, but three would
be even better. They would like to report back to the Council, not for PPP status,
but to report which of the three options they have been able to work out. She
noted it was her understanding, from working with staff, the three options are
all of equivalent value as to what they provide in addressing the child care needs
of the City.
Councilmember Heller asked if there might be additional options, such as other nearby
land which might be available for the child care site? Ms. Bridges stated there
was no other available land on this site, pointing out the landfill area on the
map, and noting the sites of the two office buildings are the only parcels of
land that are not landfill. Ms. Heller asked how the $250,000 figure specified
for Options #3 and #4 was arrived at, noting she was not certain that was comparable
to having a child care center. With regard to Option #3, Ms. Bridges stated a
calculation was arrived at after discussions with the Planning Commission, and
was based upon a five to ten year life of the child care center for sixty children,
and a 10% value of scholarships. Ms. Bridges reported that when it was determined
they could not do this after all, they tried to convert this calculation into
dollars, based on what it would cost in terms of improvements and the installation
of portables to provide child care. She stated that after working with Recreation
Director Sharon McNamee, she arrived at a figure of $250,000. Ms. Bridges reported
that in the case of Option #4, $250,000 would be approximately one-half the cost
of the Canal Child Care Center.
Councilmember Zappetini asked if the Regency Theater was built on landfill, and
Ms. Bridges reported that it was. Mr. Zappetini asked how the Regency Theater
was able to mitigate the problem and build on the site, but Regency Center II
cannot? Ms. Bridges explained the problem in this case was the difference in
a use that allows babies and children to be in a theater for a period of two or
three hours, versus a child in a space every day. Mr. Zappetini asked if this
was a case where the problem could be mitigated, but there would still be a risk
the City does not want to be involved with? Ms. Bridges stated that was correct,
noting the engineers have highly recommended a child care center not be built
on this site.
Councilmember Phillips asked if Ms. Bridges had received the Engineer's Report,
and she replied she had just received a copy of it. Mr. Phillips stated he assumed
Planning Director Pendoley had not yet had a chance to see and review the report,
and Ms. Bridges stated that was correct, but noted the Planning Commission had
received the draft tables and maps.
Councilmember Cohen referred to Ms. Bridges' letter of April 10th in which she
suggested funding for a site on Dixie School District property, either to lease
space held by the School District or for portable buildings. He asked if there
has been any discussion or exploration in determining if suitable property might
be available for lease in the Northgate Business Park, or some other area in North
San Rafael? Ms. Bridges responded this has not yet been done, noting they had
gone directly to the School District in looking for an alternate site.
Mayor Boro stated it appeared the sense of the Council is that Regency Center II
would look at the three proposals a little further, and then see if there are
other locations in the North San Rafael area that might be available for the child
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 5
care center. Ms. Bridges stated they would do that, if the Council so chooses.
Albert Bianchi, Attorney, addressed the Council, representing the Marin Technology
Center, stating the Marin Technology Center has approximately 450,000 square feet
of space in two buildings, and reported approximately 20,000 square feet of that
space is still vacant. Mr. Bianchi stated it is not the intention of Marin
Technology Center to object to the Regency II project, nor to impede its progress
through the
planning process, noting they support the project and have no problem with it.
However, Mr. Bianchi stated their request has to do with the cooperation of the
City with respect to traffic, noting the traffic problem is particularly severe
in the area coming off Highway 101, going down Lucas Valley Road, and attempting
to turn off Lucas Valley Road and toward Las Gamos Drive. Mr. Bianchi stated
they are suggesting a sophisticated stop light be installed to assist that traffic,
and to keep it from backing up onto Highway 101, particularly during the morning
hours. Mr. Bianchi stated they commissioned DKS Associates to prepare a traffic
study, and quoted from the report, "When reviewing the traffic modeling and
analysis report, the southbound off -ramp from U.S. Highway 101 to Lucas Valley
Road did show a major change in delay for vehicles turning left from the off -ramp
onto Lucas Valley Road. During the AM Peak Period, this would likely result in
traffic backing up onto the highway." Mr. Bianchi noted this would be a highly
undesirable situation, stating the report continues, "Staff is undertaking a
project to install a new traffic light at that intersection that will reduce the
delay at the intersection and avoid any back-ups onto the freeway. Staff has
indicated that this project will be undertaken in the immediate future, so as
to be operating when Regency II is ready for occupancy. However, no formal action
has been taken by the City Council to approve this signal, and authorize design
and construction." Mr. Bianchi stated they are suggesting to Mayor Boro and the
Council, as a condition of the Regency Center II Project going forward, which
will obviously impact this same intersection, that the stop light be approved
by the City Council, and the two projects be linked together so they can be certain
that when Regency II opens its doors for occupancy, this light will have been
installed, and the traffic danger thereby reduced accordingly.
Bonnie Brown, business owner in the North San Rafael area, addressed the Council,
stating she felt it was strange the report stated it had just recently been
determined that methane gas was located at the site, when the people who live
in North San Rafael have known about the methane gas at the Regency Center Theater
for years. She stated, speaking as a parent who has already raised a child, it
is really desirable to be able to have the child care center where you work, noting
often times the parent is carrying a sleeping child to the center, and then must
park, get the child settled, and then drive to another location for work, with
no option of visiting with the child at lunchtime, or having any connection with
them all day long. Ms. Brown felt it was very desirable to have a child care
center at the work site if at all possible, and believed that had been the intent
of this whole project. She asked why it was any more dangerous for a child to
be in this building than for anyone else to be in the building, noting it was
terrible when anyone was hurt. She stated she did not understand the law or ruling
that there cannot be a child care center at the site. Ms. Brown stated it would
be more in perpetuity for the North San Rafael area to have a child care center
in the building, the intent being that people do not have the high cost of rent
and can operate continuously for the life of the building. Ms. Brown stated she
liked the project and did not want to see it held up, but felt the intent was
being diluted.
Brian Eisberg, commercial real estate, addressed the Council, stating he was
representing the Marin Technology Center to voice his support for Mr. Bianchi's
request for a signal. Mr. Eisberg stated he has been asked, by a major employer
in the area, for child care services as close to the site as possible, and he
would like to encourage that consideration be given to the option of child care
sites in the immediate area. Mr. Eisberg reported he has been doing a survey
of available sites, noting he has found a few that may qualify. He stated that,
rather than seeing a child care center plugged back into the canal, he would like
to speak on behalf of the North San Rafael business community, noting the original
intent of the child care center was to better serve the business community.
Sam Cogswell, Vice -President of Captain's Cove Homeowners' Association, addressed
the Council, reporting Captain's Cove was originally built on this same dump site
in 1985. He stated the residents have a whole set of strict limitations and
configurations regarding the properties, with special conditions regarding
protection against the methane gas, as well as a rigorous testing schedule in
order to ensure safety of all of the homeowners, and noted they do have small
children and pets who live there. Mr. Cogswell stated he must express some concern
if, for some reason, the 1985 levels are no longer sufficient enough to use as
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 6
a blueprint to
approve a similar project on the same dump site, and noted he would be interested
in any new updates that might affect their own project. Mr. Cogswell recommended
looking back at the restrictions and stipulations regarding Captain's Cove, which
he felt might help to provide Regency II with additional information to possibly
move forward.
Ms. Bridges cited the Engineer's Report, which states, "Methane was found above
the State of California's maximum allowable concentration of 25%, 50,000 parts
per million (PPM) volume, as stated in Title 14, California Code." Ms. Bridges
explained the upper explosion limit is 150,000 PPM , noting the levels at the site
of the Child Care Center are in the 50,000 PPM level, and the critical area is
in the 50,000 to 150,000 PPM range. Continuing with the engineer's report she
quoted, "Due to the potential for gas migration into the building through the
floor and
utility corridors, the location of the day care center on top of the landfill, child
safety, and potential unknown health effects on children, Kleinfelder recommends
that the day care center not be built on or around the San Rafael Landfill. If,
however, the building must be built at the proposed location on the San Rafael
Landfill, it is recommended that the following mitigation measures be followed:
installing utility collars or barriers within the building or outside in trenches,
installing flexible membrane liners under the building, installing an active
collection system, installing explosive gas monitoring and an alarm system,
providing ventilation for the building and utilities, an operation and maintenance
program, flexible utility pipe lines, developing an emergency contingency plan,
and periodic maintenance of the site." Ms. Bridges stated, as she understands
from the engineers, you can develop an active collection system, and a monitoring
and alarm system, as has been done at Captain' s Cove and the Regency Center Theater,
to make sure you know what is happening. However, the problem is that utility
pipe lines, if they develop a break in them, can act as an unknown conduit for
the methane gas, and can cause an explosion. Therefore, Ms. Bridges explained,
it is not that the problem cannot be mitigated, noting we know it can be mitigated,
as shown at Captain's Cove. She stated the difference in the recommendation is
because these are toddlers and children we are dealing with, and the question
is, whether we deal differently with sites where we place our children all day
long, every day?
Councilmember Zappetini asked if the required standards are higher for schools and
day care facilities than for apartments or theaters? Ms. Bridges stated she could
not answer that question, noting they had not gotten a written opinion from the
State of California Child Care Council regarding this issue, but they had spoken
to several people who stated their concerns, and she has advised her clients that
there is great concern over placing children at a site where they know there is
a safety factor. She acknowledged her clients knew the City most likely would
not want to take this action, knowing what they now know.
Mayor Boro asked the status of the traffic light. Mr. Pendoley reported that when
the traffic studies were prepared to support the Priority Projects Analysis and
Recommendations, one of the assumptions the City's Traffic Engineer required to
be included in the report was that there would be a temporary traffic light at
the location specified by Mr. Bianchi, and noted the Public Works Department is
actively working on the design of the light. Councilmember Heller noted Mr.
Pendoley had referred to a temporary traffic light, and asked for a timeframe.
Public Works Director David Bernardi stated there would be a temporary light until
the ultimate improvements are constructed for the Lucas Valley Interchange and
the Southbound on-ramp. Mr. Bernardi reported the project has already been
designed and approved by CalTrans , and the City is now trying to secure the funding
for the ultimate improvements. There are sufficient funds in the traffic
mitigation account, which have been collected from past developments, and which
will fund the temporary improvements at this location. Mayor Boro asked if the
permanent improvements will be concurrent with the occupancy of the building,
and Mr. Bernardi stated they anticipate the temporary signal system will be
installed within eight to ten months.
Mr. Bianchi stated they are asking that the two events be interlocked in such a
way as to make certain there is no slip between now and the time both projects
are completed. He further stated he assumed that although this stop light is
designated as a temporary light, it will have all of the "smart light" features,
such as sensors and the like, to make this a superbly functioning interchange
and stop light arrangement. Public Works Director Bernardi stated the City does
have to work with CalTrans, because it is their off -ramp and they have to approve
whatever is done at their location. Mr. Bernardi stated the City fully anticipates
their cooperation.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 7
Councilmember Phillips stated he was uncertain if it would be appropriate to tie
these two issues together, as the City is undertaking the implementation and
placement of the light, while the approval and development of the Pell building
seems to be a separate issue and not necessarily an issue to be tied together.
Mayor Boro asked what happened at the Planning Commission in reviewing the PPP
process, and whether this light had been considered part of the process, or was
a separate issue? He stated he realized Mr. Bianchi was trying to link the two
issues, but asked if the light was a requirement as far as the approval now before
the Council? Planning Director Pendoley stated the issue of the light was not
a
requirement for approval, noting the Public Works Department had determined it was
time to install the traffic light, and it was simply included in the analysis of
Regency II and its impact on the intersection. Mr. Pendoley reiterated it is
not a condition of approval, rather it was determined that traffic in the entire
area would warrant a signal at this time.
Public Works Director Bernardi recommended the light not be tied to the project,
because of the uncertainty of dealing with CalTrans, and the actual doing of the
project itself will likely be the easiest part, while dealing with CalTrans is
going to be the hard part. He stated the items his department will be bringing
to the Council, with regard to the approval of the design, will be a clear
demonstration that staff will be moving forward with this item.
Mr
Bianchi stated the Council had a dual responsibility here, noting they have
the responsibility under the Priority Projects Procedure to go forward with the
Regency Center II, but also have a responsibility to provide for traffic safety
in that area. He stated those two items are inexplicably intertwined, noting if
the City is going to put in a 120,000 square foot office building and add that
to the load, plus the additional couple of thousand square feet at the Marin
Technology Center, which will be added when that building is renovated and filled,
then there is a responsibility to concurrently act with the traffic light. Mr.
Bianchi stated he did not care if the City ties these two items together formally,
or makes it a condition of approval, so long as there is a common understanding
that one does not occur without the other, because if it does, then one part of
the City's responsibility is not being fulfilled.
Mayor Boro asked if at the time the traffic model was run and Regency Center II
was approved, did we assume the traffic light would be operational or not? Public
Works Director Bernardi stated we did not make that assumption. Mr. Bianchi stated
that was why the study done by DKS shows there is going to be a significant impact
from Regency Center II on this intersection, noting it will be an even greater
impact than is being experienced today because there will be another 220,000 square
feet at the Marin Technology Center that is about to be filled. He stated the
City will have a problem, and he does not like the idea of dividing these into
two separate issues. Mayor Boro stated there are a lot of problems in that area
with traffic, and the whole purpose of the traffic model is to indicate to the
City what will and will not work at different levels. Mayor Boro reported the
traffic model was run for Regency Center II, and did not assume that the traffic
light was necessary. Mr. Bernardi confirmed this was correct, noting the traffic
distribution was done on the basis that all of the intersections would be working
meeting the Council's goal of Mid-level Service "D".
Mr. Bernardi stated the reason the City is putting the signal in is because of other
issues in the area, not because of Regency Center II, noting if the signal was
the result of Regency Center II, it would have been attached to their Conditions
of Approval and they would be required to spend the money to install the signal.
Mr. Bernardi reported Regency Center II will be paying mitigation fees, and that
account will partially off -set the cost of the signal. Mr. Bianchi stated if
Regency Center II does go onto this site, then the light must be there in order
to make the intersection function. Mayor Boro stated he was being told by staff
that this was not their opinion. Mr. Bianchi stated he believed it was staff's
opinion, and that they agreed traffic on Southbound Highway 101 is likely to back
up on the basis of the addition of this extra office space.
Councilmember Phillips stated he had understood the traffic light was considered
to be in place when the traffic model was run for this project. Mr. Pendoley
stated he had answered the earlier question incorrectly, noting it had been his
understanding, from working with the traffic engineer, that the signal had been
included in the traffic analysis. Mr. Bernardi reported Regency Center II was
included when the baselines were run for the various scenarios, and at this
particular intersection, the entire intersection, as a whole, is at a Level of
Service "B", with Regency Center II included; however, the left turn portion of
the intersection is at Level of Service "F". Mayor Boro asked for clarification
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 8
on staff's recommendation, asking if the PPP process should be granted with or
without the stop light being
built concurrent to occupancy, noting it was his understanding that the light was
not included in the approval. Mr. Bernardi responded this was correct. Mayor
Boro stated Mr. Bianchi's concerns were understood, but it was not a requirement
for the PPP process before the Council.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the left turn portion of the intersection being
at Level of Service "F", and asked if Regency Center II would add to the left
turn movements onto Lucas Valley Road? Mr. Bernardi stated it would not
significantly
add to the left turn movement on Lucas Valley Road. Mr. Cohen stated this was an
important distinction, acknowledging the intersection is impacted by traffic,
and a
stop light needs to be installed as quickly as the City can reasonably make that
happen. However, he stated that under environmental review, this was not a
mitigation that was identified, nor was a mitigation requested by staff during project
review. Mr. Cohen felt an argument could also be made that the 200,000 square
feet not yet occupied at Marin Technology Center should be limited until the light
is installed. Mr. Cohen stated he was not proposing that this be done, but was
proposing the issue raised by Mr. Bianchi should be recognized, and staff should
be directed to proceed as quickly as possible with this issue, noting the funding
is
already there, and the only issue is the design work and the approval of CalTrans.
Mr. Cohen felt if the point is made to CalTrans that absent the stop light the
occupancy of both of these projects is likely to result in traffic backing up
onto the freeway, it should motivate CalTrans to work with the City and move quickly
to install the stop light. Mr. Cohen stated he saw no reason why the City could
not proceed on this issue with all due speed, but noted he saw no need to tie
that action to the Regency Center II Project.
Councilmember Cohen stated he believes there must be a definition for "Office Use",
and a method for attracting this type of project if the City is designating it
as a priority, and for attracting and retaining the kind of users we are getting,
companies such as Regency Center II, Marin Technology Center, and AutoDesk. He
noted that because we lack a solid definition for "Office Use", when this project
was designed, it was designed with the qualifications that are listed in the General
Plan, one of which is "Neighborhood Serving Use". Mr. Cohen stated his
understanding has always been that this designation referred to the neighborhood
where the impact is felt, and in this case, that would be North San Rafael. He
stated he supports the Regency Center II project, and feels the combination of
market forces, along with the City's own struggles in obtaining a working traffic
model that we are comfortable with, have really created undue delays for the
project. He stated the City should grant the request that the project receive
approval.
Referring to the letter requesting direction on the options provided for child care,
Councilmember Cohen stated he felt the highest priority should be placed on
providing child care in the immediate area of the project, noting it is unfortunate
that child care cannot be provided on-site. However, Mr. Cohen agreed the City
should not mandate a child care center be placed on a site where children may
be placed at risk. Mr. Cohen felt the intent was to obtain as much affordable
child care as we can get, and forcing the project proponents to spend a lot of
extra money building a very expensive building which includes all the mitigations
for methane gas, rather than spending the money on child care, does not make good
sense. Mr. Cohen stated that unless all the other options were determined not
to be feasible, he was not in favor of using this to fund child care in the Canal
area, noting as great as that need may be, the City will look for other ways to
fund that need. Mr. Cohen stated he is least swayed by the notion of child care
scholarships, noting he would rather focus on providing the space for a child
care program as near to the facility as possible, as this is most in keeping with
the original intent. Mr. Cohen stated he felt the Council should allow the project
to proceed, Priority status should be granted, and the direction should be that
all effort be made to find a location for child care as close as possible to the
site of this project.
Councilmember Heller stated her preference of the four available options would be
funding for a child care center at any San Rafael school that might be able to
have child care, noting there are some North of the hill, and she agreed it is
in the best interest to keep it in the neighborhood that it serves, because that
is where the parents are going to be. Ms. Heller stated she would definitely
like to see if there is another site there, as that is the perfect location and
the need has been expressed for child care. She agreed the PPP process should
not be held up for this one issue.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 9
Councilmember Phillips stated he was also in favor of the project, and was not in
favor of tying approval to the installation of the traffic signal, although he
did see the merit in having the two developed simultaneously, noting he would
encourage that this take place. Regarding the child care options, Mr. Phillips
stated he was
skeptical of Option #2, as Dixie School District already supports child care, and
it might be too much of a stretch to see that program further developed; therefore,
he would encourage the applicant to consider the more immediate Smith Ranch area
to see if there might be a location there, noting he agreed there was merit in
having child care in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Phillips stated the child care
scholarships was not a solution he would prefer, as he would rather have an actual
physical facility and operators in place to provide for this need.
Councilmember Zappetini stated he felt Regency Center II was a project that needs
to be done and he supports it, noting that in this day and age where both husband
and wife have to work, the closer the child care center can be located to the
workplace the better it is going to be.
Mayor Boro stated he concurred with the comments made, but felt it would be worthwhile
to explore other possibilities for the location of the child care center, based
on information he has received in studies independent of this project, which show
that parents do not necessarily want child care at the work locations, they would
rather have child care closer to home. He stated this should also be kept in
mind, although he did agree that the child care center should be located somewhere
in the Terra Linda Valley. Mayor Boro stated he believed the sense of the Council
was to try to provide a child care facility somewhere in the immediate area, but
noted he has discovered, through discussion with Ms. Bridges, employers, and child
care providers, that most of the locations in San Rafael where child care is on
site are very underused by the employees, and are used by the residents in the
neighborhood.
Shirley Fischer, San Rafael resident, addressed the Council, stating she supported
a facility in the area that would serve both the local residents who are commuting
out and employees commuting into the area, noting the overall hope was that this
would become a permanent, additional facility, lasting beyond the ten year
requirement. She asked if a new location must be found for the child care center,
what will be the status of the piece of landfill that was to have been used for
the child care center? Mayor Boro stated he could not speak for the applicant,
but it was his understanding that nothing would be built on that site, and Ms.
Bridges stated that was correct. Ms. Fischer noted, in that case, the additional
traffic that would have been attributed to the child care center would not exist,
and Mayor Boro stated that was correct.
Mayor Boro noted the second PPP project before the Council was the COSTCO project,
and asked Mr. Pendoley for his report.
Mr. Pendoley reported this proposal is for an approximate 125,000 square foot retail
outlet on the old Fairchild site. He stated this project certainly qualifies
as a revenue generator, noting a minimum of $300,000 annually in sales tax has
been estimated. However, the traffic analysis shows it would cause a Level of
Service "F" at the intersection of Freitas, Civic Center and Redwood Highway.
Based on this information, the Planning Commission has recommended against the
project. Mr. Pendoley reported that during the Planning Commission hearing, the
representative from COSTCO had pointed out that they believed they had a mitigation
measure that would bring the intersection to at least a Level of Service "D".
Mr. Pendoley stated it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this
kind of option should be evaluated when the project is examined on its merits,
probably as part of an environmental review. Therefore, the Planning Commission
recommended denial without prejudice.
Councilmember Phillips asked for clarification of "denial without prejudice". Mr.
Pendoley explained this meant the Council's ruling would allow COSTCO to reapply
for Priority status at a later date, stating there is nothing in the rules that
state a property owner cannot reapply.
Jay Paxton, Attorney representing COSTCO Wholesale Corporation, addressed the
Council, explaining their request at this time is, rather than denying COSTCO's
application, the City continue the issue for an indefinite period, subject to
the Council bringing it back to their own Agenda by a majority vote of the Council.
Mr. Paxton reported the traffic model which has been prepared took a tremendous
amount of time and effort, and has been most carefully reviewed and laboriously
worked on. He stated the traffic report presented to the Council shows COSTCO
would cause one segment of the Freitas Interchange to fail under the Highway
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 10
Capacity Manual analysis, noting this involved the move from Civic Center Parkway
up to Redwood Highway. Mr. Paxton stated they believe this could be easily
mitigated by adding a single, extra Northbound lane from Freitas Parkway to the
general vicinity of the new Northbound off -ramp from Redwood Highway onto U.S.
Highway 101. Mr. Paxton stated it is the addition of this new off -ramp that causes
this to be a problem move, noting this was not a move that anyone expected would
be a problem until this analysis was run.
Mr. Paxton noted that if this mitigation measure is approved after thorough study
in an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) , which Mr. Paxton felt it certainly would
be, then COSTCO is asking the Council for the procedural power, with no obligation,
to reopen the PPP Hearing if the Council chooses to do so. He stated that if
the environmental analysis shows the traffic works, and the Council decides the
benefitsto the City of having COSTCO are persuasive to the Council, and they wish
to approve the project, COSTCO is asking that the Council reserve the power to
grant the PPP approval at a later time. Mr. Paxton stated the reason for that
is very simple; if the Council decides to grant the project and thinks it should
go forward, it would not seem to be in the interest of the City, and certainly
not in the
interest of the applicant, to delay the project commencing. Mr. Paxton noted the
City usually begins its PPP process in January of each year, and it usually takes
four to six months to call for proposals, accept applications, analyze the
applications, and hold the hearings before the Planning Commission and then the
City Council. Mr. Paxton stated COSTCO would like the Council to reserve, to
themselves, the discretion to grant the PPP if they should make all of the other
decisions and decided they would like to have this project in San Rafael, thus
avoiding another six months of delay. Mr. Paxton stated this is entirely within
the Council's discretion, noting that if another project wants to compete, the
Council will know about it, and may even find that there is a contest. Mr. Paxton
stated if the
Council finds there are others in a position to compete for that traffic, the Council
would have the discretion of not calling back the COSTCO proposal and waiting
until January for another round of PPP applications. Mr. Paxton stressed his
request would place the Council under no obligation, it would merely reserve the
discretion to make a decision after thoroughly studying the project, and to avoid
any unnecessary delays.
Councilmember Zappetini stated Mr. Paxton had requested the Council make a decision
after an investigation of the proposal, which Mr. Zappetini noted had already
been done, and asked Mr. Paxton if he would be bringing in additional information?
Mr. Paxton stated that what had been done in the PPP process was to run the traffic
model as it now sits, based on the existing configuration of the interchange.
He stated COSTCO is suggesting there is a very simple mitigation measure for
the new problem that has been discovered, the one Northbound move. However, this
mitigation measure must be evaluated through the EIR process for the project.
Mr. Paxton reported this evaluation has not yet been conducted, except by their
own consultants, who indicated it is feasible and simple, and that it might as
well be a part of the overall solution to the Freitas Interchange problem.
Robert Berry, Downtown San Rafael property owner, addressed the Council, noting
that if this project is allowed to proceed, it would grant the City of San Rafael
some great tax revenues. He stated, as a Downtown property owner he would like
to see the parking meters removed from the Downtown area, noting he felt granting
COSTCO's application would be a way to accomplish this, as the income loss from
the parking meters could be made up by the issuance of permit to allow COSTCO
to operate their store. Mr. Berry asked the Council to consider this idea.
Mayor Boro stated the issue now before the Council was not the merits of COSTCO,
but the issue of PPP approval, noting the Planning Commission has made their
recommendation. He stated the environmental issue, as COSTCO's attorney has
already pointed out, is a separate issue, and although traffic will be considered,
the only issue before the Council at this time is PPP status.
Shirley Fischer stated the framework of the Priority Projects Procedure should be
held to, and noted the Council already has the authority to reconsider this project
if it comes back in a viable mode for another round of applications. Ms. Fischer
stated as she looks at the traffic analysis, it is not only the Northbound Redwood
Highway to Civic Center Drive lane that becomes Level of Service "F", noting the
area Mr. Paxton is proposing to widen is Southbound from Redwood Highway to Civic
Center Drive. She noted this widening would include massive cutting into the
hillside and retaining walls, items which were a major part increasing the budget
from $2 million to $6 million in order to improve the interchange. She stated
the Northbound lane from Civic Center Drive also becomes Level of Service "F",
as well as the left turn from Freitas Parkway over to Civic Center Drive; and
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 11
Redwood Highway also becomes Level of Service "F", noting she has been working
for a long time trying to find a way to make this intersection not be a Level
of Service 'IF", although the viability of it happening in the near future is really
quite questionable, and should be considered within the context of other viable
projects for the intersection.
Harry Winters addressed the Council on behalf of the West End Neighborhood, stating
he believed the basis of the PPP process is traffic. He noted the City and staff
have taken the position that these projects have to address a Mid-level of Service
"D". He reported that a month ago, in adopting the Downtown Plan, staff took a
position recommending Level of Service "E", which is documented as increasing
the congestion of intersection traffic by approximately 50%, yet the Negative
Declaration stated this difference was not significant. Mr. Winters reported
the statement was also made that traffic congestion is an indication of economic
vitality, noting that when he attempted to defend the Mid-level of Service "D"
in the Downtown area, the City took the position that more traffic congestion
was just
going to have to be accepted in order to ensure the City's economic viability.
Mr. Winters stated he felt the City had to address the fact that they cannot take
a position leaning in one direction, and then a month later take a different
position with the PPP process, stating they must take a consistent position.
Mayor Boro stated he supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission, noting
the merit of the issue before Council is the traffic issue, and he believed "Denial
Without Prejudice" gives the applicant the opportunity to come back at any time
in the PPP process, and also allows them to go forward with the EIR process and
look at other alternatives if they so choose. Mayor Boro stated he believed the
interest of the public is best served, with respect to the PPP as we know it,
with the model as it was run for the conditions that currently exist there, and
felt the recommendation of the Planning Commission should be upheld.
Councilmember Cohen stated there was nothing simple about that intersection, and
did not believe there are simple mitigations, noting he would not be prepared
to consider a mitigation that would add a lane, or an auxiliary lane, at one part
of the intersection without dealing with an overall solution. Regarding the issue
of delay and a continuance, in terms of its impact, he referred to the Resolution
before the Council adopting the PPP, citing the last paragraph of Section 5 which
reads, "A Priority Projects selection procedure shall be conducted annually, or
at such more frequent intervals as the City Council may, from time to time,
establish", noting he felt this clearly states that if the scenario Mr. Paxton
laid out was to come to pass, and the project were to go through Environmental
Review and meet with approval, and the City was eager to see it go forward, then
there is nothing that would prevent the Council from immediately calling for a
Priority Project determination, and then forty-five days after the call for
applications the procedure would close and the Council could consider the
application at that time. Mr. Cohen stated the Council does not need to adopt
a continuance, a procedure that is not in the Resolution, in order to address
the timing issues.
Mr. Cohen referred to Ms. Fischer's comments regarding the impact on the procedure
itself, noting this was developed as a way to allocate existing and/or identified
near-term capacity within our circulation system. He noted this is what the
Council is being asked to do, not to continue the issue to see if there might
be other ways of adding capacity to the system that have not already been evaluated.
He stated if there are alternatives that have not yet been considered, then those
alternatives should be brought to the City, and staff will analyze them and they
will go through Environmental Review. The City should not hold out an opening,
reserved for COSTCO without competition, in the event they can identify mitigation
the City has not currently identified. Mr. Cohen stated he felt the Council should
support the Planning Commission' s recommendation, and deny the application without
prejudice.
Councilmember Zappetini stated, as a businessman, he liked the idea of having extra
tax dollars available; however, he stated he also felt there are a lot of problems
that would have to be addressed. Mr. Zappetini noted he would like to see the
Environmental Impact Report process completed, stating that if, indeed, there
is a way and an opportunity for this project, he would like to leave that option
open. Mr. Zappetini stated he supported the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
Councilmember Heller stated she, too, supported the Planning Commission's
recommendation, noting it was her understanding that since the City now has the
traffic model in place and adopted, this process could be reopened at anytime,
and saw no advantage to table this issue for a specific time. Ms. Heller stated,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 12
in the future, she would like to know of any other projects that might come before
the City and the Planning Department, in addition to the Oakview Project, noting
there may be others that are on the table that she was unaware of.
Councilmember Phillips stated he felt it would be premature to grant PPP status
to COSTCO, with all of the unknowns and without the assurance of traffic capacity.
He stated he felt the PPP process, on an annual basis, creates a level playing
field for all applicants to prepare and present their proposals at that time,
for the Council to weigh one against the other, noting this seemed to be a reasonable
process, and one that has worked well in the past. Councilmember Phillips stated
he supported the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Mayor Boro announced the last item of consideration was the Oakview Project.
Planning Director Pendoley reported the Oakview Project is located within the County
at the Northwest quadrant of the intersection at Lucas Valley/Smith Ranch Road
and Highway 101. He stated the proposal is for seventy-one residential units,
and approximately 93,000 square feet of office space. Mr. Pendoley noted this
project
has a number of factors which may qualify it for Priority status; however, the project
is simply not fully developed and is still in the early planning process,
and the Planning Commission would recommend that it is not timely to grant PPP status
at this time. Mr. Pendoley stated the biggest benefit of this project could be
its ability to make ten acres available for construction of the Southbound
off -ramp.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to direct staff to
prepare a Resolution granting Priority Status to Regency Center II, and denying
without prejudice the COSTCO and Oakview Projects, noting the Resolution should
include discussion of the options, as discussed, for alternatives to the provision
of child care, relative to the Regency Center II project. Mayor Boro directed
staff to make every effort to expedite the installation of the traffic signal.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
OLD BUSINESS
11. FURTHER DISCUSSION RE: LOCH LOMOND UNIT #10 BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING
LOCATION (P1) - File 5-1-297
Councilmember Zappetini stated he was abstaining from this item due to conflict
of interest, and left the Council Chamber.
Planning Director Pendoley reported this item had last been discussed at the City
Council meeting of February 5th, at which time there was a great deal of input
and expressions of concern from the residents of Villa Real, as well as other
interested persons. Mr. Pendoley recalled the Council had directed staff to
report back on the preferences to City employees, to prepare fact sheets on the
Affordable Housing Mandate issued by the State of California, and a fact sheet
on Affordable Housing in San Rafael. Mr. Pendoley noted the Council also asked
staff to explore the options for other sites. He stated the City already has
a contract which commits the property owner to building an affordable triplex
on Lot #9, explaining the City has limited discretion to unilaterally change that
contract.
Mr. Pendoley reported there are currently three lots that are either not under option,
have not been sold, or are not in escrow, identifying them as Lots #8, #9, and
#17. Mr. Pendoley stated that in the staff report he had outlined problems with
the design of a triplex on Lot #17, recalling that when the Design Review Board
and Planning Department staff looked at this a couple of years ago, they looked
for sites that would not tend to emphasize the mass of what has to be a large
building. Therefore, he stated, all of the sites that were looked at were downhill
lots, meaning lots that slope down from the street, and present less building
to the street. Mr. Pendoley reported the chief disadvantage of Lot #17 is that
it is an uphill lot, which would exaggerate the size of any building, and stated
they did explore, in more depth, the design of a triplex on Lot #8. He noted
Lot #8 had the advantage of being a downhill lot; however, it is a long lot at
the end of the subdivision, and the building envelope is at right angles to the
subdivision bulb, which makes it very difficult to put a good front on the building,
and after many attempts, staff could not arrive at a successful way to design
this building that would give an obvious front. Therefore, Mr. Pendoley reported
it was staff's recommendation that Lot #9, from a design point of view, still
provided the best opportunity to design a triplex that is most complimentary to
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 13
the other homes in the subdivision.
Mr. Pendoley reported that since the Council last met on this issue, two additional
questions have come up. He stated the first question concerns access, noting
a letter had been received from the Villa Real Homeowners Association pointing
out the developer had not granted himself an access easement for Lot #9 to the
driveway bordering the property line. Mr. Pendoley reported that driveway offered
a big advantage, as it provided a way to get to the two twin two -car garages that
would service the majority of the units. Mr. Pendoley stated that after a great
deal of
exploration, it was found the problem could be solved by simply moving the building
fifteen feet, which would create enough space on the lot for a driveway to run
parallel to the driveway that was originally intended for use, but is owned by
others. Mr. Pendoley noted the design for this lot will remain the same in all
other respects.
Mr. Pendoley recalled there had been a good deal of concern expressed by the neighbors
regarding the need for additional off-street parking for Lot #9. Mr. Pendoley
stated this need can be met, noting it is possible to do a minor lot line adjustment
with the adjoining Lot #8, which the developer still owns, and which would create
and makes available a flat spot for additional off-street parking.
Councilmember Heller asked about the owner of the neighboring property who had offered
to make part of his property available in exchange for the City making his street
a public street. Mr. Pendoley stated the advantage would be that it would allow
the original design to proceed exactly as it was presented to the Design Review
Board; however, the disadvantage is that it leaves the City with the responsibility
to service a street that is only fronting three homes, and Mr. Pendoley stated
that would probably not be cost effective, and the Public Works Department would
not recommend it.
Mayor Boro asked if it was Mr. PendoleyI s recommendation to move the building fifteen
feet, and Mr. Pendoley responded that it was. Mr. Pendoley emphasized that a
Public Hearing before the Planning Commission would be required before a decision
could be made to grant this permit.
Mayor Boro referred to a letter of February 28, written by the Villa Real Homeowners
Association, which addressed the issues of emergency safety vehicles and the
Mello -Roos District. Mr. Pendoley stated he believed the issue the Villa Real
neighbors were concerned about was the need for off-site parking, so the red curbs
that are there would be respected and emergency vehicles would not be blocked,
and he stated that, as indicated in the report, additional off-street parking
can be provided. Regarding Mello -Roos, Mr. Pendoley stated this had been
discussed at length, noting the Planning Commission and Council had made a
deliberate decision, when the project was set up, to exempt the BMR (Below Market
Rate) units from the Mello -Roos. He stated the documents everyone signs when
they purchase their properties clearly specifies how much money each property
is required to contribute to the Mello -Roos.
Tom Vasconsellos, addressed the Council, stating he does not believe a BMR unit
belongs in this area, and noting a triplex does not belong in an area of
single-family homes. Mr. Vasconsellos felt two or three single-family BMR units
should have been approved for the area instead of a triplex unit. Mr. Vasconsellos
stated he and his neighbors were told that if they could prove it was impractical
to build this unit in the subdivision it would not be built there, and he believes
they have proven it is impractical. He noted the easement which was not included
on the lot, although the neighbors had been told the unit fit into the looks of
the neighborhood and would be partially hidden behind a hillside. However, he
stated that by proposing to move the unit fifteen feet up the hill, a fire lane,
which has already been approved by the Fire Department, will be cut in two spots.
Mr. Vasconsellos stated moving the drive -way from a private road to Las Casas
will change the entire look of the house by having such a steep slope it will
require retaining walls, which will certainly not accomplish the objective of
having the house hidden from the neighbors behind a hill.
Mr
Vasconsellos stated nothing about the design of the house is going to fit, and
that it has not fit from the very beginning. He stated of the 250 homes in Loch
Lomond and the 85 homes in Villa Real, no one wants this BMR unit built there.
Mr. Vasconsellos felt it was time someone started listening to the registered
voters in San Rafael. He also believed new owners are not being told about the
BMR unit when they purchase their property, noting he had spoken with a new owner
who had just moved into the neighborhood, and she stated she had never been told
about a BMR unit. Mr. Vasconsellos stated there was a lot of wording in the
contracts that no one really knows about, and whether it is the developer or the
real estate agents who have not honestly told the buyers what is going on,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 13
Mr.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 14
purchasers do not expect to build an $800,000 home and find a triplex across the
street.
Vasconsellos stated it has been stated the BMR unit must be finished before
a certain number of other completions can be done, which is why there is such
a push trying to get this through. He noted in the beginning everyone had been
in favor of the in -lieu fee rather than placing the unit in the neighborhood.
He stated that originally no one was told the BMR unit would be a triplex, and
believes that if it had been a single-family BMR, that would have been fine.
Mr. Vasconsellos referred to the lottery to be held for those who wish to purchase
the BMR units, noting it was stated that City employees, such as emergency workers,
would be given first choice. Mr. Vasconsellos stated there would not be many
Policemen or Firemen who would qualify for this unit, unless they have two incomes
to qualify.
Mohamed Maguid, owner of Lot #10 in the Loch Lomond subdivision, addressed the
Council, stating his lot is to the East of Lot #9. Mr. Maguid stated he purchased
his lot in December, 1995, with full awareness of the BMR unit, noting he had
no objection to this. He stated that when he spoke to Mr. Pendoley regarding
an easement for Lot #9, he was exploring options of how the problem could be resolved
without harming him, as a property owner, and to protect himself from liability
if someone is using a drive -way on his property.
Jim Murphy, owner of Lot #11 in Loch Lomond Highlands, addressed the Council, stating
he had just closed escrow on his property. He noted Mr. Vasconsellos mentioned
the realtors were not mentioning the BMR unit to new purchasers, but stated he
was made aware of the BMR unit. However, he stated what he was not aware of were
the rules in the Loch Lomond Highlands Homeowners Association concerning the BMR
unit, stating his concern is that they are creating the People' s Republic of Loch
Lomond Highlands. He reported his home, and the other homes except for the BMR
unit, are all subject to the rules and regulations of the Homeowners' Association,
noting there are architectural limitations, and limitations on what they can do
with their property, but those same limitations are not applicable to the BMR
unit, noting that, theoretically, the BMR unit can have multiple animals, farm
animals, multiple vehicles, commercial vehicles, and all of the things the other
homes are prohibited from having. He stated it seemed to him that they are being
denied the same rights as the BMR unit owners, yet they are responsible for all
of the assessments, and it seems fundamentally unfair that they have these
obligations, and those who purchase the BMR do not.
Mr. Murphy stated he agreed it seems somewhat out of place to have a three -unit
building among single-family dwellings, noting there are no multiple unit
buildings in Villa Real or Loch Lomond, and there certainly are not going to be
any in Loch Lomond Highlands II, asking why this three unit building was placed
in Loch Lomond Highlands I. Mr. Murphy stated he was concerned about the use
of the private drive -way, which he reports is shared by his property and Mr. Maguid.
He stated he and Mr. Maguid are responsible for maintaining the drive -way, and
he is concerned that no matter where they build the triplex, it is going to impact
his drive -way and impact his cost.
Mayor Boro referred to the CC & R's (Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions), and
asked staff how they apply to the BMR unit? Mr. Pendoley stated the CC & R's
are not a City document, but rather an agreement the private property owners are
required to have amongst themselves. Mr. Pendoley reported the project is exempt
from the Mello -Roos District, but he did not know whether it is exempt from other
portions of the CC & R's. Mayor Boro stated he recalled the City discussing
the Mello -Roos, but not the CC & R's, and Mr. Pendoley stated the CC & R's had
not been discussed, and the City did not require the triplex be exempt from the
CC & R' s. Mayor Boro asked if the City could require that the triplex be included
in the CC & R's? City Attorney Ragghianti stated he had not read the CC & R's,
but felt that, at this late date, and without the developer' s consent, the amendment
of CC & R's is usually the subject of the number of lots that have been sold and
the consent of the individuals who are the owners of the lots. He explained that
when the original subdivision is created, the developer burdens all of the lots
with these restrictions, and there are specific provisions contained in all of
them that speak about how they are to be amended. He stated, as pointed out by
Mr. Pendoley, the City does not participate in that dynamic, it is between the
developer and the owners of the lots; therefore, the City really has very little
control over what is put in the CC & R' s. Mr. Ragghianti stated the City reviews
the CC & R's, but when we review them prior to project approval, it is always
in regard to common areas that the City, at some time in the future, may be
responsible for, such as drainage easements. Mr. Ragghianti stated he felt, at
this late date, the chances for the City to require this to occur without the
developer's consent would be limited, at best, if not impossible.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 15
Frank Melcher, resident of the Villa Real neighborhood, addressed the Council, asking
Mr. Pendoley to explain the hearing process that had been referred to earlier.
Mr. Pendoley explained that every homeowner must apply for a Design Review Permit,
and this permit must be considered at a hearing, noting these hearings are usually
held by the Zoning Administrator; however, this would be scheduled before
the Planning Commission. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that the deliberations before
the Design Review Board are not the hearing to grant or deny the permit, explaining
that Board is simply advisory to either the Zoning Administrator or the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Melcher stated that when the original Design Review was done, there was additional
off-street parking designed to be put on the Southeast corner of the site, and
asked if that was to be one or two spaces? Mr. Pendoley reported the design for
additional parking was relying on the adjacent drive -way, which is not
available. Mr. Pendoley stated he believes at least two off-site parking spaces
can be accommodated by moving the lot line, which lies between lots #8 and #9.
Mr. Melcher noted that would be one additional parking space beyond what had
already been approved through the Design Review Board, and Mr. Pendoley stated
he felt the City could do better than that, and that will be our intention.
Hugh Hardin, 50 Balboa, addressed the Council, stating it was his understanding
that none of the three BMR units would be available, at any time, for either rental
or lease, and Mr. Pendoley responded that was correct. Mr. Hardin asked where
this was stipulated? Mr. Pendoley explained this was a requirement of the BMR
agreement, which is a contract between the builder, the City, and the Housing
Authority. Mr. Hardin asked if this contract was already in place, or would that
wait until completion of the unit? Mr. Pendoley reported the contract had already
been signed between the City Council and the developer. Mr. Hardin stated it
was his understanding that in subsequent years and subsequent re -sales, the Housing
Authority would not have any authority to alter the contract, and Mr. Pendoley
stated this was correct.
Mr. Hardin noted that when the proposed building is readjusted fifteen feet to the
North, it will be moved toward the property line of Lot #8, and asked if that
would be a readjusted property line? Mr. Pendoley stated the property line would
be adjusted; however, the building envelope would not be, explaining the building
envelope is a set of boundaries that lie inside the property lines, and are drawn
in such a way as to minimize grading on the property and minimize tree loss.
Mr. Pendoley stated the building would remain within the original, approved
building envelope, noting that moving the property line was only an advantage
in obtaining more parking spaces. Mr. Hardin referred to the report which states
the developer has agreed to move the whole unit fifteen feet higher, and asked
if that meant fifteen feet further up the hill? Mr. Pendoley stated he did not
believe there would be a change in the elevation, noting this was not the intention.
Mr. Hardin stated he had been to the site, and it was going uphill. He asked
if the adjustment would expose more of the building to view from the Las Casas
street side, since it will be higher? Mr. Pendoley stated he believed it might,
partially, but will not affect the view of the front of the building facing Las
Casas; however, where the two garages are located will be somewhat more exposed,
although it will be minor.
Mr. Hardin stated it appeared to him it will be necessary to do some creek filling,
and asked if that was a part of the plan? Mr. Pendoley stated the creek would
not be touched by this because, again, the building must stay within the building
envelope, and the building envelope is up above the creek. Mr. Hardin referred
to the access drive -ways and turns into the garages, asking if that would require
them to lay out a flat space that would extend out into what now is a drop off?
Mr. Pendoley stated there would have to be grading and filling there, and there
would have to be a retaining wall, noting the maximum height would be four feet,
and was allowed by the subdivision conditions. Mr. Hardin asked if this had been
environmentally approved, and Mr. Pendoley stated it had not, noting the decision
to grant or deny that permit must be made at a hearing of its own. Mayor Boro
clarified that this is what Mr. Pendoley was recommending go before the Planning
Commission on May 14th, and Mr. Pendoley stated that it was.
Mr. Hardin asked when construction was anticipated to begin on this unit? Mr.
Pendoley stated it was his understanding the developer would like to build the
unit this summer. Mr. Hardin referred to the Deputy City Attorney's comments
on Page 26 of the staff report, noting it was his conclusion the map itself would
not have to be amended, even if a change were to be made, but the Conditions of
Approval for the map would have to be amended. Mr. Hardin asked how firmly that
sets in concrete that the BMR unit has to be on Lot #9? Mr. Pendoley stated neither
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 16
the map, nor the Conditions of Approval of the map, specify the BMR triplex would
be on Lot #9, noting the conditions of the map only state the BMR's shall be provided
on-site, and the BMR contract should be entered into. Mr. Pendoley stated it
was the contract that specifies Lot #9. Mr. Hardin asked if there was anything
in the records that requires this unit be built on Lot #9? Mr. Pendoley stated
that was not a correct statement, explaining the San Rafael General Plan has a
policy which
states BMR's should be built on-site unless it is found impractical to do so. He
stated the conditions of the Tentative Map state BMR's shall be built on-site,
that is, within the subdivision, and further states that the condition will be
implemented with the BMR Agreement, or BMR Contract. Mr. Pendoley reported the
developer and the City Council have entered a BMR Contract, which specifies Lot
#9,
noting that is the "chain of requirements" that lands on Lot #9. Mr. Hardin asked
if it is the contract with the developer that is unchangeable, and Mr. Pendoley
responded it is the Agreement which specifies Lot #9, and the City Attorney has
given an opinion on our difficulty in changing that. Mr. Hardin asked if this
meant there was no "wiggle room" left, and Mr. Pendoley agreed that was the message
the City was trying to convey.
Mr. Hardin stated it seemed the possibility of moving the unit up the hill slightly
erodes the fact that the unit is going to be hidden, which was one of the primary
reasons for locating the unit on Lot #9, so that it would not be totally exposed.
Mr. Hardin stated he felt there was a gross disparity in the prices of the BMR
unit and other homes in the neighborhood, noting the home located across the street
from Lot #9 is for sale with an asking price of $795,000. Mr. Hardin stated he
believed that if a single-family BMR unit was being placed on the lot, a great
deal of the concern would dissipate.
Charles (Chuck) Willis, President of the Villa Real Property Owners' Association,
addressed the Council, and referred to the City Council meeting held in 1993,
at which the City entered into the contract with the developer, and the proposal
for the BMR unit in Loch Lomond #10 was moved from Lot #22 on the Loch Lomond
side to Lot #9, noting this was the meeting the Villa Real Property Owners'
Association were not invited to and did not participate in. Mr. Willis stated,
according to City Attorney Ragghianti, this is a contract that is very difficult
to change, noting that if the City chooses to change, apparently the developer
has the basis for a lawsuit, and the City, likewise, has a case for a lawsuit
if the developer should choose to make a change.
Mr. Willis reported that ever since the Villa Real Property Owners' Association
has been involved, Mr. Pendoley has supported the contract, and supported the
position of the City relative to the decision that was made in 1993. Mr. Willis
asked, if there was no "wiggle room" for changing the contract, why was Lot #17
recently considered as an alternate site for this unit, as it would have broken
the contract if Lot #17 had been selected and supported? He felt that, apparently,
there was "wiggle room" in changing the contract.
Mr. Willis referred to Mr. Pendoley's comment in the report that the triplex is
not appropriate for Lot #17 because it is an uphill lot. He noted the residents
of Villa Real have watched the construction of all of the homes in Loch Lomond
#10, stating there are very few of them that net out at less than 4,000 to 5,000
square feet. He stated he did not see what the difference would be between a
4,000 to 5,000 square foot triplex and a 4,000 to 5,000 square foot family dwelling,
noting it seemed as though, given a building of that size on an uphill lot, there
would be some concern and there would be a problem with the perception of the
aesthetic characteristics. Mr. Willis reported that in reviewing a series of
reports from the Design Review Board on homes being proposed for Loch Lomond #10,
he noticed there frequently is an observation made by a member of the Design Review
Board about the large mass of wall; therefore, he felt the "sticking out"
characteristic making this triplex impossible on Lot #17 is not unique, it is
a problem the Design Review Board probably has to deal with on almost all of these
lots, or at least a good many of them.
In addressing the argument in support of the triplex on Lot #9, Mr. Willis referred
to Page 2 of the current report, in which Mr. Pendoley responds to Councilmember
Heller's question about affordable housing in San Rafael, quoting, "The attached
fact sheet (Attachment B) was prepared in November 1994 to describe the 835
affordable homes built since 1986...", and cited a portion of Mr. Pendoley Is report
of January in which he states, "Since 1986, over 160 BMR's have been built under
the program set-up under the General Plan Policy. " Mr. Willis noted that in both
instances, the numbers are fairly substantial, but in one Mr. Pendoley mentions
160 BMR's, and in the other report he lists 835 affordable homes. Mr. Willis
asked if there is a difference between a BMR and an affordable home? Mr. Pendoley
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 17
stated that in the January report he was describing the number of BMR' s that were
brought in under the Inclusionary Program, which is the program requiring that
every project with 10 or more units must provide 10% of the units as BMR's, and
there are a total of 160 units under that program. He reported the 835 units
are the total number of BMR's built in San Rafael, through other programs in
addition to the Inclusionary Program.
Mr. Willis asked the Council, in their deliberation, to consider the possibility
had the Villa Real Property Owners' Association been involved in the meeting of
1993. He acknowledged they might have voiced their opposition at that time and
still be at the same point they are now, but perhaps not. He reported the
Association was offered an apology from Mr. Pendoley, but stated apologies do
not really quite make
the mark. He stated there is a temptation for the members of the Villa Real Property
Owners' Association to be jealous and find a purpose to question the
propriety of the Loch Lomond residents, and similarly, he suspects, the Loch Lomond
residents of the Villa Real residents. He stated they all really need to be
friends, as they are neighbors, noting the Loch Lomond property adjoins the Villa
Real property, and it is to their mutual benefit to get along, and to enjoy and
support one another. Mr. Willis stated he was not throwing darts at Loch Lomond,
acknowledging they are very important people. He stated he felt it was important
to recognize the Loch Lomond residents also rejected the idea of a triplex in
their neighborhood.
Mayor Boro asked the City Attorney for clarification on the term "wiggle room",
stating it was his understanding, from Mr. Ragghianti's previous discussion to
the Council, that with respect to the contract, the City has to build the affordable
units, and that this was a solid agreement. He noted staff had been directed
to look at the option of whether we could move it to another site, and if it would
be practical to do so. Mayor Boro noted staff had been directed to look at that
option. City Attorney Ragghianti referred to the term "wiggle room", stating
there is a Policy which states the Council would have to make a finding that it
was not "practical" for a triplex to be built on this lot, noting he would consider
that "wiggle room" if the Council could make that finding. However, if they cannot
make that finding, they cannot change it. Mayor Boro asked if "practical" is
defined with respect to the site and the ability to build on the site? Mr.
Ragghianti responded that was correct.
Mr. Hardin stated that when he used the term "wiggle room" he was asking if there
were any possibilities for the parties to the Agreement to sit down and determine
if there is an alternative that would be agreeable to the parties involved. Mr.
Ragghianti stated he thought that had been clearly set forth in the November 20th
memorandum; unilaterally, "No", and if both parties to the Agreement wish to change
it, "Yes".
Mayor Boro explained the issue before the Council was a review of alternative sites
and a review of the issues raised by the Villa Real Property Owners' Association.
He stated, based on past discussions and the fact that staff has not made any
different recommendations at this time, the Council is committed to the policy
of building inclusionary units in new developments, and the next step will be
for this item will go to the Planning Commission on May 14, 1996 for Design Review
on Lot #9.
12. REPORT ON POLICE DEPARTMENT SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PLANS FOR "B" STREET AREA
(PD)
- File 9-3-30
Councilmember Zappetini stated he was abstaining from this item, and left the Council
Chamber.
Police Chief Krolak stated he was presenting a report which includes short-term,
medium-term, and long-term goals in addressing the problems taking place on "B"
Street. He noted he had spent the past week talking to the business owners in
the 700, 800, and 900 blocks of "B" Street, stating they all felt the City needs
to do something to eradicate this problem. Chief Krolak explained he had developed
plans which he felt the Police Department could realistically do, both from the
Police Department's perspective and from a legal standpoint.
Chief Krolak reported that in his discussions with the business owners, he not only
listened to what they had to say and to their perspective of what was taking place
in the area, but also tried to provide information to them regarding the City's
plans that are underway in attempting to relocate St. Vincent de Paul's dining
room. He stated he also distributed cards which show specific numbers to call
when contacting the Police Department about problems in the area, describes the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 18
type of information the dispatcher will need, and explains when to call the Police
Department. Chief Krolak tried to give the business owners an understanding of
what the Police Department legally can do for them, and the types of behavior
they can respond to.
Chief Krolak stated, in the short-term, he has already directed the walking beats
to spend 30% to 40% of their time specifically on "B" Street, and he has also
directed the Patrol Commanders to have the Patrol Officers who patrol in the two
adjoining beats park their cars and walk the "B" Street area if they have the
time. Chief Krolak stated there is a definite increase in uniformed patrol
presence in that area.
As an additional short-term goal, Chief Krolak stated he was requesting the Council
to consider approving an authorization of $40,000 for overtime, which would allow
the Police Department to increase their overtime by 56 hours per week, and would
allow the Department to establish a third walking beat in the Downtown area, with
emphasis on "B" Street. Chief Krolak recalled that at the last City Council meeting
he and San Rafael Police Officers' Association Vice -President, Jim Strong, noted
they were concerned about the over -use of overtime, and the impact that has on
the employees who must work the overtime. Chief Krolak reported he has discussed
this recommendation with the President and Vice -President of the Police Officers
Association, and they both assured him that the additional overtime for this
particular function would not be a problem for their members.
Addressing Mid-term goals, Chief Krolak asked the Council to give consideration
to the Parking Authority authorizing $142,000 to pay for the hiring of two
additional foot beat officers, which would provide four foot beat officers for
the entire Downtown area, noting he includes the Downtown area because, while
the problem is focused on "B" Street and around St. Vincent de Paul's dining hall,
it is occurring up and down Fourth Street, and other areas as well, and noting
he did not want to ignore those areas, as they are being impacted by the same
problem. Chief Krolak referred to the information provided to him by Finance
Director Coleman suggesting increasing parking meter and monthly parking fees,
estimating an increase of approximately $125,000, which would be a big portion
of the $142,000 Chief Krolak is requesting. He noted he and Mr. Coleman would
attempt to find other ways of meeting this particular goal. Chief Krolak explained
four walking beats would allow the City to increase the foot beat patrols to seven
days a week, and also extend the patrols into the evening hours, reporting this
is something that has been discussed by the Council in the past, noting the City,
the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Improvement District have been attempting
to provide more evening activities for families by providing increased Police
Officer presence.
Chief Krolak referred to the Long -Term goals, stating he used the Fiscal Year
1997-1998 only to allow time for the planning, that would be required for this
plan. He stated he would like to use the entire Downtown area and expand it from
what is currently used, specifically for the foot patrol, and basically identify
the Downtown as a neighborhood, using this as a trial phase for community policing
philosophy within the department, and function within the City.
Chief Krolak reported the plan would assign eight officers, one Sergeant, one
Corporal, five Police Officers, and one Police Service Aide, to be assigned to
the Downtown area for eighteen months to two years, so the officers get to know
the merchants and the people who frequent the Downtown area, and the merchants
and the public can get to know the officers better, so there can be more of a
direct point of contact, noting the foot patrol, bike patrol and vehicle officers
would all be in the Downtown area for an extended and fixed period of time.
Chief Krolak stated another reason for suggesting this long-term goal for fiscal
year 1997-1998 was to give the Police Department time to work with the San Rafael
Police Officers' Association, as there are contractual issues that would need
to be worked out for that particular kind of plan, and also to determine if the
Department's current staffing could accommodate this type of patrol, noting that
rather than having to come back to the Council and ask for more officers or more
money, they would look at how the current resource could accommodate this type
of plan, at least for a test period.
Mayor Boro referred to Chief Krolak looking at the Department's current staffing
to determine if they could accommodate this plan, and asked if this would include
the assumption that the four officers discussed in the Medium -Term Plan were in
place when looking at staffing needs for the Long -Term Plan? Chief Krolak stated
that was correct, explaining he hoped to have those officers in place by September.
He noted two new Police Officers, and possibly a third, will begin employment
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 19
on May 13, 1996, noting he felt by September the Police Department would be at
staffing levels that would support the plan.
Councilmember Heller stated her only question was whether the Police Department
would have the staffing to accomplish the Mid -Term Plan and put all of these
officers in the area? Chief Krolak stated, hopefully, three new officers would
be
hired May 13th, and the one additional officer accommodated by the overtime would
just be a matter of working out a schedule conducive to current hours the officers
are working, so they will want to sign-up for the overtime shifts. Councilmember
Heller asked if this had been explained to the business owners on "B" Street,
and Chief Krolak stated he had tried to explain the plan as well as he could with
what he had been able to put together at that time. He noted all of them seemed
to feel
there had been some decrease in the problem activity, and although there seems to
be a real frustration with the St. Vincent de Paul dining hall being there, Chief
Krolak tried to explain the Police Department is not part of the process of moving
the dining hall, nor is it something the Police Department can do. He stated
he attempted to address the immediate issues, acknowledging that, to some degree,
they
are somewhat "band-aids" until the rules of the dining hall, and eventually its
relocation, can be established. Chief Krolak stated he learned the Business
Improvement District is discussing the hiring of a private security company on
a part-time basis, to also patrol the area on foot, noting the Chamber of Commerce
is discussing loaning or providing the Business Improvement District with the
funds to accomplish this.
Councilmember Phillips asked if the merchants on "B" Street had provided any
additional suggestions as to ways we might conduct business differently, or look
at the issue differently than just providing additional officers. He asked if
there were any positive suggestions that the City might pursue? Chief Krolak
stated the suggestion he heard most was to move the dining hall, and there seemed
to be a sense that they felt the Short -Term Plan was something they could support,
but felt the Long -Term solution was to move the dining hall. Mr. Phillips asked
for their reaction to the plan, and Chief Krolak stated he felt they supported
the Short -Term Plan, but the movement of the dining hall is really the solution
they are looking for.
Mr. Phillips stated he had noticed a Crime Watch Neighborhood sign recently, and
asked if there was anything we could incorporate from that concept? Chief Krolak
stated, for the most part, Crime Watch is designed for residents or businesses
to look after each other and to call the Police when they see anything suspicious,
noting there is no hesitation among the people of the "B" Street commercial area
to call the Police Department. Mr. Phillips felt the Crime Watch program also
served the purpose of informing those who might otherwise be inclined to be involved
in illegal activity that they are being watched by everyone on the street, as
a collective body addressing the issue. Chief Krolak stated he felt the people
utilizing the dining hall already know this, at this point. Mr. Phillips stated
the City is not just addressing the issue in one manner, but discussing as many
possible different angles as it might take to resolve the issue, and he felt this
might be another step that could be taken. Chief Krolak stated the focus of the
merchants, in working with the Business Improvement District, was to come up with
a security guard of their own, and this was in process prior to him going to the
area to discuss the problem with the merchants, and he felt they are certainly
looking for other alternatives and are willing to take those kinds of steps on
their own. He reported they do call the Police Department when they feel they
have a problem the Police Department can address for them, and noted he got a
sense from them that the Police presence has had some affect, but the resounding
answer is that the City needs to do something about the dining hall, noting the
Police Department cannot do anything about moving the dining hall, or specifically
about the dining hall itself. Chief Krolak noted he has had discussions with
Mayor Boro, who will be meeting with representatives from St. Vincent de Paul
regarding changing and developing rules for the people using the dining hall,
and that will be a very important step. He noted the City Attorney's office has
also been working on the smoking issue, pointing out there are other issues that
are being addressed to help try to mediate the situation until the issue can be
resolved in some other fashion.
Councilmember Cohen asked, if the Council were to tell Chief Krolak to hire another
officer to put on foot patrol tomorrow, how long would it take to fill the position?
Chief Krolak stated there are two new officers beginning May 13th. Mr. Cohen
stated his question was regarding an additional position. Mayor Boro stated the
Council was not being asked to fund an additional position, rather they were being
asked to fund overtime. Mr. Cohen stated he understood they were being asked
only to fund the overtime, but noted that would be, for the next five months,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 20
paying $40,000 for 56 hours a week of overtime, which costs the City time and
a half, plus it puts a stress on the Police Officers. He felt we should analyze
the proposal for the two additional foot patrol officers, but asked, if we are
going to spend that money, should we look at creating an additional position in
the Police Department and fund that, as he felt the City we get more for our $40,000
because then, presumably, we would not have to pay overtime for at least 40 of
those hours if we had another permanent officer working. Mr. Cohen asked how
long it would take to hire another officer, if the Council were to authorize that?
Chief Krolak stated to hire and
train another officer would take approximately nine months, for the officer to be
able to walk patrol on "B" Street. Mr. Cohen asked, with regard to the Medium -Term
Plan of hiring two additional officers for fiscal 1996-1997, would that also take
nine months? Chief Krolak stated the Department would be doing the hiring between
now and September, and then the Department could staff those two walking beats.
Councilmember Cohen stated that in Chief Krolak Is report at the last Council meeting,
it seemed his response had been focused on the complaints about drug dealing and
increased drug activities in the area, noting the street crimes had been focusing
on this area quite a bit. He reported it seemed as though there had been a
succession of drunk in public arrests, and then toward the end, there were more
arrests for drug paraphernalia and possession, noting it might have appeared, from
looking at the pattern of arrests, that the presence of the Street Crimes Unit
was having an effect on the drug dealing problem. He asked if Chief Krolak felt
this new plan was a more effective way to deal with the problem than the periodic
presence of the Street Crimes Unit, or if it was something that would be done
in addition to the Street Crimes Unit? Chief Krolak reported the Street Crimes
Unit can always be assigned on a periodic basis; however, to use them they must
be taken out of other areas. He stated he is trying to focus on providing the
Council with a solution that will provide a more permanent solution of uniformed
officers in the area. Mr. Cohen asked if he felt that would be a more effective
way to address the problem, and Chief Krolak responded that he did.
Mayor Boro stated St. Vincent de Paul and the City had agreed to go to mediation,
reporting that process would begin on Wednesday, April 17th, noting there would
be four representatives from St. Vincent de Paul: Shemus Kilty, Bob Kuntz, Rob
Simon from Ritter House, and another member of St. Vincent de Paul's Board of
Directors; and four representatives from the City of San Rafael: Councilmember
Paul Cohen; Charlie Garfink, President of the Business Improvement District; Jack
Martin, San Rafael Police Department beat officer for the area; and Mayor Boro.
He stated they will be meeting with Stephen Dobbs, who will be the spokesperson
for the group, at the Marin Community Foundation. Mayor Boro reported their goal
is to evaluate the operation of the dining hall and how it may be improved in
its impact on the community, and to look at alternative sites so the dining hall
can be moved. Mayor Boro stated they hope to have the mediation completed by
June.
Charlie Garfink, owner of Double Rainbow Ice Cream on Fourth Street and President
of the Business Improvement District (BID), addressed the Council, stating he
would like to comment on the issue of the private security guard. He stated that
when the BID Board of Directors heard of the problems on "B" Street, they spoke
with some of the merchants, and when they received the petition from the business
owners, they decided strong action needed to be taken immediately. He stated
they felt it was worth the effort on their part to display a show of faith with
the merchants, and to let them know they understood their plight and wanted to
help them out. Mr. Garfink reported that if the BID were to hire a private security
guard, they would only have the funds to provide for one month of private service.
Therefore, Mr. Garfink urged the Council to support the proposals Chief Krolak
has presented, noting he had read them, and feels the entire Board of Directors
of the BID and the majority of the Downtown business owners would support all
of the provisions. He stressed the point that when people think of San Rafael,
they think of the Downtown area, noting this is the area where they get their
first impression. He felt we all must make it a priority that the Downtown area
is a showcase for the City, and asked the Council to please not push this issue
to the back burner, as it will be a continuing problem until the soup kitchen
moves.
Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, addressed
the Council, clarifying the Chamber of Commerce is not loaning the BID $1,000
for the private security guard, they are giving them the money, so they can
experiment for at least a month to determine if the additional presence helps.
She stated she felt Finance Director Coleman had been very creative in his
suggestion for increasing the parking fees as a source of funding, noting the
City of San Rafael is well below the fees charged by Sausalito, and she felt the
minimal increases would be an excellent way to raise the additional money.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 20
Ms
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 21
Giambastiani stated Mr. Phillips was correct in stating just one thing is not
going to solve the problem, and reported one of the small things that is being
done is the removal of the public telephones at the corner of Fourth Street and
"B" Street, as well as the newsracks, in order to clean-up the whole corner.
She stated there were other things that add to the number of people who are Downtown,
noting she had not realized, until speaking with Chief Krolak, that San Rafael
has the only detox center in Marin County, which means every person who is picked
up drunk is brought to San Rafael to detox, and when they are released from Lincoln
House, they are then on our streets. She further stated that San Quentin also
releases all of
their parolees in Downtown
recently committed the
Giambastiani stated she
that procedure could be
Ms
San Rafael, noting she understood it was a parolee who
robbery at Councilmember Zappetini's business. Ms.
felt the City should speak with San Quentin to see if
changed.
Giambastiani stated, within the mediation, it would be nice if the idea was
discussed of having St. Vincent de Paul actually change the way it operates and
to become a kitchen as opposed to a dining room. She reported if it were a kitchen
and they transported meals throughout the County, perhaps to other churches, she
felt they would then be able to move the kitchen anywhere, but noted to try to
move a dining room was going to be a difficult problem. Ms. Giambastiani stated
the Chamber of Commerce supports an additional Police presence, and will do
whatever they can to assist.
Bob Berry, Downtown property owner, addressed the Council, stating he was supportive
of the issue of another patrolman Downtown. However, he felt the problem has
occurred because of a previous City Council allowing the dining room to come into
existence, along with Ritter House and other social agencies in the Downtown area,
stating the cost is imposed on the Downtown area as a result. Mr. Berry stated
now that we have additional problems as a result of the homeless, intoxicated,
and drugged people in the Downtown area, he is incensed with the idea that Downtown
shoppers, merchants and business owners are going to have to support the cost
of the added patrolmen, and asked if it seemed fair and reasonable to impose an
additional $125,000 on the Downtown area in the form of increased parking fees?
Mr. Berry stated he had been a member of the Blue Ribbon Committee which was to
form a Vision for the Downtown area, noting that in addition to homelessness being
the first item on the agenda for most people involved with the project, the second
biggest concern regarding Downtown was parking, either the lack of it or the fact
that it costs too much to shop Downtown. Mr. Berry asked the Council to think
of themselves as the property owners who own the Downtown, noting they have the
Police powers to do all of the things that control the Downtown area, and asked
them to consider that they should want to create more sales tax dollars, because
that would mean more money for the City. He asked if they thought they were really
going to accomplish that by charging people more money to park, and if they charged
for parking at Northgate Shopping Center, or threatened to tow a customer's car
away because they parked for more than two hours, how many times would people
go back to Northgate Shopping Center to shop? He stated if Montecito Plaza charged
for parking, and if a customer did not have change for the parking meter or had
to worry about their car being towed, they would drive to Novato or Corte Madera
to shop. Mr. Berry felt this was what the City was going to cause to happen in
the Downtown area, creating somewhere that is not a pleasant place for people
to go. He stated that until, somehow, they find a way to relocate the dining
room and create a friendly place for the people to be in the Downtown area, the
Council is just kidding themselves.
Referring to the suggestion to impose another $125,000 on the property owners and
merchants, Mr. Berry stated he took his hat off to Double Rainbow Ice Cream for
wanting to spend $1,000 to put a private security guard on the street, and to
the Chamber of Commerce for giving them the money for one month. However, he
stated we need the City to support the Downtown area.
Steve Patterson addressed the Council, stating he did not really see anything new
in the staff report, just a lot of old ideas that have resurfaced. He noted there
was no discussion in the report of implementation or execution of any new or
interesting ideas as far as policing, stating the majority of the report discussed
funding and financing, and noting he felt this should not be a financially driven
decision.
Mr
Patterson noted the report referred to community policing, and stated he had
been one of the founding members of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods,
reporting they had the Chief of Police address their group approximately five
years ago, at which time the Chief had spoken about community policing as though
it were to begin the next day, but nothing has happened and they are still waiting.
Mr. Patterson stated the problem with this solution, as far as spending more
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 21
Mr
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 22
money, is that it is the way we solved problems back in the 1970's and 19801s,
just throw money at the problem and that is the way to fix things; however, Mr.
Patterson stated what this really does is allow the solution to institutionalize
the St. Vincent de Paul problems and the "B" Street issues, and now makes it the
City's burden and creates a whole Police Department hierarchy built around it.
Patterson stated he felt it was
own environment, either inside or
their irresponsible problems. Mr
and is close
clear St. Vincent de Paul cannot control its
outside its doors, so now the City must solve
. Patterson reported "B" Street has declined
to being on the verge of collapse in some areas. He stated that when you step back
from the "B" Street problem, you see there is a real problem as far as leadership,
noting there were no innovative ways concerning how to police or how to leverage
our resources, and noting he felt this was a reactive report, and has only come
about because the merchants have complained and brought their problems, in a very
proactive way, to the City. Mr. Patterson stated he felt this situation needs
new ideas, fresh approaches, and collaborative partnerships with all the citizens.
Patrick Groves, Manager of St. Vincent de Paul Dining Room, addressed the Council,
stating he would like to make three observations that have not been addressed,
either by St. Vincent de Paul's Board of Directors, the City, or in the newspaper.
First, he stated St. Vincent de Paul wants Downtown San Rafael to be revived, noting
most of their customers are very vulnerable to all the kinds of crimes and problems
that have happened, particularly the older women. He stated they agree with their
Downtown neighbors that the Downtown can be made very alive and vital.
Secondly, Mr. Groves stated he would like to support the request of his Downtown
area neighbors for an approach to deal with the problems, assuring those in the
audience that he suffers from these problems as much, if not more, than anyone
else, noting it was his responsibility to try to clean them up. Mr. Groves stated
he felt the most obvious thing was being ignored, that the crime problem is a
problem of addiction. Mr. Groves reported over 90% of the trouble he has at the
dining hall is alcohol related, people showing up drunk or trying to drink on
the property. He stated as much as they have tried to keep certain people out
of the dining hall, he still wants to make it clear that this is not a crime problem,
it is a problem of addiction, and noted the denial of calling it "crime" is allowing
the problem to survive. Mr. Groves stated he was new to this area, but he has
already seen clearly that among the poor, as well as the rich, there is an addiction
problem, and noted there are 24 rehabilitation centers in Marin County, so we
know it is a real social problem. Mr. Groves suggested an idea that should be
considered is a rehab program with an outreach worker in a van, who goes around
and picks up drunk people and takes them to a drunk tank, not necessarily to book
them for a crime and add to the Police roster, noting the Police are not trained
in dealing with drunks, they are trained in dealing with criminals. Mr. Groves
pointed out that most of the crimes, such as aggressive panhandling, is often
alcohol induced panhandling, and urinating in the street is also related to
alcohol. Mr. Groves stated that when this type of behavior is observed, it is
not hard to understand how they could act the way they do if we take the blinders
off and call the demon what it is. Mr. Groves stated St. Vincent de Paul wants
to work with the City in controlling this problem.
Mr. Groves stated the third and final thing he would like to suggest is something
he has not heard anyone mention before, asking what is going on at the second
and third floor levels above every merchant in San Rafael, noting he believed
these were small 6 foot by 8 foot rooms full of people. He asked the Council
if they were aware of how many Downtown hotels there are on "B" Street and Fourth
Street, and that over 50% of St. Vincent de Paul's clients are neighborhood
residents who live in hotel rooms near the dining hall and are not homeless?
Mr. Groves asked, just because these people do not have a neighborhood association,
is there any desire to let them have a voice at all? He stated these are also
people the Police Department should check with, in terms of serving. Mr. Groves
stated he was very serious, because these are the people who make it a neighborhood,
noting if it was not for them everything would close down at 10:00 PM as there
would be nothing in Downtown. Mr. Groves stated San Rafael, like every other
major Bay Area city, has a live-in low cost neighborhood Downtown, we just have
not found a way to talk to it.
Mr. Groves stated he was willing to cooperate, and was certainly looking forward
to the Mediation Committee, noting he appreciates all of the City's efforts and
all the City is doing in the Downtown neighborhood, as well as the efforts of
the Police Department in trying to help them.
Suleyman Ozkan, owner of the business located next door to St. Vincent de Paul,
addressed the Council, stating that when the petition submitted by the business
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 22
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 23
owners was written, they tried very hard not to insult anyone, the City, the
Mayor, or the Councilmembers, and noting they just wanted to address the problems
that have greatly increased. Mr. Ozkan stated that at the time he suggested the
petition, he was told it had been tried before but nothing had happened, and his
response was it has gotten to the point where the business owners have to fight
or move. He noted it was quite coincidental that at the time they submitted their
petition, Councilmember ZappetiniIs business was burglarized, so there was a press
release and a lot of public interest was generated, and people started listening
to what the business owners were saying. He noted the City Council and the Police
Department have both acknowledged the problem does exist, and the increased police
presence worked very well.
Mr. Ozkan stated the petition did not mention the homeless or the dining room, it
referred only to the problems. He felt most of the problems are connected to
the dining room, noting he has tried to work with St. Vincent de Paul's dining
room since moving to this location four years ago, acknowledging St. Vincent de
Paul has been more than willing to work with him. He stated the passage of the
Smoking Ordinance has increased the problems by causing customers of the dining
room to loiter outside. When he expressed his concerns to St. Vincent de Paul,
they told
him they were unable to do anything about it, and he stated he was concerned this
was going to hurt the businesses very much, and the street would turn into a ghost
street because the merchants would not be able to conduct business. He stated
he felt the manager of St. Vincent de Paul disregarded his concerns.
Mr.Ozkan stated that since the City and the community both acknowledge the problem
exists, then it is St. Vincent de Paul who must now acknowledge the problem exists,
and that they made a mistake and the situation has gotten away from them. He
stated it was not the business owners who encouraged other locations to refuse
them in their plans for relocation, noting they have already been refused four
or five times prior to the petition. He claimed St. Vincent de Paul blames the
business owners for these refusals, noting the business owners have been told
they are speaking too loudly about the issue and to lower their voices. Mr.Ozkan
stated he felt that was a cheap shot, and that it hurts the business owners that
the City sympathizes with the statement made by the Chairman of St. Vincent de
Paul's Board of Directors that the crime wave exists only in the minds of the
business owners. Mr.Ozkan stated he could provide a list of crimes that have
occurred, noting he felt the business owners had been very tolerant neighbors,
and that they deserve better than this. He stated since St. Vincent de Paul has
been refused so many times in their relocation attempts, it is time they ask
themselves what they are doing wrong, and they should apologize to the residents
and merchants on "B" Street and ask how they can improve the situation, noting
the residents and business owners could be great resources for them if they would
just ask them.
Donna Lygrand, resident of "B" Street, addressed the Council, stating she lives
in the same building in which Mr.Ozkan has his business, and noting she, too,
is a person who observes the situation first hand on a daily basis. Addressing
Councilmember Phillips, Ms. Lygrand stated, regarding his concept of Neighborhood
Watch, the residents and business owners are in the minority on "B" Street, and
when they walk out of their door they are surrounded by people who are drug or
alcohol abusers. She stated the residents and business owners are the ones being
watched, noting they could not possibly have a Neighborhood Watch with the current
situation.
Ms. Lygrand reported the increased Police presence has been an improvement, but
stated she resents that they have to take their tax dollars and have the Police
put extra patrols on their streets because the people who run St. Vincent de Paul
cannot control the monster they have created. She stated she felt they should
be the ones who monitor those people, and if their dining hall is open from 11:00
AM until 2:00 PM, then they should be the ones who make those people stay away
who come at 7: 00 AM and hang around, although she acknowledged that this, at least,
was an improvement, as they used to be there all night. Ms. Lygrand asked why
it should be the Police Department's responsibility, when these people have no
business there if the dining hall does not serve until 11:00 AM. She asked, if
St. Vincent de Paul does not take any responsibility for their own actions, how
could we possibly expect the people who come to the dining room to take any kind
of responsibility for their actions?
Ms. Lygrand stated that when Mayor Boro and Councilmember Cohen go to the mediation
meeting, they need to understand that those who live and work on "B" Street see
the only solution is to cut the cancer out of their street.
Greg Chidlaw, resident and business owner of Downtown San Rafael, addressed the
Council, and referred to the slogan, "Celebrate San Rafael". Mr. Chidlaw stated
his office overlooks Fourth and "B" Streets, and if it were not for the panhandlers,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 23
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 24
he would probably spend more time at Fourth and "B" Streets than anyone else.
However, he recently assisted in the arrest of a man on the street who exposed
himself to Mr. ChidlawIsgirlfriend, and also witnessed people breaking windows
of the restaurant between "D" and "E" Streets, caught one of the suspects and
called the Police. Mr. Chidlaw stated he lives Downtown and knows what it is
like, and he feels the City is in denial.
Mr. Chidlaw stated the City is about to impose a $140,000 tax, removing the competitive
advantage of the business owners, and agreed with earlier comments that for the
President of the Chamber of Commerce to say that we can raise parking rates because
Sausalito can, he felt she needs a lesson in location, noting San Rafael is fifteen
miles from the Golden Gate Bridge. Mr. Chidlaw stated the City has now cost the
business owners $140,000 to pay for a problem the City did not address over the
last two years. Mr. Chidlaw recalled a BID breakfast meeting a year and a half
ago at which Councilmember Cohen stated he was on the verge of a breakthrough
in being able to remove St. Vincent de Paul's dining hall from Downtown, but now
the Mayor is stating the City is about to go into mediation again. Mr. Chidlaw
stated without an economic incubator of Fourth Street, the City, whose budget
is dependent 40% by sales tax, is going to fail. He stated this is a matter of
vital economics and priorities.
Mr. Chidlaw recalled that during the last election, he did a few "pub crawls" , noting
he went to Milani's one night and bought beer for several men he knew were
panhandlers, and as they were drinking their beers he asked them why they were
intimidating the old ladies on the street, and scaring away customers on Fourth
Street? He stated the answer they gave was, "Because it is an easy touch". He
stated he felt it was the City's permissive policies which have allowed this to
continue. Mr. Chidlaw stated that by taxing the business owners an additional
$140,000, the City would be taking away their competitive advantage. Mr. Chidlaw
stated that although he does not agree with many of the things the Police Chief
does, he acknowledged he did not know what Chief Krolak could do at this point.
He reported he once had to eject three people from the lobby of the Albert Building
for smoking dope, and stated he believes the members of the Council are in denial
as to what is really happening in the Downtown area.
Mayor Boro stated he did not believe the members of the Council were in denial.
He reported the Council was trying to address the issue, noting that several months
ago the Council met with a number of the Downtown merchants to discuss the "Another
Way" program. He stated the problems are not going to go away when the dining
hall moves, noting the reason the panhandlers come to Downtown is because people
will give them money. Mayor Boro stated if the merchants do not want to support
panhandling, then the community must talk about the issue and fight the giving
of money. Mr. Chidlaw stated he was opposed to the "Another Way" program, noting
he felt it was a foolish plan. Mayor Boro asked him what he felt the answer to
the problem would be, and Mr. Chidlaw stated he believed the answer begins with
the Council setting forth policies that are aggressive, and with the Mayor showing
the leadership that this attitude is no longer going to be accepted.
Annie Bowman, owner of Sunrise Home, addressed the Council, stating this is the
most important issue she has ever had in her business career. Ms. Bowman reported
that four years ago, after sixteen years of continued increased growth in her
business, she purchased the building at Third and "B" Streets. She reported that
at this same time, St. Vincent de Paul had come into ownership of their building,
and she attempted to put the purchase of her building on hold. She stated she
was told by the City that they wanted to redevelop the Downtown area, and if she
would go forward with relocating her business to Third and "B" Streets, the City
would guarantee her that St. Vincent de Paul would be moved within a year, or
eighteen months at the latest. Ms. Bowman stated she prides herself on being
a successful and competent businessperson, noting she was raised by a military
Colonel father who taught her to believe in authority, which she does.
Ms. Bowman stated she went ahead and made the biggest business deal of her life
and purchased the building, entrusting that the City would stand behind what they
said, and that the Downtown would become what it truly can be, which is a thriving,
economic, vital, and exciting place to shop. Ms. Bowman noted the architecture
is there, the community would support it, but unfortunately, the only business
she has seen grow in the last four years is St. Vincent de Paul. Ms. Bowman stated
she watched a man light -up and smoke crack cocaine in front of her store, she
has stepped on a hypodermic needle, has had to pick up empty Vodka bottles, and
had to replace three trees and bushes in her flower bed. Ms. Bowman reported
she keeps her building painted, keeps her flowers watered, she runs promotions,
and spends $10,000 per month in advertising to bring people to her store; however,
for the past three years her sales have gone down, and she does not feel this
is a reasonable way for her to conduct business. Ms. Bowman noted she expected
that the City to whom she is paying her sales tax would support her. She stated
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 24
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 25
she appreciates the Police, but cannot accept the fact that the City is going
to penalize her customers, who already do not want to come to her business location,
by increasing the parking fees in order get tax dollars to pay for Police
protection. She stated she did not believe the cities of Mill Valley, Tiburon
or Novato would have had a Council session such as this one, noting the fact that
she sat here listening to ways to come up with money to fund Police protection
in a Downtown shopping area appalls her. She stated shopping is supposed to be
a family experience, eating at cafes, enjoying shopping, and is supposed to be
entertainment. Ms. Bowman stated the reason people enjoy downtown communities
is because they do not like malls, asking what the City has to offer our community
to come Downtown right now? She noted that if you really get out and walk,
especially walking the "B" Street area, you will not find anything you
would want to bring your family to. She reported she sometimes brings her young
sons to her business after school, but when they go home she has a lot of explaining
to do about the things they have seen go on in the area. Ms. Bowman stated she
believed there is something very wrong about the fact that this community, the
businesses, and the elected officials continue to allow St. Vincent de Paul to
operate when it is clearly the core of the problem. She acknowledged she agreed
with Mayor Boro that everything will not automatically get better once St. Vincent
de Paul is relocated, but noted, nothing will get better until they are gone.
She
stated once St. Vincent de Paul is gone, the City will have the opportunity to
encourage other businesses to come to the Downtown area, noting she herself has
spent days calling other businesses, trying to get them to relocate to San Rafael.
Ms. Bowman reported the most successful small business community in the United
States today is Fourth Street in Berkeley, California, noting they would be very
interested in coming to "B" Street and assisting in developing it, but nobody
wants to touch this community when we are so obviously "open arms" to St. Vincent
de Paul.
Ms. Bowman stated she believes the people who visit St. Vincent de Paul are not
homeless people about to turn over a new leaf, but people who choose their
lifestyle, noting the lifestyle they choose is harming and killing her lifestyle.
Ms. Bowman reported she is actively looking for a new building, noting it is
nothing personal, as she loves San Rafael, has been here for twenty years, and
feels the people here are great people; however, she stated she must run her
business, and she cannot run it anymore in this community because she is spending
more time taking care of problems that have nothing to do with running a furniture
store. She stated the only way she is keeping her head above water is by going
to Sonoma County to secure business.
Ms. Bowman stated that when Mayor Boro and Councilmember Cohen attend the mediation
meetings, she hopes they go to the meeting clearly understanding how serious this
issue is. She noted there are always cycles in business and community, but stated
she has never seen San Rafael as down as it is at this point. Ms. Bowman stated
she is consulting with an attorney, as she does not yet know what she is going
to do, noting she cannot just walk away from her building at this point. Ms.
Bowman stated she had heard the only reason the City will not go after St. Vincent
de Paul is because it will cost money and possibly bring a serious lawsuit, and
noted she would rather see the City use the extra $140,000 they were going to
spend on Police protection and, instead, put it toward this. Ms. Bowman stated
she does not want to sue the City, as that is not her style, nor in her personality
or beliefs; however, she stated she does not know what to do or where to turn
anymore. She asked the Council to keep this in mind when they speak with St.
Vincent de Paul.
Sanci Bell, business owner and resident of San Rafael, addressed the Council, stating
she recalls how much courage she felt Ms. Bowman displayed in relocating her
business, noting she remembers hearing the only reason Ms. Bowman moved into that
building was because she had been promised that the St. Vincent de Paul dining
room would be moved. Ms. Bell stated she lives in the Downtown area and has already
expressed her own personal grief, and felt everyone else has tried to make clear
the crisis the Downtown area is in. Ms. Bell asked Chief Krolak about the fact
that the City has no Panhandling or Loitering Ordinances, noting a San Rafael
Police Officer had spoken with her about this issue, explaining that although
it does help to have Police presence Downtown, there really is nothing they can
do when they are there. Ms. Bell stated it was her understanding, from her in-depth
conversation with this Police Officer, that unless someone is beating you over
the head, and you are bleeding, and you have a witness, there is nothing that
you can do if someone is harassing you, intimidating you or being aggressive toward
you. Ms. Bell noted you cannot get a restraining order for every panhandler.
She stated the officer she spoke with felt there were no City Ordinances to support
what he was trying to do in the Downtown area, and she stated she is confused
as to why the City does not have these kinds of Ordinances, and whose job it is
to pass these Ordinances so the Police have something they can use to back them
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 25
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 26
up in arresting these people. Ms. Bell stated the only thing the Police can do
now is to scare people with their uniform, which she stated the merchants will
take as a short term solution.
Mayor Boro asked the City Attorney to comment on these types of laws. City Attorney
Ragghianti stated Ms. Bell had made a good point, and noted he had just made a
list of the provisions of the California Penal Code which, when violated,
constitute a crime, such as public intoxication, possession of drugs, smoking
of marijuana, assault, battery, urinating in public, indecent exposure, possession
of hypodermic needles. Mr. Ragghianti stated these are all crimes, and when seen,
can subject the individual to arrest; therefore, he noted, the laws are on the
books. Mr. Ragghianti stated lawyers have a problem in dealing with the Ninth
Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, who have declared aggressive Panhandling
Ordinances unconstitutional, and who have declared unconstitutional laws that
were enacted by
the City of Berkeley where individuals were actually sitting on the Street on
Telegraph Avenue, and the courts continue to state it is not a crime to intimidate
someone or to make someone feel uncomfortable. Mr. Ragghianti stated the City
does not make the rules, the Legislature does, noting it is not as easy to do
something about it as someone might expect. He stated much of the conduct that
Ms. Bell and the others have mentioned is criminal, noting the problem is seeing
it and having the personnel available to do something about it. Mr. Ragghianti
acknowledged this is a tremendous problem, noting that when the City enacted a
Solicitation Ordinance,
we were threatened with a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union if we enacted
the Ordinance, and noted courts in other parts of the State of California have
already declared such an Ordinance unconstitutional. Mr. Ragghianti stated it
is not easy, as a lawyer, to listen to this and not feel powerless. He noted,
as
lawyers, they do what the Council tells them to do, and they do not make the rules,
they follow them. Mr. Ragghianti stated other cities have gone before us, in
trying to enact such Ordinances, and have met with uniform failure. He stated
he did not think the problems can be addressed by the Police Chief or the lawyers,
or by the Council alone, noting he felt it was a joint effort.
Ms. Bell noted Mr. Ragghianti had stated the City Attorney's Office takes direction
from the Council and asked, if an Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance is
unconstitutional and out of the Council's hands, what is in the Council's hands
in terms of Ordinances? Mayor Boro stated Ordinances against panhandling, and
with respect to being aggressive, have been thrown out. Councilmember Cohen
stated laws against loitering have been found to be unconstitutional by the United
States Supreme Court. Mr. Cohen stated it was unfortunate Ms. Bell had only had
a fifteen minute conversation with the unnamed Police Officer, and he did not
see fit to enlighten Ms. Bell, or perhaps was not aware himself, of the limitations
on the City's powers, noting the courts have consistently found it to be
unconstitutional in every city, particularly in Northern California, that has
attempted to adopt an anti -panhandling Ordinance, anti -loitering Ordinance, and
aggressive panhandling Ordinance. Mr. Cohen stated he felt it was ludicrous that
the City cannot make it against the law for someone to aggressively panhandle,
but that is what the courts have said. Ms. Bell asked, disregarding the types
of Ordinances we already know cannot be enacted, are there any other types of
Ordinances the City Council could enact? Mayor Boro stated, as Mr. Ragghianti
pointed out, there are a number of things that are happening that are against
the law, and with increased presence by the Police Department, perhaps these things
will be seen, and the problems should begin to go away as people find that they
will be arrested for the types of offenses Mr. Ragghianti announced as illegal
activities.
Mayor Boro referred to Mr. Patterson's earlier remarks that the Council was just
throwing money at something, but Mayor Boro noted the Council is trying to do
something in a very timely manner. He stated the Council is trying to react to
a real and a perceived problem in the immediate area of "B" Street, and noted
one of the ways that is done is with a presence. He stated if the City starts
enforcing the laws, the people involved in illegal acts will either go somewhere
else or stop those acts. Mayor Boro stated this is what Chief Krolak is attempting
to accomplish with the plan he has presented to the Council, noting the City will
continue to pursue other things that can be done. Mayor Boro recalled that two
years ago he was informed that when people are released from San Quentin they
must be out of town within 24 hours, as they must go to their home jurisdiction
and report to their Parole Officers within 24 hours. Mayor Boro stated we are
now finding out the State of California is not enforcing the requirement that
they report to their Parole Officer within 24 hours, and noted Chief Krolak is
arranging for Mayor Boro and Councilmember Phillips to visit the Warden at San
Quentin to determine if there is some other place these people can be taken when
they leave the prison. Mayor Boro stated that if the Warden is reluctant to make
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 26
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 27
such a change, then the City will contact our State Legislator and demand that
this happens, noting the City of San Rafael is too small to have those numbers
of people dropped off here on an on-going basis if they do not leave town overnight.
Mayor Boro stated it would be one thing if they were gone within a few hours,
but if they are going to be staying here, then the City is going to find out about
it and pursue the issue.
Mayor Boro stated the solutions to the problem will be incremental, but stated he
wanted to assure the residents and business owners the City Council is doing
everything they can to address the issue, including working with St. Vincent de
Paul, noting those who have commented during this meeting have certainly armed
Councilmember Cohen and himself for the first meeting with the mediators on
Wednesday. Mayor Boro stated he appreciated all of the comments made during this
meeting.
Carol Durham, Downtown business owner, addressed the Council, stating her studio
is located across the street from the soup kitchen. Ms. Durham reported that
in the year and a half she has been at that location she has seen drug dealing
and drinking in the alley across the street from her studio, harassing of
pedestrians, cat -calling, men passed out on the sidewalk in front of her studio
doorway, and panhandling, and noted someone from her studio has also smelled
marijuana in their studio, believing it was blown through the mail drop. Ms.
Durham stated that in the parking lot she has seen drug dealing, urinating,
vomiting, people passed out on the pavement, liquor bottles, mattresses, and
clothing, noting she has even found dirty clothing thrown over the fence into
the backyard of her studio. Ms. Durham stated she has gone to St. Vincent de
Paul's dining room several times and asked them to come over and clean up the
vomit, clothing, and food that is left there, noting they have finally begun to
do this, but it took more than three months of asking before they agreed to clean
up. Ms. Durham stated it is very chaotic and hard to work with
those people there, noting she is an artist and really loves to do her work, but
it is very difficult. She applauded St. Vincent de Paul for what they are trying
to accomplish, acknowledging they are trying to do a good job, but felt they must
rethink their mission, as this is not working. Ms. Durham stated is was her
observation that many of these people are homeless by choice.
Lindsay Huffineyer, Downtown business owner, addressed the Council, stating her
business is located on the left of St. Vincent de Paul. She reported it has become
a very depressed area, and it is very depressing going to her business every day.
She stated she must ask people to move away from her door just to be able to
get into her business, and once she is inside, she must open the door and ask
them to scoot down. Ms. Huffineyer stated, after listening to everything that
has been said at this meeting, she must ask if the Councilmembers are really proud
of the City, as it has become such a depressed area, not just on "B" Street, but
everywhere. She stated the City really must do something because it has gotten
so bad, noting she is not even worried about her own business anymore, as the
problem has gone beyond that. She stated that after hearing all of the residents
and business owners who had spoken, she wondered if the Council was going to help
all of them, and if they were really proud of what they had done so far, and if
they were truly convinced they have done everything they can do?
Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated Chief Krolak's report, noting more time
needs to be spent on the issue of financing. He stated he felt the City must
listen carefully to the comments made regarding the recommendation to tax the
Downtown in order to deal with the problem. He acknowledged there may not be
many other options, and the City may be forced back to this suggestion in looking
for ways to fund the Police Department' s plan. Mr. Cohen stated he felt the Council
should not make any decisions at this time regarding funding the request for fiscal
1996-1997, and instead suggested they include this issue in the budget
deliberations, and see what options exist for financing the two additional
officers. He stated the approach made sense, but felt they should not make any
decisions about the specifics of how the City is going to pay for it, and in
particular should not make any commitment at this time to increase the parking
fees. He stated the Council should go ahead and approve the funding for the
additional overtime so we can get another officer down there right away, and he
encouraged Chief Krolak to continue having the Street Crimes Unit go through the
area periodically, in addition to what is being recommended in the plan as other
short-term solutions.
Councilmember Cohen stated his position on St. Vincent de Paul has been repeated
many times, but he appreciated those in the audience who stayed to listen to the
responses to their comments. Mr. Cohen stated he is proud of San Rafael, feels
it is a wonderful place to live, and is proud to raise his children here and plans
to be here for a long time; however, he certainly is not proud of what is going
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 27
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 28
on down on "B" Street, and the Downtown in general, and noted, with all due respect,
that he feels St. Vincent de Paul is a significant contributing factor to the
deterioration, and has got to go. Mr. Cohen stated, unfortunately, having led
the efforts during the past three years to relocate St. Vincent de Paul, the fact
that St. Vincent's has not been the best of neighbors is also a significant
contributing factor to their inability to find a location where they will be
welcomed with open arms.
Mr. Cohen stated he appreciated the merchants and residents coming to this meeting,
expressing their concerns and making their comments, and noted he believes the
Councilmembers are aware of these things, but need to be reminded because they
do not live on "B" Street or operate a business on "B" Street. Mr. Cohen stated
that in the past he has explored what legal options might exist for the City to
try to force St. Vincent's hand, reporting that as of this date, none have been
given to him. He stated it is not a matter of being afraid to fund legal action
with regard to St. Vincent de Paul, it is simply that he has yet to meet an attorney,
who will put in writing, any authority the City may have. Mr. Cohen reported
it appears the
City does not have the authority to order St. Vincent de Paul to close their doors,
at least no legal basis has been found thus far, which is why the City is engaging
in the process of attempting to work with them in order to get them to move, noting
the City will continue to do that. He stated he hopes St. Vincent de Paul is
sincere in their efforts this time, noting they were the ones who approached the
Mayor and discussed mediation, so he feels there is some basis for believing there
is sincerity there. Mr. Cohen hopes that during the next five weeks, as a result
of the meetings that are scheduled, the Council will be able to report back to
the community that there has been some progress. Mr. Cohen stated we must keep
in mind that Police presence is not the solution, just as St. Vincent de Paul
is not the solution to hunger; St. Vincent's is putting food in someone's belly
for one day, and increased Police presence is not a solution to the problems on
"B" Street, it is a band-aid until the City can figure out what to do to solve
the problems.
Councilmember Heller stated she has faced this problem with the Mayor and her fellow
Councilmembers for the last few years, noting it is frustrating and makes people
very angry. She stated she has friends on "B" Street, noting she is there a lot
and has seen what is happening. She stated she believes part of the failure we
have observed, in an area which has been deteriorating over the past three years,
is due to St. Vincent de Paul' s refusal to admit they have not been a good neighbor,
noting that when the City engages in discussions with them during the next few
weeks, we need to stress that they must do their own internal policing. Ms. Heller
stated she did not believe anyone would say "Do not feed the hungry", and noted
she did not believe it was the hungry people who were causing the problems. She
stated the hungry deserve to eat, and felt the City would be able to find a way
to assist St. Vincent de Paul in feeding these people. However, she stated she
has no use for the people who are living outside of the social norm in the community,
and if they are hungry, they need to find a different place to eat, as she does
not think the community deserves to put up with childish and rude behavior.
Councilmember Heller stated that over the years she has heard the attorneys advising
the Council of all the things the City cannot do, and noted she was very embarrassed
that the Council has been scolded by the merchants and property owners, but wanted
to assure them it was not because the Council has not been trying to do something
about the problem, but rather a lack of getting the information out to the citizens
the Council is trying to serve that the solutions are not small, and are sometimes
bigger than the whole City of San Rafael and, in some cases, the whole State of
California. She stated we are going to have to solve these problems together,
noting it will not be easy.
Councilmember Phillips stated their are many issues that need to be addressed and
hopes, through a collection of efforts, the Council will be able to address some
of these issues to make things better. Mr. Phillips stated he felt this meeting
has helped in that process, and that the message being sent to the operators of
St. Vincent de Paul will have an impact, noting the mediation process will be
a step in the right direction. Councilmember Phillips stated the Council cannot
dictate, a solution must be reached that is reasonable to both parties.
Councilmember Phillips stated the City has both short-term and long-term needs,
noting he supports the proposal made by Chief Krolak. He stated he had been told
by some of the merchants on "B" Street they feel the increased Police presence
will help, and noted it will be a collective effort, with a lot of different ideas
being expressed. He stated he is comfortable this issue will be addressed, because
it needs to be, noting that in this day and age, it will have to be a community
effort. He stated the City will be relentless in the pursuit of the effort to
come to a solution, noting he felt it would happen fairly soon. Mr. Phillips
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 28
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 29
stated he will be pushing in those areas where he is able, and noted he has every
confidence in Mayor Boro and Vice -Mayor Cohen in the mediation process. Mr.
Phillips stated he believes the City is moving forward, but will not be comfortable
until something is accomplished.
Mayor Boro reported it has taken many months of discussion to get to the mediation
process, noting Mr. Kilty understands his feelings as to the way St. Vincent de
Paul operates their business and what their role is in the community. Mayor Boro
stated the message is there, and the members of St. Vincent de Paul understand
they cannot work in a vacuum, that they live and work in a community and have
to respect the rights of everyone. Mayor Boro stated there is a very thin line
with respect to the rights of people who are on the street, and with respect to
the citizens, noting it
is his opinion that some of the people we are talking about have crossed that line,
and we have to get them back over the line.
Mayor Boro stated he supports the concept of going forward over the next several
months with the allocation requested by Chief Krolak, noting he would like him
to pursue how the City may fund the additional Police Officers. Mayor Boro noted
he has been on record for two years asking that we increase the foot patrol in
the Downtown area, not just because of what is happening with St. Vincent de Paul,
but also because of what happens to our City on weekends, and with the expansion
of activity at night. Mayor Boro stated he did not consider it a tax on the
merchants if one of the ways the City raises the additional funding is by increasing
the parking fees. He stated he was not trying to tax one specific group, but
noted the City must find ways to address this issue. He reported we are looking
beyond just the "B" Street problem, noting that with the opening of the Rafael
Theater and increased entertainment at night, there will be more and more need
of increased Police presence, and people want to know there is a safe presence
wherever they go.
Mayor Boro stated he is confident the City will find solutions, and that St. Vincent
de Paul will work with the City. He noted those who will be involved with the
mediations have heard the merchants' and residents' concerns, and he feels St.
Vincent de Paul will be as committed as the City toward reaching a solution.
Mayor Boro stated an improvement had already been noticed with the increased Police
presence the past few weeks, and that presence will be continued.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to authorize Chief
Krolak to implement the first phase, short-term plans, evaluate how he might expand
the foot patrol in Fiscal Year 1996-1997, and how that might be financed, and
to look at adoption of community policing ideas and report to the Council at budget
time.
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)
10. RESOLUTION APPROVING SAN RAFAEL STORM WATER PUMP STATION PROJECT 1995-1996
-- MODERNIZATION AND RENOVATION (PW) - File 4-4-6b
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, that this item be
carried over to the meeting of May 6, 1996.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
13. FURTHER DISCUSSION CONCERNING MOTION ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON 2/20/96
REGARDING COUNCILMEMBER ZAPPETINI - File 9-1
Councilmember Zappetini stated he had nothing to report at this time.
NEW BUSINESS
14. REPORT ON START-UP OF NORTH SAN RAFAEL VISION (P1) - File - 10-2
Mayor Boro stated the staff report outlines the discussions Mayor Boro and
Councilmember Phillips have had with Planning Director Pendoley and members of
the North San Rafael Coalition. He noted the report defines the start-up group
as having three representatives from the North San Rafael Coalition, three
representatives from the business community, one commercial property owner, one
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 29
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 30
representative from the School District, two City Councilmembers, one Planning
Commissioner, one member of the Park and Recreation Commission, a representative
from one of the churches, and a representative at large.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution authorizing an agreement with MIG to provide consulting services for
the design process of the North San Rafael Vision.
RESOLUTION NO. 9584 -RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MIG, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $7,840 TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE NORTH SAN RAFAEL VISION PROCESS
DESIGN.
(3 month agreement).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
15. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED DRAFT "BLINDER ORDINANCE" (CM) - File 13-8
Acting City Manager Golt suggested this item be held over until the City Council
meeting of May 6, 1996. Councilmember Zappetini asked if the City should notice
the vendors of the upcoming meeting, and Mayor Boro stated that would not be
necessary at this time, as the item was only being presented for Council discussion,
noting that if the Council decided to move forward with this issue, then notice
would be made.
16. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
a. REINSTATEMENT OF FREITAS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - File 11-15
Councilmember Cohen reported Associate Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian and
Assistant Public Works Director Matt Naclerio will be meeting with representatives
from CalTrans and CH2M Hill to reinstate the Freitas Advisory Committee. Mr.
Cohen stated he had discussed alternatives that had previously been raised by
CalTrans with Mr. Mansourian and Mr. Naclerio, and noted two meetings of the
Committee have already been scheduled within the next couple of weeks.
b. "A CALL TO ACTION" TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP - File 120
Mayor Boro reminded the Councilmembers about the "Call to Action" event, to be held
May 22nd. Acting City Manager Golt explained this will be a technology workshop,
sponsored by the Marin Information Technology Committee in conjunction with the
Marin Community Foundation, and focusing on technologies for cities and towns.
She asked the Council if they would identify two members who would attend the
workshop. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to attend, and either
Councilmember Heller or Mayor Boro will also attend.
C. LANDSCAPING ALONG SAN PEDRO ROAD - File 101 x 9-3-66 x 9-3-40
Mayor Boro stated he had attended a meeting with the Presidents of the East San
Rafael Homeowner Associations regarding concerns about the landscaping along San
Pedro Road. He reported Assistant Public Works Director Matt Naclerio, Parks
Maintenance Supervisor Tom Rothenberger, and County Supervisor John Kress also
attended. Mayor Boro explained this was a joint meeting, as the street medians
in this area are under both City and County jurisdiction, and there is a concern
regarding the lack of maintenance. Mayor Boro reported they have received an
estimate of approximately $6,000 to clean the entire four and a half miles, curb
to curb, noting the City and County would have to share that cost. Mayor Boro
stated he told the members that if they were able to come up with a plan that
would address the long-term issue, as far as how the median strips would be
replanted and maintained, he would bring their request to the Council.
d. DOWNTOWN FARMERS' MARKET - File 140 x (SRRA) R-181
Councilmember Phillips noted he has been appointed as the liaison to the Farmers'
Market Board of Directors, and stated that although the market has been open for
the past two weeks and seems to be going well, he would appreciate being notified
of any problems that are observed, so he can report to the Board of Directors.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned
at 12:25 AM.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 30
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 31
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1996
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/15/96 Page 31