HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1996-05-06SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 6, 1996 AT 8:00
PM
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
Others Present: Suzanne Golt,
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul M. Cohen,
Acting City Manager
OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBER
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item.
CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 201
1. 0 Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Negotiators: Suzanne Golt/Daryl Chandler
City Attorney Ragghianti announced this item was not discussed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
8:00 PM
RE: CARJACKING IN PEACOCK GAP - File 100 x 9-3-30
Wayne Williams, resident of Peacock Gap, addressed the Council, stating he
was shocked over the carjacking in his neighborhood. He stated he is seriously
concerned for the safety of his family, noting there is an element of fear
that was not there before. Mr. Williams stated he was concerned the carjacking
might be dismissed as an isolated incident, noting he felt signals are there
indicating similar incidents will occur in the future. Mr. Williams felt there
were measures the Council should take to fully address this problem. He
reported the trailhead parking lot, at the corner of Biscayne and Point San
Pedro, is frequently filled with parked cars in the late evening, and there
are people drinking. Mr. Williams stated is was easy for these people to case
the neighborhood from this location, and to see clearly that there are
practically no police patrols in the area. He urged the Council to clear these
people out of the neighborhood, and increase the Police patrols in the area.
Mr. Williams reported the parking lots throughout China Camp State Park are
full of kids in cars after dark, and he felt these people should also be cleared
out of the parking lots. Mr. Williams felt these actions would help make the
neighborhood safer, and stated he looked forward to the Council's decisive
action in the near future.
Mayor Boro stated this had been discussed at the Peacock Gap Homeowners'
Association meeting the previous evening, and assured Mr. Williams the City
takes this situation very seriously. He stated the Police Department is fully
investigating the carjacking, and when the perpetrators are apprehended, they
will be prosecuted.
RE: ST. VINCENT DE PAUL DINING ROOM RELOCATION - File 9-2-47
Edwina Codoni, resident of San Rafael, addressed the Council, noting she had
been a teacher and school principal in San Rafael. Ms. Codoni suggested the
I.D.E.S. Hall be used for the homeless, and offered to serve on the Mediation
Committee.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the
recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular Approved as
submitted.
Meetings of Monday, April 15, 1996 (CC)
3. Resolutions Denying Two Appeals of Planning a. RESOLUTION NO. 9586
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 2
Commission Approval of Environmental and
CITY COUNCIL
Design Review Permit (ED95-100) For Five
RAFAEL
Single -Family Residences on Lots 1, 2, 3, 5,
PLANNING
and 6; Montevideo Subdivision (Oakview School
OF
Site), 70 Skyview Terrace; AP No. 165-220-01;
DESIGN
Waterford Associates, LLC, Owner; Farrell -Faber
(ED95-100) FOR
& Associates, Representatives (Pl)
RESIDENCES
- File 10-7
MONTEVIDEO SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION OF THE
OF THE CITY OF SAN
DENYING THE APPEAL OF
COMMISSION APPROVAL
1:4 k,kto0Ci0]k'klIu1:Ik,Yw-111W_1k'klI�7
REVIEW PERMIT
FIVE SINGLE-FAMILY
ON LOTS 1, 2, 3, 5, AND 6;
a. Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (OAKVIEW SCHOOL SITE),
of February 13, 1996, Re: ED95-100, Approval
70 SKYVIEW TERRACE;
of Environmental and Design Review Permit
AP NO. 165-220-01 (Joseph G.
for Two-story Design Plan 5 for Lot #6 of
Buel, appellant).
the Montevideo Terrace Subdivision at
70 Skyview Terrace, San Rafael;
AP No. 165-220-01; Waterford Associates,
b. RESOLUTION NO. 9587 -
LLC, Owner; and Farrell -Faber
RESOLUTION DENYING THE
Associates, Representative (LP),
THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
Joseph G. Buel, Appellant (PL)
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN
b. Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision REVIEW PERMIT (ED95-100)
Decision of February 13, 1996, Re: ED95-100,
FOR FIVE SINGLE-FAMILY
Approval of Environmental and Design
RESIDENCES ON LOTS 1, 2,
Review Permit for New Single -Family
3, 5, AND 6; MONTEVIDEO
Residences on Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, of the
SUBDIVISION (OAKVIEW
Montevideo Subdivision at 70 Skyview
SCHOOL SITE), 70 SKYVIEW
Terrace, San Rafael; AP No. 165-220-01;
TERRACE; AP NO. 165-220-01)
Waterford Associates, LLC, Owner;
(Jerome H. Klein and William
and Farrell -Faber Associates,
Boyd, appellants)
Representatives (LP), Jerome H. Klein and
William Byrd, Appellants (Pl)
5. Resolution to Adopt Increase in Equipment RESOLUTION NO.
9588 -
Replacement Fund Budget (Fin) RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
- File 8-5 1995/96 BUDGET FOR THE
EQUIPMENT REVOLVING FUND.
6. Resolution Approving Agreement with RESOLUTION NO.
9589 -
Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson for Garbage RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Rate Study (Fin) - File 4-3-306 x 4-3-32 SIGNING OF AN
AGREEMENT WITH HILTON, FARNKOPF & HOBSON FOR A GARBAGE RATE STUDY, SUBJECT
TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
8. Resolution Supporting the Gifts for Guns RESOLUTION NO.
9590 -
Exchange Program, Scheduled for June 1, RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE
1996 (PD) - File 9-3-30 GIFTS FOR GUNS EXCHANGE PROGRAM
SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 1, 1996.
9. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract RESOLUTION NO. 9591
Regarding ADA Wheelchair Curb Cuts Construction, RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF
Project No. 019-1990-907 (Bid Opening on Tuesday, CONTRACT TO GHILOTTI
April 23, 1996 at 2:00 PM) (PW) BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION FOR
ADA
- File 4-1-480 WHEELCHAIR RAMP CONSTRUCTION.
11. Resolution Authorizing Signing of an Agreement RESOLUTION NO.
9592 -
Between City of San Rafael and San Rafael RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Sanitation District for Bidding, Contracting MAYOR TO ENTER INTO
AN
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 3
and Construction Management of Andersen Drive AGREEMENT WITH SAN
RAFAEL
Project and Andersen Drive Sanitary Sewer SANITATION DISTRICT
FOR
Improvements (PW) - File 4-12-10 x (SRRA) R-246 BIDDING, CONTRACTING AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OF ANDERSEN DRIVE PROJECT AND ANDERSEN DRIVE SANITARY
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS.
12. Resolution Ratifying Execution of Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 9593
with San Francisco Estuary Institute to RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
Coordinate the Kids in Creeks Program RATIFICATION OF AN
(Re: MCSTOPPP) (PW) - File 4-4-6b AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN
FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE TO COORDINATE THE KIDS IN CREEKS PROGRAM.
14. Information Systems Master Plan Recommendations, RESOLUTION NO. 9594
Including Approval of Amendment Extending
AUTHORIZING AN
Contract With Wise Consulting Services, Inc.
WITH
(CM) - File 4-3-296 x 4-3-117
(In an amount not to exceed $5,000).
RESOLUTION
AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT
WISE CONSULTING SERVICES
15. Requests for Funds for 1996 Safe Graduation RESOLUTION NO. 9595
Night Parties for: (CM) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
- File 105 DONATION TO SAN RAFAEL
HIGH SCHOOL (in amount of
a. San Rafael High School $100).
b. Terra Linda High School
RESOLUTION NO. 9596 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A DONATION TO TERRA LINDA HIGH SCHOOL (in amount of
$100) .
16. Request from the Canal Community Alliance Approved staff
recommendation.
for the City of San Rafael to Become a Major
Sponsor of the Third Annual Canal Community
Festival (CM) - File 8-5 x 9-3-11 x 104
17. Acceptance of Fire Flow Study Report and RESOLUTION NO.
9597 -
Authorization of $500 City Contribution (CM) RESOLUTION ENDORSING
THE FIRE
- File 9-3-31 FLOW MASTER PLAN AND
AUTHORIZING A $500 CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIRE FLOW STUDY GROUP.
18. Resolution of Appreciation for Chantry Bell, RESOLUTION NO. 9598
Associate Planner, Employee of the Quarter RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO
Ending March 31, 1996 (CM) CHANTRY BELL, ASSOCIATE
- File 102 x 7-4 x 10-2 PLANNER, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER
ENDING MARCH 31, 1996.
19. Resolution of Appreciation for Bruce Fladaboe RESOLUTION NO.
9599 -
Concerning ReLeaf (CM) - File 102 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO BRUCE FLADABOE FOR DONATING A VAN FOR USE BY MEMBERS OF THE "REMOVE AND
REPLACE" PROGRAM.
20. Resolution of Appreciation to Herb Weiner, RESOLUTION NO. 9600
for Use of Site to Relocate Fire Department RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO
Personnel and Apparatus
Was Under Construction
- File 102 x 9-3-31
While Fire Station 6 HERB WEINER, FOR USE OF HIS
(FD) PROPERTY TO RELOCATE FIRE
APPARATUS WHILE FIRE STATION
DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL AND
6 WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
21. Settlement Agreement with Golden Gate Bridge RESOLUTION NO. 9601
District and County of Marin Re: Andersen Drive RESOLUTION APPROVING
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 4
AMENDMENT
Extension (RA) - File 4-13-94 x (SRRA) R-246 TO SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
SETTLING LITIGATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, COUNTY OF MARIN, MARIN COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT AND GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE
DISTRICT AND PROVIDING FOR EASEMENTS RELATED TO THE FORMER NORTHWESTERN
PACIFIC RAILROAD MAINLINE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL (Re: Andersen
Drive Extension)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion:
4. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 1995-1996 PRIORITY PROJECT DETERMINATIONS (Pl)
- File 115 (PPP)
Councilmember Cohen noted the staff report indicated Regency Center II would
submit a report concerning child care alternatives within 90 days, while
the minutes of the City Council meeting of April 15th indicate they were
to report back within 60 days. Mr. Cohen stated he felt the Council should
indicate they are consciously changing the time frame from 60 to 90 days.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution establishing 1995-1996 Priority Project Determinations,
recognizing that it grants 90 days for Regency Center II to report back with
alternatives for child care.
RESOLUTION NO. 9602 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDING PRIORITY PROJECT DETERMINATIONS - 1995/96
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
7. RESOLUTION DENYING REQUEST FOR FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
IN ISSUANCE OF ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE AT 1615 FOURTH STREET (THE PINT SIZE
LOUNGE) (PD) - File 9-3-30
Mayor Boro announced this item was being removed from the agenda to be carried
over for two weeks and set for Public Hearing 5/20/96, at the request of
the applicant.
10. TERRA LINDA RECREATION CENTER ROOF REPAIRS - STATUS REPORT (PW)
- File 8-5 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-66
Public Works Director Bernardi reported the Council had originally budgeted
funds for roof repairs during this fiscal year; however, it has taken some
time to determine exactly what the problem was, primarily because the air
conditioning system was part of the trouble, yet the problem remained after
the air conditioning system was repaired, and further investigation needed
to be conducted. He stated they feel they have discovered the problem, but
need additional funding of $20,000 to re -roof the building. He stated they
will bring this item back to the Council as part of the Capital Improvement
Program for next fiscal year, and request the funds to do the work at that
time.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, that this item
be continued and held over for consideration in the 1996/1997 Budget.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
13. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT OF EASEMENT TO PACIFIC BELL
FOR INSTALLATION OF PACIFIC BELL'S FACILITY ON CITY PROPERTY (APN: 09-032-07)
NEAR PICKLEWEED PARK RECREATION CENTER ON CANAL STREET (PW) - File 2-2 x
9-3-65 x 9-3-66
Mayor Boro announced he was abstaining from this item, due to conflict of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 5
interest.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution authorizing execution of grant of easement to Pacific Bell for
installation of Pacific Bell's facility on City property near Pickleweed
Park Recreation Center on Canal Street.
RESOLUTION NO. 9603 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT OF EASEMENT
TO PACIFIC BELL FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PACIFIC BELL FACILITIES
ON A PRESCRIBED PORTION OF CITY PROPERTY (AP 09-032-07) ON CANAL STREET.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller & Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (due to conflict of interest)
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
22. PRESENTATIONS OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO: (CM/FD) - File 102
a. CHANTRY BELL
b. HERB WEINER
C. BRUCE FLADABOE
a. Mayor Boro presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Chantry Bell, Associate
Planner, stating she had been selected Employee of the Quarter ending March
31, 1996. Mayor Boro reported Ms. Bell has been an employee of the City
for nine years, and has consistently done an excellent job and has shown
great commitment to the community, being particularly sensitive to the
environment and the people whom she serves. On behalf of the City, Mayor
Boro congratulated Ms. Bell on being chosen Employee of the Quarter.
b. Mayor Boro presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Herb Weiner, reporting
that when the time came to relocate the staff and equipment from Fire Station
6, in order to build a new fire station, Mr. Weiner volunteered the use of
his property, at no rental charge to the City, allowing the Fire Department
to maintain a strong presence in the Terra Linda Valley. On behalf of the
City Council and the citizens of San Rafael, Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Weiner
for his great effort and contribution to the City.
c. Mayor Boro presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Bruce Fladaboe, in
recognition of his assistance to P. G. & E., ReLeaf, and the City when they
were replacing trees within the City. Mayor Boro explained Mr. Fladaboe
had donated a van to transport the team of young men transplanting the trees,
noting the van was ready and available every Saturday for eight weeks, during
which time fifty trees were planted along the streets of San Rafael. On
behalf of the City of San Rafael, Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Fladaboe for his
contribution and his fine community spirit.
23. YOUTH SERVICE DAY AWARDS (CM) - File 109
Mayor Boro stated that in recognition of National Youth Service Day, at which
time the President has asked each city to commend youth in the community
who volunteer to help within their city, the City of San Rafael has chosen
to recognize those individuals who performed volunteer work for the City's
Library. He stated those being honored tonight had helped in the San Rafael
Public Library's Summer Reading 1995 Program, noting they had assisted in
making reading games, displays, registering children, explaining and helping
children play the reading game, shelved and reorganized books, and kept
statistics. Mayor Boro stated these volunteers showed incredible patience,
empathy, and enthusiasm in working with the children in the reading program,
and they encouraged the children's reading and shared their accomplishments.
Mayor Boro stated the City of San Rafael is very proud of our Library Youth
Volunteers, noting they share the Library's goal that everyone's life should
have as many possibilities as the individual person has interests.
Mayor Boro stated he was pleased to honor these volunteers for helping to open
the lives of over 650 children by encouraging them to open a book, and
presented awards to the following individuals:
Teresa Chiminiello
Christopher Corporandy
Heather Cusick
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 6
Shirine Misif
Roberto Olivia
Lauren Prusiner
Katie Roberts
Sonia Soans
Mayor Boro announced there were five additional volunteers who were not able
to be in attendance, but noted the City would present their awards at the
next City Council meeting, or deliver them to the honorees.
MONTHLY REPORTS:
24. CITY WORK PLAN REVIEW (CM) - File 237 x 9-3-11
Acting City Manager Golt reported that during the Management Team Retreat in
January, specific three-year goals and six-month objectives were developed
for the City's work approach. She explained this report was an update on
the status of those goals and objectives, noting the report has become a
running commentary on how staff is achieving these goals.
Mayor Boro noted the goals and objectives were being met, and asked Ms. Golt
to pass on the Council's thanks for the fine job they are doing.
25. DEPARTMENT REPORT - PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Pl) - File 237 x 10-2
For the benefit of those in the audience, Mayor Boro explained that each month
a brief report is given by one of the City's Department Heads, noting tonight's
report would be delivered by Planning Director Robert Pendoley.
Mr. Pendoley reported that over the next two years staff will be working on
updating the General Plan, noting they have already begun this work, in a
very preliminary way, with the Terra Linda Vision, stating the work that
will come out of that
project will serve to update the General Plan for that portion of the City's
community. He noted an update has also just been completed for the Downtown
area.
Mr. Pendoley stated the Redevelopment staff has taken the lead on this project,
and the Planning Department is working with them on an Economic Development
Vision,
which will also generate updates to the General Plan, and he reported the Housing
Element is scheduled to be updated during the upcoming fiscal year; therefore,
within two years we should have a whole new General Plan.
Mr. Pendoley spoke about 1986 when they first began working on today's General
Plan, and then about three main themes, the planning process as an agent
of change, community building, and economic development, discussing them
from the perspective of Advance Planning and Current Planning.
Looking ahead to the next General Plan update, Mr. Pendoley stated Planning
can be used to promote change, noting they have had their best results in
San Rafael where they have been strategic, and provided incentives rather
than just a flat set of rules. He stated Planning can promote Community
Building, noting the Terra Linda Vision as a good example. He stated if
the City applies Strategic Planning and Community Building to Economic
Development efforts in the General Plan, we should have very good results.
Councilmember Phillips asked for more detail of the changes that have been
made in the Design Review Board process. Mr. Pendoley stated the most
important change was the fact that the Design Review Board went through a
self -appraisal process, identifying what worked well and what hindered them.
He stated they adopted Rules of Order, which helped to assure the flow of
business, helped to avoid backtracking and helped organize the flow of their
meetings, and they elected a Chair. Mr. Pendoley felt it was these small
changes that have brought the most success. In addition, Mr. Pendoley stated
the Planning Department has stopped treating the Design Review Board as an
approval board, noting it is actually an advisory board that does not have
any decision authority; therefore, the Design Review Board is asked for their
technical analysis and recommendation, rather than approval. Mr. Pendoley
stated this really changes the tenure of things, and helps speed their work,
noting the success has been due to the Design Review Board's self-conscious
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 7
andself-directed effort. Mr. Phillips asked if Mr. Pendoley was comfortable
with the way this was working, and Mr. Pendoley stated he felt it was going
very well, noting the Planning Department would have a package of amendments
to the Ordinance, which he felt would help even more, and which he hoped
would be presented to the Council by the end of Summer.
Mr. Phillips reported he and Mayor Boro sit on the North San Rafael Vision,
which has just begun, and stated Mr. Pendoley was to be commended for his
efforts thus far. Mr. Phillips stated he was looking forward to the process,
and felt this would bring the community together, which is a very important
aspect.
Councilmember Heller acknowledged the Planning Department was very busy,
stating they do a very fine job. She asked when staff might be addressing
the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan, and be able to bring a formulated
plan back to Council? Mr. Pendoley stated this was on the work program,
and a preliminary report is to be presented to Council in late June. Mr.
Pendoley noted this will be a joint effort with Redevelopment, Public Works,
and Recreation.
Councilmember Cohen noted he was pleased with the changes he has seen regarding
the Design Review Board, and is hopeful that some of the suggestions the
Planning Department will be bringing to the Council will address the issue
of more defined Rules of Order. He stated he felt the Design Review Board
and Planning Commission processes needed to consider a customer satisfaction
survey, noting perhaps over the next year we might identify people who have
been through the process, either as project proponents or as concerned members
of the community, who have raised questions at the Design Review Board or
Planning Commission, and ask them what their experience was. He stated those
who work for the City are so familiar with the process that things they take
for granted may be obstacles to the public, when they do not need to be.
He felt it would be helpful to hear from the applicants as to what their
experiences have been and how they perceive the process, even with a revised,
improved Design Review process. Mr. Cohen stated this may not mean we will
need to change anything, particularly in the case of project applicants,
because the City must carefully consider an application before it is approved,
noting the community expects us to do that and we must continue to do so,
even though it may be frustrating for people who are not fully prepared for
the process. However, he stated that if we are putting unnecessary
frustrations into the process that do not advance any community interest,
perhaps we can identify that and make changes.
Mayor Boro stated he felt we were really going to need to look at the area
of Home Occupations, noting the nature of how people are going to work in
the future is changing dramatically, especially in Marin County, and he felt
this was something we needed to look at very closely. He stated he felt
Mr. Pendoley and his staff had really excelled in getting consensus built
as they move controversial projects through the process, noting the fact
the City now has a Teen Center that did not have to come before the Council,
but was approved at the Planning level shows that a lot of good work was
done by Mr. Pendoley and his staff in the community. He noted
when people discover we have a Teen Center and we never had to have a meeting
about it in front of the Council, they find that hard to believe, and he
thanked and complimented Mr. Pendoley on that.
26. PUBLIC HEARING- CONSIDERATION OF 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 x 13-8
Police Chief Bob Krolak reported this item had been on the Consent Calendar
of the City Council meeting of April 15, 1996, and at the request of the
applicant's attorney, the item was removed from the Consent Calendar and
this Public Hearing was scheduled. Chief Krolak stated his report provides
the information listed in the City's Ordinance regarding Public Convenience
and Necessity for liquor licenses, with specific information from the
Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) as to the concentration of liquor
licenses in the census tract within the area the applicant wishes to place
their business, as well as a report on the location itself, detailing the
surrounding compatible or incompatible facilities, and crime statistics for
that particular area.
Councilmember Heller asked if Chief Krolak was asking the Council to deny the
application, and Chief Krolak stated he was recommending denial based on
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 8
the criteria specified in the Ordinance, acknowledging that Council could
overrule his recommendation, or have a finding that there is a reason for
Public Convenience and Necessity. Ms. Heller asked if this application had
gone through the Planning Commission, and she was informed it had.
Councilmember Heller asked what the Planning Commission had recommended, and
Mr. Pendoley stated that when this application came before them, the Ordinance
and State Legislation were not yet in effect. He stated the Commission was
quite concerned about the sale of alcohol, and they told the applicant that
California State law then in effect stated the sale of alcohol at a service
station could not be treated any differently from the sale of alcohol at
any other kind of retail outlet; in other words, if it were allowed in a
grocery store in the neighborhood, then the Commission did not have grounds
to deny that it be sold at a gas station. Mayor Boro asked what action was
taken by the Planning Commission, and Mr. Pendoley stated the Planning
Commission approved the request, with a good deal of comment, expression
and concern that they felt it was inappropriate. Ms. Heller asked if the
new law meant the Council would now be seeing all of the applications coming
to them from the Police Department, and Chief Krolak stated that was correct,
noting the City's Ordinance establishes that the requests come through the
Police Department, are placed on the City Council's Consent Calendar, and
can be removed for Public Hearing at the request of the Council or the
applicant.
Councilmember Phillips referred to the statistics provided by Mike Mann of
the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control, asking if there is a standard
against which the concentration is measured, and if this is a subjective
or objective measurement? Chief Krolak responded he was not certain, as
this was ABC' s statistic; however, he noted it was based on the census tract,
which refers to the population within that particular tract and the number
of licenses currently in place. Chief Krolak noted ABC gathers this
information on a Countywide basis, so the information regarding the number
of licenses allowed, and the number of existing licenses, is based on the
averages that they have issued within the County of Marin. Mr. Phillips
asked, based on actual licenses granted, if this condition existed elsewhere,
would they recommend there not be more than seven licenses? Chief Krolak
stated their finding would be that there was an undue concentration, noting
the Council could find that there was a Public Convenience or Necessity as
a result of the Public Hearing, noting his report is merely the numerical
review by ABC, based on the criteria they use for the County of Marin. Mr.
Phillips asked Chief Krolak if he felt comfortable with the criteria used
by ABC, and the application of that criteria as it pertains to San Rafael,
and Chief Krolak responded that he did, in conjunction with the information
listed as criteria within the City's Ordinance.
Mr. Phillips asked if there had been any discussion with regard to these types
of issues when this was before the Planning Commission, noting that although
the law has changed, the same central point existed with regard to
concentration. Mr. Pendoley stated the Planning Commission did not address
the subject of concentration; however, they did not feel it was a good idea
to be selling alcohol at a gas station, as they felt it encouraged drinking
and driving.
Councilmember Cohen referred to Exhibit "A", noting the portion for Crime
Reporting District statistics has been lined out, and a check mark indicates
"Jurisdiction unable to provide statistical data"; however, he noted Chief
Krolak's report of April 9th addresses reported crimes and the percentage
of those crimes in this reporting zone. He asked if that was because Chief
Krolak' s statistics did not mesh with what ABC was looking for? Chief Krolak
stated that, as a result of this relatively new legislation that allows for
local jurisdictions, cities or counties,
to pass an Ordinance establishing this criteria, ABC did not have that
information; therefore, local jurisdictions are now being asked by ABC, on
a strictly voluntary basis, to provide them with that information. He stated
the City has done that, providing them with a map of the City and specific
police reporting zones, and the numbers that go along with the zones, so
ABC now has this information. Mr. Cohen asked, based on the information
Chief Krolak has provided to the Council, if ABC had obtained that
information, would it have been another set of criteria where the application
would fail to meet criteria set forth by ABC? Chief Krolak stated he felt
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 9
ABC would basically have come up with the same figures the City did, based
on the fact there were so many reported crimes, based on the criteria for
reported crimes used in our Ordinance, as well as the number of arrests,
and the determination as to whether these meet the 120% average of offenses
in that particular zone. Mr. Cohen asked if the 120% was, in fact, exceeded
in this zone, and Chief Krolak stated it was.
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and invited Ralph Salzman to
address the Council.
Ralph Salzman, Attorney for UNOCAL, addressed the Council, stating he wished
to present a brief history of this issue. Mr. Salzman stated he was perplexed
and a little surprised, because UNOCAL has never had a request for a Public
Convenience or Necessity letter denied before, noting they are currently
in the process of 150 projects throughout Northern and Southern California.
He reported this is not a new concept and that, historically, the concept
of Public Convenience and Necessity has been in existence since the mid
1980's, stating it was pursued through Rule 61.3, which was applicable by
the ABC in instances where there was an incident of high crime and an over
concentration of licenses. Mr. Salzman stated he was not surprised to see
the Crime Reporting District portion had been crossed off on Exhibit "A",
noting that in the past the requirement for reporting from the Police
Departments was so convoluted, it was almost impossible for them to comply
with the ABC statistical requirements, and most Northern California
jurisdictions just did not do it. He stated they had their own internal
statistics, including F.B.I. sanctioned statistics, and although some had
ABC statistics, most did not.
Referring to "Undue Concentration", Mr. Salzman stated this was a rule criteria
that has now been codified into statute. He explained each of the 58 counties
in California now has a ratio of existing ABC licenses to the existing census,
per the Federal census taking, which currently is as of 1990. Mr. Salzman
reported there are 8000 people in this census tract, and an existing ratio
at the time of this
application of one license per 1327 people; therefore, the number of licenses
allowed in this census tract is seven. He stated that because there are
already nine licenses in this tract, the statute of Public Convenience and
Necessity applies, noting that if there were six licenses with seven allowed,
the statute would not even apply, and the ABC would issue the license based
on all of the other statutory criteria of their investigation.
Mr
Salzman stated Statute 23958.4 was adopted by the Legislature in August,
1994, and signed by the Governor in September of that year. He reported
it was published to every city and county in California, and became effective
January 1, 1995. Mr. Salzman stated San Rafael's Planning Commission
received the application and conducted a Public Hearing on June 13, 1995,
so the statute had already been in effect for six months. He reported the
Planning Commission issued a Conditional Use permit, noting there had been
much discussion regarding the use of alcohol during the hearing, and it was
specified that "alcoholic beverage sales, beer and wine only allowed, shall
not be allowed between the hours of 12:00 Midnight and 6:00 AM Friday and
Saturday, and 11:00 PM to 6:00 AM Sunday through Thursday. Mr. Salzman stated
this limitation was a result of some input from the Police Department, who
expressed a desire to restrict the hours down from what would normally be
allowed by statute, which is closure at 2:00 AM.
Mr. Salzman stated that in mid-July, after six months of the statute being
in effect, his office communicated with the authorized representatives of
the City of San Rafael, stating UNOCAL was requesting a letter of Public
Convenience or Necessity, noting they were used to an informal process, as
most cities did not have a formal process. He stated they were informed
by the City the process had not yet been established, noting Resolution 9450
had been adopted and was effective in September, 1995, nine months after
the statute was effective. Mr. Salzman stated that at the earliest possible
time, and with repeated conversations and correspondence, the City of San
Rafael sent forms, which were then drafted in final form and returned to
the Police Department in January, 1996.
Mr. Salzman reported there is a provision in Resolution 9450 which requires
the Police Department to issue a report within thirty days of receipt of
the final application form. He stated there were no additions to the
application after submission in January, 1996; however, during the course
of the investigation the ABC was requested to review the application, and
submitted what is now Exhibit "A" on March 7, 1996. Mr. Salzman stated 90
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 10
days after that date the Police Department
submitted a report recommending denial of the application. He stated the
criteria in the Ordinance, which is used as a basis for the denial, is the
same criteria that triggers the Ordinance to begin with. He noted one of
the reasons Chief Krolak indicated as a basis for the denial was an
overconcentration of licenses, and Mr. Salzman stated they do not even ask
for a letter of Public Convenience or Necessity unless there is an
overconcentration of licenses, so it seemed odd to him that this would be
a basis for denial. He stated another basis for denial was the crime
statistics, which were apparently compiled after ABC submitted their form
in March. He noted that was another triggering device, stating they do not
come before the City Council and request a letter of Public Convenience or
Necessity unless there is high crime, so again, it seemed odd that this would
be a basis for denial when it is a basis for triggering the statutory criteria
to begin with.
Mr. Salzman stated the concept of Public Convenience or Necessity has been
around since the early 1980's in a different form, Rule 61.3. He noted that
under this Rule, where there was an undue concentration of licenses or high
crime, it was incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate to the ABC
subjective satisfaction that the Public Convenience or Necessity would be
served by the issuance of the license. Mr. Salzman stated the entire concept
behind UNOCAL's construction of this service station, and the basis for its
going forward to begin with, is Public Necessity and Convenience, noting
the service station has already been constructed, based on the Conditional
Use permit and the non-existence of any criteria or Ordinance for Public
Convenience or Necessity within the City of San Rafael.
Mr. Salzman reported it is UNOCAL's studied market criteria decision that
service bays are no longer effective in service stations, noting people do
not go to them, parts are too complicated, and it is too costly for a service
station owner to attempt to service cars; therefore, in order to allow service
stations to continue, some other profit base had to be brought forward, and
through exhaustive market studies, it was determined by most service stations
that Public Convenience and Necessity would be served if they could have
convenience stores. He stated UNOCAL has a limited amount of shelf space,
and intends to sell only a minimal amount of beer and wine, stating it is
only for the convenience of the customer who wants to have beer and wine
with one stop, rather than two stops, noting traffic in San Rafael, as
everywhere else, makes this a consideration. Mr. Salzman stated it is to
the convenience of the customer to have only one stop, and if they cannot
get beer and wine at this location, the buying pattern takes that customer
out of UNOCAL's buying market altogether.
Mr. Salzman stated one of the criteria Chief Krolak indicated as a basis for
the denial was that there was a beer and wine license at a location a tenth
of a mile from the UNOCAL station, but stated that has not historically and
traditionally been the criteria, noting the criteria is "how is this license
unique, how is it different, and how is it housed differently". Mr. Salzman
stated each license is the same, one to the next, noting the distinction
and manner of convenience is how the license is housed differently than other
licenses. He stated he felt the UNOCAL project, which is something everyone
can now see as it has been completed for quite some time, is unique to the
immediate area. He stated there may be other service stations a person could
drive to and compare to, but as far as the immediate area, it is unique,
noting that is how Public Convenience is served, and that is the criteria
under the old rule.
Mr. Salzman stated as far as other considerations, such as churches, schools,
and playgrounds are concerned, those are all criteria that are already set
out in a different statute, and already the subject matter of ABC
investigation. He stated it troubles him that it is duplicated by Ordinance,
whereas he believed the State law would pre-empt that.
Mr. Salzman stated there was one issue he believes is of utmost significance,
which is that UNOCAL is not adding a license, they have taken the time to
locate and expended the money to purchase an existing license within the
City to place into this location, noting the purchase of this license is
already in escrow.
Bob Holmes, Marin Association of Realtors, addressed the Council, stating he
has the greatest respect for Chief Krolak and the San Rafael Police
Department; however, he wishes to speak in strong opposition to the Chief's
recommendation regarding the letter of Public Convenience and Necessity for
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 11
Spirit Enterprises. He urged the Council to grant the request for the finding
of Public Convenience or Necessity, stating the owner is moving ahead with
the purchase of the UNOCAL station, based on the approval of the Planning
Commission granted on June 13, 1995, which included the approval of the
off -sale license for wine and beer by a 5-1 vote. Mr. Holmes stated that
had been an important consideration of the owner's application for, and
approval of, a loan to purchase the service station.
Mr. Holmes referred to a letter dated June 30, 1995 from the Planning Department
to UNOCAL, regarding the application for the approval of the Environmental
and Design Review Permit for the demolition and reconstruction of the service
station, and Use Permit for the mini -mart, which was approved with conditions
limiting hours, and also included a requirement that at the end of one year
this permit would be subject to review by the Police Department. Mr. Holmes
stated all of these factors entered into the demolition, and the approval
and moving forward of this project, noting he felt everyone would agree this
was a tremendous improvement for the area. Mr. Holmes felt it should be
taken into consideration that the report to the Planning Commission later
specifically delineated the limiting of the hours of operation, and the
applicant agreed to the one year review.
Mr. Holmes referred to Chief Krolak's report, in which he addresses the existence
of other convenience stores with licenses within this census tract or nearby,
noting it does not specifically state where, within the census tract, these
other stores or licenses are located, or how large an area the census tract
is, noting the other stores may be completely on the other side of the census
tract from the UNOCAL location, and he felt this was something that should
also be taken into consideration.
Mr. Holmes reported there had been discussion at the June 13, 1995 Planning
Commission meeting regarding drinking and driving, and whether this might
contribute to that situation. He noted, however, it was also brought out
in those minutes that right around the corner from the UNOCAL location, at
the Cheaper Store, people could purchase beer or wine and then drive away
in their cars, so he felt UNOCAL's proposal was not an invitation to drinking
and driving. Mr. Holmes also referred to Chief Krolak's mention of crime
statistics, but stated there was no mention of any percentage of the crime
statistics being related specifically to drinking.
Mr. Holmes respectfully asked the Council to approve the finding of Public
Convenience and Necessity in this particular situation, stating he believed
the owner has been caught up in the whole situation, after being granted
approval, and with UNOCAL relying on that approval and the word of the City
of San Rafael that they were going to grant this application; and then, at
the last minute, after the owner has applied for, received, and signed his
loan and escrow is under way, the City changes the rules of the game. Mr.
Holmes stated he felt that was the wrong message to send to the business
community in San Rafael, and urged the Council to grant this request for
a letter of Public Convenience and Necessity for UNOCAL.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Boro asked the City Attorney if the reason this issue was before the
Council at this time was because the Council has the discretion to approve
or disapprove the application, and Assistant City Attorney Guinan responded
that was correct. Mr. Guinan reported that prior to January, 1995 it was
the sole power of the ABC Control Board to issue such licenses; however,
once the law was changed, after numerous problems in certain major cities,
local agencies were given this option once the ABC refused or denied a license
based on undue concentration. Mayor Boro asked if the criteria of having
nine existing licenses versus seven licenses allowed a reason the Council
may consider denial, and Mr. Guinan stated this was one of several criteria
they could consider.
Mayor Boro stated he just does not agree with the issuance of Public Convenience
in this instance, noting he felt the worst thing a city could do would be
to sell liquor at a gas station. He stated if the individual who applied
for this application were to survey the City, he would find there is not
one gas station in the City that sells liquor, wine, or beer, noting this
has been the policy of the City to date, and although the laws have changed
and the City must deal with the laws, the Council does have discretion in
this matter. He stated he finds it
unconscionable to say that we want to have convenience, when there is a liquor
store within a tenth of a mile. He stated a person buying a six pack of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 12
beer and a tank of gas on a warm day was not a good mix, and he felt it was
morally wrong to approve this. He stated Chief Krolak had done an excellent
job on his analysis, and urged the Council to uphold the recommendation and
deny the permit.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was unclear as to the chronology as it relates
to the law itself, noting January 1, 1995 was cited as the date of the statute,
June 13, 1995 as the date of Planning Commission approval, with another step
taken in July. He asked if there had been an oversight on the part of Planning
Commission because this was a relatively new law that should have been taken
into consideration, noting he was troubled about the sequence and implied
consent by the Planning Commission in June. Planning Director Pendoley
stated that when the Planning Commission looked at the application, neither
the Commission nor staff was aware of the new legislation, noting the
application was reviewed by all of the departments, and he is not even sure
that the Police Department knew about the new legislation at the time, as
they had signed -off on the permit, suggesting a few conditions which the
Planning Commission applied. Mr. Pendoley stated there
certainly was no process in place at the time to administer this type of hearing.
Mr. Phillips asked the City Attorney if the action taken in June influences
the decision the Council must make, or jeopardizes their decision if they
decide to deny the permit, by creating an issue for the City? City Attorney
Ragghianti stated he did not believe that was the case, although Mr. Holmes
made a good argument for that case; however, the question is purely legal,
and the purely legal answer is that the Council may act at this time,
regardless of what has happened. Mr. Phillips asked if that meant the Council
could make a decision for denial, without prejudice, due to the Planning
Commission recommendation in June? Mr. Ragghianti stated, in his opinion,
they could.
Councilmember Heller asked if, at this point in time, liquor could be sold
at any service station in the State of California with a local Use Permit?
City Attorney Ragghianti stated he was not certain this was the case,
although this legislation has returned to local prerogative the right to
pass on Public Necessity and Convenience, noting that prior to this
legislation, Alcohol Beverage Control was the exclusive agency that
determined whether to issue a permit or not. However, whether that means
every gas station can apply for an off -sale license, Mr. Ragghianti stated
he did not know. Ms. Heller asked if another gas station were to apply for
a permit, and there were not the number of existing licenses within that
particular census tract, would they automatically get a liquor license within
our City? Assistant City Attorney Guinan stated it would depend on the census
tract and the number of licenses currently there, noting that if the number
of existing licenses exceeds the average, it will automatically be denied
by the ABC, and be returned to the City Council for a hearing; however, if
it does not reach that level, then it will not be sent to the City Council.
Ms. Heller asked if the Council would then have to issue them a Use Permit
allowing the sale of liquor in the City of San Rafael? Mr. Guinan stated
the Council would not be issuing a Use Permit for liquor and wine, the Council
would be conditioning the Use Permit for the mini -mart on certain conditions,
such as the Planning Commission did in this instance when they were unaware
of the State legislation that allowed the Council the opportunity to make
the kind of review now before them. Ms. Heller stated she was still troubled
by the fact that unless the number of licenses is tripped, then someone in
the next census tract can automatically have their application go through,
and the Council will have nothing to say about it as a City, or as a Policy
of what we expect to be sold in this City. Mr. Guinan stated that was correct,
noting that used to be true for any number of licenses in a census tract
until this legislation was enacted. Mr. Pendoley stated the Planning
Commission had explored this issue at some length with the City Attorney's
office when they received the application, because they were concerned about
the sale of alcohol at a gas station. He reported the Planning Commission's
and the Council's authority in terms of Land Use Permits was limited, noting
that although there were a variety of conditions that could be placed on
it, they were advised they could not have a prohibition.
Councilmember Cohen stated he felt the issue of equity is one that concerns
him, noting that given the concern of the Planning Commission at the time
of the application, he is somewhat surprised the Council did not learn of
this sooner than a year after Planning Commission approval. He stated he
could understand the concern of Mr. Holmes about whether or not there is
equity in the Council coming into this a year after the fact; however, he
stated the City has a long standing concern about this type of operation,
noting there have been previous discussions on other applications for
convenience stores in gas stations, and we are seeing more and more of these.
Mr. Cohen stated he remembers participating in such a discussion when he
was on the Planning Commission five years ago, and he believes the City has
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 13
been fairly consistent in its opposition to that concept. He stated he was
relieved to see, in some circumstances at least, the City still has some
control over this.
Responding to the comments made by the attorney representing UNOCAL,
Councilmember Cohen stated the criteria that triggers the law and brings
the issue before the Council does not suddenly go away when the issue comes
before the Council. He stated as he understood the issue being presented
to the Council, it falls to the Council to determine whether or not there
are overriding considerations as to why they would recommend a license like
this for approval, given these circumstances, and noted he had not heard
any. He stated the argument that there is no other gas station at this
intersection with a liquor license is not a compelling one, noting every
other one of the criteria he has seen weighs heavily in his mind against
the granting of such a license. He stated he recognizes the issue of fairness
that has been raised, noting the City must bend over backward to be clear
on what the rules are going into such discussions, but stated maintaining
the City's policy of opposition to an operation such as this, and the
opposition to alcohol sales at gas stations, outweighs the concerns raised
by the equity issues. He stated that if the City is within its legal rights
to uphold Chief Krolak's recommendation and deny the application, he felt
the Council should do so.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt a
Resolution denying a request for finding of Public Convenience and Necessity
in the issuance of an off -sale liquor license at 981 Francisco Boulevard.
Under discussion, Councilmember Heller stated she was concerned about the
timeline, and asked if the number of permits drops below seven at this
particular site, could this applicant come back and again request a permit?
Chief Krolak stated it was his understanding they could. He referred to
the Resolution passed by the City Council in 1984, which prohibits selling
alcohol in gas station mini -marts, but noted the State legislation enacted
after this Resolution was passed supersedes the Resolution. However, he
stated this does not prohibit the Council from not issuing a letter of Public
Convenience and Necessity. Ms. Heller stated she did not see that there
was Public Convenience or Necessity in this instance.
Councilmember Phillips referred to the two conditions under which the Council
could deny this permit, concentration and crime statistics, and asked Chief
Krolak if it was his opinion that if the Council were to grant the approval
of a permit for this location, would crime increase in that area? Chief
Krolak stated it was difficult to state absolutely "yes" or "no", but based
on the information he has gathered, there is already a concentration of
alcohol licenses in that area, and the crime statistics in the Canal
neighborhood are high to begin with, and he believes that is just another
factor that could, possibly, lend itself to increased crime. Mr. Phillips
stated it struck him that the combination of high concentration and the
possibility of increased crime in this area are not desirable, nor is it
desirable to break with the City's long standing practices, as the Mayor
has pointed out.
RESOLUTION NO. 9604 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DENYING
REQUEST FOR FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IN ISSUANCE OF
OFF -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE AT 981 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Boro requested Acting City Manager Golt to contact the League of California
Cities to see if there is any movement in their organization concerning the
banning of alcohol sales at gas stations; also, that a letter be drafted
on behalf of the Council to our Assemblywoman and State Senators stating
the Council has found the potential for problems is there, and asking for
discussion from them as to why they feel this new legislation is a good idea,
noting Council collectively supports the policy the City was able to uphold
in the past.
27. PUBLIC HEARING - APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ADD CHAPTERS 9.22 AND 9.23, ADOPTING REGULATORY FEES TO FUND HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE AND CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR WASTE
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 14
ACTIVITIES (Fin)
- File 13-2 x 115 x 4-3-32
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and asked for the staff report.
Finance Director Coleman reported the City filed for and received a grant last
year to open and operate a Household Hazardous Waste Facility, and to date
that facility has been very successful. He stated the facility has been
operating since November, 1995, but the funds to operate the facility will
run out in June. Mr. Coleman explained the Ordinance being presented would
allow the Council to impose a fee that
would allow the facility to continue operating beyond June. He stated the
Ordinance is simply to allow the fee to be levied; it does not establish
the fee, noting that if the Ordinance is approved, they would come back before
the Council in June to recommend the fee.
Councilmember Heller reported she has visited the facility and feels it is
excellent, noting the City owes a great deal of thanks to Fire Prevention
Officer Forrest Craig in putting this program together, and the City has
been well served by this plan. She stated the facility is very well run
and designed, noting she has heard these same remarks from people living
outside our district. Ms. Heller asked if the fees to be recommended in
June will be the same for those from outside our district who wish to use
the facility? Mr. Coleman noted the fee will be determined by how many people
participate, and the charge will include not only a fee for the operation
of the facility, but also a cost the City should be able to recover from
the fee. He stated all of the agencies would probably be paying the same
fee. Ms. Heller referred to the price list, stating the cost per vehicle
is amazingly low for such an expensive process as the disposing of household
waste, and noting the cost is less than half the cost per car that was in
effect under the JPA. She stated the City should be very proud of this
program, and she is very pleased with everyone who has worked on the project.
Mayor Boro invited members of the public to speak on this item.
Patty Garbarino, owner of Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery, addressed
the Council, commending Forrest Craig as the driving force behind the
Hazardous Waste Collection Program. She reported the City's costs are 1/12th
the County's costs, due to Mr. Craig's diligence, and she publicly thanked
him for his work on this project.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Cohen stated it is wonderful the Council has the opportunity
to approve proposals such as this, stating he wished to publicly thank Forrest
Craig, Marin Recycling and Recovering, and the Garbarino family for their
diligence in providing this type of opportunity to the City.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADDING CHAPTERS
9.22 AND 9.23 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, ADOPTING REGULATORY FEES
TO FUND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT SMALL QUANTITY
GENERATOR WASTE ACTIVITIES."
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with
the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only
and pass Ordinance No. 1696 to print, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
28. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE TO AMEND THE PLANNED DISTRICT (PD) ZONING
DISTRICT FROM MEDICAL OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW
PERMIT, USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR NINE CLUSTERED
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON SMITH RANCH ROAD, PARCEL #2; AP No.
155-251-86; MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, OWNER; CHRIS CRAIKER, ARCHITECT,
REPRESENTATIVE (Pl) - File 5-1-328 x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and asked for the staff report.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 15
Planning Director Pendoley reported that in March, 1992 the Council adopted
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the development of this property,
and the adjacent property housing what is now the Deer Valley Apartments.
He noted that at the time the EIR was approved, the Council had also approved
a Planned District (PD) which allowed the apartment project to proceed, and
designated the two acre parcel, which is now before the Council, for medical
offices.
Mr. Pendoley stated the proposal before Council is to change the Planned District
to permit residential use of the two acre parcel, as well as a subdivision,
Use Permit, and Design Review Permit, which are all designed to facilitate
a nine unit clustered housing project. Mr. Pendoley reported this project
does incorporate all of the mitigation measures which were included in the
Environmental Impact Report, noting the most important mitigation measures
address protecting the pond and establishing a wildlife corridor.
Mr. Pendoley reported that just after the report was sent for printing, the
Planning Department received correspondence from Barbara Salzman,
representing the Marin Audubon Society, to which Mr. Pendoley felt the need
to respond.
Mr. Pendoley stated his report summarizes the mitigation measures aimed at
protecting the pond, noting a wildlife corridor was established, as well
as a buffer around the pond, and a fence was also included. He stated the
parcel of property now before the Council is a two acre site, which he pointed
out on a map of the property. Mr. Pendoley reported Ms. Salzman is concerned
regarding wildlife access to the pond, pointing out a particular area of
concern where work has taken place. Mr. Pendoley reported that as part of
the approval of the EIR and Deer Valley Apartments Project, a sedimentation
basin was constructed, and a piping system was installed with riprap to handle
the siltation basin, so the basin can do its job and protect the pond.
Mr. Pendoley stated Ms. Salzman was concerned the environmental conditions
have changed since the time the EIR was adopted, specifically that the
drainage construction has blocked access to the pond for animals and,
therefore, she believes the Negative Declaration before the Council should
not be approved, and that additional environmental work should be done.
Mr. Pendoley pointed out on the map where the siltation basin has been built,
as called for in the EIR, where the drainage system was established and the
underground pipes were installed, and where a small system of riprap,
approximately ten feet wide, has been placed. Mr. Pendoley stated staff
feels this does not amount to a significant change to the environment because
it was installed as required by the EIR, and because it encompasses such
a small area. He noted they would not expect that changes to such
a small area would affect access to the pond, particularly by deer, as Ms.
Salzman has cited. Mr. Pendoley stated the purpose of the wildlife corridor
is to give
access for animals over the entire area; therefore, staff believes this work
is entirely consistent with the EIR, and should not jeopardize the Negative
Declaration.
Mayor Boro invited members of the public to address the Council.
Chris Craiker, Architect for the project, addressed the Council, noting he
has worked on the site for approximately six years with various projects.
He reported Marin General Hospital, current owners of the property, had
at one time envisioned the entire property as a medical site, but noted the
Medical Use was never compatible with the neighborhood, or the General Plan.
Mr. Craiker explained the General Plan states this should be a Residential,
Medium -density site, allowing twelve to twenty-nine units on the site, which
they feel would be far too much. He stated a Hillside Transitional Detached
Housing Project is the ideal project for this location, stating it works
very well, and certainly much better than a medical office could ever be.
He reported it also reduces the traffic in the area, because residential
use will have less peak hour traffic, noting a few extra traffic trips can
go back into the "traffic bank".
Mr. Craiker acknowledged there are some people who would like to see nothing
built on the site, noting there have been three Public Hearings, neighborhood
meetings, and a number of Design Review meetings, although no one has had
a complaint about the plan itself. He stated there will always be people
who would like to see nothing built on the land, but until they come forward
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 16
and purchase the land, development of the land will proceed.
Mr. Craiker stated the project calls for nine houses, with five different floor
plans, and uphill and downhill designs, and emphasized that all of the
conditions put on this site are being met and exceeded. He stated they
consider the pond to be a valuable part of the community, noting he had worked
on the Pond Management Plan for six months, helping to create something he
felt would be a real asset.
Mr. Craiker felt Ms. Salzman's letters were confusing this project with the
adjacent Deer Valley Apartments Project, reporting the sediment pond, which
is on their site, is still under construction, and noting they should be
given the chance to complete that project and all the improvements they are
making to their area.
Mr. Craiker stated he sympathized with Ms. Salzman's desire to have nothing
on the site, but noted that is not realistic. He felt it was appropriate
for this project to move forward and be approved.
Councilmember Cohen asked to what extent the owners of these new homes are
going to be involved in the participation of the ongoing maintenance, noting
it had always been his understanding that when the properties were developed,
the owners of the properties would participate, not only in the Pond
Management Plan, but there would also be some money for the ongoing
maintenance of the pond, to ensure it would be
protected from the effects of the development. Mr. Pendoley reported the Deer
Valley project was required to fund the Smith Ranch Pond Management Plan,
noting the Advisory Committee finished work on that plan a couple of weeks
ago, and the final edition is now being printed. He reported the Condition
of Approval that was required for Deer Valley is being recommended for this
project, and states the project will contribute to the ongoing maintenance.
He stated, based on the priorities set and recommended by the Advisory
Committee that worked on the Management Plan, the ongoing cost of maintenance
would be approximately $1,000 per year, once the initial dredging is
accomplished. He reported the committee recommends the first project to
be undertaken should be to simply dredge out the pond, clear out a particular
species of invasive water plant, and after that, the next priority would
be to pick up debris. Mr. Pendoley stated the two considerations are wanting
to keep trash out of the pond, and wanting to keep clean water in the pond,
noting the drain system that has been established for Deer Valley, Smith
III and this project will accomplish that.
Mr. Cohen asked, if this project is developed as nine single-family units and
there is no homeowners association, how will it be structured so that this
project participates in the ongoing maintenance? Mr. Pendoley stated that
prior to the issuance of the building permits, the property would be required
to enter into an appropriate contract, approved by the City Attorney, that
would be recorded and would commit to the ongoing funding of their share
of the maintenance cost. Mr. Pendoley stated, from the Planning Department's
view, the preferred entity is a neighborhood organization; however, he stated
the Condition has been written in such a way that if they want to propose
an alternative to that, and if it is acceptable to the City Attorney, Public
Works, and Planning, and is accepted by the City Council, then another
administrative arrangement could be made. Mr. Cohen stated he believed this
was an issue that would need to be resolved in some fashion, so the Council
can be assured that if they approve this project there will be a way to ensure
ongoing maintenance.
Councilmember Cohen stated he understood why the pond was viewed as an amenity
to these units, and they would want to enhance views of the pond, particularly
from the units on the end nearest the wildlife corridor. However, referring
to other discussions within the community concerning projects close to
environmentally sensitive corridors, Mr. Cohen stated there might be some
argument for reducing exposure to those amenities, noting that at nighttime,
or other such times that human beings might want to be outside enjoying the
view, may be when animals are traversing, and the presence of humans may
discourage animals from using the pond and the corridor. Mr. Cohen stated
the discussion was to create the corridor so there would be access from the
open space to the pond, even though most of it was slated for development.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 17
Mr. Cohen stated he tried to get a sense from the drawings as to the design
features scheduled for the rear of the end units, closest to the open space
corridors, and wondered if there would be decks in the back, or open areas
where there would be a lot of human activity that might create this type
of conflict? Mr. Craiker stated four or five different types of fences will
be installed in that area, pointing them out on the map and noting there
will be no access for people out to the open space, and a fence all the way
around the entire property, to minimize activity around the pond. Mr. Cohen
asked if there would be decks on the units facing the pond? Mr. Craiker
reported that instead of a deck there would be a yard three feet wide, with
a fence behind it separating the yard from the open space. He noted the
yard will be flat, and is not above the pond.
Councilmember Heller asked when the units would be ready for sale, and what
the price range would be? Mr. Craiker reported they hope to be able to break
ground on the project this year and, hopefully, be completed by Spring of
next year. He stated he is uncertain as to the price, but noted they will
be in the $300,000 range.
Councilmember Phillips referred to Mr. Craiker's statement that Ms. Salzman
had confused this project with another, and asked for clarification. Mr.
Craiker stated her letter had mentioned the sediment pond that was being
created for the Deer Valley Apartments Project, pointing out on the map that
the property has a little "dog -leg" that comes down around the pond, and
that is where a lot of the sediment
comes down from the open space into the pond. He noted they are trying to
drain as much water into the pond as possible, without the sediment. He
stated the treatment process would function quite well, and would not be
inhibitive to wildlife; however, he reiterated that this was on the Deer
Valley Apartments' site.
Mr. Phillips asked if the Planning Department staff was comfortable with the
point Ms. Salzman raised concerning the deer and other wildlife being
prohibited, and asked if we were certain that was not the case? Mr. Pendoley
stated that was not a problem, and pointed out on the map the structure Ms.
Salzman referred to in her letter, and showed the slope is not significantly
different from the slopes on the
other three sides. He also reported three sides of the pond are fenced, with
the fourth side left open, as required by the EIR, to ensure the animals
will have an easy access not only to the side, but to be able to get all
the way around the pond. He stated there are deer trails all the way around
the pond, indicating the animals are able to get down; therefore, staff
recommends that the changes are very minor in affecting deer access. Mr.
Phillips stated it seems clear that this is not just speculation, but there
is evidence that this is not in anyway infringing upon the deer. Mr Pendoley
stated that was correct, and noted that when walking along the wet ground
of the shoreline, a variety of animal tracks are found. He also reported
a biologist had worked on the plan, and found ample evidence of animals being
able to get to the pond.
Sam Cogswell, resident of the Captain's Cove neighborhood, addressed the
Council, stating he has been concerned about this pond for quite a while.
Mr. Cogswell stated he commends the designers for the quality of their
design, but he still maintains it is not appropriate to develop this parcel,
and requested the Council withhold the zone change from Medical to
Residential.
Mr. Cogswell stated he felt the zone change would severely degrade the wildlife
access because it would limit the access to a significantly steep approach,
and he presented drawings of the area he believed would illustrate his point.
Mr. Cogswell stated the project would result in the pond bisecting the
wildlife corridor into two narrow corridors, thus reducing the corridor to
a 30% access.
Mr. Cogswell stated the EIR originally proposed leaving the entire east side
undeveloped as being environmentally superior, and stated he wanted to go
on record as stating he felt this desperately needed re-examination. Mr.
Cogswell did not feel the EIR effectively addressed any impacts of the
development of this parcel, and quoted, "The wildlife corridor recommended
in the draft EIR would provide adequate access to the pond. It is true that
the wider the corridor the more incrementally beneficial to the wildlife;
however, increasing the corridor to include the proposed medical facility
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 18
would not result in significant increase in value of the wildlife corridor",
and "There is no proposal or design by a medical
facility at this time, and until there is a proposal, it will not be possible
to assess the impacts on the pond, if any". Mr. Cogswell felt this
illustrated that the original EIR was unclear, and this was his concern,
that there should be some additional review prior to changing the zoning.
Mr. Cogswell stated he did not feel the concerns in the letter he submitted
to the Planning Department had been adequately addressed, and he read excerpts
from his letter to the Council. He stated that when looking closely at the
two types of uses, it seems clear that Residential is more environmentally
challenging and potentially destructive than Office or Medical. He noted
traffic has been projected by some surveys to be less, with nine homes, than
with a medical office; however, being a Board Officer of a Homeowner
Association, Mr. Cogswell stated he could easily verify that the average
automobile count is two per household, and visiting friends, relatives, pizza
deliveries, parties, and all other manner of activities go on seven days
per week, rather than five. He stated while this may not be the same office
or peak trip situation, the net affect is quite significant over twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty-five days per year.
Mr. Cogswell stated human beings and residents, year-round, are much more
likely to jump a fence to splash around in a pond they live next door to
than a patient who needs treatment, or a medical worker coming on or going
off of work. Mr. Cogswell was also concerned about pets, noting that even
when there are rules against pets, they are often kept in violation of such
rules, and such animals have a very destructive affect on wildlife, often
following their natural instinct to hunt.
Mr. Cogswell stated he had been attending meetings and commenting on the
development around the pond since the 1980's, and he would, again, recommend
the Council to take a second look at the environmentally superior alternative.
He stated the configuration currently proposed is clearly an environmentally
challenging one to keep in balance, noting the final EIR did not have enough
information to evaluate the effects of the proposed development. He noted
that while the proposal by Mr. Craiker makes a commendable effort to be a
careful and environmentally sensitive design, it is hard to believe the design
has been given a Negative Declaration status for such significant change
and development in a habitat. Mr. Cogswell stated he felt compelled to urge
further environmental review.
Mr. Cogswell reported the pond is now surrounded on three sides; on the North
and West by significant development and access roads, and on the South by
a four -lane boulevard with ever increasing traffic. He stated, as a
resident, he can assure the Council the road -kill count has increased
significantly in the past year. Mr. Cogswell stated this is the only fresh
water source for miles, and now three sides
are being threatened by barriers. He stated his overall chart of the area
shows that of 360 degrees, there are approximately 15 degrees left if this
project is put in, with most of that space being narrow and up-slope, and
stated it would be very easy for a group of domestic animals or small dogs
to corner small animals.
Mr. Cogswell distributed illustrations of the pond, culvert pipe, an expanded
view of the pond and the riprap area. He stated that when he went down into
the gully where the pond is located, he had a very difficult time climbing
out because it was so steep. Councilmember Phillips asked if Mr. Cogswell
had reported the opening is only fifteen feet, and Mr. Cogswell reported
the opening was 150, based on a 100% radius.
Mr. Cogswell acknowledged he had seen deer tracks when he was at the site;
however, in terms of the original access, or in terms of the proposed access
without the siltation pond, the number of animals that can get through and
around the area, if it is pinched down even more, will be small. He felt
the animals will also be too frightened to go down to the pond with the domestic
pets in one apartment complex or the other. Mr. Cogswell stated the area
this project will occupy is the last relatively flat land, and the animal
corridor will be confined to a steep slope.
Susan Sanders, resident of the Captain's Cove complex, addressed the Council,
stating she wholeheartedly echoes Mr. Cogswell's concerns, in terms of how
she feels it will impact the pond, and the esthetics in general. She stated
it will interrupt the view from the road, noting the open space is a beautiful
site as one drives by, but these homes will impede that view. Ms. Sanders
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 19
stated she did not believe the wildlife corridor will be one which the animals
will feel comfortable using, noting they would have to go down by the roadside,
and would be constantly bombarded by noise from either the residents, or
from the road in the area of the pond near the wildlife corridor.
Ms. Sanders stated she did not believe the Negative Declaration should be
approved on its face, noting her background is in geology, and she has some
concern about the current slope failure that is apparent in the area of the
Oakview Apartments, which have just been completed, as well as concern about
the siltation issues. She stated she did not believe it has been decidedly
demonstrated that those will be significantly reduced, and does not feel
it is fair to go forward with the Negative Declaration until there is more
information to the contrary. Ms. Sanders felt the
Negative Declaration was inconsistent in its writing in certain areas.
Referring to the area of the report addressing the earth work, Ms. Sanders
noted the question is raised, "Will the proposal result in unstable conditions
or changes to the geologic sub -structures", and the answer to that question
is, "Maybe"; however, the final decision on that portion of the report is
that there will be no significant affects. Ms. Sanders stated that cannot
be certain, as geotechnical reports need to be prepared in order to discern
exactly what affect the cut and slope will have, what type of fill will need
to be placed there, and the amount of compaction necessary so that run-off
does not occur.
Ms. Sanders noted the report stated there would be no increase in soil erosion,
which she believes has not been proven. She cited the Department of Public
Works statements "An erosion control plan needs to be prepared", and "The
erosion control plan shall show methods of controlling erosion and siltation
during and after construction"; therefore, Ms. Sanders did not feel the
Negative Declaration adequately addressed that question in responding "No".
Ms
. Sanders cited that portion of the Negative Declaration which addresses
the question, "Any erosion which may modify the channel of the river, bay,
or lake", with the response being, "No", and noted that while the Pond
Management Plan is discussed, she still believes siltation is a question.
Referring to the question of exposing people to geologic hazard, such as
earthquakes, she noted the answer to that question is, "Yes"; however, the
final recommendation in that same paragraph is that no impacts will result.
She stated that was a direct conflict, and while she is not going to assert
that there could be seismic problems for this site, any more than the rest
of us in this area would feel, the issue that concerns her is that there
will be grading in the area, and because of the slope needing to be at a
certain ratio so that failure does not occur, there is a potential for some
soil failure, particularly during a rainy season. In addition, she pointed
out that earthquake insurance is no longer easily or readily available to
residents, and it concerns her that if it becomes known that there is a
potential for earthquake hazards to these residents, these things should
be taken into consideration before this kind of document is approved.
Ms. Sanders stated she felt the apartments that are already in place are
excessive, noting the slope below the apartments, leading to the pond, is
very steep. She felt no animal could walk along that slope and, therefore,
the area of traverse will be immediately cut-off from the animals, with the
only pathway left for the animals to
get to the pond being the proposed corridors, which she felt are artificial.
Ms. Sanders stated this is a very small area, and did not feel it made sense
to try to cram in nine homes, noting that will be nine families with perhaps
four people in each family. Ms. Sanders acknowledged that is not a
significant number, but she believed the impacts this will have on the
environment are not warranted. She stated having people living there will
distract from the public enjoyment of the area as it stands.
Ms. Sanders asked the Council to consider these discrepancies in the Negative
Declaration, and the future work she feels should be undertaken, as well
as looking at alternatives.
Tim Descamps, CFO of Light Source, a software company in Larkspur, addressed
the Council, reporting that after considering many other locations, his
company is relocating to San Rafael. He stated many factors went into this
decision, noting one of the most important factors was housing. Mr. Descamps
reported they have doubled their workforce during the past year, which is
why they are moving, and he stated many of the people they are hiring are
relocating into the community, and one of the hurdles these new employees
are facing is where to live. Mr. Descamps stated this has been an important
choice as they try to recruit people, and he felt this project would help
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 20
to address that issue, noting that although it is only nine homes, it is
nine more homes than are already here. Mr. Descamps added he is a resident
of San Rafael, and now has the enviable honor of being able to live and work
in the same community.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Boro noted there had been several comments made regarding inconsistencies
in the report, and asked Mr. Pendoley to address those concerns.
Planning Director Pendoley referred to Ms. Sanders concerns regarding the earth
issues in the Negative Declaration. Addressing the question, "Are there
unstable conditions or changes to geologic sub -structures", to which the
Planning Department answered, "Maybe", he stated that after some analysis
the conclusion was that there would be no significant effects. Mr. Pendoley
stated a geotechnical report has been prepared on this property by Miller
Pacific Engineering Group, and was subject to peer review by the Planning
Department's Geotechnical Review Board, which is a body
of licensed, professional geo-technical engineers. Mr. Pendoley stated their
report concluded that any unstable changes could be mitigated using standard
construction procedures; therefore, while the immediate answer to the
question is "maybe", after analysis, the answer has to be that no significant
effects will result.
Mr. Pendoley stated a second point made by Ms. Sanders refers to what is called
"Condition E, Increases in Erosion", noting the answer in the Negative
Declaration is, "No". Mr. Pendoley explained there are really two
considerations. First, is erosion during construction, reporting that
grading is limited, by Ordinance, to the period of April to October, outside
of the rainy season, noting that prevents erosion while grading is going
on. Mr. Pendoley stated grading can be allowed during the rain, but special
mitigations must be applied in that event. He stated that after construction
there would not be erosion, because the project is designed to prevent that.
Mr. Pendoley stated this had been considered in the geotechnical report
that was reviewed by the Geotechnical Review Board, and they feel confident
about the answer that states there will be no substantial erosion. Regarding
question "F", which asks, "Would there be any erosion that would modify the
channel of a river, bay or lake", Mr. Pendoley stated the answer to that
is, "No", noting he had already explained the analysis of erosion.
Referring to Ms. Sanders concerns regarding earthquakes, Mr. Pendoley
acknowledged this would result in the exposure of people to earthquakes,
noting they will be living in earthquake country, and that is how Marin County
is described. However, he reported State law and policy provide that unless
you are in an Alquist/Priolo District, which is a special type of earthquake
hazard area, or unless you are in unusual geologic conditions, such as on
bay mud, as long as you follow the UBC requirements for Seismic Zone 2, then
you make a finding of "No Significant Impact", which is the case on this
property, and has been the case on most properties in San Rafael.
Councilmember Heller noted Mr. Pendoley had mentioned one of the first actions
that would be done to the pond would be to mitigate the silt problem by dredging
it, and
asked if that would mitigate the silt problem that is occurring there now?
Mr. Pendoley stated the siltation that has already occurred on the property
actually
occurred long before any construction took place, noting this site had been
a quarry, and nothing was done to divert the flow across the dug -up area
and into the
pond. Mr. Pendoley stated the effect of construction on the Deer Valley
property, and what is called the Smith Ranch III property, is to divert clean
water into the
pond and away from the erosion area; therefore, there is almost no siltation.
In addition, Mr. Pendoley noted all the water has to go through siltation
basins, so whatever siltation does occur falls out before it actually gets
into the pond. Mr. Pendoley stated the purpose of the dredging is to deal
with damage that occurred before construction. He reported he has been to
the site and looked in particular at the areas shown in Mr. Cogswell's
photographs, and in Mr. Pendoley's opinion, there is evidence of some very
minor siltation that occurred during construction. He noted Cheng Yeo, the
City's Public Works Inspector whose special expertise is grading, concurred
with the opinion that it was a very minor amount of siltation, and could
be taken care of before the project is closed out.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 21
Councilmember Cohen noted a number of issues had been raised during the public
comment, but felt the Council needed to step back and look at what they are
being asked to approve at this time. He stated the Council is not being
asked to approve the concept of the wildlife corridor, or to approve or
disapprove the overall development around the pond, noting these are issues
that have been argued, discussed and debated over a number of years, with
the fundamental decisions on those issues having already been reached. He
acknowledged there may be some who would have preferred that other decisions
had been reached by the City, in terms of entitlements, but stated those
debates are over, noting the question before the Council is whether to change
the zoning from Medical Office Building to Residential, and allow
construction of nine units. Mr. Cohen stated, in weighing that issue, as
well as the environmental issues which have been raised, he would have to
say he would have preferred the Council was having a discussion on the impact
of residential units on this particular property in the context of the whole
discussion of the Pond Management Plan and the wildlife corridor, stating
the Council is somewhat disadvantaged by having a discussion regarding the
relative impact of nine residences versus a medical office building after
the fact, and after the rest of the discussion has already taken place.
However, he stated he did not believe that was sufficient reason to deny
the application.
Mr. Cohen acknowledged the most desirable environmental alternative would be
no construction, noting that from the point of view of impact on wildlife
or the view across the property, no construction would be preferable to any
kind of construction there; however, if that was what the Council wanted
to do, they would have to find the money to purchase the property, not just
zone it out of existence. Mr. Cohen asked Planning Director Pendoley to
display the drawing indicating the boundaries of the property under
consideration. He stated the basic issue is not the viable development
around the pond, the appropriateness of an access corridor, or the
mechanism for handling that. He stated he felt that in the context of already
having allowed development around the pond, the City has done a good job
in seeing this through and approving it, and noted he had not heard a
compelling argument that the change from Medical Office to Residential would
present a significant environmental impact that would require the Council
to delay this project. Mr. Cohen noted his questions had been focused on
how the design relates to the wildlife corridor, and stated he is satisfied
with the answers he has received. He stated he felt it behooved the Council
to approve the zone change.
Mayor Boro stated he knows Mr. Cogswell personally, and knows he is very serious
about the concerns he has presented to the Council. Mayor Boro referred
to the pond on the property, reporting that at one time it was a mud -hole
which became a storage place for old tires. He stated he felt the pond had
come a long way with the development that has taken place, and as a result
of the activity at this site, there is now an amenity that was not there
before.
Mayor Boro acknowledged Mr. Cogswell's concern about access, but stated he
was convinced it is adequate, and the animals will be able to make good use
of the area.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration for a zone change, Tentative
Map, Master Use Permit, and Environmental and Design Review Permit for the
development of nine clustered single-family residential units known as Smith
Ranch Court.
RESOLUTION NO. 9605 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE (ZC96-2), TENTATIVE
MAP (TS95-5), MASTER USE PERMIT (UP96-11), AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN
REVIEW PERMIT (ED95-84) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NINE CLUSTERED SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL UNITS KNOWN AS
SMITH RANCH COURT; 285 SMITH RANCH ROAD: (APN: 155-251-86).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The title of the Ordinance was read:
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 21
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 22
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY
OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY THE SECTION 14.01.020
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FROM THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1613) DISTRICT TO THE PD
(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT
(RE: ZC96-2, 285 SMITH RANCH ROAD, AP NO. 155-251-86)."
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title
only and pass Ordinance No. 1697 to print, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the
Resolution approving the Tentative Map, Master Use Permit, and Environmental
and Design Review Permit.
RESOLUTION NO. 9606 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL APPROVING
THE TENTATIVE MAP (TS95-5), MASTER USE PERMIT (UP96-11), AND ENVIRONMENTAL
AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED95-84) FOR NINE CLUSTERED SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL UNITS KNOWN AS SMITH RANCH COURT; 285 SMITH RANCH ROAD: (APN
155-251-86) .
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
OLD BUSINESS:
(Mayor Boro asked that this item be heard before Item #29)
30. REPORT ON DRAFT OF MODIFICATIONS TO ORDINANCE NO. 1681, ADOPTED JULY 17,
1995,
RE: PARKING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND SEMI -TRAILERS ON PUBLIC STREETS (PW/CA)
- File 11-8
Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan reported this item came before the City
Council several months ago, at which time the Council heard from members
of the public, as well as staff, concerning the problems regarding the
proposed revision to the
Commercial Vehicle Parking Ordinance. He stated that in response to those
comments, staff was directed to meet and attempt to revise the Ordinance
to accommodate all of the concerns.
Mr. Guinan reported he had met with Commander Tom Boyd and Officer Tom Smiley
of the Police Department, as well as Public Works Department Traffic Engineer
Nader Mansourian, and spent several hours reviewing the comments the Council
and the public had made, noting they identified five general concerns to
the draft Ordinance, which are listed in the staff report. Mr. Guinan stated
the Ordinance has been revised, in an attempt to address those issues;
however, one issue was not changed, based on Sergeant Smiley's and Mr.
Mansourian's comments, that should the City remove the parking restrictions
on weekend days, particularly in commercial areas, we would end up with the
same problems relating to sight distances for driveways that several of the
members of the public have been complaining about, and which initiated this
whole issue to begin with.
Mr. Guinan stated the City is ready to listen to input again, and have some
direction, noting they felt this was important, given the comments they have
received from both sides, including people who are in the trucking industry
and are concerned about the continued restrictions, as well as members of
the public who did not think the Ordinance went far enough.
Mayor Boro reported a number of letters have been received from residents of
the Spinnaker Point area of Baypoint Lagoons, and also noted he had received
a letter from Mr. Farnsworth, president of Mayflower Movers. Mayor Boro
invited members of the public to address the Council.
Hugo Landecker, resident of San Rafael Avenue, addressed the Council, presenting
the Council with three photographs taken within a block of his home, which
he felt would illustrate his concerns. The first photograph showed a
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 22
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 23
Peterbuilt tractor/trailer rig parked in front of his home, and he reported
numerous calls to the owner failed to result in the truck being removed.
He stated the truck would be parked on the street during the evening and
leave in the morning, and sometimes it would be in the neighborhood all weekend
long. Mr. Landecker reported the business that owns the
truck is located on Fourth Street in Downtown San Rafael, and during the times
the truck was parked in his neighborhood, it was not being used to conduct
business in the neighborhood. Mr. Landecker noted calls to the Police
Department resulted in promises that the Parking Enforcement Officer would
take care of the problem; however, the Parking Enforcement Officer does not
work evenings nor weekends, and was not able to respond during a time the
truck was actually parked on the neighborhood street.
Mr. Landecker noted the second photograph shows a tow truck on "D" Street,
again belonging to a San Rafael business owner, and reported at least one
tow truck is usually parked on the street during the evening hours and on
weekends. He reported the third photograph is a picture of two large graffiti
covered vans, noting he does not know who owns them, but they have been parked
in his neighborhood for a couple of years. He reported the vans are moved
occasionally, so they are not abandoned vehicles, but they are good examples
of what is happening to a residential area.
Mr. Landecker stated he felt the Council needed to take another look at the
way the Ordinance is written, and noted he was not sure a 10, 000 pound unladen
weight is a reasonable value, adding he was not certain if the two vans in
his photograph are above or below 10,000 pounds, but suspected they were
below that weight. He reported he personally checked a number of commercial
vehicles, and they did not have their weight listed on them. He stated he
did not know what the State of California requirement was for that, but felt
it could be difficult for the Parking Enforcement Officer to investigate,
only to find he could not determine what the weight of the vehicle was.
Mr
Mr
. Landecker referred to the issue of enforcement, stating the Council could
pass any Ordinance it wanted to, but if there is no enforcement, the Ordinance
is not going to be any good. He stated the City needs action from the Police
Department, so if violations are occurring on the weekends, an officer will
come by and investigate. Mr. Landecker noted he did not expect this to be
a high priority issue for the Police Officers, but felt the public should
be able to get some help from the Police Department during off -hours and
on weekends.
. Landecker stated he supports local business, but felt it was unfair for
them to have their vehicles parked in a residential area. He noted he does
not mind if the vehicle is a pick-up truck or a small van, but felt it has
gotten to the point where it is a disturbance. Mr. Landecker reported most
of the lots in his neighborhood have narrow frontages, with driveways and
room for perhaps one or two cars in front of each property. He noted some
of the commercial vehicles that are parking on the residential streets are
quite long, and he feels this needs to be addressed.
Mayor Boro asked if, under the proposed Ordinance, the vehicles described by
Mr. Landecker would be ticketed? Assistant City Attorney Guinan stated,
in his opinion, the Peterbuilt truck would probably be ticketed, but he was
not certain about the tow truck and the vans. Referring to the 10,000 pound
gross unladen weight designation, Mr. Guinan reported this is taken from
the Vehicle Code. Public Works Director Bernardi stated the Ordinance
primarily deals with large commercial vehicles which weigh five tons or more.
Councilmember Phillips asked if the Ordinance would apply to the vehicles
in the other two photographs, and Mr. Bernardi stated they probably would
not.
Richard Isi, owner of ISI International Trucks in San Rafael, addressed the
Council, noting his business is located at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Irwin Street, which is a heavy industrial neighborhood with no residents.
Mr. Isi stated he agreed with Mr. Landecker's position that big trucks should
not be allowed to park in residential areas, but noted the proposed Ordinance
to limit parking is a generality that will put many of them out of business.
He stated he felt the Ordinance and its restrictions should be
specified in different areas, suggesting
that in the situation Mr. Landecker is reporting, signs should be posted in
the neighborhood specifying vehicles that can legally park there. Mr. Isi
referred to Farnsworth Moving, located where there are no homes or residents,
and where moving vans pull in and park overnight so they can wait to unload.
Mr. Isi stated the proposed Ordinance would be unfair in this situation.
Mr. Isi reported he is in a heavy industrial area, and when he repairs a truck
he parks the truck down the street, puts the keys on the floor of the truck,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 23
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 24
and the truck owner picks the truck up later that night. He noted he also
has a couple of
tow trucks he parks on the street. Mr. Isi recalled that years ago, the City
used to sell stickers to local commercial vehicle owners, which were to be
placed on the windows of the trucks when the trucks were left parked on the
street. He stated he agreed the big trucks should be parked in an industrial
area, and the owners should not park them in front of their homes; however,
he felt the proposed Ordinance is unfair in its generality, stating no one
can park a heavy duty truck on the street. Mr. Isi stated the businesses
that will be affected by this Ordinance likely generate $100 million worth
of business a year, which helps support the City, yet the City is proposing
an Ordinance which will hurt these businesses.
Mr. Isi stated he felt the Ordinance needed to be revamped, and suggested the
City post signs on the streets where parking should be prohibited. He
reported there is a real problem in the Spinnaker Point area, where trucks
are parked on the street for months at a time while being repaired. However,
he noted the average moving van that comes in overnight to deliver someone's
furniture should not be cited because of a parking limit. He stated the
whole proposal must be taken apart and put back together again, so it protects
the average businessman in town.
Don Saccani, President of Mariner and Anchor Distributing Company, addressed
the Council, stating he sympathized with Mr. Landecker, and agreed there
is absolutely no excuse or reason for a heavy duty vehicle to be parked on
a City street in a residential area. However, in an industrial area, such
as his location in the Northgate Industrial area, it presents businesses
with some major problems. Mr. Saccani reported his company has vehicles
coming in from out of state, and even as far away as Toronto, Canada. He
stated these trucks arrive in the middle of the night, and as Mr. Saccani' s
business is in a light industrial area, there is no one on the streets, and
the truck drivers simply park and shut down their trucks, and wait for the
unloading time to begin at 7:00 AM. Mr. Saccani stated these trucks could
conceivably be on the street for five to six hours, noting with so many trucks
arriving from out of state, the drivers would not even know they were in
a restricted area where they could only park for one hour at a time.
Mr. Saccani stated as far as his particular company is concerned, they have
a fleet of over fifty vehicles, and all of them, with the exception of perhaps
a few small vans, are parked off the street during the weekend, noting they
crowd them onto lots at four different locations the company owns in the
Northgate industrial area. However, Mr. Saccani reported that during the
week they have a problem, because they operate 24 hours a day, noting all
of their trucks are loaded at night so they are ready to be checked by the
drivers when they arrive at 6:00 AM, and are on the road by 7:00 AM. Mr.
Saccani stated the Ordinance, as it is currently proposed, specifies "time
necessary to complete loading, unloading or performance of a service shall
only include continuous, uninterrupted loading, unloading or performance
of a service in the ordinary course of business. Parking of a commercial
vehicle in anticipation of future loading, unloading, or performance of
service, or temporary storage of a commercial vehicle on a City street or
portion thereof, shall not be permitted." Mr. Saccani stated this is a real
problem for his company, as they do move from warehouse to warehouse in the
Northgate Industrial Park, and noted if there should be a back-up at one
of the warehouses, they could conceivably have
trucks on the street for two to three hours waiting to get into the warehouse
and rotate through. He reported that at that time of the morning there is
absolutely nothing else on the street, nor is there on the weekend, although
they still do not park trucks on the street on the weekends, even in front
of their own building.
Mr. Saccani stated he felt the proposed Ordinance, while it may be well-meaning,
is a real nightmare for his company. He asked what he could do with the
trucks that become backed -up, noting he cannot manufacture parking lots.
Mr. Saccani stated he would rent additional parking space, but there is
none available. He noted his building is located in an Industrial Park,
and that was the reason he moved his business to this location in 1967, so
they would have industrial access. He stated they do not want to block up
the streets, but on occasion the out-of-state truckers will park on the street
until they can unload at 7:00 AM.
Cal Farnsworth, representing Farnsworth Mayflower in San Rafael, addressed
the Council, stating he has read copies of letters from people who object
to commercial parking, and it appears as though the main objection is
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 24
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 25
obstructed field of vision in pulling into or out of certain areas. He asked
if the City could just restrict
those particular areas of concern, perhaps restricting truck parking within
100 feet of a particular parking lot driveway, or similar inlet or outlet
area. He felt this would address some of the concerns, and suggested the
City could then address certain streets on an individual basis.
Joe Garbarino, President of Marin Sanitary, addressed the Council, stating
he feels the City is on the right track, but needs to address the problems
of the business owners. He stated his particular problem is on Andersen
Drive, noting each day his
company ships approximately twelve to fourteen semi's of recyclable material,
and if they have a major breakdown, the truck must park on the street until
it can be repaired and reloaded, stating this can become an overnight job.
Mr. Garbarino stated he felt one of the real problems is with the people who
live in these vehicles on Andersen Drive, leaving their garbage behind,
stating this situation contributed to the City proposing a parking Ordinance.
Mr. Garbarino stated, like the tide, they gradually move back in again,
creating concerns for everyone around them. He agreed there is no question
but that no one should park their trucks in a residential area, but noted
these people do not have yards in which to park their trucks, and they just
leave them parked wherever they want to, sometimes abandoning them.
Mr. Garbarino stated he felt the City needed to re -work the proposed Ordinance,
suggesting perhaps some of the people who have addressed the Council could
participate in further discussions, and tour the areas of concern with the
City officials, in an attempt to create a revised Ordinance that can be
supported by everyone. Mr. Garbarino stated he felt what the City was trying
to do was the right thing, but could cause real problems for the business
owners. He also stated the City should forget about the weight limit, noting
whether it is a panel truck, or a pick-up truck, or whatever, they should
all be removed because they do not look good. Mr. Garbarino thanked the
Council for all of the time and attention they have been putting into this
issue.
Mario Ghilotti addressed the Council, commending the Council for the approach
they are taking with this issue. He referred to the proposed restrictions
to be placed on trucks unhooking their trailers and leaving them on the street,
noting he has noticed many trucks on Andersen Drive unload a trailer, make
deliveries in another part of the City, and then come back and re -hook the
trailer. Mr. Ghilotti felt if the City were to prohibit this type of
unhooking and parking, the price of those commodities would increase to the
consumer.
Mr. Ghilotti reported he also has trucks that do not return to the yard until
after the gate is locked at night, and therefore, the truck would be parked
on the street overnight. He noted, however, that his trucks have the
company's name on them, so anyone would know whose truck is parked on the
street. He also agreed with Mr. Garbarino, that there really is not a parking
problem on Andersen Drive, noting it is the widest street in Marin County,
and between P. G. & E., Viacom Cable, Golden Gate Transit, Marin Sanitary,
and his own business, they have plenty of room, and they pay for being on
that street. He stated he does not believe having a commercial truck parked
on that street overnight would affect anyone. Mr. Ghilotti reiterated he
did not believe trucks should be parked on residential streets, and stated
he did not believe the 10,OOOunladen weight restriction was realistic, noting
he has observed trucks parked in residential areas of "C" and "D" Streets
that are overloaded with furniture or tree cuttings, but because they are
pick-up trucks, would not be covered by the proposed restriction.
Mr. Ghilotti reported one of the main concerns he and Mr. Garbarino have is
regarding the people living in cars and vans, noting one man lived in front
of Bret Harte Market in a van with a trailer behind it. He stated this man
lived there in his van for about three weeks, and during that time he stole
many bicycles. He stated once the market was finally able to get rid of
him, the man moved his van to
a location in front of Gary Ghilotti's office, and Gary Ghilotti was only able
to make the man move by having his large transport truck go out at 5:00 AM
and blow the truck's horn. Mr. Ghilotti noted this man has been moving all
over San Rafael for the past year or two. He also reported there is another
man who lives in his car, parking in one place for about a month and then
moving to another location within the City. Mr. Ghilotti stated the City
must address the issue of people living in cars and mobile homes and vans
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 25
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 26
on City streets.
Mayor Boro felt perhaps a sub -committee should be formed to address these issues,
and suggested Mr. Saccani, Mr. Isi, Mr. Farnsworth, Mr. Landecker, a
representative from Spinnaker Point, himself, Councilmember Cohen, Sergeant
Smiley, Public Works Director Bernardi and Assistant City Attorney Guinan
sit down together and discuss the situation and what the City is trying to
accomplish. Mayor Boro stated no one
on the Council is trying to penalize any of the people doing business in this
community, noting the City values them and wants to keep them here. However,
he stated there are problems the City must deal with. He suggested getting
a group together over the next several weeks, so the City can really put
this issue behind us, to discuss what the City is trying to accomplish, address
the ideas of zoning
and permits, and look at the pros and cons from the point of view of the City
Attorney's office, Public Works Department, and the Police Department, as
far as enforcement. Mayor Boro stated they should attempt to find a solution
that will satisfy everyone's needs.
29. RESOLUTION APPROVING SAN RAFAEL STORM WATER PUMP STATION PROJECT 1995-1996
-- MODERNIZATION AND RENOVATION (PW) - File 4-4-6b x 12-9
Assistant Public Works Director Matt Naclerio introduced Jim Fletter,
acknowledging his work had been very instrumental to the completion of this
report, and that he had done a very fine job.
Mr. Naclerio reported there are twelve pump stations along San Rafael Creek,
noting the Public Works Department had been directed to study these pump
stations to identify deficiencies at each of the stations, to recommend
appropriate repairs, to correct the deficiencies, and to develop a cost
estimate and an implementation schedule.
Mr. Naclerio stated the components are categorized into three priorities;
urgent, important, and enhancing, explaining urgent repairs are already known
failing problems that need to be repaired now; important repairs are
components that will result in improvements to the flood control safety aspect
of the stations, but are working all right at this time; and enhancing repairs
represent components that are costly to maintain, but do not compromise
safety. Mr. Naclerio reported an implementation schedule has been developed
for the next ten years, stating staff recommends the Council adopt the full
ten year implementation schedule, but that we only allocate funding for the
first two years of the program, and recommend the City's Clean Storm Water
Fund be used for those first two years. Mr. Naclerio reported staff would
re -submit a new program for consideration every two years, through the Clean
Storm Water Fund.
Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Naclerio and Mr. Fletter for a very comprehensive report,
stating their approach to this issue makes sense.
Councilmember Heller stated she was pleased to hear the money for this project
will not be coming from the General Fund, and asked if the Clean Storm Water
Fund was a "sunsetted" fund, or if it will continue to generate funds the
City will be able to use to pay for this project as we need to? Public Works
Director Bernardi stated these would be continuing funds. Ms. Heller asked
if the City will need to install any new pump stations? Mr. Bernardi stated
CalTrans will be building a new pump station near the north Francisco
cul-de-sac, near the Irwin Street off -ramp, which is a part of the City's
Storm Drainage Master Plan. He stated the City is currently working on the
design with CalTrans, to make certain it is built to current standards, as
well as being built with future maintenance in mind. Mr. Bernardi reported
the problem with many of the pump stations is they were built so long ago
that the material and techniques of construction were such that we have higher
than normal maintenance, noting he believed that with new materials and
construction techniques we can minimize that. Mr. Bernardi reported another
new pump station to be built is the Lindero Street Pump Station, across the
street from the Albert Park tennis courts, noting that is part of the Andersen
Drive Project. Ms. Heller asked if that pump station would protect the P.
G. & E. property, noting representatives from Fair, Issac had questioned
the flooding when they were looking at the property. Mr. Bernardi stated
that pump station would protect the P. G. & E. property, as well as another
pump station near the Corporation Yard.
Councilmember Cohen commended Mr. Naclerio and Mr. Fletter on their report,
stating it was very clear, and the summary was very helpful. He stated,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 26
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 27
as he understood the proposal, we will be seeing approximately $335,000 per
year in funding sources,
but staff is only proposing spending $215,000 to $220,000 per year on the
project, leaving some remaining funds to address additional storm water
issues as they arise, and Mr. Bernardi stated that was correct. Mr. Cohen
commended Mr. Naclerio on the accounting shown in the report, stating he
was very taken with the reporting of the Assessment Districts.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution accepting the findings of the Public Works study, entitled "San
Rafael Storm Water Pump Station Project", adopt the proposed implementation
schedule, and allocate the funding for the next two years as proposed in
the staff report.
RESOLUTION NO. 9607 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS
STUDY ENTITLED "SAN RAFAEL STORM WATER PUMP STATION PROJECT 1995-1996 -
MODERNIZATION AND RENOVATION" AND ADOPTING THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND
ALLOCATING FUNDING OF THE PROJECT FROM THE CLEAN STORM WATER FUND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $225,000 DURING FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 AND $215,000 DURING FISCAL
YEAR 1997/98.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
None
31. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO SIGN INTERIM HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (FD) - File 4-10-289 x 9-3-31 x 13-2
x 115
Fire Prevention Officer Forrest Craig stated this report was being presented
with four agreements and a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute
an agreement for the City to accept household hazardous waste, as well as
a small quantity of commercial generator waste, from the jurisdictions of
the City of Larkspur, the Town of Ross, the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary
District, and the Ross Valley Sanitary District #1.
Councilmember Cohen asked if there was any potential liability the City might
be exposed to by accepting waste from other jurisdictions? Mr. Craig
reported the City currently has 1000 liability, as we have been operating
under the San Rafael program. He stated the liability will not be diminished
under this proposal, but the apportioned share of liability would be
diminished, in that we would be sharing with other jurisdictions, so both
the closure cost and liability associated with the amount of waste generated
and potential spills would be reduced.
Mayor Boro suggested we might want to consider whether the City could establish
a tiered rate structure, where we might have a different rate for the people
who reside in the City versus people who come from other jurisdictions.
He stated he is looking at ways the City might make some money, noting San
Rafael is taking the lead, and asked Mr. Craig to investigate the possibility
of a tiered rating structure, and determine if it would make sense and how
we might justify it. He stated that since the City is the lead agency, and
is providing a service the other communities are looking for, we might be
able to hold the costs down for our own constituents.
Councilmember Cohen noted the City is not going to recover any costs of
administering the interim agreement, and asked how long it is anticipated
until we have these agreements? Mr. Craig reported they are currently in
the process of finalizing a Permanent Contributions Agreement, which would
be valid for a year at a time, and at the end of each year, the budget and
the rates will be reviewed and brought back to the Council for approval.
Mr. Craig stated the Permanent Contribution Agreement and the Resolution
with the fees should be ready within two to three weeks. Acting City Manager
Golt stated they are hoping to have the permanent agreements ready to take
effect July 1st, so this will only be a very brief pilot project. Mr. Cohen
asked if that meant the City would not be footing the bill for an extended
period of time before we actually have an agreement, and Ms. Golt responded
that was correct.
Councilmember Heller asked if we would be including the rate structure study
with the yearly study done by Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson on the garbage rates?
Ms. Golt stated she did not know, but would look into it and report back
to the Council. Ms. Heller stated she felt they could help us in determining
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 27
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 28
what constitutes a good rate, and respond to the question of whether or not
we could tier the rates.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution authorizing the Acting City Manager to execute an interim
Hazardous Waste Contribution Agreement with the cities of Larkspur, Ross
Valley Sanitary District #1, Town of Ross, and Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary
District.
RESOLUTION NO. 9608 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AN INTERIM HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT TO OPERATE THE
PERMANENT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY WITH THE CITY OF LARKSPUR, ROSS
VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT #1, TOWN OF ROSS AND LAS GALLINAS VALLEY SANITARY
DISTRICT.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
32. DECLARATION OF VACANCY ON CITY COUNCIL AND CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS/CALL
FOR APPLICATIONS TO FILL VACANCY (CM) - File 9-1 x 9-4
City Clerk Jeanne Leoncini distributed a report outlining the timeline
requirements for filling the vacancy on the City Council. Mayor Boro stated
the Council was required to fill the position by appointment within 60 days,
or call for an election.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would like some time to consider whether the
Council should appoint someone to fill the vacancy, or call for an election,
and suggested the Council discuss the issue at the City Council meeting of
May 20th. He asked if it would be possible to do an interim appointment
until November, and then hold an election in November to fill the position
for the balance of the term, which would be one year. He asked if this would
be allowable under the City's Charter, and Mrs. Leoncini stated, to her
knowledge, it was not. City Attorney Ragghianti stated he would research
the question.
Councilmember Heller stated she would like to have a little time to consider
the options, but noted she agreed it would be very daunting to ask someone
to apply and be appointed in November, and then have to run for election
twelve months later for a full year, noting it is a lot to ask of someone,
and it is very expensive to run a City election. Mr. Cohen stated that entire
concept would apply in calling for an election, and noted it would cost the
City $90,000 for a special stand-alone election, and $30,000 if the election
were consolidated with the Countywide elections held in November. Ms. Heller
noted the City Charter does specify that if
the vacancy is created in the third or fourth year of the term, then the term
of office of the seat vacated, said appointment or election shall be for
the unexpired term of the office so filled. Mayor Boro stated it was his
understanding that if an appointment is made and the unexpired term is less
than two years, the appointee does not have to run again in an election.
Mr. Ragghianti stated he would research this issue and report to the Council
at the meeting of May 20th. He asked when the term for this vacant position
expires, and Ms. Heller reported the term expires in November, 1997.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt a
Resolution declaring the office of Councilmember Zappatini vacant.
RESOLUTION NO. 9609 - RESOLUTION DECLARING THE ELECTIVE OFFICE OF
COUNCILMEMBER OF SAN RAFAEL VACANT, EFFECTIVE APRIL 25, 1996.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
33. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED DRAFT "BLINDER ORDINANCE" (CM) - File 13-8 x 13-9
Mayor Boro recommended this item be carried over to the City Council meeting
of May 20, 1996.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 28
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 29
34. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
None
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:20 PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Cler
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1996
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/6/96 Page 29