Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1996-09-16SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Cyr Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: Barbara Heller, Councilmember Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBER Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) Negotiators: Suzanne Golt/Daryl Chandler No reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM SAN RAFAEL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROMOTING TOURISM IN SAN RAFAEL - File 119 Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council, giving an update on the Chamber's tourism activities. She displayed a copy of the new City Guide, pointing out that Councilmember Cohen and his family were featured in the guide. Ms. Giambastiani reported the Chamber of Commerce has discovered that Sacramento is a good market for visitor activity, so the Chamber has decided to play an advertisement on two Sacramento radio stations promoting tourism in San Rafael. She played a tape recording of the advertisement for the Council, which gives a toll free telephone number for the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, so listeners can call for visitor information, and also describes a "Be Our Guest" discount package. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Boro announced that Item #15 would be removed from the Consent Calendar and discussed under New Business. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Meetings Approved as submitted. of Monday, June 10, 1996 and Monday, August 19, 1996, and Regular Meeting of Monday, August 19, 1996 (CC) 3. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael: (CM) Approved staff recommendations - File 9-1 and adopted Resolutions (2). a. State Proposition 217 - Top Income Tax Brackets. a. RESOLUTION NO. 9687 - Reinstatement. Revenues to Local Agencies. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF Initiative Statute. (Support) PROPOSITION 217 - TOP b. State Proposition 218 - Voter Approval for Local INCOME TAX BRACKET. Government Taxes. Limitations on Fees, REINSTATEMENT. REVENUES Assessments and Charges. Initiative TO LOCAL AGENCIES Constitutional Amendment. (Oppose) b. RESOLUTION NO. 9688 - RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 218 - VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXES. LIMITATION ON FEES, ASSESSMENTS, AND CHARGES SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 1 4. Resolution Appointing Susan B. Director of Administrative Services, August 26, 1996 (CM) - File 9-3-20 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (effective 8/26/96) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 2 Merrill, Interim RESOLUTION NO. 9689 - Effective RESOLUTION TO APPOINT AN K 8-9 INTERIM CITY DIRECTOR OF 8. Resolution Re: Pollution Prevention Week: Acknowledgement of Marin County Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) (PW) - File 4-4-6b POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (MCSTOPPP) 10. Authorization Purchase of a Paint - File 8-5 x 9-3-80 RESOLUTION NO. 9690 - RESOLUTION FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION WEEK: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MARIN COUNTY to Carry Over Funds for the RESOLUTION NO. 9691 - Truck (PW) RESOLUTION RE -AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF $20,000 TO PURCHASE A REPLACEMENT PAINT TRUCK 11. Resolution Authorizing Participation in the RESOLUTION NO. 9692 - County -wide Mapping Project Through the RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING Marin County Street Light Acquisition Joint PARTICIPATION IN THE Powers Authority in an Amount Not to Exceed COUNTYWIDE MAPPING PROJECT $21,183 (PW) - File 4-4-6b x 9-3-40 THROUGH THE MARIN STREET LIGHT ACQUISITION JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (MSLAJPA) IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $21,183 13. Renewal of Contract with DMG & Associates RESOLUTION 9693 - (David M. Griffith) to Process State Mandated RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Cost Reimbursement Applications (Current Contract SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH from July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996) (Fin) DAVID M. GRIFFITH & - File 4-10-270 ASSOCIATES, LTD. FOR PROCESSING CLAIMS FOR STATE MANDATED COSTS (July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997) 14. Monthly Investment Report (Fin) - File 8-18 x 8-9 Accepted report. 16. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Below MarketRESOLUTION NO. 9694 - Rate (BMR) Rental Agreement Re: Maria B. Freitas RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Senior Housing Project (P1) SIGNING OF A BELOW MARKET RATE - File 229 x 10-2 HOUSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN MARIA B. FREITAS SENIOR HOUSING CORPORATION AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RE: MARIA B. FREITAS SENIOR HOUSING 18. Renewal of Lease of Glenwood School Property RESOLUTION NO. 9695 - (Rec) - File 4-7-21 x 9-3-65 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A LEASE WITH SAN RAFAEL SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A LAND LEASE FOR GLENWOOD SCHOOL FOR CHILD CARE SERVICES (Term of Rental Will Commence 7/1/96 and Terminate 6/30/99.) 19. Resolution Changing Dental Provider from Delta RESOLUTION NO. 9696 - Dental Insurance Company to Metropolitan Life RESOLUTION CHANGING DENTAL Insurance Company (METLIFE) Effective Tuesday, PROVIDER FROM DELTA DENTAL October 1, 1996 (Per) - File 7-1-29 x 7-4 INSURANCE COMPANY TO METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (METLIFE) EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1996 20. Resolution Approving a Request of Public Convenience and Necessity REQUEST Issuance of Off -sale Liquor License 1241 Andersen Drive (Cornucopia Gourmet Gifts), Suite I (PD) - File 9-3-30 x 13-8 for Finding RESOLUTION NO. 9697 - in RESOLUTION APPROVING A at FOR FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IN ISSUANCE OF OFF -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE AT 1241 ANDERSEN DRIVE (CORNUCOPIA GOURMET GIFTS), SUITE I 21. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to RESOLUTION NO. 9698 - Execute and Authorize the Household Hazardous RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Waste Discretionary Grant with California CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE Integrated Management Board (FD) A GRANT APPLICATION WITH THE - File 4-10-292 x 9-3-31 x 13-2 CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 3 MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR EXPANDING THE PERMANENT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION AND CONSOLIDATION FACILITY 22. Report on Closure of San Rafael Hill Due to Accepted report. Extreme Fire Danger (Declaration of Fire Hazard by Fire Chief) (FD) - File 9-3-31 23. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Contract RESOLUTION NO. 9699 - With David M. Griffith & Associates for Executive Search Services for Police Chief - File 4-3-317A x 9-3-30 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE (CM)SIGNING OF A CONTRACT WITH DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES FOR EXECUTIVE SEARCH SERVICES FOR POLICE CHIEF 24. Resolution of Appreciation to Retiring RESOLUTION NO. 9700 - Police Chief P. Robert Krolak (CM) RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO - File 102 x 9-3-30 RETIRING POLICE CHIEF P. ROBERT KROLAK AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller The following items were removed from the Agenda for further discussion: 5. CONSIDERATION OF EXERCISE OF OPTION TO PURCHASE ONE BMR UNIT, 43 MARINERS CIRCLE, MARIN LAGOON CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX (CA) - File 5-1-313 x 229 Councilmember Cohen stated he had read the letter from Susan Adelle to the Marin Housing Authority, and noted he felt the letter did not accurately reflect the situation. He cited the last paragraph of the letter which states, "If you are unable to do so, I am released, in entirety, from my contract with the Marin Housing Authority, BMR Program, and the City of San Rafael". Mr Cohen stated it was his understanding that if this unit was sold on the private market, 85% of the difference between the BMR (Below Market Rate) price and whatever the ultimate sales price is returned to the Housing Program, in some way or another, and asked if this was correct? City Manager Gould responded that was correct. Councilmember Cohen stated he wanted to be sure someone would point this out to Ms. Adelle, noting the property owner must be aware that there is still a contractual obligation to remit whatever profit, above the BMR price, to be shared with the appropriate agencies. Mr. Gould stated they would remind Ms. Adelle of this provision. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to choose not to exercise the option to purchase the unit at this time (One BMR unit, 43 Mariners Circle, Marin Lagoon Condominium Complex). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller 6. REPORT ON BID OPENING FOR ROUTINE AND EMERGENCY TREE SERVICES CONTRACT 1996-98 AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO FAHY TREE SERVICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $122,690.25 (PW) - File 4-1-474 Councilmember Phillips referred to the $122,690.25, asking if that money was budgeted, and if so, how close this figure came to the amount budgeted? Public Works Director Bernardi reported $150,000 had been budgeted. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt a Resolution awarding the contract for routine and emergency tree services for 1996 through 1998 to Fahy Tree Service. RESOLUTION NO. 9701 -RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF ROUTINE AND EMERGENCY TREE SERVICES CONTRACT 1996-98 TO FAHY TREE SERVICE (Only bidder, in amount of $122,690.25) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 4 (3 Year Agreement) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller 7. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH REPUBLIC ELECTRIC TO MAINTAIN TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM (PW) - File 4-10-291 x 11-10 Councilmember Phillips noted the staff report states the primary benefit of this agreement is that the liability for signal maintenance will be transferred to Republic Electric, and asked if Republic Electric realizes this, and if the City is paying a premium for that transfer of liability? Public Works Director Bernardi stated the current costs we are paying are not going to be increased under the terms of this agreement, which means Republic Electric will be providing the liability coverage for the City at no additional cost to what we are currently paying on an hourly basis. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt a Resolution authorizing a professional agreement between the City of San Rafael and Republic Electric. RESOLUTION NO. 9702 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND REPUBLIC ELECTRIC FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller 9. RATIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 9685 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 9431 ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY OF "A" STREET, SECOND AND THIRD STREETS (PW) - File 6-51 Councilmember Cohen recalled this item had been discussed during the last City Council meeting, and at that time it had been thought the staff report contained a typographical error concerning the completion date. However, the date in the original report was correct, and he stated his concern with the disparity between the time in which the property owner must be ready to receive services and the time in which the project must be completed. He noted that previously we had a six month window between these dates, with the property owners being required to be ready to accept undergrounding by June, 1996, and the project to be completed and service installed by December, 1996. Now we are saying the property owners must be ready by February, 1997, and they will have to maintain that until March of 1999, when the undergrounding will be completed. He wondered if there was some way to phase the service, perhaps asking the utility company to begin at one end or the other. He asked what was involved in having service be prepared to accept undergrounding and taking service off the wires? He stated it seemed like a long time, and would represent a potential burden on the property owners, stretching the timeframe from six months to two years, which he felt was an undue length of time to let the utility company do this project. Mr. Bernardi stated one of the difficulties they have had in doing the last few undergrounding projects was that the utilities, for one reason or another, could never properly coordinate to take all of their facilities down at one time, noting that what we saw on Francisco Boulevard was a good example. He reported P. G. & E. came in and took all of their facilities out, progressing from the top of the pole downward, and the last facility to be removed was the cable company. He stated it took approximately eight months for all of the wires to come down, noting the one responsible for the last remaining wire also has to remove the poles. Mr. Bernardi stated the 1999 timeframe is to account for the utility companies scheduling this work, taking into consideration their manpower reductions, as well. Mr. Bernardi reported part of the work involving the property owners is to prepare their electric panel to receive the underground service. He reported the Underground District is invoking the Hundred Foot Rule, which means that for the most part, the trenching from the underground line in the street to the house will be paid for by the Undergrounding Rule 20 costs. The property owner will have to modify their box so the contractor for P. G. & E. can come in and connect to their electric panel; therefore, while there is some work for the property owners, it is only minor modification of their existing facilities. Mr. Bernardi reported that if the building and the electrical facilities are old enough, they may have SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 5 to re -do their electric facilities now, in order to be able to accommodate the new underground service when they run all the wires and pull all the conduit. Councilmember Cohen asked who does the trenching under the Hundred Foot Rule? Mr. Bernardi responded that would be done by P. G. & E. when they put the pipes under the ground. Mr. Cohen asked if all the property owners had to do was make sure their boxes are situated and set-up so the conduit can be run from underneath the box at the time that P. G. & E. is ready? Mr. Bernardi stated that was correct. Mr. Cohen stated we should look at whether there is anyone who has service outside the hundred foot reach and might be unduly impacted by this. He noted that at the time the Underground District was adopted, the City had discussed the impact on property owners who would have to upgrade their electrical service. This also becomes a safety issue, and those property owners who will find themselves in this situation are probably looking at Municipal Code violations, as well, so the upgrading is something that would need to happen, the sooner the better. However, he did not want to stretch this process out and cause someone a real hardship, and asked that the City be sensitive to that. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to Ratify Resolution No. 9685, as presented. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller 12. RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF MUIR TERRACE HOMES SUBDIVISION (FORMERLY MISSION TOWNHOUSES) (PW) - File 5-1-331 Mayor Boro stated he had questions on this Item, and also on Item #17, concerning the change in the name of Mission Townhouses to Muir Terrace Homes, noting he understood there had also been a change in ownership. He reported the Council had gone through quite a lengthy, contentious neighborhood hearing on this development, noting the City had been assured we had to do this, because if we did not, the financing would go away, we would not be able to build the units, and we would lose the affordable unit; therefore, we tried to make this project happen. Now, however, at the developer's convenience, he has sold it, and the City is continuing with nothing happening. Mayor Boro asked if the City had placed a time limit on the approvals, so this does not just go on and on? Planning Director Robert Pendoley stated that we had, and he believed it had been a two-year limit, which is standard, with the option to renew at the Council's discretion. Mayor Boro asked if the time limit started over with the new owner? Mr. Pendoley stated it did not. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt a Resolution approving the map of Muir Terrace Homes Subdivision. RESOLUTION 9703 - RESOLUTION APPROVING MAP OF MUIR TERRACE HOMES SUBDIVISION ( FORMERLY MISSION TOWNHOMES ) , SAN RAFAEL AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller 17. BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING AGREEMENT FOR MUIR TERRACE HOMES (FORMERLY MISSION TOWNHOUSES); 1120 MISSION AVENUE; AP NO. 11-172-26; WESTAMERICA BANK PROPERTIES, OWNER; M C FINANCIAL SERVICES, REPRESENTATIVE (P1) - File 229 x 5-1 -'1'11 Discussion regarding this Item was included in the discussion of Item #12. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt a Resolution approving the map of Muir Terrace Homes Subdivision. RESOLUTION NO. 9704 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A BELOW MARKET RATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN AND MUIR TERRACE HOMES OF SAN RAFAEL, LLC RE: MUIR TERRACE HOMES (Formerly Mission Townhomes) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 6 SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 25. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RETIRING POLICE CHIEF P. ROBERT KROLAK (CM) - File 102 x 9-3-30 Mayor Boro presented retiring Police Chief P. Robert Krolak with a Resolution of Appreciation, stating Chief Krolak had decided to retire after an outstanding career with the City of San Rafael, as well as three other law enforcement agencies in Marin County. Mayor Boro read the Resolution, noting Chief Krolak had encouraged and supported diverse new programs, both inside and outside the Police Department, such as the Citizens Police Academy, foot and bicycle patrols, school and juvenile programs, a newsletter, and expanded departmental training, all during a period of economic austerity. Mayor Boro stated Chief Krolak would continue to serve as an example for present and future Police Officers as the model of an honest, hard working, down-to-earth Police Officer of uncommon integrity, forthrightness and compassion, who treated all those he met with dignity and respect. On behalf of the City Council and the citizens of San Rafael, Mayor Boro acknowledged Chief KrolakkIs dedication and leadership, and expressed sincere appreciation and gratitude for a job well done, offering their best wishes for his continued success, health and happiness in the future. Mayor Boro stated he and Chief Krolak had become good friends, and he appreciated all Chief Krolak had done for the City of San Rafael. Chief Krolak acknowledged the men and women of his Department, noting that as the ones who do the job every day, they are the ones who deserve the recognition, and he thanked them all. Mayor Boro announced the Council would take a short break from the meeting and have a small reception in the lobby to honor Chief Krolak. The Council recessed at 8:25 PM, and cake and coffee were served in the lobby. Mayor Boro reconvened the meeting at 8:40 PM. MONTHLY REPORTS: 26. Department Report - Public Works Department (PW) Mayor Boro announced this Item had been postponed, and was rescheduled for the meeting of 10/7/96. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 27. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF INCREASE IN PARKING METER RATES AND ELIMINATION OF THE ONE CENT METERS (Fin) - File 11-18 x 11-8 X 2-1-20 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Interim Director of Administrative Services Susan Merrill reported staff is recommending the Council authorize a $.10 per hour increase in the current parking meter rates, increase the attendant and monthly parking rates, and eliminate the penny meters. She noted the City currently has a total of 1,468 parking meters within the City, including 625 meters located in parking lots. Ms. Merrill stated the last increase in parking meter rates had been in 1991, when they were increased from $ . 10 per hour to $.20 per hour to fund two Foot Patrol Officers in the Downtown area, but the City is now at the point where the increase approved in 1991 no longer covers the annual cost of operation, noting that in the current fiscal year (1996/97), it is estimated the Parking Fund will generate a $55,000 deficit. She reported the total parking revenue for the last fiscal year was $511,000, with $71,000 from monthly parking permits, $30,000 from attendant parking, and $410,000 from parking meters. Ms. Merrill reported all of the revenue from parking goes into a special fund, which pays for the operation and maintenance of our parking lots, parking meters and parking garage, and also pays for the meter enforcement officers, half the cost of processing parking citations, and two Foot Patrol Officers. She stated an additional Foot Patrol Officer has been requested, and the cost for this would be $70,000. Ms. Merrill stated additional funds of $80,000 per year should also be budgeted for Capital items, which will be needed over the next three years, noting this would fund the transition to electronic meters and other Capital items to be approved by the Council. She reported the electronic meters would be able to accommodate any three coins, regardless of the rate, and the rate could also be SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 7 easily changed without removing the parking meter heads. She stated the cost of electronic meters would be approximately $170 per meter, and as these meters accept only three coins, the ability to use the penny would be eliminated. Ms. Merrill reported the cost to convert the electronic meters was estimated to be $250,000 over a four year period, and would be included in next year's budget using the Capital Revenue generated by this increase. Ms. Merrill explained that in order to fund the current year's operation, the additional Foot Patrol Officer, and the Capital needs, we would need to raise $210,000 per year, noting this would also allow for increased costs due to salary increases and other nominal costs. She reported it would cost approximately $17,000 for parts to convert the meters to the higher rates, plus 700 staff hours to install the new parts and replace the meter heads. In order to fund these items, staff recommends increasing the parking meter rates from $.20 per hour to $.30 per hour; increasing the attendant parking from $.25 per hour to $.35 per hour; and monthly parking from $35 per month to $45 per month. She stated this would generate approximately $140,000 in additional funds for the remainder of this current year, and $230,000 the following year. Ms. Merrill stated staff anticipated a portion of the conversion could take place during the traditional parking meter holiday between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Ms. Merrill reported on a second alternative, which would increase the rates $.05 per hour, and would only provide the minimum amount to cover the existing deficit and the proposed Foot Patrol Officer, generating only $75,000 for the current year. She also noted this second alternative would only cover the expenditures for one year, and would put the fund back into a deficit position the following year, as salaries and expenditures increase; therefore, staff does not recommend this alternative. Ms. Merrill stated staff recommends Council approve a $.10 per hour rate increase, and the elimination of the penny meters. Councilmember Phillips noted Ms. Merrill had stated the increase should cover the cost of a third Foot Patrol Officer, and asked if it would, in fact, cover this cost. Ms. Merrill responded that it would. Councilmember Miller asked how staff had arrived at the $.10 per hour figure? Ms. Merrill stated they had tried to determine the amount of additional funds that would be needed, and worked backward from that figure. Mr. Miller noted parking is now $.20 per hour, and asked how long a person could park for $.20 after the rate increase? Ms. Merrill stated $.20 would provide approximately 43 minutes of parking time. Mr. Miller asked how much additional money would be generated if we increased the parking rates an additional $.05? Ms. Merrill stated that each $.01 generated an additional $22,000; therefore, another $.05 would raise an additional $110,000. Mayor Boro stated he has had conversations with members of the public who felt there should be a shorter time limit for parking on Fourth Street, and asked if this had been considered? City Manager Gould noted this report had been generated in terms of property management, and staff did not have sufficient analysis to answer that question at this time. He stated staff could come back at a later date with a separate report on this issue, if so directed. Elissa Giambastiani, Chamber President, stated the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce had discussed the increase in parking rates, and found the requested increase to be minimal. She stated the Chamber of Commerce endorsed the rate increase for three main reasons; first, it would fund a third Downtown Street Patrol Officer; second, it would provide sufficient revenue to adequately maintain City parking lots and garages; and third, it would continue to encourage turnover of spaces so they will be available for shoppers, and not used for long-term employee parking or resident parking. Charlie Garfink, President of the Business Improvement District, addressed the Council, reporting this issue had been discussed by the Board of Directors at their meeting on Friday, and they had decided to support the increase. He noted they felt the results of the first Foot Patrol have been very positive over the past five years. Mr. Garfink reported the Board of Directors also believed it was a real benefit to know in advance where the funds generated by the increase were going to go. Mr. Garfink referred to the issue of parking turnover on Fourth Street, noting there is little incentive for people to park off the streets and in the parking lots, because the parking rates are the same. He suggested the City consider free SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 8 parking on Saturdays in the parking lots. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Cohen stated he liked the penny meters, and makes a point of using them; however, he felt the time had come when the City really had to do this. He stated this issue raises three main points; first, we must look at the cost of operations and do what we can to recover some of those costs; second, the City needs to deal with the issue of Capital Improvements, noting we are not going to find another chunk of money for this, and for now, the Parking District is helping with that; and third, we must recognize that many people resent that we are considering the elimination of the penny meter, and this issue has been generating a lot of newspaper articles. Mr. Cohen noted he had been reading that the Cities of San Rafael and San Mateo are the last remaining Cities in the State of California that still have penny meters; however, he noted the City also has a lot of modern issues that must be addressed. Councilmember Phillips stated he was very pleased that both the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Improvement District were supporting this issue. He stated he liked the idea of the additional Patrol Officer in the Downtown area, and also liked the fact that these funds can be identified for this specific use. Councilmember Miller noted he liked that people will know specifically what the increased fees will be used for, and it will be something they can actually see. He noted the positive effect of the Foot Patrol has already been seen in the Downtown area, and this is something that will tie-in business and the community. Mayor Boro stated he, too, was sorry to see the penny meters go, but the Council has already brought forth the concept of the additional Foot Patrol, and the increased rates are needed to provide for that, as well as continued maintenance and Capital Improvement projects. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt a Resolution amending Resolution No. 8473 and establishing parking meter rates. RESOLUTION NO. 9705 -RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 8473 AND ESTABLISHING PARKING METER RATES (and Eliminating the One Cent Meters) AYES: COUNCIL ERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL ERS: Heller 28. PUBLIC HEARING - ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE: (FD) - File 3-3-51 x 13-9 AP 16-091-37 (PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOCHNESS LANE AND MANDERLY ROAD); ACTION TO REMOVE FIRE HAZARDS (WEEDS AND BRUSH); MR. ABOLFATH HOSSEINYOUN, PROPERTY OWNER Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. City Attorney Gary Ragghianti asked City Clerk Leoncini to swear -in Fire Marshal Keith Schoenthal. Fire Marshal Schoenthal then reported that on August 7, 1996 and September 3, 1996, he inspected the property, located at the corner of Lochness and Manderly, and based on the criterion developed by FireSafe Marin, in conjunction with the San Rafael Fire Department, the property was determined to be a fire hazard. He noted this property is a site which the Fire Department has had to abate every year since 1987, stating that even before the FireSafe Marin standards were implemented in 1993, it was time consuming gaining compliance in obtaining the ten -foot clearances from the property lines. Fire Marshal Schoenthal reported the criterion established by FireSafe Marin for determining the severity of a wildland fire hazard problem includes the direction the slope is facing (aspect), the steepness of the slope, and the types of fuels. Based on this parcel having a southwest aspect at greater than 30 percent, with fuels of tall grass and Savanna, it was determined that clearances of 100 feet downslope and 50 feet across the slope were required. Fire Marshal Schoenthal presented photographs of the property to the Council. City Attorney Ragghianti asked Mr. Schoenthal if he had taken the photographs of the property, and Mr. Schoenthal responded that he had. Mr. Ragghianti asked if the photographs accurately and correctly depicted the condition of the property, and Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated they did. Fire Marshal Schoenthal noted the photographs show there is a lot of Scotch Broom and French Broom on the property, as well as some Pampas Grass, all of which have a very high fire tendency, and he pointed out a large oak tree that was surrounded by Scotch SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 9 Broom. Fire Marshal Schoenthal reported that on August 8, 1996 the property owner, Mr. Hosseinyoun, was notified by mail and FAX that a fire hazard existed, and he was informed that he was required to have his removal contractor contact the Fire Marshal for an appointment within two weeks, or the City would contract with the Marin Conservation Corps to accomplish the clean-up. Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated the clean-up requirements were clearly spelled out in this letter; however, as of the reinspection on September 3, 1996, Fire Marshal Schoenthal had not been contacted, nor had any hazard abatement taken place. On September 4, 1996 an Abatement Notice was sent to Mr. Hosseinyoun, informing him a Public Hearing would be held to condemn the property as a Public Nuisance, to be abated by the Fire Department, with the cost of abatement charged to Mr. Hosseinyoun, to be liened against his property if not paid. Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated that on September 11, 1996 he met with Mr. HosseinyounIscontractor, who had already begun the clean-up work by clearing approximately 10 feet back from the edge of the Lochness Lane frontage; however, these efforts were not adequate to halt the scheduled Public Hearing. Mr. Schoenthal provided the contractor with a copy of his September 4th letter to Mr. Hosseinyoun, which spelled out the clean-up requirements, noting the contractor's copy of the letter included a map, which had been color -coded to correspond with the different zones of clean-up requirements. Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated he also provided the contractor with a copy of "HortScript", published by the Cooperative Extension of the University of California, which lists various plant materials and discusses pyrophytic vs. fire resistive vegetation, and was helpful in advising the contractor that the "broom" type plants and Pampas Grass are pyrophytic, and how that related to the requirement for their total removal within 50 feet of the structures. Fire Marshal Schoenthal reported the contractor had called today and requested an extension; however, it was Fire Marshal Schoenthal's recommendation the extension not be granted, and he requested Council adopt the Resolution declaring this property a Public Nuisance, and directing the Fire Department to abate the property. Mayor Boro asked if there was a fifteen day waiting period before abatement could begin? Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated that was correct, abatement could not begin until fifteen days from the time Mr. Hosseinyoun is served with notice of the Resolution being passed. Mayor Boro invited members of the public to comment. Judith Einbinder, 15 Lochness Lane, stated she was very grateful the City was finally doing something about this property. She stated she had also taken pictures of the property, and concurred that the site had not been cleaned -up, although she noted they were still working on the property at 6:15 this evening. Mrs. Einbinder thanked the City for taking care of this matter, and stated she hoped this time the property would be kept clean. Patrick Woods, 40 Tweed Terrace, thanked the City for their work on this problem. He stated he was concerned about all of the Scotch Broom on the property, because his house is in a direct line with Mr. Hosseinyoun's property, and he asked the City to be certain that enough of the Scotch Broom is removed to make it safe. He also stated he hoped the City could do something so they will not have to come back again next year. Frances Marmysz, 85 Lochness Lane, stated this has been a problem every year, and she hoped the City would make sure the property was still cleaned -up next year. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt a Resolution declaring a Public Nuisance, ordering abatement by the owner by a specified date, directing the Fire Marshal to abate the nuisance if not abated by the owner, and directing the recovery of abatements costs and related administrative costs if the abatement is undertaken by the Fire Department. RESOLUTION NO. 9706 -RESOLUTION DECLARING CERTAIN COMBUSTIBLE VEGETATION LOCATED ON UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY AT LOCHNESS LANE AND MANDERLY ROAD (AP NO. 16-091-037) TO CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC NUISANCE, ORDERING ABATEMENT BY OWNER BY SPECIFIED DATE, DIRECTING FIRE MARSHAL TO ABATE NUISANCE IF NOT ABATED BY OWNER, AND DIRECTING RECOVERY OF ABATEMENT COSTS AND RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IF ABATEMENT SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 10 UNDERTAKEN BY FIRE DEPARTMENT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller Councilmember Phillips stated the City had put a lot of time and effort into this, and asked if there was any way we could recover some of the cost of that time and effort? City Attorney Ragghianti responded that if the City was required to do part of the abatement work, we could recover our costs; however, if the property owner does what the Resolution directs him to do, then we cannot. Councilmember Cohen noted this was a good point, and asked if the City could adopt legislation that would allow us to recover administrative costs? Planning Director Pendoley stated the City does have an Ordinance that allows us to recover "front end" administration costs. City Attorney Ragghianti stated his office has had recent conversations with the City Manager regarding fines in situations such as this, where the problem has been taken care of without having to come before the City Council, and noted the City Manager has asked the City Attorney's office to work with him in addressing this issue. City Manager Gould stated he was looking into the recovery of the cost of Code Enforcement, and he would be researching other cities where this is currently being done. 29. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY-WIDE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND POLICY LU -47 TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) FOR MINI -STORAGE PROJECTS FROM 1. 0 TO 2. 0; CITY-WIDE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 14.16. 150 G. 4 (FLOOR AREA RATIOS), TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED FAR FOR MINI -STORAGE PROJECTS FROM 1.0 to 2.0; PROJECT APPLICATIONS FOR A USE PERMIT FOR FAR IN EXCESS OF 1.0; A USE PERMIT FOR A CARETAKER'S UNIT; AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A THREE-STORY, APPROXIMATELY 59,247 SQ. FT. MINI -STORAGE BUILDING AT 50 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL; APN: 18-142-85; ROBERT McGOWAN, OWNER; DARRELL de TIENNE, REPRESENTATIVE (P1) - File 115 x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Planning Director Bob Pendoley explained the City uses the concept of FAR (Floor Area Ratio) to regulate buildings, primarily in non-residential areas, noting the average FAR is currently .30. He reported the General Plan does allow higher FAR for storage facilities, noting mini -storage projects have almost no (traffic) trips. Mr. Pendoley stated the application before the Council would amend the General Plan to allow a 2.0 FAR for mini -storage. Planning Director Pendoley reported the Planning Commission saw no compelling reason to change the General Plan at this time. He stated it was their consensus that the City already has a fair number of storage facilities, noting most of them are temporary facilities, although some of them are permanent. He also noted the Planning Commission did not feel it was appropriate to amend the General Plan at this time, as the City is currently preparing the Economic Vision. Councilmember Phillips stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 27, 1996, and asked if there was anything that had come to light since the meeting that should be considered at this time? Mr. Pendoley stated there was not. Mayor Boro stated the issue before the Council was actually a policy issue, regarding FAR and its effects. Mr. Pendoley agreed, stating this was purely a policy question, and whether the Council was happy with the current FAR. Albert Bianchi, attorney representing the applicants, addressed the Council, urging them to adopt the proposed change to the General Plan. Mr. Bianchi noted Planning Department staff had originally recommended approval of this application, and stated Council would find the primary opposition comes from business competitors. Mr. Bianchi stated he had heard Council state the marketplace should determine whether or not a project would be approved, and urged them not to listen to competitors, but rather to base their decision on what is best for the City of San Rafael. Mr. Bianchi stated the proposed project would beautify the site, and asked the Council to bear in mind this would be a true mini -storage facility. Mr. Bianchi stated those speaking on behalf of the applicant would include Jim McDonald, Architect for the project, John Clifford, MAR Appraiser, Rosemary SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 11 Jensen, an expert on self -storage investments and marketing, Darrell de Tienne, Project Manager, and William Dietrich, Traffic Engineer with DKS. Mayor Boro asked if the size of the project was to be capped at 1 acre, and Mr. Bianchi responded the proposal was to make the proposed 2.0 FAR apply on one acre or less. Jim McDonald, Architect, stated that when they first entered into the contract with the owner, mini -storage was not appealing to him, because the impression is not one of mini -storage being attractive; however, he approached the project with enthusiasm, and after touring other storage facilities in San Rafael, Mr. McDonald stated he was confident that with the FAR change, they could come up with something that would be an asset to the City. Mr. McDonald stated the single entrance facility is attractive, with amenities most mini -storage facilities do not have, and noted mainly because of the 1.0 FAR, most other facilities are a series of barracks type buildings, with very little landscaping. Mr. McDonald stated there had been considerable encouragement for the owner to clean-up the facility, noting they have been working on this proposed project for the past fourteen months, with encouragement from the Design Review Board (DRB). Mr. McDonald stated the Design Review Board even made a couple of suggestions as far as the design concept, and following the second DRB meeting, they were complimented on their design. Mr. McDonald pointed out this project would include a manager's apartment, with a manager and maintenance workers in attendance at all times. He noted this would be a fully handicapped -accessible facility, and would provide one handicapped parking space, four parking spaces for customers, one for the manager, and three additional parking spaces inside the building for those who occupy and manage the building. He stated there would also be three on-site parking spaces for overflow guests who might be coming to visit the manager. Mr. McDonald stated this facility would be unlike anything the City has today. He noted this is currently developed with ground level storage containers with no landscaping, comparing it to the site under the overpass leading to the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge, which he described as a series of boxes, and was not very attractive for the City. Mr. McDonald stated the City now had the opportunity to consider a most attractive mini -storage, which would include landscaping, and a controlled environment within the building. Mr. McDonald stated that when he reviewed the be better to consider a Planned District, be developed as it is being presented, bu on for many months. files, he thought perhaps it would in order to ensure the site could t the project had already been going John Clifford, MAR Appraiser, addressed the Council, stating he had been in practice since 1982, and as the primary appraiser, he was familiar with the entire process, noting he had appraised many properties in Marin County. Regarding mini -storage facilities, Mr. Clifford stated he had appraised approximately ten projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, and two in San Rafael, the H & H facility on East Francisco Boulevard, and Golden Gate Mini -storage on Andersen Drive. He stated that during the course of these appraisals, he had the opportunity to survey various projects in San Rafael, noting he had been involved in the condemnation for the Pt. Richmond project. Referring to his evaluations, he stated one of the most important things is to substantiate if there is enough demand, noting he is no stranger to telling developers their project is not feasible. He explained an evaluation of supply and demand is based on the rate per square foot per person, and based on projected demand, he stated more demand for mini -storage is coming, because the increase in familiarity of mini -storage is promoting an increase in use. He also pointed out that in Marin County there is a very strong emergence of home office users. Mr. Clifford reported there is also a sub -market for mini -storage, noting within the City and the County, the demand varies based on demographics, and it is widely known that a more affluent area and higher per capita income means more use. He also noted that within the past couple of years industry trends have favored the use of surveillance cameras, and it is particularly relevant on this project, as they will also be storing wine at the facility. Mr. Clifford stated planned growth for Marin County will come from San Rafael and Novato, and noted it was particularly interesting, given land costs and the trend to downsize lot sizes, that there was not a lot of storage designed into the homes. He stated the current rentals and occupancy are some of the highest, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 12 with an affluent user profile in Marin County. He noted he has never surveyed these projects and seen occupancy less than 95%, and as a result of that demand, these project owners have been able to achieve high increases in rents, from 4% to 11% over the last five years. He stated there was also a growing interest in investment in mini -storage, noting the investors do not have to deal with the tenants, it is a special purpose property, and once you get a critical mass, it is an owners market, and the owners are able to raise the rents regularly, although he noted a new supply of mini -storage space may slightly lessen this increase. Mr Clifford referred to his Prepared Summary of Inventory, noting he had identified seven projects of primary and secondary competition, with 270,000 square feet of rental space that is primary, and 67,000 square feet secondary, for a total of 343,000 square feet of net rental space. Mr. Clifford noted that within these projects he had identified only one that is at 97% to 98% occupancy, and two that were at 100%, stating the property owners will begin to raise rents, trying to get higher returns. He stated that with the 343,000 existing square feet, a 97% rate occupancy would be a demand of 333,000 square feet, or a little over 4 square feet per person. He stated that figure would exclude any inventory within this existing 50 Golden Gate Drive project, so if we added those, that rate would go up. Mr. Clifford reported the industry -wide statistics show Marin County has a demand for use much higher than 4 square feet per person, with an emphasis on homeowners and smaller businesses. He noted he had not gone very far with his analysis because, given the existing supply and growth, there will be a deficit of space, particularly looking at the projection for the population growth by the year 2000. Mr. Clifford referred to this particular location, and stated the market evidence does show the demand is there, noting it is a proven location with existing mini -storage already there. He stated the growth from this project is not going to be a great leap to get back to the occupancy level that exists now, as the demand does exist. Rosemary Jensen, an expert on self -storage investments and marketing, addressed the Council, stating a one acre self -storage site would be an economic feasibility, and within the self -storage industry, the ideal size has been determined to be 50,000 square feet or better, noting that on the West Coast, it is determined to be 64,000 square feet. She acknowledged economic forces are a consideration when something this large is built, noting it could be pushed down to 40,000 square feet and still be fairly successful. She reported that on a project of 50,000 square feet, expenses would be approximately 35% of gross income, and as you work down in size, the expense factor rises, with expenses of approximately 45% of gross income on an operation of 45,000 square feet or less. Ms. Jensen reported the percentage of multi-level facilities under 50,000 square feet is only 22% in the United States, noting most multi-level facilities are over 50,000 square feet because the owners know that below 40,000 their expenses will be too high to provide the amenities and services, or to provide for the kind of facility we are talking about today. Ms. Jensen noted the storage operators talk about Net Rental, and this is what creates the income for them. She stated if they build only one level, they will probably only get 40%-45%. She noted that if we move down to a half acre, they will have to build a multi-level facility to still get the space they need, and if the project is down to one acre, there is no way to build a project and recover the income needed unless it is a multi-level facility. She stated if there is a 1.0 FAR they will only have 30,000 square feet of space, and the only way they could take a piece of land like this and make it stretch is to have a higher than 1.0 FAR. She stated a 1.0 FAR would not be enough to provide this kind of project, but with a 2.0 FAR they could build 69,000 square feet and recover 48%. She noted that with a 1.0 FAR, the City would continue to have projects like the current one, with no on-site manager, a higher rate of crime, less amenities, and aesthetically less pleasing. Darrell de Tienne, President of de Tienne Associates and the Project Architect, addressed the Council, noting there were three main questions to discuss: first, what are the issues, from the Planning Department's point of view; second, why do anything; and third, why do it now? Mr. de Tienne stated this was a mini -storage facility that would be state-of-the-art, not exceed height limitations, generate minimal traffic, require minimal City services, and would be a secure facility with an on-site manager. He noted SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 13 the current facility design could be easily converted for this project. He stated the City could continue to have a single -story mini -storage facility, as we have now, which could be a good facility, but noted the bad part was that we already have so many of them in San Rafael, and they usually generate a lot of traffic. Mr. de Tienne stated the Design Review Board's staff report on this project had been positive, noting the City was in the driver's seat as far as controlling what these mini -storage facilities should be like. He asked why the issue of mini -storage should end up before the Council, since staff helped generate the proposals, and staff has said this is a policy issue. Mr. de Tienne stated this proposal is the "Beauty" instead of the "Beast", and noted staff had also done an incredible amount of work on this. William Dietrich, Traffic Engineer with DKS Associates, addressed the Council, stating that looking at the project as it has been described, and looking at alternative uses that might go in on the site, reinforces mini -storage to be the less impact type of use regarding traffic and parking spaces, as compared to Office Use, noting Office Use would generate 20 trips, or a 25% increase over the mini -storage facility. Mr. Bianchi pointed out that these facilities were needed in the community, and this particular project would not create a negative impact, and would be a far better looking and more efficient facility than is now in place. Mr. Bianchi stated he saw no reason to reject this project. Cecilia Bridges, Attorney, addressed the Council, stating she agreed this was currently an ugly site, and the container boxes were ugly, noting site improvements were not provided because they are not required on temporary units when requesting another extension on a Temporary Use Permit. She stated staff wants this lot cleaned -up so badly they were willing to change the General Plan. She noted it was not Council's obligation to amend the General Plan just for one site, and staff could do an abatement and have the applicant clean-up the site. Ms. Bridges noted there were several references to the staff's initial report and their recommendation to approve this amendment. However, there was a 6-0 vote by the Planning Commission recommending that Council deny. Ms. Bridges referred to the issue of whether or not there was a demand, noting the question before the Council was not if the people of Marin County have a lot of stuff that needs to be stored, but whether we want to plan our Industrial Area at the same FAR as we have for the Downtown Area, and Ms. Bridges stated the answer should be "No". She stated this issue was about East San Rafael, and about Planning Policy in East San Rafael. She stated we have heard a lot of conflicting information, including a lot of information about demand; however, she referred to the comment that the other existing eighteen mini -storage sites in San Rafael would have no reason to come in and ask for permits for expansion, and stated the Council should ask themselves why the other people do not want to come in and do this? Ms. Bridges stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting Ed Kuykendall, a local builder and developer, stated very clearly that a 2.0 FAR was not needed to make these sites work, and he thought a 1.0 FAR was enough to make them work. Regarding the traffic, Ms. Bridges cited the staff report which states, "mini -storage has advantage over other types of businesses". She noted she did not think this was a question of "Beauty" or the "Beast", and did not feel the City had to give a Temporary Use Permit to an ugly project, the existing containers. John Boswell, nearby business owner, stated the current site is a big, ugly, thin building, with four public parking spaces and one handicapped space. He reported they currently have two drive -ways and noted they want to add another one, which will give the building zero parking. Mr. Boswell stated the entire City was not noticed that this matter was being discussed, so the Council was only hearing from a few of the citizens regarding this issue. He noted the Council had been asked to discount the comments from the other competitors, but he believed the competitors hope the project is passed, because this would allow them to develop to their maximum growth, and they have better traffic flow than this location. Mr. Boswell stated his office backs up to 24 Bellam Avenue, and he does not want to become an expert on mini -storage. He noted that sometimes three semi -trucks are parked, or vans with college kids, taking up three parking spaces on the end of the dead-end street, and it makes the traffic terrible. He stated he keeps hearing the comment that the new proposal would abate a nuisance, but SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 14 he felt they did not deserve credit for abating a nuisance they have caused. Mr. Boswell noted a 95% occupancy rate had been stated, and asked if San Rafael was becoming the mini -storage hub of Marin, and if we have these mini -storages, do we generate more traffic from people coming from outside San Rafael? He also noted that you would not have to be on top of the freeway looking down to be able to see the proposed building, as the building would tower over everything else. He stated they should make the project fit the existing rules, not make the rules fit the project. Mr. Boswell stated this was not a 100,000 square foot lot, so this project was on the wrong lot, noting that under the new rules, they could convert it to 80,000 square feet, tripling the net worth of the building. He stated this building does not fit Standard Uses. A San Rafael business owner addressed the Council, noting he was not against another self -storage facility in the San Rafael area that was functional and easy to use. Referring to the traffic, he noted it was hard to get onto Simms Street, and hard to get back onto Andersen Drive, and he felt there had been some misinformation regarding the traffic at this location. He noted there had been a Bekins Storage conversion in 1982, and this facility does not have only 3 parking spaces, it has 27 parking spaces, 3 in front of the building to serve the office, and 24 in the rear, and he noted the site could easily handle three semi -trucks at the same time. He stated the site was "user friendly", and was not a burden to other businesses in the area. He stated the new design was very poor in regard to parking, and lacked adequate off-street parking. He noted the design rules over the years have served the public very well, and this new proposal would be a catastrophe, and would not fulfill the needs of the public. Jerry Suyderhoud, San Rafael real estate appraiser, addressed the Council, stating he supports development, but this was too large for the area. He noted some of the other mini -storage sites do have parking, but this proposal would not provide adequate parking, and it would take additional curb cuts to do that. He asked if San Rafael really needs to do a General Plan amendment for a single project? He referred to photographs of the off-street parking at the self -storage on Bellam, and also noted the design does not really provide very well for off-loading. Mr. Bianchi disputed Mr. Boswell's remarks, stating adequate parking does exist, and will exist, at this location, noting there would be an on-site manager to enforce the parking. Mr. Bianchi reported other sites already exist with higher than 1.0 FAR, noting 124 Bellam has an FAR of 1.7, and stated the only reason for denial would be to assist the competitors. He suggested that if people question their information, the Council could send this back to staff for confirmation and study of the figures that have been presented, noting they would find this to be of great benefit to the entire community. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Phillips asked why the Planning Commission minutes referred to a storage facility with greater than 1.0 FAR, if the General Plan sets the FAR at 1.0? Planning Director Pendoley stated that would have been under a previous General Plan. Councilmember Cohen stated it seemed as though a compelling case had been made for the Council to grant this project, but it was really a question of underlying policy, and whether the Council really wants to change the General Plan. He stated it appeared as though there is a market, and the argument has been made that this is the only way to do a feasible project that will be profitable. Mr. Cohen acknowledged there are some buildings with a higher FAR, but asked if there was a compelling public interest in maximizing storage space? He stated that when the City gets into this kind of change, and talk about the feasibility of this type of use versus other kinds of uses, the real issue is that we might see more warehouses in the area where we might have had Light Industrial, and he noted he was not sure that was the best Economic Vision for the City of San Rafael. Mr. Cohen asked what kind of space would be best, Storage or Light Industrial Office, noting he felt it would not be Storage. Councilmember Cohen stated he was not ready to double the FAR for this kind of use, noting a good point was made in contrasting "Beauty and the Beast". He stated he assumed the City had some kind of control over existing storage facilities, and the answer to that problem was not to double the FAR. Mr. Cohen stated the intent was whether the City thought it appropriate to allocate traffic, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 15 and somehow the "Beauty" contest got assigned, but it was not really about a beauty contest, it was about appropriate use. He stated he did not feel it was necessary to find a way to cram as much mini -storage onto a lot as possible, noting even if that was economically necessary for this kind of operation, he was not convinced this kind of operation was economically necessary for the City. He stated he was not sufficiently swayed, although there may be a high level of demand, that the public need for this was such that it justifies, at this time, doubling the FAR. Councilmember Miller stated he had gone through the entire packet, and spent time in the Planning Department, asking the same question as Mr. Cohen, "Do we want the incentives to go for mini -storage, or do we want our incentives to go for other types of industry and use of that land?" He stated his tendency, especially now that the City is going through the process of an Economic Vision and is seriously taking a look at how we are going to go, was that now would be a terribly inappropriate time to change the FAR. He noted his propensity was to retain the present FAR, precisely because he felt it would drive toward other uses. Secondly, Mr. Miller stated he felt the real problem out there was the circulation element, and the City should be planning how we can make that circulation element such that we can have the other types of uses. Mayor Boro asked Planning Director Pendoley, of the 16-18 existing other uses in the area, how many are on a site of an acre or less? Mr. Pendoley stated he had not done that type of an inventory. Mayor Boro asked if they were all over an acre? Mr. Pendoley stated he did not know. Mayor Boro stated after the arguments that had been heard, he was very concerned about making an overall change to the General Plan to basically accommodate one use, noting the ramifications this would have on existing uses seemed to be detrimental as to where the City wants to go. He stated that if the demand is truly there, as it has been represented, then the existing uses will, in turn, want to increase, and he did not know how productive and beneficial that would be for the City. Mayor Boro stated he was somewhat frustrated by the amount of effort that has gone into this project; however, he cannot see amending the General Plan to accommodate this particular use because of the ramifications it would have elsewhere. Mayor Boro stated the arguments regarding market demand were quite good, but he noted we have market demand for a lot of uses that we are not accommodating, so the fact that there is a demand, in and of itself, does not mean we should change the General Plan. He stated it sounds as if the other existing users are having successful businesses because they have been in business for quite awhile. He noted the Council had to take into consideration the questions of how many sites of an acre or less there are, and what the impact is going to be on the 16-18 others if we adopt this. Mayor Boro stated that if the Council were to adopt this they would be flying blind, and he did not think it was worthwhile to send this back for further study, because he did not believe the future of East San Rafael was to enhance and expand storage facilities. He acknowledged there was a need for them, but stated he would like to see other uses developed, and not further intensification of storage facilities; therefore, he would not support this project. Councilmember Phillips stated he agreed with most of the points made by Mayor Boro, noting the thing that most bothered him about this issue was that the Council was being asked, with site specific, to draw a broader conclusion, and he was not prepared to assess the impact of that. He stated that while it may be desirable from the standpoint of a particular site, he cannot draw an extension for a broader Citywide Policy. Furthermore, he noted the Planning Commission, whom he holds in high regard, did explore this issue in great detail, and he did not find any compelling reasons not previously considered to draw a conclusion different than theirs. He stated he would be voting not to increase the FAR from 1.0 to 2.0. Councilmember Cohen asked if this application was an appeal of a Planning Commission decision, and Mr. Pendoley stated it was not, noting the Council would be taking the final action, and there would be no appeal. Mr. Pendoley stated the Planning Commission did not take action on the rest because it was obviously a nullity, but noted the City Attorney advised we would have the clearest record if Council also denied the other applications as being inconsistent with the General Plan. Councilmember Cohen asked if this could be done by one motion, and was informed that it could. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to deny the request for a General Plan amendment, and therefore deny the other applications as inconsistent with the City's General Plan. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 16 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller 30. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER UPDATING CITY OF SAN RAFAEL'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES (CC) - File 9-4-3 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. City Clerk Jeanne Leoncini explained the City's Conflict of Interest Code was originally adopted in June, 1980, and regulations from the California Fair Political Practices Commission require that an updated Code be approved by the City Council no later than October 1st every even numbered year, and that a Public Hearing be held prior to adoption of the updated Code. Mrs. Leoncini reported Appendix B of the Code has been changed, adding another disclosure category, which is item "G" under Disclosure Category 3, "Books, software, and audio-visual publishers and distributors; computer equipment manufacturers and distributors". She stated all employees who are covered under this new category were noticed of the Public Hearing, noting she had not received any complaints about filing. There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution repealing Resolution Nos. 5922, 8746, and 9164, and adopting Conflict of Interest Code for Designated Employees, which incorporates by reference the Fair Political Practices Commission's Standard Model Conflict of Interest Code. RESOLUTION NO. 9707 -RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NOS. 5922, 8746 AND 9164 AND ADOPTING CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES WHICH INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION'S STANDARD MODEL CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller Mayor Boro announced, due to the lateness of the hour, he would bring the "New Business" Agenda Items before the Council for discussion at this time, as there were members of the audience wishing to address those issues. NEW BUSINESS: 33. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL ENDORSEMENT OF MEASURE A - RE: 1/4 CENT MARIN COUNTY SALES TAX INCREASE FOR PARKS/OPEN SPACE (Rec) - File 9-1 x 9-3-66 x 13-14.1 Fred Warneke, Member, Park and Recreation Commission, stated the Commission was unanimously supporting this Measure, primarily because it helps the entire County. Mr. Warneke stated the Commissioners felt this Measure would bring them a substantial increase in their ability to keep up the maintenance for our parks, and also to assist the volunteer groups in all the projects they have planned over the next few years. He stated this Measure would also be very good for the Open Space and the parks, but felt the most important thing was the maintenance of the parks, noting that while they do have a consistent level of maintenance, this Measure would allow them to raise that level of maintenance. Mr. Warneke urged the Council to support this Measure. Linda Nation, resident of San Rafael, noted she was speaking as a resident, and also as the mother of young children who use the parks. She stated the main focus of this was the maintenance of existing parks and recreational facilities, noting she felt it was a very important measure to pass, although she acknowledged this was a Countywide Measure, and it might be difficult to obtain the required 2/3 affirmative vote to pass. She stated she would appreciate the Council's support of this Measure. Carol Dillon, stated she was speaking on behalf of the parks and Open Space. She reported that from an inquiry by the San Rafael Vision Committee last week, it had been determined that one of the major things the residents wanted to have remain out there was Open Space. Ms. Dillon reported that recently there have been approximately a dozen young men in the area where she lives, skateboarding and having a good time outdoors. She reported she asked these young men if they wanted a skateboarding park, and they enthusiastically stated they did. She informed the Council that one of the young men would be sending SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 17 a letter to the Council, requesting a skateboarding park, or somewhere other than the street where they can skateboard. Ms. Dillon stated she really appreciated the Open Space near her home, and to be able to look up at the hills as she does her gardening. Mayor Boro stated he hoped everyone would support this Measure, noting we all recognize the parks and Open Space are assets, and the City must protect them. He stated this Measure would mean approximately $700,000 per year for the City of San Rafael. In referring to the "wish list" from the Park and Recreation Commission, Mayor Boro noted this would be a ten-year duration tax, and one of the things on the list that quickly caught his attention was traffic islands. He stated there have been a lot of things which were important to the community, but the City has not been able to spend much time, effort, and money on. He noted this would be an opportunity, if people choose to do it, and stated he believed the citizens had a strong interest in maintaining the assets we have, and enhancing them. However, he noted we are part of Marin County, which is very renown for its Open Space, and this will give the County a chance, as well, to maintain their Open Space and have some minimum acquisition as we go forward. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution endorsing Measure A. RESOLUTION NO. 9708 -RESOLUTION ENDORSING MEASURE A ON THE MARIN COUNTYWIDE BALLOT NOVEMBER 1996 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller 15. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH NICHOLS•BERMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DOMINICAN COLLEGE MASTER PLAN (P1) - File 4-3-318 x 10-2 City Attorney Ragghianti stated those in the City Attorney's Office have excluded themselves from participating in anything having to do with the rendition of legal advice on this matter; therefore, he excused himself and left the Council Chamber. Mayor Boro invited Ray Taylor, representing the Dominican Neighborhood Coalition, to read his letter into the record. Ray Taylor, 126 Palm Avenue, presented his letter to the Council, which he then read into the record. "I am presenting comments on the Contract and Scope of Work for the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for the proposed Dominican College Master Plan on behalf of the Dominican Neighborhood Coalition. 1. We are pleased with the proposed selection of the firm Nichols•Berman. They are a capable firm and can do excellent EIR work within an adequate scope and budget. 2. We did not receive a full Scope and Budget. For example, our staff report appears to be missing attachments that describe subconsultants to Nichols•Berman, as well as details concerning the Budget by task. Notwithstanding this, we have some comments on the Scope and Budget. 3. Comments on the Scope and Budget a. Need for Addition of a Qualified Design Firm to the EIR Team: As the Council is aware, this is a highly controversial project because it would result in a major new expansion of the Campus in a residential neighborhood which already experiences impacts from the use of the Campus. There has already been a great deal of concern raised over the location of certain new facilities. To the City's credit, the proposed Scope of Work includes a number of alternatives that reflect community input. A critical component of the work is the Alternatives Analysis. The number of hours and budget for this component of the analysis does not appear to be adequate (62 hours; with no way to tell what task the hours are assigned to). The budget and scope do not appear to reflect the participation of a design firm to assist in analyzing the proposed plans and developing alternatives. It is becoming customary for EIR Teams to include design firms in cases such as this where there is the need for analysis of the proposed siting of buildings and facilities. For example, the firm of Royston Hanamoto Alley and Abby is working with Nichols•Berman on the EIR team for the purpose of analyzing and developing alternatives to the proposed Martha Company project in Tiburon. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 18 Similarly, Royston worked with EIP to critique the Buck Center proposal in Marin County. In both cases, alternatives were proposed which reconfigure the projects on the respective sites to avoid significant impacts. In light of the lack of an adequate description of building design and the need for a skilled analysis of siting and design alternatives, it seems obvious that the budget and scope should be augmented to allow the participation of a qualified design firm to assist in this aspect of the work. We would therefore request that the City Council direct Staff to direct Nichols *Berman to propose the addition of such a qualified firm and prepare a scope and budget for review for that additional work. b. Need for Design -Oriented Mitigation Measures and Project Description: The project proposal is extremely vague and does not include any building or detailed landscaping design elements. The project is likely to have significant visual impacts on the neighborhood. The scope reflects the likelihood that design oriented mitigation measures will be addressed. The addition of a design firm would also facilitate completion of design mitigation measures as well as assist in developing a project description sufficient to base the visual analysis on. At this point, we are concerned that the visual analysis will not be meaningful unless further project details can be developed. Additional hours should be added to the scope for their EIR team, including designers, to work with the SWA Group and College to develop additional details concerning the project description so that the visual analysis is meaningful. Currently, there are only 32 hours assigned to develop the project description. Yet, in light of the vague proposed project, a great deal of work is needed to develop project description details (e.g., design, landscaping, phasing details, construction phasing details, etc.). It is always better to work on this detail in collaboration with the applicant instead of simply making assumptions so an analysis can be completed that may or may not be accurate. C. Additional simulations alternative Simulations: The budget should include additional visual for the "mitigated alternative" to allow comparison of that to the proposed project. d. Equal Level of Detail for Mitigated Alternative: The level of detail of the DEIR analysis of the mitigated alternative should be sufficient to allow selection of that alternative without subsequent EIR work. This likely means additional hours/budget would be needed so that all EIR topics could be expanded to analyze the mitigated alternative at an equal level of detail to the proposed project. e. Neighborhood Meetings: The scope reflects two neighborhood meetings. Given that over 100 neighbors are actively participating currently in neighborhood meetings concerning the project, we believe that additional meetings should be held to ascertain the neighborhood, community and College issues toward development of a mitigated alternative. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed contract. P. S. We would also like to be reassured that showing the trees in transparent outline in the photo montages, (as opposed to opaque, blocking views of the buildings) as agreed to by the DRB on 9/4/96, will be included in the scope of work. Didn't see this in the Staff Report. Also, emphasis on impact on wildlife, animals and birds, did not seem emphasized at the same extent as the proposed analysis regarding impact on trees and plants. We'd like to be sure both are being equally examined." Planning Director Pendoley reported Mr. Taylor had shared these comments with staff prior to this meeting, allowing him to prepare a response to his letter. Referring to Comment A, the need for a qualified design firm as a part of the EIR team, Mr. Pendoley stated Nichols *Berman does propose to use Matt Brockway, which is a highly qualified design firm, noting their specialty is visual simulation, visual analysis, and mitigation design, and stating those three qualifications speak exactly to the points raised in Mr. Taylor's letter. Mr. Pendoley noted the budget was part of the staff report, and included 235 hours by the Brockway firm, stating they will prepare five different computer assisted design analyses of the principal project, as well as the several alternatives that are being proposed. Referring to Mr. Taylor's Comment B, the need for additional detail, Mr. Pendoley SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 19 stated staff would basically disagree with this point, noting the basic project that will be before the Planning Commission and the Council is a re -zoning, and the only development proposal that will be before the Commission and Council will be for the new recreation building, and that is presented in great detail, almost sufficient to support a building permit application at this time. Therefore, he stated staff could not agree with the comment that additional details are needed for the project description. Responding to Comment C, the need for additional simulation, Mr. Pendoley stated the budget does provide for this, noting the budget states "Additional simulations can be provided, if required", and a cost for those is laid out. Mr. Pendoley stated staff cannot know if those will be needed or not, until the analysis has actually proceeded, but noted it may well be that Mr. Taylor is correct, and if so, we can deal with that. Referring to Comment D, the equal level of detail of mitigated alternative, Mr. Pendoley stated he did not really want to get into the detail of what that really means under CEQA, except to say that staff agrees, and acknowledged Mr. Taylor's point must be addressed, noting the law simply requires it, and this contract provides for it. Responding to Comment E concerning neighborhood meetings, Mr. Pendoley stated that while CEQA does not provide for neighborhood meetings, staff did ask for that within the Scope of Services, and reported Nichols•Berman was prepared to conduct additional neighborhood meetings, if needed, noting that would be at cost, and a cost rate was provided in the contract. Mr. Pendoley stated this would be determined by the Planning Commission and/or the Council at a later time. Mr. Pendoley stated Mr. Taylor had also asked for assurances on the tree analysis, as well as the fauna, and Mr. Pendoley noted the contract does provide for the analysis he has asked for, stating Mr. Taylor's points are well taken. William Liskamm, 19 Olive Avenue, stated they were concerned about the visual analysis. He stated he had attended the Design Review Board meeting, noting the Board had chosen the photo montage of vantage points, and they have faithfully been placed into the Scope of Work. However, they had made a big point of how the trees on the renderings seem to obscure the buildings sometimes, and you cannot really see very much of the buildings. He stated everyone had agreed, particularly the Design Review Board, that the trees should be outlined and "ghosted in", so the buildings could be seen. Mr. Liskamm stated he knew staff had intended this but, in fact, it does not appear in the contract, and they would like to make sure this is in the contract. He also reported the Scope of Work, in terms of the design firm, states that for the Science Building it will just be a block mass, noting the design firm laments the fact that there are no details, and all they can do is simulate a block mass. He pointed out there was a photograph looking toward the meadowland, shown as the "before" photograph, and for the "after" photograph, there is only a large building block, noting they were not sure this would help anyone, stating this was the reason the memorandum suggested a design firm. Mr. Liskamm stated that although Mr. Pendoley stated this was in the contract, and it was intended, it is not in the contract, and the design firm specifically states they will not do this. Mayor Boro noted everyone had seen the architectural renderings showing the beautiful trees, but after looking at the renderings, you soon find out these are twenty years down the line. He stated he was assuming we were going to be a little more creative than just having an architectural rendering of what the trees will look like and what the impact will be, and we will use techniques to computer generate a design which would not only tell the public, but also the Planning Commission and the Council what this is going to look like, how high the trees will be, and when they will be planted. Mr. Pendoley reported the City had required that the Scope of Work include computer aided design analysis, and that would include transparent trees, in which just a pencil outline of a tree will be shown and you can see right through it, so that the rendering can be understood and you can visualize it with and without the full-grown tree, and the comparison can be made all in one presentation. Mayor Boro referred to the Science Building, noting Mr. Pendoley had stated that is not part of the application at this point, although it is part of much controversy, based on its potential size and impact on the immediate neighborhood. Mayor Boro asked when this would be addressed in the process? Mr. Pendoley reported this was a more difficult issue, stating the basic application was for re -zoning to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 20 a Planned District, pointing out that part of a Planned District is a Master Plan. He stated a Master Plan provides both conceptual and measurable standards for future development, and those standards actually get implemented later on, with things like Design Review Permits. Mr. Pendoley stated the Science and Technology Building, at best, is some number of years away, and no specific design is being proposed at this time, noting they are not asking for a Design Review Permit, and thus, the Planning Commission and the Council are not being asked to approve a specific design, nor will they have one in front of them. He stated all they will have are standards for the construction of the building, standards such as set -back, the basic proposed building envelope for the building footprint, the height of the building, and so on. Mr. Pendoley stated this was difficult for visual analysis, noting what it compels, and what the law requires, is that we develop a worst case analysis, use the standards that are in the Master Plan to develop the most imposing building that could be allowed with the proposed zoning, create a block drawing of that, and then do a visual analysis. Mr. Pendoley acknowledged this sounded judgmental, but stated what this means is that the EIR will look at the worst possible building, a building with maximum impact, given no other choice. He stated this is what CEQA requires us to do. He stated we would then know the impact, have the option of developing mitigation measures, and if the EIR is certified that way, then when a permit does come in, which might be several years, it must comply with all of those mitigation measures, to make sure we get something better than the worst case. He pointed out that after all of that, then the building would be subject to Environmental Review, as well. Mr. Pendoley stated, to a certain extent, there was some vagueness to analyzing certain aspects of a Master Plan; on the other hand, what it does give you is flexibility, and you protect yourself by requiring additional Environmental Review later on. Cecilia Bridges, Attorney representing Dominican College, addressed the Council, stating she had spoken with Planning Director Pendoley and Principal Planner Sheila Delimont concerning the letter from the Dominican Neighborhood Coalition. She stated the contract was very clear that if more neighborhood meetings were needed, they would provide them on an hourly basis; therefore she did not feel this was an issue at all. Ms. Bridges stated the purpose of an EIR was not to design a building for a Master Plan that does not require a design at the Master Plan level, noting the application that has been submitted by Dominican College was described in staff' s completion letter as one of the most excellent and complete applications they have ever seen. She noted that for the Recreation Center they have almost enough detail to build it, pointing out that for the Master Plan they do not have this detail, but that is because you do not get that kind of detail for a Master Plan application. Ms. Bridges stated the risk they take is that they have to do further Environmental Review when they do the analysis and they have an architect design the details; however, the purpose of an EIR is not to have an architecture firm prepare design details for a building in a Master Plan, when the application does not require the details. She stated the building was a long way off, noting they have a lot of money to collect before it will be close. Ms. Bridges reported the EIR will analyze photo montages on five projects in an alternative, and it will do an alternative analysis on nine alternatives, noting they have come up with practically every combination imaginable, and then will arrive at an environmentally superior alternative. She stated that after the analysis is done, the environmentally superior alternative will be chosen by the consultants, and if it requires additional photo montage or visual analysis, or any other kind of analysis, then she, more than anyone else, wants the EIR to be adequate, pointing out that it is her job to make certain it is adequate. She stated that at this point, if they see they need additional analysis in the EIR to make it adequate, then they will call on the hourly rate to make it so. She stated no one should be worried at this time trying to figure out a purely speculative part of the contract that we may or may not need, but if it is needed later on, they will devise it. Ms. Bridges reported she had attended the Design Review Board meeting, and referred to Mr. Liskamm's concerns about the trees on the renderings covering the view of the buildings. She stated she agreed with that, noting she felt if you are going to plant a tree today, you should not show a ten-year tree or twenty-year tree in the picture. However, she asked if you have existing 50 foot trees in place today, and they are, in fact, going to be in place when the building is constructed behind them, is it fair to make outlines out of them and pretend they do not exist? She stated she did not think that was fair, noting she agreed you should not put trees in the analysis that are not there, but you should not take out the trees that are there, either. Mr. Liskamm stated this issue had come up at the Design Review Board, and the Board SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 21 clearly stated "existing and new trees", the reason being that because of the storms we have had, many of the large trees have been toppled, and the college has cut down many of the trees in this area, as well. He stated he felt it would be misleading not to silhouette the existing trees, as well, noting the Design Review Board had also recommended this. Mayor Boro stated he felt comfortable with Mr. Pendoley's verbal responses to the written letter we received from Mr. Taylor, and asked Mr. Pendoley to respond to Mr. Taylor in writing, addressing the issues he has raised, and how they will be addressed through the process, copying the Council and Ms. Bridges. He stated he felt the issues had been addressed, noting that as we go through the process, we all want the EIR to be adequate, and it is no one's intention to make it inadequate. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt a Resolution accepting the proposal and authorizing execution of the agreement with Nichols•Berman Environmental Planning for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Dominican College Master Plan. Councilmember Cohen noted, as people who have been through this process already know, there is going to be an additional opportunity before the EIR is approved, during the Comment Period, when it will be necessary for the consultants to respond to comments from the public, as well as the City. He stated for anyone who finds the EIR inadequate once it is prepared, or has not addressed issues the City stated would be addressed, there will be plenty of opportunity to bring that to everyone's attention, and ensure those issues are addressed further down the road. RESOLUTION NO. 9709 -RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING THE AGREEMENT FROM NICHOLS•BERMAN ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DOMINICAN COLLEGE MASTER PLAN AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller OLD BUSINESS: 31. CONSIDERATION OF REVISING THE CITY'S VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE (PW) - File 9-3-80 Public Works Director David Bernardi acknowledged the wonderful job done by Assistant Public Works Director Matt Naclerio and Nancy Neff, Finance Department, in preparing the data for this report. Mr. Bernardi stated this Policy would change the times when we replace City vehicles, and sets forth procedures to keep track of vehicular replacement, so we can bring adequate data to the Council at budget time. Mr. Bernardi noted part of the recommendation asks the Council to consider authorizing $27,500 to computerize the Garage Division in order to move forward with the annual evaluations of the vehicles. He stated that if the Council likes this idea, he would recommend staff bring this before the Council for the next budget year, when this project will be in full swing. Councilmember Phillips referred to that section of the staff report on Page 7 entitled "Financial Impact", in which it is stated there would be an increase of an estimated $41,654 for this fiscal year; however, he stated it seemed as though we were extending the useful or operative life of the vehicles, and asked why, if we are extending the operational life, is it costing more? Mr. Bernardi responded it was because we are raising the rental rates of the cars. He stated we have undervalued the replacement costs of our cars in the past, and noted that by using the CPI, as recommended, so that we keep track of inflation, the cost goes up incrementally, and what we have is an increase of approximately $41,000. Mr. Phillips clarified that we were earmarking a greater amount for future replacement, so from an efficiency standpoint, and a Citywide standpoint, we are going to be operating at a lesser cost. Mr. Bernardi stated that was correct. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to authorize staff to commence implementation of the policy as presented. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 22 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller Mayor Boro stated he liked two of the comments made in the staff report; the first was regarding the target service life, and if the vehicle is not making it, we will replace it, and we will not jeopardize the safety of our employees; second, Mayor Boro stated he liked the concept of the Garage Division being a full cost center. 32. REVIEW OF LAFCO WORKING PAPER ON DUAL ANNEXATION AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE POLICIES (P1) - File 149 x 10-2 Councilmember Cohen stated the LAFCO Report had been very difficult to understand, and Mr. Pendoley agreed this had been a problem. Mr. Pendoley recommended the Council urge LAFCO to retain its current policies, noting some of these changes were very difficult to understand. He stated what is clear is that these changes would require the expenditure of additional time and money, with little public benefit, and probably with the result of alienating some of our unincorporated neighbors, as well as drive some properties out of our Sphere of Influence, and tie the Council's hands in dealing with annexation proposals. Councilmember Cohen stated the LAFCO Report needed a lot of work, noting one of the more confusing arguments they made was regarding funding to offset County expenses. He referred to LAFCO's Working Paper, which states that to achieve this deletion, the residents could initiate the proceedings by creating a funding mechanism to offset the County's additional cost for delivery of services. Mr. Cohen stated, taken at face value, this meant the residents of that area were going to pay more money in order to achieve this. He stated this would address the LAFCO mandate to reduce duplication of services and inefficient delivery of service but, in effect, meant LAFCO was stating that duplication and inefficient delivery of service are okay, as long as they can find someone to pay for them. Mr. Cohen stated this was ludicrous, and recommended the Council say "No" and urge LAFCO to change their policies. He felt the City should communicate with the other cities and the County, and tell them this has to stop. Mayor Boro suggested this was something City Manager Gould might want to communicate through the Managers at his monthly City Managers' meeting, as well, noting that if LAFCO is partially set to do something like this, it is important for them to quickly understand not only how we feel about it, but the other cities as well. Mr. Gould stated there had been a report from LAFCO to the Marin Managers' Association, which caused more questions than it had answered, and he believed the response to this would be uniform throughout Marin County. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, that Council approve forwarding to LAFCO Commissioners and staff the following: 1. A recommendation to retain the existing Sphere of Influence and Dual Annexation Policies. These policies promote annexation to cities first, provide flexibility to address individual situations, and consider City interests in dual annexation. 2. San Rafael's concerns regarding the Working Paper changes to existing Sphere of Influence and Dual Annexation Policies. 3. Alternative suggestions which might address Commissioners' request to provide incentives for people to annex. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NEW BUSINESS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro None Heller 34. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE, SUNDAY, OCTOBER 13, THROUGH TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1996 IN ANAHEIM (CC) - File 9-11-1 Mayor Boro announced he was planning on attending that meeting, and could act as the Council's Voting Delegate. City Clerk Leoncini asked if the Council wished to appoint an alternate, noting she understood Councilmember Heller was also planning on attending the meeting. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to appoint Mayor Boro as the Council's Voting Delegate, and appoint Councilmember Heller as Voting Alternate. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 23 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller 35. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE FUND FOR RECEIPT OF CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) PROGRAM FUNDING (PD) - File 9-3-30 Police Chief Krolak reported that if Council adopted this Resolution, a fund would be established which would allow the City to accept approximately $125,000 from the State of California, noting the County had already taken the action necessary for them. Chief Krolak reported the Police Chiefs had met last Thursday, and in looking at this bill, they suddenly realized they all had to have this pass and in place in the month of September, or they could not receive the funds. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution establishing a Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund for the receipt of Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program funding. RESOLUTION NO. 9710 -RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE FUND (SLESF) FOR THE RECEIPT OF COPS PROGRAM FUNDING AND EXPENDITURES AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 36. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: None Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro None heller There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 1996 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/16/96 Page 23