HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1997-10-20SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1997 AT 8:20
PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM
1.0 Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Government Code Section
54956.8)
a. Property Street Address: 616 Canal Street (APN 14-162-02)
Negotiating Parties: City of San Rafael and Antonio and Trinidad Carrico.
Under Negotiation: Instruction to negotiator will concern price and terms.
City Attorney Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
A -nn DM
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the
following Consent Calendar items:
ITEM
RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of
Monday, October 6, 1997 (CC)
3. Acceptance of Statement of Disclosure for
Kevin Warner, Member, Citizens Advisory
Committee on Redevelopment (CC)
- File 9-4-3
Approved as submitted.
Accepted Statement of
Disclosure.
4. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) RESOLUTION NO. 9931 -
- File 9-1 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY
OF MONROVIA'S CURFEW/ANTI-TRUANCY ORDINANCE.
5. Resolution of Appreciation to Tom Obletz, RESOLUTION NO. 9932 -
Retiring Chairperson, Federation of San Rafael RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
Neighborhoods (CM) - File 102 TO TOM OBLETZ, RETIRING
CHAIRPERSON, FEDERATION OF SAN RAFAEL NEIGHBORHOODS.
6. Resolution of Appreciation to Shirley Fischer, RESOLUTION NO. 9933 -
Member of the Board, North San Rafael Coalition RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
of Residents (CM) - File 102 SHIRLEY FISCHER, MEMBER OF
THE BOARD, NORTH SAN RAFAEL COALITION OF RESIDENTS.
7. Resolution Authorizing the Signing of an Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 9934 -
with Acclamation Insurance Management Services for RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Workers Compensation Claims Administration SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH
Services (Two-year Agreement From 10/1/97 through ACCLAMATION INSURANCE
9/30/99) (CM) - File 7-1-31 x 9-6-3 MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES (10/1/97 - 9/30/99).
8. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE Approved final
adoption
NO. 1715 - An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael, of Ordinance No. 1715.
California, Adopted by Reference by Section
14.01.020 of the Municipal Code of San Rafael,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 2
California, so as to Reclassify Certain Real
Property from the General Commercial District
to the PD (Planned Development) District
(Re: ZC97-1, 655 Irwin Street, AP Nos. 13-032-01,
02, 04, 05, 06 and a Portion of 13-02-38) (Shamrock
Center) (Comm. Dev.) - File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7
9. Resolution Adopting Amendments to 1997/98
Budget (Admin. Svcs.) - File 8-5
AMENDMENTS TO THE 1997/98 BUDGET.
10. Monthly Investment Report (Admin. Svcs.)
- File 8-18 x 8-9
RESOLUTION NO. 9935 -
RESOLUTION ADOPTING
Accepted report.
12. Terrace Avenue Quitclaim Deeds (PW) RESOLUTION NO. 9936 -
- File 2-12-1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEEDS CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUS VACATION OF EXCESS
PORTIONS OF THE TERRACE AVENUE EXTENSION BY RESOLUTION NO. 9025.
13. Approval of Agreement for Emergency Public Ingress RESOLUTION NO. 9937 -
and Egress Across APN 15-061-13 (Lanstein) Between RESOLUTION APPROVING AND
Sienna Way and Glen Park Avenue (PW) AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
- File 2-11-1 AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY PUBLIC
INGRESS AND EGRESS ACROSS APN 15-061-13 (LANSTEIN) BETWEEN SIENNA WAY AND GLEN
PARK AVENUE.
14. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract RESOLUTION NO. 9938 -
to Ghilotti Brothers Construction, Inc. RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF
Re: Park Street Drainage Improvements, Project CONTRACT FOR PARK STREET
No. 042-4210-443-8000 (Bid Opening Held on DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO
Tuesday, October 14, 1997) (PW) GHILOTTI BROTHERS
- File 4-1-491 x 12-9 CONSTRUCTION, INC. (Lowest
responsible bidder, in amount of $164,885.50)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion:
11. ACTIONS TO TERMINATE THE FORMATION OF THE DEL GANADO MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT 97-2: (Admin. Svcs.) - File 6-53
a. RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9843, AND TERMINATING PROCEEDINGS FOR
THE FORMATION OF THE SAN RAFAEL DEL GANADO MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
97-2, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITH MUNI
FINANCIAL, INC. REGARDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CONSULTING SERVICES.
Mayor Boro invited members of the public to address this issue.
Ian McLeod, 116 Duran Drive, stated it was his understanding this item was no longer
being considered by the Council because the survey taken by the City indicated
there was a negative response to this issue. However, he stated many of the
homeowners believe the ditch is an important agenda item, and they would like
to work with Council in some manner to achieve this. Mr. McLeod noted it had
been stressed as part of the North San Rafael Vision that this is an item the
residents would like to see happen, and while acknowledging the survey vote
was against the formation of a (Maintenance) District, they would like to move
ahead, with the Council, in some other way of achieving such a District.
On behalf of the Council and the residents of the Terra Linda area, Mayor Boro thanked
Mr. McLeod for the work he and his neighbors who supported this effort put
in. Mayor Boro stated that although the results were not what they had
been looking for, the issue had now been brought to everyone's attention, and
hopefully this will get us to a solution, even though it may be different from
what everyone first thought. Mayor Boro assured Mr. McLeod that we would work
together to find a solution.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 9939 -RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9843 AND TERMINATING
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FORMATION OF THE SAN RAFAEL DEL GANADO MAINTENANCE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 97-2; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING TERMINATION OF
AGREEMENT WITH MUNI FINANCIAL, INC. REGARDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CONSULTING
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 3
SERVICES.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
15. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO TOM OBLETZ, RETIRING CHAIRPERSON,
SAN RAFAEL FEDERATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS (CM) - File 102
Mayor Boro explained Council was presenting a Resolution of Appreciation to Tom
Obletz to honor him for putting forth tremendous effort over the past several
years with the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods. Mayor Boro reported
Mr. Obletz was a founding member of that organization, has been its chairperson
for a number of years, and has been a cornerstone in making the Federation
of San Rafael Neighborhoods happen, stating he had created a great legacy.
Mayor Boro noted Mr. Obletz has been involved in many issues throughout the
City, including Homeowner Association meetings in other parts of San Rafael,
as well as Federation meetings. Mayor Boro noted just yesterday Mr. Obletz
was at the Flea-tique, checking in all the vendors. Stating Mr. Obletz had
done a wonderful job as a volunteer on behalf of his community, Mayor Boro
presented Mr. Obletz the Resolution, thanking him on behalf of the Council.
Mr. Obletz thanked the Council, stating it had been a pleasure to work with the
City, and noting he felt the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods had
accomplished a lot in such a short period of time. He thanked those in
attendance who have been involved in the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods,
as well as from Montecito and some of the other neighborhoods, and some of
the people from Bocce whom he has been involved with for quite some time.
Mr. Obletz pointed out he could not have done nearly what he has accomplished
with the Federation without the help of a lot of volunteers, especially Ralph
Crocker. He stated Mr. Crocker had done a lot for the group, as has Steve
Patterson and Linda Bellatore. He noted both were co-founders with him, and
Ms. Bellatore is now the current President. Mr. Obletz expressed his thanks
to the Council for the Resolution of Appreciation. Mayor Boro introduced Mr.
Obletz' wife and two daughters, Leslie and Ellen.
16. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO SHIRLEY FISCHER, MEMBER, NORTH
SAN RAFAEL COALITION OF RESIDENTS (CM) - File 102
Mrs. Fischer was unable to attend the Council meeting; however, she will be present
at meeting of 11/17/97.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
17. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 8.20.160 AND
8.20. 165 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO RESPONSES TO FALSE ALARMS
AND FALSE ALARM RESPONSE FEES (Admin. Svcs.) - File 9-10-2 x 9-3-20 x 9-3-30
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for a staff report.
Administrative Services Director Ken Nordhoff reported the proposed Ordinance change
was actually a follow-up item to the Business Cost Study and the Master Fee
Schedule adopted by Council on September 15th, at which time they put into
place a revised fee schedule and restructured the false alarm responses, and
the amendment to the Ordinance reflects that change. He noted the Ordinance
currently provides for three no charge false alarm responses, and a $200 charge
for the fourth and subsequent responses. Mr. Nordhoff stated the Municipal
Code sections have been amended to reflect what Council approved as part of
the Business Cost Study, which includes no response charges for the first two
responses within a twelve month period, a $50 fee for the third response, $100
for the fourth, and $200 for the fifth and subsequent responses.
Mr. Nordhoff reported the City Attorney's Office worked with him and the Police
Department in preparing the Ordinance amendment, and they believe it reflects
what Council discussed over a series of study sessions, and approved at the
meeting of September 15th.
Mayor Boro noted one of the things Council had discussed regarding this issue was
the matter of resources to enforce this Ordinance. He stated he understood
we now have the resources in place to follow through, and asked Police Captain
Michael Cronin to describe this. Captain Cronin stated we would have the
resources in place to follow-up, noting it was really just a matter of
bookkeeping for the Police Department, rather than a matter of response.
Captain Cronin reported that last year the Police Department responded to 4,863
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 4
alarms, approximately 11% of the total number of calls for service. He stated
that in reviewing this, they believe the Department has probably invested 2,000
to 2,500 man hours of Police or Patrol time, which equates to the equivalent
of one and a half Police Officer engaged in this, yet in all those responses,
the number of times it was actually valid, or resulted in something that actually
needed to be handled by a Police Officer amounted to approximately 200.
Therefore, the percentages of "good" alarms was relatively low, and the majority
of the errors are usually user errors or system errors of some other kind or
another, and he noted we presently have no disincentive for that kind of
behavior.
Captain Cronin reported 560 of these alarm locations resulted in more than five
responses over a period of a year. He stated what the Police Department
anticipates being able to do with the information they now collect via the
computer is to accurately track those locations, put a process in place to
notify those people each time they have an alarm going off, and be able to
effectively track and deal with errors as they arise. Captain Cronin stated
they also intend to implement an appeal process, noting there would be some
instances when an alarm would not count against the owner, such as if they
had a power failure, or something of that nature, and it could be verified
through P.G.& E. Captain Cronin stated the instances the Police Department
are interested in, and the ones they want to work on, are the chronic locations,
which he noted is actually classic community policing problem solving. He
reported there are some chronic locations that are taking up a wildly
disproportionate amount of Patrol time, and the Police Department feels it
can attack this effectively, noting one of the tools they need is this Ordinance.
Councilmember Cohen referred to a letter which suggested the predicted severe storms
may trigger a number of false alarms, which would clearly be beyond the control
of the property owners. He asked if it was Captain Cronin's experience that
we see a rise in false alarms when we have heavy storms? Captain Cronin stated
there was certainly a connection between storm activity, particularly where
it creates power or telephone shortages and outages. However, these are the
kinds of circumstances the Department would be willing to look at, noting they
are as aware of those problems as the property owners are, and they would be
sympathetic to those kinds of problems. He stated those were not the people
the Police Department was having problems with, nor are they the people upon
whom the Police Department would necessarily want to impose punishment. Mr.
Cohen asked if they were proposing to handle this by having an appeal process,
so that if somewhere down the road someone has more than three false alarms
and gets hit with a heftier fine, and then comes to the Police Department and
states that one of those was due to a storm, that would be how the Police
Department would handle it? Captain Cronin stated criteria would be
established allowing the Police Department to deal with those alarms right
at the first instance, when they get the information. He pointed out the
Officers have a Clearance Code on all alarms, and when an Officer clears an
alarm, he assigns a particular disposition to it. If the Officer comes back
and states there was a power outage in the area, then the property owner would
be notified of the false alarm, but the alarm would not be counted. He stated
it would be the same if a tree fell on the building, noting the property owner
would not be penalized if the tree went through the window and set the alarm
off. He stated the Police Department had Disposition Codes which he felt would
satisfactorily allow them to deal with the majority of these types of alarms,
and where they do not, the Police Department intends to have latitude within
the Department to make those kinds of decisions. Beyond that, an appeal process
will be implemented. Captain Cronin stated the Department had no intention
of turning a citizen into an angry citizen over a power outage.
Councilmember Cohen noted another letter had been received which suggested this
would be a deterrent to calling the Police, noting he gathered they were making
the connection between this and the Neighborhood Watch Program, and that they
felt on one hand the City is encouraging people to call the Police when there
is any sign of suspicious activity, but on the other hand we are going to fine
them for a false alarm. He asked Captain Cronin if there was any connection
there? Captain Cronin stated he did not see a connection, noting alarms are
reported to the Police Department by two means, the greatest of which is that
the alarms are tied to a phone line, and the activation is automatically
registered to an alarm company, who in turn calls the Police Department.
Therefore, he stated there is no opportunity for someone not to call the Police,
unless the alarm company quits calling, in which case he could not see why
anyone would even have an alarm. The second large area of reporting is neighbors
who hear an automobile alarm going off, and in this instance, Captain Cronin
stated he could not see why a neighbor would not call.
Mayor Boro invited members of the public to address the Council.
John Sowden, resident of San Rafael and owner of American Sentry Systems, an alarm
company in San Rafael, stated he believed what was happening with this Ordinance
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 5
was the same thing that went on with the last modification of the alarm Ordinance,
noting they had not been notified, and there was no input from the alarm industry.
He stated he had been involved in the writing of the first Ordinance in 1977,
but reported he had been told they were not notified in this instance because
there were too many people involved.
Mr. Sowden stated he had been told by staff that the current alarm Ordinance, which
imposes a $200 fee after four alarms in any one year, has not been enforced
for several years; therefore, he felt that to make this Ordinance more stringent
because of the failure of the current Ordinance was inappropriate. Mr. Sowden
stated it was also his understanding that the intent of these fees was to get
the attention of the alarm users. He presented spread sheets he had prepared,
one based on the proposed Ordinance and one based on the current Ordinance,
which indicate the effects of revenue and cost to the City on a "per alarm"
basis. In comparing the results, he stated that with the current Ordinance,
after ten alarms the costs stay very close to the revenue; however, with the
proposed Ordinance, after ten alarms the Ordinance has generated approximately
$1,000, which is coming from the customer. Mr. Sowden reported he once lost
a customer when the City of Berkeley put together a high fee Ordinance, and
the customer was afraid of taking the chance that her alarm would go off, so
she cancelled her service. He noted customers might not want to even turn
on their alarms after they have reached a second alarm.
Mr. Sowden stated one of the things he did not understand was that the current
Ordinance, if it were to have been enforced, would have been catching those
560 alarms, and those owners would have received the $200 fine.
Mr. Sowden reported he had been informed the cost of providing service was $35.50.
He stated he contacted Senator Burton's office today because he believed it
was a State law that if there are User Fees, those fees, unless voted upon,
cannot be higher than the cost of providing the service. Mr. Sowden referred
to Assembly Bill 3328 which stated this in 1990, noting he received a FAX from
Senator Burton's office which states the User Fees have to equal costs, and
the fees must be set by Ordinance, not delegated, which means the elected
officials must set the fees, not a staff member. Mayor Boro stated that was
why the fees were now before Council, noting there was a staff recommendation
of what they should be, but the Council would have to approve and adopt them,
if they chose to.
Mr. Sowden stated he felt the City needed to start by enforcing the existing Ordinance.
He reported he had never had an instance where one of his customers reached
a fifth alarm, which is when his customers would be charged, and he has been
in the business since 1971. He stated false alarms are a high priority for
him, as they are with most alarm companies; however, when it gets down to two
alarms within a year, it is really tough for a citizen to know that with the
next alarm they are going to pay a $50 fee, and that the one after that will
be $100, noting he felt this was egregious. Mr. Sowden stated the City should
run the Ordinance we already have, and give it a chance to pass or fail, noting
that if it passes, then we do not have to make a change in the law. He stated
he hears all the time about people wanting to pass new laws, and then finding
out that the laws already on the books are just not being enforced. Mr. Sowden
believed the City should run the current law for two years, noting it would
give us a couple of seasons of storms. He pointed out that when the first
Ordinance went into effect the Police Department stated that if there was
flooding or power failures, there would not be a problem for the property owners
with alarms. However, a couple of months later they changed their view, stating
any time they responded and it was not an actual burglary, it would count as
a false alarm against the property owner's record. Mr. Sowden stated this
made it hard to know how the new Ordinance would be handled, noting there was
no reference in the Ordinance of an appeal process.
Mr. Sowden stated he would also like to see the Ordinance changed so that rather
than making it "any twelve month period", it is made a specific twelve month
period, which would probably coincide with the City's fiscal year, and then
if there are any false alarms, wipe the slate clean and start all over again,
rather than having a continuous, rolling twelve month period, which Mr. Sowden
stated was very hard to track.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Boro noted the reason staff was recommending a new fee structure is because
the present one is not consistent with the Cost Recovery Program. He
acknowledged it appeared there was some discretion as to when to start the
first, second, third, and fourth instances. He asked Captain Cronin to describe
the cut-off between two and three alarms, asking if the majority of false alarms
is less than two per year, and to explain how we arrive at three alarms as
the cut off, noting the old Ordinance was four. Captain Cronin reported the
Police Department handled 4,863 alarms last year, and the alarms that were
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 6
above three responses accounted for approximately 550 locations. In other
words, looking at those in excess of three alarms, there is a fairly small
group of people; however, those people who were in excess of three alarms went
from three all the way up to forty-eight in one calendar year. Therefore,
while he acknowledged it may be somewhat arbitrary, what the Police Department
is really looking at is a very small percentage of alarm users who create the
great burden of the work for the Police Department, noting it was probably
less than 15% of the people who have alarms who fall into that category, and
the majority are below that. Captain Cronin stated the vast majority of people
who have alarms go off are well within the two alarms per year.
Councilmember Phillips felt Mr. Sowden may have had a valid issue with regard to
current enforcement, asking Captain Cronin to expand on that, and also asking
if someone had 48 false alarms, had he received a fairly large bill? Captain
Cronin stated the Police Department had not enforced the existing Ordinance
for quite some time, noting the decision had been made to eliminate the position
that did this, explaining there had been an Officer dedicated to alarms and
a variety of other tasks. Captain Cronin stated the Department is now in a
position to re -staff this position, and this is just one of the ideas in an
effort to free -up more Patrol time or Officer time. However, he pointed out
that had the Department enforced the current Ordinance and collected all the
fines, it would have resulted in $300,000 last year, which is substantially
in excess of what they anticipate under the new formula. He noted that while
the Department may get to some people earlier, the burden is going to be
substantially less on the community.
City Manager Gould noted the objective was not to raise revenue, the objective was
to manage demand for a service the City does not wish to provide, and that
is service for the abuse of alarms. He stated not only was this a waste of
public resources, by taking Officers away from Patrol, it was also an Officer
safety issue, because as the Officers respond again and again to false alarms,
they begin to lower their guard, and then there is that one time when there
is an intruder, in the dark with a gun, and they are not ready. Therefore,
for a variety of reasons, staff recommends this policy to Council. He noted
how ever the Council sets the cut-off, whether at the third or fourth alarm,
was really a legislative decision. He stated that as Captain Cronin noted,
we can only point to our own studies, which last year indicated that this seems
to be a reasonable cut-off.
Mr. Phillips asked Mr. GoulddIs reaction to the suggestion of maintaining the current
schedule, as opposed to changing it, now that he has heard some discussion
from a professional in the field? Mr. Gould stated that if the City's objective
is to modify behavior, rather than going from four free false alarms to suddenly
a $200 charge, this escalating charge provides more incentive for people to
manage their own alarm systems, as it is a less abrupt change from no charge
for a service to a fairly significant one.
Councilmember Cohen asked for a description of the provisions of the current Ordinance
that are not being enforced, versus what is now being proposed, and also if
the current Ordinance would have us charge for any instance of a false alarm?
Captain Cronin stated in the current Ordinance there is no charge until the
fourth instance, and then there would be a charge of $200. Mr. Gould stated
there were actually two issues; one was that there was an Ordinance on the
books that had not been enforced, and that was going to be corrected in any
case. He stated that whether Council chooses to change the current Ordinance
or not, the Police Department was going to enforce the false alarm Ordinance.
Councilmember Cohen stated he understood this, and supported the rationale
for enforcing it, noting it was not for revenue, it was for deterrent, and
to make people aware that there is a cost associated with this, and that we
have to impose fees for recurrent false alarms. However, Mr. Cohen felt it
was a fair question to ask, if we have an Ordinance in place and we haven't
used it, why do we not do that and see how it works before we change the Ordinance?
Mr. Cohen asked if Captain Cronin felt the proposed Ordinance was actually
less onerous? Captain Cronin stated he did, noting if one were to pursue the
argument about the fines being a disincentive to reporting alarms and causing
people to turn their alarms off, then he would suggest a $200 hit is a much
greater disincentive than $50, as he felt $50 was on the order of a stern
reminder, while $200 was very substantial. For that reason, Captain Cronin
believed the proposed Ordinance was more equitable, more reflective of what
actual costs are, and could have a more beneficial effect at an earlier stage.
Councilmember Phillips noted there might be other cities that have experienced this,
and we might glean from that, asking if we had looked at anything within the
industry that would support our position? Captain Cronin reported there were
Ordinances covering the entire spectrum, from agencies that charge absolutely
nothing for an unspecified number of alarms, to agencies that impose some very
onerous fees at an earlier stage. Captain Cronin pointed out he did not feel
there was anyone else in Marin County that carried the burden we do in terms
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 7
of alarms.
Councilmember Phillips noted there have been a lot of people who were in violation
of the old Ordinance, and would now be under the proposed Ordinance, asking
what the City's means of communication would be with regard to a change in
the Ordinance? Captain Cronin stated the first thing to happen would be that
the Police Department would send a letter after every alarm, noting quite often
people have an alarm go off and they are completely unaware of it. He stated
the Department intends to send a letter every time, informing the property
owner there has been an alarm, and including a copy of the City' s policy regarding
subsequent alarms. Captain Cronin noted the Police Department had no intention
of changing the level of service, noting they would continue to respond to
alarms in the same manner as they responded under the first Ordinance; however,
they will now notify people each and every step of the way as to what the Police
Department has done, what the property owner has done to initiate the Police
Department's response, and what the property owner's responsibilities are,
with respect to their alarm and to the City.
Councilmember Phillips asked if there was any way the City could coordinate with
the alarm companies, in an attempt to get out in front of the issue before
the first alarm? Captain Cronin stated he would like to notify all the alarm
companies, publicize it in the newspaper, and in the City newsletter. He stated
it was not the Department's intention to "blind side" anyone with this program,
noting the Department would like very much for everyone to be well aware of
it, as this might cause people to take a better look at their systems and how
they use them, and perhaps be a little more prudent so the number of alarms
drop.
Mayor Boro noted that when this issue had been discussed during the review of the
Cost Study, he was surprised to find the City was not enforcing the existing
Ordinance. He stated the proposed Ordinance is, in fact, more practical, and
a progressive way of getting someone' s attention, noting if the first hit someone
took was $200, they were likely to become excited and feel they were being
blind sided. Mayor Boro agreed that if the City publicizes this, then if there
is a problem, whether it is in the use or the service provided by the alarm
company, it will then be between the subscriber and the alarm company to
basically learn how to use the alarm properly, and to make sure it is reliable.
He felt this was a progressive way to go after the issue.
Councilmember Cohen noted there were certain definitions of events, such as "act
of God", or "power outages", that would not be considered false alarms and
would not trigger this Ordinance, and beyond that there would also be an appeal
process. He pointed out this language did not appear in the Ordinance, stating
that at the least, the City should publicize this when we publicize that the
Ordinance has been changed, so people are aware the City is not going to bill
them every time there is a storm and their alarm goes off, and also so they
know that if they feel there is some kind of legitimate reason as to why their
alarm has gone off, they will have an opportunity to state their case in some
form. Mr. Cohen noted that in other cases where there have been changes to
the Municipal Code the appeal process has been put into the Code itself, and
while he did not know if that was appropriate in this case, he certainly believed
it was appropriate to make sure we notify people when we publicize this. City
Manager Gould suggested staff draft the administrative procedure setting forth
the appeal process, and if Council is comfortable with it, publicize it separate
from the Ordinance.
Councilmember Cohen stated Captain Cronin had noted there were certain addresses
that had triggered up to forty-eight false alarms, and asked if the Police
Department knew those addresses? Captain Cronin responded they did. Mr. Cohen
asked that registered letters be mailed to those addresses.
Councilmember Miller referred to the question of the timing of the twelve month
period, asking if there would be a fixed period or a rotating period? Captain
Cronin, from an administrative standpoint, recommended a "calendar year" or
a "fixed period" year, stating that if it were a rotating period it could become
very confusing for the public and the Police Department, particularly with
such things as changes in households. Mayor Boro asked if Captain Cronin was
recommending the Ordinance become effective January 1st? Mr. Cronin stated
he was, noting he felt it could be adequately publicized, the system put in
place, and the administrative regulations up.
Councilmember Phillips asked if the clock started over if there was a change in
ownership? Captain Cronin pointed out that one had to get a permit for an
alarm in San Rafael, and he did not know if that permit was affected by a new
owner, although he suspected it would be; therefore, if there was a change
in ownership during the calendar year, that person would start over.
Councilmember Cohen asked that the bottom of Page 1 of the proposed Ordinance
be amended to read, "A protected area alarm shall constitute a public nuisance
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 8
if it actuates three or more false alarms in any calendar year."
The title of the Ordinance was read,
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SECTIONS 8 . 20 . 160
AND 8.20.165 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO RESPONSES TO FALSE
ALARMS AND FALSE ALARM RESPONSE FEES". (Section 8.20.160 to read: "A
protected area alarm shall constitute a public nuisance if it activates three
or more false alarms in any calendar year.") (To be effective 1/1/98.)
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with
the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and to refer to it by title only,
and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1716 to print, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
18. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,
ZONE CHANGE TO AMEND THE PLANNED DISTRICT TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES, VARIANCE
TO ALLOW A 38 FOOT HIGH BUILDING, USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A 15 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT CRESTA DRIVE AND SMITH
RANCH ROAD; APN 155-251-16 &17, CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, OWNER;
JERRY KLER, REPRESENTATIVE (MARIN LOFTS) (Comm. Dev.) - File 115 x 10-4 x
10-5 x 10-7
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report.
Community Development Director Bob Leiter reported this proposal was for a fifteen
unit condominium project above the AAA building, and noted the Planning
Commission and Design Review Board had both recommended approval of the project,
with the conditions being presented to Council.
Jerry Kler, project Architect, introduced John Rittenhouse, who displayed a model
of the proposed project. Mr. Kler reported that in 1976 there was a family
ratio of one income, two parent houses of 78%, and in 1997 there are only 28%
one income, two parent households, noting the quality and needs of housing
have changed dramatically in the past twenty or thirty years. He stated that
when they looked at the proposed site, it was zoned for Office, and had been
vacant for a long time, as no one could find a way to use the site for Office
space. He reported they felt this would be a perfect site to do a transition
project of the kind of housing that is much more relevant to what is needed
today for the people who want to stay in San Rafael, which is work force housing.
Mr. Kler reported that throughout all the Vision Committee hearings, which he
attended, one of the things that came up prominently was the fact that the
kind of housing needed today is medium density housing, and housing that would
provide an alternative to what is now a different kind of work force; single
parent, and two individuals. He stated they believed this would be an ideal
situation to have a medium density housing project based on the loft concept,
which would allow multiple configuration of spaces inside. He noted when he
first started doing architecture, they used to have two bedroom submissions,
and they would lie about the third room and call if an office, because people
wanted an extra bedroom; however, this is now totally reversed, and people
are taking bedrooms and turning them into offices, and a lot of people are
working at home. Therefore, he felt this site had become a logical possibility
for doing the kind of work force housing the Vision Committee had talked about.
He noted the site itself sits down in a bowl, and they felt this would be
an unobtrusive housing project.
Mr. Kler stated they took stock of what exists along Cresta Drive, pointing out
the streetscape currently shows parking extends all along the street, and it
was their intention to utilize this site and put the parking out of sight.
Therefore, they put the parking under the structure, and allowed the structure
to become the walkway or plaza. He stated the same kind of transitional spaces
used in primitive dwellings still form a psychological need, and pointed out
they were providing a street -way, transitional spaces, inner spaces, and
exterior decks, with the parking out of sight. He noted the shape of the land
also dictated the soft roof structure that covers all of the dwellings, which
they stressed in the Design Review process. Mr. Kler stated they approached
this with the idea that there would be a break-up in the mass of height and
elevation, with individual dwellings that could be configured in a somewhat
different way.
Mayor Boro asked what the cost of the units would be, and what percentage would
be used in the calculation of the affordable housing units? Mr. Kler stated
the formula to be used for the two Below Market Rate units would be dictated
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 9
to them, and he was not certain what that would be. In giving an approximation
of the costs of the units, Mr. Kler pointed out the traffic fees, park fees,
and sewer connection fees had added significantly to the cost, close to $30,000
to $40,000 per unit, and he estimated the final cost would be approximately
$250,000 to $350,000 per unit.
Principal Planner Sheila Delimont reported Below Market Rate units are normally
80% to 100% of market price, and the City generally uses the mid -point of 90%
in writing the agreements. Mayor Boro felt the closer to 80% we could price
the Below Market Rate units the more desirable they would be.
Councilmember Cohen asked Mr. Kler to describe the units. Mr. Kler reported there
were three levels, and because of the mezzanine, and the fact that they did
not include a second means of egress, the third level was only a third of the
other two levels, making part of it three-story open space, with two levels
above the entry level. He stated the only level that is full is the entry
level, while the other two levels are basically mezzanine, or cut back to allow
for the three-story space.
Councilmember Heller asked why they were asking for a variance to allow for a
thirty-eight foot height instead of the thirty-six feet that is allowed? Mr.
Kler stated that in trying to hide the cars, instead of putting a house on
ground, and then having the garage and the parking where it is seen, they covered
the parking and put it underneath. However, in order to do that, the level
is raised slightly, and that is the reason for the variance. He noted the
three levels have eight to nine foot ceilings, and the reason for the variance
is only because of the parking.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was pleased with the parking configuration. He
asked how much of the project would be visible from the street, since it is
behind the CSAA (California State Automobile Association) building? Mr. Kler
stated most of it would be invisible, and showed slides of the site, taken
from the theater parking lot and the Park IN Ride lot. He pointed out this
did not show the extensive landscaping that was planned, and noted eventually
most of the site would be covered because of the trees that will be in front
and going down the hill.
Joe Marino, resident of San Rafael, stated he had originally come to the meeting
to thank staff for doing such a great job of communicating with the residents
of Terra Linda concerning the Del Ganado Ditch, noting he appreciated all the
good things the City had done. Referring to the project before Council, he
noted the units are estimated at $250,000 to $350,000, and asked what kind
of income level would be necessary to pay for these? Mr. Kler stated he was
unable to answer that, as this was not a subsidized housing project. Mr. Marino
stated if the purpose of a project is to make it affordable for people who
are single parents, and the market price is going to be $250,000 to $350,000,
it would appear someone would have to earn a considerably higher income than
most school teachers do. He asked what the square footage would be for each
of the units? Ms. Delimont reported the square footage would be 1,752 square
feet. Mr. Marino stated the project looked very attractive, and he felt this
was a good site, noting the Architects had done a beautiful job with their
design; however, he felt asking $250,000 to $350,000 from single parents was
not a good deal. He asked if these units were going to be restricted to single
parents? Mayor Boro stated they were not. Mr. Marino stated if they were
not going to be restricted, he felt there would likely be more people buying
these units who were not single parents. Mayor Boro stated there had not been
a pledge to provide these units to single parents, noting Mr. Kler had merely
reported the make-up of the home had changed in the last thirty years, and
there are more single parents in the market than there were thirty years ago.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the issue of traffic impacts, noting the City had
spent a great deal of time studying trip generations and allocations for the
different units in Smith Ranch. He asked about the impact of changing from
an Office to Residential designation? Ms. Delimont stated the site currently
has fifteen to twenty-two trips assigned to it, which would accommodate Office
use; however, this project would only use fifteen of those trips, and the
remaining seven would revert to our pool in that area. She stated staff did
not feel this generated a critical move. Mr. Cohen stated it seemed, given
the Office market in Marin County lately, that if Office development were
feasible at this site someone would have been here already with an office
building. He noted one of the things we are seeing lately is a real mix of
housing types, and while there have been a fair amount of apartments, this
is much more like some of the projects we have seen recently, with small,
differently configured ownership units. He felt it stood the community in
good stead for the City to encourage those, and stated this project provides
the community with a valuable mix of housing types.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 10
Mayor Boro agreed, stating 1,700 square feet was a substantial size, and noting
the price range of $250,000 to $350,000 was below the average price of a home
today in San Rafael, and much less than the average in Marin County. While
acknowledging that was a substantial amount of money, he stated it was coming
in at a lower level of the existing market, and he felt that was very positive.
Councilmember Heller pointed out that loft/work spaces were becoming very popular
in other areas of the Bay Area, noting San Francisco had quite a few that were
very popular. She stated she was curious to see during the next year how this
project impacts on Marin County, noting she had heard several people requesting
this type of live/work situation. She believed this was going to be an excellent
project.
Councilmember Miller noted that by clustering the housing and placing it down in
"the bowl", as well as placing the parking underground, all of the human
footprint is much less intrusive on the environment and the earth, and he stated
Mr. Kler should be congratulated for taking this approach.
Councilmember Phillips stated he liked the parking approach, and felt the project
was an attractive development, noting he liked the design. He believed this
projected would serve our community well, and complimented Mr. Kler on the
project being presented to Council.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution
certifying the Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment, Zone change,
Variance, Use Permit, and Environmental and Design Review applications for
fifteen condominiums.
RESOLUTION NO. 9940 -RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, VARIANCE, USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN
REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR 15 CONDOMINIUMS; CRESTA DRIVE (APN #155-251-16 AND
17) (MARIN LOFTS).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment from Office to High Density
Residential, variance to allow a thirty-eight foot high building, Use Permit
and Environmental and Design Review applications for fifteen condominium units.
RESOLUTION NO. 9941 -RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE TO
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, VARIANCE TO ALLOW 38 FOOT HIGH BUILDING, USE PERMIT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR 15 CONDOMINIUM UNITS,
CRESTA DRIVE (AP #155-251-16 AND 17). (MARIN LOFTS)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The title of the Ordinance was read,
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM
PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT TO PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT (RE:
ZC 97-4; CRESTA DRIVE; AP NOS. 155-251-16 AND 17) (MARIN LOFTS)".
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to dispense with the
reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and to refer to it by title only,
and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1717 to print, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
19. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DISTRICT, MASTER
USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A GOLF
DRIVING RANGE AND CLUB HOUSE AT THE SHORELINE CENTER LOCATED AT 1615 EAST
FRANCISCO BLVD., APN 9-320-44, 45; SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA; CAL PDX, INC., OWNER;
ROBERT WRIGHT OF TREFFINGER, WALZ AND MacLEOD, REPRESENTATIVE (Comm. Dev.)
- File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for a staff report.
Associate Planner Louise Patterson stated the Shoreline Center Planned District
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 11
had been approved by the Council in 1993, and an amendment is being proposed
to delete the restriction which limits Special Retail uses to Parcels 1 through
4, and also to permit food and beverage establishments and recreational
facilities to develop at the site, with approval of a separate Use Permit.
Ms. Patterson reported the Planning Commission reviewed this project at their October
14th meeting, noting the Commission discussion focused on the Temporary Interim
Use, and the requirement of the Master Plan to install habitat buffers with
permanent development. They also discussed the time limit for the proposed
driving range Temporary Use, and the amendments to the Planned District. Ms.
Patterson reported the Marin Conservation League expressed concerns in
approving Temporary Uses if the permanent mitigation for development of the
site, including the habitat enhancement in the buffer areas, was not being
required. She stated the California Department of Fish and Game also expressed
concerns with Temporary Uses turning into Permanent Uses, and expressed a desire
to have a time limit placed on these Temporary Uses for additional review.
She noted the applicant requested the time period be extended to a seven year
period, from staff's recommendation of five years. In addressing the concerns
of all parties, the Planning Commission recommended that a revised Project
Condition of a seven year period would be appropriate, with the permanent
installation of some of the required twenty-five foot wide habitat buffer areas.
She stated the Commission recommended the permanent buffer areas be installed
on the north and northwest sides of Parcel 6, as a trade-off for the extended
period of time from five years to seven years. Ms. Patterson stated the
Commission also encouraged the area between the buffer area and the City's
maintenance route around the storm water retention pond be included in the
area for habitat.
Ms. Patterson stated that along with the Planned District amendments the applicant
requested amendments to permit that special Retail Uses be allowed on Parcels
5 and 6, noting the District currently restricts them to Parcels 1 through
4. She reported the applicant also requested food and beverage establishments,
and recreational facilities be permitted on all parcels. Ms. Patterson
reported the Commission stated the proposed temporary golf range, pro shop,
and restaurant were appropriate Interim Uses; however, they stated they did
not feel they had enough information to make this permanent change to the Planned
District. She noted the Commission stated none of the current Planning
Commissioners had been present when this Planned District went through the
hearing process in 1993, and they questioned why Specialty Retail was limited
to Parcels 1 through 4, and why food and beverage service establishments and
recreational uses had not been considered at that time. The Commission
indicated they would not recommend "No" on this change, only that they did
not have adequate information.
Ms. Patterson stated staff was recommending Council adopt the Planned District
Amendments recommended by the Planning Commission, which include allowing food
and beverage services on a temporary basis, and recreational facilities on
a temporary basis with a Use Permit, and not to allow the change of Parcels
1 through 4 to be deleted, but to permit some of those uses to be allowed on
Parcels 5 and 6 as a Temporary Use, therefore allowing the golf range without
making it a permanent change to the Planned District.
Robert Wright, representative with TWM Architects, gave a brief overview of the
project, reporting the Shoreline Center is a 40 acre site, and noting Home
Depot is currently located on one of the major parcels. He stated their proposal
is for the construction of a 56 tee driving range at what is currently the
end of Shoreline Center Parkway. He stated this is to be an Interim Use until
traffic allocation is appropriate, and can be utilized for the site. He pointed
out the proposed location of the 56 tees, the pro shop, and the driving range
facing north and surrounded by San Francisco Bay.
Mr. Wright reported the improvements would be relatively minor in nature, pointing
out driving ranges do not take up a lot of physical space, other than the land.
He reviewed drawings of the fencing, which included a series of fences along
the west, north, and eastern sides of the project as retention for the balls.
He noted the driving range itself would take up the center portion, with the
pro shop building being located right at the center of that. Mr. Wright stated
the facility itself was very simple in its design, a modular building, and
is planned to be an Interim Use.
Mr. Wright stated there is one condition they are concerned about, which relates
to the improvements of the buffer area. He noted Shoreline Center has a number
of conditions that have been imposed upon its ultimate build -out, and along
those lines, Parcel 6, being the largest parcel, has significant areas that
affect the wetlands and the Bay. Consequently, there have been some buffer
zones that have been imposed upon the development of the site during the
improvements that would take place at the ultimate build -out, primarily for
wildlife. He stated one of the conditions that came about during discussions
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 12
with the Planning Commission was improvement of those buffer areas at this
time. Mr. Wright pointed out the driving range itself was being proposed as
an Interim Use until the traffic improvements allow for its ultimate build -out.
He noted one of the major concerns they have with these buffer areas, at this
time, is the fact that they are very extensive, approximately an acre and a
half of area that requires improvement. He stated this was not only planting,
but also the removal of existing invasive material, and irrigation for the
new planting. He pointed out that with the driving range being an Interim
Use, the costs that are implied upon the improvements of the buffer area to
an Interim Use is considerable, so for an operator of this facility to have
to be encumbered by the cost of making improvements for a site where they are
not going to be staying for a long period of time is somewhat difficult.
Mr. Wright stated it would be approximately $3 per square foot for the improvements
to this site, just for the buffer area, and this would approximate somewhere
between $150,000 to $200,000 in costs. In addition, not only would they be
improving the site with these buffer areas now, but when the building is done
most of that would probably be removed, primarily because they are allowed
to do construction up to the edge of the buffer area, not with building, but
with parking and other types of improvements. He noted part of the conditions
also require the addition of a five foot berm, to be determined at the time
of ultimate build -out, so with the improvements to be done when the property
is ultimately developed, and the addition of the five foot berm, the majority
of the property that is being set aside for the buffer area would then be
disturbed again. Mr. Wright pointed out that once a buffer area has been planted
and improved, and is in full operation, to then come back and remove it creates
problems that are very difficult. Therefore, they are concerned that they
will have an initial cost of somewhere in the neighborhood of $150,000 to
$200,000 to improve the buffer area, and it would be temporary improvement
of that buffer area, as the ultimate build -out of the site would require major
modifications of the buffer area. He noted that because building is allowed
right up to the edge of that, there would also be major modifications to the
grading and drainage affecting that area. He stated they would have to
build -out the buffer area now, and then remove it later, and that is a very
difficult thing to do. He stated they would like to do that at the ultimate
build -out.
Mayor Boro referred to the sixty-one parking spaces and fifty-six tees, noting another
driving range in town, with a restaurant that is very popular, is drawing patrons
to the restaurant, as such, as well as to the golf facilities. He asked if
staff had thought about whether there would be enough parking if the restaurant
becomes popular and there is full usage of the tees? Ms. Patterson stated
the parking had been reviewed by the Public Works Department and the Traffic
Engineer, and noting the restaurant is actually more of a sandwich shop for
patrons of the driving range, not a full-fledged restaurant.
Referring to Mr. Wright's comments concerning the berm, Mayor Boro stated he was
sympathetic to the fact that they would not want to build something and then
have to tear it out, and asked if they had thought about building the ultimate
buffer at this time, and building out to that? Mr. Wright stated they had,
but it was difficult to imagine because the grading could change significantly,
explaining that depending on what the ultimate use is on that site, the grade
may change from two to five feet, and once that is done, they would not know
what is going to happen at the edge of the property. He noted another issue
that comes into play is the fact that there is a requirement to do a five foot
berm at the top of the bank, and one of the conditions of the original Master
Plan requires this five foot berm to be determined at the time of the design
of the ultimate project. He stated it was obvious this could not be done now,
and to do a five foot berm with a one to one slope would require at least ten
feet on one side and ten feet on the other, so they could theoretically lose
half of the buffer area at the time of the ultimate build -out.
Councilmember Miller referred to the type of grass to be used, asking if it would
be like that used on a golf course? Mr. Wright stated it would be similar
to a golf course fairway, although it would be a longer grass, because a fairway
is cut at a shorter length than what is required for a driving range. He pointed
out that keeping it longer would also keep it greener, without having to do
the maintenance and fertilizing that is required for a golf course. Mr. Miller
asked if it would require the same kind of chemicals as a golf course? Mr.
Wright stated it would, but to a much lesser extent because it would not have
the same human intrusion or the impact of golf carts and vehicles that would
normally be found on a golf course. He stated the primary consideration would
be to keep it green. Mr. Miller asked what kind of water would be used for
the watering, and if it would be done with plain water? Mr. Wright stated
they did not have reclaimed water for this site, as they do at McInnis Park.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was concerned with the height of the fences, noting
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 13
if they are not high enough the golf balls could go beyond the fence into the
protected areas. He noted the fences on this project are sixty feet high,
and asked how high they were at McInnis Park? Mr. Wright reported the fences
at McInnis are eighty feet, but were originally proposed and constructed at
sixty feet. He stated they had to raise them to eighty feet primarily for
two reasons: first, they have a second tier, which raises the tee spot at least
twelve feet above ground level tees. The second reason is that they have play
or pedestrian traffic immediately on each side, so if there was an errant ball,
there could be liability problems involved. However, he stressed the primary
reason for raising the fences to eighty feet was because of having the second
level. Mr. Phillips asked, with fences at sixty feet, if we had balls going
over the fences, what would the consequences of that be, how would they be
retrieved, and were there plant or animal life that we should be concerned
about? Mr. Wright stated the driving range itself was considerably inbound
of the property lines, and even at the most vulnerable areas, which are halfway
down the driving range, the range is at least 100 feet from the property line,
and in that location there are currently no improvements, and it is basically
bare dirt. Mr. Wright noted one of the requirements for the ultimate build -out
is the buffer zones for the wildlife corridors, and those are twenty-five feet
from the property line, and thirty five and a half feet on the easterly boundary.
He stated there would be very little chance of any balls ever getting into
those areas because they are so far away from where the driving range fencing
is occurring. Mr. Phillips stated he found it hard to believe that a ball
hit sixty feet into the air, on an angle, would not go twenty-five feet beyond.
Mr. Wright stated the ball would have to clear the sixty foot fenceline, and
the tee boxes are configured in an arc, so everyone is basically shooting toward
the center, as opposed to a driving range, such as Marin Country Club, which
is a straight line, where the person at the end would have his slice go much
further to the right than someone who was aiming toward the center. He explained
everyone would be aiming toward a single point, rather than out in a straight
line. Mr. Phillips asked if staff had considered the height of the fences,
and the possibility of the balls going into the buffer zone? Ms. Patterson
stated, based on the research they did with the height of the McInnis Park
fences and their situation with the double layers, and the fact that the driving
range is over 100 feet from the property line, they did not believe that the
balls would get near the edge of the property. Mr. Phillips asked how far
it was from the edge of the fenceline to the buffer? Mr. Wright stated it
varied around the site, noting the fenceline was established based on the tee
locations, and the property line varies to that fenceline considerably, anywhere
from approximately sixty feet at one location to well over one hundred and
ninety feet at another location. Mr. Phillips asked if people could retrieve
the balls within that property line? Mr. Wright stated they would not be
retrieved by a ball -picker that would travel the course, but an employee would
supervise the retrieval of the balls. However, he noted it was not anticipated
that there would be very many balls out there. Mr. Phillips asked staff if
the balls that did travel over the fence would create any kind of problem?
Ms. Patterson stated they did not believe they would, noting a representative
from the California Department of Fish and Game had walked the site with staff
and noted the location of the fence, and where the habitat and wetland areas
are, and he did not have a concern with this.
John Ortega, resident of the Canal, stated he opposes this project because this
area was intended to develop business and jobs. He did not feel this project
was the highest and best use of the land, nor was it good business or good
policy. Mr. Ortega pointed out this area had been designated as Light
Industrial, and the times have changed, from one where we had the luxury of
all the golf courses located in this County, to one of producing jobs. Mr.
Ortega stated he was also concerned over transportation, and over what we cannot
provide for in terms of employment. He noted the practical side of it is that
a golf course is not going to employ very many people per square inch of the
operation.
Mr. Ortega stated he believed it had already been established how valuable this
land is, and noted that soon we will be running out of land, and he felt to
use this site for a golf course was ridiculous.
Mayor Boro pointed out that this was a Temporary Use, and while he acknowledged
it may not be the highest and best use, that cannot be achieved because of
current traffic limitations. He noted the intent was that once those traffic
problems are addressed, this Use would be discontinued, and the type of Use
Mr. Ortega is talking about would be brought forward.
Joe Marino asked if the site of this project was on the land that used to be the
dump? Ms. Patterson stated the land was a former landfill that has since been
closed. Mr. Marino noted the old landfill was from the days when they were
not concerned about what went into the ground. He asked if Home Depot, as
well as the other businesses near the site, had been required to put a special
cap on the ground before they built their buildings? Ms. Patterson reported
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 14
the dump went through a closing procedure which was regulated by the State
Integrated Waste Management Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
and it met all the requirements of those agencies. Mr. Marino asked why the
City would consider having a golf course at this site where noxious gasses
could come up through the ground and endanger users in the area? Ms. Patterson
stated those issues had been addressed in the Environmental Impact Report which
was prepared for the Master Plan when this project was originally approved,
noting she would be happy to review the report with Mr. Marino. She stated
the project does meet all the State requirements for a closed landfill. Mayor
Boro stated he believed the question Mr. Marino was asking was if it was a
requirement, as the site is developed, that the entire site will be progressively
capped, or is the capping that is necessary done now? Ms. Patterson reported
all capping for the site had been done. Mr. Marino asked if there would be
capping over the grass? Ms. Patterson stated there would not, as the capping
was already there.
Mr. Marino stated the question of chemicals came to mind, noting he had read an
article which stated that golf courses around the world restrict the chemicals
that are used, because many of the chemicals used in the United States are
very dangerous to golfers. He asked what chemicals would be used on this driving
range? Mr. Wright stated the applicant had indicated there would be very
limited use of chemicals because of the nature of the driving range operation,
and noted the State Department of Fish and Game had reviewed this proposal,
so any concerns regarding the toxic impact to the environment had been addressed.
Jean
Starkweather, representing the Marin Conservation League, stated they have
had concerns regarding this project. She pointed out that to the north of
the project there are canalways, which are wetlands; there is another wetland
at Spinnaker; there is a City drainage pond with wetlands all around it and
additional wetlands to the west; and to the south there is the MMWD (Marin
Municipal Water District) pond and Bayview Marsh, which was a City restoration
project ten years ago. Ms. Starkweather stated this was a very special site,
noting at times the shoreline has spectacular wildlife, and it is a real treasure
for the City. She reported the League had two basic problems with the driving
range at this site: the first was having the driving range in a location with
the ponds, the wetlands, and the Bay on three sides of the site. She stated
the problems were with lights and nets, and with human intrusion. She
acknowledged the problem of the nets had been addressed, and noted the biologist
hired for the project has an idea for the lights which they hope will work,
shining the lights up at the nets whenever the ambient light is low enough
that the lights go on automatically. The second major problem, besides this
use in this location, is the temporary nature of it, noting that because of
the temporary nature of the project, it was first proposed without any of the
conditions required of the Shoreline Center site, which were mainly for wildlife
enhancement. She stated there had been many impacts to wildlife in this area,
but in the Shoreline Center site itself, there had been two major impacts so
far that had already been approved. The first was Home Depot, and the
requirements for that project were that the wildlife enhancement should occur
on the bank. She noted the League went through many hours of reviewing the
plant list and approving it with the City. She stated that plan had looked
reasonable, but it has been a disaster. She noted there is no wildlife habitat,
and when Fish and Game went down there several months ago, the representative
who met with the League told them he was absolutely appalled to see the site,
because with the plant list he had seen approved for the Home Depot site, he
had expected that the barrier plants, which were wildlife serving plants, would
be much larger than they are, but he noted most of the plants had not survived.
Ms. Starkweather stated many of the plants were substandard when they were
put in, and there has been no care of that bank, noting it is all weedy, and
there is no real wildlife on the bank. She reported the owner of the site,
Cal Pox, had stated they would make Home Depot redo the bank so it would be
appropriately replanted and taken care of; however, this has not been done
in the last four years, and the wildlife have had the impacts, but no benefit
of enhancement.
Ms. Starkweather stated the League's second concern was that this past summer a
project was proposed for part of Parcel 5, pointing out that this current project
takes all of Parcel 6 and part of Parcel 5. She reported the project had been
for a Bioponics firm, with greenhouses and not much traffic, and since it was
approved for just a piece of the site, the overall conditions between that
and the wildlife pond below it, which is the MMWD pond, were not required,
because it was only a piece of the site, and there were other uses on the site.
Therefore, once again we are adding people and lights and action, but no
enhancement for the wildlife for those impacts. Ms. Starkweather stated the
League discussed this with the Planning Commission, and urged that if this
project were approved, in spite of what it may do to the habitat, then the
project should begin to take care of the conditions that were required for
the Shoreline Center site, and they recommended that at least two of the sides
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 15
be taken care of with planting for wildlife, the northwest side, and the north
side. She noted those were the sides which face the canalways and the City
pond, and would adjoin the planting which she hopes will be re -done by Home
Depot, so the entire swoop of that bank would be planted. Ms. Starkweather
pointed out it was the banks that they were basically referring to, noting
the landfill is on Bay mud, and was Bay fill a number of years ago, so it is
much higher than the surrounding areas, which are old Bay bottom. Ms.
Starkweather reported the Planning Commission agreed that it was reasonable
to start with some of these improvements for wildlife enhancement on these
two sides. She noted that still leaves the long side along the Bay, where
the buffer to Shoreline Park is required, and also leaves the side next to
the MMWD pond and the City's park site unimproved. She stated the Planning
Commission felt that since this was a temporary project, the enhancement for
wildlife should at least be started, due to the impacts that will happen in
this area. Ms. Starkweather stated we never know for sure what is temporary,
and urged Council agree with the Planning Commission, and require these
enhancements on those two sides.
Ms. Starkweather stated the League would suggest that at the end of the Use Permit
period, whether it is five or seven years, that other requirements for other
sites also be required, as this temporary site has gone longer than the first
Temporary Use. She noted that driving ranges make a lot of money, and the
property owners may find that they like this Use there, and there may be less
impacts than the League fears, and it may all work out and the driving range
may be there for a long time, we just do not know. However, the League suggests
the City think ahead to the ending of this Use Permit period, and think about
the requirements for one of the other sites.
Ms. Starkweather stated the League had other concerns and questions regarding this
project, all of which involve the staff report. The first was on Page 15,
and was regarding the first mitigation measure, which begins, "Prior to the
construction, a Management Plan should be developed for the maintenance and
operation of the facility". She stated their question was whether this included
wildlife area planting, and if it does, noted they would like to see that
specified within this first mitigation measure. The second question refers
to the Landscape Plan. She stated the last landscape map the League has seen
was designated LU -1, and dated June 24th. She noted that since there had been
a number of changes to the project since that time, the League would like to
review the Landscape Plan when the final plan is drawn, because a lot of the
agreements are verbal, and they would like to see on paper what is actually
being planned there. The third question refers to Page 18 of the staff report,
regarding fencing. Ms. Starkweather stated that when they met at the site
with the applicant, Planning Department staff, and representatives from the
State Department of Fish and Game, they described that one of the impacts to
the site, besides the nets and the lights, was the human impact. She noted
that if someone walks along a wetland, or lets their dog run across a wetland,
all the birds fly out and are gone. She stated all it takes is one person
now and then to really disrupt the pattern of the use of a wetland, so the
applicant's Architect agreed to fence this site so people could not get down
to the wetland. She stated this site will draw people, not only those to
practice their golf swing, but also those people who just want to see what
is going on, and then perhaps they will go down to the wetlands. She stated
Shoreline Park has a number of plans for enhancing the wetlands when those
pieces of Shoreline Park go in, but since they are not in yet, it would mean
we would be introducing people to the wetlands who run down to the shore and
to the wetland, and disrupt things. She reported the Architect agreed to do
some fencing, and maintain this as a separate site on top, until the time when
the park areas are developed. Ms. Starkweather felt this was reasonable, and
noted there was a condition which states the fencing shall attach to the Home
Depot land on the west so people and their dogs will not get through that way.
However, referring to their next question, she noted Condition 61 on Page
18, which states, "Access to the public park parcel shall be maintained from
dawn to dusk". She reported the public park parcel is a Future Use, it is
part of the Shoreline Park Plan, and it has been wiped out by this project
as a Temporary Use. She reported this was partly where the parking lot is
on this project, and noted one would enter through the parking lot. She stated
the Architect agreed the parking lot would be fenced so people do not go down
through there, and yet Condition 61 states that access should be maintained.
Ms. Starkweather stated she hoped this was merely an oversight, and that it
would be eliminated.
Ms. Starkweather cited Number 69, which addresses maintenance of the area, and states,
"A two-year Landscaping Bond shall be posted, or other agreeable methods to
ensure that all landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving
condition, free of weeds and debris, for a period of two years". She stated
it seemed to the League that the impacts of this project were going to go on
for the life of the project, and they wanted to see that changed so that the
landscaping is maintained in a healthy and thriving condition for the life
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 16
of the project, stating that seems only reasonable. She referred to Condition
70, which states, "All landscaping shall be installed prior to the occupancy
of the building, or the property owner shall post a bond in the amount of
estimated landscaping costs to the City of San Rafael". Ms. Starkweather stated
there was a terrible example of this over at Home Depot, where this has not
worked out. She reported the landscaping was not put in before occupancy,
and it was also put in badly, and she felt the City needed more control over
this. She stated perhaps there needed to be a bond so it is done right, but
the City should also require that it be done. She noted the list of plants
for Home Depot was fine, it was the implementation that was so bad. Ms.
Starkweather pointed out this was the perfect time of year to plant native
plants, because native plants in our climate put down there roots in the winter,
during the wet season, and then they are really ready to go when the sun comes
out.
Ms. Starkweather stated those were the League's comments on the project. noting
they were talking about the lives of the birds and animals who live in this
area. She pointed out this area used to be part of the Bay and wetlands that
extended as far up as the Recreation Center on "B" Street. She noted the League
had a Planner do a study last year in which they measured the area where the
wetlands used to be, and on just this side of the Canal, not considering the
High School lands and those areas north of the Canal, we have lost over 1,100
acres of Bay and wetlands. She stated we need to do our best with what we
have left, and she believed a buffer area around the wetlands in this project
can at least help those wetlands that are left.
Councilmember Cohen asked if Ms. Starkweather wished to comment on the problem the
applicants see with the City requiring complete landscaping of the buffer now,
noting as he understands it, it is their argument that if they have to come
back later and tear it out for the ultimate development of the site, they
may actually be doing a disservice. Mr. Cohen noted perhaps there might be
some other way to approach this, and asked if Ms. Starkweather had any comment
on that? Ms. Starkweather stated there were two areas in question, because
there were two different ownership areas. One is the area they own, which
is called the "buffer area", and the other is the one mentioned on top of the
staff report on Page 2, which is the City owned area between the Shoreline
Center property line and the City maintenance road. She reported the Planning
Commission was not sure they could require the applicant to plant that area,
so staff looked into it and found that, indeed, Condition 38-D of the Shoreline
Master Plan requires the City owned property to be enhanced with habitat at
the same time the twenty-five foot buffer area is installed by the applicant;
therefore, that area will never be built on, noting it is basically a bank.
Ms. Starkweather reported the League had no problem in this area. However,
she reported the part that is called the "buffer area", which is basically
the top of the bank, they are claiming as an area, yet they also say that from
the end of the driving range to the end of the property line is 150 feet.
Ms. Starkweather felt they should be looking ahead to what may be proposed
for that area, noting it is a lot of space, and it could be planted to enhance
their final project, whatever that project may be. She felt a little creativity
on their part would take care of this, because, obviously, they want it to
look good, too, and if they plant it so that they and their future renter or
client thinks it looks nice, then that will be enhancement for their next
project, if a next project ever happens.
Councilmember Cohen noted they were talking just about the buffer and not about
the bank, and asked if there was some kind of temporary approach that might
be taken to landscape that, which might provide some habitat value without
having the full investment of complying with the ultimate landscaping plan?
Mr. Cohen stated he could understand the applicant's concern because they
do not know what is going to go in there, or where it is going to go, and grading
may impact that. He asked Ms. Starkweather if she felt there might be a way
to recognize that concern, but still take advantage of that 150 feet and get
some habitat value out of it over the next five to seven years? Ms. Starkweather
noted Mr. Wright had mentioned one of the problems he had was with the berm
that was required, and she stated that if they were to fully landscape half
of it, toward the bank, with plants, and hydro -mulched the half nearest them
with a grass mix, it would be a lot less expensive than planting plants, and
that is the area where the berm would eventually be, not out at the edge of
the bank. Therefore, she felt they could probably work something out, and
stated she would be happy to review plans they might come up with, or along
with members of her committee, if it would help.
Mr. Ortega stated he did not believe there was anyone within the two Precincts in
the Canal area who voted for the General Plan, and noted the people who will
be most affected by the zoning change have never participated in the General
Plan process.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 17
Mayor Boro asked staff to respond to the comments of Mr. Wright and Ms. Starkweather.
He referred to the question regarding Condition 79, noting Council seems to
understand what the issue is as far as its permanency, and pointed out an
alternative had been offered. He noted comments were made by the applicant
that this would be a hardship, and Ms. Starkweather had brought up an
alternative. He asked if staff felt there seemed to be merit to this, and
if they would be willing to work with this? Ms. Patterson stated they would
be willing to work with providing some of the habitat to enhance the area,
and also not create a hardship on the project, although they have not fully
explored this to be certain that it would work. Mayor Boro asked if she would
be willing to pursue that alternative rather than the issue as it is currently
stated in the staff report, and Ms. Patterson agreed.
Mayor Boro referred to the other concerns presented by Ms. Starkweather. First,
Ms. Patterson stated Mitigation No. 1 on Page 15 of the staff report does not
include the wildlife area, noting that at the time the mitigation was done
those buffers were not proposed to be installed. She recommended maintenance
and enhancement of the wildlife area, and other items be looked at as a solution
to solve it, and to ensure it be maintained, noting, as Ms. Starkweather stated,
it would be more than two years. She stated habitats for wetland areas generally
take three to five years, and felt that should be conditioned. She noted all
the conditions in the report were toward the landscaping centered around the
clubhouse, the driveway entrance, and aesthetic landscaping, and not the habitat
enhancing landscaping. Mayor Boro stated Ms. Starkweather had made two
comments regarding Page 15 of the staff report; one was to include or address
wildlife in Mitigation No. 1, and the second was reviewing the final landscaping
plans. Ms. Patterson acknowledged
Mitigation No. 1 did not include the wildlife area, noting it was meant specifically
to address anything that was going on the driving range grass. Mayor Boro
asked if the way it is written was, in fact, the intent, and was it correct?
Ms. Patterson stated the intent of that mitigation was to address any chemicals
that would be used on the driving range, and the impacts they would have on
the adjacent wetlands, but did not address Ms. Starkweather Is concerns regarding
maintenance of the habitat area. Ms. Patterson suggested that issue be
addressed under Condition 79, which deals directly with the buffer area. Mayor
Boro asked about the issue concerning
the landscape plans. Ms. Patterson stated staff would have no problem with Ms.
Starkweather or Marin Conservation League reviewing the landscaping. She noted
that at the time the Landscape Plan was prepared it was strictly aesthetic
landscaping around the club house and the driving range, and the buffer areas
were not included.
Mayor Boro referred to the item on Page 61, Number 18, regarding the issue of access
to public lands. Ms. Patterson stated the General Plan has policies which
encourage the shoreline parklands to be utilized; however, staff agrees with
Ms. Starkweather, that since the improvements are not in, having people go
out could cause more damage, and staff recommends this Condition be deleted.
The next issues addressed were Conditions 69 and 70. Ms. Patterson reported
Condition 69 was meant strictly for the aesthetic landscaping around the club
house. She stated staff recommended Condition 79, which deals with conditions
around the buffer areas, should also address the issues raised by Ms.
Starkweather regarding the bonding and long-term period of more than two years.
Mayor Boro noted Item No. 70 addressed the timing of the landscaping. Ms.
Patterson noted Ms. Starkweather Is concern was that the landscaping be installed
prior to occupancy, and also that a bond be posted, not using the phrase "or
a bond be posted". Ms. Patterson felt Ms. Starkweather's concern was more
with the habitat area which, again, should be addressed in Condition 79, which
deals with the habitat area. Ms. Patterson stated, from staff's point of view,
they would want the landscaping maintained for the life of the project also.
Councilmember Cohen stated that in reviewing the Planning Commission minutes he
attempted to absorb the Planning Commission discussions, and relate them to
these discussions. He noted the Planning Commission had a "post motion"
discussion of this project, during which the bulk of their discussion was about
the habitat landscaping issue. He noted during later discussion Chairman
Batman stated the Planning Commission wanted to look at the whole Master Plan
before making any permanent changes, and the Commission then went on and engaged
in further discussion about the change. Mr. Cohen asked what "change" was
being discussed that caused them such concern and held them up so much?
Community Development Director Leiter stated there were two changes that were
proposed to the Land Use Regulations; one allowing Specialty Retail on Parcels
5 and 6, and the other allowing Recreation Uses on all of the Parcels, as
Permanent Uses on those Parcels. Mr. Leiter noted they had questions or
concerns about those changes that would allow these as Permanent Uses, and
how they related back to the original decisions on the Land Uses in the Master
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 18
Plan. They also felt they needed more background information, or a better
understanding of how the original decisions were made on the other Land Uses
that were and were not permitted, before they felt they were able make
recommendations to allow those Uses on a permanent basis. He stated the
Commission never had any concerns, and supported the idea of allowing Recreation
Uses on these particular sites as an Interim Use, noting they felt it was
appropriate, and that the driving range was an appropriate Interim Use.
Mr. Cohen verified what was before Council at this time was specifically that Interim
Use, and not the issue of whether or not, on the long term, this is what they
want to see? Mr. Leiter stated that was correct, and he recommended Council
refer that back to the Planning Commission, and he would provide them with
further information about the Permanent Use issue. Mr. Cohen asked if that
was something the applicant was requesting at this time? Mr. Leiter stated
it was his understanding they would support that. Mr. Leiter noted there were
traffic limitations which really precluded development of more intense Uses
at this time, but the applicants are looking ahead to the time when those issues
can be resolved, and what Land Uses would be appropriate on those Parcels.
Mr. Cohen stated that since the City is in the midst of looking at ideas
addressing the issues of circulation improvements, he did not believe Council
would want to get too far into a study of further redesignation of Land Uses
in this area, until we get a better sense of transportation improvements and
changes in the Circulation Policy, as they might have a significant effect
on that discussion.
Mr. Wright stated the landowners' choice would be for Council to go along with staff's
recommendation for Option No. 2, noting they would obviously like to have these
modifications made to the Master Plan on a permanent basis, rather than have
to have it go back and be restudied. He stated they felt these were Uses that
are consistent with the type of projects that are proposed for the Shoreline
Center Project; however, if the Council does feel it is appropriate for the
Commission to study these again, on a longer term basis, that would be fine.
Mayor Boro noted the point Councilmember Cohen was making was not only to
separate this so they could study it, but also to try to get a better definition
of where we are going on these interim traffic solutions, as they may have
an impact on the long-term use, and then whether or not those types of
redefinitions are really necessary, or even applicable if some of the traffic
problems have already been solved. Mr. Wright stated they did understand that,
but pointed out one concern they do have is that there may be potential users
for some of these sites who might want to come in prior to the traffic
improvements, and they would not be Permitted Uses. Therefore, his concern
was that they did not want to close the door on that.
Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Wright could live with the discussions concerning Condition
No. 79? Mr. Wright stated they do have some concern over the buffer, reiterating
they were concerned about making the improvements now, and then having to modify
them later. He pointed out the site has a much greater potential than as just
a driving range, noting it was one of the premium sites left in San Rafael
for development, and the potential there is very great. He stated they did
not necessarily want to have to provide this buffer now, with the fact that
they know most of it will be taken out when the development is done, noting
that to remove an area that has already been established for wildlife use is
very difficult, and is something they know would be a hurdle they would have
to overcome in the future. He stated they obviously do want to provide this,
but they want to provide it at the appropriate time, noting they felt that
to do it now would be premature, and would become more of a detriment than
an attribute. Mr. Wright also referred to an earlier comment regarding their
economic concerns with the driving range operation itself having to uncover
that additional cost.
Lee Jordan, Attorney representing the property owner, stated the approval the
Planning Commission gave for amending the Planned Development District Zoning
and the Master Plan Use Permit was to allow these Uses that are required to
operate the driving range, on an interim basis only. He noted staff had
recommended that the Council refer the permanent allowance of these Uses back
to the Planning Commission for its consideration. He stated that as he
understood, even if they were allowed on a permanent basis, it would still
be on an individual Use Permit requirement. He stated one of the Conditions
relating to the Temporary or Interim Uses refers to allowing food and beverage
service establishments, restaurants, parks, playgrounds, and recreational
facilities with individual Use Permits approved by the Planning Commission,
consistent with PM peak hour traffic allocations to the site, and Floor Area
Ratios contained in the Planned Development District. Therefore, he felt if
the Planning Commission could, at this time, consider amending the Planned
Development zoning and the Master Plan Use Permits, to allow those General
Uses on a permanent basis, it still would occur only on approval of individual
Use Permits, for any application, from any prospective purchaser or tenant
on the property. He noted this would come before the City in light of PM traffic
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 19
allocations that exist on the property, and because of the interest that has
been expressed by the prospective users on the property, they would like to
have the Planning Commission consider these Uses as being allowed on a permanent
basis, and make a recommendation on that issue to the Council as soon as possible.
Mayor Boro stated Council would recommend this issue go back to the Planning
Commission. He noted he agreed with Councilmember Cohen's point about the
larger issue, reporting that when the current zoning was adopted, Council knew
then that the City had a long way to go with the traffic improvements, although
we now believe we may have found a solution that will allow us to get to it
a lot sooner. Therefore, he stated the question needed to be raised that if
the solution to the traffic problems are about to be resolved, why would we
want a change in the zoning? He believed that was something for the Planning
Commission to discuss, and then provide Council with a recommendation. He
noted that while Council was not opposed to this happening, it was really a
matter of timing.
Mr. Wright stated he had misunderstood Councilmember Cohen's suggestion, noting
he thought Council had wanted to defer consideration by the Planning Commission
of this entire issue until some later time. Councilmember Cohen believed
everyone was actually working their way toward the same point, which is the
highest and best use of a fabulous piece of property, and the only hesitation
he is expressing is that he does not feel they should rush into changing the
zoning because of current conditions, when they know the City is analyzing
alternative approaches to the circulation network that may free -up capacity
at the site sooner than had previously been thought possible. Councilmember
Cohen stated he had no problem with the Planning Commission taking this issue
up at their next meeting, as long as the discussion is done in that context.
Councilmember Cohen stated he was still uncomfortable with some of the landscaping
issues, and wondered if Council could find a way to move this application along
and take their necessary action on it, yet still see if there is some time
to work out some of the issues here? He noted the second time Mr. Wright spoke,
the emphasis was on his concern that if a habitat area is established, it would
be harder to take it and reclaim it for development, and while the economic
argument Mr. Wright advanced was a valid one, and Mr. Cohen felt there were
ways to address that issue, he was more concerned with pursuing this argument,
and giving Mr. Wright some assurances on this second issue, as well. Mr. Wright
agreed there were two major concerns, the economic one, and the fact that once
the improvements are made it will be difficult to modify those improvements
at a future date. He pointed out on the rendering, designated by a green line,
where the buffer zone would be, including a twenty-five foot landscaped area
inside the property line, and a variable area that runs along the maintenance
road along the wetland area, noting this buffer area would be approximately
55,000 square feet, or slightly over an acre in size. He pointed out the areas
where building could be placed, and noted they could also include other
improvements up to the green line, such as parking lots. He stated these would
require modification to the grading, site elevations, and the drainage, and
their concern is that if they put in the improvements along the westerly and
northerly property lines, at considerable expense, then once the driving range
is removed and the future use is put in, those would have to be modified
substantially, which would also create problems with the existing habitat.
He stated they want to make the improvements at the appropriate time, but they
do not feel this is the appropriate time.
Mr. Cohen stated he was struck with the fact that there might be interim habitat
enhancements that would not require nearly as significant an investment, but
would still provide some habitat. Mr. Wright suggested the buffer area could
be hydro -mulched, and that would be an interim habitat for that area, and then
make it clear that when the project is developed for a permanent use, they
would be allowed to re -install the berm and install the permanent improvements,
per the approved plan. He noted it would be important to verify this with
the California Department of Fish and Game, and should be the understanding
when the interim hydro -mulch is done. Mr. Cohen stated it was a valid point
that since it was not going to be used now, it could be hydro -mulched now to
get some habitat value out of it, but he would not want to see, seven years
from now, someone coming in and filing a CEQA claim that there is an established
habitat that cannot be removed, stating that would clearly be an unfair outcome.
He stated if there was a way to address that, he would like to see if there
could be a compromise solution which involves doing a little bit of landscaping
now and for the next seven years. Mr. Wright pointed out that part of the
property is not owned by the applicant, it is owned by the City, and there
would be considerable work done on that, noting landscaping and other
improvements had been added to that site years ago because of erosion occurring
across the maintenance road and the wetland, and work would have to be done
to take that out in order to put in compatible landscaping that would be suitable
for the habitat now. He stated there would also be a considerable amount of
work required to do the hydro -seeding.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 20
Councilmember Heller asked if the City would be participating in this? Mr. Wright
stated that with the implementation of the plan on a permanent basis, the
applicant would be required to complete those improvements, even on the City's
property. Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Wright was expecting the applicant to take
care of the City's piece as well as his own, even on an interim basis? Mr.
Wright stated he would, per Council's direction.
Mayor Boro stated he sensed Council was supportive of the Use and the recommendation
before them, although Condition 79 was an issue. He asked if there was a way
they could go forward with this item, with the understanding that this issue
could be worked out and brought back to Council in two weeks with an agreement;
and assuming there is agreement, proceed with passing the Ordinance, or would
the entire item have to come back to Council in two weeks? Mr. Leiter stated
he believed staff could come back before Council in two weeks with a Condition
that addressed this specific issue, and also get further input from the
California Department of Fish and Game and try to get this resolved. Mayor
Boro asked if Council could begin the approval process at this time? City
Attorney Ragghianti stated he was concerned that if the City did not permit
additional public comment on language he has not seen, someone could be
foreclosed, including the applicant, from commenting upon the language staff
drafts. Therefore, he suggested Council continue the Public Hearing until
the meeting of November 3rd, and in the interim ask staff to draft language
that can be brought back for to Council, and that the public can look at.
Councilmember Cohen noted this was a Use Permit Condition, and there was precedence
for Council modifying Use Permit Conditions, noting that in the past they have
granted Use Permits, and then subsequently modified the Conditions of Approval
of those Use Permits. City Attorney Ragghianti stated once a Use Permit has
been imposed, it cannot be unilaterally modified without the applicant being
provided due process of opportunity to present his position with regard to
the proposed modification. He stated the Use Permit application "runs with
the land", and unless it is the subject of a revocation proceeding, it remains
in effect. Mr. Cohen stated the applicant is asking Council to modify the
Use Permit Condition as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff, and
that the City lessen the imposition of this particular Condition on their
property. He stated it seemed we would have no trouble getting the applicant
to agree if Council were to adopt the Condition as recommended, but stated
Council intended to revisit this Condition and modify it. He believed the
applicant would be eager for that process to take place, and if this was done
in a way that allowed members of the public to comment on whatever resolve
the Council came to, he thought Council would be able to do that, and at the
same time take the other actions, including granting the Use Permits so the
applicants could move forward, at least knowing they had a project. Mr.
Ragghianti asked Mr. Jordan to comment on behalf of his client, stating if
they found that process acceptable, he felt it would be fine.
Mr. Jordan stated his client would be willing to accept that process, which would
permit the other actions to proceed, allowing the Ordinance to go to print,
and the Use Permit to be granted, subject to any modification of the language
in that particular Condition. Mr. Ragghianti noted it would also include the
Negative Declaration.
Mayor Boro clarified that Council would be adopting the recommendation as stated.
Mr. Jordan noted this would be done with the understanding that it would be
subject to modification by Council after they receive further staff input,
which he assumed would be given to them for further opportunity to comment
on. Mr. Ragghianti asked Mayor Boro if staff would be instructed to prepare
language and consult with the applicant in connection therewith, and return
two weeks from now, with revised language for Condition 79? Mayor Boro stated
Council would adopt Condition 79 at this time, with the intent that if the
applicant and staff can reach an agreement on modification of the Condition,
in a way that meets the issues discussed during this meeting, then Council
would be willing to consider those modifications.
Councilmember Cohen stated the applicant had raised some very valid concerns about
the wording of that Condition, and Ms. Starkweather had also indicated her
willingness to at least discuss alternative approaches to the landscaping,
while the habitat issue would have to be taken up with the California Department
of Fish and Game. Mr. Cohen stated he did not want to hold up the entire approval
process to pursue that. He noted he was sympathetic to the applicant's case,
and he believed there was a way to resolve these issues so that everyone is
at least somewhat satisfied. He felt Council should let the project go forward
now, and then direct staff to discuss this with all the relevant parties, and
come back with something everyone can live with.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration for an amendment to the Planned
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 21
Development (PD 1651) District (ZC97-6) and Master Use Permit (UP91-36(b))
to allow food and beverage service establishments and recreational facilities,
and a Use Permit (UP97-40) and Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED97-73)
for the development of a 56 tee golf driving range at Shoreline Center.
RESOLUTION NO. 9942 -RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD 1651)
DISTRICT (ZC97-6) AND MASTER USE PERMIT (UP91-36(b)) TO ALLOW FOOD AND BEVERAGE
SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, AND A USE PERMIT (UP97-40)
AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED97-73) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A 56 TEE GOLF DRIVING RANGE AT SHORELINE CENTER; 1615 EAST FRANCISCO BOULEVARD;
(APN 9-302-40 THROUGH 45).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The title of the Ordinance was read,
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM
THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ( PD 1651) DISTRICT TO THE ( PD 1718 ) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES AS TEMPORARY USES (RE: ZC97-6, 1615 EAST FRANCISCO BOULEVARD, AP
NOS. 9-320-40 THROUGH 45) (SHORELINE CENTER)".
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with
the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and to refer to it by title only,
and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1718 to print, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution approving the amendment to the Master Use Permit (UP91-36(b)) to
allow food and beverage service establishments and recreational facilities
as Temporary Uses, and a Use Permit (UP97-40) and Environmental and Design
Review Permit (ED97-73) for the development of a 56 tee golf driving range
at Shoreline Center. Mayor Boro noted Item 18 on Page 61 be deleted, Item
69 on Page 19 would be changed to read, "for the life of the project". Item
79 to be revised and be brought before Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 9943 -RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO MASTER USE PERMIT
(UP91-36 (b) ) TO ALLOW FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES AS TEMPORARY USES, AND A USE PERMIT (UP97-40) AND ENVIRONMENTAL
AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED97-73) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 56 TEE GOLF DRIVING
RANGE AT SHORELINE CENTER; 1615 EAST FRANCISCO BOULEVARD (APN 9-302-40 THROUGH
45) .
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Boro announced a short recess would be taken.
Mayor Boro reconvened the meeting, and announced Agenda Item #22 would now be heard.
OLD BUSINESS:
22. RESOLUTION APPROVING MARIN BOCCE FEDERATION REQUEST TO AMEND THE ALBERT PARK
MASTER PLAN TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL BOCCE COURTS AND PLAZA AREA (Rec) - File
4-3-66 x 9-3-66 x 12-5 x 202 X 4-3-275
Recreation Director Sharon McNamee reported the organization that helped plan the
Albert Park Master Plan maintains a WEB page of success stories regarding parks
all over the nation, and she distributed copies of a story on Albert Park,
which included a picture of our Bocce court, and an article on what we are
doing here in San Rafael.
Ms. McNamee stated she was requesting we expand our successful Bocce operation,
reporting the Marin Bocce Federation has been managing the facility for the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 21
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 22
past four years, and the Bocce courts are full every night, with no room for
addition teams. She stated the Federation would like to build two more courts,
noting they are motivated to build these courts just to keep expanding the
positive activity in the park, and to generate more revenue.
Ms. McNamee stated the original cost estimate was $550,000. She reported the League
had spent approximately $282,000 in cash, and generated $81,000 in donations,
pointing out they had saved quite a bit of money on the original cost estimate.
She reported they had a few things to finish, which were estimated to be
approximately $84,000; however, they expect to be able to do them for
approximately half that price with donations, and finish the work within the
next couple of years. She stated those things would include finishing the
fencing, the arbor, and finishing the landscaping and irrigation.
Ms. McNamee reported the Federation has an outstanding loan to the City, which they
borrowed when they decided to do the synthetic surface, and noted they are
proposing to increase their payments to $5,000 per year, beginning next year,
and are committed to paying that loan off.
Ms. McNamee stated the Federation is requesting Council approve two more courts,
which will mean an amendment to the Albert Park Master Plan, and also permission
to begin Phase I. She explained Phase I would include just building the courts,
noting the concrete ledges and the court surfacing would go in this winter.
She reported they have a donor ready to begin construction, and then the next
phase would be putting in the patio surfacing and brick around it, similar
to the existing facility, and then adding landscaping and irrigation to finish
it.
Ms. McNamee displayed a rendering of the proposed courts. She noted the original
Master Plan had two volley ball courts on this site, but when the Park and
Recreation Commission looked at the Master Plan, they felt the two volley ball
courts could be eliminated in favor of the Bocce courts, as Bocce has become
very popular and is generating a lot of activity in the park. In order to
do this, they looked at the Mahon Creek Master Plan, as the creek jogs into
the Park, and also looked at this request in relation to the rest of the Master
Plan, and the other scheduled improvements for the park.
Councilmember Miller asked if the fence would continue around the courts? Ms.
McNamee stated that it would, showing on the rendering how it would be
configured. She noted it would have a wide gate, so instead of going through
a small entry, it will roll back. Mr. Miller asked for the time plan on the
fence.
Dolly Nave, Construction Manager for the Federation project, stated the Federation
felt at this time the expense for the rolled fence was not really necessary
because nothing had been done on the other side yet. She noted they would
put in regular fencing, which could be taken out at a later date, and that
would save them money at this time. Councilmember Miller stated the fencing
was critical to the whole operation because it keeps the courts secure, and
noted it will really enhance the project. Councilmember Cohen asked if the
wrought iron fencing would go in now, and then the gate would be installed
later? Mrs. Nave stated that was correct. He asked what would happen with
the temporary court? Mrs. Nave stated that would be coming down, noting Rotary
Manor has expressed an interest in acquiring it.
Mayor Boro complimented the Federation on the wonderful transformation at the park,
thanking them for their great effort, and stating the fact that over 500 people
a day were playing Bocce was a tribute to their wonderful work.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 9944 -RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE 1993 ALBERT PARK MASTER PLAN TO INCLUDE
TWO ADDITIONAL BOCCE COURTS AND AUTHORIZE THE MARIN BOCCE FEDERATION TO PROCEED
WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE TWO NEW BOCCE COURTS AS A COMMUNITY PROJECT.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Boro announced Agenda Item #21 would now be heard.
21. REPORT ON EXPANDED LIBRARY HOURS (Lib) - File 9-3-61 x 9-2-3
Library Director Vaughn Stratford reported this item was part of the service
enhancements Council considered at their last meeting, at which the Library
Board and staff had recommended opening the Library from 1:00 PM until 4:00
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 22
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 23
PM on Sundays. He noted staff had asked that this item be continued to allow
them time to compare opening the Library on Sundays versus opening on Mondays.
He reported the Library Board and City Council had an opportunity to discuss
this issue during their annual joint meeting, and noted the Library Board has
unanimously recommended opening the Library on Mondays.
Councilmember Cohen noted Mr. Stratford was requesting $17,000 for the additional
hours, and asked when he thought this could be accomplished? Mr. Stratford
stated they could be ready to do this the first Monday in December.
Mayor Boro reported there had also been discussion about trying to bring some form
of Library services to the Terra Linda area on a short-term basis, noting Mr.
Stratford will come back to Council within the next month or two with a plan
that would incorporate some accessibility to our Library network from the kiosk
that is being planned at Northgate Mall, perhaps with books being picked up
and delivered there, as well.
Councilmember Heller stated she had been in favor of opening the Library on Sundays,
and still wanted to look forward to a time when Sunday hours could also be
included. She asked that staff prepare for that in case the opportunity should
present itself. She believed that if the Library were ever to go to a seven
day plan, Sundays would be very popular. Mr. Stratford stated there were also
members of the Library Board who would like to see that come back to the Council.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 9945 -RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $17,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-1998
TO RESTORE MONDAY LIBRARY SERVICE BY OPENING THE LIBRARY ON MONDAY FROM 1:00
PM TO 9:00 PM (effective 12/1/97).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
MONTHLY REPORT:
20. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (CM) - File 9-3-11
City Manager Gould reported the enhanced Code Enforcement Program in the City
Attorney's Office won an important victory today with the Administrative Hearing
Officer's ruling on the property at 30 Novato, a 39 unit apartment complex
where the City had found over 400 Health and Safety Code violations. He reported
the Hearing Officer found fully in favor of the City, assessed significant
civil and administrative penalties against the owners, even though one of them
is shielded in Bankruptcy Court, and demanded that the deficiencies be corrected
on an expedited schedule, assigning additional penalties if they are not.
Mr. Gould reminded everyone of the Wellness Fair tomorrow from 11:00 AM to 3:00
PM at the San Rafael Community Center, and invited the Councilmembers to attend.
NEW BUSINESS:
23. NORTH FRANCISCO PUMP STATION (CALTRANS) UPDATE (PW) - File 12-9 x 9-3-40
Public Works Director David Bernardi reported this project was actually a culmination
of work that was begun in June, 1992, when the Council was presented with a
concept idea, noting this was the culmination of that concept.
Mr. Bernardi reported the plan had been taken to the Design Review Board and the
Planning Commission, and has been approved by both bodies. He stated the
project was to be fully funded by CalTrans, and would cost approximately $4
million. He noted one of the actions Council had taken in July, 1992 was to
make a commitment to CalTrans that the City would do its part as far as the
drainage system was concerned. He reported we had just completed our part
with the Irwin Street Drainage Project, as part of the Andersen Drive Project.
Mr. Bernardi stated when CalTrans begins next year they will start where the City
left off, at Irwin Street near the railroad tracks at East Francisco Boulevard.
He reported they will be drilling under the freeway, and the pipe will be
nine feet in diameter, so there will be a huge hole going under the freeway.
He stated it has been designed so the boring will go right between the pilings
that hold up the freeway and viaduct structures.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 23
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 24
Mr. Bernardi stated they would also be building the pump station at the corner of
East Francisco Boulevard, next to the Sanitation District's North Francisco
Storm Water Pump Station. He reported it would be a large pump station, and
each pump will pump approximately 80,000 gallons per minute, and there will
be four of them, so it will be designed to carry the maximum flow. He explained
that, essentially, all of the drainage that currently goes to the Rossi Pump
Station, which is on the east side of the freeway from RAB Motors, will go
to this new pump station, so there will be some work the City will need to
do during the next few years while the pump station is under construction.
Mr. Bernardi reviewed the rendering of the new pump station, noting the City
would make certain it was screened from the Irwin Street off -ramp, as people
would be driving right passed it. Mayor Boro asked how many horsepower the
pump would generate? Mr. Bernardi reported the combined horsepower, running
full blast, would be 1, 000 horsepower, with four big motors, plus two additional
fifteen horsepower motors. He stated this will be the biggest pump station
in Northern California.
Mr. Bernardi commended CalTrans staff for all their hard work, noting they had spent
a lot of time in meetings with City staff, and addressing our concerns,
particularly with regard to the location, and our design and maintenance needs.
Councilmember Heller referred to the fiscal impact, noting the report states the
City is responsible for the oversight and inspection, at a cost of approximately
$100,000. She asked if that had been budgeted, or if it was in next year's
budget? Mr. Bernardi stated that would be in next year's budget, and noted
that was a maximum number. He reported money had been budgeted to review the
plans with a consultant, and once construction is underway, the City will be
intermittently inspecting it because we will ultimately be taking over the
maintenance of it.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 9946 -RESOLUTION APPROVING NORTH FRANCISCO STORM WATER PUMP STATION
DESIGN (CALTRANS) AND COMMENDING CALTRANS' ENGINEERING STAFF FOR THEIR EFFORTS.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
24. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
a. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DEPARTMENT
- File 9-11-1 x 9 -1 -
Vice -Mayor Heller reported that the Mayors and Councilmembers Department of the
League of California Cities had recently requested applications for the position
of Second Vice -President, and after submitting her application she was elected
to that position last Monday, 10/13/97, at the League Annual Conference in
San Francisco. She explained this League Department oversees the Council
Member Institute for newly elected officials, the annual conference in Monterey,
plus a newsletter.
b. LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - File 8-5
Councilmember Phillips reported he had met with City Manager Gould concerning
long-term capital improvements, and the Council can look forward to receiving
additional information.
C. MCCMC REPRESENTATION TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
- File 113 x 9-1
Councilmember Cohen again requested Council support for his nomination as MCCMC's
representative on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission - voting to take
place at MCCMC meeting to be held tomorrow evening.
d. USE OF COMPUTER DESIGNS RE: PLANNING - File 10-2 x 9-3-85 x 9-1
Mayor Boro requested that over the next couple of months staff study how we are
going to use computer aided designs in our Planning approval process. He
suggested this be researched, and then possibly have a Council workshop to
understand what some of the potentials are and how this might work. He felt
that as the City gets into some of the major projects coming up it would be
nice, if instead of using such things as photo montages and models, we could
use the new technology that has been invented in this County, giving ourselves
and the community the ability to see, realistically, what is being planned
so we can get a better sense of it. He stated he looked forward to coordinating
a workshop after the first of the year.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 24
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 25
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1997
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/20/97 Page 25