Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1997-11-03SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1997 AT 8:00 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 None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: A -nn PM NEIGHBORS' COMPLAINT RE: USE OF SALVATION ARMY SITE PARKING LOT AT FOURTH AND MARY STREETS BY HOMELESS - File 100 x 233 (Verbal) Meg Brizzolara, 408 Fourth Street, stated the Salvation Army has a parking lot in which people dump mattresses and couches after hours, noting homeless people are now congregating there and sleeping on the mattresses and sofas, drinking and fighting, and stealing from the neighbors. Ms. Brizzolara stated she has called the Salvation Army many times, including their Administrative offices in San Francisco, and was told the best they could do would be to put chains across the entrances and exits to the parking lot. Ms. Brizzolara noted chains have been installed, but are not put up half the time, and when the neighbors call the store to ask if they are going to put the chains up after the store closes, they are told there is no one to do it. Ms. Brizzolara stated the neighbors have had no response from Salvation Army, and they were meeting. hoping this issue could be placed on a City Council agenda for a future Mayor Boro stated he had received the letter Ms. Brizzolara sent to the City, and had discussed this matter with the City's Code Enforcement Officers, who will contact the Salvation Army, and report back to the Council and Ms. Brizzolara. Ms. Brizzolara asked what would happen if there were no Code violations? Mayor Boro stated if what she is reporting is actually happening, that would be a Code violation. Councilmember Cohen noted the Salvation Army store was also under a Conditional Use Permit, noting there should be Conditions on the Use Permit to address the issues raised in Ms. Brizzolara's letter. In addition, if such Conditions do not exist on the Use Permit currently, and if the City is not able to get them to address the issues, there would be other options the City could take when the Use Permit comes up for renewal, such as adding conditions to address this ongoing problem. Ms. Brizzolara asked who the neighbors should liaison with, and Mayor Boro stated Community Development Director Bob Leiter would be the contact. Mr. Leiter informed Ms. Brizzolara that Namat Shikoor-Grantham was the City's head Code Enforcement Officer, noting she would contact Ms. Brizzolara tomorrow. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEMS RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Public Hearing Approved as submitted. and Regular Meeting of Monday, October 20, 1997 (CC) 2. Long Beach Heritage v. Board of Harbor Commissioners, Council unanimously et al., Second District Court of Appeals, approved request for Case No. B112374 (CA) - File 9-3-16 amicus participation. 3. Resolution of Appreciation to Phyllis Human Resources Technician, Employee of the Quarter, Period Ending September 30, 1997 - File 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-86 Huffman, RESOLUTION NO. 9947 - (CM) THE QUARTER, PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO PHYLLIS HUFFMAN, HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN, EMPLOYEE OF 1997. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 2 4. Resolution of Appreciation to Michael Tompkins, RESOLUTION NO. 9948 - Division Chief, Fire Department, Retiring After RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO Thirty -Three Years of Service (CM) MICHAEL TOMPKINS, DIVISION - File 102 x 9-3-31 CHIEF, FIRE DEPARTMENT, RETIRING AFTER THIRTY-THREE YEARS OF SERVICE. 5. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE adoption of NO. 1716 - 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 (Admin. Svcs.) - File 9-10-2 x 9-3-20 x 9-3-30 6. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE adoption of NO. 1717 - 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: ZC97-4; Cresta Drive; AP Nos. 155-251-16 and 17 (Marin Lofts) (CD) - File 115 x 10-4 x 10-5 x 10-7 7. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE Approved final Ordinance No. 1716. Approved final Ordinance No. 1717. adoption NO. 1718 - An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael, of 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 Blvd., AP Nos. 9-320-40 through 45) (Shoreline Center) (CD) - File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 Approved final Ordinance No. 1718. 8. Approval of Final Maps for Smith Ranch Homes, RESOLUTION NO. 9949 - Unit 2A (PW) - File 5-1-290 RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP ENTITLED, "MAP OF SMITH RANCH HOMES, UNIT 2A11, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 9. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO PHYLLIS HUFFMAN, HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER, PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 (CM) - File 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-86 Mayor Boro explained to the members of the public that the City has an Employee Recognition Program, and each calendar quarter the City's employees select an Employee of the Quarter. He noted $100 is awarded to each Employee of the Quarter, and they are then in contention for Employee of the Year, with the winner receiving a $500 award. He reported Phyllis Huffman had been selected by the Employee Recognition Committee as Employee of the Quarter for the third quarter, ending September 30, 1997. Mayor Boro introduced Ms. Huffman, reporting she has been with the City of San Rafael since 1985, working first in the Police Department, and then transferring to what was originally the Personnel Department, and is now the Human Resources Department. Mayor Boro stated Ms. Huffman always has a smile, and is always willing to help, noting he understood why her fellow employees voted her Employee of the Quarter. Mayor Boro presented the Resolution of Appreciation to Ms. Huffman, thanking her on behalf of the Council for her great effort. 10. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO MICHAEL TOMPKINS, DIVISION CHIEF, FIRE DEPARTMENT, RETIRING AFTER THIRTY-THREE YEARS OF SERVICE (CM) - File 102 x 9-3-31 Mayor Boro introduced Division Chief Michael Tompkins, who is retiring from the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 3 City of San Rafael after completing thirty-three years of service with the Fire Department. Mayor Boro noted Mr. Tompkins has had many different positions within the Fire Department, including Firef ighter, Engineer, Captain, Battalion Chief, and now Division Chief. Mayor Boro stated Division Chief Tompkins has done an outstanding job, upholding the reputation of the Fire Department in everything he has done. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Boro presented the Resolution of Appreciation to Division Chief Tompkins, thanking him for his wonderful work for the City, and wishing him much success in the years ahead. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 11. PUBLIC HEARING - File 10-5 x 10-6 x 10-7 a. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 CONDITIONALLY APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW AND USE PERMIT FOR ADDITION OF SECOND DWELLING UNIT AND SECOND STORY DECK AT 875 PATRICIA WAY, SAN RAFAEL, CA; APN 165-083-15; SHAHRAM FARMAN, OWNER; JOHN R. LUNDY, ARCHITECT, REPRESENTATIVE; VINCENT GOULD, APPELLANT (CD) b. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 CONDITIONALLY APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW AND USE PERMIT FOR ADDITION OF A SECOND DWELLING UNIT AND SECOND STORY DECK AT 875 PATRICIA WAY, SAN RAFAEL, CA; APN 165-083-15; SHAHRAM FARMAN, OWNER; JOHN R. LUNDY, ARCHITECT, REPRESENTATIVE; GARY AND VIANE CORONADO, APPELLANTS (CD) Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing, and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Leiter explained the applicant requested approval of a 909 square foot second dwelling unit, with one bedroom, one bathroom, kitchen and living areas, and a separate entrance. Mr. Leiter stated this application was considered by the Planning Commission, and they voted 3-2 to approve the project at their meeting of September 9, 1997. Since that time, two appeals have been filed regarding this request. The first, from Mr. Gould, raised a number of specific concerns which have been addressed in the staff report, and dealt with the design of the project, and the issue of Land Use of the second dwelling, specifically the question of ownership of one of the two units. Mr. Leiter reported a second appeal was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Coronado, noting their primary concern related to a retaining wall which straddles the property line of their property and the property of the applicant. Mr. Leiter noted the staff report indicated the City Engineer was in the process of inspecting the fence to determine if it posed an immediate safety hazard. He noted Land Development Engineer Fred Vincenti and his staff reviewed that situation and have indicated, not withstanding any action the Council would take regarding the Use Permit, they do see a safety concern, and would be requesting that this particular retaining wall be replaced or repaired within sixty days, or prior to the winter rains. He stated staff feels this is necessary because of the potential for the wall failing and creating a drainage problem on the adjoining properties. Mr. Leiter stated staff would be sending a letter to the property owner indicating this repair is necessary. Following up on the issue of the fence and retaining wall, Councilmember Cohen asked if this was something that was going to happen regardless of the action taken by Council at this time? Mr. Leiter stated that was correct, noting staff would be sending a letter to the property owner tomorrow, indicating the wall has been inspected, and requiring that he either replace the wall, or make temporary repairs to make it safe within the next sixty days. Mr. Cohen asked, if the City is stating this is a public safety issue, what mechanism would the City have to make sure this would happen in a timely manner, in the event the applicant is not responsive? Mr. Leiter stated that under the Uniform Building Code and other State Codes, the City would have the authority to enforce that action. Councilmember Miller stated he was curious about the sixty day time limit, asking if there was any way the City could reduce that to thirty days? Mr. Leiter stated that in asking Mr. Vincenti about the time frame, Mr. Vincenti felt sixty days was adequate to address the immediate concern. Mr. Leiter noted staff would indicate in the letter that if there is any immediate failure or problem, that would have to be remedied immediately; however, Mr. Vincenti felt sixty days was necessary to allow the property owner time to design and have the improvements made. Councilmember Miller stated we do not know how soon the rains might begin, and we should push as hard as we can to get the thirty days. Councilmember Heller stated she was not sure we could push to have this done within thirty days; however, she pointed out the property owner SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 4 was not on notice, in a Public Hearing, that he is responsible for any problems, and would perhaps want to move forward as rapidly as he could. Mayor Boro pointed out, for the record, that Mr. Gould, appellant on one of the appeals, is not related to San Rafael City Manager Rod Gould. Mayor Boro referred to Page 3, Item #5 of the staff report, which notes there is concern that the property might be left partially completed, and the unfinished house would become an eyesore. Mayor Boro asked what was the basis for that conclusion? Mr. Leiter stated that was an opinion of the appellant. Mr. Leiter stated he had visited the house, and had not seen any evidence of major portions of the home currently unfinished; however, there may have been some history of that. Mayor Boro first invited the appellants to address the Council. Vincent Gould, 879 Patricia Way, stated he was concerned because the wall that is going to be built next to his home will project nine feet past his own wall. He also stated the new wall is supposed to be architecturally compatible, but noted it sticks out in the back nine feet further than every other house on the block; therefore, Mr. Gould did not believe this was in conformance, and pointed out that it also blocked his view to a great extent. Mr. Gould stated this was supposed to be a rental unit, pointing out the original application was for a rental unit for a family related to the applicant; however, the applicant's family is no longer going to live there, and the Use Permit states that if the applicant's family is not going to live there, then he may rent it out. Mr. Gould noted the Use Permit also states that if the owner cannot live there because of hardship, he can rent out both units, which Mr. Gould believes means that should Mr. Farman, who now lives in San Francisco most of the time and comes to San Rafael on the weekends, decide that he can no longer live in San Rafael, he could then claim a hardship and rent out both units. Mr. Gould stated it was his understanding the Design Review Board had not seen the application for this project, only the Planning Commission had. Mr. Gould stated that along with the physical problems of this project, there is also a problem of neighborhood compliance, noting several members of the Council, in their advertisements for re-election, stated they favor neighborhood compliance. He stated the neighborhood in this case was a one block long stretch of road with a cul-de-sac, and noted there was not one person on that cul-de-sac, or the one block long stretch who wants a rental unit on their block. Mr. Gould reported there are approximately twenty children on that block, and the neighbors do not want to have a rental unit there because they do not know who is going to be in it, and also because it could add a tremendous amount of traffic possibilities. Mr. Gould believed the rental unit was the beginning of the destruction of the neighborhood, because if one man can do it, then others will do it, and as soon as there are three, four, or five rental units on a block, you have destroyed the neighborhood because you cannot control the rentals. Mr. Gould pointed out that in Mr. Farman's case, he was not going to be there all week long, only on the week -ends, and asked how he was going to control the renters? Mr. Gould stated the neighbors could not be sure Mr. Farman was even going to live there, noting all he had to do was state he lives there, and no one would be able to prove otherwise. Gary Coronado, 794 Las Gallindas, stated he and his wife have resided at their home for the past twenty-eight years. He noted they share the northern property line with Mr. Farman, and reported that after the surveyor's study, it was determined there is a ten foot easement zone located on their property. He stated it is not a common easement, it is positioned on their property; therefore, Mr. Farman' s property ends at the southern most point of their common property line. In terms of history, Mr. Coronado reported there is a v -ditch type cement structure positioned in the middle of the easement, which slants and drains east and west, and during rainy days run-off water is channeled into an outlet that is positioned in the far west portion of the cement structure. He added run-off water from Patricia Way also empties southward into this channel, so there is water going into this outlet both horizontally and vertically. Mr. Coronado stated several years ago Mr. Farman built a wall, without any discussion or notice to the neighbors, beginning the project by building five feet into Mr. Coronado's property, bracing his posts on the easement's cement ditch. Mr. Coronado stated he managed to convince him to stay within his existing property line, but it was clear Mr. Farman was not clear about his property boundary, and it appears Mr. Farman did build his wall on Mr. Coronado's property. Mr. Coronado stated that during the past few years Mr. Farman has not maintained SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 5 the fence and the wall, noting it now leans about four feet into Mr. Coronado' s property. He stated it is clearly a health and safety issue, noting Mr. Farman has been aware of this since the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Coronado reported they have requested in their appeal that they have a safe premises before Mr. Farman begins his building project, and the appeal is not intended to permanently block the issuance of his permit. Mr. Coronado presented photographs illustrating the position and condition of the fence and wall structure, noting the fence continues to lean, and the four by four posts are unstable, and deteriorating at several key points. Mr. Coronado thanked the Engineering Department for completing the inspection, noting he understood Mr. Vincenti would be issuing a notice stating the fence and the wall are unsafe. Mr. Coronado reported efforts during the past few weeks to meet with Mr. Farman have failed. He noted Planning Intern Carey Tate spoke with Mr. Farman two weeks ago about the possibility of remedying the situation in an expedient manner, urging him to contact Mr. Coronado; however, Mr. Farman has made no effort to contact him, or to remedy this health and safety hazard. Mr. Coronado stated the physical deterioration of the fence and the retaining wall has been a strong point of concern to them, particularly its safety factor and potential for injury to neighbors and pets. Due to its close proximity to the drain outlet, there is added concern that a fallen fence could block the flow of run-off water, with the possibility of water flowing into his yard, and into his home. Mr. Coronado noted predictions are in place for an unprecedented winter, and his goal is to take care of this problem as soon as possible. Mr. Coronado stated he had five main points, now that the safety factor has been red flagged: 1) Mr. Farman is on record as having agreed to move the fence and wall to his existing property line. Mr. Farman announced publicly, and it is a matter of record, that he recognizes the fence and wall are not in place or up to code. 2) Mr. Lundy (Architect for this project) has outlined a detailed plan to move the fence and wall, and place it on the property line, as established in the survey. He has a detailed plan to prevent the wall from moving in the future by anchoring the structure with chains to a concrete base. 3) An inter -departmental memo written by Planning Intern Tate stated Mr. Farman must repair the retaining wall to conform with the Uniform Building Code, and in addition, he must repair the fence along the rear property line. 4) After reviewing the drawing submitted by Mr. Lundy illustrating the role of the fence and wall in the overall project, they were told that density and coverage were calculated with the property line serving as a reference. Mr. Coronado stated he found it difficult to imagine how calculations could occur if, in fact, the property line and the fence are not the same. He believed the fence and retaining wall are directly related to the project, and play a part in Mr. Lundy Is overall plan. 5) There was a wire fence that separated their properties when Mr. Farman moved into his residence, and Mr. Farman built the existing fence by himself, without alerting or notifying his immediate neighbors. The design and workmanship are his own. Mr. Coronado stated the fence and wall should be a condition for issuing Mr. Farman's Permit, and Mr. Farman's Permit should not be issued until the matter is resolved. Mr. Coronado urged the Council to preserve integrity and order by not issuing a Permit until the matter is resolved, noting this was essential to the interest of a safe neighborhood. John Lundy, Architect for the project, introduced Shahram Farman, owner of the property, and Fred Shupaboor, Mr. Farman's attorney. Mr. Lundy stated they have endeavored to provide a minimum amount of impact with this remodel addition, noting they have kept the second unit to a minimum size, and the footprints were all relatively small additions to the house, pointing out most of the remodeling was being done inside the house. As far as the fence on the property line, Mr. Lundy indicated the fence was to be located by survey, stating they have submitted an Engineering Design for engineering the wall and restabilizing the structure. He noted Mr. Coronado had provided a survey, which Mr. Farman agreed to comply with at the last Planning Commission meeting. He stated they would have gone ahead with this by now, had there not been an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, which meant they could not obtain the Building Permit. Mr. Lundy noted the expense of relocating the wall is quite high, and they had hoped to include it in the Building Permit construction financing; however, without a Permit it has been difficult for them to go ahead. Mr. Lundy stated they have agreed to move the wall, and if they are allowed to proceed with the project, this would be the first item on their docket. Mr. Lundy stated Mr. Coronado had given them a copy of his survey, which they have duly noted; however, they have not been able to obtain a confirming survey from another engineer. He noted one of the reasons Mr. Farman is concerned about SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 6 this survey is because the surveyor is the one who told Mr. Farman where to locate the fence when it was originally disputed, and Mr. Farman was certain the fence was built on that line. He acknowledged the fence has drifted a little bit, and there is some lean to it, noting that is why they have hired someone to re-engineer the fence, and are trying to verify the survey. He stated their title company has expressed concern that they do not move the fence without having a legal basis, so they do still need confirmation of the survey. However, he did not believe this would stop them from going forward and moving the fence. Mayor Boro noted that while Council is addressing a request for Permits, they are also dealing with a health and safety problem, and these two issues were not necessarily related. He stated each issue should be addressed separately, and then Council would decide how to move forward. Mr. Lundy stated that if the City stated they must move the fence within sixty days or thirty days, they would try to comply with that, although they would like to get a permit on it. He noted they had agreed some time ago to go ahead and do this, and were only waiting for the legal aspect of the Building Permit before going ahead with a major structural revision, which will probably cost about $10,000. Mr. Lundy stated they had tried to work closely with staff in preparing their designs and complying with all the laws that were required. He noted there was some question as to whether the fence was legally part of the Design Review approval, pointing out Design Review was not required for the additions to the building, but was required for the elevated deck. He noted they had attempted to make a very compatible and good looking design for the addition to the house. Fred Shupaboor, Attorney representing Mr. Farman, stated Mr. Farman has been a resident of Marin County for the past several years, and intends to occupy the property. He noted Mr. Farman has a business which keeps him working late, and some nights he stays at an apartment in San Francisco; however, that does not mean that he is planning to move out of the County. Mayor Boro noted that in reading the staff report, one area he felt was in question was the issue of residency. For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Boro stated the intent of that requirement in the City's Ordinance was to assure the neighbors that a second unit, when approved, will have an owner either in the main unit or the second unit. He noted the City's second unit Ordinance is a mandate from the State of California, and we were able to modify it to have an owner reside in one of the two units. Mayor Boro stated there had been comments that Mr. Farman does not live there and will not be there, and that both units will be rented out. Mr. Shupaboor stated that was pure speculation on the part of Mr. Gould and others, and there was no basis for that at all. Mayor Boro asked if it was safe to assume that when Mr. Farman is staying in San Francisco there will be no one else in the house? Mr. Shupaboor stated that was correct, although when this does occur, it would only be for a night or so, noting Mr. Farman spends most of his time in Marin. Mr. Farman stated it was likely to be only five or six nights a month that he would have to stay in San Francisco because of his work, and stated he absolutely would remain living in Marin, especially because his ex-wife and four children live four blocks from his home. Councilmember Phillips noted several times Mr. Farman made reference to staying "in Marin", and asked if he meant he would be staying at his current residence? Mr. Farman stated that was correct. Mayor Boro noted one of the appellants, Mr. Gould, had commented on this project in terms of conformity to the rest of the architecture in the neighborhood, and asked Community Development Director Leiter to comment. Mr. Leiter stated this plan did go through a Design Review process, and asked Interim Planner Tate to confirm whether or not this had been taken to the Design Review Board, or had been done administratively? Ms. Tate reported it had been done administratively, and did not go to the Design Review Board. Mr. Leiter stated staff has the authority to review this type of project, and they determined it did conform to the standards. Mayor Boro asked if staff had complied with our requirements that it be reviewed, and it was not required to go before the Design Review Board? Ms. Tate stated that was correct. Mayor Boro stated Mr. Gould had also made the comment that as he understood our Ordinance, both units could be rented out, and asked Mr. Leiter to comment. Mr. Leiter stated this was not correct, reporting the Ordinance requires at least one of the units to be owner occupied. Mayor Boro asked for comments regarding concerns about the wall's stability and location, and whether these should be considered as separate issues? Mr. Leiter stated that with Mr. Vincenti's determination that there is a safety issue, staff will be sending a letter indicating this should be abated, and that the fence would be required to be repaired. Based on Council's concerns about the timeframe, Mr. Leiter stated he would review this with Mr. Vincenti to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 7 see if it could be expedited even further. Mayor Boro asked, regardless of whatever type of action Council takes on the application before them, would the fence be pursued as an independent issue? Mr. Leiter stated that was correct. Councilmember Miller referred to Mr. Gould's remark that there are no other second units on the block, and asked if that was the case? Mr. Leiter stated he was not aware of any other second units on the block, and did not believe the City had issued permits for other second units on that block. Mayor Boro noted that while there may not be any other second units, each property owner has the ability to ask for a second unit if they choose, as long as they meet the requirements of the City's Ordinance. Mayor Boro reiterated this was a mandate of the State of California, and the City merely tailored the Ordinance to fit our needs, specifically that one of the units must be lived in by the property 1.i^.Mt40M Councilmember Cohen referred to the issue of hardship, noting he would not like the City to find itself in a situation where the permit is granted, and the applicant comes back a year from now, after finding his business has expanded, stating he finds he is having to spend five nights a week in San Francisco and it is a real hardship for him to live here, and asking for a waiver of that requirement. Mr. Cohen asked if the City had the ability to deny that request and, if necessary, revoke the Use Permit if that type of situation arose? City Attorney Gary Ragghianti stated the City's second unit Ordinance provides for an exception to the owner occupancy requirement where, "Exceptions to the owner occupancy requirement may only be granted when the property owner is relocated because of illness or employment. Such exceptions may only be granted by the City Council with the adoption of specific Findings as part of the original Use Permit approval, or subsequent Use Permit amendment". Mr. Ragghianti stated he knew of no circumstance, in the history of our second unit Ordinance, where such an exception has ever been granted. He noted an exception application may be submitted, but these Findings must be made. Heather Otanez, 863 Patricia Way, stated she and her husband were long time residents, reporting this block was a long cul-de-sac, and was the perfect kind of block for large families, noting she has small children who ride their bikes down the street. She reported that three or four years ago they had dealt with drug dealing next door to their home, noting it had been a major problem, and a difficult situation for the entire block, but they all came together and tried to support each other in dealing with the problem. Ms. Otanez reported they are a neighborhood of single-family, large homes, noting she has five bedrooms and approximately 3,200 square feet in her home, and felt adding approximately 960 square feet onto one of these homes would make it gigantic. Ms. Otanez stated she was also concerned about the traffic, and fears there would be more cars on the street, and Mr. Farman's renters will be parking in front of other neighbors' houses. Ms. Otanez reported Mr. Farman was seldom home, and it seemed as though he was away a lot more than six nights per month. She stated she and her neighbors are concerned about what is happening to their block, noting they feel as though they do not have any control of this situation. Ms. Otanez stated she was in support of Mr. Gould' s appeal. Larry Pentis, 867 Patricia Way, stated he lived in the house next door to Mrs. Otanez, agreeing this was a very special family neighborhood, and the residents were concerned about the traffic. He noted his biggest concern was the question of what practical remedy the neighbors would have? Mr. Pentis reported he had made the statement at the Planning Commission meeting that he had seen Mr. Farman approximately twice in a year, and while he acknowledged that Mr. Farman works hard and is a very nice guy, he is, in fact, rarely at his home. Mr. Pentis asked, if Mr. Farman decides to relocate his business or just decides not to live there anymore, and just shows a driver's license or utility bill to try to establish that he still lives at the home, what is the remedy of the neighbors, and what steps could they take if they end up with a very large two -unit, multi -family structure on their street? He stated the neighbors were very concerned about what remedy they would have. Rowland and Beverly Boorman, 871 Patricia Way, stated they lived next door to Mr. Farman. Mr. Boorman stated Patricia Way was a quiet cul-de-sac consisting of single-family homes which house many children, and he hoped the City' s need to create more housing would not affect their peaceful and secure neighborhood. Mr. Boorman stated he, himself, has had soil problems, and he questions the integrity of Mr. Farman's proposal in that there has been no soils analysis submitted, noting he felt that in many ways this was related to the fence problem. Therefore, Mr. Boorman stated they would like to have a soils analysis submitted. Mrs. Boorman stated they were concerned that building on top of this soil might create the kinds of drainage problems they had spent SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 7 Mr SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 8 $30,000 trying avoid. Boorman referred to Mr. Farman's comment that he was investing $80,000 on this addition, and stated he was concerned Mr. Farman may be pricing himself right out of the market for the area, and this might be financially irresponsible for him unless he rents out both units. Mr. Boorman stated he held no grudge against Mr . Farman, noting he had always found him to be a friendly and personable neighbor. However, in this instance they feared Mr. Farman might not have all his cards on the table, and in the long run this proposal would adversely affect parking, security, and safety in the neighborhood. Mrs. Boorman referred to the deteriorating fence, noting it was a real safety hazard. She stated she wanted to make certain that if this project should be approved, that the fence will be fixed. Mrs. Boorman stated she was also concerned about the traffic problem, noting she has two children, ages 6 and 8, and the cul-de-sac is their playground. She stated it was the core of the neighborhood, where the parents stand and talk, and the kids play. Mr. Lundy referred to the neighbors' concern regarding who was going to rent the second unit. He noted the remedy they are asking for is the one they already have, which is that Mr. Farman would be there. He stated Mr. Farman will rent it to responsible people because he owns it, and has spent a lot of money remodeling the house. Mr. Lundy pointed out that at this point, if Mr. Farman could not live there, he could rent out the entire house, to anyone, and there were no controls for anyone on that. Mr. Lundy stated Mr. Farman wants to continue living in the house, and finish remodeling, and he wants to make it as nice as everyone else' s in the neighborhood. As far as the neighbor' s fence on the side, Mr. Lundy stated Mr. Farman agreed to repair the fence, and has offered to run the fence up the entire property line and close it off. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Heller referred to Mr. Coronado's comment that the retaining wall and corrected fenceline location would affect the 40% density limit for adding a second unit, and she asked if the density would be the correct amount when this is corrected? Mr. Leiter stated that it would be, noting staff had used the Assessor's Parcel information to make that determination. Councilmember Cohen referred to the concept of Use Permits for second units, stating this was an issue Council has discussed several times in the past, and it is never easy, particularly when they are confronted with neighbors who are concerned about the character of their neighborhood, and see this as moving away from the single-family neighborhood. Mr. Cohen stated his understanding of the concept of the second unit Ordinance, and the restrictions Council has put on what is mandated by the State of California, is that the Council desires to retain that family oriented neighborhood character within the context of the State requirement that we have such regulation, and our desire to have housing that is affordable, not only for people who might be renters in some of the smaller in-law units, but also for those who want to keep their houses and find this is a way to off -set the cost of staying in the house when their children are gone. Mr. Cohen stated that in general, despite the concerns that have been raised, he continued to support the second unit Ordinance. He noted one of the reasons he continues to support this Ordinance is because at least here the City is faced with an applicant who is attempting to comply with City Ordinances, and attempting to comply with the law by doing this in the right fashion. He stated he did not know how many illegal second units there were in San Rafael, but believed they numbered in the hundreds, if not the thousands. Mr. Cohen noted he was currently living in the second home he has purchased in San Rafael, and reported that in both of these homes there was evidence of illegal second units, which he abated when he purchased the houses. Mr. Cohen recalled he had also been a renter in San Rafael, and did not feel he was a threat to the community or to his neighbors. He stated he did not believe that being a renter necessarily makes someone a bad neighbor. Mr. Cohen acknowledged that did not address the neighbors' concerns about traffic and the impact on the potential for change in the neighborhood; however, he did believe that most of the issues in the appeals, particularly in Mr. Gould's appeal, spoke to the underlying issues of the second unit Ordinance. Mr. Cohen reported the Planning Commission and City Council have consistently supported the Ordinance and the concept behind it, and have tried to address any problems associated with it. He stated San Rafael continues to be a wonderful place to live and raise a family; therefore, he did not see this as being a detriment to the community as a whole, or the neighborhoods in specific, and he continues to support this Ordinance. Mr. Cohen stated the number of points in the appeals fall when Council states it SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 9 continues to support the Ordinance. In response to one of the issues raised in the appeals, Mr. Cohen pointed out the City has not, to date, taken into consideration the issue of whether a second unit would be the first one on a particular block, or the first house in the neighborhood to ask for or have a second unit Use Permit. He stated Council has been faced with challenges on this issue in the past, when appellants state there are no other such units in their neighborhood, or that their CC & R's (Contracts, Covenants & Restrictions) do not allow for a second unit; however, that is not a contract the City is party to, and Council has never accepted that as an argument against the granting of a Use Permit. Councilmember Miller agreed, noting he had wanted to have, on the record, Council's position regarding that issue. Regarding the issue of residency, Mr. Miller stated he saw this as a matter of domicile, and the intent as being that which establishes a domicile; therefore, as long as Council has the word of the owner that this is, indeed, his domicile, it should be considered his domicile. He stated he also agreed with Council' s position regarding hardship, noting we had the City Attorney's opinion that the City did have control of that issue. Councilmember Miller stated his concern went back to the fence, noting the respondents in this case have stated repeatedly that they have an approved survey and they know where the fenceline is. He asked if there has been an agreement made with the neighbor, why not just do it, stating this was such a predominant issue in his mind that he would like to see this done even before the Permit. He did not see a need for that if everyone agrees they want to do it and can do it. Councilmember Heller stated she was not happy with the slope, or the condition of the fence, noting it looked very dangerous to her; therefore, she agreed to putting the fence portion of the project first. Regarding the issue of the second unit, she acknowledged this was very difficult for the neighbors; however, after speaking with several of the neighbors she was informed there was another second unit in the neighborhood, on this street. Ms. Heller noted sometimes these second units just blend in, and she felt, in this instance, that as long as the owner occupied the home, it would blend in, noting it met all of the State and Local requirements. Ms. Heller asked if there would be something in writing that would alert any new owner of this property to the restrictions regarding the rental of the second unit, and that the owner must occupy one of the units? Mr. Leiter stated there would be a Deed Restriction. Councilmember Phillips stated he was familiar with this cul-de-sac, noting it was quite a nice little community unto itself. He stated it struck him, with State law being what it is, and with our own Ordinance supporting second units, if Council were to deny this application, with its stated compliance of residency, then they would certainly have to question their own justification. He stated he found it hard to conclude that this application should not be permitted, although he could understand the neighbors' concerns regarding additional traffic and individuals. Mr. Phillips stated, based primarily on the neighbors' comments that Mr. Farman is a responsible person, he believed the rental unit would reflect some of Mr. Farman' s values, and would not be a burden to the neighborhood. Mayor Boro stated he supported the second unit Ordinance, noting it was mandated by the State, and San Rafael has tried to tailor it to the needs of our City. He reported he had a lengthy discussion with the City Attorney's Office regarding the Memo on Intent, with respect to residency, because although he had read the opinion on the words "intent" and "residency", he also recalled that it was the intent of the Council at the time this Ordinance was adopted that a person would live on the property a majority of the time. He noted if someone chooses to spend time elsewhere, and not use the house when they are not there, that would be fine, but if there is any indication someone is allegedly using the property as their primary residence but someone else is living there, then we are going to have a real problem with this particular application. Mayor Boro stated he was looking for a Finding that was a little more explicit, since he believes the issue of residency is the real cornerstone of our Ordinance. He asked for a Finding that addresses the issue of residence, and acknowledges what that requirement is, and also that the penalty, if it was proven that residency was not actually in place, would be the abatement of the second unit. He stated he wanted the record to be clear on what that option would be. Mayor Boro stated he was also concerned about the completion of the work, not the fence, but the proposed addition. He asked the City Attorney's Office to review the City's options once the permit is pulled, as to what our expectations can be, and what options the City has for placing requirements on what the timeline might be toward a reasonable finish. Mayor Boro stated if the City did not have that ability currently in our Ordinance, he suggested we might ask the applicant to agree to a time, and have the applicant' s agreement be in writing SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 10 or by bonding. Regarding the fence, Mayor Boro believed this was an entirely separate issue from this application. He stated he understood the applicants comment regarding financing; however, that was not an issue Council could deal with. He stated if there is a fence that is unsafe, and the City knows about it, then it would be an act of good faith for the applicant to deal with it immediately. Mayor Boro noted Mr. Farman was working with the City's Code Enforcement Department, pointing out a report has been issued which states the fence needs to be replaced or repaired, and that will happen concurrent with the addition of the second unit. However, Mayor Boro stated there were a couple of issues he was asking the City Attorney to bring back to Council with respect to a finding on occupancy and a completion date, and independent of that, he suggested the applicant deal with the fence, and show Council and the community that this is going to be taken care of, and have that happen before the permit is issued. Mayor Boro stated if Council had that discretion, he would strongly suggest they require this. Councilmember Cohen referred to the neighbors' question and concern regarding what type of remedy exists. He stated it must be made clear that the expectation is that the applicant is going to live there, and allowing someone else to rent the house on the nights that he is not there will not be acceptable. Mr. Cohen stated he was glad the City had not granted a hardship application for the second dwelling unit Use Permit, noting he would not be inclined to look favorably upon one unless there was an extreme situation that truly justified the hardship. Specifically, given the fact that this issue has been raised here, he stated he would look extremely dimly at any application for a hardship justifying a variance in this particular case, and his expectation was that if this permit is granted, it will be for owner occupancy of one of the units. Councilmember Cohen believed the neighbors, in this case, actually have more remedy than they do regarding what apparently is an illegal second unit which has been found to be in their neighborhood; here, at least, the record is clear that a unit exists, and the City does not have the issue of whether or not we can get entrance to the house to determine whether or not there is a second unit that was built without benefit of permit, which is often a problem Code Enforcement faces in establishing whether or not there is an illegal second unit. He stated the record would be clear that this unit was established by permit, which is granted for as long as those conditions are met, and if those conditions fail to be met, the City can revoke the permit for the second dwelling unit, and require removal, at least of the cooking facilities. Mr. Cohen reported the City was also beginning to use some of the tools neighboring communities are using to define second units, and the abatement of second units. He asked, should San Rafael adopt those, would they apply to this Use Permit? City Attorney Ragghianti stated once the Use Permit was granted it vests, and subsequently adopted rules or development policies would not apply to it; however, if it were abated, then any new Use Permit would have to comply. Mr. Cohen noted the City is looking at ways to enforce stronger compliance when units are being abated, and that could be applied if this Use Permit were to be revoked in the future. Mr. Cohen stated he was not disparaging Mr. Farman's statement that he intends to live in the house, and he appreciates that Mr. Farman has applied for this permit; however, at the same time, Mr. Cohen wants to give an assurance to the neighbors that if the conditions of the Permit are not complied with, the City does have the authority to revoke the Permit and order the unit abated, and the City will pursue that if evidence comes forward. Regarding the fence, Mr. Cohen stated he understands the applicant's comments about seeking to finance this project as a whole, and seeking a Building Permit in order to get a construction loan. Mr. Cohen suggested Council explore whether there is a slightly different direction to go, noting he believes the fence needs to be repaired first, and asked staff whether it would be possible to approve the application for issuance of a Building Permit, with the requirement that the repair to the retaining wall and the fence be the first work undertaken under that building permit, and other work not be allowed to proceed until that work was substantially underway? City Attorney Ragghianti noted that in view of the applicant's statements, they did intend to do this first, and it might well be included in the Conditions of Approval, with the stipulation that once the Permit was pulled, that work would be constructed first, if they will agree to that. Mayor Boro asked if this meant the work on the fence would be completed before anything else was started? Mr. Ragghianti stated that was correct, and after the Permit was pulled, the fence would be the first work of improvement performed and completed on the site. Mr. Farman stated he agreed that if a Permit was issued, the first work to be started and completed, before any other work is done on the site, would be the relocation and reconstruction of the fence and retaining wall, as required by City staff. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 11 Mayor Boro asked if there could be a Finding regarding occupancy, and also a timeline on the completion of the work once it is started. Mr. Ragghianti stated recent amendments to the City's Code Enforcement Ordinance provide that buildings that have been abandoned, partially destroyed, or permitted to remain for an unreasonable period of time in a state of partial construction, whether or not any Building Permit has expired, constitute nuisances which can be abated. Mr. Ragghianti noted this language was the result of difficulties the City has had over the years, which the City hopes it has fixed. He stated if this project were to be initiated and to be stalled for an unreasonable period of time, for whatever reason, the City could conduct a hearing and request the owner to appear and tell us when we might expect that the project would be completed, and if that was not acceptable on the evidence that was presented, it could be abated. Mayor Boro asked if it would be reasonable for Council to try to secure from the applicant what he considered reasonable, and what his expectations were to complete the project, and have that response become part of the record and used as a starting point? Mr. Ragghianti stated it could be part of the record, but pointed out we had the Uniform Building Code provision that Building Permits expire 18 months after they are issued, if the work has been abandoned. Mr. Ragghianti stated we had nothing, nor do other cities, that deals with the construction of homes, and attempts to set a limit on how long it takes to finish construction. Therefore, he stated the record could contain information on how long the project should be, but there is nothing the City can do about it if it is exceeded, except use the section he had just pointed out. Mayor Boro asked about the Findings regarding residency? Mr. Ragghianti pointed out the current language specifies the owner must occupy the main unit or the second unit. Mayor Boro noted that when he read through the Findings there were references to many different issues which complied with the Ordinance; however, since he felt the issue of residency was at the heart of the second unit Ordinance in this City, he would like to try to give the neighbors some assurance that their fears would be abated, and that the person who is seeking this application, and doing the right thing by seeking the application, will be living there. He stated that was the City's expectation and intent, and he felt there should be some acknowledgement in the Findings that it is the intent of the City. Mr. Ragghianti urged the staff Findings be supplemented to provide, based on the evidence heard during this meeting, that the applicant will occupy the main residence at this address. Councilmember Cohen noted on Page 2 of the Resolution being presented it states, "Therefore, be it resolved, City Council hereby makes the following determination, and findings", and then on Page 4, referring to Point 3 which states, "He cannot justify a 'Mother -in -Law' (second dwelling) unit and therefore this simply becomes two rental units", there is a paragraph denying that portion of the appeal, which states, "The applicant has stated by letter and in public record that he intends to make 875 Patricia Way his residence. The City Council has determined that since the owner intends to occupy one of the units, both units would not become retail units because the owner would occupy one". Mr. Cohen asked if they needed additional Findings beyond these statements? Mayor Boro stated that in the staff report summary, where staff has listed their Findings, the issue regarding occupancy should also be called out under those Findings. Mr. Cohen noted the Findings he had just cited were the Planning Commission' s Findings, and he agreed that if the Findings he just read were not part of staff's Findings, they needed to be restated. City Attorney Ragghianti suggested language along the following lines be added, "On the basis of the evidence received this evening, the City Council has determined the property owner shall occupy either the main single-family dwelling or the second dwelling unit, throughout the life of the second unit dwelling". Councilmember Miller referred to the concerns of Mr. and Mrs. Boorman, and asked how Council should address the issue of soil disruption, as well as the fence on their side of the property? Mr. Leiter stated the Land Development Engineer would require a drainage plan, and could also require soils analysis as part of the issuance of the Building Permit, noting that authority was outside of the Use Permit. He also noted Condition 33 would address the issue of the fence. Councilmember Cohen pointed out there is an Engineer Drawing for repair of the retaining wall that has been stamped and certified by an Engineer, and if the Engineer had believed a Soils Engineer's inspection was required, he would be putting his license on the line if he is not incorporating that in this report. Therefore, Mr. Cohen felt there were two layers, our own Planning Department, and Engineer Drawings for repair of the retaining wall, and he felt the City could be satisfied that both would require a Soils Report if it were necessary. Mayor Boro summarized that the motion would incorporate words regarding the disposition of the re -building and/or relocation of the fence/retaining wall, and that when the Permit is issued, that work will be started and completed SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 12 before any other additional work will start, as authorized by the Permit. Secondly, there will be a change in the wording of the Findings, as suggested by City Attorney Ragghianti, regarding the issue concerning the residency requirement. He noted the issue of the soils and the fence were included as a separate condition. Mayor Boro stated the last question considered what a reasonable person could expect as far as length of duration, and noted they had been informed the Building Permit, once it is issued, is good for eighteen months. Mayor Boro asked the applicant if he felt it was reasonable to conclude that the work would be completed in eighteen months? Mr. Farman nodded his head in the affirmative. Mayor Boro stated the record would reflect that this would be the City's expectation. Councilmember Cohen asked to verify that replacement of the side fence, which the applicant had indicated a willingness to include as part of this project, would be included in the motion. Mayor Boro noted that had already been included as Condition 33. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution denying the appeals, and uphold the Planning Commission's approval, as amended. RESOLUTION NO. 9950 -RESOLUTION DENYING APPEALS AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR SECOND DWELLING UNIT AND ELEVATED DECK; 875 PATRICIA WAY (AP #165-083-15). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO AMEND NOISE ELEMENT POLICY N-7 TO INCREASE THE ALLOWED NOISE DECIBELS FOR BEDROOMS FROM 40 dB Ldn (DECIBELS AND SOUND LEVEL AT DAY -NIGHT AVERAGE) TO 45 dB Ldn FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, CONSISTENT WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REQUIREMENTS (CD) - File 115 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and asked that a motion be made to continue said Public Hearing to meeting of 11/17/97, at the request of staff. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to continue this Public Hearing to the meeting of 11/17/97. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro announced Agenda Item #16 would be heard at this time. OLD BUSINESS: 16. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 79 OF UP97-40, USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY 56 TEE GOLF DRIVING RANGE AT SHORELINE CENTER; 1615 EAST FRANCISCO BOULEVARD (APN 9-302-40 THROUGH 45) (CD) - File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 Community Development Director Leiter reported that in response to Council direction when this item was last reviewed, staff met with the applicant, Cal -Pox, Inc. , and representatives of the Marin Conservation League and California Department of Fish and Game, and crafted this revised Condition which allows for the use of hydro -seeding for a large portion of the buffer area, and also addresses the timeframe for review of the buffer area. Councilmember Cohen asked to verify that the City had addressed the applicant's concern regarding future CEQA claims. He noted one portion of the Condition states, "The hydro -seeding for temporary use may be removed once permanent development occurs", and asked if staff was satisfied we had addressed the concern raised by the applicant about this issue? Associate Planner Louise Patterson stated that Condition binds both the City and the Applicant, and that we agree it can be removed, and in addition, the applicant has also received a written agreement from the Department of Fish and Game recognizing that the use of the habitat will be more beneficial, even if it is removed with the permanent development. Mayor Boro clarified that Condition 79 was the only issue before Council at this time, all other issues having been previously approved. Mr. Leiter stated that was correct. Robert Wright, representative of TWM Architects, acknowledged they had met with the Department of Fish and Game and Marin Conservation League, and were very happy with the conclusion that has been reached. He thanked Council for their concern regarding this one issue, noting they felt everything had been resolved. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 13 Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the revised Conditions of Approval, and adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 9951 -RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE SHORELINE CENTER 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: COUNCIL ERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14. DISCUSSION RE: FREITAS PARK RENOVATION (Rec) - File 12-5 x 9-3-66 City Manager Gould reported that some time ago he had noted the need for a comprehensive Park Renovation Repair Plan so the Council, as the legislative body of the City, could make decisions on which park would be repaired, when, and with what resources. He stated although that plan was being prepared, he felt it was timely, since they were going to be considering adjusting the Parkland Dedication Funds during this meeting, for Council to also consider utilizing some of those funds to repair and improve Freitas Park. Mr. Gould noted this recommendation had gone to the Park and Recreation Commission several weeks ago, and they stated this was the number one priority, especially in North San Rafael. Recreation Director Sharon McNamee reported the water feature at Freitas Park has been turned off for some time. She stated they would like to re -implement a water feature, but would have to design it differently so they do not have to comply with Codes that term it a swimming pool, because that would not be reasonable, and would not be the kind of design the community wants. She noted the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed Freitas Park, as well as some of the other park projects that are coming up, and they would like to see Freitas Park become the number one project, addressed soon and quickly. Ms. McNamee reported they also looked at the Parkland Dedication Funds list, and felt it might be time to designate that park as a Regional facility, as it really does serve more than just the immediate neighborhood because of the unique water feature. Therefore, she stated the Park and Recreation Commission wished to recommend more of those funds for this park, in order to have a ready amount of funds to do this quickly and efficiently. Ms. McNamee stated the part of the design for Freitas Park that needs to be redone is the irrigation system, noting it does have sprinkling water that comes to the side, but we need an irrigation system to accommodate that. In addition, they need to find a new way to design the water feature where, hopefully, the water can just keep moving and not be retained in a pool setting. She reported they also wanted to look at the location of the playground, pointing out it currently is on the north side of Montecillo, on a separate parcel in another part of the park. She stated they would probably put the playground back next to the water feature, so parents can supervise their children while they play in the water and on the playground, and the children will not have to be going back and forth across the street. Ms. McNamee stated they would need a Landscape Architect to do the design, someone with a specialty background in water design. She noted she knew of two people in the County who are interested and available. Regarding the funding, Ms. McNamee reported they had received cost estimates ranging from $200, 000 to over $365, 000, noting it really would depend on how complicated the design gets, and stating it would be very hard to predict until they got into actually designing it. In looking at the Parkland Dedication Fee schedule, Ms. McNamee reported the Commission was recommending the City add $227,000, which would give them a good start on this park. Ms. McNamee reported another concept discussed when the Commission and the Council visited this site during their park tour last year, was possibly looking at the parcel that is on the north side of Montecillo, perhaps as an opportunity to sell that to help finance the improvements at the park. She recommended we obtain an appraisal of the site to determine its value, and what its best use would be. She stated the appraisal would be for information only, and not as a decision to make a sale, because that would involve community support, and we would have to go out and solicit that. Councilmember Phillips asked what Use would be considered as part of the appraisal? Ms. McNamee reported it would have to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, which is single-family. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 14 Councilmember Miller asked Ms. McNamee to review the community participation in terms of the park. Ms. McNamee explained that normally they would hire an Architect, or a team of people, and have community meetings. She noted the first meeting would probably be with the Architect and staff, actually asking the residents what they would and would not like in the park, what they would like to keep, and what types of things they are interested in. Then there would be one or two more meetings, coming back with various design elements and getting community input, so there is buy -in all along, and perhaps some work in the park, if the community wants to get into a volunteer effort. Rozalind Katz, resident of Terra Linda, stated she was very familiar with this area, and agreed the north side of the park was not used very much. Referring to the parcel the City is considering having appraised, she reported that down the hill from that parcel there is a road that leads to the Vallecito playfield, and there is also an underpass that goes under the street to the other side. Ms. Katz felt it would be more prudent to get the City Engineer out there to look at this first, to see if any building on the parcel might, in some way, be adverse to the underpass. She stated she did not know how long the underpass has been there, or if doing any building on that parcel might adversely affect it, with spillage or something like that. She believed that before we spend $1,500 on an appraisal, the City Engineer should look at this. Mayor Boro stated this would be a major undertaking, noting there was some money that could be used. He agreed with the concept that this was a regional park, and that was all the more reason to use this money from North San Rafael. He stated he also felt it was important that the City get participation from the neighborhood, not only in the input, but also in their helping to raise funds or do some "in kind" work as we have done in other parks. He felt this would be an important component to put in place when this is brought back to Council. Mayor Boro asked the Park and Recreation Commission also consider that if the City did not sell the site, what type of recreational use might be most effective there, and what other needs we could meet on that site, and then weigh that versus selling the site. Responding to the comments of Ms. Katz, Public Works Director Bernardi referred to the triangular parcel on the downhill side of Montecillo Road, and noted the question was how to close the pipe arch that currently goes under the street. He stated that had been installed primarily to provide pedestrian access, so children did not have to cross the street, and could go under the street instead. Mr. Bernardi stated that if the City sold the lower parcel, where the playground equipment is now, they would need to be able to isolate that, because that will be a separate, private piece of property, and the undercrossing would no longer be appropriate. Therefore, whether it is gated or fenced off, that would be a design issue that would have to be dealt with. Mr. Bernardi did not believe the development of the parcel, if it were to become a single-family lot, would affect the stability of the pipe, and/or the roadway. Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Bernardi felt this would be an engineering solution, independent of the appraisal, and if the City could go forward with the appraisal, and if we decide to put a house there, that would be decided at that time? Mr. Bernardi stated this was correct. Mayor Boro asked if this would inhibit the appraiser, and Mr. Bernardi stated it would not. Councilmember Phillips stated he was pleased the water feature would be reinstated. Councilmember Miller stated he would like to see a definite connection with the North San Rafael Vision Committee, and Ms. McNamee reported several people who had been on the Vision Committee have already stated they would like to be involved. City Manager Gould noted Ms. McNamee had presented Council with two options for funding the architectural and appraisal services, one is to fund them from the City's Park and Recreation Facilities Fund, and the other is the Parkland Dedication Funds. He asked Council which of those two funds they would like to use to fund these consulting services? Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Gould had a preference? Mr. Gould stated he would prefer to use the Park and Recreation Facilities Fund for this work, and Mayor Boro agreed. Councilmember Cohen agreed that as this moves forward, it is incumbent upon the City to reinstate the water feature in a way that will work. He felt some aspects of the revitalization of this park have to come from the surrounding neighborhood, noting this is what the City has done in every other park that has been revitalized. He stated that expectation should be there for this park revitalization, as well, and the City should find a way to fold that in, through volunteerism or fund raising. Mr. Cohen stated he had no problem with the City spending the money to move this forward, but believed that expectation should also be part of the planning of how this is going to be incorporated. Ms. McNamee stated she had spoken with the Homeowners Association several months ago, and reported they are ready and willing to host the meetings and get the word out that the residents need to become involved. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 15 Mayor Boro noted he did not see selling the adjoining site as a way to make the park happen, pointing out that since we own the property, if there is any way we can reasonably tie that into the future use we should consider that, because to acquire additional property in the Terra Linda area for park use is going to be next to impossible, so we should try and see what creative ways we can put that to use. Mayor Boro stated if we found we could not do this, then selling the land would be a good option; however, he believed that should be the last option, not the first. Councilmember Cohen stated if that was really what Council was stating, then perhaps we should not spend the money for the appraisal now. He suggested that rather than spend the $1,500, if Council is stating the City should look for a way to keep the parcel and try to incorporate it, and then only if we cannot find a way to use the parcel as a recreational facility would the City look at a way of selling the parcel, then perhaps the City does not need to spend the $1,500 for the appraisal. City Manager Gould stated the appraisal could be postponed, and Mayor Boro agreed that it should be postponed, and the issue should be referred back to staff and the Park and Recreation Commission to see what uses the parcel could be put to, and whether it would make sense to keep it; then if it was determined that it would not make sense to keep the parcel, we could move forward with the appraisal and look into selling the property. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, that Council accept the report, authorize the hiring of a Landscape Architect to prepare design plans, with those funds to come from the Park and Recreation Facilities Fund, and to approve, in concept, additional funding from Parkland Dedication Funds as we move closer to actual park improvements. Council and Park and Recreation Commission to work with the community involved, both in the design and in the fundraising and completion of the park. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 15. RESOLUTION APPROVING PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDS ANNUAL REPORT AND ADOPTING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF PROJECTS AND FUNDING COMMITMENTS (Rec) - File 12-5 x 12-15 x 9-3-66 Recreation Director Sharon McNamee reported Council last looked at Parkland Dedication Funds in 1995, and at that time they looked at a list of subdivisions and committed funds to particular parks. She noted there were several hundred thousand dollars in the northeast area of San Rafael, which were committed to a northeast San Rafael park. She reported that as they went through the Vision Plan, and talked with the neighborhood and asked about park and recreation needs in Terra Linda Valley, there was no particular need that seemed to come out for the northeast San Rafael area. In addition, she noted there was no City owned land there, over which we had control to develop a park. She stated the Park and Recreation Commission looked at this situation, along with some of the new funds that have been received, pointing out the predominant new fund was from Deer Valley, which was not on the original list. Therefore, staff was asking Council to review the original list, reprioritize some of the funds that were discussed in 1995. and add the new funds to the list and allocate them to various projects. Ms. McNamee reported there were two other things that had happened during the past year, noting Council made a preliminary offer to purchase the Bernard Hoffman ballfields, and also commit $20,000 in Parkland Dedication Funds to the construction of a play area there, in combination with the local Developer's contribution. She stated the Commission wanted to formally allocate funds to those two projects. Ms. McNamee pointed out the list was a very detailed draft, listing the subdivisions, and dividing the City into six neighborhoods, which were basically the Downtown area, the east part of San Rafael, the San Pedro neighborhood and the east part of the Canal neighborhood, northeast San Rafael, Terra Linda Valley, and Bret Harte. She stated this was designed to give an idea of where the funds are coming from, and the number of subdivisions in each neighborhood. Ms. McNamee stated the list also shows the original subdivision fee that was approved when the Conditions of Approval were passed, the fund status, projected park project sites, recommended allocations, and the projected schedules. Ms. McNamee noted they would be looking at a Park Master Plan, which would provide a more detailed schedule. Ms. McNamee stated the Commission was asking Council to look at the park project sites, and the recommended allocations. She reported they are requesting $160,000 from Marin Lagoon for the Bernard Hoffman ballfields project, and $200,000 from Deer Valley. She acknowledged this was $10,000 more than they had discussed for the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 16 purchase price, but noted there would be some closing costs and incidentals, and they wanted to provide a little leeway. She reported they were also recommending $40 , 000 from Marin Lagoon for Freitas Park, and $50 , 000 from Deer Valley. She noted that in looking at what would be left in those two subdivisions, there would still be quite a bit of money left in the northeast San Rafael area. In addition, there are several subdivisions still proposed for that neighborhood, so there will be significant additional funds coming into that part of town. Ms. McNamee stated most of the other projects already had funds dedicated to them, such as the Bellam site, Shoreline Park, Albert Park, Boyd Park, and Montecito, noting those were all part of the 1995 plan. Mayor Boro asked for clarification of the columns in the report. Ms. McNamee reported the first column was "Fund Status", which showed the status of the funds we now have in our accounts. Mayor Boro asked if those funds were dedicated to specific sites, and Ms. McNamee stated this column only showed the amount of money in each of the accounts, and at the right side of the page the report showed what was being recommended. Councilmember Cohen stated the top line showed the source of the funds and which subdivsion pool they came from, and the bottom line summarizes the total allocation for the particular projects. Councilmember Cohen stated that when he first read this report and saw Bernard Hoffman at the top of the list with an allocation of $160,000, he had wondered whether we were allocating sufficient funds; however, he saw further in the report that this amount was also being recommended for 1998, and the proposal now before Council reflects the current belief that the City will be negotiating the outright purchase of Bernard Hoffman, and paying the full purchase price and whatever closing costs are negotiated, and not any kind of a time -pay arrangement over the next ten years. City Manager Gould reported the City Attorney's Office was able to determine that the full closing costs on this transaction would be approximately $1,500. He noted the City had originally proposed to split the closing costs with the School District; however, and given the magnitude of these costs, he felt it would be prudent to move forward with the purchase, accept the District' s offer which states the City will pay the full $1,500, and not be required to go back to the District Board for another pass. He stated staff could then bring this to Council at their next meeting. Mayor Boro felt $1,500 seemed reasonable, and asked if the sellers had been paying money toward this? Ms. McNamee reported the Developer was going to contribute $60,000 for the development of a play area at the site, and that would not be contributed toward the purchase. Mayor Boro asked if the $60,000 was in addition to the $20,000 already shown for this project, and Ms. McNamee stated this was correct. Mayor Boro recalled Council had agreed to the $20,000, only if we truly needed it. Councilmember Cohen asked if the $360,000 would be sufficient to pay all the costs associated with acquisition of the ballfields? City Manager Gould stated it would be more than sufficient. Councilmember Phillips stated he wanted to be clear regarding the $20,000, noting he did not think it had been conditioned that if the project cost $61,000, the City's portion would be $1,000. He felt it was clear the City was budgeting $20,000 with the anticipation that the play area would cost $80,000. Mayor Boro stated it was his understanding that the cost could be up to $80,000, but that we would try to do it for less. Mr. Phillips pointed out staff had not defined what this project was going to look like, and it would depend on what end we start at, and $80,000 would be the starting point, not the end result. Councilmember Cohen noted in the original approval Council had voted on the City spending "up to" $20,000, stating the City would allocate funds "as necessary" up to $20,000. He stated his concern was that if we started at $80, 000, the project would end up at $100, 000, but if we start with a $60, 000 design, then if we end up spending more than that and it's closer to $80,000, that would come out of the City's pocket. City Manager Gould stated at this time staff was suggesting Council, in essence, earmark funds, noting they were not approving projects, allocating funds, or giving staff the authority to spend those funds, noting that other than the funds Council is allocating to hire a Landscape Architect for the Freitas improvements, staff would not have the authority to go forward with these projects. However, Council would be putting a marker on these funds, and in this case, stating the City might be willing to spend up to $80,000. He pointed out that now staff had to hire the Landscape Architect, work with the community, and then come back to Council with a project which they would then approve and allocate funding for. Councilmember Phillips asked if the $60,000 was part of the Parkland Dedication and, therefore, did not show up on this? Mr. Gould stated that was correct, as that was a private contribution. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 17 Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving the Parkland Dedication Fund Annual Report and revised Schedule of Projects and Funding. RESOLUTION NO. 9952 -RESOLUTION APPROVING PARKLAND DEDICATION FUNDS ANNUAL REPORT AND ADOPTING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF PROJECTS AND FUNDING COMMITMENTS. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DEPARTMENT REPORTS: 13. DEPARTMENT REPORT - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (PW) - File 237 x 9-3-40 x 19_A Y 9nri Public Works Director Dave Bernardi gave a slide presentation of the 1982 storms and flooding in San Rafael. He reported flooding occurred in several areas of San Rafael, including Country Club; the Dominican area; Lincoln Heights, which includes a portion of Fairhills and Coleman Drives, and portions of Elizabeth Way, Hillside Avenue; and the Gerstle Park area. Mr. Bernardi reported the flooding occurred because of the intense rainfalls and coinciding high tide. He pointed out that north of Puerto Suello Hill, the majority of Terra Linda did not suffer any damage because it was designed in accordance with modern drainage design standards. He noted there was some minor flooding damage in the area of Las Gamas Road, but that was because of a hydraulic problem with Freitas Ditch. Mr. Bernardi pointed out that a lot of the flooding occurred in the interface areas with our Open Space lands, explaining the debris flow landslides occurred because we got 16 inches of rain in approximately 32 hours, and prior to that we had received quite a bit of rain, so the hillsides were saturated from the intense amount of rain in such a short time. In addition, the soils which were building up in the drainage channels for many thousands of years literally cut loose. Mr. Bernardi reported San Rafael became part of a research study done by the University of California at Berkeley, and the researchers stated that many of the canyons had cleaned themselves out to the original ancient bedrock. Therefore, in some areas we probably will never have a debris flow landslide in the bottom of the canyon because, essentially, it has cleaned itself out. Mr. Bernardi stated the other part of the problem, particularly in the Canal area, was that at the time we did not have any generators at the pump stations, so when the power went out, there was no way to pump the water over the levee, so as it continued to rain, the water just continued to build up, closing Highway 101, putting approximately 1-1/2 feet to 2 feet in the entire Canal area, and in Gerstle Park the same thing happened. He reported since that time, to eliminate these kinds of problems, the City has done quite a bit of work in the interfaces to the Open Space areas, putting in trash racks and silting basins, so as debris comes down from the Open Space lands, we have a way to remove the debris before it plugs the pipe. He recalled, fortunately for us, the debris came down so fast that it plugged the end of the pipe rather than filling the pipe, noting it would have been far more devastating to the infrastructure if the material had gotten into the pipe. Therefore, facilities have been installed to prevent debris from getting into the pipes. Mr. Bernardi reported generators have been installed at all of the key pump stations, noting the Peacock Gap pump station did not need a generator because we have an easement over the golf course, and the entire drainage area was designed so that if the pumps should fail for some reason, the golf course would be the flood plain, and we would have the ability to flood that. Mr. Bernardi stated the golf course did flood in the 1982 floods, noting that as he came over McNear Drive there was no golf course, just a huge inland lake, which did not drain off for approximately four or five days, even with the pumps running. Mr. Bernardi stated another problem was that in some areas the levees were low, so when the high tides and the rains came, the levees were over -topped, and that added to the problem, as well. Therefore, when we did have electricity, the crews were literally pumping water through the pump station and on around again, and it was a vicious circle. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 18 Mr. Bernardi noted there were quite a few problems and issues that had to be dealt with over time. Additional projects that have been completed include cleaning all of the catch basins and storm drain pipes, making sure all the wet -wells and pump stations are cleaned out, and that the pumps are running. He noted that every year they pull a pump or two and completely tear it apart. He pointed out the pumps are approximately 40 years old, and they have to be treated gently so they run when we need them. Mr. Bernardi referred to a handout regarding E1 Nino, which he had distributed, noting it was an excerpt from a report prepared by a meteorologist with the National Weather Service. Reading from the report he quoted, "Major flooding in Marin County in January 1982 was caused by an unusual weather configuration, and basically was not to be contributed to E1 Nino". Mr. Bernardi noted E1 Nino did not occur until 1983. He reported that on Friday he had attended a meeting to discuss E1 Nino, and discovered there are various factors which combine to drive the weather to us in an E1 Nino situation. He explained that as the water gets warmer in the Southern Hemisphere, it swings out into the Pacific Ocean, and that changes wind patterns, which then affects how the weather comes to us. He noted there is also a correlation between a wintertime low pressure system that sits off Alaska, and as the warm water continues further west, it draws this low pressure system further south, toward us, and as the weather comes through, this low pressure system pulls the storms in. If the low pressure system is further south, then we get more rain. If the warm water is not as far west as the 130th degree meridian line, then there is a correlation that we would get less. Mr. Bernardi pointed out the scientists are stating that as far as E1 Nino is concerned, there is approximately a 45% to 55% chance that we will get more rain than we normally do, noting we are on the cusp of the drivers, noting that as you continue further south, there is more and more rain. He stated the City will be prepared to deal with it as it comes to us, and we are prepared for the worst. Reporting on what the City is doing to prepare for E1 Nino, Mr. Bernardi stated they had sent over 900 flyers to residents in flood prone areas of the City to make sure that they are prepared, noting the City is trying to live up to the motto, "Disasters happen when you are not prepared. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst". He reported they are also providing sand and bags at key fire stations, noting he and Fire Chief Marcucci had worked out a situation where the City will be able to provide one of Joe Garborino's boxes, which will be filled with sand, and approximately 500 to 600 sand bags, and the residents can come and take as many as they need to take care of their problem. In addition, Mr. Bernardi stated the Public Works Department will also be installing the emergency generator for the Lindaro Street Pump Station, noting that generator and associated electrical switching gear will be used for the new Pump Station, which will be in use next spring. He reported they would be renting a generator for the Corporation Yard, which is the Second Street Pump Station, stating it was critical to keep that pump station operating because it keeps one of the major east/west arteries open, which is Second Street, so we need to keep that area dry. Mr. Bernardi reported staff is also meeting with various Homeowner Associations to discuss preparations, and what the homeowners can do, individually, to prepare themselves for the winter rains. He noted the next scheduled meeting will be November 20th with the Gerstle Park Homeowners Association and Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, which will be held in the Council Chamber. Mr. Bernardi stated the staff members are doing everything they can to prepare for E1 Nino, and he feels we are in pretty good shape at this point in time. Mayor Boro stated that on some of the locations that we know are problem areas, there are people we know who live there, and he felt it would be prudent if we could solicit some of these people to be our eyes and ears out there, and give them the number at the Corporation Yard to call on a 24-hour basis. Mr. Bernardi stated they have gotten to know some of the people very well, noting in the past they have called Public Works or the Corporation Yard. He stated there are procedures in place so that if there is no one at the Corporation Yard, the call will be automatically transferred to the Police Department Dispatcher, and someone from the Public Works Department will be called; therefore, they can always get someone out into the field, at the latest, within an hour of a call coming in. Mayor Boro pointed out the City had spent a considerable amount of money over the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 19 years, noting that in the area of Mountain View a million dollar project was undertaken to put in a six foot underground pipe. Mr. Bernardi confirmed that was just for the underground pipe, and pointed out another $300,000 was spent for the project up at the end of Mountain View. Mayor Boro stated the Public Works Department also continues to do improvements in the Glenwood area, and Mr. Bernardi noted the generators at each of the pump stations cost approximately $100,000 a piece. Councilmember Heller asked if this was something the City could put together in newspaper form, and print an article about how much the City has spent since 1982? She stated she sometimes felt the community did not understand where their money goes, noting a lot of it goes underground. Mr. Bernardi stated he would work on that. Referring to the floods of 1982, Councilmember Cohen recalled that on the corner of "B" Street and Albert Park Lane, at Mahon Creek, debris had floated up and gotten trapped against the fence which separates the Creek from the roadway, and it appeared to act as a dam, noting the water level was a foot higher on the roadway side of the fence than on the creek side of the fence. Mr. Cohen acknowledged there were not a lot of places for that water to go, but it appeared as though there would have been a place for some of the water to go if we could have cleared some of the debris away. He asked if that would have been possible, or if it just gets out of hand? Mr. Bernardi explained it pretty much just gets out of hand, noting they have to wait for the tide to go out, and then go in and clean-up after it. Mr. Bernardi stated there were a couple of actions which had just taken place within the past few months that he felt would address this type of issue. He reported the Redevelopment Agency had just purchased the "Wye Track" property, and explained part of the key to solving the drainage issues in the Gerstle Park area was to widen the drainage channel on the downstream end, adjacent to our Corporation Yard, and on toward Second and Hetherton Streets. He stated the first part of this project would be to acquire the right-of-way, and the second part would be to physically construct the project once funds are available. Mr. Bernardi stated this would significantly help the upstream drainage area regarding flooding and backwater. The second part of this refers to the area around First and "C" Streets, and First and "B" Streets in front of the Rec Center. He reported a number of years ago a new pipe was put in from First and "B" Streets down through the parking lot adjacent to the Albert Park field into the old Lindaro Pump Station, and the next part of this would be to build the new pump station, which will happen next spring at First and "C" Streets and First and "B" Streets, and then the lower part of Gerstle Park will have much better drainage. Therefore, within a year or so, the lower "C" Street problem will be resolved, although it will probably still flood this winter, as it has done for many years before. Mr. Bernardi stated a storm drain system was installed in preparation of the new pump station being built, so when all the pieces come together it will work just fine. Councilmember Cohen stated it appeared that we may have a problem in both directions, stating it was wonderful that we were going to have a pump station there next year, but if anything happens, apparently it is going to happen this year. He noted the Andersen Drive bridge is considerably higher than the existing roadway, and the new roadway, and while not as high as the bridge, it is higher than the existing roadway at Lindaro. He noted that when these are connected through paving, it is going to be higher than the existing Lindaro Street roadway, and the apparent effect of that, if the drainage channel under the Mahon Creek Bridge is at all impeded, is to create a dam crossing Lindaro Street at Andersen Drive. Mr. Cohen noted they had spoken previously about the impact of this on Lindaro Street, upstream from the bridge, but it appears there will also be a dam effect on this other end, as well. He stated if it contains water all the way up to Second Street, then we would have a major problem. Mr. Cohen asked if there was anything the City could do on an interim basis to provide additional pump capacity this year to address that? Mr. Bernardi stated there was not. He explained the problem with the pump station was that the wet -well, the area where all the water gathers to get sucked into the pump, is too small, and we need a larger wet -well to be able to collect the water and have sufficient size pumps. He noted it would not work to simply put a bigger pump in there, because you cannot get the water to the station fast enough. He stated part of what was going on there was the existing box culvert which goes across Lindaro Street now is high enough so that any water coming from the Davidson School area on down toward where the creek is would not get past the box culvert, it would go down Jordan Street, so the area becomes another drainage area. He stated this area was originally designed with a pipe that was basically installed for a future pump station on the Davidson School site of the box culvert, and that was put in a number of years ago and no longer works properly because the flat -gate that is there is approximately two feet below the mud level; therefore, that whole system works backwards. Mr. Bernardi stated the plan to solve this problem around Davidson School and up on Woodland toward "B" Street is the second phase of the Storm Drain Master Plan he described earlier. Indicating Irwin Street and Andersen Drive on the map, Mr. Bernardi reported they had put in a new pipe along there, and the huge big box culvert SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 20 down to the railroad tracks, near where the Shamrock Center is occurring. He noted that from this point, under the freeway and over to the Francisco Boulevard cul-de-sac would be the new system that CalTrans is going to install next year. He stated that would be the second phase, and the third phase would be to extend the storm drain system back up Jordan Street, through the Davidson School site, to pick up the drainage facilities on Lindaro. Then the storm drain system can be extended up Woodland Avenue to Warner Court, and Mariposa Road, and it would then be able to take any overflow coming down, so the water that diverts will be able to come down into the future system, and ultimately be handled by the new pump station. He reported the storm drain system would also be extended up Irwin Street to Woodland Avenue, and then up into the Bret Harte area. He pointed out the drainage system which now drains to the Rossi Pump Station, the pump station opposite RAB Motors on the other side of the freeway, and reported most of that water would be diverted to the new pump station, which is why the new pump station is of such large capacity. He stated this would create a kind of duplicate system, with the old station remaining on line, and serving as a back-up if there is a mechanical problem. Mr. Bernardi reiterated that these improvements are planned for in the future, and will be dependent on the funding we have. He stated the funds the Council has allocated toward the Run-off Fee will slowly allow us to realize some of these solutions, as time goes on. Councilmember Phillips asked how the flooding of 1982 would compare to this year, if the volume of water were the same, and what the results would be? Mr. Bernardi stated the City would probably still have local flooding; however, we would not have the extent of flooding in the Canal area as we did in 1982, as we would be able to pump all of that out. He noted that in 1982 the water could not be pumped out for a couple of days because we did not have electricity. He stated that if our pumps remain mechanically sound, and the generators work, which Mr. Bernardi stated they would, then he believed they should be able to pump that area down within hours. He explained no one could deal with 16 inches of rainfall in 32 hours, noting that was approximately the equivalent of a 200 year return frequency storm, pointing out that is an awful lot of water. Mr. Phillips asked if the conditions were expected to be as bad as they were in 1982? Mr. Bernardi stated they should not be, because they have installed a number of safeguards to prevent what happened in 1982, such as the debris catchers, and the systems are in place to have the residents call us, as well as having those areas of concern on a regular patrol schedule during the rains, so if there is a problem we can get contractors out there right away to get the debris out of there. Mr. Bernardi explained the trash racks are designed to float the material up onto the trash racks, so water can always get underneath. Councilmember Phillips noted Mr. Bernardi had made reference to past mechanical failures, and while he acknowledged there were no guarantees, he asked if Mr. Bernardi felt comfortable that they have gotten everything in place that is possible at this time? Mr. Bernardi stated he was, noting his staff has been taking the pumps out, inspecting them, and changing the bearings. City Manager Gould asked if it would be an overstatement for Mr. Bernardi to state he was more concerned about random mudslides than he is about flooding this winter? Mr. Bernardi stated that was correct, noting this had been borne out by the scientists who spoke at the meeting he attended on Friday. He reported they had talked about the saturation of the soil, and the frequency and intensity of the storms, stating if we were to get a couple of days between rain storms, then generally we would be all right because that would allow the hills to drain. However, if we were to get one storm right after the other, the scientists have stated that after nine inches of rain, that would be the time when the soil is saturated, and any additional rain could exacerbate the geology and cause slides. Mr. Bernardi stated he felt this would be our issue to deal with this winter. NEW BUSINESS: 17. UPDATE TO THE CITY'S INVESTMENT POLICY (Admin. Svcs.) - File 8-9 x 8-18 Administrative Finances Director Ken Nordhoff reported he was presenting a revision to the City's Investment Policy, noting it is required under State law, based upon legislation enacted last year. Highlighting the minor modifications that have been made, Mr. Nordhoff reported he was recommending we extend the maturity date on Repurchase Agreements from 90 days to one year, and extend Medium Term Corporation Notes, asking that the limit in the pool be increased from 25% to 30%, and that the tiered rating SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 21 structure be reduced back to a single "A" rating only. Mr. Nordhoff noted both those components are in compliance with State law; increase the pool of funds for negotiable Certificates of Deposit from 20% to 30%; and add the authority to put funds into Investment Joint Powers Authorities. He pointed out these are more restrictive than State law, are backed by Letters of Credit, and are considered very secure instruments, much like the Local Agency Investment Fund run by the State; dropping the current 40%, one-year maturity threshold. Mr. Nordhoff stated prudent management of investments and our cash would require that we study each instrument individually, look at our cash flow needs and revenue projects, and match those up and place investments with respect to when we believe expenses will occur or revenues will be received. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Nordhoff why we would want to drop the "AA" and "AAA" ratings? Mr. Nordhoff stated he has found that these are very safe securities, typically issued by large, mega -billion dollar corporations, and he was aware of very few of these that ever default, historically. He stated it was very difficult in the market place to find securities that meet the current tiered structure, noting that when we get up to three, four, and five year maturities and we are looking for "AA" or "AAA" ratings, these just do not exist. He explained there was more opportunity in place for us at the "A" level. Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Nordhoff felt there were enough substantial companies that offer investments where even though the rating is "A", the risk is minimal? Mr. Nordhoff stated the risk was minimal, noting they normally check the investment against two or three agencies, and have found anything that is "A" paper to be highly safe and very credit worthy. He pointed out he would only make those investments based on the recommendations from the people we trade with. Mr. Nordhoff acknowledged we were trading some yield for some risk, but stated we did not have many opportunities to do much with what is out on the market, given our current restrictions. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Nordhoff to explain his recommendation to abolish the 40% limit? Mr. Nordhoff stated he saw the 40% as being arbitrary, and noted he tends to look at things on more of a weighted maturity basis of all the securities. He reported we are typically running approximately a year and a half to a year and three-quarters when the entire portfolio is weighted, explaining the pooled investments are Operating Accounts, and all the various securities. Mr. Nordhoff noted circumstances change, and stated we may use up a fair amount of Capital Investments, and we know those things are coming. He felt it was a responsibility of the Treasury, which is his responsibility, to look at all these requirements and provide the City with some flexibility. Mr. Nordhoff did not believe we were compromising anything in terms of safety or liquidity. Councilmember Phillips suggested Mr. Nordhoff might consider purchasing "A" and "AAA", resulting in a weighted average of "AA" , but with a little more security with regard to the average, rather than being rated at just a single rating, and asked if that would be disruptive? Mr. Nordhoff stated it really came down to what is available in the market place. Mr. Phillips asked if it would be a hinderance? Mr. Nordhoff stated his strategy was to try to diversify the portfolio as much as we can, as this provided us with some risk diversion. He noted that when we get into raising those ratings, we very much narrow the corporate market, so we have to look at other opportunities. Mr. Phillips asked if Mr. Nordhoff had considered insured bonds? Mr. Nordhoff stated those were grouped in the "Agency" category, noting we had quite a few of those types of securities. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to accept the report as submitted. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 18. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: a. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED LAND USE/ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - File 170 x 10-2 Mayor Boro stated he had asked that this item be placed on the agenda in order to bring everyone up to date on what had transpired leading up to the document Councilmember Heller had provided, which recaps the whole issue of the Transportation/ Land Use Study Plan that has been done by the Counties of Marin and Sonoma over the past couple of years. Mayor Boro reported the County of Sonoma has conducted a poll which shows strong support for a transportation tax, noting one of the Sonoma County Supervisors SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 22 had told him they were thinking of moving ahead on this in June, rather than waiting until next November. Mayor Boro explained the plan was a multi -modal approach, not just trains or freeway widenings, but a combination of improvements to Highway 101 in Marin County, primarily the northern GAP closure, improved bus schedules, and completing the Countywide Trail Plan, and at the same time linking up with Sonoma County as far as a light rail diesel system is concerned, along the Highway 101 corridor from Healdsburg to San Rafael in the initial stages, and ultimately to Larkspur. Mayor Boro stated this was the component both Counties were looking at. Mayor Boro stated the poll is now being undertaken in Marin County, explaining approximately 500 residents would be contacted, and the results of the poll should be made available soon. Mayor Boro reported that in Marin County a twenty-three person committee has been formed. He stated he was one of the seven elected officials on the committee, which includes representatives from the conservation groups, housing advocates, property owners, and Chambers of Commerce, noting the committee had a good mix of people representing all of the disciplines and interests in the County. He reported this particular committee has spent a large amount of time on Land Use issues, even though this is a Transportation Measure, explaining the reason is that the City does not have strong support from the people in the County who are concerned about Land Use, particularly the conservation groups, who believe this Measure will fail at the ballot. One of the questions that will be asked in the poll is if they would be willing to acquire land, such as St. Vincent's/Silveira and parts of properties in Novato, for purchase, in order to eliminate or reduce the amount of transportation improvements that would be needed. Mayor Boro pointed out this was not being called "Open Space" , it was being called "Land for acquisition to prevent future growth". Mayor Boro reported that at the same time this has been going on, the Marin Conservation League, representatives of the Audubon Society, and the Sierra Club have basically presented the document which has been provided by Councilmember Heller and included in the packets as Item #18. Mayor Boro stated he would not call the document a list of demands, but noted it was a list of items that some people are interested in. He called attention to Item #2 regarding Urban Growth Boundaries, quoting, "Novato and San Rafael, which have the greatest development potential in the County, should adopt Urban Growth Boundaries, or other measures to reduce the potential for urban sprawl and to protect environmental resources and agriculture, at the existing city limits. The Novato City Council has placed a 20 year UGB measure on the November 1997 ballot. (Mayor Boro interjected that Novato has this issue on their ballot in tomorrow's election) The San Rafael City Council should adopt a general plan amendment, or have an initiative placed on the ballot, to establish similar controls before the transportation tax measure is on the ballot". Mayor Boro stated he was now presenting this to the Councilmembers so they will direct him, as the representative for San Rafael, as to how this Council reacts to that demand. He stated his personal feeling was that this was not necessary, noting the only area this would apply to is the St. Vincent's/Silveira property. He noted the City has used the type of planning the conservation groups advocate, mainly constraint planning, and we have basically stated that 70% of that land will be preserved, and 30% of the land will be developed. Mayor Boro stated the City has not changed the Zoning Ordinance, nor the General Plan, to reflect the reduction in density because, as a City, we elected not to spend any money on that, and would let the development process do that. Mayor Boro noted he tells people there is no way the 2,200 units and the 300 , 000 square feet of Commercial will exist on the land as it is now designated, with 70% of it being preserved. Councilmember Miller stated he had expressed the same position when he was interviewed by the Sierra Club, noting they recognized that he disagreed with them in terms of St. Vincent's/Silveira. Mr. Miller stated Mayor Boro was absolutely correct that there was no need for Urban Growth Boundaries in the City of San Rafael, noting we are already grown out, and the only project we are looking at is St. Vincent's/Silveira, which includes Planning process constraints that are very environmentally sound, and is something the people of our City have asked for. Mr. Miller stated he hoped Mayor Boro would go forward with the position as stated. Councilmember Heller stated that was basically the same position she had expressed when interviewed by the Sierra Club. She noted a suggestion had been made that the City place an Urban Growth Boundary around the City, but have it coincide with our Sphere of Influence. She stated she agreed with Mayor Boro 's position. Councilmember Cohen stated it was easy to figure out where we got Urban Growth Boundaries, noting if you go south you have Ross Valley, west is San Anselmo, if you go north you have Lucas Valley, and east is the water; therefore, very quickly you are left with St.Vincent's/ Silveira. Mr. Cohen stated it did SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 23 not make sense to change what has been the policy of the County and the City for many years, since 1972 when the Countywide plan was adopted, that this was going to be part of the Urban Corridor, and when it develops it is going to be annexed and be in the City' s Sphere of Influence, and planned accordingly by the City and not by the County. Councilmember Cohen stated he was concerned about Item #1 regarding the Baylands Protection Corridor. He stated he supported the concept of a Baylands Protection Corridor, as he has previously stated to members of the Marin Conservation League and the Sierra Club. However, he stated it was entirely a matter of definition, and he was not sure we were entirely in agreement as to where the line gets drawn on the map in defining the Baylands Protection Corridor. He noted what concerns him is the last line of this paragraph, which reads, "The County Board of Supervisors should adopt the plan amendment, or have it placed on the ballot as an initiative, before the transportation tax measure is on the ballot". Mr. Cohen stated it would concern him if the plan is as drafted in the Community of Marin Draft Revision, which draws that line, and when it gets back down to St. Vincent's/Silveira, it jumps all the way west to the shoulder of Highway 101. Mr. Cohen stated everyone has agreed that the lands east of the railroad tracks deserve to be protected, and he would heartily support a Bayland Protection Corridor. He believed the concept made sense, and understanding the ecology of the Baylands was one he agreed with. He stated the protection of those lands was important, including upland habitat; however, extending that definition to lands between the railroad tracks and Highway 101 was a way to back up into the development, and he did not think that was sustainable the way the other issues were. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not really know where this leaves us if these are going to become finely drawn lines. Mayor Boro stated a lot would depend on what the poll shows, noting that if the poll in Marin shows a strong support for the so-called "preferred" scenario, which is the multi -modal approach for which there is strong support, and then if the poll also shows strong support for land acquisition concurrent with the transportation, that would be fine; however, if there is a drop-off, that would be another story. Mayor Boro hoped that was what the poll would show, with the percentage of people who would support transportation and what that number is, and then what percentage would also support additional monies for land acquisition, and what that number is. He believed this would be how it plays out. Mayor Boro stated it was important that the City take a position on the parcel that people seem to covet the most, the St. Vincent's/Silveira piece. He reported he had been representing the position he stated earlier. Councilmember Phillips stated he felt the City's position had been covered very well. Referring to Urban Growth Boundaries, he noted he wanted to see what happens in Novato and think about it a little more. Mayor Boro stated he expected the ballot measure in Novato would pass in tomorrow' s election, noting their Council had endorsed it. However, he pointed out the issue up there is a lot different than here, noting as Councilmember Cohen had pointed out, we are pretty constrained on all four points, except for St. Vincent's/Silveira, while in Novato they can grow on just about three of the four points of the map, and they have a lot of unincorporated land they could seek, and this will put a limit on that. Mayor Boro noted that based on the nature of their physical lay -out, Novato has quite a bit of land within its city's boundaries they can develop. Councilmember Cohen stated City might want to take a look at this issue, from a couple of points. One is if it included the Sphere of Influence, or even a significant portion of the Sphere of Influence, which they have all agreed they want to retain planning for within the City's jurisdiction. Mr. Cohen stated there might be an opportunity to address some other issues, some of which are already coming to resolution, such as the Smith Ranch Airport. He felt there might be a way to put more constraints on development of properties where, by Policy and by General Plan, the City has already agreed there should be constraints on development. He stated people still do not seem quite convinced of the City' s good intent. He noted there might also be an opportunity to look at this in a different way in terms of Growth Boundaries, not so much in terms of growth in development, but growth of the City Limit. Mr. Cohen stated there was a persistent notion that the City covets Lucas Valley or Marinwood, and while he did not see any reason why the City would want to pursue that, he noted it might be an Urban Growth Boundary that clearly delineated current City borders, and perhaps the City needs to state in writing that we are not interested in the annexation of areas like that, which are currently in the County, and are contiguous to the City, or any portions surrounded by the City unless it really makes sense. He suggested perhaps we should pursue this, to state that anything like that would have to be an extraordinary measure, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 24 and a vote of the people to undo this Urban Growth Boundary before annexation could even be considered. He noted there might be some ways in which some type of Urban Growth Boundary could address a couple of these issues, and might be something the City would want to explore. He stated that from a Planning perspective, it would probably make the most sense to do it as part of a General Plan revision. From a political perspective, as these things happen more and more frequently in surrounding communities, Mr. Cohen felt it might behoove the Council to get a little bit ahead of the curve on this, and look at doing ourselves what was done by the Council in Novato, who put this on the ballot and, therefore, were able to cast it in a way that they were comfortable with. Councilmember Cohen stated that if there was going to be an Urban Growth Boundary in San Rafael, and one could make an argument that there are some benefits to it, then perhaps the Council should pursue this. Referring to the Smith Ranch Airport, Mayor Boro reported this had originally been on a list for acquisition as part of this poll, but it has been dropped on the pretense and under the information that we have fought the court case, and that land will be preserved for Recreation and Open Space Use. Mayor Boro stated he further represented that when the City updates its General Plan we would reflect that, so they have let loose of that site. As far as the comments concerning County areas, Mayor Boro noted he would like to get more clarification. He stated it was his understanding that the Urban Growth Boundaries had to do with undeveloped land, not developed land, and noted this would be a good issue to look at as far as areas such as Marinwood and Lucas Valley. He stated his main concern was that starting this Thursday night, he needs to make some representation as to the City' s position, and noted that, basically, the issue is St. Vincent's/Silveira. He asked if he was correct that the other Councilmembers were supporting the City wanting to sustain the position that the development be under the City, and that it not be put up to any kind of vote as to whether or not development should happen there, and that this would go through our Planning process when an application is made? Councilmember Cohen believed this was the best chance we were going to have in quite a while to get transportation improvements, and he hoped that somehow all parties would try to find a way to get there. However, if we are not able to do that, he stated he would have very real concerns about bargaining away the carefully crafted position the City has developed inplanning for the future of St. Vincent's/Silveira. Mayor Boro stated he would never advocate that, because he believed that when reasonable people hear what the City plans for St. Vincent's/Silveira, with 70% of the land being protected, they would think developing 30%, while preserving the View Corridor, preserving the wetlands east of the railroad tracks, and preserving the hillside, was not an unreasonable thing to do while providing for some housing. Mayor Boro stated he considered this an attempt to circumvent the City' s General Plan, noting there were people who would tell all of us that they do not want St. Vincent's/Silveira planned by the City, they want it planned by the County, and that is the key cornerstone of this whole thing. He stated that was why the Urban Boundary was not acceptable to him, because it violates that tenant. Mayor Boro pointed out the meeting this week was not going to be the end of the line, and he asked City Manager Gould and Community Development Director Leiter to put something together that generally outlines the City's position on this, and addresses the fact that perhaps a look at Urban Growth Boundary from a position beyond St. Vincent's/Silveira would be something the City would be willing to discuss. However, as far as St. Vincent's/Silveira, he asked that they restate what our policy is, and restate the fact that we have eased Constraint Planning, and have protected 70% of that land. Mr. Cohen stated perhaps we should take a look at Urban Growth Boundary at the railroad track, and state that east of there is not going to be annexed into the City, noting he felt the City could support Urban Growth Boundary along that line, as long as it is the land between Highway 101 and the railroad tracks that gets planned in the City's process. Mr. Cohen stated he did not support development east of the railroad tracks, but acknowledged there are still people who are not entirely comfortable with the notion that we are going to end up with that being the hard line. He felt some of these might be methods to achieve that end. Mayor Boro pointed out that the position these people are advocating on St. Vincent's/Silveira is that nothing happen there. He stated that is the position the City needed to come from, noting it was not a matter of moving the line around, it was a matter of moving all the way to the freeway. He stated the Resolution of Intention passed by the Council specifically delineated the policy of the Council. As far as the View Corridor, the City has protected the View Corridor, which is another key issue; we have protected the land east of the railroad tracks; we have protected the hillside; and we have also protected any wetlands west of the railroad tracks. Therefore, he felt we had done everything we could, everything but state we would not build anything there. Councilmember Heller referred to funds for Land Acquisition, and asked if there SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 25 had been any mention of funds for upkeep of this land that we acquire. Mayor Boro stated there had not. He noted what had been mentioned, although he did not feel it was strong enough and hoped the voters would be smart enough to address it, was that one of the questions to the voters be whether they would be willing to set aside, over and above the half -cent, some monies for local road improvements. He explained the intent was the concept of the local set-aside, because there are many communities to the south and the west who do not see any real benefit to this transportation tax, although they do have roads that needs to be improved. So the concept all along has been a half -cent for transportation, and a quarter -cent for local road improvements. Additionally, they would be asked if they would be willing to spend some money on Open Space or Land Preservation. He explained this was how the poll was headed. Ms. Heller asked if Sonoma had gotten into any of these factors? Mayor Boro stated they had not. He noted they are intensifying the density there in order to deal with the transportation concept. Mayor Boro stated, based on tonight's discussion, he would represent that the City stands by the Resolution of Intention on St. Vincent's/Silveira, and that we have no plans at this point to endorse an Urban Growth Boundary concept, at least as it is presented in Item #3. He stated the City may be willing at some future point to look at that for other applications, but that would be something to be discussed in the future. FEE SCHEDULE FOR FALSE ALARMS - File 9-10-2 x 9-3-20 x 9-3-30 John Sowden, resident of San Rafael, presented spread sheets he had prepared comparing the new fees for false alarms with the old fees, which indicate the cost and the revenue to the City. He felt the reason the number of false alarms was so high was because the old Ordinance had not been enforced, and suggested two false alarms per year should be something the residents' taxes should pay for. Mayor Boro stated the new Ordinance had already been passed by the Council, noting it was not enacted to generate funds, it was enacted because the Police Department was having to allocate too much Police time to false alarms. Mayor Boro stated this issue was actually a relationship between the subscriber and the alarm company, not the subscriber and the City. Mayor Boro stated Mr. Sowden's information presented would be used when the Ordinance and fee schedule are reviewed after a year. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1997 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/3/97 Page 25