HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1997-06-16SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1997 AT 8:10
PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Absent: Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items.
CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM
1. 0 Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(b): One Case.
• Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Negotiators: Daryl Chandler/Suzanne Golt/Kenneth Nordhoff
Mayor Boro announced no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:10 PM
REASSIGNMENT OF POLICE DEPARTMENT'S JUVENILE OFFICER - File 9-3-30 (Verbal)
Claire Ann O'Neill, resident of San Rafael, urged Council to keep Police Corporal
Harry Barbier as the Department's Juvenile Officer, citing his wonderful work with
the youth of San Rafael. Ms. O'Neill stated she did not believe this should be
a rotating position, but if that was necessary, she felt there should be a training
period of at least six months before another Officer is reassigned to the position.
Mayor Boro thanked Ms. O'Neill for recognizing Corporal Barbier. He stated the
policy of rotating this position was set by the Police Department, and noted he
would relate Ms. O'Neill's request to Police Chief Sanchez.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN CONTEMPO MARIN MOBILE PARK - File 13-7-1 x 13-16 (Verbal)
Coleman Persily, resident of Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park, noted a few years ago
the City Council enacted an Ordinance to protect the residents of Contempo Marin
Mobilehome Park from unfair rental increases, while making sure the park owner
received a fair return on his investment. He noted the main reason for passing
the Ordinance was to maintain affordable housing in mobilehome parks, stating at
the last arbitration meeting the residents found that the park owner's profit margin
was well above the average profit margin for mobilehome parks. He stated the
residents have been threatened with a hefty increase due to Capital Improvements,
and they would like to propose amending the Ordinance as follows: 1) downsize the
annual CPI increase, as the net operating income is well above average; and 2) amend
the Ordinance to require 51% of the spaces in the mobile- home park to agree with
Capital Improvements before the cost can be passed on to the residents. Mr. Persily
asked Council to direct the City Attorney to review these requests for consideration,
and after review, set this proposal on a future agenda for discussion. Mayor Boro
referred this item to the City Attorney, who scheduled this item to be placed on
the Agenda at the City Council meeting of August 18, 1997.
P.G.& E. SITE IN SAN RAFAEL MEADOWS AREA - File 238 x 9-3-17 x 10-2 (Verbal)
Jay Morse, resident of San Rafael Meadows, reported a group of residents from the
San Rafael Meadows and Los Ranchitos Homeowners Associations had requested a
community meeting with the Land Use sub -committee, where they could ask questions
about the impending changes at the P.G.&E. site, and receive information that would
allow them to provide input into the process in an informed manner. He stated the
Associations have taken steps to put such a meeting together, securing a room for
the meeting, and FAX'd their agenda for the meeting to the Planning Department.
Mr. Morse stated they subsequently learned the meeting which was going to go forward
from the Planning Department standpoint would be meeting of the Vision process,
not a meeting of the community and the Planning Department, as the Associations
had asked. Mr. Morse asked that the original meeting requested by the residents
go forward, and that Council direct the Planning Department to work with them in
crafting a common agenda for a joint meeting that will begin by allowing the residents
to ask questions about the P.G.& E. site, provide input and express their concerns,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 2
and give them information about how the Vision process would work, which would then
enable the residents to provide informed feedback.
After discussion by Planning Director Pendoley about their process, Mayor Boro noted
the difference in the approach described by the residents and the Planning Department,
and suggested crafting a meeting that would basically come from the community, and
at the same time provide background on the Vision process. He pointed out the purpose
of the meeting was for the residents to ask questions, the Planning Department and
Vision committee to respond, and then perhaps break into work groups. Planning
Director Pendoley stated he would contact Mr. Morse in the morning to discuss the
meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the following
Consent Calendar items:
1*0:40 0DWQ0101:4ZU0:UiALoy0119]zI
2. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Budget Approved as submitted.
Hearings of Thursday, June 20, 1996 and
Monday, June 24, 1996, and Regular Meeting
of Monday, May 19, 1997 (CC) - File 8-5
3. Resolutions Re: Election Matters - General
Municipal Election - November 4, 1997: (CC)
- Fila 9-d
a. Resolution of the City Council: RESOLUTION NO. 9861 -
1) Proposing a General Municipal Election, RESOLUTION 1) PROPOSING A
Including the San Rafael Elementary GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION,
School District and the San Rafael INCLUDING THE SAN RAFAEL
High School District; ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
2) Requesting the Board of Supervisors to AND THE SAN RAFAEL HIGH
Consolidate With Any Other Election SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL
Conducted on the Same Date; ELECTION; 2) REQUESTING THE
3) Requesting Election Services by the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO
County Clerk. CONSOLIDATE WITH ANY OTHER ELECTION CONDUCTED
ON THE SAME DATE; 3) REQUESTING ELECTION SERVICES BY THE COUNTY CLERK.
b) Resolution Reaffirming Policy Regarding RESOLUTION NO. 9862 -
Number of Words in Candidate's Statement RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE
of Qualifications and Providing that the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
Cost of Printing and Handling of Candidate's THE COUNTY OF MARIN TO PERMIT
Statement of Qualifications Shall Be Borne THE COUNTY CLERK TO
By the Candidate and Paid For at the Time CONSOLIDATE PRECINCTS AND
Nomination Papers are Filed. POLLING PLACES RELATING TO THE SAN
RAFAEL GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION.
C) Resolution Requesting the Board of RESOLUTION NO. 9863 -
Supervisors of the County of Marin to RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING POLICY
Permit the County Clerk to Consolidate REGARDING NUMBER OF WORDS IN
Precincts and Polling Places Relating to CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT OF
the San Rafael General Municipal Election. QUALIFICATIONS, AND PROVIDING THAT THE
COST OF PRINTING AND HANDLING OF CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS SHALL
BE BORNE BY THE CANDIDATE AND PAID FOR AT THE TIME NOMINATION PAPERS ARE FILED
(Estimates: $330.00 - City Council Candidate and $390.00 - Board of Education
Candidate).
4. Reappointment of Dr. Dan Beittel to Fill One Approved staff
recommendation
Three-year Term on the Marin Commission on to reappoint Dr. Dan Beittel
Aging, Term to Expire End of June, 2000 (CC) to fill one three-year term
on
- File 199 the Marin Commission on Aging,
term to expire end of June, 2000.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
5. Call for Applications to Fill Seven (7)
Approved staff
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 3
recommendation:
Positions on the Budget Oversight Committee (CC) a) Called for applications
to
- File 9-2-48 fill seven positions on the Budget
Oversight Committee, and set deadline for filing applications Tuesday, July
8, 1997 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, b) Set date for interviews
of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, July
21, 1997, commencing at 6:00 PM, to fill three, one-year terms to the end of
July, 1998; two, two-year terms to the end of July, 1999; and two, three-year
terms to the end of July, 2000. Thereafter, as terms expire, subsequent terms
will be for three years.
6. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) Approved staff
- File 9-1 recommendations: AB 107
(Ducheny), Fines & Forfeitures: SUPPORT; AB 1223 (Strom -Martin),
Fingerprinting, Park & Recreation Fees: SUPPORT; SB 130 (Thompson), Fines
& Forfeitures: SUPPORT; AB 297 (Vincent): Smoking & Tobacco Control: OPPOSE.
RESOLUTION NO. 9864 - RESOLUTION OPPOSING GOVERNMENT COST SAVINGS AND TAXPAYER
PROTECTION AMENDMENT.
7. Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Contract RESOLUTION NO. 9865 -
from July 1, 1997 Through June 30, 1998 for RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Excess Workers' Compensation Insurance With CITY MANAGER TO CONTRACT
FROM
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company JULY 1, 1997 THROUGH JUNE 30,
Through Johnson & Higgins (CM) 1998 FOR EXCESS WORKERS'
- File 7-1-31 x 9-6-3 COMPENSATION INSURANCE WITH
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY THROUGH JOHNSON & HIGGINS.
8. Monthly Investment Report (Admin. Svcs.)
- File 8-18 x 8-9
9. Resolution Renewing Contract with DMG &
removed
Associates (David M. Griffith) to Process
State Mandated Cost Reimbursement Applications
(Current Contract From July 1, 1996 Through
June 30, 1997) (Admin. Svcs.)
11. Resolution Approving Two 1997-98 Latchkey
Agreements With State of California,
Department of Education (Rec) - File 4-10-238
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
a. GPRE-7132 State Preschool Contract
GPRE-7132
Accepted report.
This item has been
from the Agenda.
RESOLUTION NO. 9866 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
SIGNING OF STATE OF
CHILD CARE CONTRACTS
Renewal for $62,343. FOR $62,343 (STATE PRESCHOOL
b. GLTK-7049 Scholarship Funds for Child RENEWAL), AND GLTK-7049
Care Services of $82,635. FOR $82,635 (LATCHKEY RENEWAL).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Miller (from the minutes of the Special Joint Budget
Hearing of Thursday, June 20, 1996, as he was not a Councilmember) ; Cohen (from
the minutes of June 2, 1997, through item #12 only, due to absence from that
portion of meeting).
The following item was removed from the Agenda for discussion:
10. REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT RE: TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION
ON "D" STREET AT BAYVIEW STREET TO REPUBLIC ELECTRIC, PROJECT No. 006-4069-8000
(PW)
- File 4-1-490
Councilmember Cohen asked for the timeline on these improvements. Public Works
Director David Bernardi reported the longest lead time would be for ordering
the poles and mast arms, which would take ten to twelve weeks for delivery,
noting the contractor was already looking for somewhere to obtain them quicker.
Mr. Bernardi stated the goal was to have the signal in operation before school
starts.
Mr. Bernardi reported there would also be signage on Antoinette Avenue, and truck
limitation signs throughout the neighborhood, noting these would be going in
concurrently with the installation of the traffic signal. Mr. Cohen asked
if this could be done sooner, so the neighborhood could see that action was
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 4
being taken? Mr. Bernardi stated the signs could be put in place ahead of
time.
Councilmember Miller noted several of the neighbors along "D" Street had told him
that the traffic speed seems to be picking up again, and suggested the Police
Department may want to look at that.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution
approving the award of contract for installation of a traffic signal on "D"
Street at Bayview Street to Republic Electric.
RESOLUTION NO. 9867 -RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION
ON "D" STREET AT BAYVIEW STREET TO REPUBLIC ELECTRIC (Lowest Responsible
Bidder).
AYES: COUNCIL ERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
12. INTRODUCTION OF CINDY MOSSER, ACCOUNTANT (Admin. Svcs.) - File 9-3-20
Administrative Services Director Ken Nordhoff reported Ms. Mosser was unable to
attend the meeting, and this item was held over to the meeting of 7/7/97.
13. SPECIAL PRESENTATION RE: T.OGETHER A.GAINST G.RAFFITI'S SAN RAFAEL MURAL
PROJECT
- File 13-9
Kevin Blum, one of the three partners of T.ogether A.gainst G.raffiti, reported
that in the past year, in conjunction with the City of San Rafael, they have
sponsored two Downtown San Rafael clean-up days involving approximately 300
high school students from throughout Marin County, noting the goal had been
for them to remove as much graffiti as they could, and preserve the beauty
of Marin. Mr. Blum stated they now wanted to move in another direction, which
was to contribute to the beauty of Marin.
Enrico Abruzzo, partner of T.ogether A.gainst G.raffiti, stated no one likes
graffiti, although no one hates it more than he and his partners, which is
why they began their organization eighteen months ago. He reported since that
time they have raised over $10,000, which they hope to use in their mural
projects, noting they would like to do a mural each year for the next three
years. Mr. Abruzzo stated their first mural project was proposed for the corner
of Irwin and Het ton Streets, at Third Street, underneath the freeway at
the CalTrans right-of-way project, where they would do a sunflower garden mural
on the retrofitting poles that hold up the freeway. He noted the project would
cost approximately $5,000, stating the money comes out of their own pockets,
and there would be no cost to the City. He stated the money was not really
an issue, pointing out that for their first graffiti clean-up day they raised
over $5,000 in money, materials, and supplies in only a week.
Mr. Abruzzo stated they would be presenting their plan to CalTrans next month, and
were looking for the City's approval this evening.
Deon Abruzzo, third partner of the organization, stated graffiti was everyone's
problem, and the reason they were doing the mural was not just as a gift to
the City of San Rafael, but also because they believed today's youth did not
have high enough self-esteem, and by doing a mural project like this they would
be taking twenty high school students from across the County and giving them
a stake in their own community. He noted that by giving them a mural to work
on, every time one of these students or young people drives past the mural
they can point to it as something they have accomplished.
Alexandra Sutton, displayed a sketch of the design proposed for the mural, noting
they wanted to do a design that was more advanced and promoted a family theme.
Mayor Boro noted there was a freeway overpass in Richmond that was done with
a mural, and it was quite attractive. He stated people do respect the murals,
noting not only is it a good process for the people who are involved in the
project, but it also appears as though those sites do not get tagged with
graffiti, so it accomplishes a lot of things. Mayor Boro noted this would
be a nice, bright entry into San Rafael.
Councilmember Cohen stated he was constantly amazed at the energy people come up
with and put into our community, noting it was very much appreciated. He asked
if it was appropriate for the Council to take action endorsing this project
if they are going to go to CalTrans for approval? Mayor Boro stated Council
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 5
was only being asked to express whether or not they liked the concept, noting
the Public Works Department would work with CalTrans, and then they would come
through the City process. Mr. Bernardi stated that was correct, and if Council
so directed, the City would give T.ogether A.gainst G.raffiti a letter of
introduction, informing CalTrans the Council, in concept, supports the work,
and that we request their consideration of it, pending any City approvals.
Enrico Abruzzo stated all CalTrans wanted was a letter stating Council approves
of the idea, noting CalTrans could approve the project without a letter from
the City, but it would smooth out the process and could save up to three months
of red tape.
Mr. Abruzzo thanked his mother, Toni Abruzzo, for her support, noting she had
Mr
contributed an office, FAX machine, computers, and money to the organization,
as well as her time and support. He stated without her their organization
probably would not be standing before the Council.
Abruzzo thanked the City for this opportunity, stating they would start as soon
as possible, noting they have the money, the artists, and the design, and also
the vision and passion to go forward with the project.
Mayor Boro clarified that T.ogether A.gainst G.raffiti would obtain their approval
from CalTrans, and then make the proper applications to the City, noting there
was also a request that the City's application fee be waived.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, that Council support
this project in every manner and means it possibly can to bring it forward,
and to waive the application fee.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
PUBLIC HEARING:
14. Public Hearing - NEGATIVE DECLARATION; ZONING CHANGE TO AMEND THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) ZONING DISTRICT FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD), ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, USE PERMIT,
AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 49 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS (5 OF
THE 49 UNITS ARE PROPOSED AS BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS) OFF OF SCETTRINI DRIVE;
APN 180-124-02; R. SCETTRINI, OWNER; DAVID SCHEMEL, REPRESENTATIVE (Vista
Marin) (P1) 5-1-332 X 10-3 X 10-5 X 10-7
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report.
Planing Director Pendoley suggested that after asking questions and receiving
testimony, Council then first address the issue of the Negative Declaration,
indicating whether they wish to ask staff to proceed with preparing a Negative
Declaration, or whether it is their determination not to accept the Negative
Declaration, and to require an EIR (Environmental Impact Report). Mr. Pendoley
stated if Council decided they wanted an EIR, then they would have to stop
the proceedings so staff could begin the EIR. However, if Council does
determine to proceed with a Negative Declaration, then they would move on to
hear the merits. Chantry Bell, Associate Planner, stated the applications
before Council were for a forty-nine unit single-family subdivision known as
Vista Marin. She explained forty-four units would be detached, and five would
be attached Below Market Rate (BMR) units. She reported the site was a 52
acre parcel located at the end of Scettrini Drive, behind the existing Gables
development.
Ms. Bell reported portions of the site are environmentally sensitive, noting a
seasonal wetland is located at the eastern boundary of the property, between
the Gables Subdivision and the proposed development. She noted there are
numerous geotechnical slide areas on the property, stating in particular there
are three slides on the western hillside of the property, above lots #13 through
#25. She reported this area was sensitive because of geotechnical issues,
as well as its visual sensitivity.
She stated that because this site was known to house environmentally sensitive areas,
staff recommended the applicant prepare a geotechnical report, biological
survey, arborist report, wetlands determination report, an archeological
report, and a hydrology study so the subdivision design would respond to all
the environmentally sensitive portions of the site.
Ms. Bell stated the oak woodland on the property consists of approximately 1,300
trees, including some Valley Oak trees, noting this was important as it serves
as habitat to resident on-site animals, as well as animals who use the adjacent
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 6
wetland area. She also noted the view impacts were important, as seen from
Highway 101 and the surrounding development, and there was also an archeological
site on the property in the form of an Indian midden. The project has been
designed to respect all these environmental constraints, and the potential
adverse environmental impacts have either been eliminated or reduced to a level
of insignificance.
Ms. Bell reported that when the applications were submitted to the City there were
fifty-four lots, including five Below Market Rate units. The Design Review
Board reviewed this project at four meetings, and given the size of the project
development and the visually significant location of the site, staff did an
extensive notification for all these meetings. She noted residents and owners
of the Gables development participated in these meetings, and a Planning
Consultant was also hired by the homeowners to assist them in their review
of the project.
Ms. Bell stated the project was significantly modified by the Design Review Board
in several locations of the site plan, noting five lots were eliminated from
the subdivision design, various setbacks were incorporated to reduce the overall
mass of the project, and the Below Market Rate units were relocated to also
break-up the massing of the upper row of units. She stated additional
landscaping was incorporated to the sides of the homes, as well as in the buffer
area adjacent to the wetland area, and a children's play area, a trail access
point, and additional common open space areas were also incorporated into the
landscape plans at the direction of the Design Review Board, to provide
additional recreational space. Ms. Bell reported the residents of the Gables
were very concerned about privacy between the two developments, so additional
landscaping was added in the area of the wetlands, along with a requirement
that the rear property lines for the downslope lots have a six foot high solid
fence.
Ms. Bell stated the Design Review Board wanted additional parking for the site,
which was added in the parking bay locations, and also requested a pedestrian
crossing. She reported the last issue the Design Review Board looked at was
the slide repair area above Lots #13 through #25, noting this area was redesigned
to be recontoured with round benches to make the slopes look more natural.
Ms. Bell reported the Planning Commission also reviewed this project at four meetings.
The first three meetings focused on the environmental issues of the project
and the Negative Declaration before them. The first main issue was tree
impacts, specifically the preservation of the two Valley Oak trees located
within the cul-de-sac area of the site plan. She noted the ArboristIsreport
for the project concluded that these trees might not survive in the future,
due to the grading plan. She reported the Planning Commission concluded the
potential long-term impacts of the loss of these two oak trees did not constitute
a significant impact, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act.
Ms. Bell stated the Planning Commission next looked at the visual impacts
of the project, focusing specifically on the slide repair area above Lots #13
through #25, reporting the original grading plan showed v -ditches around the
perimeter of the slide area, and three benches within the grading area. Based
on the Planning Commission's recommendation, this grading plan was modified
to eliminate the v -ditches and the benches.
Ms. Bell stated the Planning Commission also directed staff to hire a consultant
to prepare computer enhanced drawings of the project, which were taken from
two different perspectives, one from Highway 101, and another from the Veterans
Memorial Hall. She noted the Planning Commission concluded, based on their
visual analysis, that the impacts had been reduced to a level of insignificance,
either through project Conditions of Approval, or through the redesign of the
project.
Ms. Bell reported the last environmental issue the Planning Department looked at
was the issue at the cul-de-sac area between Lots #32 through #35. She stated
the General Plan requires a minimum building setback of 50 feet, with a maximum
of 100 feet, and noted there was an encroachment with fencing and landscaping
at Lots #32 through #35, with a minimum building setback of 50 feet in this
area. Ms. Bell reported the Planning Commission looked at this issue and
recommended the rear lot line of Lot #33 be relocated, to be in alignment with
the rear property lines of Lots #32, #34, and #35, pointing out the Tentative
Subdivision Map in the staff report did not reflect this change.
Ms. Bell reported the Planning Commission also reviewed design issues, primarily
the issue of the preservation of the two Valley Oak trees within the cul-de-sac
area, noting the Commission directed the applicant to prepare alternative
subdivision designs, so they could assess the development's impact on the trees,
and the applicant responded by re -aligning the roadway and modifying the grading
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 7
plan so the roadway and grading were outside the drip line of these trees.
Ms. Bell reported the project Arborist reviewed this proposal and recommended
that there would be an excellent preservation scenario for both these trees.
Councilmember Cohen asked if, despite the adjustment, there was any encroachment
into the 50 foot setback at this point? Ms. Bell reported there was a slight
encroachment on Lots #32 through #35. She clarified that the encroachment
was not building structure, but rather landscape improvements and fence
placement. Mr. Cohen asked what the setback was for the fence? Ms. Bell
referred the question to the applicant, to be answered during his presentation
to the Council.
Mayor Boro asked Ms. Bell to clarify the issue of independent verification of the
analysis, which was referred to in the staff report. Ms. Bell explained this
issue had been brought up at all the Planning Commission meetings, noting that
in the Planning Department' s staff report of April 15th they had itemized each
section of the Negative Declaration, to show how the independent analysis was
done. She reported the traffic study for the project was reviewed by the City's
Traffic Engineer; the City's Public Works Department reviewed the Geotechnical
information, as well as the City's Geotechnical Review Board, which is required
by the City's General Plan; and a Wetlands Determination was made by LSA
Associates, using definition of the Army Corps of Engineers' standards.
Planning Director Pendoley noted the visual analysis was done under the Planning
Department's direction, and was paid for by the applicant, and pointed out
the ArboristIsreport was not independently evaluated, except by the Landscape
Architect on the Design Review Board, who did review it for consistency with
the City's Hillside Design Guidelines, which have very specific standards for
tree preservation.
David Schemel, representative for Vista Marin, LLC, stated the plan that has been
developed is for 49 single family homes, including five Below Market Rate homes,
and noting the proposal was for planned development, which would include
forty-five acres of dedicated Open Space. He stated the project has been
reviewed and received unanimous approval by San Rafael's Design Review Board
on November 6, 1996. Mr. Schemel pointed out the Design Review process included
four meetings over a five month period, and once that process was completed
they went on to the Planning Commission, who deliberated over the project for
three months, through another four meetings, and also voted unanimous approval
on March 13, 1997. He noted, based on the reviews by the Planning Department
staff, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission, Vista Marin is compatible
with the site, including the wetlands protection, project massing, visuals,
and site grading, as well as the General Plan Design Policies, City Zoning
Ordinances, Design Standards, and the City's Hillside Design Guidelines.
Mr. Schemel stated the project was sensitive to the wetlands area, maintaining an
average of 90 feet from home structures to the edge of the wetlands, and it
preserves approximately 1,328 trees, untouched, through its dedication of
forty-five acres of Open Space, noting a "tree inventory" was included with
the staff report. In addition, he reported Vista Marin was going to
extraordinary lengths to preserve the five oak trees located within the
boundaries of the development, pointing out the tree preservation has been
accomplished by excluding grading, trenching, and other improvements from the
drip line of all these trees. Mr. Schemel noted that as a result of this design,
and their efforts to preserve the trees, John Mazur, consultant with
Horticultural Associates, had stated long-term health, vigor, structural
stability, and general tree integrity would not be affected to any degree which
would threaten the longevity of these trees. Mr. Schemel stated that in
addition to the forty-five acres of Open Space, they are also providing three
recreational areas on the site, in the form of two passive parks and a "tot
lot", many landscaped areas, and secondary access to the Open Space.
Mr. Schemel reported two independent studies of project massing and visuals have
been completed, noting one by Tom Telfer was hand drawn to scale and showed
the project from two different angles, and another, which was produced by the
City, was a photo montage done by the computer.
Referring to the site grade, Mr. Schemel stated this was a balanced site, and there
were no plans for the import or export of any soil, and grading is minimized
by the use of a split level street, application of the City's Hillside standards,
and the use of multi-level, sub -slope, and down-slope homes. In addition,
Mr. Schemel reported the project had completed the following studies: Botanical
and Wetland Survey, Wetlands Mapping Study, Geotechnical Reconnaissance Report,
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study, Hydrologic Analysis of Runoff in the Wetlands
Area, an Arbor Study, Tree Preservation and Tree Inventory, Archeological
Reconnaissance Report, and a Traffic Study. He noted the plans also include
Elevations and Floor Plans for six
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 8
separate unit types, landscaping plans, natural features maps, a site map, a
preliminary grading plan, an erosion control plan, a geotechnical mitigation
plan, a typical plot plan, and site cross-sections.
Mr
Schemel stated they had endeavored to maintain a relationship with the neighbors,
initiating an outreach program, and initiating contact with all the neighbors,
including the Gables Homeowners Association, the Developer of the second phase
of the Gables, the Marin Lagoon Homeowners Association, Civic Center Partners,
the Unitarian Church, the Oak Top Apartments, and the Marin Conservation League.
He reported they had contacted all of these people early on in the development,
in order to get their input and to have smooth running through this process.
In addition, they held a neighborhood meeting, to which they mailed out over
200 invitations to the neighbors.
Mr. Schemel stated as a result of their efforts to work with the neighbors, as well
as the unanimous approval arrived at by the Design Review Board and the Planning
Commission, they respectfully requested Council's approval of this project.
Responding to the issue of Lots #32 through #35 and the wetlands, Mr. Schemel stated
there are no structures within the fifty foot setback, noting this is landscaping
and a fence area, and pointing out this was also an area where they were going
to do wetlands repair work. He noted that over the years there has been some
construction, and dirt had been mounded there; however, they are going to
reconnect the two wetlands, so there will be a regular natural wetland as there
was before.
Mr. Schemel stated the edge of the houses from the fence to the wetland averages
forty-seven feet, ranging from a closeness of thirty feet to sixty-five feet.
Mayor Boro asked for clarification, and Mr. Schemel reported that on Lot #32 ,
which is the closest lot, the westernmost portion of the lot comes as close
as thirty feet from the closest point from the fenceline to the wetland. He
noted the wetland dips down, and from mid -point it is approximately sixty feet
to the fence. Mayor Boro asked about the structure on this lot? Mr. Schemel
stated the structure was well beyond the fifty feet, and he was only referring
to the fence. Mr. Schemel noted the distance came within thirty-five feet
on Lot #34 , closest to the west end, but was over eighty feet on another portion
of the lot. Planning Director Pendoley reported they had gone back and forth
in negotiating this point, and staff felt very satisfied with the line as it
is proposed. He noted the Planning Commission routinely does allow fences
within the setbacks, often as part of a wetlands protection program, and he
pointed out Mr. Schemel's project would provide a net increase in wetlands,
as well as repairing wetlands that were damaged many years ago by previous
activities connected with the original road creation. Mr. Pendoley stated
he believed there was more than a fair trade in terms of protecting the wetlands.
John Mazur, Consulting Arborist representing Horticultural Associates, reported
he had been the Project Arborist on this project since 1991, and had followed
it through several different iterations. He stated he had conducted an
inventory of all the trees in the Open Space, reporting there were 1,328 trees .
He noted he had also looked in very close detail at the nine trees in the
immediate area of the development, and of those nine trees, five are being
very well preserved. He stated that through a series of changes and road
modifications, the development is now outside the drip line of all trees, and
that was considered the standard of tree protection in his industry.
Mr. Mazur acknowledged there apparently was still some controversy as to whether
that was adequate protection, noting he had received letters stating concerns
as to whether the grading would impact the trees, and Mr. Mazur reported all
grading is now located outside the drip line. He stated there were concerns
about soil compaction, but pointed out that because there is no grading, there
will be no activity within the drip lines, so there will be no soil compaction,
and that area will remain in its native condition. He reported there was also
some concern about a change in the drainage pattern from uphill water, but
stated this was a very minor concern, and does not threaten the health of the
trees. Addressing the concern of trenching within the root zones of the trees,
Mr. Mazur reiterated all activities were scheduled for outside the drip line.
Mr. Mazur referred to a document put out by the University of California Berkeley,
"Living Among the Oaks", which states, "In general, do not fill within the
drip zone of the tree", "Use retaining walls outside the drip line to protect
the natural grade under the tree", and "If there is no alternative to filling
within the drip line, techniques are available to minimize impact on the tree".
Mr. Mazur pointed out that they are not filling within the drip line, and
are using a series of walls outside the drip line to protect the grade under
the trees.
Joe Gallia, resident of The Gables, stated he believed this was a plan that is still
in development, noting the plan had already gone through quite a few changes.
He felt part of the problem was the perception of bias in the developer's
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 9
favor. He stated he had found that it was difficult for an individual, such
as himself, to
obtain copies of the Planning Department's reports prior to the City Council or
Planning Commission meetings, as they are usually not produced until the weekend
before the meetings; therefore, it is difficult to come before the Council
and be able to make the point that, hopefully, will show that we still need
an EIR (Environmental Impact Report).
Mr. Gallia stated a lot of energy has been focused on the oak trees, and as important
as the oak trees are, he did not believe that is necessarily the main focus
of why this area needs to be re-evaluated and have an independent EIR. He
pointed out the creek itself recently went through some damage with the CalTrans
construction of the Merrydale Overcrossing, noting CalTrans was currently in
the process of an evaluation for measures to repair what they have done to
the creek.
In addition, he stated some issues have been raised that were never really addressed,
such as the wildlife that resides, or could potentially reside, in this area.
Mr. Gallia acknowledged that studies have been done, but stated the problem
is that these studies were only done with two visual inspections. He reported
that recent development at the Marin Lagoons required an EIR because they found
Salt Marsh Harvest Mice, and as these are nocturnal creatures, he found it
difficult to believe that Salt Marsh Harvest Mice could be found by visual
inspections. Mr. Gallia stated he was told by people at the Audubon Society
that the only way to verify that these creatures do exist is to do a trapping,
noting that as far as he could tell, that had not been done to this point.
Mr. Gallia stated he was concerned because the wetlands are ideal breeding
grounds for these mice, noting a recent print-out from the Department of Fish
and Game showed the type of environment these mice prefer to live in is exactly
what we have in the wetlands, with pickleweed and large amounts of grass for
nesting.
Regarding the traffic studies, Mr. Gallia stated that while these studies fell within
the requirements of the project, he had a problem with the actual formulas
that were used. He felt that to expect 49 single-family homes to only generate
49 PM trips was hard to believe in this day and age where we have two car families,
or two working parents in a home. He stated he was also concerned with the
additional traffic that would be created at the Merrydale intersection, which
in itself has been rated to be a "poor" intersection.
Mr. Gallia stated changes have been made in some of the processes of the development,
without allowing any input from the neighbors. As an example, he noted the
proposed V -ditch has been removed from around the slope repair, but the neighbors
were never able to ask what that change would mean for the area that is being
re -sloped or re -graded. He asked what would hold the soil in during the first
rainy season, and if there would be a mudslide before the grass actually
establishes itself?
Returning to the issue of the trees, Mr. Gallia stated the trees were initially
debated in the EIR process, noting they spent more time discussing whether
or not they belonged in the EIR versus the merit issues. He noted it was decided
these would be discussed by the Planning Commission under the "Merits" portion
of the report, but there was no discussion, and with only one meeting, the
Planning Commission moved ahead and voted for a Negative Declaration. Mr.
Gallia reported the two trees which may be harmed are fairly mature trees,
and will not take much change in the environment. He stated the three
environmental organizations, The Audubon Society, Environmental Forum, and
the Marin Conservation League, all focus on the issue that these two trees,
whether they are an environmental issue or not, are actually an architectural
and aesthetic issue, and since the development is being built around these
two trees, we should make sure the trees will live long enough for the people
in the area to enjoy them.
Mr. Gallia asked for an independent agency to verify the results of the studies,
noting the project was moving forward on information provided by the developer,
and it was not necessarily in his best interest to point out potential problems,
or bring in possible alternatives that might suit the development better.
Elizabeth Cook, 125 Gable Court, also urged that an independent EIR be considered,
noting the trees are a major issue with almost everyone. She pointed out the
Developer's Report states the major specimens are 250 years old, and that the
average life span is 250 - 375 years old. She asked for an independent
evaluation to be assured that this is the case.
Ms. Cook stated she was also concerned about drainage into the wetlands of pesticides
and fertilizers that are going to come off of the lawns, and she did not feel
that had been adequately addressed.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 10
Ms. Cook did not believe the environment had recovered from the construction of
The Gables and the Merrydale Overpass, stating the developer had satisfied
the Planning Commission with steps to mitigate the impact of this project;
however, mitigating the impact was not "no impact". Ms. Cook did not believe
this could be assessed properly by the developer's hired consultants. She
noted all projections stated the
area will recover, but they are projections based on theoretical models. She urged
that an EIR be performed, so an independent assessment can be made of the
consequences of this project on the sensitive area involved.
Hal Guille, 127 Gable Court, referred to a letter he had sent to the Council, outlining
his main concerns. He stated the emphasis where he lives, in the east end
of The Gables, is the closeness of the new homes, and he felt there were too
many units in the project for what is taking place to the environment. Mr.
Guille believed the Negative Declaration should be denied at this point, and
an independent Environmental Impact Report should be done to raise the issues
pertaining to wildlife and the trees. He noted he had stood out on his deck
trying to visualize where these homes are going to be, and he did not believe
he would be able to see any trees once the new homes were constructed, and
the views would be completely destroyed. Mr. Guille reported he was new to
the area, and was very concerned about this project, noting he had invested
money into his home, and now he felt this development would destroy some of
what he looked for in coming to Marin County. He pointed out that he can now
look out and see deer and other wildlife roaming through the foothills, and
it is a shame that something such as this development has to take place. He
stated there were going to be too many units, and the development should be
scaled down, with spaces in between rather than a mass production of homes
that will destroy what is already there.
Marcie Levine, 107 Gable Court, stated she was also quite new to the area, noting
she had moved to Marin for exactly the serenity of the place where she is
currently living. She noted she appreciated all of the work she has heard
the developer has done in an effort to keep the area safe and minimize the
environment impacts; however, when she looks at the area, she finds it hard
to believe that the proposed number of homes can be put into that area and
not have an impact. She stated she also watches the deer and the jack rabbits
from her window, and listens to the birds, and while she understands the
developers have taken pains to ensure the security of the wetlands, it is hard
for her to imagine that with the small area they are protecting in between
the two complexes the animals are still going to want to be there. Ms. Levine
was concerned the animals would be scared away, and would not return after
the construction is completed.
Ms. Levine reported she sees people every day walking, running, bike riding, and
enjoying the area of the hill, which will no longer be available when the houses
are there. She pointed out a letter from the Marin Conservation League was
included with the staff report, and they have also noted that with the changes
to the project, it would be valuable to do an Environmental Impact Report because
there are so many issues, such as the trees, the wetlands, and the archeology.
Phillip Fields, 369-B Third Street, stated he was not a neighbor of this development;
however, as a biology student, he was concerned about the bio -diversity flora
and fauna of the area. He noted for every independent Arborist who writes
a report there might be hundreds of other reports that might successfully rebut
what this Arborist has produced, as well as other ways to build this project.
Mr. Fields encouraged the Council to include an independent report and
Environmental Impact study.
Haskell Fain, 71 Gable Court, reported he had attended all four of the Design Review
Board meetings and the four Planning Commission meetings, noting one might
think that because eight meetings had been held regarding this project,
everything that could be said had been said. However, he wanted to point out
that the reason there were four meetings before the Design Review Board was
because during the first two meetings the developer stonewalled, and submitted
no changes, and it was only later that the project was changed and reduced
by five units.
Referring to the environment, Mr. Fain stated anyone who has walked through this
area would be amazed if they tried to picture the new development proposed
for such a small area. He stated the development was massive, and sat in a
very small section of the land, comparing this development to the North View
Townhouse project, which was proposed to be forty units on a 19.5 acre site.
He reported the Planning Commission required an independent EIR study for
that project, for which they were going to move 1,400 cubic yards of dirt,
yet the current project involves 48,000 cubic yards. Mr. Fain stated a survey
was taken of The Gables Homeowners, and of 33 inquiries sent out, 18 asked
for an independent review, 1 said, "No", and the rest did not respond. In
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 11
thinking about the entire project, and the mass of it, Mr. Fain believed the
Council would go a long way toward relieving the stress of the people
who live in this area and have grown to love it if they were to ask for an independent
Environmental Impact study.
There being no further public discussion, Mayor Boro closed this portion of the
public hearing.
Mayor Boro referred to the question of the impact to the creek. Planning Director
Pendoley noted San Rafael's General Plan had standards for creek preservation,
which basically involve setbacks, and also require the City to conduct a series
of studies which must be independently evaluated by the Department of Fish
and Game. Mr. Pendoley reported the Department of Fish and Game had determined
the studies had been performed adequately, conformed to what they saw out in
the field, and that the proposed mitigation measures, such as the setbacks
and landscaping with natural vegetation, as well as the restoration of
previously disturbed wetlands, more than mitigated any potential impacts.
Mayor Boro asked about the wildlife. Mr. Pendoley stated the primary wildlife
resource in that area is the creek, so the mitigation measures for the creek
also addressed wildlife preservation, as well as just preserving the water
quality. Mayor Boro noted a comment had been made about the Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse, and whether or not it was an inhabitant of this site. He asked how
we had conducted those studies, noting it had been alleged we made only visual
observations rather than setting traps. Associate Planner Chantry Bell
reported that when the Initial Study was prepared for the project staff reviewed
the General Plan maps, which show the locations of endangered species, stating
the map showed the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse would not be in this location.
She noted this question had also been raised before the Planning Commission,
and LSA responded that the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse was not present at this
location. Mr. Pendoley noted those two opinions had also been independently
evaluated by the State Department of Fish and Game, who toured the site.
Mayor Boro asked about the traffic, and AM and PM peak trips. Mr. Pendoley stated
the real standard was how many trips the project generates during a sixty minute
period between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. He stated what has been found in San Rafael,
in the North Bay, and across the county, was that homes of this type, on average,
generate one trip during that sixty minute period. He explained this did not
mean that is all the traffic they generate, noting they generate a lot of
additional traffic at different times of the day or different days of the week;
however, most all public agencies agree the best way to study traffic is to
look at this sixty minute window that falls somewhere within that two hour
period. Mr. Pendoley stated the traffic report was independently verified
by the City's Traffic Engineer, who has extensive experience with traffic in
San Rafael. Mayor Boro asked about the capacity at the intersection of
Merrydale and Scettrini. Mr. Pendoley stated the Traffic Engineer used the
results of the City's new traffic model to verify the traffic that would be
generated would not exceed the capacity of the new Merrydale Overcrossing.
Councilmember Heller referred to the V -ditch that was being removed from the slide
area, and asked what would happen during the first rain, and what was being
done for the slide area? Mr. Pendoley referred to a map of the project area,
highlighting the slide area where repairs were needed. He stated the repairs
were originally going to consist of digging out the dirt, re -compacting and
replacing it, and installing three big benches, and a V -ditch. Mr. Pendoley
reported this technique had been used on San Rafael hillsides for many years,
and is one which can be seen up and down the freeway and is not very attractive.
He noted the Design Review Board was concerned about this technique, and the
applicant was asked to come up with a different way. Mr. Pendoley stated the
slide repair techniques that will now be used will not require the V -ditch
or benches. He noted Mr. Gallia had asked what would happen during the first
winter, and Mr. Pendoley stated we had been assured by the applicant's
consultants, as well as the City's independent consultants on the Geotechnical
Review Board, that the soil will be so well compacted there would be very little
ability for any sloughing before the new grasses take hold. He noted the site
would also be hydro -mulched, so as soon as it rains the grass will spring up,
which does more than anything for erosion. He noted hay bales would also be
placed at the foot of the slope to contain any minor erosion that might occur.
Ms. Heller asked if this portion of the site would be touched during
construction? Mr. Pendoley stated it would be one of the first things that
is done, noting the work will be quite obvious during the first year, until
we have the first rain and hydro -mulch. Ms. Heller asked if they would be
doing any construction, and Mr. Pendoley stated they would not be putting any
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 12
homes there.
Councilmember Heller asked about the drainage, and the runoff of pesticides moving
down into the wetlands. Ms. Bell reported the Planning Commission had addressed
this question, and determined the runoff from the rear yard areas would be
directed into the storm drain system, and not into the wetland area. Ms. Heller
asked if there was sufficient drainage from all of the homes to move it away
from the wetlands? Ms. Bell stated there was, noting there were two separate
systems, one from the improved areas, streets, lots, and backyards would be
directed into the storm drains, while the Open Space areas would be protected
from the pollutants, as they would be redirected into the wetlands.
Councilmember Miller asked how we assure the public that there has been adequate
protection of the public interest in this process? Mr. Pendoley acknowledged
it was in the developer's best interest to present the best picture, pointing
out it was part of the Planning Commission's, staff's, and Council's job to
be sure they do a fair and objective evaluation. He stated that in this case,
they have relied on independent verification of each of the studies; for example,
the Visual Impact Study was independently prepared under the City's supervision,
and all the soil and geology work, prepared by the applicant, were all
independently reviewed by the City's Geotechnical Review Board, which has no
financial interest in the project and reports only to Council. Mr. Pendoley
stated the Wetlands Analysis was fairly straight forward, and followed
principles and policies in the City's General Plan; however, this was also
independently evaluated by the State Department of Fish and Game, which
obviously is responsible for working in the public interest. Mr. Pendoley
reported the only study that was not independently verified by another
consultant was the tree work, stating that was because it came down to only
involving two trees, and everyone agreed that was the major focus. He stated
the mitigation measures proposed were so precisely consistent with City policy,
particularly the studies in our Hillside Design Guidelines, that the Planning
Commission felt there was simply no need. He noted the staff report contained
an independent document prepared by the State of California which describes
the techniques that should be used, and he pointed out those were the techniques
being used in mitigation; therefore, it was felt there had been sufficient
independent verification to protect the public interest. Mayor Boro asked
if the process Mr. Pendoley had just described, when seeking a Negative
Declaration, was the one the City generally follows, in which the applicant
prepares the work and we then have our independent boards or staff do the
verification? Mr. Pendoley stated that was correct, noting it was also the
process recommended by the State.
Councilmember Miller stated his next question concerned the massing in this
particular area, noting he had heard this description at least three times
during the discussion, and that it "could not help but have an overwhelming
impact". Mr. Pendoley pointed out each of the studies conducted addressed
that issue, and they concluded those impacts either do not exist, or can be
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Mayor Boro asked when you attempt to do a Negative Declaration and it does not meet
the test, what triggers the Planning Commission to request an EIR, and why
was it not necessary in this case? Mr. Pendoley explained the law requires
that the first thing to be done is an Initial Study, noting the format is provided
by the State, and something everyone basically does the same way. He reported
there are a series of 57 different issue areas that have to be evaluated, with
the basic question being asked, "Is it likely that this project could have
a significant adverse impact on the environment?" Mr. Pendoley explained that
if the answer to that question is "Yes" or "Maybe", and if there is no way
to change the project so the answer to that question is, "No", then an
Environmental Impact Report must be prepared. Mayor Boro asked if this meant
that in this particular case, the answer to that question was that they could
mitigate? Mr. Pendoley stated that was correct, and noted when this is the
case, the law states a Negative Declaration should be issued.
Councilmember Cohen stated what was really before the Council was whether issues
have been raised that call into question staff's and the Planning Commission's
determination that all potential impacts have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance, and whether Council has confidence the level of mitigations,
as proposed, will be effective, or if the testimony has raised any significant
questions about that, to a level that Council feels the City should require
an Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Cohen noted the concerns that have been
raised are valid concerns; however, he felt most of those questions had been
addressed in the staff reports, consultants' reports, and the verifications
described by the Planning Director, with the possible sole exception of the
two trees. Mr. Cohen agreed that requiring an EIR for the sake of those two
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 13
trees was a bit of an abuse of the CEQA process. However, he stated he did
have a question about the mitigations proposed, noting mitigations had been
proposed to ensure the trees are protected during construction, with mitigation
monitoring for at least three years after the construction, including deep
root irrigation if the trees show signs of draught stress. Mr. Cohen asked
what would happen if one of the trees was damaged during construction? He
noted that in the past the City would require replacement, but pointed out
that in this instance it would not be possible to replace a 250 year old Valley
Oak. Mr. Pendoley reported the Conditions of Approval require that if one
or both of these trees were lost, they each would have to be replaced with
a Valley Oak of at least 18 inch caliber. Mr. Pendoley addressed the issue
of what made the loss of these two trees significant, noting the Planning
Commission found that even if we lost both trees, it was not significant.
Mr. Pendoley pointed out the State will designate what is significant in the
case of some species and animals, and they have stated the loss of a Valley
Oak is not significant because it is not an endangered plant. Therefore, the
Planning Commission found that even if we did lose these two trees, it was
not significant, and did not require an Environmental Impact Report.
On the other hand, he noted they really want these two trees to be saved, so when
recommending approval of the project, it was decided to save the trees anyway,
even though the loss would not be significant.
Mr. Cohen asked about the issue of an Alternative Study, noting that when we do
a full Environmental Impact Report we are required to be presented with a whole
series of alternatives against which we can weigh a massive project such as
this. Mr. Pendoley stated it again came back to the question of whether there
was a significant adverse impact. He explained that when the Legislature set
up the California Environmental Quality Act for the public, it stated that
if there is likely to be a significant adverse impact, alternatives would have
to be studied, so the decision makers and the public could be informed; however,
in this instance, the Planning Commission found there is no significant adverse
impact, so in terms of the California Environmental Quality Act there is no
requirement to do an Alternative Study. He noted that although the Planning
Commission put those issues aside and were satisfied in terms of environmental
impacts, they then turned to the applicant and said they would really like
to save the trees, not because of CEQA, but just because they felt it was
important. Therefore, they asked the applicant for an alternative that would
do that, and required an alternative design that would protect the tress, using
the authority in the City's General Plan rather than the California
Environmental Quality Act. Mr. Pendoley pointed out these were important
distinctions in terms of whether we require an EIR.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the impact of the massing, noting he recognized
the massing of this project was an impact on the immediate neighbors, but pointed
out it was consistent with the City's General Plan policy about how projects
such as this should be approached. He noted the massing comes about because
the City required the developer to concentrate the units at the base of the
hill, maximize the amount of Open Space that is preserved, and reduce the overall
visual impact to the community at large. Mr. Cohen acknowledged the immediate
impact to the neighbors across the creek is more severe because of that, but
the benefit to the larger community is greater because the houses are held
down at the base of the hill, the amount of undisturbed Open Space is maximized,
and the visual impact is minimized. He noted it was a trade-off, and one which
in this case he believed negatively impacted the immediate neighbors, but to
the benefit of the larger community.
Councilmember Heller referred to letters from the Marin Conservation League and
the Audubon Society, noting they both addressed only the two trees, and asked
if they were aware, at the time they wrote their letters asking for a focused
EIR, that the impact to both of those trees had been mitigated? Ms. Heller
pointed out that no grading, no soil compaction, no change of drainage pattern,
and no trenching in the root zone would be allowed on either one of these trees,
and she felt this set aside their request for a focused EIR on the two trees.
Mr. Pendoley stated this was also what staff would recommend, noting MCL (Marin
Conservation League) did participate throughout the hearings, although he did
not believe the Audubon Society had a representative present when the Commission
made its final determination.
Councilmember Cohen referred to a letter from the Marin Conservation League which
addressed an issue Council had discussed with the Planning Commission. He
stated he did not feel the process, to date, had granted the applicant any
kind of entitlement simply because there had been eight meetings, or because
they had gone through a lot of design review and, therefore, they were precluded
somehow from further environmental review. He stated that sense of discomfort
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 14
was expressed by at least one Planning Commissioner, and was referenced in
the letter from the Marin Conservation League. Mr. Cohen felt this needed
to be discussed so the Planning Commission is not deterred in the future from
feeling that if there are significant environmental issues that remain, they
should order an EIR, focused or not. Mr. Cohen stated he was not evaluating
this issue based on any concern that due process now requires that the Council
approve this project over significant objections, he is attempting to evaluate
the issue based on whether or not there are significant environmental impacts
that have not been mitigated. He stated he was comfortable with the staff
and Planning Commission recommendations, and with the staff report which states
each of the expert reports submitted by the developer have been verified, either
by City staff or by the State Department of Fish and Game, with the exception
of the Arborist Is report concerning the two trees, which was discussed earlier.
Regarding the comment made in the letter from the Marin Conservation League, Mayor
Boro stated Council had a discussion with the Planning Commission during a
joint workshop, in which the Commissioners were told that they, individually,
had a job to do, and that there was no entitlement as something goes through
the process, and if the Commissioners feel something needs to be done, they
have every right as a Planning Commission to ask that it be done. Mayor Boro
stated he felt the Commissioners understood this, and he believed that if they
had felt something needed to be done they would have done it. He agreed that
the questions have been answered.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to direct staff to
prepare a Negative Declaration for this project.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
Mayor Boro announced Council would now discuss the merits of the project.
Mayor Boro invited members of the public to address the Council.
Joe Gallia, 65 Gable Court, stated one of his major concerns has been the lighting
that is proposed for this development, noting that unless there has been a
change since the last meeting, the developer was proposing "teardrop" lighting,
which from his point of view would affect the wildlife, and just bring too
much light into the area. He noted in The Gables, they currently have low
standing street lights, and he would prefer lower lighting for the streets
in the new development to mitigate some of the light The Gables area will get.
Referring to the issue of density, Mr. Gallia stated he personally found it to be
a problem as far as the proximity of many of these homes to peoples' backyards,
noting they currently are able to look at the hillside, but soon they will
be looking at each other's backyards. In addition, he stated he was concerned
about the fences on the bottom row of homes, asking if the outside of the fences
would have siding on them, or if they would be looking at exposed timber?
Marcie Levine, 107 Gable Court, expressed her appreciation for the City's diligence
in representing the neighbors concerns and verifying them to Council's
satisfaction. She stated she was concerned about the ability to predict nature
in this development, and to be able to predict the runoffs, noting she had
lived through several floods, and one could not predict the way water is going
to go. Mayor Boro acknowledged that a flood could happen, and then all of
the plans would go away; however, the way in which this particular project
has been developed, the runoff from the lawn areas would go into a collection
system that does not go to the street, and would be collected and diverted
to the sanitation system. He stated the City had experience in doing this,
and it should be engineered properly and it should work, although if we had
a catastrophic event it would be a different issue.
Ms. Levine stated that the quiet and peacefulness of the area was what drew her
there in the first place, and she was very upset about the idea of losing this.
She stated the incredible density to which the area is going to be subjected
is a big concern of hers, and wondered about the merit of the people moving
there being able to look into her house, just as she will be looking into theirs.
Elizabeth Cook, stated since it seemed obvious that this was going to go through,
she wondered if there was some way to guarantee certain conditions of acceptance
of this project? She stated her concerns would be that the neighbors to the
south, those who live in The Gables, have some input regarding the lighting
to be installed, as well as the fences. She pointed out she would have a
neighbor's doorway 122 feet from her own, which meant their fence was going
to be substantially closer than that, and she noted it would be nicer if she
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 15
could be looking at a finished fence. She also asked if there could be some
type of bond the developer could post, noting they were going to be planting
a number of trees as a screen, very near to the wetlands, and asked for a bond
to ensure that they survive for a couple of years.
Ms. Cook also noted the developer had stated there would be two access trails, noting
she understood one would be in the cul-de-sac, in the middle of the project,
and the other would be adjacent to Lot #5, which was at the north side of the
project. She noted the developer stated at the meeting of April 15th that
these were going to be restricted to Vista Marin residents.
Al Guille stated the thing that bothered him most was the statement made by Mr.
Cohen that density was what the City was after, and that there would be an
impact on The Gables, but there was nothing the City could do about that.
Mayor Boro stated this was not the position of the Council, noting Council had a
policy of trying to protect the hills and any existing Open Space; however,
people who own property have the right to develop that property, within certain
boundaries. He stated the City has the opportunity to develop this property
and protect the Open Space, noting that was basically what was being seen here,
and was a policy the Council has tried to apply. He stated the City was trying
to be sensitive to these concerns, and would pursue some of the issues raised,
because the Council does understand that the neighbors are concerned. However,
he pointed out there were also people who knew what the area was like before
The Gables development was built, and asked how the City ever let that happen.
Mayor Boro stated the City was trying to accommodate housing for people to live
in the community of San Rafael, but the Council was not turning its back on
the residents, noting the City has a policy of protecting the Open Space wherever
possible, and we do that by clustering the zoning.
There being no further public comment, the Public Hearing was deemed closed.
Referring to the issue of lighting, Mayor Boro asked how we could provide safe lighting
on the home sites and streets of the new project, and at the same time not
have that become offensive to the existing neighbors? Planning Director
Pendoley stated the City could respond to Ms. Cook's request, noting Condition
90 requires that once the lighting is installed it has to be reviewed by staff
to make sure it is not too bright. He pointed out staff routinely requires
that the lighting be changed so it does not have an impact. Mr. Pendoley
suggested amending the Condition slightly, to require that staff and the
developer meet with the neighbors while the lighting plan is being designed,
and before it is approved for installation, so their issues can be addressed,
and they will better know what to expect. Mr. Pendoley noted it would not
be possible to require the builder to install ballard lights, because in a
project such as this, being of low density and so spread out, overhead lights
are required for security. However, he stated there would not have to be many
of the overhead lights, and the glare could be reduced.
Councilmember Cohen pointed out the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
June 13th, in which the project's Landscape Architect, in response to concern
over the lighting issue, stated the lighting would be compatible with the
lighting at The Gables, and would be ballard type lighting. Mr. Cohen stated
if that representation has been made, the City needs to ensure, to the greatest
extent possible, that this is what is installed. Mr. Pendoley stated there
would have to be overhead street lighting, but staff would meet with the
neighbors, and make sure it is minimized.
David Schemel stated the design that was agreeable to some of the residents of The
Gables was a downcast light, with a top on it, so it shines directly down.
He noted they had tried the ballard lighting, but the idea was rejected. He
stated the planned lighting would minimize glare and would be downcast. Mayor
Boro requested that the developer and Planning staff meet with the residents
of The Gables to review the lighting in more detail.
Mayor Boro asked about the fences facing the existing homeowners, and what they
could expect? Mr. Schemel reported these would be solid fences, faced on both
sides. He stated they would also be planting approximately 208 oak trees,
and after a year the homeowners would see nothing but oak trees.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the issue of access to Open Spaces, noting Mr. Schemel
had stated access would be limited. Mr. Schemel reported access would be only
for the residents of Vista Marin, noting this would be private Open Space owned
by their Homeowners Association. Mr. Schemel stated it would be impossible
to protect liability by continuing to allow the free access that exists now,
unless a public agency was willing to take it. Mayor Boro asked if we had
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 16
an existing policy on this, and Mr. Pendoley stated we did, noting the City's
policy is to decline Open Space dedications such as this.
Mayor Boro asked how we would ensure the bonding of the planting around the wetlands?
Mr. Pendoley stated there was a standard condition which required that all
landscaping be bonded for maintenance for two years, and if anything dies,
it has to be replaced.
Councilmember Cohen asked how the density of this project compared to the density
of The Gables development? Mr. Pendoley reported The Gables is a medium density
development, with approximately ten to fifteen units per acre, while this
project will be approximately one unit per acre. Mayor Boro asked what the
comparison would be on the cluster site of this project, as compared to The
Gables, or the Marin Lagoon Condominiums? Mr. Pendoley stated the average
lot size in this development is approximately 4,500 to 4,800 square feet, which
would net out to six or seven units per acre. He noted this was comparable
to a conventional subdivision, which would run six to seven units per acre.
Mayor Boro asked how it compared with The Gables, and Mr. Pendoley stated
The Gables runs ten to fifteen units per acre, making this project less dense
than The Gables, and very comparable to Marin Lagoon.
Responding to an earlier comment, Councilmember Cohen stated it was a misconception
to believe that he did not care about the residents of The Gables. He stated
the dilemma the Council must address is one they continue to deal with every
time a Land Use application comes before them. He noted the neighbors were
concerned about current Open Space being developed, acknowledging that is an
impact no one likes to see. However, absent the City or some other public
agency's ability to buy the property, the owner of the private property has
the right to develop the property in accordance with the City's Zoning.
Regarding the density, Mr. Cohen stated the City had a long-standing policy of
discouraging sprawl, and encouraging clustering of development, particularly
toward the bottom of ridge lines, pointing out the City had a recognized Hillside
Development standard that encourages exactly that standard of development.
He noted the downside of that is for the immediate neighbors, because the project
is denser near their backyards than it might be if the City allowed the Developer
to spread the houses out across the hillside; however, the trade-off for that
is that no one wants to live in Marin County with houses spread across every
hillside we can see. He stated in recent years the City has been attempting,
as much as possible, to eliminate that, and to cluster development lower down
to reduce the visual impact, and noted the community had made the decision
that the larger benefit of maintaining even private Open Space was worth the
denser impact of clustering at the bases of the ridge lines.
Mr. Cohen acknowledged that the neighbors are the unfortunate ones who bear the
impact of this particular development, noting he did not mean to imply that
because this is the policy it is any less of an impact on them, nor that it
does not cause the City any concern, or that we do not wish there were some
way we could mitigate that. However, the City has to strike a balance between
the developer and property owner's private property rights to develop and get
economic use out of the property, and attempt to preserve, in the larger sense,
the quality of life and environmental values that all of us treasure in Marin
County. He stated this is what the Council was attempting to do, and he had
meant no disrespect to any of the residents of The Gables by his comments.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to direct staff to
prepare an Ordinance for Zone change, Resolutions approving the Use Permit,
Design Review, and Tentative Map applications for the development of 49 new
single-family residences along Scettrini Drive.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
MONTHLY REPORTS:
15. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (CM) - File 9-3-11
City Manager Gould reported that today the City received a decision from the
Administrative Law Judge, ruling in favor of the City on the Andersen Drive
Project. He stated the Public Utilities Commission still has to approve the
decision, which he expected would come within a month. Councilmember Heller
asked what the process and appeal rights would be? Mayor Boro reported the
only appeal possible on a Commission ruling is directly with the California
State Supreme Court. Mr. Gould stated he would send a copy of the Judge's
ruling to the City Council.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 17
NEW BUSINESS:
17. DISCUSSION OF REFUSE RATE SETTING (Admin. Svcs.) - File 4-3-32
Administrative Services Director Ken Nordhoff stated this was a preview of the
proposed refuse rate increases for the business and residential sectors of
San Rafael for the coming fiscal year. He noted that for the past several
years the City has been working with five other local agencies and districts,
and in doing rate review processes they structured a rate index methodology
that requires a full review of Marin Sanitary Service' s rate request once every
three years, and in the off years, to do a review somewhat lesser in scope,
in order to hold down the cost of the analysis. Mr. Nordhoff noted this was
the second year of the "off year", and next year staff would be coming back
with a more comprehensive review.
Mr. Nordhoff reported they have completed the analysis through the consulting firm
of Hilton, Farnkopf, Hobson, noting they had made several recommendations,
and also incorporated the adoption of a franchise fee which Council took action
on in January. Mr. Nordhoff stated he had gone through several explanations
about why the increases in the operating costs have occurred, including
traditional Wage and
Benefit, noting one of the larger items was the disposal costs of $227,000 related
to JPA fees initiated this past year. Mr. Nordhoff also noted fuel prices
were up substantially, and there have been some adjustments in the revenue
calculations.
Mr. Nordhoff stated his staff report contains several exhibits identifying the
proposed rates for various types of services that would be provided to residences
or businesses throughout the community, and noted those rates reflect what
they are proposing. He stated the recommendation would provide for rate
increases somewhere between 10% - 16% in the residential and commercial sectors,
noting the table included in the staff report shows that even with those
increases, San Rafael would remain very competitive both in Marin County, as
well as surrounding jurisdictions in the Bay Area.
Mr. Nordhoff stated it was important to note that the imposition of a franchise
fee was designed as a General Fund resource to the City, noting it was believed
this will net approximately $485,000 to the City next year, which staff
recommended be directed toward infrastructure work, particularly street
maintenance.
Mr. Nordhoff pointed out the residential rates would increase approximately $1.00
per month for senior citizens and $1.30 per month for a standard, single-family
dwelling, with variances for commercial and apartment rates. He stated if
Council is comfortable with the rates as they are proposed, staff will return
to Council at a public hearing at the end of this month and go through the
formal adoption process of rate setting.
Mayor Boro asked what the age requirement was for designation as a senior citizen?
Patty Garbarino, Marin Sanitary Service, reported it was 65 years old.
Councilmember Cohen asked what the process would be if Council accepted the proposed
rate structure? Mr. Nordhoff noted there was a ten-day noticing requirement
for a Notice of Public Hearing, which would be published twice, and stated
staff would put together another staff report which would show the comprehensive
rate schedule. He pointed out he would like to get the rates into effect as
quickly as we could in July so they can be integrated into the billing cycle
with Marin Sanitary Service. Mr. Cohen asked if there were any issues related
to Proposition 218, which would require us to send notices to every property
owner? Mr. Nordhoff stated Proposition 218 did not apply to the rate setting
process with respect to refuse rates.
Mayor Boro noted our current rate is $13.90 and it will go to $15.20, and asked
what amount of that is the percentage due to cost recovery, and what amount
is the franchise? Mr. Nordhoff stated this was an increase of slightly over
10%, and the rates have been structured to allow us to go to uniform rates.
He noted these are not across the board increases, pointing out there are
second can increases and other things that are disproportionately a little
higher. Mayor Boro asked if the rate for someone who had double cans would
go up higher than 10%? Mr. Nordhoff reported that it would, noting the current
rate structure charges 90% on the second can, and to further encourage recycling
efforts, it would be wise to standardize that second rate. He stated that
due to the rate increases, both on the first can as well as additional cans,
they have factored in a 5% reduction in service factor, meaning people will
make different choices about how they select refuse service. Mayor Boro noted
they may reduce their service, and Mr. Nordhoff stated that was correct.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 18
City Manager Gould stated Elissa Giambastiani, President of the Chamber of Commerce,
had asked that staff break-out all the commercial rates and how they would
change under this proposal, noting staff could easily do that.
Mayor Boro referred to the issue of recycling in apartment buildings, asking if
it was correct that we still do not have 100% participation in a recycling
program from the apartment units in the Canal?
Patty Garbarino, stated all of the apartment units have had recycling containers,
but one of the problems has been theft, not only of the contents but of the
containers themselves, noting the containers cost $89.00 a piece. She stated
Marin Sanitary Service has tried to work very hard with the property owners
and apartment managers, in an attempt to get some kind of security for the
containers, so it would be a meaningful program and not turn out that they
were just replacing equipment. She stated one bright light was that Marin
Conservation Corps has applied for a grant, which they feel certain they are
going to get, to be able to provide education on a "one on one" basis.
Mayor Boro asked if they had spoken with any other jurisdictions elsewhere in the
country, where they have much more density than we do, to see if they have
found a way to do this successfully, or to find a container that is theft proof?
Ms. Garbarino stated she had spoken with people in San Francisco, where the
same problems have been happening, and would also check with some of the people
involved in the East Bay. Ms. Garbarino noted if there are concerned citizens
who are willing to help, then Marin Sanitary is happy to work with them to
get those programs implemented.
Councilmember Miller reported the subject of recycling had come up during the Canal
Voice, noting there was a considerable amount of interest in this. He wondered
if either the Economic Committee or the Pride Committee could be of help in
starting something along these lines? He stated they might be able to get
a more formal program underway, particularly knowing there would be complete
cooperation from Marin Sanitary Service. Mayor Boro pointed out that the
students at Bahia Vista have really gotten involved this year in studying the
bay and conservation, and noted if we could find some way to get the kids
interested in this, and through the Canal Voice project educate the kids and
the adults, the kids could help reinforce the program.
Ms
Garbarino stated they were really hoping the grant for Marin Conservation Corps
comes through, noting recycling is already part of the curriculum for second
and fourth grade students. She reported one of the most successful ways they
have been able to help in the Canal area is participating in the intermittent
Clean-up Days they have, or with litter control, recalling the Old East San
Rafael Task Force. Ms. Garbarino stated Marin Sanitary Service is happy to
do anything with recycling, noting it has been very discouraging locking
containers down with a chain, and then having somebody just buy a larger chain
cutter.
Mayor Boro referred to the brush removal programs that have been carried out, and
asked how the removal of the debris had been accomplished? Public Works
Director Bernardi reported Marin Sanitary Service provided "one time" service
for picking up the debris. Ms. Garbarino stated they would be willing to
continue to do that, especially when they can work in tandem with the Fire
Department and get chippers from the City. Mayor Boro stated it was important
that the final report to come back before Council highlight that this public
service provided by Marin Sanitary Service will continue. Ms. Garbarino
pointed out that as we move into the summer months, Marin Sanitary Services
does provide dumpsters at a cheaper rate.
Ms. Garbarino stated they would be working with Administrative Services Director
Nordhoff, noting they generally notify every household after the rate increase
has been implemented, explaining what the increase is and what it is going
for. She reported Marin Sanitary Service is moving into its fiftieth year
in this area, of which they are very proud, noting they remain "at your disposal".
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to accept the report
as submitted.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
OLD BUSINESS:
16. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON PRELIMINARY PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997/98
(Admin. Svcs.) - File 8-5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 19
City Manager Gould reported at the last Council meeting Administrative Services
Director Nordhoff had presented a "snapshot" view of where the major funds
would stand based on staff's best guesses on revenues and expenditures for
the coming year, essentially assuming the basic staffing and service levels
would remain the same, incorporating some of the changes Council authorized
this year, and carrying them into next year. He noted Council had asked for
more information as to how the General Fund would start and finish the fiscal
year, and that was included in this report. He noted it was also determined
there would be some "one-time" monies that would be freed up, due to a change
in accounting standards for municipalities statewide, and the staff report
gives examples of how Council might allocate those funds. He stated he and
the Department Directors would be ready to bring some of the recommendations
as early as next week regarding where they might go with fees and charges,
such as the Cost Study, noting that depending on how those fees and charges
might change, Council might free up general tax dollars which could be used
to add additional service levels.
Mr. Gould pointed out there was a structural problem in the funding of the Police
Department, which had been finessed over the past few years, having to do with
the funding of Overtime. He noted there had been changes in the legal
interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which gives Police Officers
the opportunity to choose Comp Time whenever they choose to use it, which is
driving up the Overtime costs, as well. Mr. Gould reported the City has
consistently underfunded Overtime for a number of years, but that has been
mitigated, somewhat, by the fact that we have been chronically understaffed
in the Police Department for a number of years. Mr. Gould stated the Chief
of Police has committed to end that understaffing by this summer, and when
this occurs, the underfunding of Overtime is going to be a problem for the
Police Department.
Mayor Boro noted we were funded for Police Officers; we have not hired and have
incurred Overtime, pointing out some of that Overtime was paid for with the
money we saved by not hiring the Officers, but other Overtime we funded with
money we had budgeted for Overtime. He stated if we go to a full complement
of Police Officers, we have the money for that, and we also have an Overtime
funding level. He stated he would think the Overtime level should decrease
if we were at a full complement of Police Officers.
Mr. Gould stated that was correct, and also noted it would further decrease because
with the reorganization Chief Sanchez is putting into place with two new
lieutenants, noting part of their charge will be to better monitor Overtime
usage.
However, the increase in Overtime cost because of the increase in Comp Time usage
is growing astronomically, and we may have to reopen the contract with the
Police Officers Association, noting the increased use of Comp Time requires
increased Overtime spending to make up for it, threatens minimum manning
standards on certain shifts, and has become a big problem for the Department.
He stated he, Administrative Service Director Nordhoff, and the Police
Department's command staff are committed to finding the best way of addressing
this problem.
Mr. Gould noted two budget meetings had been scheduled for June 23rd and 24th, for
the purpose of hearing from the departments as to what they see as their service
levels for next year, and he hopes to adopt the City' s balanced budget on June
30th, according to State law. He noted he had planned to begin the budget
session at 7:00 PM on June 23rd, but asked if they could begin at 6:00 PM with
a Special Study Session, in order to review the Business Cost Study? He reported
the department heads had refined their estimates of what could be done in this
area, and he would like to present this to the Council so they can begin to
think about where the City wants to go with the Business Cost Study, and the
Fee and Charge changes. Mayor Boro stated they would begin the meeting of
June 23rd at 6:00 PM with the Special Study Session.
Mr. Gould explained that when the departmental reports are reviewed on June 23rd
and 24th they will provide Council with the resources being proposed for each
department, how that has changed from the year before, the current staffing
of each department, and then each department director will review what will
be done with their allocation to accomplish the Council's goals and objectives,
giving Council the opportunity to ask questions and make suggestions. He stated
staff would incorporate those suggestions, as well as those received from the
public, in the final budget session. He noted the Business Cost Study would
probably be brought to the Council for action in July, for adopting fees and
charges, and if Council wishes to allocate any tax dollars they might free
up to add additional services, this could be done in August.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 20
Mayor Boro noted that when they meet on June 23rd and 24th, and the department
directors present their goals and objectives, those who have recommended
discretionary funding out of the $750,000 pot will also explain those requests,
and it can be decided how much of that, if any, Council chooses to fund.
Administrative Services Director Nordhoff noted that at the last Council meeting
he presented a schedule of what they felt the expenses of the appropriation
levels were going to be for the various funds for 1997/98. He noted the report
provides the status of the individual funds, with estimates of where they will
end up for the current fiscal year, and projected revenues for each of the
funds. He reported they had also provided an ending balance of the amount
of funds, noting in some cases those are reserved by law or grant requirements,
and in some cases Council has discretion on how those funds are used.
Mr. Nordhoff noted a question had been raised about assessed evaluation on property
taxes, and given the fact that a number of properties had been reverted downward
and reassessed when the recession hit in the early 1990's, the question was
asked if that ever came back. He stated this would come back, but rather slowly,
explaining the properties are valued at either the lesser of market value or
the Proposition 13 value, which is usually the price you pay when you buy the
home, adjusted annually as required under Proposition 13. He stated the County,
recognizing this is money for the County as well as for the other jurisdictions,
watches this closely. He noted there were approximately 20,000 properties
that were assessed downward over the past five years, and approximately 11,000
of those have come back in this process. He stated he would continue to watch
this, but did not expect that we would see a measurable difference in our property
taxes on a year to year basis.
Mayor Boro noted he had received a list of properties sold in San Rafael, and at
least eight of the twelve properties sold for more than the asking price.
Therefore, he felt the 20,000 homes that were assessed downward in the early
1990' s should now be reevaluated to see where they are in relation to the market.
Mr. Nordhoff pointed out that not all of the 20,000 properties were single
family residences, although that is where we are seeing the greatest
appreciation of property. He pointed out that if properties are selling for
above market price, that is going to be the Proposition 13 value when they
are assessed. Mayor Boro noted the homes next to those properties should be
reviewed for possible higher assessment. Mr. Nordhoff reported there is a
process in place to do that.
Mr. Nordhoff reported staff was also providing some preview based upon department
requests, noting the City Manager had reviewed those requests, as well as where
it was felt we could enhance or expand services, to the extent that fees can
be increased and tax dollars that are presently subsidizing individual or group
based services could be redirected to implementing or enhancing some of these
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to accept the report.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
18. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
a. POLICE DEPARTMENT'S JUVENILE OFFICER - File 9-3-30 (Verbal)
Mayor Boro noted Claire Ann O'Neill had presented letters from the Principals of
two schools in support of her request to keep Corporal Harry Barbier as the
Police Department's Juvenile Officer. He directed staff to respond to these
letters, explaining the City's policy on rotating this position.
b. COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ISSUES - File 170 (Verbal)
Mayor Boro stated he had attended a meeting with County Supervisors Kress and Moore,
County Public Works and Planning Directors, and Doug Wilson to discuss
transportation issues, noting these meetings will now be scheduled monthly.
He reported they discussed the issue of CalTrans Highway 101 widening, and
what they are planning to do when they bring out the environmental report.
C. MARIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF MAYORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS (MCCMC) - File 113 (Verbal)
Councilmember Heller reported the next MCCMC Public Safety Radio Committee will
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/16/97 Page 21
be held on July 9th, and also announced June 25th will be her last meeting
as MCCMC President.
Councilmember Miller announced that tomorrow was Councilmember Cohen's birthday,
and wished him a Happy Birthday.
There being no further business, 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) 6/16/97 Page 21