Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1997-08-18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1997 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember San Rafael City Council Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF ANOTHER STOP SIGN AT INTERSECTION OF FIRST AND "C" STREETS - File 11-9 Mike Kirby, resident of Frances Street, requested Council consider installing a four-way stop traffic configuration at the intersection of First and "C" Streets in San Rafael. Recently a woman was hit by a car while attempting to cross First Street, and she later died. Mr. Kirby stated there is heavy foot traffic in the area in the afternoon and evening, with increased vehicle traffic over Wolfe Grade, as well as traffic diversion from the road work on Fourth and Second Streets. Mr. Kirby pointed out that school starts in two weeks, and with kids walking to and from school there will be even more foot traffic. Mr. Kirby explained the present traffic configuration at First and "C" Streets confuses traffic in any direction, and probably many pedestrians as well, stating four-way stop signs have a very good safety record. Mr. Kirby felt this was an urgent issue, and hoped Council did, too, noting he did not believe anyone wanted to see another life lost on our streets if we can help it. Vice-Mayor Heller explained that when the Council receives a request for a stop sign, the Public Works Department is asked to look at the issue. She agreed this was a serious case and a tragic accident, and asked that the Public Works Department review the issue, and perhaps bring someone in for a third opinion. Public Works Director David Bernardi reported his Department and the Police Department have spent a great deal of time looking at this intersection as a result of the accident, and had also been looking at the intersection as a result of the City's work with the Gerstle Park Homeowners Association, relating to the traffic signal at "D" and Bayview Streets; therefore, staff has a lot of data available concerning this intersection. Mr. Bernardi stated that, unfortunately, the terrible accident that occurred probably would not have been prevented, because where the accident occurred is where a stop sign already exists. He reported a vehicle was going westbound on First Street, and the sun was in the eyes of a young, inexperienced driver. Mr. Bernardi stated putting a stop sign for traffic coming in the other direction, eastbound, would not have made any difference in this particular case. However, Mr. Bernardi stated staff would like to have a third party look at this intersection, and information will be brought back to Council at the second meeting in September, so the City can be certain staff has done everything possible to ensure the safety of that intersection. Councilmember Miller asked that Mr. Kirby be kept apprised of the steps taken by the City, so he can remain fully informed. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. Monday, August 4, 1997 (CC) 2. Request for City of San Rafael Participation Council unanimously consented as Amicus Party: (CA) - File 9-3-16 to participation as amicus a) Case Name: Sacramento County Fire Protection party. District v. Sacramento County SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 2 Assessment Appeals Board II, et al., California Third Appellate District, Case No. 3 CIVIL C026451. 4. Resolution of Appreciation to Jan Lacues, RESOLUTION NO. 9901 - Accounting Technician, Employee of the Quarter RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION Ending June 30, 1997 (CM) - File 102 x 9-3-20 x 7-4 TO JAN LACUES, ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE 30, 1997. 5. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign RESOLUTION NO. 9902 - a Rental Agreement for Fire Station 3 with RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Redwood Empire Life Support Ambulance Service (FD) CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A - File 2-8-1 x 9-3-31 RENTAL AGREEMENT FOR FIRE STATION 3 WITH REDWOOD EMPIRE LIFE SUPPORT AMBULANCE SERVICE (On a Month to Month Basis to Commence June 1, 1997). 6. Monthly Investment Report (Admin. Svcs.) Accepted Investment Report - File 8-18 x 8-9 for the month ending July, 1997, as presented. 7. Traffic Signal Installation at Civic Center Drive/ RESOLUTION NO. 9903 - McInnis Parkway - Resolution Approving a License RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO Agreement with Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH GGBHTD Transportation District for a Traffic Signal (GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY Conduit Crossing Under a Railroad Track, Right of AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT) Way on Civic Center Drive, in the Amount of $900. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A Per Annum and Authorizing Execution of the TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONDUIT Agreement (PW) - File 112-2 x 11-10 CROSSING GGBHTD RIGHT OF WAY (City Manager to Sign Agreement). 8. Amendment to Resolution No. 9533 Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 9904 - Agreement for Professional Services Between RESOLUTION AMENDING the City of San Rafael and Big Honkin' Ideas RESOLUTION 9533 ADOPTING (BHI) Not To Exceed the Total Amount of AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL $365,000 (PW) - File 4-4-6.b SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND BIG HONKIN' IDEAS (BHI) NOT TO EXCEED THE TOTAL OF $365,000.00. 9. Resolution of Intention Calling for a Public RESOLUTION NO. 9905 - Hearing on 9/15/97 to Determine Whether Public RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC Necessity, Health, Safety, or Welfare Requires HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER the Formation of an Underground Utility District PUBLIC NECESSITY, HEALTH, in the Vicinity of Second Street, Third Street, SAFETY, OR WELFARE REQUIRES Lindaro Street and Lincoln Avenue (PW) THE FORMATION OF AN - File 12-18-12 x 12-18 UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY OF SECOND STREET, THIRD STREET, LINDARO STREET, AND LINCOLN AVENUE (LINDARO STREET UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT) (Public Hearing to be Held 9/15/97) 10. Resolution of Appreciation for Assistance RESOLUTION NO. 9906 - to the Police Department (PD) - File 102 x 9-3-30 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO MICHAEL TRUJILLO FOR ASSISTANCE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice-Mayor Heller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion: 3. REPORT ON GROUPS, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS FOR PURPOSES OF PROPOSITION 208 REGULATIONS (CA) - File 9-2 x 9-3-16 Councilmember Miller complimented Assistant City Attorney Guinan for the work he has put into this, as well as the good advice that he has given, both as far as the City, and those who are candidates. Mr. Miller stated he did not believe this necessarily showed the best interest of the political process because it tends to limit some people from full participation in that process. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 3 Mr. Miller noted what was being presented was a single list of Commissions, Boards, and Committees appointed by the Council, but it does not include a second list which Mr. Miller would look for, which is a list of those committees which really fit the definition of a Board or Commission possessing decision-making authority. Mr. Miller asked if he was correct that the definition in the FPPC Regulation of a Board or Commission that has decision-making authority is the same, and indeed comes from, the Statute that governs Conflict of Interest? Mr. Guinan stated that was correct, noting in Regulation 18700 the Regulation concerns those public officials who must file Disclosure Statements of Economic Interests, as well as those public officials who are subject to Conflict of Interest rules established by the Commission. Mr. Guinan explained what the Commission had done in this letter was to take the same definition of "Public Official" for those purposes, and apply it to membership on a Board or Commission. He stated, basically, this meant a public official, or member of a Board or Commission that is precluded under Proposition 208 from soliciting funds or contributing to the campaign of a person who appointed them, is the same as it would be for the regulations on a public official with regard to Conflict of Interest, as well as the requirement for filing Disclosure of Economic Interests Statements. Councilmember Miller noted of the fourteen Boards and Commissions listed in the staff report, the only four which require the Statement are the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, Cultural Affairs, and Geotechnical Review, and Mr. Guinan stated that was correct. Mr. Miller noted if we maintain those four Boards, that means the participants of the other ten Boards and Commissions would be fully able to participate in the political process. He questioned whether the list of Boards and Commissions should be reviewed to determine if perhaps there were others that should be included in item "C" of the definition of a Board or Commission possessing decision making authority, which states, "It makes substantive recommendations which are, and over an extended period of time have been, regularly approved without significant amendment or modification by another public official or governmental agency?" Mr. Guinan stated this was a very complicated system, noting he would study the issue and make a more detailed evaluation. Councilmember Miller stated he would like to see the list of current and active Boards and Commissions reviewed, and then come up with an instrument of dissolution to dissolve the ones that should be dissolved. Mr. Guinan stated it had been his original intention to present Council with a Resolution to dissolve those Boards and Commissions that were no longer functioning, but in doing his research it became obvious, once the letter from FPPC came out, that it was going to take much more time, and involve more research than he had anticipated. Councilmember Cohen clarified that at this time Council was treating this only as a report and not as an action item to dissolve these Boards and Commissions. He noted a number of the Boards and Commissions were completely inactive, and have been for quite some time and should be dissolved; however, while others may have finished their work, he did not feel they should all be dissolved by one motion at this time, noting the St. Vincent de Paul Dining Room Relocation Committee and the Freitas Interchange Alternative Study Group. He pointed out Resolutions had been presented to the Freitas Interchange Alternative Study Group, and Council did formally tell them that they had discharged their duties as members of the Committee, although they were told the City would continue to notify them of our work with CalTrans. However, the situation with the St. Vincent de Paul Dining Room Relocation Committee was almost completely the opposite, as that group was put in hiatus while we had the mediation sessions, and now staff level discussions are proceeding. He noted the City never formally disbanded that group, and it may be appropriate at this time to decide this is what we are going to do, and just start fresh with anything new going forward. However, rather than doing that and informing the members that their Committee has been disbanded, he felt this Committee should be recognized for their many hours of work. Mr. Guinan stated he would continue his efforts and come back with a more complete report to identify each of these committees, as to when they were formed, for what purpose, when the last action was taken, and whether any formal action has been taken to terminate it or not, so the Councilmembers will have the information they need to make these determinations. Councilmember Phillips pointed out there were approximately thirty Boards and Commissions which are currently inactive, and the vast majority seemed to be no longer in existence; therefore, he hoped Council would not spend a lot of the Assistant City Attorney's time going back into the history of these Boards and Commissions. Councilmember Miller agreed, noting there were many other issues with priority demands. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 4 Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to accept the report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice-Mayor Heller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Vice-Mayor Heller announced there would be a special presentation, and asked her fellow Councilmembers to join her at the dias. Vice-Mayor Heller reported a Resolution of Appreciation was to have been presented to Michael Trujillo for his work with the Police Department; however, Mr. Trujillo had not yet arrived. Councilmember Cohen stated there was an event of special importance which he felt deserved recognition, announcing City Clerk Jeanne Leoncini had been with the City of San Rafael for twenty-five years today. Vice-Mayor Heller introduced City Clerk Leoncini to the audience, and she and the Councilmembers thanked Mrs. Leoncini for her wonderful work, dedication, and help throughout the past twenty-five years. Flowers were presented and Vice-Mayor Heller then announced a brief recess, and cake was served in celebration of Mrs. Leoncini's anniversary. Vice-Mayor Heller reconvened the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: 11. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE FINAL DESIGN DETAILS FOR A MIXED USE RETAIL, OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 729 FOURTH STREET AT LINCOLN AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, CA; APN 011-275-01; GLENN KOORHAN, APPELLANT; TOMMY KENNEDY, OWNER; JERRY LANGKAMMERER; REPRESENTATIVE (Pl) - File 10-7 x 10-2 Vice-Mayor Heller reported the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting held on 7/29/97, approved the final building details by a vote of 6-0-1, with Commissioner Smith abstaining. She explained there were two questions now before Council; to consider adoption of a Resolution denying appeal; or, to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 9/2/97 at the request of the appellant, which she stated was the question Council first needed to address. City Attorney Gary Ragghianti asked that the applicant identify himself for the record if he were present. Mr. Kennedy announced that he was present. Mr. Ragghianti asked that the record show the appellant, Mr. Koorhan, was absent, but noted Mr. Koorhan had made a request that this matter be continued. Mr. Ragghianti stated that should be the Council's first order of business. Councilmember Cohen pointed out Council does normally grant requests for continuance if someone cannot attend the meeting, and unless there was some reason he was not aware of why this could have been avoided and Mr. Koorhan could have been present, or if there was some reason to hear the matter at this time, he felt the continuance should be granted. He stated he was not in favor of delaying the issue for a long time, acknowledging this was also an issue for Mr. Kennedy; however, he did not think a request to continue this until the meeting of 9/2/97 was an unreasonable one. Councilmember Miller stated he took the opposite view, noting he would not like to see the continuance because the core of the issue seems to be a matter of litigation of a judicial nature, in terms of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Koorhan, and he did not feel it was Council's job to enter into that kind of fray, rather their job was to process applications in a speedy process. He stated it seemed that the onus would be on Mr. Koorhan to show that a continuance was not going to delay the project, or the project's development, and since Mr. Koorhan was not present to express this, Mr. Miller stated he would favor the applicant, and go ahead with the hearing. Councilmember Phillips stated he believed there was at least a general precedence to provide a continuance for a reasonable period of time, and he would be inclined to grant and move the continuance to the meeting of 9/2/97. Councilmember Cohen suggested an amendment to the motion, stating Council would make this a one-time continuance to the meeting of 9/2/97, and make it clear to Mr. Koorhan that Council intends to hear this matter on 9/2/97, whether or not he is able to be present, that he needs to prepare himself for that meeting, and understand that Council will go ahead on that night. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 5 Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to grant the continuance of this public hearing to the meeting of 9/2/97. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Phillips & Vice-Mayor Heller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Miller ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro Vice-Mayor Heller announced the Public Hearing would be continued to the meeting of 9/2/97. Vice-Mayor Heller announced Council would next address Item #13. OLD BUSINESS: 13. REPORT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN CONTEMPO MARIN MOBILE HOME PARK (CA) - File 13-7-1 x 9-3-16 Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan reported that in June of this year, Coleman Persily, a resident of Contempo Marin Mobile Home Park, approached the Council during Urgency Time and indicated he would like to see Council consider two changes to the City's Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The first amendment would downsize the annual CPI rental increase, and the second would require approval of 51% of the Park's tenants before permitting Capital Improvement pass-throughs. Mr. Guinan reported he had reviewed both of these requests, and his comments were contained in the staff report. He stated the first issue, dealing with a revision to the CPI Index, was not specific enough for him to be able to comment on whether or not a particular revision would be constitutional. However, he could state that the annual rent adjustment must provide for a fair and reasonable return to the park owner, noting both State and Federal case law require this, and base this on the Constitutional guarantee of Substantive and Procedural Due Process. Mr. Guinan stated there were certain revisions that could be accomplished within the definition of a fair and reasonable return; however, he pointed out the City's current Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance has already been tested under litigation circumstances in the trial court in Marin County, as well as on appeal in the case of De Anza v. the City of San Rafael. Mr. Guinan stated the first request was for an amendment dealing with Capital Improvement pass-throughs. He reported this past Spring the City had experienced the first rent dispute process, a petition was filed by the park owner seeking to recover the costs of Capital Improvements to the pumps for the lagoons at Contempo Marin. Mr. Guinan explained this was in excess of the annual CPI adjustment allowed in our Ordinance, and the park owner petitioned accordingly. After several months of discussions between the tenants and the park owner, a reasonable solution for both sides was arrived at, which included a separate Capital Improvement surcharge on the monthly rent for each space. Mr. Guinan explained the benefit of this agreement to the tenants was that this surcharge was not added to the base rent, and at the same time provided the park owner a fair and reasonable return for his investment on the Capital Improvement. Mr. Guinan explained the second request was for an amendment to provide a separate Capital Improvement pass-through provision. Mr. Guinan noted he had originally thought the request was for a tenant veto power of Capital Improvements. In effect, if 51% of the tenants did not approve it, then the park owner did not get it. However, that is not the case, as such a result would be unconstitutional. What it actually means is that there would be a separate procedure available for designated Capital Improvements, and if 51% of the tenants approved the expenditure after verification of the cost and amortization, then, without going through the regular rent dispute hearing process, a surcharge could be imposed on each of the tenants to recover that cost. If 51% of the tenants did not approve of such a Capital Improvement pass-through, then the issue would be processed in the usual rent dispute hearing process. Mr. Guinan stated it was his conclusion that both of these proposed amendments are lawful, but again, neither of them are currently in our City's rent Ordinance, which has been tested before the Court of Appeal and upheld. He noted that if such changes were to be made, the City would run the risk of further litigation by the park owner, or park owner organizations, as to whether or not the new scheme provides a fair and reasonable return. There are other cities which have rent control provisions dealing with the 51% tenant approval requirement, such as American Canyon, and some other cities have a CPI index being a bit less than our 100% of a 5% or less increase in the past annual CPI, that have been upheld by the courts. Mr. Guinan stated it is really a matter of assessing the litigation SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 6 risk; will changing the Ordinance result in litigation as opposed to leaving the Ordinance as it is because it has been tested and upheld by the courts, and poses no problem with the Constitutional issue of what is a fair and reasonable return. Councilmember Phillips asked if an owner decided there were necessary Capital Improvements in the amount of $100,000, and 51% of the vote is required under Provision 2, if it went to vote and the tenant said "Yes", then would there be a recovery by the owner of the $100,000 over time? Mr. Guinan stated that was correct, over the period of the amortized cost of the Capital Improvement, and it would be a separate charge, not includable in the base rent. Mr. Phillips asked if the vote were "No", and the owner was still determined that this was a necessary expenditure, would there be any difference in the amount assessed if the renters voted "Yes" or if they voted "No"? Mr. Guinan explained the Capital Improvement pass-through, as a separate procedure, would provide certainty for both sides with regard to Capital Improvement; if 51% of the tenants did not approve the pass-through for a Capital Improvement, then the issue could be raised by the park owner in the ordinary rent dispute hearing process. Mr. Guinan stated the owner would come to the hearing and state, in a petition, that his net operating income has been reduced because of the added expenditure, and would further state that he had added value to the park and the services provided to the tenants, and he needed to recoup at least the net operating income he was earning before. Mr. Phillips asked if the park owner had the right to a fair and equitable return on that additional Capital Investment? Mr. Guinan stated that was correct, noting this was by judicial application of Constitutional principles to rent control. Mr. Phillips asked, under this proposal, if the tenants voted it favor, would they then be given direct input, and told what was going to be done and what the additional annual or monthly charge was going to be? Mr. Guinan stated this was correct. Councilmember Miller stated it seemed the source of the problem really comes over the ownership of the park, and asked Mr. Guinan to refresh Council's memory as to what the City is doing to assist the tenants in purchasing the park, and whether Mr. Guinan sees any prognosis down the line as to whether this is actually a more viable and fundamental approach than jockeying around with our Ordinances? Mr. Guinan stated he could not answer whether it was a more viable approach, although he noted it was his understanding that a group at Contempo Marin is still actively pursuing this approach. He reported Dick Bornholdt (City's Housing Advisor) was working closely with that group. Mr. Guinan stated he had spoken with Mr. Bornholdt earlier today, and he reported there had apparently been a detailed survey of all the residents regarding their willingness to participate financially in such an enterprise, and they have had a 75% to 80% response. He noted those surveys had just been collected, and next week the group plans to present Mr. Bornholdt with a detailed financial plan as to how they can realistically commit to the process. Councilmember Cohen felt that unless an answer comes back that the purchase of the park is imminent, while he encouraged those pursuing that option to continue to do so, he believed Council should give due consideration to the request that is now before them, even if it is, admittedly, only an interim solution and does not fundamentally solve the problem. Mr. Cohen noted the Councilmembers pride themselves on how hard they work to create affordable housing in this community, and he felt they should work at least as hard to preserve the affordable housing we already have. Mr. Cohen stated there were a couple of questions he felt merited further study. First, with regard to the issue related to the Consumer Price Index, he noted we already have in the Ordinance a factor on the Consumer Price Index when it gets above 5%, and asked if there were other provisions in other, similar Ordinances that factor the Consumer Price Index below 5%, and if so, have any of those been tested in court, or are any of those of sufficient standing over time that we might have some safe harbor in using them as a model? Mr. Guinan stated he did not do a thorough survey of other Ordinances to see what their threshold of Consumer Indexes were, although he was aware that there are other Ordinances where 75% or 80% of the annual CPI is applied, and he believes those have been upheld. He pointed out that in those cases there is no gradation, meaning they do not go from 100% down to 66.23%, as ours does, it is just a flat percentage. Mr. Cohen asked if the Capital Improvement pass-through, particularly the Ordinance of American Canyon, has been tested in court? Mr. Guinan stated it has not. However, it does throw the issue back into their general Rent Dispute Hearing SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 7 Process if 51% of the tenants do not approve. Mr. Cohen asked if that might allow the Arbitrator to decide that those were separate from the base rents upon which the CPI increases are calculated? Mr. Guinan explained the way our Ordinance currently reads, there is no specific provision for this; however, in the Rent Dispute Hearing that was settled last Spring, the settlement agreement between the parties did separate out the Capital Improvement pass-through as a separate charge. Mr. Cohen asked if there were other vehicles to achieve this same result that have been implemented and tested in court, or did this seem like the best way to approach the Capital Improvement issue? Mr. Guinan stated he had not surveyed this, rather he had attempted, first of all, to ensure that the two proposals, as general as they were, were legal in themselves. Mr. Cohen stated Mr. Guinan had made a point, in discussing both of these issues, that San Rafael's Ordinance had already been tested in court, and had withstood challenge from the Appeal level. He asked if we were to make either or both of these proposed modifications, would that open up the entire Ordinance to challenge once again, causing us to revisit all those issues, or would it merely be the new revisions of the Ordinance that would be subject to challenge? Mr. Guinan stated after reviewing the De Anza decision, it was his understanding the issues that would be open for further review would be those changes. However, there may be other issues of the Ordinance that were not specifically raised during the De Anza litigation, issues that were left alone but might also be the subject of attack. City Attorney Ragghianti agreed, stating the actual challenge, if one were to be made, would be couched by the posture in which it came to the court, which would depend on what happened in the Administrative portions of the debate. Generally speaking, he felt the attack, if one were to be made, would be just on the amendments, or claims made by the park owner that he was not receiving a fair and just return, whether it be recapture of Capital Improvements or rent return. Coleman Persily, President of the Homeowners Association at Contempo Marin and Regional Manager of the Golden State Mobile Homeowners League, read the following statement into the record: "Members of the San Rafael City Council, we residents of Contempo Marin are deeply gratified that your Council went through the trouble of passing an Ordinance which protected us from usurious rent increases. We, in addition, wish to thank the City Attorneys for looking over and reporting to you their interpretation of our request to amend the Ordinance. I am happy to say the Attorneys didn't come back with a negative recommendation. We are asking for the automatic increase to be reduced or eliminated. It amounts to $16.00 per month, compounded every year, which means that next year it will go up to $17.00 or $18.00. "Regarding litigation, Novato just passed an Ordinance allowing a 75% CPI increase. Many other parks have less than 100% CPI increase, and as long as your Attorney will investigate, no litigation resulted, and no litigation was ever filed over a decreased CPI; in fact, the City of Sonoma does not allow any automatic increases, but rather, as your Ordinance says, 'a fair return'. That is the most important part of all Ordinances, and as explained by your Attorney, that is required, and this is what we live by. We certainly want our park owner to have a fair return, or the park will go down. We are looking for the park owner to have a fair return, but in this case, right now our park is subject to the following rent increases: $16.00, which you know is automatic; $7.50 for Capital Improvements, which we agreed to; next year will be another $7.50 for Capital Improvements, which we agreed to; and $17.00 next year, automatic increase. That amounts to $48.00. We would appreciate if you would help us by stopping or reducing the automatic increase. Fair return; we had the opportunity of reviewing the books in the last arbitration process. Our accountant reported that the park owner is getting a 75% return on his investment. As your Attorney states, he can add Capital Improvements as an expense item. Even if he adds this expense item, he will be getting a good, fair return. "Now, the park owner is in the business of selling coaches in the park. This will surely add to his gross income. If the park owner decides to oppose your decision, assuming it is favorable, and goes through the arbitration procedure, then the Arbitrator will check his books, and in our opinion, will come out with a decision that he is receiving a fair return. Your Attorney advises that you have three choices: 1) Instruct your Attorney to prepare an amendment; 2) Ask the Attorney for more information; 3) Take no action. We ask that you instruct your Attorney to prepare the amendments, or to ask for more information. Please, do not drop the matter. P.S. Please remember the purpose of writing the Ordinance was to maintain the mobile homes as affordable housing." Vice-Mayor Heller noted Mr. Persily had stated 75% as the amount of fair return, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 8 while other members of the audience stated another figure, and she asked which was correct? Mr. Persily responded the amount should have been stated as 35%. Councilmember Phillips asked, based on Mr. Persily's involvement with various statewide issues as they pertain to mobile home parks, if he knew of other parks that have this similar provision regarding the 51% approval, other than American Canyon? Mr. Persily responded he did not. Ida Johnson, resident of Contempo Marin, stated she has been closely involved with both the park purchase and everything that is going on in the park. She urged Council to take this matter under submission, noting the issues that have been raised by Council tonight are the same issues that some of those in the park have raised. She stated they want to know, if they amend the Ordinance, what is going to happen to the Ordinance, if it can be attacked, and if they will lose ground. Ms. Johnson stated she supported Mr. Persily in asking Council not to let this issue slide, noting they do want to go forward with the purchase, and explaining the rent increases are becoming very burdensome, they are unable to sell their homes, and so they need to attack on all fronts simultaneously. Therefore, Ms. Johnson asked Council to continue this study, and the possibilities and options that are open to the tenants. Robert Jimenez, resident of Contempo Marin Mobile Home Park, stated he came to the meeting to comment only about the rent increase; however, he saw the issue of the possibility of park purchase being a happy option for the tenants, and something Council might wish to consider. He stated the issue of park purchase has come up before, noting there is a busy, working Park Purchase Committee, which has made at least one attempt to buy this park from a prior owner, who said "No", and sold to the present owner. Meanwhile, there is the issue of the rent raises, noting rent raises have been his annual nightmare since he moved to Contempo Marin Mobile Home Park in 1980. He reported they have increased relentlessly each year, from $196. in 1980 to $391. per month in 1989, pointing out the rents doubled in less than nine years. Mr. Jimenez noted that thanks to the City of San Rafael's Affordability Index, these raises slowed down some, but the recent park owner, Manufacturers Home Corporation, found a way to top any restriction, and claimed Capital Improvements that allowed an assessment raising his rent. He reported the residents must use a swimming pool which has no lifeguard, putting them at risk, and their children in a dangerous environment; the night security service has been cut out of the budget, and they are without a night attendant for the clubhouse, making that building an eerie and unsafe place for anyone to be alone at night; and the park Manager cannot be relied upon to tend to the on-going needs of the tenants, such as removing abandoned cars, stopping the use of the children's playground as a dog toilet, curbing vandalism in the laundry room, and refereeing disputes between neighbors. Mr. Jimenez stated the Manager has been put to work by the Corporation at the full-time task of selling mobile homes, via the Corporate owned Carefree Mobile Home Sales, and getting the Corporation above the Profit/Loss Index. Mr. Jimenez felt this made victims of us all, noting we need containment, based on compassion for the less fortunate and laced with the message for Corporate bosses that they must not go too far. Foy Sargent, resident of Contempo Marin Mobile Home Park and member of the Board of Directors of Contempo Marin Homeowners Association, thanked Council for considering the request for changes in the Ordinance, and hoped Council would continue the study. He reported a recent survey undertaken by the Park Purchase Committee found that 65% of the residents are in the low to poverty level income range, and noted the annual increases of the CPI hurt those residents more so than others. Mr. Sargent pointed out the 51% approval rate would help shorten the process, and would force the park owner to justify to the residents why they are doing this, instead of all of a sudden work being done for unknown reasons. Mr. Sargent felt it would also aid the residents, as well as the park owners, in minimizing the problems with Capital Improvement increases. He urged Council to place this issue on the Agenda for future consideration. Councilmember Cohen stated Council had heard enough testimony about the impact of the current practices at Contempo Marin Mobile Home Park to justify further consideration of this matter; however, he did not feel there was enough information at this time to take action directing preparation of an amendment to the Ordinance. He asked the City Attorney's Office to further investigate the issues that had been raised this evening, what other Ordinances are doing in terms of provisions of a factor of CPI, if we could point to what Novato and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 9 other communities have done, setting a 75% of CPI across the board as a workable modification to the Ordinance, and what would be involved in implementing the Capital Improvement pass-through. Mr. Cohen did not believe it was necessary to have a survey of ten different approaches to this problem, noting at this point he was prepared to try to find a way to move forward on these issues. He asked the City Attorney's Office to come back with recommendations on what seems like the most sustainable approaches. Councilmember Phillips agreed there were sufficient reasons for Council to review this matter in some detail, noting it was important that the City maintain this housing element at a reasonable cost. He stated he was struck by the fact that apparently the City can have some discretion over the CPI, and he would be interested to know what some of the other communities do, and what the resulting rents might be under other CPI configurations. He noted our Ordinance currently has three different levels, and perhaps something should be done to make it a little more fair and equitable to both sides, and something that could be anticipated with some certainty. Mr. Phillips believed Ms. Johnson had raised an interesting question of whether or not the Ordinance could be attacked, noting that while he did not believe anyone had that answer, he felt the City's legal staff could provide a better answer than anyone else, and he would be interested in having them review that issue, as well. Councilmember Miller agreed time is of the essence, stating the 65% of low to poverty incomes is a staggering percentage, and whatever the City can do to eliminate that, so the people with lower incomes have decent and affordable housing, is something he believed the Council should pursue as a policy, and as a moral issue. Councilmember Miller suggested to City Manager Gould that perhaps the City could also pursue more vigorously the idea of the purchase of the park, and perhaps accelerate that pace, too, because he believed this was the fundamental question that would eventually resolve the issue once and for all. He acknowledged this would be difficult, because of the number of items we would have to pursue in the process. He noted the residents had worked very hard on acquiring the park, so they can determine their own existence. Vice-Mayor Heller asked if Mr. Miller wanted to include, as part of the motion, that the City continue working on the purchase? Mr. Miller stated he did not wish to include it in this motion. However, he suggested to City Manager Gould that we help in any way we can to go forward with the purchase. City Manager Gould reported Dick Bornholdt, the City's Housing Advisor, has been asked to work with the residents who are interested in pursuing a residential purchase of the park, noting Mr. Bornholdt has promised to provide a written report by the end of next week. Mr. Gould provided clarification regarding a comment made earlier by Mr. Jimenez, stating it would be possible for a government agency that had the requisite authority to compel the purchase of the park on behalf of a certified non-profit agency. He noted this would not be the City of San Rafael, nor would it be the Redevelopment Agency, but it could possibly be the Housing Authority of Marin. Mr. Gould stated the first step would be to develop a financial pro forma that shows it is feasible, and to determine what, if any, gap would exist, then decide how to fill that gap. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to accept the report with Council's direction that staff study the items mentioned during discussion. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice-Mayor Heller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro MONTHLY REPORT: 12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (CM) - File 9-3-11 City Manager Gould re-introduced Bob Leiter, Community Development Director, welcoming him. Mr. Gould noted Mr. Leiter had just completed his first day of service with the City of San Rafael, and had already undertaken a number of issues that are being processed by the City's new Community Development Department. He noted there are a number of major projects which are working their way through the process at this time, and Mr. Leiter has vowed to come up to speed on them as quickly as possible. Mr. Gould noted that while doing all of this, Mr. Leiter also has to keep his eye on the need to revise the City's General Plan, which next year will be a decade old, and is in need of revision. Concerning the State budget process, City Manager Gould noted it appears that due to a last minute decision by the Governor to make a huge, one-time, lump-sum payment to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), there will be no ERAF SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 10 relief this year. Mr. Gould stated he was a little more optimistic that we will be able to continue the Law Enforcement Block Grant funding we received last year, and had factored into the budget this year, and also that the Federal COPS money would be re-authorized at approximately the same level we enjoyed last year. He reported some return of Fines and Forfeiture monies was still in play, noting the Governor has stated he was not going to include that in this year's budget, but he might be willing to continue discussions. Mr. Gould stated this was about the best the cities could expect to see this year. Mr. Gould reported he has begun serving on a statewide Committee which involves leaders of California business and industry, counties, and school districts, to look at a reform measure that might be put before the voters in November, 1998. This measure would simply seek to protect tax revenues that cities receive today, not augmented, not increased taxes, not to grab a greater share for cities or even return what we are currently losing, but simply to protect what we've got against the ravages of the State in the future. Mr. Gould referred to an article in the newspaper this weekend which reported the State Supreme Court had issued a ruling concerning counties involved in their own retirement systems, as to how counties will calculate pension benefits for public employees. He noted, in essence, the ruling states counties need to incorporate almost all forms of income an employee would receive during his or her employment in the calculation of the pension benefit. He stated this would vastly increase what 1937 Act counties have to pay out for their employees, and may very well involve the cities in those same programs. Mr. Gould reported Assistant City Manager Golt, who chairs the Marin County Retirement Board, is asking the Administrator (Norman Klein) to help us in understanding what the ramifications of this decision may be. Mr. Gould reported the draft Environmental Impact Report for Fair, Isaac was released today for its comment period, and he commended staff and the consultants for a terrific job in pulling all that together, noting it was a very complex project. He reported he had also checked with Fair, Isaac to determine the status of the lease negotiations with the Developer, Village Properties, and he was assured all substantive issues between the parties have now been resolved, and the signing of the Lease Agreement should be accomplished within the first week of September. He noted this would be a major milestone in this project. Mr. Gould stated Code Enforcement would be the subject of a special meeting of the Federation of Neighborhoods tomorrow evening, noting there have been a number of questions about what the enhanced Code Enforcement Program can and cannot do. He stated Code Enforcement Officer Nimot Shakoor-Grantham, Community Development Director Bob Leiter, Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan, Councilmember Miller and himself would be attending, and would talk with the representatives of the Neighborhood Association about what we are doing, and what we can do to assist and to eradicate Code violations in the neighborhoods of San Rafael. Mr. Gould commended City Attorney Ragghianti for his skillful handling of the settlement of a lawsuit, with substantial savings to the City. Mr. Gould also reported he has received a number of calls and letters from the Bret Harte neighborhood, as have the Councilmembers, regarding discussions with St. Vincent de Paul. He noted he would like to prepare a draft response to the letters and phone calls we are receiving, and provide it to the Councilmembers for their suggestions prior to sending it out, so everyone has good information on what is going on with this issue of relocation of the dining room. Councilmember Cohen noted Mr. Gould had made a comment which appeared to suggest that the recent court decision regarding employee retirement applied to the 1937 Act counties, specifically the Marin County Employee Retirement System, and he asked if that equally applied to PERS (Public Employees Retirement System)? Mr. Gould responded that it did not apply to PERS. Councilmember Cohen stated he felt the City needed to revisit the issue of whether it is in the long-term best interest of the City to continue to participate in the Marin County Employee Retirement System, or whether we would be better served, and our employees might be better served, to participate in PERS, which has a much larger pool. Mr. Cohen felt, particularly if this decision was going to apply to the County system, the City may want to revisit this issue, and see whether or not it is something we want to explore. Mr. Cohen stated this may have made sense at the time it was put together, but he wondered if it made sense today for the City of San Rafael? Mr. Gould agreed it would be wise to study the whole analysis, recalling it had been put on the shelf when the Marin County system announced steep reductions in the premiums paid by certain member cities, including San Rafael, pointing out that had been a great aid in balancing the budget last year. However, if we lose those savings, it might be a good question as to whether we would be better served becoming part of the Public Employees Retirement System, which calculates its benefits differently than does our 1937 Act system. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 11 14. REPORT ON COMMUNITY POLICING (PD) - File 9-3-30 Police Chief Cam Sanchez stated he had been with the City for six months, noting it had been an exciting time, a great transition, and things are going very well. He reported that prior to his arrival the Council and City Manager had shared goals with him which reflected some of the needs of the Police Department. One of his goals was to fill all of the vacant positions on the Department by August 1st, and this has been done. He reported the Department currently has three individuals in the Police Academy, all of whom are bilingual. Chief Sanchez stated he hopes that by March, 1998 the Police Department truly will be at full force, when all the probationers are off of their FTO (Field Training Officer) programs, noting that will really impact the Patrol Division. Another goal was to enhance the Department's Management ranks by putting Mid-Managers in Patrol, and two Lieutenant positions had been created. He reported the two Lieutenants are working out very well at the beginning of their tour. Chief Sanchez reported another goal was to better the communications between the Police Department and the community, stating this is a continual challenge and a continual process, and this is not a project that will have a real end to it. He reported some of the things the Police Department is doing include continuing the Citizens Police Academy, noting this year, for the first time in the entire State of California, San Rafael's Police Department will be doing a Citizens Academy in Spanish, which will be held in January at Pickleweed Community Center. Chief Sanchez stated this had been a concern in the Canal community. He reported the Police Department spends a lot of time there, noting the community and the Police Department have joined forces with the Canal Voice and other programs, and one of their big issues was why there was not a Citizens Academy in Spanish for their community. Chief Sanchez stated the Department has developed the entire course to a Spanish language curriculum, and the Department is very excited about this, as it will establish great ties with the community. Chief Sanchez referred to the goal of establishing better communications between the Managers of the Police Department and line personnel. He reported he is doing "One-on-one's with the Chief", explaining he has set aside quite a bit of time for each and every employee who wishes to speak with him about goals and objectives, and what their personal goals are, as well as their needs as employees. He believed this was a critical part of community policing, because we really need to get the buy-in of the working Police Officer as to what their personal needs are. He stated before we ask them to present a program to the community, they need to have training, to buy into community policing themselves, and to make sure that they are happy here, and he did not want to set them up for failure. Chief Sanchez stated the big plan is to go into a concept called Team Policing, where the Department puts Police Officers in certain parts of town for longer periods of time to work closely with the community. He noted the Department's goal will be to go into a Team Policing concept at the next rotation in March, extending the Officers' stays in certain areas. He explained that instead of changing a beat every three weeks, which does not allow the Officers to build a real relationship with the community, the plan is to keep the Officers in one specific area, as teams, for six months to a year, to build relationships with the community, and attack and address the concerns of the community. Chief Sanchez believed, in this way, they would certainly reduce crime, and really get a buy-in, not just from the Officers, but from the community as well, as the residents see that the Department is serious about community policing. Chief Sanchez reported the Police Department is currently working with Code Enforcement on certain issues, noting they had participated in the clean-up at Pickleweed Park in the Canal area, and stated this was something they would continue to do. He reported the residents of the community really came out for this, noting they began with approximately 80 people, and by the end of the day they had approximately 125 volunteers who joined in to clean-up the Canal area and the park, and knocking on doors to talk about community policing and some of the services provided by the City. Chief Sanchez noted community policing was really a long-term project, and it will take time to make really big impacts in the community. He stated first and foremost on his agenda was to make sure the Police Officers realize their roles are going to change in this community. He noted the Police Officers will have to enhance their people skills and community skills, stating this was his foremost thought regarding community policing, so the program will not fail. Chief Sanchez stated the Police Association was excited about this project as well, because he has included them in the process. He noted since some of the plans may, in the future, affect working conditions, he was making sure to keep the Association abreast of what is going on. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 12 Chief Sanchez stated community policing would entail employee training, and reported that in September he, Captain Cronin, City Manager Gould, and selected employees from the Community Policing Committee will be going to Sacramento for three days to attend training on establishing a community oriented policing team for the City. Chief Sanchez noted the establishment of partnerships was a big issue with him, with community groups, civic groups, and the Chambers of Commerce. He reported one of the things many of his Command Officers have been doing is attending meetings and luncheons, and speaking to the various groups about community policing, what it entails, and what our plans are for the future. Chief Sanchez stated a solid foundation would be the critical part, and that was why he was taking his time, in his first year as Chief, to really get to know his staff and the community, so that when the Department does move forward with its crusade of community policing there will be a solid foundation that will succeed and not fail. In conclusion, Chief Sanchez stated in the coming months he plans to give Council and the City Manager continual updates on the Department's efforts and progress, and on the training of the Police Officers, our citizens, and the Command staff, who will participate very largely in community policing. He stated this would be a Citywide project, not just a Police Department project. Councilmember Phillips noted it would be helpful to have a written report, and asked if Council would be receiving one? City Manager Gould stated a written report would be forthcoming, noting they wanted to do a little more work on it, and perhaps incorporate some of the things that will come out of the training during the first week of September. Mr. Gould believed Council would be very pleased with what Chief Sanchez is proposing in his report, noting it was a very dynamic program, and it will make a very demonstrable change in the way our residents view the Police Department, and the way we protect the public safety in San Rafael. Councilmember Cohen stated people do not realize how much is involved, how much buy-in you need from the Police Officers and the Police Department, and how much commitment is required on the part of the community. Therefore, Mr. Cohen stated he appreciated the cautious, step-by-step approach Chief Sanchez is taking in building this project, so when we actually launch the program, make it a reality and make it happen, it will have some support from everyone in the community, because that is our best and only hope of really making it a success. Councilmember Miller stated time is really essential for the community to prepare to commit itself to community policing. He believed the community needed to be included in the process from the very beginning, noting it takes a while for something like this to really take off, so it does not look like it is just the City doing this. He stated that Chief Sanchez taking his time and going slowly now, so at the appropriate time we can go very rapidly, was a very wise strategy. Mr. Miller stated he really appreciated Chief Sanchez' efforts of going out and working in the community, and constantly getting that community readiness so we have community commitment, because if we have community commitment, then we see the Police as a resource to the community, determining its own existence. He stated it was a compassionate and competent community that we are building, and he felt Chief Sanchez' efforts were going along very nicely with this, commending him for reaching out to the community as he has done. Mr. Miller pointed out this involved all the communities within San Rafael, not just the Canal area, noting that was the remarkable part about this, because Chief Sanchez has become very much a part of the other communities. Mr. Miller stated it really comes down to neighbors working with neighbors, which is what we really mean by the "compassionate community" Chief Sanchez is developing. He noted this was a great spirit to have, and thanked Chief Sanchez for sparking that spirit among us. NEW BUSINESS: 15. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 PM. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 13 JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1997 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/18/97 Page 13