Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1998-01-20SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1998 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Gary O. Phillips, Vice -Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Absent: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Patricia J. Roberts, Deputy City Clerk CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM None OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: PM USE PERMIT FOR SALVATION ARMY FACILITY - File 100 x 233 8:00 Scott Kaplan, 217 Jewell Street, Vice -President of the Montecito Area Residents Association, stated he had been asked to speak on behalf of his neighbors. Mr. Kaplan reported there have been problems regarding the Salvation Army facility for the past three years. He stated that for eight hours of the day the facility is a collection box for the Salvation Army, but during the other sixteen hours out of the day it is a source of littering, loitering, illegal dumping, and a great deal of fear and consternation felt by the most immediate neighbors, during the hours they are most likely to be at home. Mr. Kaplan stated the Salvation Army has asked to be granted a Use Permit, noting that up until this time they have been operating without one; however, he did not believe it would be in the public interest to grant them a Use Permit. Mr. Kaplan stated he did not feel it would create a problem for the Salvation Army if they were denied a Use Permit, noting they could move their operation indoors and operate the same way as other like institutions in the community. Vice - Mayor Phillips stated the Council was aware of this problem, noting the issue would be brought before the Planning Commission in March. City Manager Gould reported the Code Enforcement Division and the Police Department have been meeting with the neighborhood to discuss these concerns, noting a report would be presented to the Planning Commission when they consider this issue in early March. MILL STREET SHELTER - File 100 x 9-3-16 x 233 Melany Kramer, former resident of Mill Street Shelter, noted she had received a report from City Manager Gould detailing the findings in the investigation of her previous complaints against the Mill Street Shelter. Ms. Kramer expressed her dissatisfaction with the report, which she felt had not adequately addressed the violations, which include cockroaches and rats, drinking, and drugs. She provided a list of people she felt should be contacted for additional input regarding this issue. Vice -Mayor Phillips suggested Ms. Kramer discuss the issue further with City Manager Gould, noting the City was aware of her complaints. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Special Closed Session and Regular Meetings of Monday, January 5, 1998 (CC) 2. Request for Amicus Participation: (CA) - File 9-3-16 a. Del Monte Dunes v. City of Monterey 3. Monthly Investment Report (Admin. Svcs.) - File 8-18 x8-9 Approved as submitted. Council approved City's joinder as amicus party. Accepted report. 4. Resolution Approving Memorandum of Understanding RESOLUTION NO. 10000 - (MOU) Between County/City Re: Proposed Point RESOLUTION APPROVING SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 1 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 2 San Pedro Median Assessment District (Admin. Svcs.) - File 6-54 Second, Third & "A" Streets Underground THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND THE COUNTY OF MARIN CONCERNING THE FORMATION OF THE POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. RESOLUTION NO. 10001 District - Resolution to Rescind Resolution RESOLUTION RESCINDING No. 9998 (PW) - File 12-18-13 x (SRRA) R-318 x RESOLUTION NO. 9998. (SRRA) R-360 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6. PUBLIC HEARING - File 5-1-334 x 10-7 a. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PARCEL MAP TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE LOCATED AT 35 ST. FRANCIS LANE; APN 15-211-14; ROBERT AND LINDSAY NEVILLE, OWNERS; THOMAS FAIMALI AND MARIE LAVIN, APPELLANTS (CD) b. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PARCEL MAP TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE LOCATED AT 35 ST. FRANCIS LANE; APN 15-211-14; ROBERT AND LINDSAY NEVILLE, OWNERS; RICHARD AND DOROTHY BREINER, DAVID AND ROSE STADTNER, APPELLANTS (CD) Vice -Mayor Phillips declared the public hearing opened, and asked for a staff report. Planning Manager Sheila Delimont reported that on October 28, 1997 the Planning Commission approved the two -lot subdivision and Design Review Permit for a new single-family house. One lot of the subdivision is already developed as a home, and the new 10,000 square foot lot would be developed with a 3,500 square foot residence. She stated both the lot and the home were reviewed by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission for compliance with the City's Ordinances, and the Hillside Residential Design Guidelines. Ms. Delimont stated two appeals of the Planning Commission's approval have been filed; one by Thomas Faimali and Marie Lavin, and one by Richard and Dorothy Breiner and David and Rose Stadtner. She noted staff and the applicant have been working with the appellants to resolve their issues. Ms. Delimont reported Miller Pacific Engineering Group has independently reviewed the Geotechnical Report, the drainage plan has been revised by Irving Schwartz of I.L. Schwartz Associates, Inc., and on the Breiner/Stadtner appeal, staff has prepared revised conditions which the applicant and appellants have agreed to, with the exception of Conditions #6 and #77. She reported staff has prepared revised wording for both of these Conditions and FAX'd them to the appellants and applicant, and it is hoped the revised Conditions address their points in the appeal. She explained the revised wording for Condition #6 allows some flexibility to address future changes in drainage, and Condition #77 would also provide some flexibility. Ms. Delimont reported the house would need to be shifted approximately two feet at the rear corner to meet the rear setback, noting staff recommends not precisely defining those two feet, as the applicant will need some flexibility in preparing the more detailed working drawings and grading when he comes in for the Building Permit. Ms. Delimont stated the Lavin/Faimali appeal addresses different issues, noting they are concerned with both the loss of the view and the potential decrease in property values. She reported both homes are oriented with the site elevations together, and they will be located approximately thirty- five feet apart, noting that when the Design Review Board reviewed this, they did not feel there was a view issue, although they did require SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 3 additional landscaping along that side of the property line to provide screening. Ms. Delimont explained the City's Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, and Hillside Guidelines do not address property values, and there is actually no evidence there will be an impact; therefore, staff does not recommend this appeal be approved by Council. Ms. Delimont stated staff was recommending Council partially grant the Breiner appeal by adopting the revised Conditions as presented, which would incorporate revised Conditions #6 and #77. Vice -Mayor Phillips invited the appellants to address the Council. David Stadtner, appellant, noted the applicant was maximizing the size of his house, and as a consequence, problems have cropped up because of the size of the house. Mr. Stadtner stated he did not have the same problems with this application as the other appellants, noting his problem was with the drainage. Using the recent heavy rains as a typical example of the problem, Mr. Stadtner explained that all the water from approximately three to four acres winds up coming down and hitting the drain, and if it is covered with leaves, then his property gets it all. He noted that in this particular case, after he cleared the drainage across the street from his house, he saw that the drainage immediately beside his house was impacted, coming down the side of his house and then going under his house. He stated this was a real problem, and hopes there is no flexibility with the drainage, noting he would like the drainage design to be locked in. He pointed out that although this has to do with water across the street from his own house, it winds up being his responsibility, and he does not know how else to make sure that whatever water is generated from the new house goes where it belongs. Anne Moore, Planning Consultant, representing appellants Judge and Mrs. Breiner, stated the Breiners' and Stadtners' concerns were not unfounded, noting the Breiners' input had resulted in several of the revised Conditions the Planning Commission imposed. Ms. Moore explained there are two entitlements, one is the subdivision, and one is what may or may not be a companion ED (Environmental Design) for a new house. She stated the subdivision was probably going to be filed, and although it would likely be this house that is built on the site, it could, conceivably, be another one; therefore, they wanted to make certain the conditions in the subdivision stand on their own, and put anyone who may be a successor in interest on notice of what needs to be done with a subsequent ED, to ensure that all drainage and other concerns are mitigated. Ms. Moore stated Condition #6 of the subdivision was crucial, and she believed staff's revised language was very responsive, both to the applicant and the Breiners' concerns in this matter. She stated they would agree to Condition #6, as revised. Regarding Condition #77, she stated the revised wording was a definite improvement, noting the Breiners' main concern is that the proposed house design not be moved significantly closer to their home, and if it is to be, they wish to be on record and have it clearly understood by all parties involved that any major repositioning of the home should be handled as a formal revision to the ED, with additional City review, and opportunity for the Breiners and others to review such a revised design. Ms. Moore referred to Mr. Neville's comment of January 19th in which he stated his preference would be to move the house as minimally as possible, and noted this was very reassuring. Tom Faimali, 31 St. Francis Lane, stated his appeal addressed the impacts on their view, privacy, and the value of their property. He reported staff's response had been that the construction would not create an aesthetically offensive view; however, he stated that in the 35 feet between his home and the proposed new house, his view would change and become the side and rear of a new house, versus trees and an open hillside. Therefore, he stated he did not understand that conclusion. Regarding the construction's consistency with the rest of the area, he noted the existing homes in the area were all built many years ago, trees and other vegetation have matured, and the neighborhood is bucolic and attractive as it currently is. He noted that was what attracted him to the neighborhood, along with the expectation that the area was completely built -out, and would remain as it was currently configured. Mr. Faimali stated staff agreed it would take several years for the proposed vegetation and landscaping to mature, noting he was supposed to be comforted by the Condition that landscaping must be maintained for two years, which would assure its survival. However, he pointed out he was expected to endure through the growth period, assuming the landscaping is maintained or replaced when necessary, but not having any future assurance of maintenance SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 4 by the current residents or future owners. Meanwhile, if he should decide to sell, he will have the unscreened side and back of a house 35 feet away, and he firmly believed this would negatively impact the sale value of his home from what it would have been. Referring to the project itself, Mr. Faimali noted he wrote a follow-up letter after he had an opportunity to read the Breiners'/Stadtners' appeal and Stan Bala's report, having felt compelled to address the significant issues brought up by Mr. Balo, and the discrepancies with the applicants' engineers. He stated it appeared as though the preliminary work, on which the Planning Commission based its approval, had been inadequate, noting corrections had indeed been made. He noted the Geotechnical Review disclosed deficiencies that were done in the original Geotechnical Report, and pointed out there have also been continuing comments on the adequacy of the setbacks, and the lack of room to adjust the position of the proposed home. Mr. Faimali felt this was all an attempt to push a "square peg into a round hole", stating he believed the proposed construction was inappropriate for the area, was too large for the lot, too close to the existing homes, and may exacerbate any existing drainage problems in the area. Terry Lofrano, Project Architect, stated he had worked very hard with the neighbors in trying to determine their concerns, and answer any questions their professional consultants brought up. He pointed out the second soils investigation had basically confirmed the first, which stated there were certain conditions of the site that needed to be addressed, and he felt this needed to be set very clearly in Council's mind. He stated there are no soils conditions that cannot or have not been addressed by normal staff review, normal Municipal Code requirements, and normal standard structural engineering on site. Mr. Lofrano stated all the drainage issues had been exhausted in researching them, and in trying to confirm that the applicant has provided something that will meet the standards and requirements of the adjacent owners. He noted it was also his understanding that there was agreement on all the drainage issues that have been raised, and he felt that was probably the most important concern raised by the neighbors. He stated the off-site water leaving the applicant's property would not increase from what presently exists, and will not impact the downhill drainage system. He pointed out the problem is a sub -standard drainage system in this portion of San Rafael, and he believed this was the City's problem. Mr. Lofrano reported his client had indicated he would, in every way, support and assist in the residents' efforts, as a neighborhood, to study this, and see how funds might be found, or applications made, to make this correct. He stated they were sorry to see this problem exist downhill, for the sake of the other residents, and because it has created an issue he did not feel was something he and the applicant had to, or should, address, as it is not within the purview of their responsibility. Referring to the concern of the adjacent neighbor regarding the proximity of the building, Mr. Lofrano reported the building was laid out consistent with the setback requirements of the City, noting one end of the house was close to the property line, but the other was far away from the property line. He stated in the initial analysis to site the house they had tried to determine where they would impact the adjacent neighbors the least, regarding such factors as drainage, symmetry of building, and privacy. He noted they had done their best to address everyone's concerns, pointing out the Breiners would like the house not to be close to their property line, and the adjacent neighbor on the other side does not want it close to his property line. Mr. Lofrano stated the location could certainly be moved around, and that was not something the applicant would object to, noting it was the neighbors' opinions that would determine this. Vice -Mayor Phillips noted it appeared as though there were still some people who did not agree with the drainage issue and the potential problems. Mr. Lofrano noted all the drainage issues specifically raised about this site were raised by the Breiners and their consultants. He stated it was his understanding, with the Conditions written by staff, that all of the issues raised had been addressed, and the Breiners had agreed that the addressing of those issues was satisfactory. Mr. Lofrano stated the drainage issue that seems to remain unresolved at this time is off- site, and has nothing to do with the project. He noted that in discussions with the Department of Public Works to determine where the responsibility lies, it was determined that if they did not increase the impact on the system, then they were not to blame for anything, and even if they did, the City does not normally require a single party to upgrade an entire system SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 5 within the community that is sub -standard. There being no further public comment, Vice -Mayor Phillips closed the public hearing. Councilmember Cohen referred to Condition #6, stating Ms. Moore had brought to staff's attention that this should be part of the subdivision Conditions, not the ED. He noted that as has been seen with other projects, the subdivision map can go forward, but the project may or may not get built; then, if someone else comes in later with a new proposal for a different house design, and those Conditions are all part of the ED approval and not the subdivision, then they are lost, and we have to have this battle all over again. Mr. Cohen stated his concern with the latest modification was, based on the amount of public review and valid concern by the neighbors regarding adequate opportunity to review the proposals, he felt perhaps this should be done in such a way that there is notification, and perhaps some kind of public review of any changes. He believed a valid point was made that the City should not simply state "This is it, there will be no changes, ever." Mr. Cohen stated he did not believe it was likely we were going to find the funding for a solution to the existing drainage deficiencies; however, should that happen, he felt it made sense to have in the subdivision map the ability to modify the drainage. Councilmember Cohen stated it may or may not be the case that a superior drainage system can be designed that will replace what is currently proposed, but not increase the impact downstream. However, should that happen, he felt the neighbors who were potentially the most impacted by that should have the opportunity to be noticed, and to have their own consultants review that, so they can be satisfied, as well, that those changes will not impact them. Mr. Cohen stated that would be the only change he would like to see made to Condition #6. He noted Condition #6 currently states it is left to verification by the City Engineer that the system can handle additional drainage, or that a superior drainage system has been designed, and he asked that we fold in some type of public process, so the neighbors can be assured that if there are changes in the future they will know about them. Ms. Delimont stated language could be added referring to "consultation"; however, she pointed out staff would not want the City to require the approval of the neighbors, as this was really an engineering solution, and a revision of a drainage plan does not typically trigger any permits from the City or a Public Hearing requirement. She stated language could be included requesting that the Engineer consult with the neighbors prior to approval of the drainage changes. Mr. Cohen asked what would happen if the neighbors' consultant disagreed with the conclusion of the City Engineer, or had questions about it, and whether there would be some mechanism for them to bring that to the attention of the Planning Commission or the Council? Mr. Cohen pointed out it was not until the Breiners' consultant raised a number of these technical points that the issue had to come to this level, in order for everyone to reach resolution and agreement about what the best design was. He stated if it were him, he would want to have the opportunity to comment, and if he could not reach an agreement with the City Engineer's views, he would at least want the opportunity to say so in a public setting, and either be upheld or overruled. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that in looking at Condition #6 as set forth in the January 20th memorandum, he suggested perhaps additional language could be added, but noted two separate scenarios must be factored in; first, an alteration proposed in the drainage system prior to occupancy, which is to say, between approval and occupancy of the dwelling; second, a change in the drainage system which takes place after occupancy, some years in the future. He pointed out the Conditions of Approval require that if the drainage system is altered, it requires the consent of the City Engineer, who must review the plans, assent to the change, and make the findings. He noted if we were to add to the Conditions of Approval additional wording which provided that the City Engineer would be required to notice all those who have spoken at this meeting, or all those who reside on St. Francis Lane, and if, as a result of that notice there is a dispute with respect to the adequacy of the proposed alteration in the drainage system, then we could require that there be a Public Hearing to resolve that. He noted at present there is no procedure to require that, but Council could add it to this Condition of Approval, in connection with a legitimately expressed concern regarding the critical nature of the drainage component of this project. He pointed out that if Council were to decide to do that, this would be the Condition to which they should add it, and that would then compel the City Engineer, and someone to remind him and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 6 the City in the years ahead, that when, and if, someone proposes to change the system, this particular step process is involved. He noted the last sentence of Condition #6 requiring the Deed Restriction could incorporate this, so prospective purchasers would then be on notice of it, as well. Councilmember Cohen felt Council should comment on the Appeal which is not being upheld, pointing out this was one of the most difficult things the Councilmembers have to deal with when they address Land Use issues. Mr. Cohen acknowledged it was more desirable to live surrounded by open space than by developed land, but pointed out not everyone can manage to do that. He noted there are times when someone's desire to look at his neighbor's undeveloped backyard competes with the neighbor's desire to exercise his legitimate, legal, private property rights to develop his property within the constraints established by the City's policies. He believed this was what it ultimately came down to, and was also the answer to the question. He did not feel staff was disregarding the issues Mr. Faimali raised in his appeal, it was just that from a legal and regulatory standpoint, those issues did not constitute a reason for the City to deny the application. Mr. Cohen acknowledged the applicant may well be developing this project at the outer limits of what the neighborhood, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and all the other City policies that apply, will allow. He also agreed it is not the smallest house that could be built there, rather it appears to be close to the largest house that could legally be built on this lot. However, it is still a legal process, and they are within the entitlements established by the City's General Plan and Hillside Design standards; therefore, the fact that it may be less desirable from Mr. Faimali's view was not a basis for Council to deny the application. Mr. Cohen stated he understood Mr. Faimali's concerns, but noted Council did not have grounds for denying the application based on those concerns. He stated Council had to consider the applicants' legal rights to develop their property, as well as the appellants' legal right in protecting his property, and he found no basis to uphold Mr. Faimali's appeal. Councilmember Cohen stated that with the modifications contained in the staff report, and with additional language proposed by the City Attorney for Condition #6, and the inclusion of Condition #77, he recommended Council move this item. For clarification, Councilmember Heller asked, for the record, whether both parties agreed with the language and modifications now before Council, and they indicated they did agree. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution denying the Faimali & Lavin appeal. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips Boro Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution partially granting the Breiner & Stadtner appeal, by approving the revised Grading and Drainage Plan, and amended Conditions as required by the Planning Commission and requested by the appellants, with modifications of Conditions #22 and #69 as requested by the applicant, and modifications of Conditions #6 and #77 as discussed during this meeting. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips Boro 7. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFYING AN INTERIM SOLUTION TO THE IRENE STREET OVERCROSSING AND FOUR (4) ANCILLARY TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS IN EAST SAN RAFAEL (PW) - File 11-1 Vice -Mayor Phillips declared the Public Hearing opened and asked for the staff report. Public Works Director David Bernardi reported approximately ten months ago staff began looking at various options and alternatives that would address the existing traffic congestion in the Bellam Boulevard/Kerner Boulevard/Francisco Boulevard corridor. He explained the San Rafael General Plan identifies an ultimate traffic improvement that is estimated to cost approximately $19 million, pointing out the City does not have the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 7 money to fund those improvements. He reported the funding for the necessary traffic improvements are identified as being collected over time by Traffic Mitigation Fees from the development that occurs in the area, explaining that these developments must pay a fee based upon the number of PM trips they are generating. Consequently, staff was instructed to look at solutions based upon the amount of money that had already been collected from the various developments in the area that had been approved over the past few years. He stated that analysis resulted in a number of ideas to improve the congestion, which staff presented to Council last August, and which Council approved in concept. At that time, staff was directed to go into the community, secure comments based on a number of community meetings, and prepare a recommendation for Council. Mr. Bernardi introduced Associate Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian, who discussed the various improvements that have been identified and discussed with members of the community. Mr. Bernardi acknowledged Mr. Mansourian's work in pulling together this entire process, pointing out much of Mr. Mansourian's work had been peer reviewed by an outside Consulting Engineer, in terms of the validity of his assumptions, and also by Caltrans. Mr. Bernardi reported they all concurred with Mr. Mansourian's review. Nader Mansourian, Associate Traffic Engineer, gave a slide presentation identifying the four main traffic constraints of the area, which basically consist of Bellam Boulevard and the effects of the side roads. Mr. Mansourian stated the first major problem was westbound Bellam Boulevard between the I-580 off -ramp to Andersen Drive. He pointed out there were three through lanes underneath Highway 580, but near Marin Square the right lane changes to a right -turn only lane, which causes traffic to back-up. Mr. Mansourian stated staff was proposing to make the right -turn lane a through/right-turn lane, and carry it all the way to Andersen Drive. A second major problem is the current traffic signal operations, particularly between the I-580 ramp and Francisco Boulevard. Mr. Mansourian reported some of the equipment is over twenty years old, and cannot meet the demand of the traffic. Mr. Mansourian noted that because of the I-580 ramps, these intersections are operated and maintained by Caltrans, and any proposed changes require Caltrans approval. He reported staff has recommended the existing signal controllers be removed, and a new, state-of-the-art signal system be installed, with new sensors to improve the traffic movements. Referring to the traffic movement, Mr. Mansourian explained there are currently only two traffic patterns, which run all day long, noting one begins at 7:00 AM and uses the same signal timing until 8:00 PM. However, with a new signal system we could have twenty to twenty-five different traffic patterns. Mr. Mansourian reported the third problem staff studied was Francisco Boulevard East, from the San Quentin exit to Bellam Boulevard. He stated there are a lot of driveways and side roads where people attempt to make left -turns, but because there are so many cars parked on the street, it is difficult for the drivers to see when making these turns, so instead of making the normal left -turns, the drivers are turning right and going all the way up to Bellam, causing congestion at that location. He noted they have also discovered that when I-580 and Highway 101 are backed up, many of the drivers leave the freeway, go all the way up to make the left -turn at Bellam Boulevard, and then get back on Highway 101 North. Mr. Mansourian stated staff was suggesting the parking be removed, and a two-way left- turn lane be installed, with diagonal parking spaces on Kerner Boulevard, between Grange Way and Shoreline Center Parkway, to offset the loss of the parking spaces. Mr. Mansourian noted the fourth major problem is one they see every day on southbound Francisco Boulevard East, between Medway and Bellam Boulevard, where there are currently left/through/right lanes. He noted the signal movement is very short, and the cars become stuck all the way up toward Tiburon Boulevard. In order to solve this problem and shorten the stacking, staff was suggesting the purchase of the Scotland Car Yard to widen the roadway by one more lane, so there could be two right -turns, one which connected to the Highway 101 Northbound on-ramp, and the other toward westbound Bellam Boulevard, which could be used for those traveling to Andersen Drive or eastbound I-580. Mr. Mansourian stated this would also free -up the movement of the through and left -turn lanes. In considering the solutions to these four main problem areas, Mr. Mansourian stated that in order to increase the capacity on the Bellam SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 8 Boulevard corridor between Andersen Drive and Kerner Boulevard, staff was suggesting the City implement all four of the solutions as presented, along with the following additional changes: make Francisco Boulevard a two-lane, southbound, one-way street from Bellam Boulevard to Irene Street; make Kerner Boulevard a two-lane, northbound, one-way between Bellam Boulevard and Irene Street; install traffic signals at the intersections of Irene Street and Kerner Boulevard, and Irene Street and Francisco Boulevard East; install a signal at Shoreline Parkway and Francisco Boulevard East; and, if possible, install diagonal parking spaces on Kerner Boulevard between Irene Street and Bellam Boulevard. Mr. Mansourian reported the traffic signals have been timed, and a coordination plan has been prepared. He noted computer tests indicate this would increase the capacity on Bellam Boulevard by 30%, and further testing has shown 800 additional trips could be added to the system. He pointed out this would also discourage the cars that bypass I-580. Mr. Mansourian stated it was hoped that with these changes, and the signalization and two- way left -turn, more cars would use Andersen Drive to get to Highway 101 south, reducing the number of cars on Bellam Boulevard. Assistant Public Works Director Matt Naclerio stated there had been 13 public meetings throughout the Canal neighborhoods, noting many of the suggestions received from the residents and business owners have been incorporated into the plan now being presented. He reported that last July, when staff initially presented Council with the alternative to phase the parking, they were recommending only a two-way left -turn along Francisco Boulevard East. However, there was a concern among many of the businesses as to whether this was really needed, and after listening to their comments and checking with DKS Associates during the peer of review, it was decided to address this on more of a piecemeal, safety issue. He noted the parking removal may be phased in as much as thirty months, and will only be implemented if businesses request it, or to address significant traffic safety issues. Mr. Naclerio reported they had also received comments concerning whether the interim solution of a one-way alternative would really work. He stated staff felt so confident it would work they were suggesting an interim test solution. He explained there would be a six month test period, during which they would implement the one-way alternative, implement as many of the ancillary alternatives as they could, and then count the traffic. He stated staff believed the interim solution with the four ancillary improvements would improve the capacity by up to 800 PM peak -hour trips system -wide. He noted staff would validate this after the improvements have been constructed and implemented. Recognizing that providing for a six-month test period may impact future development, Mr. Naclerio reported staff reviewed the numbers, and looked at the amount of trips they felt might be diverted by Andersen Drive once it is operational, noting staff felt confident that if we conservatively estimate how much capacity can be increased by these solutions, then a minimum of 200 PM peak- hour trips, system -wide, could be provided. Therefore, staff is recommending not only that there be a six-month test period where they can validate their conclusions, but also that a 200 PM peak -hour cap be established, where new development can come in, and as long as they are not exceeding that 200 peak -hour cap, they can go through the necessary Planning and Review approvals. Mr. Naclerio stated that during the workshops staff also presented the residents with three concept plans for bicycles, which are not part of the recommendation now before the Council. He reported they looked at three segments where bike lanes would be provided in both directions along Bellam Boulevard, from Kerner Boulevard all the way to Andersen Drive. He noted they also looked at an alternative where they would provide bike lanes on Francisco Boulevard East, from Bellam Boulevard up to Medway. Mr. Naclerio reported the response from the public was very positive, and there were a lot of creative ideas. He pointed out the staff report suggests staff collect bicycle data in the springtime, and then work with a neighborhood group to look at solutions. He noted staff would come back to Council with a list of members for a proposed sub -committee to help staff work on the bicycle plans. Referring to CEQA, Mr. Naclerio reported staff did provide an initial study, and there was no substantial evidence that the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared, and a thirty -day review period was established. Regarding Traffic Mitigation Fees, Mr. Naclerio stated that currently the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 9 East San Rafael Traffic Mitigation Fees do not identify any of the traffic improvements now being proposed, nor the bicycle improvements, but they do identify the Irene Street Overcrossing. He stated staff felt the interim solution and ancillary improvements provide an interim to the Irene Street Overcrossing; therefore, staff believes it is appropriate to use the East San Rafael Mitigation Fees for these proposed traffic improvements. Mr. Naclerio pointed out Solution #4 does require the acquisition of private property, noting Council was being asked to adopt a Resolution authorizing staff to begin negotiations. Mr. Naclerio noted staff was recommending adoption of a Resolution authorizing up to $500,000 from East San Rafael Traffic Mitigation Fees to be used to construct some of the bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and pointed out this money would be used to leverage Federal and State grants. Referring to the pedestrian improvements, Councilmember Miller asked Mr. Naclerio to describe the residential neighborhood's response to the island in the middle. Mr. Naclerio stated that because the road is being widened with two exclusive right -turn lanes, we would be providing a safety island, which the neighbors agreed was a positive contribution toward the improvements. Such an island would provide an area where, if the pedestrians could not make it across the entire intersection, they would have a safe area to rest until the signal again turned green. Councilmember Heller noted the designation of "parking" near the pedestrian island, and asked if that was going to be additional parking? Mr. Naclerio explained that was currently parking for the used car lot. Ms. Heller asked if we might be able to use that area for parking, and Mr. Naclerio stated staff had not looked at doing that, but pointed out there would be so many traffic movements going on it may be too circuitous. Councilmember Cohen asked to clarify that the six-month test of the interim solution meant there would be no parking changes on Kerner Boulevard, and we would not implement the two-way left turn lane down the center during that six-month period, but the rest of it would be put in place, and staff would analyze that even as Andersen Drive is opening? Mr. Naclerio stated that was correct. Mr. Cohen stated when he first read the report he thought staff was suggesting we wait six months to do the count on Andersen Drive, but staff is actually recommending that we implement the one-way sections, and then review that as the traffic patterns settle in after Andersen Drive is open. Mr. Naclerio stated that was correct, noting the entire interim solution would be part of the six-month test period, with no traffic restrictions, and possibly Alternative #1, which is the Marin Square alternative providing for the combined through/right-turn lane. He stated if that could be done, they would include that as well, and if they could work with Caltrans and get the signals re -coordinated and the new traffic controllers in, that would also be implemented as part of the test period. Mr. Cohen clarified that Mr. Naclerio was not proposing the right - turn lanes that were just suggested, noting we would not do that as an interim; however, when the funds are collected and the right-of-way is acquired, we would move forward with that if Council approved the recommendations. Mr. Naclerio stated all the alternatives would have to be approved. He explained what staff was recommending on the removal of the parking on Kerner Boulevard and Francisco Boulevard East was that it be done piecemeal, and that it be implemented or initially requested by the businesses. Councilmember Cohen noted Mr. Naclerio had referred to a letter he received from Caltrans, stating they support the proposals and look forward to working with us. Mr. Cohen also referred to a letter from the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, noting the letter suggests they might not provide bus service along Francisco Boulevard if we implement the interim solution. He asked Mr. Naclerio if he agreed with their conclusion? Mr. Naclerio reported the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District had actually sent two letters, one of which was a letter they sent in December which had been much more supportive of the proposals. He stated staff understands their concerns and wants to work with them, noting he believed staff could meet those concerns, and he did not think this would require them to have to change any of their bus services. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked for public comment. Jim Cameron, owner of the Midas Muffler Shop at 987 Francisco Boulevard, profiled the impact to his business as an example, pointing out there were a number of businesses in the area, and the potential impact would be tenfold to twenty -fold that of his own business. Mr. Cameron stated he has SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 10 approximatey four thousdand to five thousand customers, and ten employees, with the average salary of each employee approximately $37,000 per year, which he felt was a good, high, blue-collar wage in this community. Mr. Cameron believed there would be an impact on that customer base, on the business, and potentially on the employees, because these proposals would have very serious implications in terms of egress and ingress into the business on Francisco Boulevard. He noted he and a number of other people had originally supported Home Depot coming in down there, but now he felt that perhaps a lot of these changes and projections were now being put on the table because of the effect of Home Depot on traffic in the area. Mr. Cameron stated he has attempted to work with the City, and had met with Mr. Mansourian on a number of occasions; however, he noted he has not seen a big change in this plan from four to six months ago, and he did not see where discussions held in the community had been incorporated. He pointed out that while there are a lot of positives and things that will help the process, we had to remember that Andersen Drive was not opened yet. Mr. Cameron felt putting a left -turn lane where Scotland Car Yard is currently located, assuming that can be done, as well as some of the turn lane changes and upgrading of the the signals, might be appropriate to do before jumping into a one-way traffic flow on Francisco Boulevard and back up Kerner Boulevard. He stated there were activities in his business, and some of the other auto repair businesses, where not only are there customers coming in and out of the business, but also test drives before and after repairs. He stated the test drive process requires them to drive on City streets and then come back, and some of these changes and the restrictions of left -turn lanes west on Bellam Boulevard at Francisco Boulevard would require people to make some very circuitous routes in doing the test drives, which would be a horrendous impact, financially, on the businesses involved, because of the time it will take. Mr. Cameron felt perhaps the City could go forward with some of the proposals, which he felt were excellent suggestions, but hold off on the one-way on Francisco Boulevard and Kerner Boulevard, to see what the impact is with the other changes being made, and with Andersen Drive opening. He felt we should see what happens and monitor the traffic flow before we jump into a one-way street that will have a dramatic effect on all the businesses from Bellam Boulevard south. Councilmember Cohen referred to Mr. Cameron's concern about the impact on test drives, and asked why would it not be possible to leave the shop going southbound on Francisco Boulevard, come back up Irene Street, back up Kerner Boulevard, and come back around. Mr. Cameron stated, if he understood correctly, there was no left -turn on Bellam Boulevard, and that would mean his employees would have to go down Francisco Boulevard, over to Kerner Boulevard, and then up Kerner Boulevard and across Bellam Boulevard. Mr. Cohen stated that had been changed since Mr. Cameron saw the proposal. Mr. Cameron asked if they were still blocking left -turns from Bellam Boulevard onto Francisco Boulevard moving west? Mr. Mansourian stated they had originally looked at the westbound left -turn, but after further discussion with the consultants, they decided to leave it in. Mr. Cameron stated that would help him, but noted some of the others would still be impacted, and might have to go all the way down to the San Quentin exit, go back on the freeway and come back around, having to extend their test drives because of the lack of egress at some of the other shops. Mr. Phillips asked if Mr. Cameron was clear on the point that the route had been changed? Mr. Cameron stated that from what he had just heard, it was his understanding that he could go from his shop down Francisco Boulevard, over Irene Street, back up Kerner Boulevard, and down Bellam Boulevard to Francisco Boulevard, and turn left to get back into his shop. Public Works Director Bernardi stated that was correct, noting he could also turn left at Castro Street. Mr. Cameron asked if Castro Street would remain as it is today, in terms of exiting, and Mr. Mansourian stated that it would. Mr. Cameron stated that would mitigate his circumstances, although there might be other people who will still have problems because of the test drive situation, pointing out they would want to avoid having to get up on the freeway, especially after 2:30 PM or 3:00 PM. Mr. Cameron stated that while it sounded as though this part of the problem may have been mitigated, it still did not change the potential impact of getting people into the shop. He noted the businesses are attracting people from greater Marin County, who are coming in and spending their money in San Rafael; therefore, we should not want to make it harder for them to get in here. Samir Jizrawi, representing Peter's Beacon Service Station, noted they have a very busy station, and he believed if a one-way was implemented, cars that would normally turn left to reach Bellam Boulevard or enter the freeway are going to have a major problem, because there are going to be a lot of people making U-turns, causing the same chaos again. In addition, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 11 drivers will have to go out onto Francisco Boulevard, turn onto Castro Street, and cross through the traffic, and there will be a lot more accidents. Mr. Jizrawi pointed out the Fire Department could become blocked -off from responding to an emergency, as they will no longer be able to come down Francisco Boulevard, and they will have to go around Castro Street and through the traffic, which could take an additional two to three minutes. Mr. Jizrawi stated it was good that the left -turn was going to be kept, otherwise people would basically be going in circles. He stated he was totally against a one-way, believing it would create more chaos, and make many of the business owners very angry. Public Works Director Bernardi referred to Mr. Jimawi's concern about the Fire Department's ability to respond to an emergency, and noted staff had worked very closely with the Fire Department and making certain their concerns had been addressed. He reported there would be a yellow flashing light on Bellam Boulevard which would be activated by the fire trucks, so people would be warned when the fire trucks were coming out of the Fire Station and making their runs toward Bellam Boulevard. He stated this would also provide the Fire Department with additional access into the traffic area. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked if that was conventional, and if other cities were doing this? Mr. Bernardi noted other cities were already doing this. Rob Johnson, Johnny Franklin's Muffler Shop, stated that on a normal day when traffic backs up in front of his shop on Bellam Boulevard, from Bellam Boulevard to Castro Street, the three to four turning lanes are backed up solid, and if the Fire Department had to get out and turn onto that street, there would be no way they would be able to do it from 3:00 PM to 5:30 PM if we add more cars coming on one-way. He referred to Exhibit "E", which illustrates where the cars come off I-580 and go straight across that intersection, noting five to eight cars go across and block the intersection, so cars cannot turn there. He pointed out a sign has been installed, but no one has been ticketed, and there is no way to prevent this unless we place a Police Officer there. Mr. Mansourian stated this had been the first problem staff identified. He reported Caltrans had made the off -ramp right -turn and left -turn only, but cars were still going straight through the intersection, so the California Highway Patrol has been notified of this problem, and have begun enforcing the restrictions. Mr. Mansourian pointed out the on -ramps and off -ramps are normally enforced by the California Highway Patrol. Dave Schwab, owner of the Communications Center on Castro Avenue, agreed one of the big bottlenecks was the "double whammy" from I-580, noting the cars come off near the Rod and Gun Club, come down Francisco Boulevard East and block that area, and come down off the Bellam Boulevard exit and plug that up to beat a couple of cars. Mr. Schwab stated the one-way solution has never been very viable in this town, noting we have seen that in the past. Mr. Schwab stated the other big problem is that there are approximately 30 to 35 businesses from Bellam Boulevard to Irene Street, which impact because of the driveways for the customers of those businesses. He noted that from Irene Street to the rise, past where Farnsworth is, there are approximately 110 to 115 businesses that will have a great deal of impact. In addition, on East/West Francisco Boulevard there will be approximately 110 to 115 parking places that will be lost for the employees of businesses between Irene Street and the Rod and Gun Club. He stated he was concerned how those parking spaces were going to be retrieved, noting the people who work in the area are going to have to park down around Irene Street, and ferry -transport back and forth to the businesses because they will no longer be able to park on Francisco Boulevard East. He pointed out the backside of Kerner Boulevard was already impacted and overburdened because of the building of commercialism, and there was not enough parking there. He reported Castro Street was also already impacted, noting that between 3:30 PM and 5:00 PM customers almost cannot get out of his shop onto Castro Street to get onto Bellam Boulevard. Mr. Schwab stated that when this proposal is implemented, there is going to be a major thoroughfare on Castro Street, and he did not believe that was going to be viable for the Fire Department, no matter how many yellow lights are installed, because when the traffic is stopped, the people have no place to go, and they do not know what to do. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked staff to address the issue of parking. Mr. Mansourian noted staff had analyzed the loss of parking, as well as the gain of parking due to converting some of the existing parallel parking to diagonal parking spaces on Kerner Boulevard. He reported the net change would be only a one space loss. Mr. Schwab stated all the parking on the north side of Francisco Boulevard, from Irene Street to the Rod and Gun Club, will be lost when the two-way, island center elements of the plan are SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 12 implemented. He noted there are cars that park on the south side, along the dirt by the fence; however, if the city takes 40% of that, then there is a loss of 160 parking spaces for employee parking. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked if staff had considered the points raised by Mr. Schwab? Mr. Mansourian stated they had, and pointed out there has not been any parking on the south side by the fence since last year. Public Works Director Bernardi noted it had been reported earlier that staff was not proposing to remove the parking between Irene Street and the Rod and Gun Club at this time, rather they would deal with it on a complaint basis, by request from the business owner, or if there is a specific safety issue that needs to be addressed on a site specific basis. He stated they were not recommending the parking be removed to install the two-way left -turn lane, although that may be something they will have to address in the future. However, that would be subject to review by the Council . Judy Johnson, representing Rigetti Automotive on Kerner Boulevard, recalled Mr. Naclerio's earlier comment regarding all the public meetings at which staff had discussions with the business owners. She noted the meetings had been held at the Fire Department at 7:30 AM, when most of the business owners were either in commute traffic, or had to open their businesses. She stated it had been her observation that 22 business, out of approximately 160 business that will be impacted in this small area, were actually spoken to, or really knew what was happening. Therefore, she did not feel sufficient notice had been given as to what was happening. She stated most of the people she spoke with during the past two days did not know this current meeting was taking place, or that it would impact their businesses. Ms. Johnson felt all of the businesses should be contacted so they understand the impact of what is going to happen to them and their clients. She believed this was going to be very difficult, noting the majority of her customers are older people, who have a hard enough time just getting to her location to have their vehicles serviced. She stated if major construction and major changes are thrown at them, she is going to lose all her clientele, which is going to impact her taxes paid to the City, impact the employees, and impact the entire system. She pointed out that many of these business are very small, many of them automobile oriented, and noted the one-way streets will be a very major difficulty for the clients. Ms. Johnson felt there should be more discussion of this plan with the small business owners, noting she did not believe the businesses were adequately represented in any of the meetings. Vice -Mayor Phillips noted Ms. Johnson had made reference to major changes and disruption, and asked if there was any estimate of how disruptive this was actually going to be? Mr. Mansourian stated as far as the crews installing the traffic signals and signage, there would not be much disruption, as these were fairly simple jobs. He acknowledged there could be some disruption if we had to restrict parking to one side of the street in order to allow a lane of traffic to go by. Ms. Johnson stated her main concern was not that it would tie up the area construction, but that it was going to confuse her customers, noting they have a hard time dealing with getting to and from places now, and when everything changes and it makes everything different, they will not even see her sign, because it is very small, and is made to be seen coming down Kerner, not going up in the other direction. She pointed out that the business signs, which have to be kept small, will not be visible to the customers anymore, and they are going to become very confused when they have to come from different directions. She noted that now if they pass by her driveway, they can make a U-turn and come back; however, once this change is implemented, if they miss her driveway and end up at Bellam Boulevard, they are going to go home, noting they will not attempt to make the loop again and try to find her shop. Vice -Mayor Phillips noted Ms. Johnson had referred to the inconvenience and difficulty for various businesses to come to the meetings that had been held. He pointed out the objective had been to get as much input as possible from those who are impacted, and acknowledged that perhaps this objective had not been met, at least as fully as was intended. Mr. Phillips asked if there was some negative reaction or concern that might be founded in a lack of understanding of the proposals, or was it founded upon full knowledge of the plan? Ms. Johnson stated she did not believe staff, in recommending the streets be turned into one -ways, had taken into consideration the impact that would have on all the small businesses, and the small businesses were not there to represent themselves. She noted most of the smaller businesses are one or two-man shops, pointing out they have to be at their shops to open for business, and could not attend the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 13 meetings when they were held at 7:30 in the morning. Therefore, they did not have the opportunity to say, "No, we don't want this"; however, she noted they were stating that now. Vice -Mayor Phillips acknowledged it might be difficult for those in business for themselves to attend the meetings, and asked what Ms. Johnson felt would be the best time for the City to have an additional meeting to further explain the improvements and the changes? Ms. Johnson stated early evening, as people get off work, would be easier, because many of the business owners commute together, which makes it difficult to attend an early morning meeting. She believed right after business hours would be best for most people; however, she pointed out they would all have to know about the meetings. Dave Schwab noted he lives in town, and his business is across the street from Fire Station #4 on Castro Avenue, and he agreed that holding a meeting at 7:30 AM or 8:00 AM was not viable for business owners. He suggested future meetings might be held in the afternoon at Pickleweed Community Center. Mr. Gilmore, owner of the Royal Coach Car Wash across the street from Midas Muffler, stated he had the same problems as Mr. Cameron, and asked if there would be parking on both sides of the street after the one -ways? Mr. Mansourian stated there would be parking on at least one side of the street after the one -ways, and perhaps both sides, depending on the final configuration. Mr. Gilmore stated the drivers were going to leave Bellam Boulevard going 35 miles per hour, and to get over to the other lane, and they were going to be speeding; therefore, if he has a customer coming out of his driveway who wants to go across to Castro Avenue, he will have to cross two lanes of traffic going one-way, and going pretty fast. Mr. Mansourian noted the customers are already faced with this situation, pointing out that once the street is one-way, they will only have to look in one direction before pulling out of the driveway, rather than looking in two directions. Mr. Bernardi noted that in terms of how many parking spaces are going to be on which side of the street, the City needs to make sure the site distance for the customers leaving the business is adequate, so they can see the cars coming. Mr. Gilmore suggested the City purchase Scotland Car Yard, wait until Andersen Drive opens up, and then see where we stand. He asked why all these changes should be made now, when we do not even know what Andersen Drive is going to do. He pointed out most of the people who come down Francisco Boulevard are just people trying to get down I-580, to beat a few cars and go back on the freeway again, and he believed that was what the City had to stop. He pointed out his customers will have to go out of his driveway, fight to get all the way across to Castro Avenue or all the way down to Irene Street, go up to Kerner Boulevard, back down again, and back to Bellam Boulevard. He asked why his customers should have to do that when it is the traffic on I-580 that is causing all the problems? Referring to Mitigation Fees, Mr. Gilmore stated he also owns the property at 910 Andersen Drive, and reported that when his building was constructed there in 1984, the City took $74,000 for Traffic Mitigation to build an overcrossing over I-580. Mr. Gilmore asked, if they are not going to use it for that purpose, could he have his money back until they put the overcrossing in? Thomas Young, European Auto Service on Francisco Boulevard, stated he did attend one of the meetings three months ago, but he did not see any difference in the proposal being presented now, and the plan as presented three months ago. He noted it seemed as if the business owners, at least his immediate neighbors, had not been able to give their input on this proposal, and he felt this seemed to be more of a solution for fixing a traffic problem, but did not consider the economic effects of all the businesses in the immediate area. Mr. Young also believed this plan would not be good for the City of San Rafael, stating it would not make for a pleasant experience for people coming to these businesses to have the inconvenience of going about getting in and out, noting it was going to be very difficult for them. Mr. Young stated he had been fortunate to be able to go to school and work for some very prestigious institutions, and one thing he learned was when you do something, you do it correctly. He stated he did not see this as a correct solution. He noted it had been stated earlier that we hoped the part of Francisco Boulevard closer to the Richmond Bridge would go onto I-580, and then go down Andersen Drive, and the reason was because the City was going to make it more difficult to get SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 14 onto the freeway through this one-way traffic. Mr. Young pointed out that not only were they making it more difficult, but they were making it more inconvenient for the businesses, the customers, and the busses. He stated he personally did not see the benefits of this plan, and urged Council to seriously consider the businesses that will be affected. Jeff Simons, owner of Rolling Thunder Car Audio on Kerner Boulevard, commended staff on the first three options of the plan, stating they seemed quite feasible. Referring to the renderings, Mr. Simons suggested that if Kerner Boulevard could possibly be extended down to Home Depot, while there might be an environmental issue with the marsh, it seemed like a feasible option that the people exiting for Home Depot could come down Kerner Boulevard. In addition, he pointed out an area where there currently is vegetation, noting that if a wall could be placed at that end of Francisco Boulevard, between the freeway, we could gain a third lane, allowing for the installation of a left -turn lane, and still have parking on the street. He noted there were currently two exits, one by the car wash on Francisco Boulevard and one by Kerner Boulevard, to get out onto Bellam; however, with the new plan there would be only one exit on Kerner Boulevard, and Mr. Simons did not believe this would solve the problem. Mr. Simons referred to the left -turn on Belvedere, off of Bellam Boulevard, noting it jams up quite a bit. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked Mr. Simons if he had the opportunity to attend any of the meetings where these proposals had been discussed? Mr. Simons stated the only meeting he had been aware of had taken place at a time when he had been unable to attend. Snorre Grunnan, owner of Scotland Car Yard, stated his business has been at this location for the past thirteen years. He reported he had attended some of the meetings held by the Public Works Department, noting he had been notified of the meetings by mail. Mr. Grunnan referred to the possibility of the City wanting to take part of the property on which his business is located, to try to get the traffic to flow better. He stated that when the traffic is plugged -up outside of his business, the intersection at Francisco and Bellam Boulevards is empty. He stated with all the people trying to get onto I-580, the freeway stands still and the intersection stands still, and he wondered if they were just trying to make a parking lot out of Scotland Car Yard so drivers can sit there and wait, instead of waiting further up Francisco Boulevard, because they cannot get on the freeway anyway. Mr. Grunnan stated this intersection is always empty, noting the people coming east from Third Street come across and block the intersection for the people trying to come from Bellan Boulevard north, although the intersection itself, going toward Andersen Drive, always looks empty. Mr. Grunnan stated it is the freeway that is always standing still, and he did not know what the answer to that problem should be. George Lyons, Cable Car Coffee Company, stated those at his business were keenly aware of the traffic problems in the area. He noted his company brings San Francisco cable cars, converts them to espresso bars, and places them outside as drive-throughs, so they are very aware of what the traffic flow problems are. He congratulated Mr. Mansourian for doing such a good and complete job. Mr. Lyons felt the issue actually involved two or three different situations. First, he noted everyone was objecting to the one- way traffic, and he suggested perhaps discussing that at another meeting, stating the proposal before the Council was valid and sound. He stated he did not understand how anyone could object to converting the one lane on Bellam Boulevard, and he also agreed the City needed better signal lights. He felt the cost for those improvements would be fairly nominal, and he urged Council to move forward with those recommendations, and put the other issues aside, so that we are not dealing with these same issues year after year. Jeff McBride, Marin Dodge, pointed out the location of his business, which he noted had been closed and bankrupt when they took it over more than three years ago. He reported they now employ over thirty-five employees, and had over $15 million in retail sales last year. Mr. McBride acknowledged the City had come up with a fantastic plan to expand the Shoreline Center for $2 million rather than $19 million, but felt it was being done at the expense of his business, and all the other businesses in the area. He stated that by the City's own account, there would be an 8% to 10% decrease in drive-by traffic, noting drive-by traffic was what his business was about. He stated that in today's business climate, where one day's business can make the difference between profit or loss on a month to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 15 month basis, a 10% drop in traffic could well put someone out of business. Mr. McBride stated the one-way option was obviously the biggest problem. He noted another big issue was notification to the businesses that could be affected by this change. He reported those at his business had found out about this second-hand, and he felt that under normal circumstances, a business of their size should have been personally notified, or at least received some kind of letter. Mr. McBride asked Council to seriously reconsider the one-way option. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked staff to respond to the issue of the reduction in traffic. Mr. Mansourian reported he has spoken with Mr. McBride concerning the traffic, and acknowledged that changing the existing traffic to one-way would result in an 8% to 10% decrease in the southbound traffic. However, he also pointed out that as there is more development, the traffic will increase, so this would be a short-term impact. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked if, after a short adjustment period, the traffic volume would be approximately the same? Mr. Mansourian stated that was correct. Commenting on the noticing of the changes, Public Works Director Bernardi reported staff had mailed a blue notice which listed the times and dates of the meetings at the Fire Station. He stated over 700 notices had been mailed out, with only a dozen or so returned as undeliverable by the Post Office. Referring to the earlier comment that the time the meetings were actually held might have been inconvenient, Mr. Bernardi explained staff had spent a lot of time thinking about when would be the best time to invite the business owners, recognizing they have to open their businesses and deal with their clients. He stated staff had felt, after discussions with some of the business owners, that it would be easier for them in the morning rather than in the evening, particularly in the automobile industry, where customers might be late coming in to pick-up their cars, and the business owners might not be able to make a meeting at 5:30 PM or 6:00 PM. Therefore, staff felt it would be easier for the owners if the meetings were held at 7:30 in the morning, believing that would address everyone's concerns. Mr. Bernardi also pointed out staff had attempted to set the dates of the meetings on various days of the week, so those who found it difficult to attend a meeting on a particular day of the week would have another opportunity. Mr. Bernardi stated staff had attempted to make it as easy as possible for the business owners to attend the meetings, and it was not their intention to disenfranchise anyone from expressing their comments. Mr. Bernardi reported that in addition to the 700 notices mailed to the business owners, additional notices had been sent to the residents of the area, as well. Councilmember Heller asked how many residential meetings had been held? Mr. Mansourian reported six meetings had been held for the residents. Valerie Neuhaus, owner of Neuhouse Service Center on Kerner Boulevard, stated that although she, too, was concerned with the one-way issue, she believed it was viable to move forward with the "smart lights" and the lanes. She noted she would also like to see the traffic metered off of I- 580 where Highway 101 merges together, because she believed that in the issue of three traffic areas converging at the same time, not everyone played by the same rules, but if we encourage them to be good, polite drivers, they will be. She believes that if we can keep the cars moving, the traffic moves well; however we need to stop people from exiting at the I-580 exit, stop them from shooting across, and set an example by placing an Officer there and informing them that it will be a very costly ticket, noting just as the commuter lane was a learning experience, we can make this a learning experience. Ms. Neuhaus asked when the Andersen Drive project was going to be completed? Mr. Bernardi stated it depended on the weather, noting that would be the big issue. He stated it was hoped the project would be completed in March. Ms. Neuhaus asked when the traffic tests would be conducted? Mr. Mansourian reported the testing would begin in August or September. Ms. Neuhaus stated, as a small business owner, she would be severely impacted. She noted she did not know how to deal with the amount of traffic, or how to get the traffic to the areas where the City wants to add buildings and increase revenue. However, she felt it was extremely important to have "smart lights", because it will be a lot better if we can get the traffic flowing through the intersections, and perhaps then the City might not have to do something that has so much public disdain. She pointed out that in Los Angeles they do a lot of creative things without having to designate one-way streets, while in Washington D.C. they have certain hours of the day when specific streets are designated as one-way. She believed that may be a viable solution at this point, because we do want the 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM peak hours to be accessible. She stated perhaps the solution might be to shut it down at 4:00 PM, noting that while this might make it difficult for people coming to pick-up their cars, it would be a little easier for the business owners to cater to those who get confused and lost. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 16 Jerry Tallman, of Minute Man Press, stated he watches I-580 every day, and noted that usually around 4:00 PM on Friday afternoons the California Highway Patrol pulls over to the curb, and on a good Friday they can get thirty or forty people every twenty minutes who are using the curb lane while using the exit. He noted the State of California is making a lot of money enforcing a law which is really not helping the City of San Rafael, because as soon as the Highway Patrol Officer pulls away, the drivers continue to go off at the exit on the other side. Mr. Tallman stated he was very concerned when he learned the proposal called for no left -turn at Bellam Boulevard back onto East Francisco Boulevard. He asked how he, as a businessman, can really become involved in a decision when the information he is given is not the most current? He felt there really should be time for everyone to be able to rethink the one-way option. Mr. Tallman reported that in addition to watching I-580, he also watches East Francisco Boulevard. He stated his customers have told him that they have a problem finding Minute Man Press, and while he does the best he can with signage, it is very difficult to see his facility. He noted he was afraid someone would be driving in the outside lane, see Minute Man Press, and make a right -turn in front of another car. He believed if the City was going to do this, it was really going to have to educate the people, and perhaps, for the short term, allow the businesses to have better signage, or there were going to be a whole lot of problems with people making the wrong turns in front of other drivers, because they are not going to be used to the traffic flow. He stated they were supportive of the other options, such as the new signals. Fred Grange, business owner, urged Council to accept the proposal as presented, pointing out it would increase the capacity by 800 trips. He noted when he first went to East San Rafael, approximately forty years ago, there was no East San Rafael, there was only Bermuda Palms. He stated one of the biggest successes for the area was bringing Phoenix Leasing to the area many years ago, noting they brought with them the second highest tax generating business in town, second only to Northgate Mall. He stated he patronizes the businesses of most of those who had just addressed the Council, noting he does that because he is in East San Rafael, and he understands that people from other cities might have trouble coming down to these businesses. He clarified the point he was trying to make was that if 800 new trips are available, and if the Floor Area Ratio is changed, which is a whole other issue, then businesses like Phoenix Insurance can come to this area. He stated if new businesses come to the area, they will be patronizing these very same businesses he and his employees and neighbors do. Mr. Grange stated he has been involved in nearly every development in the area, working with the owners or their contractors, and he noted they all patronize each other's businesses. He felt doing anything that would curtail the ability to increase more traffic capacity, or hinder the development of the remaining properties, would be tragic, even if, in the short term, it causes some inconvenience to the customers from outside the area. He noted the customers who are in the area will patronize the businesses even if there are some of the hindrances the earlier speakers referred to. Anne Moore, Planning Consultant and resident of San Rafael, complimented Mr. Mansourian and the other staff members who developed such an exciting solution to an area that has been troubling to the City, traffic -wise, since the mid -1970's. Ms. Moore recalled that in the mid -1970's Caltrans stated they had solved everything because they interconnected the signals at the three intersections; however, she stated we knew, with the early proposal of the new Marin Square Center, that there were problems. She stated it was very exciting to see something that is so different from all of the other various options and solutions that have been brainstormed by so many people before. She noted she had been involved in many of the earlier discussion groups, and no one had the creativity that Mr. Mansourian and his staff have shown in coming up with the one-way solution, which gives so much capacity for so much less cost, and allows the majority of the businesses to remain in operation, which would not have been the case with some of the earlier suggested solutions. Marilee Eckert, Marin Conservation League Corps, stated she had two concerns. First, their business has approximately seventy core members, who are also their employees, and most of them either walk to the site or arrive on public transportation. Therefore, she was concerned about the busses, and making sure there would not be an interruption in bus service, because that would have a huge impact on their business. She stated her other concern was if she leaves the office after 5:00 PM, on a bad day it can take her ten to fifteen minutes to get from her office to the freeway, noting Bellam Boulevard, between Kerner Boulevard and the freeway is already backed -up very badly. She believes that if we add traffic coming SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 17 from the one-way coming into all of that, along with the drivers who will be making U-turns coming out of some of the other business, it will be a very bad problem. Murray Murphy, owner of BMW & Ducatti of Marin on Castro Avenue, complimented Mr. Mansourian for his hard work on this proposed plan. Mr. Murphy reported he has four technicians who make approximately six to eight test rides per day, noting the short loop they make now involves them making seven right -turns per day. Mr. Murphy explained the drivers make that many right -turns because right -turns are easier to make on a motorcycle, and he pointed out three-quarters of the accidents involved either the motorcycles turning left across in front of a car, or vice - versa. Mr. Murphy reported that if we were to go to the one-way option, his drivers would have to make five or six turns in front of traffic, and he was concerned, not only for his technicians, but also for the customers that would invariably try to get back to the freeway by making a left -turn off Castro Avenue. Mr. Murphy stated his final concern, which had been mentioned earlier, referred to the ability of the fire trucks to get out onto Bellam Boulevard. He noted he was concerned that if drivers leaving Marin Dodge, Midas, City Auto, or the car wash, figure out they can short- cut the loop by going down Castro Avenue, then the fire trucks won't get close enough to even see the flashing yellow light, much less trigger it. Mr. Murphy stated he fell into the category of the people who believed many of the earlier suggestions are quite valid and should be put into place; however, he also recommended holding off on the one-way solution for some period of time. Jim Cameron again addressed the Council. He recalled that when the Central Freeway was demolished in San Francisco recently, Caltrans took photographs of approximately 400,000 automobiles in the area, and then personally communicated with the drivers. He stated that if we are trying to fix a problem created by people getting off I-580 and going up Francisco Boulevard to get back on farther up, then he suggested asking Caltrans to take photographs of the drivers coming off there, noting he would volunteer the roof of his building to take photographs of people going onto I-580, so a correlation could be made. Danielle Graham, owner of J. Friendly's Bar on Kerner Boulevard, stated she was very much opposed to the one-way. There being no further public comment, Vice -Mayor Phillips closed the public hearing. Vice -Mayor Phillips noted concerns about the one-way solution seemed to be a recurring theme, and asked staff to comment, and whether any of the input they have heard had changed their thinking? Mr. Mansourian stated staff had analyzed the proposal in great detail, and looked at every solution individually as to how it would affect the plan. He reported they found that the first four suggestions would have some benefit, but not as much as was offered by the one-way solution. He acknowledged some of the comments were correct in describing the problems of the back-ups on I-580 and Highway 101, and the people going off and on the freeway, blocking the intersections; however, he believed that problem will be solved by having Caltrans install adequate signage and marking. Mr. Mansourian stated they tested the solutions with the computer modeling, and asked the consultants to review the findings to make sure they had not missed anything, and the consultants agreed. He noted Caltrans also supported this proposal, because they felt the City could handle more traffic with the one-way solution. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked if the one-way solution was a stand alone option or, if it were altered and remained two-way, would that have other impacts on the proposal now before Council? Mr. Mansourian stated if the two-way were to remain, we would gain some additional trips in the area, but not many, and it would basically shorten the stackings. Mr. Bernardi stated if Council were to implement the one-way, that would eliminate one of the key left -turns that is causing the current problem at Bellam Boulevard and Francisco Boulevard. He explained that from Francisco Boulevard northbound, making a left -turn onto Bellam Boulevard, that left -turn would be eliminated, and those cars would be transferred over, around, and through Kerner Boulevard, and then on Bellam going straight through the intersection, rather than making a left -turn. He pointed out there were three lanes on Bellam Boulevard that would be able to accommodate the traffic that has to use one left -turn lane; therefore, the advantage to implementing the one-way is the elimination of part of the conflicting movement at the intersection, so if we do not do it, we do not gain that benefit. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 18 Councilmember Cohen referred to the comments focused on the issue of I-580, and the movement coming off and then getting back on the ramp, trying to bypass some of the congestion. He stated it was not his understanding that this was the heart of the problem, although it was clearly a piece of the problem. Mr. Mansourian agreed that I-580 and Highway 101 cause some congestion, and also some diversion; however, those are not the only problems. He stated the main problem is that, basically, Bellam Boulevard has three signalized intersections that are 160 to 200 feet apart, with no room for storage of the cars, and with a lot of conflicting movements. Mr. Cohen noted that at the Freitas Interchange in Terra Linda, where they eliminated a left -turn across traffic that was a hazard, we actually put a curb in, and rather than just saying, "No Left Turn", we actually extended the curb so people would have to drive over it. Mr. Cohen acknowledged that would not be entirely possible at this location on Bellam Boulevard, because people still have to make the left -turn from Bellam Boulevard onto the ramp, which is allowable. However, he asked if Mr. Mansourian had looked at the space there, noting there is currently a median in between the two sides of Bellam Boulevard. He stated it looked as though it might be possible to extend that by at least a couple of feet, in a way that would still allow the left -turn for people coming off the off -ramp and turning on Bellam Boulevard toward Marin Square, and also allow a left -turn from Bellam Boulevard onto the I-580 ramp, but it would make people trying to make that straight through movement maneuver around that. Mr. Cohen stated if we could do that, and if we put a sign right on it which said, "No Through Movement, Left -Turn Only", then if that was possible, he believed we would greatly reduce the number of people doing that. He acknowledged it would still require periodic enforcement, noting we could pursue that with the California Highway Patrol. He asked staff to pursue the idea and see if there were physical impediments we could implement to change that behavior. Councilmember Cohen asked, if Council were not to act on the one-way solution at this time, would staff still recommend Council move forward with the other four suggestions? Mr. Bernardi stated they would. Mr. Cohen noted there was very little opposition and a fair amount of support for the other four changes. Councilmember Heller reported she had spoken earlier with Chamber of Commerce President Elissa Giambastiani, who stated the Economic Development Committee was very pleased with this Traffic Improvement Plan, and fully supported the entire plan. Councilmember Miller stated that as a business owner on Kerner Boulevard, he was currently in the area being discussed. He noted he had thought a lot about this proposal, and has had the opportunity to study it in detail with staff. Mr. Miller stated the timing inconveniences became minimal when considering whether one would have to switch and go around Kerner Boulevard in a type of one-way situation. He noted it reminded him of Asian and European experiences with roundabouts, which deflect the traffic. He stated he had been concerned in terms of the impact on the businesses in the area, although he did not find that it would have any impact on his own business, so he did not have the same problems a retail business would have. Mr. Miller noted he had been particularly concerned with the impact on Marin Dodge, because they would have more problems than anyone else in terms of the one-way street and the people going by it. Mr. Miller stated that when he looks at the overall good, and at the total impact on the total area of East San Rafael, he sees the project has much more impact to making this an economically viable area. He stated he gets caught up in looking at the individual small retail person who is going to suffer the economic loss, especially because of the one-way on Francisco Boulevard, although the one-way on Kerner Boulevard did not present as much of a problem and, as a matter of fact, would actually increase traffic going along that way. Mr. Miller suggested getting those items off the board that they could right now. He reminded everyone this was only a temporary solution, to see if it really will work or not. He felt perhaps we really did need a little more time, to get together and sit down and study this again, noting not everyone had been made aware of the revisions to the plan that had been made over the course of all the previous discussions. Vice -Mayor Phillips stated he was struck by the comments from the business owners, and felt we had to listen to the businesses. He stated he was struck by the possible negative impact, particularly of the change from two-way to one-way. He noted the one-way solution may be the best way, but felt we should make certain of that before so many people are impacted. Mr. Phillips agreed there were certain items that seemed to be unanimous, as they made sense and were an easy decision, and suggested getting on with SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 19 making those improvements to make things better for everyone, but not rush into something that may or may not be an overall net improvement. However, he cautioned the Council needed to be certain of its actions, so that everyone benefits from them, and was in favor of "moving off the plate" those automatic items, and consider in a little more detail, with a little more time and a little more input from those who are directly impacted, the other solutions. Councilmember Heller stated she would like to see Andersen Drive open and see the other improvements put in; however, she stated we would never know unless we tried it, pointing out the recommendations from staff were for a six-month test period, and believed the City owed it to the complete community to try something to make the traffic better. She acknowledged it may not be the best thing for some businesses, but noted that if it were going to make traffic better for a third of the City residents who reside in the Canal, then she felt we absolutely had to try it. She stated she was willing to wait until Andersen Drive was operational and we could see the impact of moving forward with the other improvements, but noted she would hate to walk away from something and not know whether it would have worked or not. Councilmember Miller stated he wanted the actions that are approved to be immediately addressed, so we are not waiting around for months. Councilmember Cohen asked for further discussion on how Council wanted to proceed at this point. He acknowledged there were a lot of concerns, noting it seemed as though perhaps there might be more work the City could do with some of the businesses that are out there. He pointed out the City had sent out notices, and he hoped the people had read them, rather than just having thrown them away, and then asking why they had not been notified. However, he noted perhaps it would behoove us to go the extra mile and reach out to the people twice, conducting meetings not just on different days, but also at different times, to get more people into the loop. Mr. Cohen believed it all came down to mitigating the impacts of this proposed change. He noted that in looking at this from a larger perspective, from the City's point of view, and from a financial and business point of view, it is a "no brainer", noting we are talking about some striping and some directional changes, replacing approximately $29 million in concrete and real estate takings that it would cost the City to implement the other proposed solutions to get us to the same amount of capacity that this interim solution gets us. Mr. Cohen noted we were not even sure we had enough to do the $3 million solution. He stated the opportunity to achieve that without having to spend $29 million of everyone's money was something he felt deserved serious consideration, even if it turns out to ultimately have serious impacts on a couple of people. Mr. Cohen believed Council had heard input which expressed sincere concerns, and noted they were not all the same concerns. He pointed out that many of the businesses were impacted differently, and suggested perhaps there might be ways to address those additional concerns. He believed it came back to the question of whether we could mitigate the impact of this change on the businesses that are going to be affected by this, in the area where the one-way has been proposed. He felt that issue deserved a little more study, suggesting they spend a little more time with the businesses involved. He noted a number of the businesses addressed the question of how they were going to inform their customers of the changes, and stated perhaps that was something the City needed to help them do. He noted once the customers learn a new way to get around the area, they will know how to get there, and suggested perhaps the City needed to take the lead in helping to develop that, noting there might be a simple map or description of the area that the City could help put together, and then the businesses could distribute them to their customers, telling them when the change is going to be implemented. Councilmember Cohen stated he would consider conceptual approval of this approach, but to direct staff to work with the businesses in the area to further refine it, to identify the impacts, and seek to mitigate those to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Cohen complimented Mr. Mansourian, stating the City was fortunate to have such a dedicated public servant, noting he presents creative ideas that save the City a tremendous amount of money. He stated the City needed to keep moving this project along, and he was confident we could mitigate many of the impacts that have been addressed, and do a better job of communicating with the businesses potentially impacted by this. He pointed out we were not talking about something that was going to begin tomorrow morning, noting we would first see Andersen Drive open, and then have this proposal implemented in August; therefore, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 20 he felt there was enough lead time that some of these concerns could be addressed. City Manager Gould suggested two more public meetings be held at Pickleweed Community Center during evening hours, one meeting to be held during the first week in February, and another during the second week in February. He stated everyone would be noticed, and everyone would have two more chances to speak with the City's Engineers about how this plan is going to work and how it will affect their individual businesses. Mr. Gould stated after the two meeting are held, the proposal would then come back before Council. Vice -Mayor Phillips stated he would be in favor of doing something like that. In response to an earlier comment, Councilmember Cohen clarified that this proposal had been thoroughly reviewed by the Fire Department, and they were comfortable with the potential impact on their ability to protect the public after these changes are implemented. Mr. Gould concurred, and urged Council to follow Councilmember Cohen's suggestion of conceptual approval of the entire package at this time, in order to allow us to get some things started, and make some of the deadlines. Councilmember Cohen noted Council was being asked to take six separate actions, and asked if there were any modifications recommended for any of those items, noting he was prepared to move conceptual approval of this proposal, with further refinement and work to be done with the community. Assistant Public Works Director Naclerio suggested accepting the report, but as part of that acceptance, Council could direct staff to meet with the businesses during the first and second weeks of February, with full notification of the meetings to be made. Mr. Naclerio felt the Negative Declaration could be certified, noting he had not heard any environmental concerns. He stated he was not certain the traffic mitigation fees needed to be determined at this time, although he did ask that the recommendations for consulting services be adopted, so staff can have some of the initial design work done, should they be able to come to some closure with the businesses. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not feel Council needed to approve the mitigation fees at this time, and suggested they pend this recommendation until we are certain we are going to proceed with the one-way alternative. Mr. Naclerio stated he did not feel we would be losing any time by pending that item, noting even if staff were to proceed, they would have to wait until Spring to begin the data collection, and they would be coming back to Council before then anyway. a. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to accept the report as presented for the East San Rafael Traffic Operational Improvements, identifying interim solutions to the Irene Street Overcrossing, and four ancillary traffic improvements; and, as part of the motion, to direct staff to hold at least two additional meetings at the Pickleweed Community Center with impacted businesses, including adequate notification to those businesses, and in that time period, as part of those meetings, work to identify and mitigate to the extent possible, the negative impacts identified in testimony tonight and at those meetings, and Council to give conceptual approval at this point to a test of this proposal. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro b. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION NO. 10002 - RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR EAST SAN RAFAEL PROPOSED TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro C. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the use of East San Rafael Traffic Mitigation Fees to fund Planning, Design, Construction and Administrations of an interim solution to the Irene Street Overcrossing, with ancillary traffic improvements, and authorizing SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 21 staff to commence negotiations for all necessary property acquisition for these improvements, subject to any modifications that may come up as a result of the direction given to staff as part of motion #1. RESOLUTION NO. 10003 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF EAST SAN RAFAEL TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES TO FUND THE PLANNING, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF AN INTERIM SOLUTION TO THE IRENE STREET OVERCROSSING WITH ANCILLARY TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO COMMENCE NEGOTIATIONS FOR ALL NECESSARY PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro d. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to table this item, a Resolution authorizing $500,000 in Traffic Mitigation Fees for the Planning, Design, Construction, and Administration of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro e. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution accepting the scope of services and authorizing the Public Works Director to enter into a contract for professional services with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $26,300. RESOLUTION NO. 10004 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH CSW/STUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP INC. FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING AND SURVEY SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $26,300 FOR THE DESIGN OF A PORTION OF INTERIM TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IN EAST SAN RAFAEL. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro f. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution accepting the scope of services and authorizing the Public Works Director to enter into an agreement with DKS Associates for traffic engineering services in an amount not to exceed $47,300 for the design of a portion of interim traffic operational improvements in East San Rafael. RESOLUTION NO. 10005 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH DKS ASSOCIATES FOR THE DESIGN OF A PORTION OF INTERIM TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IN EAST SAN RAFAEL. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Vice -Mayor Phillips thanked those in the audience who had spoken before the Council, pointing out their input had impacted Council's decision. He urged them to attend the upcoming meetings to be held between the City and the businesses in the area. Vice -Mayor Phillips announced there would be a short recess. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 22 Vice -Mayor Phillips reconvened the City Council meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 8. FURTHER REPORT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE (CA) - File 13-7-1 Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan reported this issue had been addressed last August when Coleman Persily, President of the Contempo Marin Homeowners Association asked Council to consider amending the Rental Stabilization Ordinance in two primary areas; one was a reduction in the percentage of CPI (Consumer Price Index), which is the annual exempted rent adjustment permitted to the park owner, from 100% to 75%. The other was the creation of a Capital Improvement pass-through system. He noted that after discussion and public testimony, the matter was continued for further review. In response to Council's request, Mr. Guinan stated he, with the help of Mr. Persily, surveyed several other Ordinances, and discussed the issue with Mr. Persily and Paul Jensen, attorney for the park owner, M.H.C. of Chicago, Illinois. He noted he has also reviewed some of the cases that have come down during the past year concerning the issue of rent control and regulatory takings. Mr. Guinan pointed out the survey included with the staff report shows several other rent Ordinances, the percentage of CPI they permit for an annual adjustment, as well as whether or not they have Capital Improvement pass-through provisions separate and apart from the rent hearing dispute process. Mr. Guinan stated that through his review of the several Ordinance he has read, he has found there is not one that is exactly like the other, noting they all seem to have variations that seem tailored to the particular locale, and are based on particular facts and findings in that location. Referring to the issue of the reduction of the percentage of the CPI, Mr. Guinan stated he could find no recent case in his research where a specific percentage of CPI annual adjustment was determined to be confiscatory or unconstitutional. He noted there was a case in Berkeley in 1988, Searle vs. the City of Berkeley, in which a 40% CPI was found to be confiscatory, and that case was ordered depublished by the Court Supreme Court and, therefore, it is not citable. However, it does give us some indication of what one appellant court did think in reviewing this issue. Mr. Guinan pointed out there were two Ordinances in the survey which do have a 75% CPI. He reported he was able to talk with one of the City Attorneys, Jeff Walters from the City of Novato, noting they enacted their Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance early last year, and it was amended the middle of last year to delete the creation of a Rent Board. Mr. Guinan reported he asked their City Attorney if there had been any litigation, or threatened litigation, regarding the 75% CPI annual adjustment, and he indicated there had not been, although he was quick to add that prior to enacting the Ordinance there had been lengthy discussions with an attorney retained by the three park owners in Novato to discuss the various aspects of a Rent Control Ordinance, and what would and would not be contested. Mr. Guinan reported that in further review of the CPI issue he spoke with Mr. Jensen, an attorney in San Jose who represented the park owners in their rental dispute last year, and now represents M.H.C. and the local managers of Contempo Marin. Mr. Guinan stated he related to Mr. Jensen the discussion the City was having to get his clients' feelings on what would occur and what their position would be should we attempt to change the Ordinance. He reported Mr. Jensen responded with a letter, noting it was not surprising that if we are taking 25% of the earnings out of someone's pocket, they are probably going to put up a fight about it. Mr. Guinan believed it all came back to the issue of what we can do about it, and whether we can craft something that will sustain a legal battle, should we choose to take on this legal fight. Mr. Guinan stated he had one concern, and that is the case of Valpariso vs. the City of Cotati, and the First Court of Appeal decision that came down last year. He reported that was not a mobilehome rent control case, but rather involved an ordinary rent control case; however, Mr. Guinan believed the principles were applicable. He reported that in that case the plaintiff alleged the basic, fundamental legitimate government purpose in enacting rent control, which is to preserve affordable housing to ensure the availability of housing for poor people, for people on fixed incomes, for students, was not being achieved by theRent Control Ordinance in Cotati. Mr. Guinan stated the City of Cotati demurred to the case on other grounds, and the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, sent it back for trial, and stated that on the face of it, if the facts are taken as true, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 23 that the demographics have changed to an extent that the Rent Control Ordinance is not achieving the purpose, then in fact you can make out a claim for a "taking". Mr. Guinan noted this did not mean that, in effect, the Court was stating this was a "taking", they were merely sending it back to be tried in court. Mr. Guinan noted that this case is back in the trial court, but has not yet been set for a trial date. Mr. Guinan stated the reason this concerns him is that before any change is made, the City must have some legitimate, legislative facts upon which to base the decision to reduce the CPI from 100% to 75%. He noted he had discussed this with Mr. Persily, who indicated some of the material was already available, reporting there have been surveys done with the mobilehome owners, and such material will show the City anticipates that their fixed income has not changed greatly over time; in fact, the cost of living, even within the 100% CPI that has been afforded to the park owner, has made it difficult for them to maintain the renting of their space. In addition. Mr. Guinan noted it was important for some of the other factors of the general economic condition and the general cost of housing in the area should be addressed in such a report, to again justify what the General Plan stated in 1988 and 1990, which is that the preservation, specifically of Contempo Marin, of affordable housing is a goal this City has determined as one of its policies. Mr. Guinan stated there have to be some facts justifying that in order to achieve this goal, it is legitimate to reduce the percentage of the CPI. Mr. Guinan reported he had spoke with Dick Bornholdt, the City's Affordable Housing Consultant, concerning such a study, noting Mr. Bornholdt had stated putting such a study together would not be difficult or time consuming. Mr. Guinan stated Mr. Bornholdt was already taking some of the material the park tenants already had, putting together the material with regard to the park purchase. Regarding the Capital Improvement pass-through, Mr. Guinan noted Mr. Jensen's letter indicated he did not feel we needed one, as we already had one. Mr. Guinan reported that to a certain extent, this is correct. Mr. Guinan explained the City does not have a specific pass-through program, but rather we have a rent dispute program; therefore, if a Capital Improvement project were to be presented, it would be dealt with as an excess rent request, a hearing would take place, and there would be a decision. Mr. Guinan noted when this occurred last year, a settlement was reached, and as part of that settlement they agreed the assessment for Capital Improvement would be passed -through as a separate assessment, independent and separate from the base rent, so it would not affect the annual increase. Mr. Guinan stated this area is very litigious, and is getting more so. He noted recent Court of Appeal decisions have been looking more and more carefully at local government regulations, and how far they can go. He stated there would be no sure thing here, and there is the threat that litigation will ensue if we make any changes. Based on his discussion with the City Attorney of Novato, Mr. Guinan felt the best way to approach this would be to set a meeting with representatives of the tenants, as well as the park owner, and see if we can arrive at some common ground, in the hope we can fashion amendments that will provide some degree of relief for the tenants, and at the same time be something the park owners can be comfortable with, and avoid the cost and expense of resources of time and money that litigation would require. Mr. Guinan stated he felt comfortable, in talking with Mr. Bornholdt, that Mr. Bornholdt could put together such a study regarding the factual situation at the park, should the City eventually decide to go forward with the change. He noted he had been assured by Mr. Jensen and the park owners that they would be more than happy to sit down with a representative of the tenants and a representative from the City to discuss this issue. Mr. Guinan acknowledged that perhaps those discussions would not go anywhere; however, he felt it was worth a chance. Councilmember Heller asked if the mobile home park on Francisco Boulevard also fell under this Ordinance? Mr. Guinan stated it did. He reported they had requested a rent increase two or three years ago, which was beyond the annual adjustment, and at that time he told them "No", and they backed away. He stated they did have an increase to the CPI that one year, but in the four and a half years he has been with the City, Mr. Guinan noted that was the only one they have come up with. Councilmember Cohen noted the survey shows the City of Sonoma has a hearing process for increases, but there is also a rebuttable presumption that 60% of CPI equals fair and reasonable return. Mr. Guinan stated this was correct, but noted the practical reality is that if every rent increase is going to go to a hearing, which is the process they have there, the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 24 rebuttable presumption is going to be rebutted on every occasion, or at least there will be evidence presented to attempt to rebut it. Mr. Cohen asked if there was any history there, and how long that Ordinance had been in place. Mr. Guinan stated he had not spoken with their City Attorney or staff, and could not respond to that. Mr. Cohen asked if there was any history in Sacramento County, where everything goes to a hearing? Mr. Guinan stated there was none that he was aware of. Coleman Persily, President of the Contempo Marin Homeowners Association, stated he was absolutely opposed to meetings between the park owners and the tenants. Referring to the earlier discussion concerning B -Bar -A Mobile Home Park on Francisco Boulevard, Mr. Persily stated they are violating the Ordinance completely, noting they have recently raised the rents, but no one cares. He stated they are violating the law. Mr. Persily stated the tenants are requesting the Ordinance be amended to eliminate, not necessarily the 75%, but the automatic annual CPI increases, and (add) the requirement that 51% of the park residents agree before being charged for a Capital Improvement. He noted, as pointed out in the attorney's letter, there are such Ordinances in effect. Mr. Persily stated they maintain the criteria for rent increases, in accordance with our own Ordinance, and also a Supreme Court decision, is "fair return on investment", but not "standard of living", which is CPI. Mr. Persily stated "fair return" is the basic tenant of the Ordinance, and also the decisions of the Supreme Court. He pointed out the Ordinance of the City of Cotati covered six "stick" houses and mobile homes, and it received an unfavorable decision because it was rent control for apartments. Mr. Persily believed meeting with management would be a waste of time, because, as Mr. Guinan advised in his report, the park owner's attitude is that he will meet with the tenants, but he will stall and take months for discussions, and the tenants will have to continue to come back before Council several times. Mr. Persily noted the survey shows other cities' Ordinance which do not permit automatic increases, and require 51% of the spaces to agree to pay for Capital Improvements before the cost can be passed -through. He stated the tenants' experience with management, whereby they agree to reduce the rent increase has, in the past, been based upon their reluctance to litigate. He believed the only reason Mr. Powell stated he wanted an agreement was because he did not want to go to court, and he felt there was a very good chance the owner would not litigate. Mr. Persily stated the Council was good enough to give the tenants the current Ordinance to protect affordable housing, and protect low-income residents from being priced out of mobilehome living. However, continuing these automatic increases will do just that, price them out. In conclusion, Mr. Persily suggested the following: 1) ask the City Attorney to prepare an amendment as requested; 2) a hearing before this Council will follow; 3) the park owners' attorneys will be here before this Council to present the owners' side, and then the Council will decide, and the Council will then be able to judge. Mr. Persily noted a survey had been submitted to the City Attorney which shows the greatest majority of residents are in low and moderate income status. He pointed out the park owner is already evicting residents because of late or non-payment of rent. He noted that first there is a five-day grace period for paying the rent, then the owner gives the tenant a three-day notice, and if the three-day time period passes, then according to law the tenant can be evicted. Mr. Persily stated there are tenants who try to pay their rent after the three-day time period has expired, and the park owner will not take their money. Therefore, as a result, there are a lot of evictions coming up, on the basis of the park owner stating that for one reason or another, once a tenant goes beyond the three days, he wants an eviction. Mr. Persily reported some of the residents are poor, elderly citizens, and there are poor people being thrown out, people who at one time might have had a problem with money and could not make the rent on time, and then came in with the rent two weeks late and were dumped. Mr. Persily asked Council to direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment, noting whether it be for an increase of 75% or 50% of CPI did not matter, they would just appreciate the automatic increases being taken out of the Ordinance, because the rents are going way up now. Mr. Persily stated park management would likely try to scare the City by threatening litigation, but he felt Council should prepare an Ordinance and then give them a chance to threaten the City, noting the City Attorney's Office could show there are many other cities with the 50% or 75%, and a couple with no increases at all. He asked Council, instead of just agreeing with park management, get an Ordinance on the books, and then let management come and try to prove their point, and if management scares the City with the threat of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 25 litigation, then Council can turn the tenants down, but he felt the City should give management the chance to do that, and give the tenants the chance to have hope that we can really stop these rent increases. Councilmember Heller clarified there were two parts to this issue, one dealing with the CPI, and the other with the pass-through, which would require 51% of the vote. She stated she had a real problem with that because it was her understanding the park owners legally can still charge the tenants for Capital Improvements, even though 51% of the tenants say "No". Therefore, she asked why even ask for something that, legally, they cannot enforce? Mr. Persily stated that with our Ordinance the park owner could not legally raise Capital Improvements, noting they had attempted to do this at Contempo Marin, and the tenants' attorney stated their position that a Capital Improvement was considered an increase, which resulted in negotiations and a settlement. Mr. Persily stated that according to the tenants' attorneys, the park owner can only charge for Capital Improvements after going to arbitration, noting it was not an automatic law. Robert Jimenez, resident of Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park, stated the tenants, on an annual basis, face the heavy hand of the mobilehome corporation, who last year informed the tenants they had to pay an assessment as an add-on to the rental check they pay each month. Mr. Jimenez stated he had protested this, and for the first few months wrote "under protest" on the bottom of his checks; however, he gave up, because it seemed like an inevitable situation the tenants were in. Mr. Jimenez stated this corporation has come upon a devious way to raise the tenants' rents, with an artificiality they call "Capital Improvement", but which he calls nonsense. He stated this so-called improvement would overhaul an ancient water pumping system, which broke down in the floods of 1982, allowing Lagoon water to back-up onto the streets, shutting off escape from an ominous, threatening catastrophe. Mr. Jimenez stated the corporate landlord, instead of embracing a legal duty for the safety of some 400 vulnerable park residents saw a chance to make a killing, by charging them for major reconstruction. He noted their highly paid legal army could have negotiated a purchase price for the inevitable overhaul, but instead they reaped a boon from a project for which they have gouged an assessment of $7.50 per month which, to the tenants, is $90 per year, or $1,800 per household for the twenty years of the assessment. Mr. Jimenez stated the park owners have illegally disregarded his rental contract, noting there is nothing in his contract about an assessment. He reported that when he first rented his home in 1980, he was given a monthly rental fee and the Agreement terms, which stated what the park would do and what he was expected to do. He noted the fee went up nominally each year, until Council stepped in and said they could not raise the fee that much. Mr. Jimenez stated he had expected his rent would increase, but he did not expect the assessments, noting assessments were not in his rental contract, and he found this a violation of contract law, and believed he had been cheated by the assessment the corporation has placed on him, Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to see Council proceed on this in a more directive fashion than staff's mitigation would suggest. He noted that while he acknowledged Mr. Persily's comments, he felt it would behoove Council to try to set up a meeting between the tenants, the City, and the park owners, and see whether or not there are some mutually acceptable revisions that could be arrived at. In the meantime, he would like to see the City engage the services of Mr. Bornholdt to do a study and lay the groundwork, noting that in reading the letter from the Corporation's attorney, he had to agree with Mr. Persily that it did not seem such a meeting would be productive, as the owners make that clear, in no uncertain terms, and the letter itself threatens the City should we pursue this in any fashion. Mr. Cohen believed that in looking at the results of the survey, it may very well be that at the least, 75% of CPI would be a reasonable and sustainable; however, he would like to see what Mr. Bornholdt's study shows. Mr. Cohen stated he would also like to take a look at the option of the pass-through, which other cities have adopted. Councilmember Miller stated this issue should not be dragged out forever, and agreed there should be one or two meetings, and then see where we can go from there. He noted that based on the letter they sent, there did not seem to be much give on the other side, and he felt Mr. Persily's point was well taken that there are a lot of people who are in jeopardy, who are at risk, and the City has to do everything for the sake of the common good, in order to protect those people who are most at risk and most vulnerable. Councilmember Heller agreed we needed to sit down and talk to the park owners, and see what other cities have in their Ordinances that we can SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 25 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 26 incorporate. Ms. Heller stated she wanted the City to be absolutely clear and sure that we keep the pass-through separate, and not allow it to become part of the base rent, because that is just a disaster waiting. She agreed the City should move along on this issue and try to get some relief. Councilmember Cohen noted the staff report offered Council a couple of options; to accept the report and refer the matter to staff for further study; to direct staff to prepare a report and an Ordinance amendment, and to direct staff to establish negotiations between tenants and park owners toward a mutually acceptable Ordinance revision. Councilmember Heller asked how long it would take to prepare such a report. Assistant City Attorney Guinan reported Housing Consultant Dick Bornholdt felt he could prepare the report within six to eight weeks. Councilmember Miller noted eight weeks was a long time for people to be hanging out there. Vice -Mayor Phillips agreed, and suggested we proceed more quickly than that. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to direct staff to prepare a report on the economic conditions and the underpinnings for potential Ordinance amendment, and direct staff to seek to establish negotiations between the City, the tenants and the park owners toward mutually acceptable Ordinance revisions, and that we do that in the relatively near future. He agreed, as Councilmember Miller had suggested, that if those are not productive, then Council can move forward with an Ordinance revision. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9. CREATION OF A "GUARDIANS" GROUP TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH SAN RAFAEL VISION (CD) - File 238 x 9-2-51 Senior Planner Linda Jackson reported last November Council accepted the North San Rafael Vision and directed staff to return with a plan for implementation. She stated the Vision recommended the formation of a Guardians Committee, which the Steering Committee thought would serve as a coordinating body for a number of action teams to focus on the implementation of such things as landscaping, financing, Library, and traffic calming. She noted that in preparing the outline in the staff report, they spoke with staff from the Redevelopment Agency concerning the successes they have had in working with the Downtown Vision Committee. Ms. Jackson stated the Guardian Committee has been given a charge, noting it is very important and helpful to have a clear direction from Council about what to focus the attention and resources on during the course of the work. The membership of the Committee will have a wide representation, including people from throughout the area and different interest groups, and members of the Vision Steering Committee, to help with the transition and work that has been done over the past year. Ms. Jackson added one recommendation that will be added will be the inclusion of a youth member, because they were an important part of the Vision Document when it was put together. Ms. Jackson stated a third recommendation is that the members of the Guardian Committee be appointed by the Council, noting there would be a large selection. She stated there would be a widely advertised solicitation for applications, including a press release to go out to neighborhood associations for their monthly newsletters. She stated the term of service would be two years, possibly with an extension, if needed to complete a particular item. She noted staffing would be by the Community Development Department, with participation by other departments, such as Library staff and Finance Department staff. Ms. Jackson reported Associate Planner Chantry Bell has been transferred into the Advanced Planning section of the Community Development Department, and is also a resident of North San Rafael, and Ms. Jackson stated she hoped to have Ms. Bell as an active participant with staff on this project. Ms. Jackson explained one of the implementation strategies is working on General Plan Policies, noting staff will soon be starting the General Plan Update. She reported they are in the process of drafting a work program, and will be asking Council what they would like to see included in this program. She noted the work of the General Plan Policies will be the purview of a Citywide group; however, it is expected that the members of the Guardians Committee will be active participants in reviewing the draft policies, and helping to involve the community in the update process. Ms. Jackson reported the Library Board of Directors would be meeting tomorrow night at the Terra Linda Recreation Center to talk about the Library, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 26 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 27 Public Works Department and Traffic Engineer staff will be gearing up this Spring to work on the pilot program for Las Gallinas Avenue, and staff expects to fold that into the Guardians work as they begin meeting. Councilmember Miller referred to the charge for the Committee, stating he likes that they will be intimately involved with the changes in the General Plan, as the changes will have dramatic affect in certain areas out there. He asked if staff has defined how the process is going to work, so the Committee does, in fact, have input into the development of the update? Ms. Jackson stated there were several groups that will have a major profile, such as the Coalition, the Federation, and certainly the neighborhood groups. She noted the Guardians Group would be one of the most important groups to involve North San Rafael in the work of any policies that would be affecting that community. Councilmember Miller stated he was thinking of public perception, noting there is a real concern in North San Rafael that they have a real solid hook into the process. Ms. Jackson noted the Vision sets out some very strong direction about the kinds of changes the community would like to see, and that would be the framework for changes affecting North San Rafael, as far as the General Plan Update. Vice -Mayor Phillips stated he liked the idea of having at least one youth member, noting there had been two on the Vision Committee, and their input was great and he liked their perspective. Councilmember Cohen asked Ms. Jackson if she had read the FAX from Jay Morse? Ms. Jackson stated she had not seen the FAX, and Principal Planner Sheila Delimont noted she had not seen it either. Mr. Cohen reported Mr. Morse suggested two options: that General Plan amendments be drafted by a citizens committee charged with implementing the Vision; or that the North San Rafael Vision Guardians Committee, using the same decision making process as the Vision Steering Committee, needs to agree on proposed General Plan amendments, to be submitted to the City Council. Mr. Cohen felt these were overly strong roles for this committee. Ms. Jackson recalled that with the Downtown Vision Committee they separated the amendments for the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, with the special committee that worked for two years and the Downtown Vision Committee, noting they had very different charges. Referring to the tasks of the groups, she stated one of them was an action oriented implementation group, while the other was changing rules, and was a very "nuts and bolts" group. She noted there had been joint meetings along the way, and cross - memberships between the groups, and at the public meetings there had been substantial participation by the Vision Committee. She envisioned something similar to that, with participation by the Guardians in the process; however, she stated there would be a need for an Oversight Committee, who would be looking at the General Plan goals, policies, and programs, from a Citywide perspective. She noted that while there would be specific issues and areas of concern, there would be a need to look at it in terms of consistency, and from a Citywide view. Councilmember Cohen stated that sounded like the charge of the Planning Commission. Ms. Jackson noted the Planning Commissioners had indicated they were anxious to become active participants in the next General Plan Update. Mr. Cohen asked if we should look at somehow establishing a strong connection between this group and the Planning Commission, suggesting we might want to consider designating one of the spots to be filled by a Planning Commissioner who lives in North San Rafael. He asked if that would be establishing too much of a connection, noting he thought it might provide the Planning Commission with the benefit of someone who had a lot of involvement with the Guardians, and could bring that directly to the Planning Commission's deliberations. Ms. Jackson stated she anticipated that within the next couple of months she would be coming back before Council to discuss the update process, and discuss suggestions such as that. Gregory Andrew, 213 Las Gallinas Avenue, Vice -Chair of the San Rafael Meadows Improvement Association, stated the neighborhood would very much like to have a representative on the Committee. He asked for clarification of the role of the Guardian Committee in the General Plan Update, noting he felt that clarification should be in the charge. He recommended the Guardian Committee, using the same decision-making process as the North San Rafael Vision, agree to any changes to the General Plan that may affect North San Rafael, noting he felt some of the issues affecting North San Rafael were distinct enough from strictly Citywide General Plan issues. Mr. Andrew asked for the status of the General Plan Update Committee, which he stated he had not heard of before, and also noted he was curious about other things in the staff report, such as integrating the Guardian Committee into the General Plan Update Process, and having an action plan SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 27 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 28 in the charge for policy development. Ms. Delimont stated there needs to be a separate Update Committee for the General Plan Update, because they will be looking at Citywide issues of the housing element, the circulation element, and environmental issues, and setting forth the Citywide policies. The Update Committee will need to consult with the Guardian Committee as they go through the process, to touch base and make sure the issues that were raised during the Vision process are being properly addressed through the General Plan Update. She stated the Guardian Committee will be very important as far as the public participation that is envisioned, with workshops and involvement of the community as we go through the process. Ms. Delimont stated staff would be laying out that relationship a little more clearly when they bring back the Work Program for the General Plan Update. She noted at this point in time staff sees them involved in the process as it relates to North San Rafael, but we still need the Update Committee to set the policies under an umbrella of what the Citywide goals are for San Rafael. Mr. Andrew stated he was still curious about the Update Committee, and where that stands at this time. Ms. Delimont stated staff would be bringing the Work Program to Council soon, and that will lay out more clearly what is envisioned for the Update Committee as far as membership. Mr. Andrew asked if the Update Committee had been formed yet, and Ms. Delimont stated it had not, noting staff would be laying out recommendations for membership and solicitation of those members. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to direct staff to solicit membership for the creation of a "Guardians" Group to implement the North San Rafael Vision, with the inclusion of a youth member. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro NEW BUSINESS: 10. MID -YEAR BUDGET REVIEW (Admin. Svcs.) - File 8-5 Administrative Services Director Kenneth Nordhoff stated the City's budget had been given a thorough review at the six month point, noting he had incorporated a number of amendments Council had acted on during the first six months, as well as a few other items. He noted he was asking for additional legal expenses because of some third party legal costs that have been incurred, or are anticipated to occur, through the end of June. In addition, two items have been requested for technology, as discussed during the technology strategy session in November, including $50,000, which would be an ongoing charge for personal computer replacements, maintenance, and upgrades, as well as an additional $50,000 to begin setting aside funds for system migration, which he noted only begins to put a dent in approximately $1.2 million in needs, but it does make some progress. Mr. Nordhoff stated he was also including a one-time amendment for additional assistance in the City Clerk's Office while she is absent this month recovering from surgery. Mr. Nordhoff reported all the funds are balanced, and he believes the City is benefiting from a very strong economy in a number of its tax areas. He stated things look very strong, and we should meet our targets by next June. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to accept the report and adopt the Resolution as presented. RESOLUTION NO. 10006 - RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1997/98 BUDGET. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro MONTHLY REPORT: 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (CM) Due to the lateness of the hour, this report was not given. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 28 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 29 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS None. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 PM. APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1998 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/20/98 Page 29