Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1998-04-06SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1998 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: Barbara Heller, Councilmember Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM 1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(a)) a. Case Name: Yates, Craig and Margaret vs. City of San Rafael, Marin County Courts, Case No. 167499 City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced no reportable action was taken. OPEN SESSION: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:35 PM NON -ENFORCEMENT OF A RESTRAINING ORDER & DISABLED ACCESS TO CITY HALL - File 9-3-30 x 13-1-1 (Verbal) Phillip "Casey" Fields, resident of San Rafael, addressed the Council concerning what he believed was unsatisfactory enforcement of a Restraining Order. Mayor Boro noted Mr. Fields had met with Police Chief Sanchez and City Manager Gould, and reported Chief Sanchez had a letter for Mr. Fields in response to his concerns. Mr. Fields confirmed he had met with Chief Sanchez and Mr. Gould, thanking them for their time, but noting he had not yet seen any results. Mr. Fields stated the Courts are the ones who issue the Restraining Order for victims like himself, and for witnesses, and noted it was not the business of the Police Officers to be re -interpreting those orders, pointing out they are in the business of enforcing the law without questioning the orders of the Court. He stated this was where our Police Department failed, and he hoped, in order to avoid a class action lawsuit against the City, the Police Chief and City Manager would be able to carry out the strict interpretation of the Court's Restraining Order. Mr. Fields was also concerned that City Hall was not physically accessible to the disabled. He noted when he came to the Police Department one night, the doors were closed and he did not have any access. He pointed out the building is not open on weekends or after 8:00 PM, and he urged the City to direct the Police Department to open their doors whenever needy victims are in need of protection. Chief Sanchez stated he and Mr. Gould met with Mr. Fields, and understand his concerns. Chief Sanchez pointed out the front of the building, at the entrance to the Police Department, was clearly signed with instructions to come around to the back of the building and use the phone to speak with a dispatcher if the building is locked. Chief Sanchez stated they had looked into Mr. Fields' issues, inquired about all of his complaints, and prepared a written response. Chief Sanchez invited Mr. Fields to meet with him and Captain Cronin after he has read the response, and they will discuss it further. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Annual Approved as submitted. Meeting of Wednesday, January 21, 1998 (with Dixie and San Rafael School Districts), Regular Meeting of Monday, March 2, 1998, and Special Closed Session Meeting of Monday, March 16, 1998 (CC) 3. Request for Amicus Participation: (CA) Approved amicus SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 2 participation - File 9-3-16 for both 3a. and 3b. a. Santa Monica Beach Ltd. vs. Superior Court of Los Angeles, Santa Monica Rent Control Board, (California Superior Court No. 5052824) b. Lambert vs. City and County of San Francisco, (California Superior Court No. 5065446) 4. Amendment to Agreement Between the City of San Rafael and Joe Leisek for Publication of the Quarterly City Newsletter (CM) - File 4-3-322 5. City Work Plan Review (CM) - File 237 RESOLUTION NO. 10036 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AND THE SIGNING OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH JOE LEISEK TO PUBLISH A QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER. Accepted report. 6. Resolutions of Appreciation Re: E1 Nino Storms RESOLUTIONS 10037 of February, 1998 (CM) - THRU 10155 - File 205-C x 13-11 x 102 RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION RE: EL NINO STORMS OF FEBRUARY, 1998. RESOLUTIONS TO BE PRESENTED AT EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION LUNCHEON, 4/15/98. The following Resolutions were issued: City Department Public Works: #10037 - David Bartleman, #10038 - David Bernardi, #10039 - Earl Boisclair, #10040 - William Bundeson, #10041 - Archie Choice, #10042 - John Cochrane, #10043 - Brian Collins, #10044 - Steven DeVincenzi, #10045 - Vernon Doughty, #10046 - Steve Egger, #10047 - George Emehiser, #10048 - Stephen Ferrario, #10049 - Steven Fesler, #10050 - Steven Fontaine, #10051 - James Forsythe, #10052 - Jerry Giordani, #10053 - David Graniss, #10054 - James Hammerich, #10055 - Ronald Hughes, #10056 - David Hulbert, #10057 - Eunejune Kim, #10058 - Terry Kraus, #10059 - Edward Labasan, #10060 - Richard Landis, #10061 - Sheila Lewis, #10062 - John Massucco, #10063 - Richard McEachern, #10064 - Robert McEachern, #10065 - William McGrath, #10066 - Brendan Mitchell, #10067 - Matthew Naclerio, #10068 - David Nattress, #10069 - Jeff Nedderman, #10070 - Kevin O'Connell, #10071 - John Petroni, #10072 - Andrew Preston, #10073 - Lee Price, #10074 - Robert Price, #10075 - Steven Reese, #10076 - Diane Reiff, #10077 - Tom Rothenberger, #10078 - Carl Sampson, #10079 - Athen Scarioni, #10080 - David Sliney, #10081 - Matthew Smith, #10082 - Mark Sorenson, #10083 - Gene Soulie, #10084 - Glenn Thompson, #10085 - John Tune, #10086 - Don Vaughn, #10087 - Jim Von Bima, #10088 - Janet Walker, #10089 - Chester Williams, #10090 - Mark Withey, #10091 - Tim Wood, #10092 - Mark Wright Police Dept.: #10093 - Blair Auld, #10094 - Harry Barbier, #10095 - Jonathan Bean, #10096 - Thomas Boyd, #10097 - James Cook, #10098 - Katherine Cronin, #10099 - Florence DeLosada, #10100 - Thomas Donahue, #10101 - William Drolla, #10102 - Joel Fay, #10103 - Doughas Fletcher, #10104 - Jeff Franzini, #10105 - John Gilson, #10106 - David Giugni, #10107 - Caren Haluska, #10108 - Mark Hedeen, #10109 - Lori Hendricks, #10110 - Robert Henkle, #10111 - Larry Holguin, #10112 - Brendon Hom, #10113 - John Huntoon, #10114 - Lynette Keller, #10115 - Walt Kosta, #10116 - Jack Martin, #10117 - Michael McBride, #10118 - John McDonald, Jr., #10119 - Alan Piombo, #10120 - Lance Ratto, #10121 - John Rohrbacher, #10122 - Margaret Rohrbacher, #10123 - Rita Ruiz, #10124 - Thomas Sabido, #10125 - Camerino Sanchez, #10126 - Carol Selleck, #10127 - Thomas SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 3 Smiley, #10128 - David Starnes, #10129 - Charles Taylor, #10130 - Warren Taylor, #10131 - Henry Tirre, #10132 - Michael Vergara, #10133 - Kathleen Wata, #10134 - Tricia Wood Fire Dept.: #10135 - Forrest Craig, #10136 - Stacey Freeman, #10137 - Robert Ground, #10138 - David Holland, #10139 - Kevin Kelleher, #10140 - Robert Marcucci, #10141 - John Parker, #10142 - Steven Rutkowski, #10143 - William Steach, #10144 - Scott Tipton, #10145 - Brian Waterbury, #10146 - Ron Whitehead Community Dev.: #10147 - Sheila Delimont, #10148 - Fred Vincenti City Clerk: #10149 - Patricia Roberts City Council: #10150 - Al Boro, #10151 - Paul Cohen, #10152 - Barbara Heller, #10153 - Cyr Miller, #10154 - Gary Phillips City Manager: #10155 - Rod Gould 7. Resolution Approving Fire Protection Service Agreement with Marinwood Community Service District and Authorizing Execution of Agreement (FD) - File 4-10-130 x 9-3-31 8. Resolution Approving Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, 650 Irwin Street, Oriental Food Connection (PD) - File 9-3-30 10. Resolution to Accept Amendment to the Proposal from SCADA Solutions for the Implementation of RESOLUTION NO. 10156 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE MARINWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT. RESOLUTION NO. 10157 - RESOLUTION APPROVING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC NECESSITY, 650 IRWIN STREET, ORIENTAL FOOD CONNECTION. RESOLUTION NO. 10158 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT for the Storm Water Pump Station Renovation WITH SCADA SOLUTIONS FOR THE Project at San Quentin Pump Station and Act as IMPLEMENTATION OF SUPERVISORY Contractor to Install MCC and to Authorize Director CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION of Public Works to Execute Agreement (PW) SYSTEM FOR THE STORM WATER - File 4-10-299 x 12-9 x 4-4-6b PUMP STATION RENOVATION PROJECT AND TO AUTHORIZE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT. 11. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute RESOLUTION NO. 10159 a Cooperative Agreement with the State of RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE California for the North Francisco Boulevard MAYOR TO EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE Pump Station/Harbor Street Drain Project AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF #4279-165601 (PW) - File 4-8-27 x 9-3-40 x 12-9 CALIFORNIA FOR THE NORTH FRANCISCO BOULEVARD PUMP STATION/HARBOR STREET DRAIN PROJECT #4279- 165601. 13. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager, Public RESOLUTION NO. 10160 Works Director, and Fire Chief to be Authorized RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Agents on Behalf of the City of San Rafael to CITY MANAGER, PUBLIC WORKS SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 4 Work With the State Office of Emergency ServicesDIRECTOR, AND THE FIRE CHIEF in Matters Pertaining to Disaster Assistance TO WORK WITH THE STATE OFFICE (PW) - File 13-11 x 9-3-11 x 9-3-31 x 9-3-40 OF EMERGENCY SERVICES IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO DISASTER ASSISTANCE. 14. Resolution of Appreciation to Peacock Garden Club RESOLUTION NO. 10161 to Commemorate Arbor Day 1998 - Planting of Trees RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO at Terra Linda Recreation Center (PW) PEACOCK GARDEN CLUB TO - File 102 x 109 COMMEMORATE ARBOR DAY 1998, AND PLANTING OF TREES AT TERRA LINDA RECREATION CENTER. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion: 9. RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE (PPP) FOR IMPLEMENTING SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES C-2, C-3, AND C-7 AND PROGRAM C -b - PROCEDURE TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE CIRCULATION IMPACTED AREAS OF BELLAM BOULEVARD/I-580/HIGHWAY 101 (EAST SAN RAFAEL), FREITAS PARKWAY/HIGHWAY 101, AND LUCAS VALLEY ROAD/SMITH RANCH ROAD/HIGHWAY 101 (NORTH SAN RAFAEL) (CD) -File 115 (PPP) x 11-1 Councilmember Miller stated he had researched the matter of the PPP happening when there is no competition, just a single person, and found agreement among the Counsel for Vista Marin, our City Attorney and his assistant, the Interim Director of Community Development, and Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian, to include the following paragraph, added to Section 3.0: "At the close of the application period as set forth in the Notice of Invitation, if there is a single application for the Priority Projects Procedure designation in any circulation -impacted area and (1) that application qualifies as a high priority project as defined by General Plan Policy C-7, and (2) the merits of the proposed project in that application have previously been approved by the City, then the Priority Projects Procedure designation shall be deemed granted without further proceedings required by the City". He stated this was simply a matter of fairness to the project, which could be affecting Vista Marin, as well as streamlining the project. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 10162 - RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTIONS NO. 7853, 8071, 8313, 9331, AND 9418 ESTABLISHING PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000 CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (As amended, to include the following paragraph added to Section 3.0: "At the close of the application period as set forth in the Notice of Invitation, if there is a single application for the Priority Projects Procedure designation in any circulation - impacted area and (1) that application qualifies as a high priority project as defined by General Plan Policy C-7, and (2) the merits of the proposed project in that application have previously been approved by the City, then the Priority Projects Procedure designation shall be deemed granted without further proceedings required by the City.") AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller 12. CITY HALL BOILER REPLACEMENT: (PW) - File 4-1-492 a. RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS FOR CITY HALL BOILER REPLACEMENT. b. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM LEFLER ENGINEERING, INC. FOR DESIGN AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CITY HALL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 5 BOILER REPLACEMENT. Councilmember Cohen noted the staff report made reference to the proposals ranging in price from $30,000 to $80,000, and stated it was not clear if that was the range of all five proposals received, or the three proposals that were most complete and responsive. He noted the report goes on to state the problem was that several contractors included a minimum amount of design, and had already selected a boiler, yet their bids still came in from a low of $30,000 to a high of $80,000, even with a minimum of design work. He noted the fiscal impact was projected to be almost $10,000 for design, and $35,000 left for the boiler installation process, stating it was hard for him to reconcile that set of facts with those numbers. He stated he did not have a problem if, as a result of our inability to design/build turn -key project, we might have to modify the budget, but he would just as soon know that now. Public Works Director Bernardi stated it was staff's intention when they first went out for proposals, under a design/build scenario, to do two things at once; one was to replace the boiler, and prior to that, to have a consultant come in as part of the design/build, look at the air conditioning and heating system, and then pick a boiler that would fit the needs of City Hall. Mr. Bernardi reported there were five proposals, and those were the ones that ranged from $30,000 to $80,000. Of those five, there were actually three that were responsive to what the City wanted, but when staff started analyzing them, they found each of the three made different assumptions as to what the City expected of them. Staff decided to take a step back and do this as a two step process, which would be to do the design first, and then go out for a Capital Improvement Project to put in a specified boiler, based on a Mechanical Engineer's review of our heating system. Mr. Bernardi stated the cost was the same as budgeted, noting they had included funding in the original estimate of approximately $10,000 for the actual design and analysis of our system, so we are still consistent with what was originally estimated for the entire project. Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Bernardi felt $35,000 would cover the boiler? Mr. Bernardi stated he did. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution rejecting bid proposals. RESOLUTION NO. 10163 - RESOLUTION REJECTING BID PROPOSALS FOR CITY HALL BOILER REPLACEMENT. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution accepting a proposal from Lefler Engineering, Inc. for design and preparation of Plans and Specifications for the City Hall boiler replacement. RESOLUTION NO. 10164 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM LEFLER ENGINEERING, INC. FOR DESIGN AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CITY HALL BOILER REPLACEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller PUBLIC HEARINGS: 15. PUBLIC HEARING - RE: PROPOSED FORMATION OF POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD LANDSCAPING DISTRICT: (Admin. Svcs.) - File 6-54 a) RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD LANDSCAPING DISTRICT. b) RESOLUTION DECLARING RESULTS OF A PROPERTY OWNER PROTEST PROCEEDING. C) 1. RESOLUTION FORMING THE POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD LANDSCAPING DISTRICT AND ADOPTING THE MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT; OR, 2. RESOLUTION ABANDONING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FORMATION OF THE POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD LANDSCAPING DISTRICT AND ASSOCIATED ASSESSMENTS Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked Administrative Services Director Ken Nordhoff for a report. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 6 Mr. Nordhoff reported the City Council has been involved with the County, helping to facilitate the process of the formation of the Point San Pedro Road Landscaping Assessment District, and noted this meeting was the culmination of several months of work. Mr. Nordhoff stated there were three actions Council was being asked to take at this time. First, an Engineer's Report has been developed by Muni Financial, the Assessment Engineers hired for this project. He noted, in essence, it was the same report approved as a Preliminary Report at the City Council meeting of February 2, 1998, stating there were no substantive changes in the report. The second action is to approve a Resolution validating the tabulation of the ballots received as part of the protest proceedings. Lastly, pending the outcome of those results, Council will be asked to either proceed with the formation of the District, or the abandonment of the District, based on the results of the ballot protest proceeding. Mr. Nordhoff reported that when the ballots were mailed out the week of February 17th, 2,766 ballots were mailed to the affected property owners. He stated the City Clerk and City Attorney's office met with him during the past few weeks, and they formulated a process to tabulate the ballots, noting they waited as close to the end as possible to give everyone a chance to submit their ballot. Mr. Nordhoff stated they began those proceedings last Friday, and continued today with what they had not finished, noting he would be announcing the results of all the ballots that were received. Mayor Boro asked if there were any additional ballots to be included in the final tabulations, or if there was anyone who wished to withdraw their ballot from the final tabulations? There was no one wishing to submit or withdraw a ballot. Mr. Nordhoff stated that in an effort to assure fairness and objectivity in the counting of the ballots, the Public Accounting firm of Capporicci & Larson was hired, who provided an independent certification of the process. He noted they were there to oversee the process and do sample testing, and they will validate and certify the final results. Mr. Nordhoff pointed out the ballots were counted relative to their weight, not necessarily as a one to one vote. He stated the number of "Yes" votes were added, along with the weighted assessment and benefit, tallying that figure, and then tallying the figure for the "No" votes. He noted as the ballots were opened, some were found to be invalid, for such things as not being signed, or not having a "Yes" or "No" box checked. Based upon the results as of 8:00 PM, and with no additional ballots being submitted or withdrawn, Mr. Nordhoff announced there were $37,583.40 worth of assessments favoring the formation of the Point San Pedro Road Landscaping District, and $56,086.62 opposing the District. He explained that was broken down to 40% support, and 60% protest to forming the District. He reported the number of ballots received was 2,049, with 772 ballots voted in favor of the District, and 1,230 opposed. Of those ballots, 4 were considered as "changed", where someone had voted one way and then submitted a second ballot to change their vote; 4 ballots were duplicates, where the original ballot was returned, and not knowing the original had been returned, a second ballot was submitted for the same property; 38 invalid ballots; and 1 ballot that was considered to be a split, where a joint tenant voted half "Yes" and half "No". Mr. Nordhoff reported these exceptions were all included in the final result. Mayor Boro asked if those results were public record, and Mr. Nordhoff stated they were. Based upon the results of the balloting, Mr. Nordhoff stated staff was recommending Council incorporate those figures into the Resolution regarding the final ballot protest proceedings, accept the final Engineer's Report, and take action to abandon the District. Mr. Nordhoff introduced Mike Bannon of Muni Financial, who prepared the final Engineer's Report, and Tony Peters, of Capporicci & Larson, who did the independent auditing and process review, both of whom were available to answer any questions concerning the process. Councilmember Cohen clarified that this was not an optional decision, that this had been a protest vote, and was clearly a majority protest; therefore, it was a non -discretionary item for the Council, and they must abandon the District. Mr. Nordhoff stated that was correct. Mayor Boro announced there were three separate actions before Council, noting they would act on 15b. first, and stating he would call each item separately, and invite public comment on any of these items. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 7 Mayor Boro announced the first item was to adopt a Resolution declaring the results of the property owners' protest proceedings, and invited public comment (15.b). There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed this portion of the public hearing. Phillip "Casey" Fields then requested to speak, noting that generally when a poll is taken, there is an academic methodology using a bell curve, and the margin of error is announced, along with a statement of confidence as to the reliability of the results. Mayor Boro pointed out this was not a telephone survey, it was an actual ballot, which had been submitted, counted, and certified by staff and an outside independent auditor. Mr. Fields noted that statistically, there is an announcement regarding the validity and objectivity of the methodology used. Tony Peters, Capporicci & Larson, stated his CPA firm had issued a certification as to the accuracy of the balloting. He reported that in the volume of the 2,047 ballots accumulated (as of Friday, April 3rd at 5:00 PM), a sample testing was done on 289 ballots. He noted the ballots were grouped in "Yes" blocks and "No" blocks, in numeric sequence, and those blocks were verified of their entirety going into the vote count. He stated his firm was extremely confident of the accuracy of the documents, noting standard procedures were used in this balloting. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution declaring the results of the property owner protest proceeding, with the information as provided by Mr. Nordhoff. RESOLUTION NO. 10165 - RESOLUTION DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A PROPERTY OWNER PROTEST PROCEEDING. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller Mayor Boro announced the second item before Council was to adopt a Resolution approving the final Engineer's Report for the Point San Pedro Road Landscaping District, and invited public comment. Fielding Greaves, with Marin United Taxpayers Association, stated he opposed adoption of this Resolution. He referred to a letter from the Jarvis Taxpayers Association which Alice Vipiana had provided to the Councilmembers, which showed there were several discrepancies in the Engineer's Report, including failure to follow the requirements of Proposition 218, in several respects. Mr. Greaves stated Mr. Nordhoff's earlier remark pointing out the final report was essentially unchanged from the original report adopted by Resolution 10017, would indicate those discrepancies and shortcomings to following the existing laws still exist. Therefore, he urged Council to vote "No" on this Resolution. Councilmember Phillips asked what the purpose of this Resolution was? Mr. Nordhoff stated it was so we would have a final Engineer's Report on record, on which the District ballot was based. Alice Vipiana, resident of Loch Lomond, also urged Council not to accept the final Engineer's Report, stating there was no reason to accept the report after so many have voted against it, unless Council was planning to do as others have done, and repeatedly "hit the voters over the head" with the same proposal, over and over again. She believed that would be the only reason Council would want to keep this Engineer's Report alive. Ms. Vipiana stated she has been on the losing side many times, and she offered her condolences to those who lost, noting they worked very hard and put in a lot of their own time and money. She stated she had many reasons for opposing the adoption of the final Engineer's Report, and she did not agree with many of the statements in the letter from Muni Financial. For example, Muni Financial stated San Pedro Road belongs to the neighborhood, because all of the streets in the mapping area come down onto San Pedro Road; however, Ms. Vipiana stated if she, or anyone else on any one of those streets, wanted to go to Santa Rosa or San Francisco, they have to drive up or down Highway 101, yet they have never been asked to take care of the grounds of Highway 101 because it is a neighborhood street. Ms. Vipiana felt the report was flawed, and that Point San Pedro Road was not a neighborhood street, noting there are trucks from all over the County that use the road, and people who come to the parks and yacht harbors also use that street. She stated that to try to put forth Point San Pedro Road as a neighborhood street was a far stretch of the imagination. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 8 Len Kottenstete, resident of the Glenwood area, requested Council decline to approve this report, because he believed the report must be flawed because people do not know what is proposed for the landscaping, and if that is the case, he did not see how the report could be valid. Ron Pinto, who lives near Loch Lomond, agreed with the two previous speakers, and asked why the Council should accept the final Engineer's Report when the residents have turned down the District, and what the value would be of agreeing to the report? He stated he did not see the value of the final Engineer's Report, other than the fact that perhaps they will try again, and use the report as the basis for trying to put this to a vote again. Mr. Pinto stated he was happy this ballot measure was defeated, because if there was ever an earthquake, the people would have to re -do the landscaping. He noted he was in the process of putting an addition on his home, and reported he was required, according to the 1994 Building Code, to add a steel frame because of the possibility of earthquakes. Bill McNew, resident of Peacock Gap, stated no matter how a person voted, whether they voted for the District or not, the Jarvis group in Sacramento had expressed an opinion, Muni Financial expressed a legal opinion, and we have the posturing of lawyers. He believed if Council wanted to accept the final Engineer's Report, he felt they should have a written affirmation from City Attorney Ragghianti stating, in his opinion, the report conforms to Proposition 218. However, if he agrees Sacramento may have an argument, then Council would be wise not to vote on it. Mr. McNew stated Special Assessment Districts were being done all over the State of California, and he believed some of these were going to be litigated, noting that when there is some case law, the Council will be in a better position to address these issues in the future. However, for now, he suggested Council drop the issue. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed this portion of the public hearing. Mike Bannon, of Muni Financial, stated prior to Proposition 218 they were working with a series of State Codes that dealt with the formation of Districts, and a standard practice in those statutes was a preliminary Engineer's Report, prior to the Council considering the formation of a District. He explained the preliminary Engineer's Report would announce the issue, and then prior to Proposition 218, the Council could make changes to the report prior to adopting an Assessment, and that practice is still continuing, after Proposition 218. He stated Proposition 218 requires the creation of an Engineer's Report that discusses the improvements, and discusses the spread among all the parcels. He explained what Council accepted prior to sending out the ballots was a preliminary Engineer's Report, and tonight Council was being asked to adopt the final Engineer's Report, which was the basis of the ballots that went out. He stated the action Council is being asked to take in terms of adopting the final Engineer's Report is not required by Proposition 218, and if Council chooses, they can decide not to adopt the report, and abandon the proceedings, which is the next item on the Agenda. He reiterated the reason this item is on the Agenda, as pointed out by Mr. Nordhoff, is to close the loop, so Council's action will be made on a final Engineer's Report, rather than on a preliminary report. Mayor Boro noted Mr. Bannon stated Council did not have to adopt the final report, but the staff report states, "Regardless of the outcome of the ballot proceedings, the Resolution is required to be acted upon at the Public Hearing". He asked if that meant Council could adopt it, not adopt it, or do nothing? Mr. Bannon stated that was correct. Mr. Nordhoff stated the staff report had been structured in such a way as staff did not yet know the outcome of the balloting. Mayor Boro asked City Attorney Ragghianti to comment. City Attorney Ragghianti agreed with Mr. Bannon, noting he did not believe it was legally necessary for Council to adopt the final Engineer's Report. He stated if he were to be required to argue or attempt to persuade Council as to why they would want to, he pointed out, as Mr. Nordhoff previously indicated, that Proposition 218 has indicated it is now only possible to adopt or approve as assessment in connection with real property when special benefits have been identified that will be conferred upon it. He stated that in order to determine the proportional special benefit that is attributable to each property, the Engineer's Report is used. He noted that served as the very basis for the assessment, prior to the time Proposition 218's requirement for a written ballot was implemented. He agreed Council need not adopt the final Engineer's Report, and stated if they did adopt the report, it would have absolutely no precedential value with respect to any future assessment that may be levied. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 9 Councilmember Cohen stated it seemed the only argument one could really construct is that we should close the loop by adopting a final Engineer's Report, which would give some certainty to the numbers in the balloting, because the weighting was done based on the preliminary Engineer's Report and, therefore, approving a final Engineer's Report would give certainty to the numbers. However, based on the numbers, whether it is weighted or unweighted in the raw count of the ballots, it is very clearly 60/40 against the proposal, or a 60% protest vote. He stated it was hard for him to imagine any credible argument that a fine-tuning of the preliminary Engineer's Report would have any significant impact on the outcome; therefore, he felt there was no point in taking up this debate. He stated he tended to be swayed by the arguments presented by Muni Financial, noting he particularly liked the discussion of the existential nature of the debate about assessing the road for its own improvement; however, he did not see any point in joining this argument. He stated he was not interested, unless someone could show him there has been a major sway in public opinion, of ever revisiting an assessment district for the median. He noted, to the extent that approving this Engineer's Report would somehow feed the notion that there was a secret plot to bring this back and beat people over the head with it, he would just as soon not bother, pointing out there was no legal requirement, and it was not, in any way, going to change the outcome. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to table the issue of approving the final Engineer's Report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller Mayor Boro announced the third item, as a result of the outcome of the voting, was a Resolution abandoning the proceedings for the formation of the Point San Pedro Road Landscaping District, and associated assessments. City Attorney Ragghianti pointed out this was a Resolution Council must adopt. Hugh Campbell, stated he would be remiss if he did not thank everyone, noting this had been a journey of three years, and everyone had learned a lot. He thanked the Councilmembers, City Manager Gould, and Administrative Services Director Nordhoff for their support, and for letting them have this opportunity. He thanked all the people who had supported them, noting there were a lot of them who were very upset with the way the road and the medians look. Mr. Campbell stated that when everyone leaves the meeting tonight, the road will still look the way it looked last year and the year before, noting it looks terrible. He stated if this is not the way to improve their neighborhood, through this measure, then on behalf of all those people who were in favor of the assessment and who gave so much support over the past few months, he would like to seek Council's wisdom and advice as to what they can do to improve the roadway and how it looks. He stated there had to be a way in which they could improve the area in which they all live and travel every day, noting it was a disgrace and an embarrassment, which is why they spent so much time on this. He stated people try to make things complex, but their objective was always very simple, to improve the neighborhood in which they live. He pointed out that was their total objective, noting they had worked on it for three years. Again, he thanked everyone for their support, including Public Works Director Dave Bernardi and Parks Maintenance Supervisor Tom Rothenberger, and Al Barr and Stuart Lum, who spent countless hours on this. He stated he did not know where the City, ever again, would find two private residents who took their own time, and spent the hours on this that they have. Moving forward, Mr. Campbell stated no one, outside of one person in three years, has ever argued that the medians do not need work, or that they are not terrible, noting everyone agrees to that. Therefore, after everything settles down, he would be very receptive to seeking Council's advice, to see if there are ways the neighborhood can be improved. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed this portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Cohen thanked Mr. Campbell, Mr. Barr, and Mr. Lum, and all those who worked on this, for taking a difficult and complicated approach to improving the community. He noted that while a majority of their neighbors did not agree with the approach they took, he appreciated the spirit in which they undertook this campaign, and the spirit they put into it over the last several years. As a larger issue, Councilmember Cohen stated we, as a community, face approximately $80 million in unmet Capital SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 10 Improvements, noting our facilities are falling down around our ears. He stated this was not something that is unique to San Rafael or Marin County, noting local governments throughout the State have been severely unfunded for four years, and what has fallen by the wayside are Capital Improvements. He pointed out that medians, unfortunately, are very visible, but arguably, they are not the most important, and certainly not the most pertinent to Public Safety. He stated this problem exists throughout our community, and sooner or later all of us in California are going to have to come to grips with it, whether it be assessment districts or something else. He acknowledged the issue will not go away, the medians will look as bad tomorrow, and we are no closer to a solution. However, Proposition 218 is very clear on this, and he was not particularly interested in voting against the clearly expressed will of the people on this issue, regardless of what Proposition 218 states, even if it did leave Council with a choice, noting it was a very clear vote of the people affected by this assessment district that they were not interested. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution abandoning proceedings for the formation of the Point San Pedro Road Landscaping District and associated assessments. RESOLUTION NO. 10166 - RESOLUTION ABANDONING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FORMATION OF THE POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD LANDSCAPING DISTRICT AND ASSOCIATED ASSESSMENTS. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller OLD BUSINESS: 16. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MARIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STEERING COMMITTEE FOR A MARIN COUNTY SALES TAX AND FOR VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS (P98-7) (CD) - File 170 x 9-1 x 9-4 Mark Riesenfeld, Director of the County Community Development Agency for Marin County, stated he was representing the Countywide Planning Agency and the Transportation Steering Committee. Mr. Riesenfeld addressed the issue of the proposed general sales tax increase that has been forwarded by the Planning Agency for consideration. He stated Council was being asked to send a recommendation, in the form of a Resolution, to the Countywide Planning Agency, asking the Board of Supervisors to put two Measures on the ballot in November, 1998. One Measure would be an Advisory Measure, and one would be a General Sales Tax increase of 1/2 cent. In terms of how we got to this particular point, Mr. Riesenfeld explained they have been looking at this and trying to address the issue of traffic congestion, mostly on the Highway 101 corridor, for at least twenty-five years, and invariably succeeding and failing in different programs they tried to put in place. He reported that most recently the counties of Marin and Sonoma engaged in a joint study, called the Sonoma/Marin Multi - Modal Planned Use and Transportation Study, which concluded with a number of recommendations in 1997. Mr. Riesenfeld reported those recommendations, not dissimilar to the recommendations of other studies conducted in Marin and Sonoma counties, were that we need a series of transportation improvements that include a commuter rail, highway improvements, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, improvements for local roads, improvements for paratransit, and local bus improvements. He explained that after that study was completed, the Countywide Planning Agency created a committee, known as the Transportation Steering Committee, which represented a wide spectrum of interests, including elected officials, representatives from housing, environmental, business, and transit interests from throughout the County. He stated they came together in a very concentrated program, which lasted approximately seven months, from September, 1997 until February, 1998. He reported that when they concluded, they basically put together a set of recommendations that was responsive to the Sonoma/Marin study, in the context of the available resources they believed the voters of Marin County would support. Mr. Riesenfeld reported part of that process, in addition to meeting once every two weeks for seven months, involved the ability to look at results of two Countywide surveys, one in October and one in January of this year, as well as the conduct of four focus groups, which helped them understand, in a very specific sense, what the voters of Marin County were thinking about in terms of their ability to support a tax or program to help transportation. Mr. Riesenfeld noted that in looking at that information, as well as hearing from all of the interested parties, the Committee came SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 11 up with recommendations that addressed several different programs, as well as an allocation formula for how the Committee recommended the proceeds of a 1/2 cent sales tax, which would raise approximately $3 million over twenty years, should be spent to best deal with traffic congestion in Marin County, given the application of those resources. He reported the recommendations include the establishment of a commute rail service, initially from Healdsburg to San Rafael, and possibly in the future to Larkspur; local bus service, including expansion of the current local bus routes, additional local bus routes to serve the rail system, as well as neighborhood rail systems in Novato, San Rafael, upper and lower Ross Valley, as well as southern Marin; para -transit services. Mr. Riesenfeld pointed out that at $15 million, the current para -transit service in the County, which essentially is Whistle Stop Wheels, is at approximately the $15 million level over the next twenty years, so this would essentially double the amount of para -transit services that would be available to the elderly and disabled in the County; $35 million for local streets and roads; and a $35 million allocation to Highway 101, which would essentially be for the completion of the GAP Closure Project in Central San Rafael, from Puerto Suello Hill to Lucky Drive. He noted that amount of money would enable them to complete the northbound portion of that entire project; $10 million for bicycle and pedestrian paths; $55 million for land acquisition. Mr. Riesenfeld reported the concept was to spend that $55 million for the purpose of acquiring parcels having a high development potential, in order to reduce the traffic associated with those parcels. In terms of the next steps, Mr. Riesenfeld explained they are visiting the different cities and making their presentation, noting Belvedere has heard the same presentation and will be taking action tonight, tomorrow night they will speak before the Fairfax City Council; Thursday night they will visit the Town of Ross; and they have previously visited Mill Valley and Corte Madera, as well as Larkspur and Tiburon, all of whom have approved this Measure, and recommended it to the Countywide Planning Agency and Board of Supervisors. Mr. Riesenfeld stated that by the end of April they will have been to ten of the eleven cities in the County, with a presentation to Sausalito scheduled for sometime in early May. He reported that on May 23rd the Countywide Planning Agency will be considering all the recommendations of the cities, and then forward their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Riesenfeld stated they expect the Board of Supervisors to be taking this up approximately mid-May, noting it was the Board's intention to expeditiously consider the matter. Mr. Riesenfeld urged Council to consider the matter, to discuss it, and then take action requesting the Countywide Planning Agency to ask the Board of Supervisors to place the matter on the ballot in November of 1998. Councilmember Cohen noted there has been a lot of discussion about the issue of local roads, and asked if there had been any recommendations about changing allocations to address that issue? Mr. Riesenfeld stated there had not. Mr. Cohen asked how many cities had passed a Resolution? Mr. Riesenfeld reported they had been to four cities, Terra Linda, Larkspur, Corte Madera, and Mill Valley, and all of those jurisdictions passed along the recommendation as proposed. He stated there would be consideration of comments at the Board, with regard to Supervisor Kinsey's request and concepts regarding local roads. Mr. Cohen pointed out the staff report notes highlight the percentages of support for certain elements, and noted one of the highest, at 82%, was maintaining local streets and roads. Councilmember Phillips asked how it was going to be decided, as the funds come in, which of the components are going to be allocated the funds, and what the sequence of the timing for this list of items will be? Mr. Riesenfeld stated that between now and the election they would need to come up with some type of clearly stated financial management plan, noting a lot of it would have to do with the staging of the funds over time. For example, with the NWP (Northwestern Pacific) Rail Service, they are talking about putting it into service in 2005, and most of the funds associated with the rail service will not be required for expenditure until after that point in time. He explained there was not a great capital requirement for that service within the first five to seven years of the initiation of the sales tax, so there will be funds expended for other projects first, as the need comes up. As an example, the HOV project most likely will be the highest capital expenditure initially, because it will be ready to go within the next two years, so they will be spending the first increment of funds getting that completed. After that, they would begin to put money into the other programs on an incremental basis, while still saving money for the larger infusions of cash that will be needed for the rail. He stated it was going to be a complicated financing program, which will also involve considerations of how much we use the money for "pay as you go", how much we use for debt service, and to what extent and how much money we SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 12 get from other sources to feed into the equation. He noted this was going to require a lot of thinking and planning. Mr. Phillips asked if many of these issues would be sorted out by the time this reaches the ballot? Mr. Riesenfeld stated some of them may be. Mr. Phillips believed the voters might have some interest in that, noting a certain reluctance seems to exist on the part of the voters to assess themselves, and he hoped many of those questions could be answered. Supervisor John Kress stated in terms of the cash flow, if this were to pass we would have a reasonable expectation of approximately $300 million. He felt the most likely thing would be to issue bonds, and then we would have the money up front, and would not be waiting each year for the money to dribble in. Peter Palmer, resident of San Rafael, stated he had some real concerns with the train, noting he lived near the tracks. Citing his concerns, Mr. Palmer stated the proposed route of the train is at grade level, and this will cause traffic, safety and noise problems. The train will run from 5:00 AM to midnight every 12 minutes, seven days a week, with whistles blowing as it crosses Mission and Fifth Avenues, and Fourth and Third Streets. Traffic would be held up in both directions every 12 minutes, and noise would be intolerable, especially to the residents. It will be hazardous to access Whistle Stop. Calthorpe (study) said that to control the noise, we would need to have sound walls, but Mr. Palmer did not believe they would be very effective. The elevated platform, which has been proposed, would cost $25 million, and it was his understanding that this has been opposed by the environmentalists. The train is nothing but a costly toy based on juvenile nostalgia. It would not reduce congestion on the 101 corridor, and even Mr. Calthorpe has said so. Mr. Palmer stated it was a shame to take money from the poor for such a ridiculous project, noting this was a very recessive sales tax. He stated it did not do much for Countywide transportation, and it certainly did not help the poor. He urged Council to ask the Supervisors for an objective cost analysis and EIR report of the train, and get it before the voters as soon as possible for public discussion, as recommended by the Marin Conservation League. Mr. Palmer felt it was very important that we have an opportunity to look at the facts and an objective analysis of this, noting a lot of the support of the train has been quite emotional, and it has been difficult to discuss. He stated the train was still a trolley to nowhere, at 28 miles per hour, and would make life miserable for those around it. He did not believe it belonged in San Rafael at this point. He noted we could use buses with the express lanes we already have, and provide a much more effective service to the people in the community. He urged that buses be used instead. Fielding Greaves, resident of San Rafael and member of the Marin United Taxpayers Association, stated he was in opposition of this issue. He believed the train would be relatively useless, as well as disruptive, noting it had no branch lines that could serve Mill Valley, San Anselmo, or Tiburon, but was just a straight-line shot from Healdsburg down to San Rafael, and later, presumably, to Larkspur. He stated the disruption it would cause was significant. Mr. Greaves considered the allocation of $55 million for land acquisition as verging on almost a conspiracy to make this a general tax instead of a special tax, and he felt that was probably what the intent was in yielding that concession to the environmentalists, arranging for land acquisition to be included, in order to say this was a general tax requiring only a majority vote, instead of a special tax requiring a two-thirds vote. Mr. Greaves recognized there was an awful problem with Highway 101; however, he did not believe the train was going to do anything to help in this situation, and felt the expenditure of $55 million for land acquisition was not going to do anything to help. He pointed out that approximately 19% of the land area of Marin County is all that remains on the tax rolls of Marin County, and every time we spend a million dollars to buy more open space, we take other land off the tax rolls, which means the burden becomes greater on those few parcels that still exist. Mr. Greaves stated the greatest benefit would be for the commuters from Sonoma County, not Marin County, noting it would increase the rate of development in Sonoma County, particularly in the Santa Rosa area. He stated Santa Rosa was becoming Los Angeles North, at the rate they are increasing in size and population, and that will further exacerbate the problem. He agreed that we need the HOV lanes, noting he believed the best and smartest suggestion was the idea of using high speed ferry boats from Point Sonoma in the Blackpoint area to San Francisco. He pointed out there was land available that could be turned into parking lots for people coming down from the north, so they would not have to go through Novato and clog the roads, noting it would take a lot of the strain off of Highway SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 13 101. Mr. Greaves felt this was a dangerous and deceptive Measure. He noted two ballot Measures were being proposed for the ballot; Measure A, which is an Advisory Measure only, approving of the allocation of funds for this purpose, and Measure B, which enacts the tax. He stated if it is enacted as a general tax, based on the approval of the voters of Measure A, then the funds go into the general fund, and there is not guarantee that this allocation, or anything near this allocation, will actually be carried out in the future. As someone who has experienced the tax battles over the years, Mr. Greaves stated he had very little confidence in government carrying out its promises when it comes to how it is going to spend our money. He believed the use of this system was almost a bribe paid to the environmentalists to get their support for the issue, to the tune of $55 million, was a deception, and an effort to bamboozle the voters. He strongly opposed Council's approval of a Resolution of support. Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated she had been a member of the Steering Committee, and firmly believed not one of the members had attempted to bamboozle anyone. She noted sitting on the Committee had been very challenging, and she was very pleased that their charge had not been to do the timing of the improvements, only to do the allocations. She pointed out there are many components to this Measure, and she felt that because of that, it was going to have wider appeal. Explaining the reasons she believed Council should move on this issue and ask the Countywide Planning Agency to send it on to the Board of Supervisors, Ms. Giambastiani stated land acquisition was included in the suggestion of funding, and the intent was not to purchase open space, but to buy down the development on properties that are contiguous to Highway 101, to reduce the development. She noted there was also talk of reducing some of the development, and trying to create more affordable housing on the St. Vincent/Silveira properties. She believed the issue of the train was probably going to be one that is also going to require a great deal of education of our residents. She pointed out the train was not going to run every twelve minutes from 8:00 AM until midnight, noting she assumed it was going to run every twelve minutes during the commute times. She stated that when people talk about trains being a "folly", then all of Europe has been under a folly for a long time, because European trains have proven to be very successful. She pointed out that if we ever again get into the situation where fuel becomes very scare and expensive, she believed we were going to be thinking about trying to have mass transit transportation that relies on something other than automobiles. Therefore, the idea of trains being "folly" was an ill advised concept. Ms. Giambastiani stated one of the best things that is going to happen with the passage of this Measure is that we become a self-help county. She reported there are only three Bay Area counties that are not taxing themselves for transportation; Marin, Sonoma, and Solano Counties, and explained that once we become a self-help county, we become eligible for more money. She stated she was excited to read that both the House and Senate have agreed to allocate $70 million out of the ISTEA funds for Marin County, noting that bodes very well for us. She reported there was talk that if we are going to get the $7 million allocated for the HOV lane/GAP closure, perhaps that was another $7 million that could go into Local Roads. She stated there was also a suggestion of taking the $5 million out of Administration, putting it into Local Roads, and taking a little bit out of the other categories for Administration. Therefore, she pointed out there were other ways of bumping up the Local Roads category, and stated it was very exciting that there would be other avenues for us to increase our funding. She believed the most significant thing was to let the voters know as much as possible before the Measure goes to the ballot, noting we needed to clarify the timing of improvements, who is going to be responsible for running the train, and a number of other questions we still have to deal with. She urged Council to approve the proposal. Gregory Andrew, Vice -Chairman of the San Rafael Meadows Neighborhood Association, stated that in looking at this transportation plan, they had several concerns, which he grouped into two categories. One is the potential for impacts to their specific neighborhood, and the second is problems with the plan in and of itself. He reported that in looking at the plan, they asked how this really benefits San Rafael, or Marin County, for that matter, noting he had not yet heard a good articulation of the benefits to Marin County, and particularly to San Rafael. He pointed out the GAP Closure Project was moving forward anyway, regardless of the tax, so that project will go forward. He reported the plan, as stated by Calthorpe, would not reduce congestion on Highway 101, noting the current Level of Service is Level "F", and after the plan is implemented it will SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 14 remain at Level "F". Regarding the rail, Mr. Andrew, reported that of the 30,000 riders that are anticipated by the Calthorpe study, only 5,000 to 6,000, or 21%, of those will be residents of Marin. He believed the most frightening aspect of the plan was the fear that it is underfunded, noting the $75 million allocated for the rail will not pay for the whole rail to San Rafael, which is estimated at approximately $115 million. Mr. Andrew explained their neighborhood was bordered by the rail, noting it loops around the neighborhood as it runs from Highway 101 to the tunnel, and then comes down Lincoln Avenue. Therefore, their specific concerns are for the safety of children and everyone in general, noting there is a crossing there which they use to get over to Northgate. He stated they were also concerned about noise, vibration, and visual impacts, and believed there was a high potential for congestion of local traffic, noting the at -grade crossing at Point San Pedro Road and Los Ranchitos. Mr. Andrew stated there was also a potential for accidents with hazardous waste, and finally, the potential for the effect of the rail on their property values. He stated these specific issues and concerns were only heightened by the prospect of freight, and he was pleased to see the Resolution, as well as the ballot Measure and letter from Supervisor Moore refer only to light rail, or commuter rail service. Mr. Andrew stated the North San Rafael Vision does make some attempt to address the environmental issues, calling for attractive crossings which are safe for pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles, and that the rail should minimize visual and noise impacts. Mr. Andrew stated he was not going to ask Council not to adopt the Resolution, but asked that Council do two things: first, have a discussion about what the benefits are to San Rafael, and as a regional issue, what the benefits are to Marin County; and secondly, that Council articulate, either for the record or in the Resolution in some way, that they would expect an environmentally sound transportation program, where all environmental concerns are addressed, and impacts are avoided to the greatest extent. Wayne Williams, Transportation Consultant, stated he has been working on this project on volunteer committees. Referring to the kind of power a county has once it becomes a self-help county, Mr. Williams stated nothing can be done without that kind of power, but there were plenty of things that can be done with it. He noted all of the concerns that have been expressed are the things typically considered in an Environmental Review. Mr. Williams reported every one of the rail programs he has dealt with around the country, which his firm has been involved with, has been, to one level or another, a complete success, with the exception, perhaps, of Los Angeles, which he felt could have been thought out a little better. Mr. Williams stated it was very difficult to deal with a sprawl -type western city, such as Los Angeles, Denver, or Houston; however, in Marin County there is a perfect opportunity for a corridor -type application, and for giving ourselves an alternative line of transportation that has built-in multi -modality, and noted people around the country would really be envious to have that opportunity. Mayor Boro directed Council's attention to a poll that was conducted, noting there were two or three items he felt were significant, and have had an influence on his thinking in supporting this Measure. First, the poll was taken in January from 600 voters, and was broken down by city and supervisorial district. He referred to question 3.a, shown on Page 26 of the staff report, which states, "Marin County officials are considering the idea of placing a Measure on the ballot next November to raise money for making transportation system improvements in the County", and noted that at the time the poll was taken, only 49% of the voters had heard about it, with 48% in San Rafael. He reported the poll goes on to describe what the plan is potentially about, noting, for example, question #4 describes the various components for which the money would be allocated, and asking if money were allocated in this way, for this plan, what would be their support? He stated the support in San Rafael was 74%. He reported in response to the question #5 which asks whether or not they would support a 1/2 cent to do this, 55% of the people in San Rafael stated that with the components described, they would be willing to support the 1/2 cent. Mayor Boro stated his point was that there is strong support in the community for doing something about the traffic in this County, and at some point, the leadership in the County needs to take on some responsibility. He felt they needed to offer options, and believed this proposal offered numerous options. Mayor Boro pointed out that San Rafael is a job center, noting most of the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 15 people who get on Highway 101 do not go to San Francisco, they come to Novato and San Rafael to work; therefore, he believed this would be a benefit to the people of San Rafael. He stated the whole intent of the train is not to solve the problem tomorrow, noting that while the HOV lanes will help in the immediate future, the whole issue is long-term, to give people a choice, an alternative to what they currently have, which is the car. He pointed out that as the population grows to the north of us, as it will, there will be more people working here in our City, so the intent is to offer that option. Mayor Boro noted Councilmember Phillips made a valid point that it is imperative that a timeline be shown for the twenty-year cycle as to how, theoretically, this money is going to be spent, because Mr. Greaves made a good point, that this money is discretionary on the part of the Supervisors, and it will not be the Board or the people who are here today, it will be for those who are going to be here ten years from now. He believed this should be addressed, not in the text of the ballot Measure, but in the argument, noting they could certainly portray how these monies will be spent, along with a general timeframe, so people can understand that in 2005, the train will be on-line. Mayor Boro stated this was a real collaborative effort, noting the idea was that in Marin County they knew we could get something like this accomplished. He noted that was why there were a number of different issues, because they knew not any one group could get this accomplished, and this is why we have a number of different issues being addressed, from Land Use and Fair Transit Service, to bicycle trails, to build a plan that the majority of the people in this County can support. He noted each of them will not get all the benefits, but collectively, they will benefit from this in a way that will meet their particular needs. He urged everyone to support this. Councilmember Phillips believed San Rafael would receive benefit if this were to move forward, noting he constantly hears complaints about the congestion on Highway 101, and people are also very interested in bicycle paths. He stated he could see some benefit to Land Acquisition, not only in reducing congestion, but also because it is something many people in our community support, so it is an indirect benefit. Mr. Phillips stated too many times we take a small view of solutions, band-aid approaches, noting this was far beyond that, and it does offer benefit to quite a number of interested components of transportation in the community. Mr. Phillips stated it will go to the ballot, and those voting will decide on the arguments Council has made, and he felt Council should give the voters who have concerns regarding these kinds of issues the option of making that decision. He stated he respected the work Mayor Boro and other members of the Committee had done, noting he would be in favor of moving this forward to the Board of Supervisors for their take, as well. Councilmember Cohen noted that while he might have balanced the numbers a little differently, he believed the point was that we were faced with an opportunity to do something collaboratively, and the opportunity to take a regional approach in conjunction with Sonoma County, noting everyone has had to give a little bit in the process to get us to this point. The Committee members managed to focus on where they could reach agreement, rather than on where they had differences, and came together with everyone voting in favor of this recommendation. He believed Council should do no less, and should support the recommendation as it stands. Mr. Cohen believed it was important for Council to recognize that as proposed, San Rafael is making a major concession. He reported the Transportation Plan, particularly with regard to the rail, is not in agreement with San Rafael's General Plan, which calls for grade separation through Downtown San Rafael. However, it had been pointed out that at $75 million, you cannot achieve grade separation through Downtown; therefore, the extension to Larkspur, and the grade separation, are not achievable at $75 million, or even at $90 million, if another $15 million becomes available. Mr. Cohen noted that within the funding scheme before them, it would not be achievable if San Rafael were to hold to that demand. Councilmember Cohen felt one of the most important points made was the issue of becoming a self-help County, noting we need to do that, and we have to get there, because so much more will become available to us. In addition, he stated we cannot go outside of Marin County and talk with a straight face about how Marin County needs help on the transportation issues until we deal with this issue, noting that until we are willing to support ourselves, no one is going to take money away from other counties that are. He noted that might even result in more money being available, and a better rail system, or one that meets the long-term needs of San Rafael. Mr. Cohen recalled that when he and Mayor Boro worked together on SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 16 the Planning Commission, they worked on drafting the San Rafael General Plan, which spoke to how, in the previous ten years, San Rafael had made great strides in job creation, and very poor strides in meeting housing demands. He explained there was a jobs/housing imbalance, even though that document focused their attention on that issue, and it has been the stated policy of the City of San Rafael to encourage the provision of housing, affordable and otherwise, ever since. However, the City has continued the trend, and we continue to be a job center, not a housing center. Councilmember Cohen pointed out that we are not able to simply zone out of existence the buildable land within the 19% that is in the corridor. He noted something was going to go there, and for us to encourage the kind of businesses we all agree we want there, such as Lucas Film, AutoDesk, and Fair, Isaac, we need to be able to meet those employers' needs, and that includes housing for their employees. He pointed out that if it is not going to be here, it is going to be somewhere where land is more affordable, which in this case means Sonoma County, and then there needs to be transportation between those two areas. Mr. Cohen stated transportation, particularly the rail as an alternative to Highway 101, fits within the whole context of economic vitality for San Rafael, and for Marin County; therefore, he felt we needed to move this forward. Councilmember Miller stated that when he looks at the whole program, the words that come to mind are "regional", "collaborative", "consensual", and more than anything, the word "systemic", because we are looking at the whole system, and trying to bring it all together. He felt Land Acquisition was a very vital part of the whole thing, if we are going to look at a truly systemic approach to it, noting that was a very definite approach, and not a "buying off" of the environmentalists. He believed the plan was put together in a way that was attractive to the population, and served the greater good of this community, and of this region, noting that as we relate to one another in this region, we have to look at the relationships, see that this benefits the total relationships, and that we all become whole and strong. Mayor Boro referred to the chart in the staff report, noting the Committee had a footnote that indicated the grade crossing in San Rafael would be evaluated at some point. Since he had made that pledge to the Council, he wanted to make certain that if the money comes through, a study would be done to determine whether or not we can live with a crossing at -grade, versus one that is elevated. He asked if that was understood, and was part of the record? Mr. Riesenfeld stated that was correct. Councilmember Cohen stated it was his assumption that as we get to specific implementation within this plan, once it is adopted by the voters, that any project will be the subject of environmental review, and we will choose the best environmental alternative and mitigate it to the greatest degree possible. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution in support of the recommendations of the Marin County Transportation Steering Committee for a Marin County sales tax for various transportation improvements. RESOLUTION NO. 10167 - RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE MARIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE SALES TAX ALLOCATION PLAN. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller 17. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS a. PROPOSITION 226 - File 116 x 9-1 x 9-1-2 (Verbal) Councilmember Cohen referred to Proposition 226, which will be on the June Statewide ballot. Mr. Cohen noted this Proposition had been named the "paycheck protection act", and relates to the employers' withholding of union dues which are intended to be used for political purposes. He pointed out a growing number of people have come out in opposition of this, including the California League of Women Voters, and this week, the League of California Cities. Mr. Cohen stated one SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 17 point he would make, in addition to the issues of fairness, or the lack thereof, in addressing one small piece of the issue of Campaign Finance Reform, is the issue that the City, as employer, needs to take a serious look at the additional burden that would be placed on the City, as an employer, requiring, for example, documentation of each of the City employees' individual decision as to whether or not to participate in their Association's political program, and the need to keep meticulous records about their participation and the allocation of those funds. Mr. Cohen reported issues have been raised recently about the potential impact on any withholding from employees' paychecks, and the potential for allocation to political purposes. Mr. Cohen suggested, as a larger issue, Council take a serious look at the issue of fairness, and of silencing working people in the State of California. With respect to the position Council has previously taken, that they should focus on those political issues that directly affect the City of San Rafael, he noted this does directly affect the City of San Rafael, if in no other way than as an employer of employees who will be directly impacted by this Proposition. He suggested Council at least consider taking a position along with a number of other cities, and the League of California Cities. Mayor Boro noted there was a policy on whether the City will endorse Statewide Propositions, and stated he would like to make sure Council reviews that policy. He pointed out there were a number of issues on this particular ballot that might affect the City, and which Council could make a case for; however, he felt Council had to be very careful about how and what they do, because while there may be a number of issues that could affect the City, they have had a position, in the past, where the Councilmembers took positions as individuals, rather than as a Council. Mayor Boro asked City Manager Gould to find the policy, which was adopted approximately four years ago, and distribute it to the Councilmembers. Councilmember Cohen believed that since the time that policy was discussed, Council had taken a position on Statewide issues, in the intervening four years, at least where they appeared to have a direct impact to the City. Mayor Boro noted that was when an issue affected the City very directly, and had a funding impact on the City. Mr. Gould stated he would bring the policy back before Council for review. Mayor Boro suggested looking at this particular Proposition in light of that policy, and how it might apply to the City. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1998 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/6/98 Page 17