Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1999-10-18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1999 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Vice-Mayor Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(a)) George Alex Antar v. City of San Rafael Marin County Courts Case No. CV 992501 City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM RE: TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT ON WOODLAND AVENUE - File 11-1 x 9-3-30 Scott Fornaciari, 214 Woodland Avenue, recalled he had come before the Council two months ago to inform them of traffic and safety concerns on Woodland Avenue, and the mater had been referred to the Police Department's Traffic Division. However, he noted there has been no enforcement of the traffic violations that continue to occur, and people are still running through the stop sign. Mayor Boro asked for the specific location, and Mr. fornaciari reported this was occurring at the stop sign at Woodland Avenue and Eva Street, noting there was a grade school at that location. City Manager Gould stated he would speak with Police Chief Cam Sanchez and ask that enforcement be stepped up, and would report back at the next City Council meeting. Mayor Boro asked that the signage also be checked for visibility, and asked Mr. Gould to report back to Mr. Fornaciari. RE: HOLIDAY MAGIC PROPERTY - File 3-3-53 x 9-3-85 Perry Litchfield, Attorney, stated he was appearing on behalf of property owners Antonio and Trinidad Carrico. He acknowledged there has been some concern regarding the commencement of the San Rafael Marine Center at 616 Canal Street, and reported the work was proceeding, preparatory to the actual demolition and construction project. He stated full-scale construction was anticipated to commence within the next ten days, and was schedule for completion the end of February, 2000. He noted that in discussions with City manager Gould, they had been asked to begin on the outside as quickly as possible, and he assured the Council that the contractor had been instructed to proceed with the outside and then go forward, as quickly as possible. RE: NOTICE OF RENT INCREASE AT CONTEMPO MARIN - File 13-7-1 X 9-3-16 Whitfield King, President of the Contempo Marin Homeowners Association, reported the management of Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park had sent out a notice of rent increase, which includes two line items, pursuant to an arbitrated agreement concerning the lagoon pumping station and improvements. He stated the first $7.50 charge had gone into effect approximately two years ago, and they had no disagreement with that charge. The second $7.50 charge was to go into effect the first of the year; however, he noted management had not provided documentation showing they had expended the funds, as required by the agreement. Mr. King believed that until such time as they have those expenditure documents, it was inappropriate for management to notify people there was going be an increase of a specific amount, as they did not know that amount was going to be allowed. He pointed out that $7.50 was the maximum allowable amount. Mr. King urged the City to require management to notify the residents of a new amount that they will have to pay beginning January 1st, without the second $7.50 charge, and also ask them to expedite production of their financial records, so the Homeowners Association can determine what they have spent. He explained that once management has given those records to the Homeowners Association, they would be able to see how much the rent should actually be increased, and only then should management give a 90-day notice for that type of additional rent. Mayor Boro asked Assistant City Attorney Guinan to pursue this issue. Mr. Guinan reported he had already reviewed this matter, reporting the 1997 arbitration agreement entered into between the Homeowners Association and the park owners regarding the Capital Improvement Pass-Through did indicate that a SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 2 second $7.50 assessment could be initiated, once the money had been expended, and documentation was given to the Homeowners Association which showed that the monies had been spent, and that the total spent equalled the aggregate of the amount of the second assessment. Mr. Guinan stated some documentation had been provided, although there was some dispute as to the sufficiency of it, as there were apparently some estimates, and not all of the actual expenditures had been shown. Mr. Guinan reported he had spoken with Jeff Renner, Western Regional Manager of MHC (Manufactured Home Communities) and explained to him, both by phone and in writing, that this would be necessary, and if the appropriate documentation was not shown to the Homeowners Association, management could not collect the second $7.50 assessment. Mr. Guinan stated he had recommended to Mr. Renner that he meet with Mr. King and the Homeowners Association to see if they could resolve this issue. With regard to whether the notice was adequate, Mr. Guinan stated it was his intention to contact the arbitrator who heard this matter in 1997, to determine exactly what had been intended by the provision of the second assessment, and to make certain he was not misinterpreting what was agreed to by the parties involved. He stated he would report back to Council, as well as to the Homeowners Association and the park owners, as soon as he had that information. Councilmember Cohen asked if he was correct in recalling that his matter had previously been brought to Council's attention? Mr. Guinan reported Tom Davis, member of the Golden State Mobilehome Owners League Board of Directors, had addressed this subject before the Council during Urgency Time at the last Council meeting. Mr. Guinan noted that since that time, he had spoken with Mr. Renner and communicated with him in writing, and intended to contact the arbitrator. Councilmember Cohen asked if the City had regulatory authority over this issue, if the City believes the park owner is not following the terms of the agreement? Mr. Guinan stated he believed it did. Mr. Cohen stated he would like to see this issue on the agenda for the next Council meeting, to allow the Council to discuss it more fully. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, Minutes approved as October 4, 1999 (CC) submitted. 3. Call for Applications for Appointments to Fill Two, Approved staff recommendation: Three-Year Terms on the Bicycle and Pedestrian a) Called for applications to Advisory Committee, Due to Expiration of Terms of fill two, three-year terms on Paul Curfman and Ralph Mihan (Terms to Expire End the Bicycle and Pedestrian of November, 2002) (CC) - File 9-2-55 Advisory Committee, due to expiration of terms of Paul Curfman and Ralph Mihan, with applications due by deadline of Tuesday, November 9, 1999 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, City Hall; b) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, November 15, 1999, commencing at 6:30 PM, to fill two, three-year terms to the end of November, 2002. 4. Expansion of Park and Recreation Commission to Approved staff recommendation: Seven (7) Members: (CC) - File 9-2-4 a) Expanded the Park and a. Appointment of C. Paul Bettini, Current Recreation Commission to seven Alternate, to Fill One Position (7) members, and appointed b. Call for Applications to Fill One Position C. Paul Bettini, current Alternate, to fill one (1) four-year term on the San Rafael Park and Recreation SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 3 Commission, with term to expire end of October, 2003. b) Called for applications to fill one (1) four-year term on the San Rafael Park and Recreation Commission, with term to expire end of October, 2003, set deadline for receipt of applications for Tuesday, November 9, 1999 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, City Hall, and set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, November 15, 1999, commencing at 6:30 PM. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued): 5. Final Wrap-Up of Legislation Affecting San Rafael Accepted report. (CM) - File 9-1 6. Resolution Amending Section 3.0 of the Priority RESOLUTION NO. 10511 - Project Determination Procedure (PPP) (Adopted RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION on August 2, 1999 by City Council Resolution 3.0 OF RESOLUTION 10476 No. 10476) to Extend the Timeline for Application (ESTABLISHING PRIORITY Review (CD) - File 115 (PPP) x 9-3-85 PROJECTS PROCEDURE) EXTENDING THE TIMELINE FOR CITY STAFF REVIEW AND PROCESSING OF THE PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE (Within approximately 60 days following the application submittal deadline, or by 11/15/99). 7. Request Authorizing Director of Public Works to RESOLUTION NO. 10512 - Enter Into Agreement with Kimley-Horn and RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SCOPE Associates, Inc. for Professional Services to OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING Design Southbound 101 Off-Ramp, Del Presidio THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO and Manuel T. Freitas Traffic Signal System ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH Upgrade (Funding Granted by Hazard Elimination KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, Safety Projects - HES, $40,000) - (PW) INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL - File 4-1-508 x 11-10 ENGINEERING SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $9,950 FOR THE DESIGN OF UPGRADING THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTHBOUND 101 OFF-RAMP/DEL PRESIDIO BOULEVARD AND MANUEL T. FREITAS PARKWAY AS IT WAS FUNDED BY A GRANT FROM THE STATE'S HAZARD ELIMINATION AND SAFETY PROGRAM (HES) FOR THE AMOUNT OF $40,000. 8. East San Rafael Traffic Improvements: (PW) RESOLUTION NO. 10513 - - File 4-1-509 x 11-15 x 11-1 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE Resolution Authorizing Director of Public Works SCOPE OF SERVICES AND to Enter Into Agreement with Kimley-Horn and AUTHORIZING THE SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 4 PUBLIC WORKS Associates, Inc. for Professional Services to DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN Design East San Rafael Traffic Improvement Phase AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND IIB, and Professional Services to Design East San ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR Rafael Traffic Improvements Phase III PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $151,950 FOR THE DESIGN AND REMAINING TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IN EAST SAN RAFAEL PHASES IIB AND III. 9. Resolution Authorizing Agreement Between the City RESOLUTION NO. 10514 - of San Rafael and Albert Lofts, LLC for the RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING Widening of Second Street in Front of the Future AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF Albert Lofts Development (PW) SAN RAFAEL AND ALBERT LOFTS, - File 4-1-510 x 11-15 x 11-1 LLC FOR THE WIDENING OF SECOND STREET IN FRONT OF THE FUTURE ALBERT LOFTS DEVELOPMENT. 10. Resolution of the City Council of the City of RESOLUTION NO. 10515 - San Rafael to Participate in the "Spare the Air RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL City" Campaign (PW) - File 13-1 x 9-3-40 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE "SPARE THE AIR CITY" CAMPAIGN. 11. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Amendment to RESOLUTION NO. 10516 - Joint Powers Agreement Between County Service Area RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING (CSA) 19 and the City of San Rafael for Fire EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO Protection Services (Through 6/30/2006) (FD) THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - File 4-13-37 x 9-3-31 BETWEEN COUNTY SERVICE AREA (CSA) 19 AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES (Retroactive to June 1, 1998 through 6/30/2006). CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued): 12. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute RESOLUTION NO. 10517 - an Agreement (MOU) with County of Marin Operational RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Area to Provide Emergency Management Services (FD) CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN - File 4-13-99 x 13-1 x 4-13 AGREEMENT (MOU) WITH COUNTY OF MARIN OPERATIONAL AREA TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES (Commencing July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARING: 13. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE RE: MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION, REVISING THE PERCENTAGE OF ANNUAL CPI ADJUSTMENT EXEMPT FROM REVIEW, AND EXCLUDING SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PASS-THROUGHS FROM THE BASE RENT (CA) - File 13-7-1 x 9-3-16 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. City Attorney Gary Ragghianti explained staff was presenting proposed amendments to the City's Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which would reduce the automatic annual rent adjustment from 100% to 75% of the CPI (Consumer Price Index), and would confirm that in the assessments were Capital Improvements, and that Capital Replacements would not be included in the base rent for the calculation of the annual rent adjustment. Mr. Ragghianti introduced Special Counsel Lisa Goldfein, explaining she had drafted the staff report and assisted in the preparation of the proposed Ordinance now before the Council. He noted that once Assistant City Attorney Guinan had provided the background on this issue, Ms. Goldfein would address the proposed Ordinance, explaining what the Ordinance would do, and discuss the law in this area. He stated the City's Housing Consultant, Richard Bornholdt, was also present to answer any questions regarding attachments to the staff report. Assistant City Attorney Guinan reported that in 1997, Coleman Persily, then President of the Contempo Marin Homeowners Association, approached the Council and requested the City revisit its Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance to look at two issues. The first was a reduction of the percentage of CPI annual adjustment that is exempt from review under the rent control Ordinance, which Mr. Guinan reported was currently 100% of the CPI, adjusted annually. He explained the increase would be 100% if the change in CPI was 0 to 5%, 75% if the change in CPI was 5% to 10%, and 66% if the change was above 10%. In addition, Mr. Persily asked Council to look at a procedure for a Capital Improvement Pass-Through, to ensure the fees and costs for Capital Improvements and Capital Replacements would not be compounded into the base rent, upon which the annual rent adjustment was calculated. Mr. Guinan noted this matter had come before the Council in late 1997, and again in 1998, for review of various other Ordinances, and general discussion of the pros and cons regarding the rent control issue. Subsequent to that, the parties met on one occasion and considered various approaches to the rent control issue, and specific procedures that could be put in place, the amount of reduction, and whether it could be defended legally. Mr. Guinan reported the Homeowners Corporation, which is interested in park purchase, also pursued with City staff the idea of assisting the tenants in purchasing the park. Mr. Guinan stated that in the early part of last year, because of good economic conditions, the focus for City staff and the park residents became the idea of the feasibility of park purchase. However, at the beginning of this year it became apparent to staff that it would be better to go back to the rent control revisions, to ensure there was some relief granted to the tenants now. This culminated in a study session with Council, held several weeks ago, at which time Council gave staff clear direction that they wished to continue to study the issue of park purchase, and asked staff to prepare a rent control Ordinance as soon as possible. Based upon that direction, staff prepared the Rent Control Ordinance Amendment now before the Council. Lisa Goldfein, Special Counsel, stated the Ordinance now before Council addressed the issue of the annual automatic exempt rent increase under the current Ordinance, noting the proposal would change the current provision, and provide for an exempt annual rate increase of a flat 75% of the change in CPI. She explained the justification for this originated with the housing element of the City's General Plan, which mandates that the City make attempts to provide for its fair share of regional housing needs, and to specifically maintain and protect the housing provided by the Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park. Ms. Goldfein reported the input received from the mobilehome park tenants was that the existing scheme in the Ordinance was not protecting them, and that over the past ten years it had not really protected their ability to afford this housing. She referred to Exhibit 3 of the staff report, compiled by Housing Consultant Dick Bornholdt, which indicates how the rents have increased over the past ten years. Ms. Goldfein reported that in 1997 the Homeowners Association provided data which indicated 63% of the tenants at Contempo Marin are in the low- or very low-income category, noting this truly was a very important source of housing for that income group. Ms. Goldfein noted that for the coming year, the CPI increase was scheduled SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 6 to be 4.1%, and under the current Ordinance this would result in a rent increase of $25.00 per month, per space; however, a change to a 75% of CPI provision would reduce that to $18.00 per month, per space. Ms. Goldfein stated that while this change did not seem incrementally large, staff felt that over time it would be a significant savings for the lower income residents of the park, and would promote the City's interest in preserving this housing. She noted they had looked at the law regarding what kind of rent adjustments are necessary, and also what other cities are doing, and found that while some provide 100%, many other cities are allowing increases of 75%, and some even less, and a substantial number have limited the annual exempt increases to 75% of the change in CPI. Ms. Goldfein stated judicial decisions have indicated that no particular rent adjustment mechanism is required, and noted the goal of this Ordinance was to provide the park owners with a fair and reasonable adjustment, and a fair return on their investment, while at the same time protecting the interest of the low-income residents. Ms. Goldfein stated staff was comfortable with the proposed change to a 75% rate of annual adjustment exemption under state law. Mr. Guinan pointed out the Councilmembers had received a letter from Preston Cook of JP Asset Management, Inc., explaining he and Steve Jaeger were the new owners of the RV Park of San Rafael, formerly the B-Bar-A Trailer Ranch on West Francisco Boulevard. Mr. Guinan explained that 45 space mobilehome park was also covered by the rent control Ordinance, although the new owners had apparently been unaware the City had a rent control Ordinance. He reported he wrote to Mr. Jaeger and Mr. Cook, advising them of the rent control Ordinance, and informing them they would have to comply with the Ordinance. He stated they have been cooperative in attempting to do that, noting they have used the base rents from the last time the rent control Ordinance was followed by B-Bar-A, which was in 1995, and have only increased the rents for the coming year consistent with the 4.1% increase over the 1995 rents. At the same time, he informed them the City would be proposing a change to the Ordinance, which would reduce the amount of CPI they could recover each year in an exempt process, as opposed to petitioning, and that had generated Mr. Cook's letter. Responding to Mr. Cook's letter, Mr. Guinan noted one of points raised was trying to distinguish between the RV Park of San Rafael and Contempo Marin. Mr. Guinan stated that while there is a difference in size, both meet the definition of a Mobilehome Park, under State law and the City's Ordinance, and for the City to try to make a distinction between the two would leave the City open to claims of discrimination and constitutional infirmities, based upon denial of equal protection of the law. Mr. Guinan explained that if this particular rent is not a fair return for the investors, Mr. Cook and Mr. Jaeger have every right, under the City's rent control Ordinance, to petition for a greater increase, and that provision is not restrained by any percentage amount; therefore, if no rent increase has been dealt with at that location, they could come forward, and as long as they have evidence produced at an arbitration hearing, they would be able to secure an additional rent that is a fair return. Mr. Guinan acknowledged the RV Park of San Rafael was actually a different kind of park, in that, of the forty-five spaces, there are only four mobilehomes. He stated the owners did have the option, under State law, to change the use of the park, and they could pursue a return on their property in some other form or fashion, although there were technical requirements that would have to be met. Mr. Guinan believed the rent control Ordinance provided a perfect vehicle for JP Asset Management, Inc. to secure a fair and reasonable return, and all they would need to do is file a petition. Councilmember Phillips asked if the City could have provisions for JP Asset Management, Inc. different from those of Contempo Marin, if one or the other should happen to appeal the City's process? Mr. Guinan asked if he meant different rents? Mr. Phillips explained he was referring to different rates of increase. Mr. Guinan stated if there were two petitions, there could be two different results, based upon the evidence presented by each owner. Mayor Boro invited public comment. Whitfield King, President of the Contempo Marin Homeowners Association, stated he had been on the Association's Board of Directors last year when then President Coleman Persily had raised this issue, and had felt it would be a good idea for the Association to investigate the issue thoroughly, and have it well documented, prior to bringing it to the City Council. Mr. King believed the research had been complete and the documentation was there. He stated this amendment would provide some relief to the low- income families who reside in the park, and would certainly help, noting anyone who believed $6 or $7 per month was not critical was not in the low- income bracket, and did not understand what it meant to have tough times. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 7 Mr. King urged Council to adopt this change to the Ordinance, noting he believed it would be a benefit now, and in the future. Paul T. Jensen, Attorney for MHC and the ownership of Contempo Marin, noted he had been asked to convey a few points to the Council. He stated he and his clients had been disappointed in the short notice, and that this issue had progressed to the point it is now, noting they thought they had been participating in a relatively productive dialogue when Mr. Persily and Mr. Guinan met with Ken Waterhouse, then Regional Vice President of MHC, and himself. He recalled they had looked at financial information and alternatives to the Ordinance, and in December, 1998, those meetings culminated in an exchange of letters, with each side commenting on the other side's figures. However, after that time, he stated they heard nothing. Mr. Jensen noted it was now his understanding that there have been extensive study sessions and outside consultants retained to discuss the need for an amendment to this Ordinance. He asked that the ownership and management of Contempo Marin be made a part of that process, because from what they have seen so far, they were not clear about the numbers being relied upon for justifying the need for a change to 75% of the CPI. He pointed out the Council and consultants were relying on a 1997 questionnaire regarding income of the residents, which had been circulated, primarily, in conjunction with the rejected purchase of the mobilehome park. He noted they have never had the opportunity to look at that data, and although they have seen a summary, the have not had the opportunity to see where those numbers came from, what they truly mean, and whether there really is a need to scale back from 100% of the CPI to 75%. Mr. Jensen noted the City Attorney's office had pointed out there are other cities that have Ordinances which use a 75%, or less, Consumer Price Index factor for their standard, non-petition rent increases. However, he stated it was MHC's position that anything less than 100% was essentially an admission on the face of the Ordinance that the City was not going to allow growth to keep pace with inflation, noting this was not additional profit, it was only keeping pace with the buying power of the dollar. He stated they objected to that, and believed there was legal basis for that objection. Regarding the Ordinances of other cities, Mr. Jensen pointed out a number of those Ordinances contained a "Vacancy De-control Provision", and stated it was their opinion, under recent case law, in particular the Richardson v. Honolulu case, that any mobilehome rent stabilization Ordinance that does not contain full vacancy de-control is subject to attack under the Federal Appellate Court ruling in the Richardson case. He reiterated he did not see that provision contained in the draft Ordinance now before Council, and stated that if they were to consider reducing the CPI factor from 100% to 75%, they would certainly expect to see some form of vacancy de-control, and have the opportunity to work with City staff to determine what would work for this particular park. Mr. Jensen pointed out the Consumer Price Index has not been applied to the Capital Expenditure thus far, and stated it was not intended that the second element of the lagoon transfer station project be subject to a Consumer Price Index increase. He further noted this had been a mediated agreement, not a true arbitration, using the current Ordinance and the facts available at Contempo Marin, they had reached a written, signed agreement with the residents of the park. He stated the owners believe the current Ordinance, as it stands, does indeed work as it was intended to work, and that they have successfully put it to use. Mr. Jensen stated earlier comments by Mr. King during Urgency Time should be addressed, noting Mr. Renner had already scheduled a meeting with Mr. King to review the Capital Expenditure figures. He noted that to give Council the impression that something was being hidden, or not brought forth, would not be the correct appearance to give. Mr. Jensen stated it has been the policy of MHC, since they have taken ownership of the property, to make every effort to build bridges with the residents, rather than to burn them. He reported that as part of that process, MHC participated in a rent hearing process, which resulted in the first mediation agreement, noting they believed that process could continue under the current Ordinance. He stated they were concerned that if the Council does move forward and take away any portion of the current Consumer Price Index, it would expose the Ordinance to attack, both under the Richardson case, and under the facts at Contempo Marin. He stated they also had information they would have liked to have been able to share in the study session, including information regarding the economic make-up of the residents of the park, which they would like to compare with the 1997 summary presented to the Council as Exhibit 5. He stated they were not trying to claim that the numbers in Exhibit 5 were false; however, they did not know how that information was gathered, or whether it was verified. He stated they had information available which seemed to contradict the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 8 statement that 63% of the residents are at low- or very low-income levels at Contempo Marin, noting if that was the reason for consideration of the proposed amendment to the Ordinance, he felt it would behoove everyone to take a hard look at the numbers, and make certain the need was, indeed, there. Mr. Jensen stated MHC had the capability and desire, and would like to open doors to discuss some manner in which to protect those persons in the park who truly are needy, noting they would certainly agree, at any time, to sit down with any committee, the City Council, or the City Attorney's office and discuss ways MHC and Contempo Marin could directly and confidentially work with those people who are going to have a difficult time, not just with this rent increase, but any rent increase, and work it out with them privately, in a way that no one has to be singled out or embarrassed. He stated MHC wants to be a good and long-standing corporate citizen of the City of San Rafael, noting they have successfully utilized the current Ordinance, and were simply requesting an opportunity to review the data that has been brought to the Council, and which the Council appeared to be relying upon in deciding that the City needs to do something concerning the CPI adjustment. He stated they had other numbers they would like to show, Mr. Jensen stated they were requesting further consideration before the Council decides to vote on this issue, and proposed another meeting be set so they could continue to explore private dialogues and private ways in which to resolve these issues, short of new laws and further burdens upon the City and the parties involved. Councilmember Phillips referred to other issues that might possibly be created by Council adopting a reduction in the CPI, such as further investigation, perhaps by an independent party, of operating costs incurred, in order to determine whether or not this is a reasonable adjustment to the rent. He asked if the park owners would be willing to make available to the City, or others so designated, the park's financial information with regard to operations of the mobilehome park? Mr. Jensen stated he was not authorized to answer "Yes" or "No"; however, he stated he did know MHC goes way out of its way to work with bodies such as the Council, or those committees it might designate. He stated it was his understanding that the need expressed to the Council for this Ordinance had nothing to do with income or operating expenses of the property, it had to do with the income of the residents who reside there, and the residents' income not keeping pace with inflation. He stated they did not believe the solution to that was further Ordinances or petitions, and possibly litigation, but rather a direct assistance program which MHC could offer and develop with those who might be interested. Regarding Councilmember Phillips' question, Mr. Jensen stated he did not know, simply because he had not seen anything which stated the City wanted an inquiry into the financial background of MHC, all he had seen was that there was a financial need on the residents' end. Mr. Phillips stated the question remained, and he was somewhat unclear as to Mr. Jensen's position, asking if his answer was "perhaps", or if the Council could expect something more explicit? Mr. Jensen stated that at this time he did not have anything more explicit than "perhaps", noting what the owners were proposing was to take a look at the need and the background behind this proposed change to the Ordinance. He stated he was more than happy to go to his client and suggest they begin inquiring into the areas that may, or may not, justify a reduction from 100% of the Consumer Price Index to 75% of Consumer Price Index, noting that could cover a lot of territory, and there could be a lot of issues raised in such meetings. However, he stated he had not asked his client whether he should bring their books to this meeting. Councilmember Cohen acknowledged the Council had recently held a study session, at which they discussed both the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, and the efforts of another group concerning park purchase. He asked if that had been a publicly noticed meeting, and whether notice had gone to park management or their representative? Mr. Gould stated he believed they had been notified. Mr. Cohen asked if staff had notified MHC, or their representatives here in San Rafael, about that study session? Mr. Gould stated he was fairly certain they had. Mr. Cohen stated it was his recollection that at the end of that study session the Council had given fairly clear direction to staff that they wanted to proceed down this track. Mr. Cohen noted Mr. Jensen seemed to be claiming that his clients had been completely unaware that this discussion was even taking place, although the Council has been talking about it, on and off, for two years. Mr. Cohen asked if Mr. Jensen was stating his clients really had no idea that Council had met and discussed this issue, and had given direction to staff? SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 9 Mr. Jensen stated Mr. Renner, Regional Vice President, as well as John Kniffin, resident Manager of the property, were in the audience, and both were telling him, from the back of the room, they had not received notice or invitation to any study session. Mr. Jensen stated that if there was a new tact taken, and the City decided to do a study session, he wanted to make it clear that both Mr. Renner and Mr. Kniffin were stating they had not known about it, nor had he, and it really had come as quite a surprise to them last week when they heard this issue was brewing. Councilmember Cohen noted Mr. Jensen had stated he had not had a chance to look at the data presented in the 1997 study, and understand what it meant; however, he also stated he had either looked at or been provided with a copy of it in mid-1998 by Mr. Persily. Mr. Jensen explained he had been provided with a summary only, reiterating they had not seen the underlying data that supports the summary contained in Exhibit 5. He stated they just did not know where those numbers came from, and would like to find out. Councilmember Phillips asked, if Exhibit 5 proves to be a fair representation, would Mr. Jensen then concur that 75% of CPI was a reasonable increase? Mr. Jensen stated he would not, explaining the only thing they believed was reasonable to keep pace with inflation was 100% of the Consumer Price Index. Mr. Phillips pointed out that would mean the information on Exhibit 5 was somewhat irrelevant. Mr. Jensen stated he believed it was relevant, and was information necessary for them to know. He asked if there was a true need for assistance to people in the community, again noting that if there was, MHC stood ready to discuss delivery of a solution to that need. He stated he did not look at Exhibit 5 as irrelevant information, but from a strictly legal position, they believed 100% of CPI should be the standard. Mr. Phillips asked if Mr. Jensen believed it was irrelevant with regard to the issue now before the Council, which was 75% of CPI, since Mr. Jensen was stating a modification. for those who might be qualified under some new definition to receive a subsidy, would be an approach Mr. Jensen would endorse? Mr. Jensen stated he supposed it was relevant in the sense that it seemed to have been submitted to Council as proof of the need, and that there were low- and very low-income households at the park, pointing out there had also been mention made of the fact that the income of these individuals was not keeping track with inflation, although the rents are. Mr. Jensen noted management did not have information about the incomes, and even assuming everything in Exhibit 5 was correct, he pointed out the information was two years old, and they had no information that these very low-income households were not keeping track with inflation. Mr. Jensen noted that perhaps the study session and meetings had resulted in a document that showed this information, but they had not seen it, and were requesting that information. Mayor Boro noted the question had been raised regarding notification of the property owner with respect to the study session, and asked Mr. Guinan to respond. Mr. Guinan stated that initially, when the study session was proposed, the idea was to look at the subject matter somewhat universally; then, as they got closer to the meeting, the focus shifted to assisting the tenants of Contempo Marin with the park purchase, and that became the primary discussion that evening. Because of that, and because of the limited scope, he did not notify either park owner, or any of the tenants at the other mobilehome park. Tom Davis, 22 Yosemite Road, complimented staff on an excellent report, stating it made a very thoughtful and thorough case in favor of adopting the amendment now before Council. He stated the park owners had every right to present figures and justify that they are, or are not, making a fair return on their investment, and this amendment did not change that. Mr. Davis hoped the Council would not be cast adrift by Mr. Jensen's assertion that this somehow took away the owners' right to a fair return. Mr. Davis urged adoption of the amendment, stating he believed it was an excellent first step, and anything that reduced the amount of increase on people of low-income, extremely low-income, and all those who are under the median income, was certainly a worthwhile goal. Mr. Davis presented suggestions regarding enforcement of the amendment. Referring to Exhibit 1, he pointed out that in terms of the effect on people of low- and extremely low-income, the way the increase was calculated had as much effect on them as the amount of the increase. Mr. Davis explained that in practice, the park owners had taken all the lots in the park, including those lots which are on a month to month rental agreement and subject to the rent control Ordinance, and also those lots which are excluded by State statute from coverage by the Ordinance. He SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 10 noted Civil Code Section 798.17 excludes any mobilehome lot which is subject to a rental agreement of twelve months or more from any rent control Ordinance; therefore, the City Council would not have the power, even if it chose to, to include in the averageable rents those lots which were subject to leases, but not subject to the Ordinance. Mr. Davis believed the City could change that practice without further amendment to the Ordinance, by directing the City Manager, whose job it is to oversee and certify the figures presented by the park owner to justify his rent increase, basically telling him the sense of the Council is that when referring to the average rent charged in the park, that means the average rent that is subject to this Ordinance, which also means the average monthly rent. He explained the practical effect of that would be to reduce the base on which the average is calculated, because high-end rents in the park tend to be on leases, and the lower end tend to be month to month. He stated it would be a further benefit to people on the low end of the rent scale to make that change, and would be consistent with the current Ordinance. As a further modification of the Ordinance, Mr. Davis suggested that at some point in the future the Council might want to consider doing away with the concept of averaging, and just take the percentage increase and apply it on a lot by lot basis, so the lots at the low end do not pay a disproportionate amount. He explained that under the current figure, everyone was paying, on average, a 4.1% rent increase, although the people at the lower end were paying closer to a 5.5% to 6% rent increase, because the average was figured on their rent, plus the top rent; therefore, they were paying a disproportionally high rent, and presumably, they were the people most at risk, and the people the City would most want to protect, along with the housing stock in which they live. Mr. Davis noted Mr. Jensen had requested the Ordinance be amended by taking out the vacancy de-control provision, suggesting that if the Council did not do that, they City's Ordinance would be subject to attack. However, Mr. David believed it would be subject to attack whether the City approves this amendment or not; therefore, he hoped the Council would not be deterred from approving the amendment by the fact that Mr. Jensen claims there is another part of the Ordinance he might choose to litigate if Council does something which displeases him. Mr. Davis stated he would like to take Mr. Jensen up on his offer to engage in a dialogue, and agreed that should be done, as there are a lot of problems. He believed one of the problems was that the park owners, as they has every right to do, were converting the older, smaller, low-income housing, buying them up at distressed prices as fast as they can, and hauling those units out and replacing them with bigger units, selling for as high as $190,000, plus ground rent. Mr. Davis believed that if this process continues, the affordable housing stock they were trying to protect with this amendment was going to disappear fairly quickly. He stated he would like to see that process intercepted, and modified in some way. Since there is already a sub-committee of the Council in place and considering Contempo Marin, he proposed Council authorize that sub- committee to expand its mandate to consider the protection and preservation of low-income housing, specifically at Contempo Marin; and that the sub- committee also take it upon itself to hear from the park owners, noting it sounded as though the park owners had some imaginative plans to put that into effect. Mr. Davis stated he hoped the Council would take the first step by passing this amendment to the Ordinance, and also proceed to explore other ways of protecting and preserving affordable housing at Contempo Marin. Councilmember Cohen stated that as he read the General Provision of the Ordinance, he did not feel it was a question of interpretation, unless it was a question of "misinterpretation" of the Ordinance. He believed the language was plain, noting it states, "The operator, in calculating the amount of increase allowed, shall use the average rent per lot, subject to the terms of this title. This figure shall be determined by dividing the number of lots subject to the terms of this title into the total gross rent receipts received from those lots". Mr. Cohen stated that if the park, as Mr. Davis alleged, was averaging the rents of all the lots, including those that are not subject to this because they are on leases, then they are applying it incorrectly. Mr. Cohen stated it appeared the park owners were using the wrong methodology, and while that issue was not what was now before the Council; however, he asked staff to pursue the issue. Mr. Davis noted Mr. Guinan was aware of that situation, as they had previously discussed it. Councilmember Cohen noted the issue of replacement units had come up before, and there were some questions as to the ability of the City to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 11 regulate that matter. He asked Community Development Director Bob Brown if he had any input on that issue? Community Development Director Brown reported that approximately two weeks ago his Department had received a Code Enforcement complaint from the Contempo Homeowners Association, and staff was currently looking into both the existing Planned Community regulations, as well as, with the City Attorney's office, the State's pre-emption. He noted he did not yet know what the resolution would be, but staff was looking into the matter. Councilmember Cohen stated that in looking at the quotes from the policy documents guiding Council's actions, and what was in front of them tonight, that issue came again to his mind when they discussed maintaining the existing stock of lower cost units, and protecting and conserving existing housing stock. He stated he would like to continue pursuing that, although he acknowledged there was no action the Council could take at this time regarding that point. Mr. Davis referred to MHC's 1998 Annual Shareholder Report, pointing out Page 14 addressed the reasons incomes are higher or lower at certain parks, and notes the occupancy was lower at Contempo Marin. The report also refers to two properties where the company has implemented a program to upgrade the resident profile and housing stock. Mr. Davis stated this was not an accident, it was a deliberate plan; however, he pointed out it was not illegal, and they had every right to do this. Mr. Davis believed the City Council had every right to look into what they are doing, see if it is consistent with the City's best interests and the City's General Plan, and to the degree that it is not, take effective action to see that this plan is not allowed to proceed without opposition. Kevin Carroll, resident of RV Park of San Rafael, stated that had he not seen an article in the Marin IJ, he would not have known this matter was coming before the City Council. He suggested that in the future, individual tenants be notified when there is going to be a modification of the Ordinance. He noted he could state, with fair accuracy, that no one in the RV Park subscribes to the Marin IJ, and to be fair to those forty-one tenants, he felt it would be nice if there was either notification at the mailboxes, or directly to the individuals. Mr. Carroll referred to the exhibits upon which the Council was being asked to base their decision, noting they related only to Contempo Marin; however, he pointed out Council's decision would also affect the forty-one residents who live at RV Park of San Rafael, yet the Council had no income data concerning them. He suspected, based on general observation, that the income in his park was probably lower than at Contempo Marin, pointing out they live in single- wide trailers that are mobile, not double-wide, permanent trailers. Mr. Carroll noted he was not speaking on behalf of anyone other than himself regarding this matter; however, he did not believe Council should make a decision that is going to effect them, based on data that only concerns one park. Mr. Carroll pointed out that when people on fixed incomes are getting social security increases based on the overall Countrywide Federal CPI, and there is an Ordinance that specifies the Bay Area CPI, the Bay Area CPI is always going to be higher; therefore, the 75% may be a very fair figure if something is to be based on CPI. Mr. Carroll stated it was a little different at the RV Park of San Rafael than at Contempo Marin, noting the RV Park was very easily convertible to some other use, particularly with the changes they will be facing with Caltrans cutting off the fronts of the properties. He stated he was very concerned with how easy it would be for the owners to close down the RV Park, noting if someone were to compare the income of the residents of the RV Park versus Contempo Marin, he believed they would find those in his RV Park were even lower than Contempo Marin. He urged Council to be very careful in their consideration of this Ordinance, and while he had no objection to the City protecting the residents of Contempo Marin, he asked that they not forget about the people at RV Park of San Rafael. Coleman Persily, former President of the Contempo Marin Homeowners Association, reported he had organized a meeting between the residents of the RV Park of San Rafael and Assistant City Attorney Guinan, and the RV Park owners were advised that they were under the Mobilehome Ordinance. In addition, Mr. Persily reported they had gotten a rent reduction for the residents of the RV Park. Referring to Mr. Carroll's concern that the owner would convert the RV Park, Mr. Persily stated the owner was not ready to convert the park. He also pointed out that any trailer or mobilehome that has been in an RV Park for more than nine months is under the State's Mobilehome Residency law; therefore, the residents of the RV Park, who have been living in the park for years, were covered under the law, and were SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 12 considered a Mobilehome park. Mr. Persily pointed out that if they are successful in securing the 75%, that would also help the residents of the RV Park. Mr. Jensen responded to three points that had been made by the speakers. First, he reported there were no residences subject to long-term leases at Contempo Marin and, therefore, there were no exempt leases, and every space in the park was subject to the Ordinance. Second, regarding the program of pulling out the old homes and upgrading, Mr. Jensen felt it should be noted that many residents of Contempo Marin have sold their homes, changed them out, and brought new ones in; therefore, this was not some kind of nefarious scheme brought by MHC to try to buy bargain-basement homes and switch them out for new ones. Third, as far as motivation for the decrease in the CPI, he noted it should be remembered that this entire matter came as part of the initial discussions concerning resident purchase of the park. In examining the true motivation behind this request for an amendment to the Ordinance, he asked Council to keep in mind that the true value of a mobilehome park, for re-sale purposes, was primarily dictated by its rent stream, and the lower the rent stream, the lower the price. Therefore, he believed there was some other motivation to reduce the rents, thereby reducing the price of the park. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro asked staff to address the issue that had been raised regarding the adequacy of the income numbers being used, the issue of liability exposure regarding de-control of lots that become vacant, and the issue of the Richardson case and its impact on any actions the City might take. Referring to the challenge of the adequacy of the numbers being used, Assistant City Attorney Guinan reported the numbers had been compiled in 1997 by the Homeowners Association during a canvass of each of the park residents. He noted that in speaking with the management of the Homeowners Association, and based on their continued contact with the membership, those numbers had not changed at all. He pointed out it had been very difficult to go door to door to each of the 396 spaces and ask for personal financial income information; however, this was done in an attempt to try to get information that was as accurate as possible. He stated that regardless of whether it was within the context of the park purchase issue or rent control issue, the facts obtained during the course of that survey spoke for themselves. With respect to the details of the numbers, Mr. Guinan deferred to Housing Consultant Dick Bornholdt. Housing Consultant Dick Bornholdt confirmed the Homeowners Association had gone door to door to obtain the information, and noted those figures were available from the Homeowners Association. He acknowledged people had been reluctant to give their specific income; therefore, they were asked to check if they were within a specific range of income. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Bornholdt to respond to the comment that those figures had been obtained in 1997, and whether they were still valid. Mr. Bornholdt stated he had asked the same question, and while they were obtained in 1997, there was a sense of those involved with the survey that the situations of many of the people at the park, particularly those of low- to very low-income households, had not changed very much. However, as to whether there has been an actual survey to update the numbers, he did not believe there had been. Regarding the adequacy of the information given to Council, Councilmember Cohen noted the comment had been made that there was no data to show that low-income tenants were not keeping pace with inflation, and as Mr. Bornholdt does a lot of study concerning income levels and housing costs in San Rafael, Marin County and the Bay Area, he asked Mr. Bornholdt to share his impression of whether or not the data generally supports the perception that low-income tenants generally are not keeping pace with real estate costs in Marin County. Mr. Bornholdt stated he believed that was generally the case, noting he had just completed a detailed rent survey of San Rafael, and rents were increasing beyond the means of low-income households. Referring to the difference between national CPI versus local CPI, Mr. Bornholdt reported the local CPI increase was 4.1%, while the national CPI increase was approximately half of that. He also reported Social Security payment increases were based on the national increase; therefore, on that basis, the increase was less, strictly on a percentage. He noted the park rent averaged approximately $600 - $625, which was close to what an average payment might be on Social Security; therefore, one was being escalated at 4.1%, and the other at 2%, and it was not keeping up. Councilmember Cohen SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 13 noted, based on the point made during earlier testimony, it was reasonable to conclude that the low- and very low-income tenants, here and elsewhere, were not keeping pace with inflation as we experience it in the Bay Area. Mr. Bornholdt agreed. Mayor Boro referred to estimated housing expenses detailed on Exhibit 2, which show coach mortgage of $500, space rental of $620, and utilities of $80, for a total of $1200. He asked how that $1200 compared with the low- to moderate low-income rents charged to people in rental housing unit? Mr. Bornholdt reported there are some apartment units available in San Rafael at that price, although there are a considerable number available at higher prices, and some that are lower; therefore, that amount would be mid-range. He stated that figure would probably be less than for home purchase, noting the City does have an extensive Below Market Rate housing program, and the rents created by that program, through those formulas, are less. He stated he could compile figures to show Council the comparisons. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Guinan to comment on the vacancy de-control issue, which would automatically kick in, and also the issue of the Richardson case, and what impact it might have on the City. Mr. Guinan stated neither he nor Ms. Goldfein had read the Richardson case; however, they did not believe it would affect the legitimacy or legality if Council should choose to enact the Ordinance amending the Rent Control Stabilization Ordinance. Regarding vacancy control, he recalled it was this issue, and Council amending the Ordinance last time to include the vacancy control measure, that led to litigation concerning the Ordinance. However, the Court upheld the City's vacancy control scheme, and his office did not believe the vacancy control was so inextricably linked to the percentage of CPI exempted from rent review under the Ordinance, that to reduce it would automatically mean, because the City has vacancy control in the Ordinance, that it would be found to be constitutionally infirm. Ms. Goldfein stated Mr. Jensen had noted that some Ordinances with lower automatic adjustments have vacancy de-control, while San Rafael has vacancy control; however, she noted it was also true that many other cities do retain vacancy control, even with the lower CPI adjustment. She reiterated they were not aware of any reason this change would affect the current state of the law regarding vacancy control. Councilmember Heller asked for clarification on the terms "vacancy de- control" and "vacancy control". Ms. Goldfein explained that vacancy control refers to the idea that when mobilehomes are sold in place, the rent control provisions continue to apply; vacancy de-control allows the landlord to not apply rent control on new units, and to treat them differently when they are sold. She pointed out that San Rafael does not allow that. Councilmember Phillips asked why the recommendation was for 75% of CPI? Mr. Guinan explained that when this process was begun in 1997, when Mr. Persily addressed Council during Urgency Time requesting these two changes to the Ordinance, there had been no specific mention of the percentage of CPI that would be appropriate for a revised Ordinance. In 1998, when this matter came back before the Council, Mr. Guinan noted he had, for discussion, recommended 75%, because his research had shown that if the City went as low as 40% there might be problems, as the Court of Appeal had heard such a case and decided that did not provide a fair return, and would require the landlord to have to petition every year for an increase, which would be too cumbersome. Therefore, Mr. Guinan stated that since 40% was too uncomfortable for him to recommend, and 100% was not fulfilling the functions for which the rent control Ordinance had been designed, it was felt that 75%, which seemed to be a standard many other cities had been successful in maintaining, would be a good number to apply. Mayor Boro asked if staff had considered using the National CPI, as is used for Social Security, versus the Bay Area CPI, which is higher, particularly since the City would be gearing this toward people at the lower income level, whose main source of income, if not their only source, is from that program? Ms. Goldfein stated that had been considered; however, since the automatic adjustment was included to address the fair return of the park owner, it seemed reasonable to use the CPI that affected the park owner. Mayor Boro noted an allegation had been made that the numbers being used may not be current; however, he pointed out those numbers were painstakingly taken a couple of years ago, and testimony had been given by the City's Housing Consultant that he still believes they are very legitimate numbers. Furthermore, the fact that the City was allowing a percentage based on the Bay Area CPI, he felt, was ahead of the curve as SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 14 far as what most people were receiving. He urged Council to move forward. Councilmember Phillips reported he was part of the sub-committee referred to during earlier testimony, noting they would be meeting next Thursday, and would continue exploring the feasibility of park purchase. He stated it had been suggested that the CPI adjustment might have an impact upon that process, and he wondered, from staff's standpoint, if that was something the Councilmembers should factor into their consideration with regard to this adjustment? Mr. Guinan stated it had originally been his understanding that these two items were linked; however, from discussions during the previous study session, he found they were not. Mr. Bornholdt explained there have been projections and pro formas detailing how the financing might work to acquire the park, and those pro formas and projections took into account the affect of the rent control Ordinance as it is written now. He noted the incremental difference between the 100% and 75% was not huge, given the magnitude of the acquisition being considered, and he did not believe it would have a big impact. Councilmember Cohen asked if Council should then consider them separately? Mr. Bornholdt explained that in the sense that they could be divorced, the lender, as the underwriter, would look at the transaction with an interest toward getting their money paid back, so they would look ahead twenty or thirty years. If they saw there was a rent control Ordinance, or some way that the income might be constricted, and in turn affect their repayment, then they could say they had a problem with that. Mr. Bornholdt stated the magnitude of that was not huge, and the option was always there for the owner to petition for a higher increase; therefore, it was not as though the door was closed completely. Councilmember Cohen stated he had felt Mr. Jensen was trying to introduce into the record an allegation, should this become subject to attack, that the City was doing this for the sole purpose of driving down the value of the park. He stated it has been his understanding, during the two years the City has been discussing this issue, that the City saw these two things as running counter to one another. That was one of the reasons why the City had not pursued, as rapidly as some might have wished, the rent stabilization Ordinance while they looked at the issue of the park purchase, because for reasons stated by Mr. Bornholdt, in an attempt to finance the park, the underwriters were going to look at this and state that if the rent stabilization is tougher, that affects long-term returns, and may make it more difficult to finance the bonds necessary to acquire the park. Therefore, it was not, in his view, in any way an attempt to impact the value of the park, rather it came down to being unwilling to wait any longer, and although he was very interested in working toward park purchase and pursuing those concepts, he was unwilling to wait any longer for the changes in the rent stabilization Ordinance. Mr. Cohen stated he had no reason to believe this was somehow going to drive down the value of the park and make the acquisition easier, noting it was his view, based upon what Council has been told by staff, that if it has any impact at all, it is going to make it tougher for the residents to acquire the park, as opposed to the opposite position that Mr. Jensen attempted to stake out. Councilmember Cohen acknowledged there had been a lot of questions thrown at the Council regarding the data, and he believed it was a bit disingenuous to know that the City had been discussing this for the past two years, to have had the data for a year, and then come in and question the data, where it came from, and the underlying source, and ask Council to wait and discuss the issue further. Mr. Cohen believed if there was a serious question regarding the accuracy of the data, those questions could have been raised a year ago when the information was provided to MHC. Regarding MHC's offer, Mr. Cohen felt that if offers were made in good faith by MHC to work with everyone, that was great; however, the proposal that had been heard as an alternative was to basically ask the low-income and very low-income tenants at the park to rely on the kindness of strangers as an alternative to the City's rent stabilization Ordinance. He stated that was not acceptable, noting if it was, that kindness would have already been shown. Councilmember Miller stated he believed the Council must go forward with the amendments, as a moral imperative, based on the human right of every person to have shelter. He noted this was also reflected in the City's General Plan, to meet the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, and stated that to do their job and fulfill the City's plan, the Council must go forward. a. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.34 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 15 ESTABLISHING A FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPARISON SYSTEM, BY REVISING SECTIONS 3.34.020(b), 334.030(d), AND 3.34.040". Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Ordinance No. 1743 to print, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.34 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING A FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPARISON SYSTEM AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING SCHEDULE OF PARKING PENALTIES (MS) - File 9-10-2 x 11-8 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and announced the Council had received letters from the Marin Builders Exchange and the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce asking that this item be carried over. Mayor Boro stated the public hearing would be kept open, and continued to the Council meeting of November 1st. OLD BUSINESS: 15. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (P98-4): (CD) - File 115 a. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THAT THE CITY IS UNDERTAKING THE UPDATE OF THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000, AND APPLICANTS ARE TO BE SO NOTIFIED b. CALL FOR APPLICATIONS FOR THE STEERING COMMITTEE Community Development Director Bob Brown reported staff had briefly met with each of the Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners to review the work program, and to discuss the process in general. Overwhelmingly, they heard from Council and the Commission that they would like modifications in the work program to make sure they are kept apprised of the work of the Steering Committee, and also that they have more frequent opportunities for mid-course correction, if need be. Mr. Brown stated the work program included more opportunities for the Council and the Planning Commission to have joint meetings at decision making junctures of the Steering Committee, and at least quarterly staff will come to Council with either written or verbal status updates. He stated the Council would be kept very well informed of the process. Mr. Brown reported staff had been doing a number of other things. He stated they had hired a contract planner, noting that earlier this evening, Council had seen some of his work as part of the GIS study session demonstration. Mr. Brown stated staff now had an accurate Land Use and Housing data base, information which also relates to the GIS system and the Traffic Model Update. Mr. Brown stated the General Plan Conversations Report Summary had also been completed, explaining staff had met with 49 community groups, and talked to 610 individuals in the community. He noted it was not surprising that the results of those conversations paralleled the information Council received last year from the polling that was done, as well as the San Rafael Choices meetings. Mr. Brown pointed out they had heard a lot about traffic and the high cost of housing, and there was a lot of support for the things going on in the Downtown. In addition, he reported there was interest in addressing certain "quality of life" issues, which the City had not done previously, such as Cultural Affairs, and issues related to Social Services. Mr. Brown reported staff had also formed the City Advisory Team (CAT), which consists of two representatives from each of the City Departments, and a retreat was held in September. He noted City Manager Gould had pointed out to the team that this was a "50/50" project, and along with all of the best planning efforts, half of the work needed to revolve around community-building efforts, to ensure that the City accurately hears the residents' vision for the General Plan, and the other half of the work needed to focus on creating a very fine and legal document. Therefore, he pointed out staff did not want to simply have a congenial, but very small group of individuals who help to prepare a plan, which could result in development of the first project that comes in after the plan has been adopted. He noted staff wanted it just in reverse, with everyone involved SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 16 in the process up front. He reported Mayor Boro had stated the City Advisory Team needed to measure success by having no controversy at the General Plan adoption hearings. Mr. Brown explained Council was now being asked to adopt a Resolution, after which staff would begin notifying applicants, to make certain they were well aware that the rules may change. He noted that would become more important in a year or two, as the General Plan Update comes closer to adoption. Mr. Brown stated staff would also like Council's authorization to solicit applications for Steering Committee appointments, noting they were envisioning approximately twelve members, with very broad community representation, and anticipated Council appointments in December, with the group beginning work early in 2000, possibly as early as February. He noted staff would be advertising very broadly, pointing out they already had a 150 name mailing list, and would certainly notify all the community groups, and advertise in the newspaper and the City Newsletter. Mayor Boro pointed out Mr. Brown had included more communication between the Council and the community as the General Plan moves along, noting Town Hall meetings had also been scheduled. He felt it would be worthwhile, before meetings of that magnitude, for Council, the Planning Commission and the Committee to have the opportunity to meet and discuss what such meetings would entail. Mayor Boro also suggested one of the other Councilmembers volunteer to work with him and the Chairman of the Planning Commission to screen the applications received for the Steering Committee, reviewing such things as who the applicants are, who they represent, where they live, and whether they are homeowners or business owners, in order to have a good cross- representation. He noted this was one way they have been successful in the past, culling the names and coming up with a slate of applicants, rather than the Council trying to interview everyone, which was not productive. Councilmember Cohen noted he was reminded of how the Council approached the St. Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Committee, and while that had another layer of complexity because that had been done with the County Board of Supervisors, it really had been a different type of approach for that kind of body, where they were trying to get broad representation. He believed it had worked very well, because rather than seeing one applicant at a time and perhaps missing a constituency, they were able to look at the whole picture and balance that. Mayor Boro pointed out that was how they had done the Downtown Vision, as well. Councilmember Cohen noted one thing he wanted to comment on was keeping a close connection to the process, and keeping a good line of communication open. He felt it might be helpful to point out that the rhythm of the joint meetings did not necessarily precede the town meetings, and that might be something they should look at, noting perhaps the Council should check in, prior to each of the town meetings, and set the direction of the meeting before it takes place. Councilmember Phillips stated he had appreciated the opportunity to meet with staff and some of the Planning Commissioners, and exchange ideas, noting he felt that had been a good start. Councilmember Miller referred to staff's General Plan Update work program, noting he felt it was a fine marriage of process and product, and would result in a happy conclusion. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution recognizing that the City is undertaking the update of the San Rafael General Plan 2000, and applicants are to be notified; and to direct staff to call for applications for appointment to the General Plan Steering Committee. RESOLUTION NO. 10518 - RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THAT THE CITY IS UNDERTAKING THE UPDATE OF SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000, AND APPLICANTS ARE TO BE SO NOTIFIED. Called for applications for appointment to the General Plan Steering Committee. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 16. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING AND OPERATING OF CONSOLIDATED FIRE DISPATCH CENTER (FD) - File 4-13-104 x 9-3- SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 17 31 Fire Chief Robert Marcucci recalled that some time ago, as an adjunct to the Countywide Radio System, it was suggested that the City look into consolidating its dispatch center along with County Fire. He reported the City Council and the Board of Supervisors gave approval, and the firm of Hannum and Associates was hired to do design work for the construction of the dispatch center, which turned out to be a structure of approximately 2,800 square feet. Coincidentally, MERA (Marin Emergency Radio Authority) was trying to find a location in which to locate their controller, the main computer that will run the Countywide radio system, and they needed approximately 1,000 square feet. This brought the total facility to 3,800 square feet. Chief Marcucci explained the purpose of the Agreement before Council was to provide for the joint ownership, funding, planning, construction and operation by the City and County, and to provide a site for MERA to locate their control and associated equipment. He noted if the City and County go ahead with this agreement, the cost sharing would be 40/40/20, with MERA picking-up the 20% share. The City would be the lead agency in the construction of the dispatch center, and the City will invoice the County, and receive payment within 45 days. Upon completion of the dispatch center, both County Fire and San Rafael Fire will provide and manage their own employees, performing separate dispatch functions, while maintaining a seamless operation. Chief Marcucci noted that yesterday, when there were two, three-alarm fires, the City's Dispatcher had worked feverishly to get the equipment into the City. He noted that when a Dispatcher has to dispatch six of the City's own units, and also bring in mutual aid and cover the stations, the job is a very arduous one, and one that requires assistance. Therefore, Chief Marcucci believed joining the two dispatch centers was in the best interest of the City of San Rafael, as well as the residents of the County. Chief Marcucci stated that if the City chose not to enter into this agreement, additional funding would be required, because the Fire Department would have to purchase consoles for its own dispatch center, and he did not believe this would be in the best interest of the City. Councilmember Heller stated she felt this was a very good use of public dollars, and she was delighted Chief Marcucci had made the first move on this and it had worked out, as she believed it would be a benefit to the entire community. Councilmember Phillips stated he was definitely in favor of Chief Marcucci's recommendation, noting he highly respected Chief Marcucci's opinion. Mr. Phillips noted the City and the County would each be providing 40% of the cost, while MERA would provide 20%. He asked how those percentages were arrived at? City Manager Gould reported they had calculated the square footage to estimate the initial cost; however, the document explains that when the building is complete, the actual cost will be apportioned to the three entities, and there will be an accounting of what was actually spent to build each portion. City Manager Gould stated he felt a need to indicate to Council that this plan may still be in some flux, noting, as he had indicated in his report last week, Motorola, the developer of the new Countywide radio system, was requesting some cost increases, based on a detailed design that was nearing completion. Mr. Gould explained part of the cost increase being cited by Motorola was the relocation of the controller, or "brain", of the radio system from the Civic Center to the proposed joint dispatch center. He reported Motorola was alleging this would entail the use of a great deal of additional technology, engineering development, and design to accomplish, to the extent it might cost a half million dollars or more to make that change. Mr. Gould stated, if that is the case, then it makes a lot of sense for the County to re-visit whether or not there is a way to squeeze the controller back into the Civic Center, as was originally intended. Mr. Gould reported that in working with Linda Christman of the County Administrator's Office, they were trying to find a way to do that, although it may involve eliminating the controller room from the dispatch center, in which case the City and County would proceed as originally intended; or, it may involve some new use of the additional square footage at the center. Mr. Gould asked that Council approve Chief Marcucci's recommendation, but that Mayor Boro hold off executing the documents until the outcome of the further analysis is known. Councilmember Cohen referred to the issue of long-term use of the facility. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 18 He asked if the City would have assurances, prior to proceeding with construction, that the City will have long-term use of the land on which the dispatch center is proposed to be located? Mr. Gould stated, as Chief Marcucci had pointed out, the MOU gave the City assurances that it would have access to the facility for ten years. Mr. Gould stated the City needed to re-negotiate the thirty-year lease for the entire parcel, which will expire in 2006, and includes Station #7. Mr. Gould reported the County Administrator has stated he needs time to understand the lease, the CSA Operating Agreement, and other issues that may be involved, before he can recommend extending the lease even further. Mr. Gould stated he had told the County Administrator that once this project was underway, the City and County needed to turn their attention to those leases, because too much rides on that, and the stakes are too high. In addition, if the County has any intention of changing the use of the property, or charging the City for the use of property which has served both City and County residents so well for so long, the City would need to have maximum notice of that now. Therefore, Mr. Gould stated he would hope the lease issue would be resolved before the City let a construction contract. Councilmember Cohen asked, if there was a change in relationship with the County regarding Station #7, would that impact the operation of the joint dispatch center, and could the City envision a situation where the joint dispatch center remains, because it has a ten-year lease, but Station #7 goes because we cannot resolve the lease agreement with the County in seven years? Chief Marcucci stated he looked at the issue of Station #7 and being part of CSA #19 somewhat differently. He explained Station #7 was there because that was where then Supervisor Roumiguiere wanted it when they originally put together CSA #19. He agreed that it was a legitimate place to put it; however, there were other areas of CSA #19 that were contiguous to San Rafael which, while not near Station #7, were near San Rafael's Fire Stations #5, #4, and #2. He stated the San Rafael Fire Department could well serve Santa Venetia and Los Ranchitos, if it needed to, from a different location, explaining that was one of the reasons the Department has held on to Station #3, even though that might not be optimal. Chief Marcucci stated he did not like being pushed into a corner; therefore, his Department was looking for alternatives, and one of them was to serve Santa Venetia. He noted now that we have the overpass that goes into Northgate, they can also serve Los Ranchitos very well, and within a few minutes they can be in Santa Venetia. He pointed out that was a far cry from responding from Woodacre or Marin City; therefore, he believed that if the County said the City had to move out of Station #7 it would be a disaster, because, as City Manager Gould has indicated, it has served the community well over the years. Councilmember Cohen wondered if it made sense to go forward and commit to the joint dispatch facility at this location before the City knows the long-term resolution of the future of Station #7. He asked, if Chief Marcucci knew today that Station #7 was going to close, and the City would have to use one of the other stations as an alternative, would he prefer that the City discuss having the joint dispatch center adjacent to Station #3, or some other location, or would he still believe that the location anticipated in the MOU was the best location for a joint dispatch facility? Chief Marcucci explained this site served several needs; first, it served the needs of County Fire, noting County Fire would like to relocate their administrative offices from Woodacre to the Civic Center. He reported there was speculation that one of these days the County might want to build an additional administration building near the dog park area, which would put County Fire right next to their dispatch center. He stated there were also advantages regarding the longevity of the dispatchers, explaining that if the dispatchers can be kept near a fire station, where there is interaction between the firefighters and dispatchers, it lets them become part of "the team", noting that putting them in a bunker somewhere only isolates them, and the longevity of the dispatchers greatly deteriorates. He pointed out San Rafael has kept its dispatchers for a number of years, as has County Fire; however, that was not the case in other dispatch centers. Chief Marcucci stated this was a good location, and served the needs of both agencies. City Manager Gould believed it should also be stated in the meetings that the County Administrator has repeatedly disavowed any ulterior motives with regard to Station #7, or new plans for re-use of the property, insisting he simply needs time to understand the historical use, the contractual relations, and the best way to move forward. Councilmember Cohen felt that from the City's perspective, it would seem that if at all possible, the City would want to link these issues, and resolve them all at the same time, so the City would know it has a long- term relationship regarding Station #7 at the same time we are investing in SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 19 a joint dispatch center there, rather than finish with the issue of the dispatch center, and then find out the County has decided they want to go some other way. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the execution of a Cooperative Agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 10519 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING AND OPERATING OF CONSOLIDATED FIRE DISPATCH CENTER. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 7. a. RE: JOINT SERVICES COMMITTEE - File 244 x 9-1 x 113 Councilmember Heller stated she had been attending the Joint Services Committee, representing the Council, reporting they were approximately at the halfway point, noting it has been quite interesting, and she has enjoyed learning about all the JPA's within the County. She stated Mayor Boro and Novato's Mayor Di Giorgio had addressed the Committee last week regarding the Congestion Management Committee and Countywide Planning Agency, which she noted had been quite interesting. She distributed a schedule of upcoming Committee meetings, along with scheduled topics for discussion. Councilmember Heller believed it had been a very educational experience for everyone on the Joint Services Committee, noting they would be coming forward with recommendations in approximately six months. b. RE: CENTRAL MARIN SANITATION AGENCY - File 4-12-7 (Verbal) Councilmember Cohen reported that while it was likely a long way from any potential impact, he felt it was appropriate to mention that he and Mayor Boro sit as Directors on the San Rafael Sanitation District and, therefore, as Commissioners of the Central San Rafael Sanitation Agency (CMSA). He reported the Board of CMSA has decided to undertake a management review of the operations of that JPA, and has suggested to the member agencies that a system-wide review probably made sense, and rather than do just a study of the plant and its operations, it made sense to look at the entire collection of treatment systems as a whole, to determine whether there is a better model for service delivery. He pointed out CMSA could not do that unilaterally, so the request was formally made to the member agencies for consideration. Mr. Cohen reported the San Rafael Sanitation District, at its most recent meeting, passed a motion to participate in such a study, assuming Sanitary District #1, which is the other major member agency, also agrees to participate. Mr. Cohen stated he mentioned this only so the Council would be aware that, conceivably, somewhere down the road if there is a change and restructuring of those agencies, there could be an impact on the City, as yet undetermined, because of the relationship between the City and the San Rafael Sanitation District, in terms of the City providing services for fee to San Rafael Sanitation District. Beyond that, he noted each agency had agreed to study the issue, if all the agencies studied it. He stated there was nothing more to report at this time, explaining he simply did not want to come back to Council in the future and report they were undertaking a major study that might involve consolidation, without having first informed the Council of these discussions. c. RE: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DEPARTMENT OF THE MAYORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS - - File 9-11-1 x 9-1 (Verbal) Mayor Boro reported Councilmember Heller had been elected President of the Mayors and Councilmembers Department of the League of California Cities, on a Statewide vote. Mayor Boro and the Councilmembers offered their congratulations. There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1999 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 20 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/1/99 Page 20