Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1989-04-17SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201, OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1989, AT 7:00 PM. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a 1. No. 89-6(a) - (#1) Pelkey vs. City of San Rafael. No. 89-6(b) - (#1) R. Hughs vs. City of San Rafael. No. 89-6(c) - (#4). No reportable action was taken. No. 89-6(d) - (#7). No discussion held. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1989 AT 8:00 PM. Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor San Rafael City Council Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Item 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of April 3, 1989 (CC) 3. Call for Applications to Serve on the Park and Recreation Commission Due to Resignation of Commissioner Anthony Arnold (CC) - File 9-2-4 9. Authorization to Engage DKS Associates, Traffic Consultant for Traffic Signal Design at Intersections of Redwood Highway/ Mitchell Boulevard, Redwood/ Professional Center Parkway, and Los Ranchitos Road/North San Pedro Road (PW) - File 4-3-215 Recommended Action Approved as submitted. Approved staff recommendation: a) Accepted resignation. b) Called for applications to fill vacancy, with deadline for receipt set for Tuesday, May 9, 1989 at 12:Noon in City Clerk's Office. c) Set Special City Council meeting to interview applicants for Monday, May 15, 1989, commencing at 6:30 PM, to fill vacancy to end of May, 1990. RESOLUTION NO. 7941 - AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO ACCEPT A PROPOSAL FROM DKS ASSOCIATES FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESIGN SERVICES (In Amount of $17,900 to be Paid Out of Traffic Mitigation Fees Already collected). 12. Resolution Approving Application RESOLUTION NO. 7942 - APPROVING for Grant Funds from the State APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM Coastal Conservancy for Shoreline THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY Band Park Improvements at the FOR SHORELINE BAND PARK IMPROVEMENTS City Pond at Piombo Place (Rec) - AT CITY POND AT PIOMBO PLACE. File 4-10-231 x 9-3-66 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 2 14. Claims for Damages: Approved City Attorney's recommendations for denial of a. Patricia Darrow (PD) claims a & b. Claim No. 3-1-1398 b. Elizabeth Ann Kennedy (PD) Claim No. 3-1-1399 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 4. RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS FOR PRIORITY PROJECT DETERMINATIONS (P1) - File 115 Mayor Mulryan stated Council had received letter from Attorneys associ- ated with the Howard Johnson Hotel project concerning the Resolution's findings for their project, and he suggested this item be pulled off the Agenda to allow Planning staff to review their letter for response. Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to reschedule this item for Council meeting of May 1, 1989. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 5. RESOLUTION GRANTING APPEAL AND DENYING PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A 3 -LOT SUBDIVISION; 1 HIGHLAND AVENUE; JIM SKAAR; MIKE BURGESS/DIETRICH STROEH, REPS.; MONTECITO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, JEFF MULANAX, APPELLANT; AP 15-202-37 (P1) - File 10-8 RESOLUTION NO. 7943 - UPHOLDING APPEAL AND DENYING DECISIONS OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TO APPROVE s87-10 (a), A SMALL SUBDIVISION OF THREE -LOTS AT ONE HIGHLAND AVENUE (AP 15-202-37). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner (Due to potential conflict of interest). 6. REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF BID FOR MULTI -CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS RECORDING SYSTEM FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT (PD) - File 4-2-237 Councilmember Breiner asked if any references were obtained from agencies using Dictaphone, or if there is any way to have a trial period before committing to that system. Police Chief Ingwersen responded staff contacted agencies who have Magnasync and Dictaphone and noted that Agencies using Dictaphone are pleased with this product and their service. He added the Police Department had Magnasync which was a problem, and indicated they would prefer to have the Dictaphone product. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 7944 - AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PURCHASE ONE MULTI -CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS RECORDING SYSTEM FOR THE SAN RAFAEL POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM DICTAPHONE CORPORA- TION OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA (Lowest responsible bid, in amount of $33,225.00). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular* 4/17/89 Page 3 7. REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF BID FOR NEW TYPE III CLASS I MODULAR AMBULANCE (GS) - File 4-2-238 Council, at the request of Fire Chief Marcucci and without motion, pulled item from the agenda to be brought back to meeting of May 1, 1989. 8. REPORT ON 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROPOSALS FOR SAN RAFAEL PLANNING AREA (CM) - File 147 Councilmember Breiner asked Council if they had any problems with the Project Proposals list within the San Rafael area. In response to Councilmember Thayer's question as to the amount of monies available for projects in the San Rafael Planning Area, Assis- tant to the City Manager Golt responded there is $218,375. Councilmember Boro referred to a correction on Exhibit 3 showing Martinelli House on Pilgrim Way, noting it is on Lincoln Avenue. He asked to have information for other cities in Marin County as well as San Rafael, noting there are 22 Housing Agencies. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to accept report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 10. APPLICATION FOR MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND ALLOCATION FOR CREST MARIN II (RA) - File 8-23 Councilmember Thayer asked if there is a contract of assignment to the Housing Authority, and Mr. Dick Bornholdt of the Consulting Group responded by stating the assignment of the allocation is contained in the language of the Resolution and upon receipt of the allocation by the City, it is irrevocably assigned to the Housing Authority who would then be the Issuer of the Bonds and the City would have no further responsibility other than to hold the deposit that is required by the State. In response to Councilmember Frugoli's question as to whether there is a limit in the amount of Bonds the City could acquire, Mr. Bornholdt stated statewide there is generally a limit of $20 million per juris- diction, Cities and Counties; however, if a City or County has a single project multi -family rental that requires more, the State will allow that entity to request more monies; in this case this will be a request for $22 million. He explained with this project if the Bonds get sold, the City can come back with another request. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt two Resolutions for Crest Marin II. RESOLUTION NO. 7945 - PROVIDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING, AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A DEPOSIT AND ESCROW AGREEMENT AND APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND ALLOCA- TION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (CREST MARIN II). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None RESOLUTION NO. 7946 - CONSENTING TO THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FINANCING FOR A CERTAIN MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT, AND ASSIGNING PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND VOLUME TO THE AUTHORITY (CREST MARIN II) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular, /17/89 Page 4 11. REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL ENDORSEMENT OF MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 (PD) - File 4-10-114 x 9-3-30 Police Chief Ingwersen stated the Sheriff's Department provided two previous Unit Commanders,indicating that the Chiefs Oversight Committee specifically asked for Lt. Walter Kosta, one of three representatives from San Rafael to go through the selection process,and that Lt. Kosta was the "winner" of this selection process. Chief Ingwersen explained the purpose of the agreement is to backfill the position and no cost will be incurred to the Department, noting Lt. Kosta's salary will be reimbursed to the City; therefore, there is no cost for the time period of possibly three to four years. The agreement insures that Lt. Kosta is there while the positions are filled within the Department and noted, should an opening happen because of a person retiring or leaving the City making this position available, the Task Force at that time will then look at Lt. Kosta's position and decide whether to have him continue or return to San Rafael. Chief Ingwersen stated if Lt. Kosta elected to return within the time period of three or four years, another Lieutenant would be taken from the Department to serve on the Major Crimes Task Force. After further discussion, Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to approve the staff recommendation: 1) To continue support of and participate in the Marin County Major Crimes Task Force. 2) Allow City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Marin County Major Crimes Task Force for appointment of San Rafael's Lt. Walt Kosta as Commander of the Task Force. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 13. LEGISLATION AFFECTING SAN RAFAEL (CM) - File 9-1 Mayor Mulryan stated this proposed Bill by Independent Senator Kopp appears to eliminate the Golden Gate Bridge District from providing transit service. He asked to what degree does the County have juris- diction over the transit which is needed to keep the roads flowing. Library Director Stratford responded the Golden Gate Bridge District Board of Directors is provided for in the Bill, noting they are from Marin and Sonoma Counties. He agreed with Mayor Mulryan that it does eliminate the bridge district from providing transit. Mayor Mulryan stated it would dilute Marin's ability to have a say in the future of transit and the percentage of Bridge funds that go to transit and how the transit monies are spent. Councilmember Breiner commented that at a Transportation Expenditure Plan meeting held last week, some analysis and discussion took place and it was found to be something they do not want to see happen. She noted it is not scheduled for hearings, and added there would be an elected Board which Sonoma would control because of their popu- lation size, noting it is a mandate not enabling legislature. She stated none of the jurisdictions in the County requested this, indi- cating this is strictly from Senator Kopp, and added this would wipe out all the work done by the Highway 101 Corridor Committee for the last six years. After further discussion, Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to OPPOSE SB 1295 (Kopp) North Bay Transit District, and directed staff to inform the Legislators. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 15. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REQUEST BY MARIN SANITARY SERVICE: (Fin) - File 4-3-32 a) FOR A RATE INCREASE FOR REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE AND DEBRIS BOX SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL Finance Director Coleman stated this item was continued from March, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 4/17/89 Page 5 1989, when several issues were presented. He noted one area involved how much total revenue should be generated by Marin Sanitary which involves three areas; 1) The officers' Salaries and 2) Route Auditors. Consultant Touche Ross's recommendation is to limit the amount of money included in the rate base. 3) Legal Fees, noting the Legal Fees issue was raised by Touche Ross with no specific recommendation about whether it should or should not be included; they simply presented a guideline as to what basis the City should use if it was or was not included. Mr. Coleman stated Legal Fees options are as follows: 1) What the change would be if Legal Fees were not included. 2) What the rates would be if Legal Fees were included, but spread as recommended by Touche Ross. 3) To include Legal Fees and allocate all the costs of those legal fees to the debris box operation. Mr. Coleman referred to a request made by Attorney Charles Kagay, representing Fred Grange of Grange Debris Box, who contends that the allocation between Debris Box and Garbage Rates is not correct and that there should be more expenditures allocated to the debris box operation which would dramatically increase the debris box rates and lower the garbage collection rates. The overall revenue to the garbage company would remain unchanged but it would shift the sources of revenue. He noted this is an issue that involves the recommendation made by Touche Ross. Mr. Coleman recommended that Council accept the Touche Ross allocation of expenditures in this area. Mayor Mulryan clarified a question raised by Councilmember Frugoli regarding Legal Fees, stating, if the action taken by the City with respect to the transfer station, dump sites and its regulation of garbage collection rates is, in the City's opinion, something that led in part to the litigation and therefore the Legal Fees should be in some way allocated to the rate base, does that position lead the City any to entanglement in the litigation itself? City Attorney Ragghianti responded negatively, stating Attorney Albert Bianchi indicated orally and in a letter to the City, his and Marin Sanitary Service's (MSS) position that the City is not legally culpable in this particular matter at all. Mr. Ragghianti stated that, in his opinion, he did not think the City would become entangled in the litigation. Councilmember Frugoli asked Mr. Ragghianti, in case damages are awarded, whether it could be passed on to the next year's rate payers, and Mr. Ragghianti responded he was not prepared to answer that question tonight, noting the criteria being used is too broad and it is diffi- cult to come up with a definitive statement. Mr. Erik Gilberg, Consultant with Touche Ross, addressed the letter from Attorney Kagay, stating the fundamental difference is Touche Ross' approach for determining what the costs for debris would be; they were entirely based on the cost of the transfer station operation and the cost of MSS, in general. He noted Mr. Kagay's letter is intended to address the issue of the competitive pricing of Marin Resource Recovery Center's acceptance of volume for debris from Grange versus what Grange pays and what MSS pays. This competitive issue of prices is not a part of the study done by Touche Ross, who determined what the costs were for each of those operations and what the costs were for handling those debris boxes for MSS. He noted these costs were applied in developing the recommendations before Council. He went on to give a general overview of his report. Mr. Gilberg stated he did not think the alternative presented by Mr. Kagay is acceptable, noting he could think of other alternatives that could be used to apply the cost to the debris operation, indicating it would be fairly close to what Touche Ross recommended. Mr. Gilberg stated he has responded to other issues brought up by Mr. Kagay, noting Touche Ross stands behind all other recommendations made by them. Finance Director Coleman stated the position taken by Mr. Kagay is that the debris boxes from MSS should be treated exactly the same as debris boxes from Grange. He noted Touche Ross has not looked at it from that standpoint but tried to do a cost accounting of the MSS operation. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 4/17/89 Page 6 Mr. Gilberg stated conceptually, the methodology is designed to encour- age the debris operation from MSS to use the MRRC. He noted they do not want to penalize the company, but rather to build incentives for the company to use that resource because it benefits all the rate payers. He said 25 percent of that volume is recovered that does not go into the landfill and noted that is future landfill space available for residential, commercial and debris customers. Mr. Coleman said rates recommended by Touche Ross are not set to guarantee equality between the two companies in terms of debris box rates. Albert Bianchi, Attorney representing Marin Sanitary Service stated although the position of MSS does not coincide exactly with Touche Ross, in almost every instance, if the Council is to make a choice between Touche Ross' suggestions and Grange Debris Box Service, MSS would opt for the Touche Ross study. Mr. Bianchi spoke of MSS's disagreements with Touche Ross and stated that Grange Debris is asking the City to increase debris box rates by 43.4 percent. He gave a for instance, stating if you took a 20 cubic yard box (jumbo size), the price, as recommended by Grange, would increase from $170 to $244. He noted they have investigated and found that Grange's position is understandable in their wanting to raise the cost in terms of loading up the debris boxes, stating that is the business they are in. However, he indicated it is not understandable as to what is best for the community, noting it comes out of the City's constituents' pockets whether in the form of garbage rates or debris box rates. The increase from $170 to $244 is strange to him because the only area where the Grange Debris Box business is regulated, (Strawberry Recreation District - a Recreation District in Marin County regulating garbage and debris disposal rates), Grange's fees for a 20 cubic yard box is not the $170 he currently charges in San Rafael, nor the $244, but $160. He pointed to this as an indica- tion of an area where Grange has apparently been operating at a rate that is already lower than what one pays in San Rafael, stating it is a tremendous amount lower than the rate being advocated by Grange for the San Rafael area. Mr. Bianchi stated what would happen if Council were to accept Grange's recommendation of an increase from $170 to $244 is that MSS would be compelled to charge $244 for debris boxes, noting in order to operate economically and successfully, they have only two real sources of income; one is the debris boxes and the other, the garbage rate service. He noted they are limited in what can be charged to both, so they will charge for the garbage services at whatever rates Council sets. In order to make up that bottom line total they have to charge $240 if that is set as the debris box rate for their total operating revenue. Mr. Bianchi stated Grange benefits by taking a competitive advantage of MSS. He noted there is enough profit in the $240 rate so Grange can underbid MSS in every instance regarding debris box service. He noted that the City of San Rafael is not regulating Grange's rates. Legal Fees - Mr. Bianchi stated the criteria used by Touche Ross as their suggested basis for determining how to allocate or whether or not to allow those fees to go into the rate base, is whether or not the City directly or indirectly participated in the events that led to the litigation. He stated he is not arguing for his own legal fees, noting those are for a firm in San Francisco that are anti-trust specialists defending a law suit brought by Mr. Grange. He stated those legal fees were incurred in part, as the result of issues set forth in the Grange complaint against MSS. He commented it is beyond the point of argument that those legal fees were incurred either directly or indirectly in part by actions taken by the City in estab- lishing the closing date for the San Quentin dump, and the opening date for the Marin Sanitary or Transfer Station to the public. Referring to Councilmember Frugoli's question of whether the City would be entangled in any damages that might be awarded in the future because of the lawsuit, Mr. Bianchi responded they anticipate no damages, noting they have good reports from the anti-trust specialists whose legal fees are involved here stating that the two issues are not related and a precedent is not being established as to whether or not any damages awarded should be placed into the rate base and noted that is a separate question and not before Council tonight. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 7 Mr. Bianchi mentioned that Grange has asked why should the City allow MSS to include its legal fees into the rate base when they, who are suing MSS, are not permitted to recover their legal fees from rate payers or anyone else. Mr. Bianchi stated he answered them, noting the reason you should not worry about this is that Grange is not paying Attorney's fees, because cases of this type are almost always taken on a contingency fee basis. This means the Attorneys are paid if and when they prevail in the case and collect a judgment. He noted Grange's attorney has not denied this assertion. Another recommendation made by Touche Ross has to do with the reduction of compensation to the officers and shareholders of MSS. He stated MSS has indicated a willingness to do this, and noted they have acceded to that but propose that the operating ratio which has been defined as meaning the operating expenses divided by the gross revenues, be established at 88.5 percent rather than at 90 percent, as suggested by Touche Ross. He noted this is still within the range of return that is appropriate for companies of this type within the San Francisco Bay Area. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question as to whether 88.5 percent is fair as opposed to 90 percent, Mr. Bianchi stated Erik Gilberg could confirm language in the Touche Ross analysis which recognizes or establishes that there is a range, and that it is not outside that range. Route Auditors - Mr. Bianchi stated Route Auditors in MSS are a throw -back to the olden days when the wives of the shareholders, (7 shareholders and 7 wives) maintained the books, records and billings for the company. He stated the company is in the process of compu- tizing its operations in this respect. They suggest that the Route Auditors, which is a duplicate bookkeeping system that parallels the computer system, be kept in effect until the end of this year and then be discontinued. Land Rental - Mr. Bianchi stated Touche Ross recommends that one-half of the rental expense for the land, (old Bartel property not taken by the Central Marin Sanitation District) is basically unimproved land. He noted they concur with Touche Ross' observation that it might make sense that one-half of that rental (for future expansion and needs) be allowed for this year's review only and within the next 6 months the company should be required to submit to Council, a full intended land use plan for that property, including an evalua- tion of what benefits there would be to the rate payers if it is maintained within the rate base - MSS accepts this recommendation. Mr. Bianchi submitted for the record a copy of the anti-trust complaint filed on behalf of Grange Debris Box and Wrecking Company, Incorporated on August 29, 1986 in Marin Superior Court to City Clerk Leoncini. Officers' Salaries - Finance Director Coleman stated MSS indicated they would be willing to disallow the expenditure as long as the operating ratio was lowered and the suggested range by MSS for the operating ratio would be at the low end of that range having the effect of giving back to the garbage company, more revenue. He noted, in effect, the Officers' Salaries would be put back somewhere into the rates. Route Auditors - Mr. Coleman stated Touche Ross is not suggesting that the Route Auditors be done away with, but that an appropriate cost be put into the rate base, noting the method is not important, it is the total cost that Touche Ross feels should be a reasonable amount to be included in the rate base. Councilmember Boro referred to Mr. Bianchi's letter of April 10, 1989, item 3 where the Route Auditors should be discontinued after another year, but tonight he mentioned end of 1989. Mr. Bianchi stated the end of 1989 is correct. Councilmember Boro referred to Legal Fees, stating it seemed they were talking about either all with the debrix box or all with the garbage, and asked if spreading the fees across both entities has been thought of. Mr. Bianchi stated their view is that it ought to be spread only on the one side rather than on the debris box, but stated it is the Council's choice. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 4/17/89 Page 8 Mayor Mulryan asked why the Legal Fees are not properly allocated to the debris box side when that is t(-; .ature of the litigation, and Mr. Bianchi responded that the litigation is related to the debris box operation; however, he stated there are two components to its income and it does not make any difference whether the litigation names debris boxes or garbage collection revenue; the largest revenue is the garbage collection revenue and therefore there is less impact on the garbage collection revenue if it is allocated to that side. Mr. Gilberg stated Touche Ross' recommendation is to split the Legal Fees between the two sides, residential/commercial and debris and the split is 18.5 percent for debris with the balance going to resi- dential and commercial. Councilmember Boro understood from the Touche Ross report that they had not made a recommendation on the Legal Fees, leaving that open. Mr. Gilberg responded they had included a recommendation on how to allocate the Legal Fees but did not recommend what level would be allowed, citing they did not have enough information to work with. He stated the company has a franchise and duty to collect refuse and dispose of refuse in San Rafael and that some of the risks it takes from litigation come along with the franchise agreement. He stated if those costs were assigned,whenever a legal incident occurred to one specific group or another, a large jump in rates would develop each time that happened. For instance, if a residential garbage truck ran over someone and litigation resulted, if this methodology is applied, all those Legal Fees should be charged to the residential rates. Touche Ross' view is that it is a more simple and even process, reflecting the nature of the agreement between the City and the company to collect and dispose of garbage, to even that distribution of cost out based on all user groups. Mr. Bianchi commented on the Finance Director's statement regarding the question of lowering the operating ratio and thereby increasing the revenue overall to the company while at the same time reducing the Officers' Salaries. He explained that Officers' Salaries and operating ratios are designed to compensate for two different things. He noted it is coincidence that the officers and shareholders in this company are one and the same, stating it does not take away from the proposition or the principal that you are compensating for two different things; one, the officers are being compensated for their services, and two, the operating ratio is the return to the shareholders who may or may not be the same people in any company as these officers are. The fact that they are the same people here is not a valid reason for not recognizing that there are two bases for compensation. Mr. Coleman clarified the handout regarding the Legal Fees, stating the three options are: 1) Increase without Legal Fees being included at all. 2) Legal Fees included based on suggested pro -rata distribution based on Touche Ross. 3) If Legal Fees are included, that they only be charged against the debris box operation. He referred to the second option, stating even though Touche Ross took no position on whether the Legal Fees should be included or not, they did recommend as to how it could be distributed if Council decided to include those. Charles Kagay, Attorney representing Grange Debris Box stated the most difficult issues before the Council are the policy issues with accounting issues secondary. He stated they believe MSS and MRCC should be fully compensated for their services, noting their proposals give both MSS and MRCC precisely the revenues that Touche Ross pro- poses. However, they are concerned that Grange Debris and MSS debris be treated equally. Touche Ross wants the MSS debris customers to pay for the Transfer Station but not for processing at the recycling center, although Grange Debris customers have to pay for processing at the recycling center. Mr. Kagay stated since both groups of custo- mers require the service, both should pay for the service. Touche Ross wants the garbage customers to pay to insulate the MSS debris customers from the recycling center charges. Grange says this is unfair to both the garbage customers and to the Grange Debris customers. Mr. Kagay referred to a chart he passed out earlier on the MSS disposal costs, stating it gives a simple schematic of the issue that is being addressed, noting the actual numbers are not important but that he wanted to emphasize what happens at the Transfer Station at the MRCC SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (RegulAR) 4/17/89 Page 9 and what happens in the Touche Ross rates. He referred to two components to the cost of dumping the debris box, noting it has to go into the recycling center which extracts the recyclable materials and processes it and stated this costs money. The residue is then sent over to the MSS Transfer Station to be disposed of and that too takes money. The commercial trash has to go to the Transfer Station and that takes money, including the residential trash. He stated when Touche Ross allocates these costs, the processing fee for the MSS debris at the MRCC disappears, noting they do not want the debris box customers to pay for this. He indicated someone has to pay for this and noted it does not come from MSS because it is a closed system. All of MSS costs are being covered here. He noted the money can only come from one place and that is from the garbage customers which they say is unfair subsidization. He stated if you are a Grange Debris customer you have to pay both the Transfer Station cost for debris and the Recycling Center cost for debris and that is the difference between the Grange approach and Touche Ross'. Mr. Kagay stated this is not an accounting issue but a policy issue; both Touche Ross and Grange Debris assume the same cost and say that MSS should be fully compensated for it. That is an accounting question, but the policy questions are whether MSS debris customers and Grange Debris customers should be treated alike; this is equivalent in asking whether Grange Debris should be allowed to compete in San Rafael. Should MSS debris customers, unlike Grange Debris customers, be insu- lated from the recycling center charges? If the debris customers are to be protected from recycling center charges, then who pays the subsidy? MSS says they do not want to pay, where Mr. Bianchi says it is not appropriate to only charge Grange Debris for the cost of the Transfer Station and not the cost of the recycling center. He was concerned the money would come from pockets of MSS. Mr. Kagay stated this is not being done here tonight, noting it is coming out of the garbage customers who are paying for the debris customers to have the recycling work done. Mr. Kagay stated Council cannot accept the Touche Ross allocations on this but has to make the policy decisions. He referred to an answer to his question by Mr. Gilberg attached to Exhibit "A", (5) "The study was designed to provide the City of San Rafael with all of the cost information without determining how the rate changes might be implemented across different entities". Mr. Kagay stated how the rates are implemented across a different user group is a matter of City policy and Touche Ross did not provide recommendations on this matter. He noted Mr. Gilberg may say they did not provide recommenda- tions on this, but the recommendation was implicit in what they did, and they are standing by it very firmly tonight. He stated the City should reject the policy that is implied by Touche Ross allocations, stating it is unfair to make garbage rate payers pick up a significant part of the cost associated with the dumping of MSS debris boxes. It is unfair to force Grange Debris to compete against its competitor whose debris box customers are being subsidized. He noted it is economically unsound to disrupt the competitive market by raiding monopoly customers like the garbage customers here. Presumption in California in regulatory law, is that competition will be preserved unless compelling reasons are shown to violate this principle and no such reasons have been shown either by MSS or Touche Ross. He noted the only reason he has seen so far is Mr. Bianchi's suggestion that there will be some sort of unfair competition if MSS is required to go up to $240 for the 20 cubic yard box because he suggests that Grange Debris's cost is somewhat less. Mr. Kagay stated it is not, noting Grange is paying the full $40 per ton at the recycling center. Mr. Kagay referred to the example at Strawberry, stating it is a very small regulatory district where Grange puts out very few boxes. He is regulated there in a manner the City of San Rafael is regulating MSS, and whenever Grange wants a rate increase a report similar to Touche Ross has to be done. He raises his rates very slowly and over a 7 year period, stating he is losing money in that area. A much better example is other Southern Marin County communities such as Mill Valley, where Grange Debris charges $263, a figure that does cover his costs. He noted this is the proper level for a 20 cubic yard box. Mr. Kagay concluded that Council make reason and equity weigh heavily in this case in favor of causing the two debris services to compete SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular. 4/17/89 Page 10 on equal footing, and keep the garbage customers from subsidizing the MSS customers because that is the only way that Mr. Gilberg can achieve the goal he wants, which is for debris customers not to pay the recycling charge. Mr. Ray Swanson, resident of San Rafael, spoke on the recycling service from Marin Recovery and Recycling Center, disagreeing with the fees versus services. Hearing no other comments from the public, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. After further discussion, Councilmember Frugoli moved to accept the recommendation of Alternative II, as presented by Touche Ross Report and Allocation to include the Legal Fees with the garbage rate at 8 percent, and the rate of .9 percent for the debris box. Mayor Mulryan seconded the motion for discussion, and asked Council - member Frugoli if he was stating he was satisfied with the Touche Ross method of internal cost analysis rather than the method recom- mended by Mr. Kagay, and Councilmember Frugoli answered in the affir- mative. Councilmember Frugoli stated early on he was involved with the City acting as a mediator in trying to get an assumption between Marin Sanitary Service and San Quentin on closure, when one was going to close and one was going to open, noting he felt the City had some obligation in seeing that some of the Legal Fees were paid back. Councilmember Boro stated whether or not the City was a part of the lawsuit, the question is who is going to pay the Legal Fees? He noted he has concern about taking the entire fee and putting it on the basic rate payer for garbage. He stated the City is dealing with Marin Sanitary Service which is a regulated business trying to regulate the rates based on an indepth study and Grange Debris Box Service is not a regulated business. He had concern about whether the Legal Fees should be recovered from the basic garbage rate, noting the impact of the motion is to increase the garbage ratesby 8 percent and decrease the debris box rates by .9 percent. He indicated it is the debris boxes that are causing the lawsuit, and stated the Legal Fees should be allocated only to the debris box rate. Councilmember Breiner felt if the lawsuit were settled against Marin Sanitary Service, the debris box rate should not be increased, noting it would not be part of the City's doing and therefore, should not be part of the increase. She indicated even though the Council has no control of the litigation, they could have the rate contingent upon that result. City Attorney Ragghianti stated the issue before the Council does not address itself to the specific matter of the lawsuit tonight, indicating if a judgment were to occur, it would not necessarily obligate Council to pass it along. He stated this is truly a policy issue for the Council decision and not a legal issue. He noted if there were a judgment, they could say they did look at your arguments and agree that Legal Fees incurred in this litigation were legitimate costs of doing business, but not the judgment. Councilmember Frugoli stated he had no problem changing his motion to have all the Legal Fees allocated to the debris box rate, noting the cost would be less than $3.00 per year. Councilmember Thayer was concerned with the Legal Fees, suggesting no Legal Fees be included at this time, but they be subject to review at a later time depending upon disposition of the case. Mayor Mulryan referred to the Touche Ross question of whether or not the litigation was caused in part by any action of the City and asked City Attorney Ragghianti if he thought this to be true or not. Mr. Ragghianti responded Touche Ross' criteria was whether or not the City's action, directly or indirectly, resulted in this litigation being filed, stating he did not think it was the City's or the product of any legal criteria that exists anywhere, but that Touche Ross indicated that to be the criteria they wished to use in order to determine whether or not to pass these rates on to the rate payers. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regulars 4/17/89 Page 11 Mr. Ragghianti's position was that Touche Ross' criteria is so broad and the complaint, which is now on record, clearly suggests there was an agreement reached between Marin Sanitary Service and the San Quentin site with respect to when one would close and the other would open, with the City participating in that. He said it could be argued that the City therefore participated directly or indirectly, but he did not feel this would create any legal culpability on the part of the City. Councilmember Frugoli amended his motion and Mayor Mulryan seconded, to adopt Resolution to increase the garbage fee by 5 percent and that the Legal Fees be allocated to the debris box, increasing the rate by 9.3 percent, effective May 1, 1989. RESOLUTION NO. 7947 - AGREEMENT WITH MARIN SANITARY SERVICE (20th AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ( To Increase the Garbage Rate by 5 Percent and that the Legal Fees be Allocated to the Debris Box, increasing the rate by 9.3 percent) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCLIMEMBERS: Thayer ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None b) TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY MARIN RECYCLING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY ASSOCIATION FOR A RATE INCREASE FOR THE CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRAM Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. City Manager Nicolai stated that Marin Managers as a group have been reviewing this matter with Marin Sanitary Service (MSS), noting there are more jurisdictions who work with MSS on the recycling charge than have a garbage franchise. She indicated they hoped to coordinate and understand the recycling relationship as a whole, deal with this annually and make a united recommendation to each of the jurisdictions rather than working with them independently. She noted the Touche Ross report was used as a basis of the evaluation and they are all in agreement in the recycling charge increase from $1.00 to $1.25 per month. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to adopt Resolution to increase the cost of Recycled Materials Collection Charge from $1.00 to $1.25 per month, effective May 1, 1989. RESOLUTION NO. 7948 - AGREEMENT WITH MARIN SANITARY SERVICE AS AGENT FOR MARIN RECYCLING & RESOURCE RECOVERY ASSOCI- ATION (21st AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT) (Increase from $1.00 to $1.25 per month, effective May 1, 1989) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 16. PUBLIC HEARING - UP88-61/ED88-49 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL LOT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR TWO NEW STUDIO UNITS AND MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING UNITS; 27 BROOKDALE AVENUE; APPELLANTS: WERNER BRANDT, OWNER; MIKE PALUMBO, REP.; AP 11-093-05 (P1) - File 10-5 x 10-7 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley stated the Planning Commission denied the Use Permit and Design Review by a vote of 5-0, finding that the design of the project and prevailing pattern of development and sub- standard width of the lot do not warrant allowing maximum density on this parcel. The project involves the addition of two studio units to an existing 4-plex on a substandard width lot, noting a proposal in the immediate vicinity at 29 Brookdale was amended on appeal by the City Council, reducing the density on that proposal from 10 units to 8 units, and that lot was exactly twice the area of this project. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 4/17/89 Page 12 The Appellant asserts that the R-4 zoning would support two additional units, the project meets the General Plan guidelines and the designer has responded to all requests by the Design Review Board. Mr. Pendoley stated the Planning Commission took note of Land Use Policy 10 which states maximum densities are not necessarily guaran- teed, but must respond to a number of factors, including development patterns and prevailing densities on adjacent properties as well as site resources and site constraints; the Planning Commission con- cluded that the maximum density is not warranted in this particular case. Some of the concerns the Planning Commission had, were that the majority of parcels on Brookdale Avenue are not developed at the high end of the allowed scale but at the low end of the range described by the General Plan; that the narrow width of the lot (45 feet where 60 feet would ordinarily be required) is a constraint and makes it difficult to provide open space amenities on the lot to service the units being added. The lot is also constrained by the steep slope at the back of the property. Planning Commission was concerned about allowing maximum density on every lot on Brookdale Avenue, stating there would be a potential traffic impact, particularly in regard to on -street parking. Mr. Pendoley stated if Council concurred with the analysis made by the Planning Commission, it would be appropriate to deny the appeal and have staff prepare a Resolution of Findings for later consideration. Neil Sorensen, Attorney representing the Applicant, Mr. Werner Brandt, asked Council to grant the appeal and approve the project, stating there is no basis for denial under Government Code Section 65589.5 which states in part, "...In order for Council to deny the project, a specific finding must be made, that there would be a specific adverse impact on the public health or safety from this project, and that there are no mitigation measures to mitigate that impact". He referred to the Planning Commission Minutes and Resolution, noting it is clear that no such finding was made, and there is no substantial evidence on the record to support that kind of finding; all the evidence indi- cates that this project complies with the General Plan and Zoning Standards and that there would be no specific adverse impact. He noted in looking at the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the project complies with the Land Use, Density and Affordable Housing, Noise and Traffic and meets all Zoning Standards requirements in height, setbacks and parking. He noted this area was recently studied as part of the General Plan 2000 update, and the existing densities were confirmed as being appropriate in that Plan. Mr. Sorensen noted that a 6 -unit project was approved at 7 Brookdale on a lot of 5,940 square feet which works out to approximately one unit for 990 square feet of lot area; this proposal is for 6 units on a 6,075 square foot lot which works out to a density of one unit per 1,009 square feet. He pointed out an error in the Planning Commis- sion staff report as to the parcel size, stating that the parcel size is not 4,790 square feet, but 6,075 square feet. Mr. Sorensen addressed the significant impact issues, stating there would be no significant impact to the site. He noted the landscaping would increase; the proposal would also provide a secondary means of access to the site by constructing the units at the Lincoln Avenue level so that access could be taken off of Lincoln Avenue and there- fore, the impact on Brookdale would lessen. The project would upgrade the property including the facade that is apparently objectionable to some of the neighbors. He stated if the site is limited to 4 -units, Council is saying that the existing units which are now small units (studio and 1 -bedroom) should be made larger, 1 and 2 bedroom units, when, in fact, the General Plan encourages small studio units such as what is being proposed. He indicated the issue is whether the City wants to encourage small affordable units or not and whether the City wants to comply with the letter and spirit of the General Plan that encourages these types of units. In response to question by Councilmember Breiner regarding tandem parking, the designer for the project stated there would be one tandem. Mr. Steve Wilqenbush, 1214 Brookdale Avenue, since 1973, spoke against the project. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 4/17/89 Page 13 Mr. Charley Bailey, resident at 37 Brookdale Avenue, spoke against the project. Mr. Steve Wilson, resident at 26 Brookdale Avenue, spoke against the project. Mrs. Sharon Iribarne, resident at 12 Brookdale Avenue, spoke against the project. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. In response to Councilmember Breiner's question if the parcel is substandard, that it would be a non -conforming lot, Principal Planner Johnston stated, generally it would be, but in this case the appli- cation actually requires a Use Permit because to add any additional units on a non -conforming lot, the zoning simply requires a Use Permit; the other is an ED (Environmental Design) only. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to deny the appeal. Under discussion, in response to clarification on the Resolution, City Attorney Ragghianti stated that the Development Application must comply with not only the General Plan but all of the Zoning and Development Policies that were in effect at the time the appli- cation became complete. He mentioned that the letter from Attorney Sorensen had just been received, and asked that it be reviewed with the Planning staff before Council acted on the Resolution. Councilmember Frugoli again mentioned bringing back the Brookdale area at the end of the year for consideration of a General Plan amend- ment to reduce the density from high to medium. Council directed staff to come back with a Resolution of Denial with Specific Findings, at meeting of May 1, 1989. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None (Council took a 5 minute break - 9:55 PM). 17. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON TWO APPEALS RE SPINNAKER ON THE BAY PROJECT (Pl) - File 5-1-292 x 10-5 x 10-7 a) UP88-100, ED88-101, TS88-4; APPEAL OF CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING USE PERMIT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW, AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP APPLICATIONS FOR A 111 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT KNOWN AS PHASE I OF SPINNAKER ON THE BAY; CATALINA AND BELLAM BOULEVARDS; DAVID N. RAWLINSON FOR BAHIA DE RAFAEL TOWNHOME ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT; AP 9-100-01, 04 & 05, 9-142-13, 24, 26 & 53, 9-010-17 & 21 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Principal Planner Johnston stated on March 28, 1989, Planning Commis- sion conditionally approved the Spinnaker on the Bay Project which consists of 87 detached single family units and 24 multi -family below market rate apartments. The decision has been appealed by the Bahia De Rafael Homeowners' Association who are concerned about inclusion of rental units versus condominium units, and the location of the units. They are also concerned with five conditions of approval rela- ting to design review and a number of tentative map conditions. Mr. Johnston commented on staff's response to the appeal with respect to the first item, (1) Direct access to Playa del Rey, primarily a concern that the apartment project may be "underparked" and there may be residents parking on Playa del Rey and accessing the Spinnaker on the Bay project. He stated Planning Commission amended Condition (tt) to require that a low fence or hedge row be provided along the boundary. (2) The bike trail which will connect to Bellam Boulevard through the project is on Bahia De Rafael property. He stated this is not the case, noting it is along the property line underneath the easement. (3) and (4) Major concern with communication between SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 4/17/89 Page 14 the developer, City and residents, that they did not find out until early March, 1989, that the project included 40 rental apartment units. The actual application for Priority Project Procedure did include a reference (an error in the staff report) to apartment project. When the project was originally submitted, it was an apartment project. He noted the basic difference is that the Subdivision Ordinance has specific standards for condominiums relating to increase in parking, as an example, 2.5 parking spaces per unit as well as standards on additional open space and storage. (5) Below Market Units - There was concern regarding location. Planning Commission and Design Review felt, that given the particular design of the project, it was not practical to disburse the units and since the rental units would be at the main entrance to the project, it was appropriate. (6) Loca- tion of tennis courts and other recreation facilities was a concern. Mr. Johnston stated these are located underneath PG&E power lines; no buildings could be allowed in this area and staff and Planning Commission felt it was reasonable to put a recreation facility under the power lines (tennis courts). He noted a point was made that the tennis courts are not central to the project, and although that is a point, with full development of the project, the central pool and cabana area will provide a significant recreational amenity. Mr. Johnston referred to any parking problems that may be generated by the location of the tennis courts, stating there is a small parking lot with 14 spaces adjacent to the tennis courts. APPELLANTS Mr. Don Foster, member of the Board of Directors for Bahia De Rafael Homeowners' Association, spoke on staff's findings having no adverse impacts on the neighbors or adjacent properties, and did not think this was correct. He stated he lives on Kerner Boulevard adjacent to a similar kind of situation, mentioning there are adverse impacts every day. He noted the project was changed from owner/occupied to rental units that are segregated together up against his property and did not agree to this, stating "clustering" of rental units causes many problems, and indicating if they need to be clustered, place them near the City's property. He stated notices should have been sent to the neighbors in the area regarding the planning process of the project so they would be able to have input at the Design Review meetings. Principal Planner Johnston stated this group would have been notifed when the application was received in early November, 1988. He indicated adjacent property owners are not notified of Design Review Board meetings, noting although it is a public meeting, these meetings are not set up for public testimony. ON BEHALF OF THE APPEAL Mr. David Levinson, President of Spinnaker Point Homeowners' Associa- tion, stated they are in support of Bahia De Rafael's appeal, and referred to the issue of notice. He stated two members of the Board met with the developer of the project and were told these were not to be rental units, but owner/occupied, indicating they were against the rentals being segregated and preferring that these units be owner/ occupied. Mr. David Ford, representing 263 homeowners at Bahia de Rafael, men- tioned lack of notification and reiterated the use of their private street and the owner/occupied change to rental units. Mayor Mulryan pointed out that years ago this project was proposed to be a total rental project but over time changed to a mixed develop- ment with the majority being ownership and a small portion being rental units. Mr. Roger Snell, resident in Bahia de Rafael, spoke on not having information on the development and objected to the location of the 24 subsidized rental units which includes the 49 car parking lot. He stated history shows that low-income subsidized housing deteriorates over time, resulting in a lower quality environment, and diminishes property values in the adjacent areas. Mrs. Jean Starkweather, representing Marin Conservation League, spoke of her concerns regarding the shoreline which included the wetlands and lagoon; treatment of the buffer zone between the lagoon and the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular. 4/17/89 Page 15 housing units; management plan and dedication of the lagoon to the City which has not been done, and design of the buffer area and size of the buffer itself. She asked that the project be sent back to the Planning Commission for further review on specifics. In response to question by Mayor Mulryan if this proposal complies with what was decided in the General Plan, Mr. Johnston responded affirmatively, noting the General Plan states there is a minimum setback of 50 feet and talks about larger sites "ideally" having 100 feet. In review of this project, he stated there is a 50 foot setback and the Planning Commission, by approving the Development Plan, basically approved the 50 foot setback as adequate. Mr. Pendoley stated this specific design consideration for exact design of the buffer area, which includes planting materials placed on the fences, is to be brought back to the Planning Commission at a later time to be sure that the various interest groups have an opportunity to address this plan in detail. Ms. Barbara Salzman, representing Marin Audubon Society, agreed with Mrs. Starkweather, and was pleased to see the density was reduced, hoping for a new buffer zone. She indicated they are not pleased with the buffer zone, stating the width can be evaluated, and mentioned the ownership of the properties that go down into the lagoon and include the buffer zone. Ms. Elizabeth Sarah Youna, 18 Falmouth Cove, spoke against the project, and again mentioned the owner/occupied units vs. rental units, stating they were not told about the rental units, the environment was not being looked at closely, the density and spoke in favor of housing for owner/occupied units. Mr. Ralph Crocker, resident at Spinnaker Point, spoke on home ownership and urged Council to have the project further reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Lynn Davis, Owner/Resident of Bahia De Rafael since 1977, was concerned about the rental units and crimes related to the density of such units, stating she was opposed to the project. PEOPLE OPPOSING THE APPEAL Mr. Dennis Horne, co -developer of Spinnaker on the Bay project, stated the plan was rezoned to medium density, and mentioned that the Marin Independent Journal has printed articles on this project as a part of the Priority Plan Process (PPP), stating 247 units, 40 of which would be rental units, and noting months of PPP hearings have been held. He also indicated he gave Mr. Bob Hoffmann a copy of the plan about four months ago to circulate in the neighborhood, which he did, and held a meeting in his office with two members of the Spinnaker Point Homeowners' Association. Mr. Horne noted at one particular meeting, he took the colored renderings and members of the Spinnaker Point Homeowners' Association declined to hear him. Mr. Horne stated the original floor plan was designed for a rental unit from its conception, stating that the Planning Department at that time agreed that the City needed rental units. He noted both he and Mr. Sidney Hendricks, co-owner, intend to build the project, own it and will maintain it under the auspices of the Marin County Housing Authority. Councilmember Frugoli asked what the rental rates would be, and Mr. Johnston responded, the rates would equate to gross income, i.e., in 1987 dollars, the rates would equate to a 2 -person household earning $16,000 to $25,000 or from $25,000 to $31,000 for the larger households, and the range would be from $333 to $520, based on 25 percent. At 33 percent of gross income, depending on the rental agreement and BMR agreement to be approved by the City, rents could be as high as $440 to $875 per month. Mr. Ralvh Trefinger, Designer of project, cleared up some concerns by stating there never has been any access proposed from their project to Playa Del Rey and none is proposed now. He said there is a grade separation; the levee now is three feet higher than Playa del Rey and that will be reinforced with fences and landscaping will be pro- vided to make sure there is no movement back and forth. They are SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 4/17/89 Page 16 providing the precise number of parking spaces per Code and do not see a parking problem; Decision to go to rental units was the direct response from input from the City; At least seven separate hearings have been held where the question of rental units came up, the PPP hearings, Design Review Board meetings, meetings with the staff and neighborhood and it has been common knowledge for the last six months what was being proposed. He noted clustering of the rental units makes sense and will be properly managed and maintained and will become an asset to the community. Mr. Bob Hoffmann, commended the developer on this project, stating he has been involved with this project since 1982 when it got started and is pleased with the project. He referred to the question of the noticing issue and stated in September, 1988, the developer approached him with a copy of the project showing the number of units and what was planned. Mr. Hoffmann stated he handed copies out to some of the people in Spinnaker, who, to a certain extent, showed some interest. Mr. Hoffmann stated he was pleased to see that some rental was being offered, explaining that what goes on with affordability of units is that control is lost. The developer is saying they will own and operate the rental units at an affordable level. Mr. Hoffmann commented on some of the speakers who say they represent Spinnaker Point, noting he at one time was President of the Spinnaker Point Homeowners' Association, and stated last year the community had some conflicts. He indicated the developer attempted to have meetings with the Association who did not accommodate him. Mr. Hoffmann also commented on the clustering of units versus disbursed, stating they have to accept that decision, and stated he felt the property would be properly maintained. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Boro asked that the Planning Director take note of the comments regarding noticing procedures. He stated last week he and Councilmember Breiner attended a Below Market Rate meeting at the San Rafael Commons, which is a below market rate rental unit and has 87 units to the acre. He indicated it is one of the best and well maintained buildings in San Rafael, stating the key to that is the control of that facility. He asked that one of the conditions be that the Applicant come back to Council with a plan to administer the rental units. Mr. Johnston pointed out that the next item on the agenda which is the Zoning item has a specific condition (i-2) "Prior to issuance of building permits, an affordable housing package agreement shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by the City Council", mentioning this will be a 40 year program. Also, "The plan shall provide for management of the program by a suitable entity, such as the County Housing Authority, Ecumenical Association for Housing, or the City Redevelopment Agency." Councilmember Boro stated there is a conflict of what was just read by Mr. Johnston and what the developers state as to who would be maintaining the facility, noting that in this instance, the developers will be maintaining the project. Councilmember Thayer agreed with Councilmember Boro, indicating there is a bifurcation between Bahia de Rafael Homeowners' property and this project. Mr. Johnston responded the Planning Commission condition says basically that a low fence and hedge row will be in place and subject to Planning Commission review. Councilmember Breiner pointed out that there will be 87 single family units and of the 40 rental units, only 24 will be below market rate and not necessarily subsidized. She noted the Housing Authority is a well established group that screens applicants for below market rate housing. Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to deny the appeal. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 4/17/89 Page 17 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 17. b) ED88-101, TS88-4; APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN REVIEW CONDITION (tt). AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CONDITIONS (a5), (k2), (r) AND (s) AS ADOPTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A 111 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT KNOWN AS PHASE I OF SPINNAKER ON THE BAY; CATALINA AND BELLAM BOULEVARDS; SIDNEY J. HENDRICKS, OWNER/APPELLANT Principal Planner Johnston stated there are five conditions being appealed. The first, Condition (tt), requires that prior to issuance of building permits, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans be reviewed and approved by environmental groups and approved by the Planning Commission. He stated it is typical that this would be a staff function, noting in this instance, because of the significance of the environmental issues and the number of groups that felt they needed to be consulted, the condition was revised by the Commission so that it actually gives them the approval authority which would occur with the Lagoon Management Plan. The Commission will see the Lagoon Management Plan and Landscape Plan before recordation. For clarification, Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Johnston if this condition requires approval by the environmental groups or just having discus- sion held, and Mr. Johnston responded it is for review and consultation with approval done by the Planning Commission. He indicated that generally, the landscape plan is approved by staff and then the whole package with the final map is presented to the Planning Commission and City Council. Condition (a)(5) requires that prior to construction, necessary permits from all other agencies be obtained. This is a situation where staff agrees there can be modification to the conditions. The situation and developer's concern are that through their review and approval process, BCDC could actually stall the City's issuance of the building permit. He noted as amended by staff, the condition would state that necessary permits from all other agencies, except those necessary for installation of improvements as required by the Shoreline Park Master Plan, shall be obtained prior to issuance of building permit. He noted the City has not as yet approved the Shoreline Park Master Plan and staff feels this is a reasonable correction. Regarding Condition (k)(2), tentative map requires improvement of the Shoreline Park to full Master Plan improvements. This is a case where the General Plan is very specific and a number of policies listed in the report; Recreation -14, Canal Bayfront Policy -4, Canal and Bayfront Policy -12 and Canal Bayfront Implementation Measure -G state. in part "Require dedication and improvement of shoreline band as a condition of development approval". Staff feels very clearly that the General Plan has established the requirement for full improve- ment. He noted the way the Condition is worded basically states when the Master Plan is approved, final determination of what the exact improvements are would be determined. Applicant feels that is too broad, but staff has a draft which includes items such as the asphalt path, landscaping, benches and trash recepticles. Conditon (r) is a significant item of request that parkland dedication fees be waived. He referred to Ordinance adopted by Council in January, which provides specific formulas for on-site private recreation faci- lities; it requires that if any credit is to be given, it be given for specific apparatus and that they meet certain minimum size require- ments. Mr. Johnston stated the total would have to be one acre, noting this project only has a total of one-half acre and therefore does not meet the on-site requirement for credit. Mr. Johnston referred to off-site credit and stated this is a case where staff had to refer to the City Attorney's office and information they have is that the condition is defensible and reasonable. He indicated that staff is recommending that this condition not be amended. Condition (s) requires dedication of 30 feet along the southerly project boundary. Mr. Johnston stated staff feels this is necessary because there is an area where development is actually occurring. He stated the condition would require a 30 foot dedication from the shoreline park through the project and down along the southside of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 4/17/89 Page 18 the project and connecting to Bellam Boulevard. He noted there may be a temporary situation where the trail follows the existing levee, but stated there is provision for temporary access. Staff feels this is critical because the only way to gain access to the shoreline park from this project is by direct access. Councilmember Breiner referred to the 7 foot floor elevation settlement and asked if this was consistent with the General Plan, and Public Works Director Bernardi responded the General Plan does not set a specific finished floor elevation for this site. He stated the Draft Neighborhood Plan has a recommended finished floor elevation of plus 7 mean sea level datum after 30 years settlement. He noted the entire Spinnaker Point project was designed to be protected by a system of levees completely around the project which is still in place. The existing structures' finished floors are at elevation plus 6 after 30 years settlement. Councilmember Breiner referred to the lagoon issue and stated it seemed appropriate that if there are major conflicts about the Lagoon Management Plan, those recommendations passed by the Planning Commis- sion should automatically come up to the Council for review in terms of the environmental issue. Mr. Johnson agreed, noting it would be with the final map review process. Councilmember Breiner asked what the developers are required to do regarding construction, and Mr. Bernardi responded that the requirement for the construction was the finished floor had to be at elevation plus 6 after 30 years settlement; so added to the finished floor elevation was the amount of predicted settlement based on the soil characteristics that are present on the site. He noted when the build- ings were built, they were built at about 8.5 approximately so predicted settlement was about 212 feet. He stated the buildings were designed on a specific grid stiff foundation so the effects of differential settlement would be minimized, noting the developers have an obligation to be sure all the floors remain level. Councilmember Breiner referred to page 14 (i) under Land Use Affordable Housing Element, and stated the words, "City Redevelopment Agency" should not be a part of this and should be deleted. She stated inclu- sion of a suitable management program should be inserted in another part of the condition for all the rental units to be in place and that a resident manager should be on-site. Mayor Mulryan responded this item will be coming back to Council and noted he was not certain if a resident manager should be on-site at this point, but felt it to be a reasonable plan. Mr. Johnston stated when Council reviews the plan, they might have this option. Councilmember Boro suggested wording such as, "Plans shall provide for overall management of the site, and specifically, a program for the below market rate." City Manager Nicolai stated it might be worth talking with the Housing Authority and San Rafael Commons, noting it might not be whether it is a resident or non-resident manager that makes the difference, but who is managing it. She noted this would be looked into before settling into an agreement. APPELLANT Mr. Carl Trefinqer, Designer of the project responded to Councilmember Breiner's comments on the finished floor elevation, stating they will be setting the floor elevations in excess of 7 feet. He referred to the management issue and stated they have no problem with setting up an overall management program as well as a program on the moderate income rental units and would be considering a respon- sible organization like the Ecumenical Association for Housing. He stated there will be a water management program available at Shore- line Band Park, noting public hearings are being held with neighborhood groups. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 4/17/89 Page 19 Regarding staff's conditions - Mr. Trefinger referred to review of detailed landscaping irrigation plans, noting it is their opinion that there has been enough environmental review by a number of different groups and that it would be sufficient to work with staff as opposed to running all those through the Planning Commission. Condition (a)(5) - They understand that while they need permits from agencies, they are not to have permits from agencies such as BCDC or Corps of Engineers; he noted under the PPP processing they are obligated to proceed quickly and get the whole process completed within a year. He indicated they have already covered Condition (3) on the improvements to the shoreline plan and will proceed quickly when they know what the requirements are. Regarding Condition (r), payment of the parks and recreation fee - He stated he would have Mr. Peter Brekus speak to this, noting they were already providing the shoreline band, wetlands and lagoon. Condition (s), dedication of a 30 foot band - Mr. Trefinger stated they are strongly opposed to this, but willing to provide access to the shoreline band, and easements, but to dedicate a 30 foot band seems to be too much. Mr. Peter Breckus spoke to the fees and stated the staff report suggests that the Council and City only look at the on-site with only .53 acres devoted to recreational and other uses, and therefore under the City's Ordinance there should not be any credit. He stated it is only fair to point out that of this total site of 74 acres, 45 have been given over to whatever the City wants to call it which is calculated at $1 million plus in contribution, and noted in the basic sense of fairness that this project and applicant have given a substantial amount of property and money for recreational and open space or ecological uses. He did not feel this dedication fee as recommended by the staff is appropriate. Mr. Trefinqer stated they would have no objection in making the 30 foot dedication when the second phase is approved. Mr. John Stuber, from Stuber/Stroeh Engineers, spoke to the elevation issue stating this area is unique and not directly related to the tidal action. The pond and pumps control the elevations within this zone and is self -enclosed and they want to be able to design the best project based on the conditions that exist; it may be elevation 7 feet or more or it may be 6 feet, depending on the amount of settle- ment that would occur. Councilmember Breiner stated 7 feet should be required as mean sea level. Mr. Roger Snell, who spoke earlier against the project, referred to the $200,000 fee, noting it can be reversed for some parties and not for others. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to deny the appeal on Condition (tt) and add a condition that if there are conflicts regarding the Lagoon Management, that would come to Council automatically for review. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to support the staff's modified position on Condition (a)(5). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner-, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Frugoli stated when the whole project goes through, at that time Council could demand that the developers be required SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 4/17/89 Page 20 to do their share on the shoreline band and maybe post a bond to insure that this is done. Mr. Johnston stated the shoreline improvements would have to be one of the bonded subdivision improvements. He noted if they are that far down the road without an approved master plan, it might be diffi- cult to bond and the Public Works Department will have to make a determination as to what the appropriate amount would have to be. He indicated the bonds are usually approved for two years, noting even after construction commenced the City would still have bonds to guarantee that they would be completed. If after two years they still do not have the master plan approved, and BCDC has approved it, the agreements can be extended. He concluded the condition as approved by the Planning Commission, as modified, will handle the situation. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to deny the appeal, as modified. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Condition (r). Councilmember Breiner felt the amount of $202,027.06 is too much on top of the shoreline park improvements. City Attorney Ragghianti stated, when he spoke to Planning Director Pendoley on this subject, it was quite clear that the Parkland Dedi- cation Ordinance does not speak to this issue; it does not require that the City grant any off-site credit for public improvements. He noted they believe this is a policy determination that Council should make on the basis of this particular development project. He stated they have had occasion in San Rafael to impose parkland in -lieu fees only infrequently prior to the adoption to its Ordinance. He stated there is no legal requirement that Council do so, but noted he and the Planning Director are of the opinion that this is a policy issue to be addressed based on this project. Planning Director Pendoley stated the General Plan has more than adequate basis if Council choses to follow the staff's recommendation and Planning Commission's determination to collect the full fee as well as to require the improvements to the shoreline band. The General Plan is quite specific that projects in the area should dedicate the shoreline band as well as the improvements to the band and in reflecting the basis for the Park Dedication Ordinance, include the requirement that this project dedicate fees toward the construction of a neighborhood park, different from the shoreline band, which would be off-site. He stated, how Council interprets those policies as they apply to this project are a matter of policy, and suggested it would be equitable to require the full fee since BCDC and the Corps of Engineers are going to require that the shoreline band be set aside and enhanced anyway, so that the City would be looking to a provision of a neighborhood park. Councilmember Boro stated they recently passed the Parkland Ordinance, noting if they are serious about it, the intent was to create a fund to create parks in the community. Also, Council should be consistent and fair with everyone in the community rather than grant an exception, noting the fee could be used not only to build parks but to maintain them as well. Councilmember Thayer agreed. After further discussion, Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, that in view of the unique nature of the project and various other amenities dedicated, that the fee be extracted only to the extent of 50 percent ($101,000). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro & Thayer ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None After discussion, Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to deny the appeal for Condition (s) - Tentative Map and that dedication be required. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 4/17/89 Page 21 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 18. PUBLIC HEARING - Z88-4: REZONING FROM P -D to P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 1515 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPINNAKER ON THE BAY); CATALINA & BELLAM BLVDS.; SIDNEY J. HENDRICKS & DENNIS HORNE, OWNERS & REPS.; AP 9-100-01, 04 & 05, 9-142-13, 24, 26 & 53, 9-010-17 & 21 (Pl) - File 5-1-292 x 10-3 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Principal Planner Johnston pointed out, as approved by the Planning Commission, Standard (a) actually set up 15 units per acre on the project which is consistent with the General Plan, however, he stated staff felt it should be more specific and called out the 247 units which is about 8.4 units per acre. Staff recommended amending (i)-2 (Affordable Housing package) and (j)-1 (Parks Fee), for clarification to the Ordinance. There being no comments from the public, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 7949 - CERTIFYING NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 1515 MODIFYING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (P -D) ZONING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPINNAKER ON THE BAY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT - BELLAM AND CATALINA BOULE- VARDS (AP 9-100-01, 04, 05;.9-142-13, 24, 26, 53; 9-010-17, 21) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPINNAKER ON THE BAY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 1515 ADOPTED BY REFERENCE, BY SECTION 14.15.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM P -C (PLANNED COMMUNITY) TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT SO THAT EXHIBIT "A" REFLECTS CURRENT GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, MODIFICATIONS TO THE SPINNAKER ON THE BAY PROJECT RESULTING FROM SUCH POLICIES, AND MODIFICATIONS REVISING PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES" (With Changes to (i)-2 and (j)-1) Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1562 to print as amended, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE.NO. 1561 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 15 (SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE) OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO SLOPE PROVISIONS (Pl) - File 10-3 x 10-6 The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SECTIONS 15.34.010, 15.34.020 AND 15.34.030 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO PRECLUDE CREATION OF NEW LOTS FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH HAVE A PERCENT OF SLOPE OVER 40a, AND TO ASSURE ADEQUATE ON-SITE PARKING" Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense with the reading, to refer to it by title only, and adopt Charter Ordinance No. 1561 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 4/17/89 Page 22 20. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON APRIL 3, 1989 GRANTING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED 110,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AT THE CIVIC CENTER AND REQUIRING A FOCUSED EIR FOR THE SITE; MCINNIS PARKWAY; H & H MANAGEMENT, OWNER; J. SHEKOU/M. ARDALAN, REPRESENTATIVES; APPELLANTS: MARIN AUDUBON SOCIETY (BARBARA SALZMAN), MARIN CONSERVATION LEAGUE (CHIP WRAY), TERRA LINDA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (MARY CONTE) AND MONT MARIN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (JOHN ROJAS) (P1) - File 10-5 Mayor Mulryan stated this item was not for public discussion, but rather for Council determination relating to Councilmember Thayer's request that this item be reconsidered. He noted that she suggested that because of the late hour and one of the conditions which was the Focused EIR requirement, the item should be reconsidered. Councilmember Thayer stated her reasons had little to do with environ- mental concerns although there are environmental implications. She noted she has voted favorably on environmental proposals and is not doing this particularly lightly. However, she stated at the meeting when this project was presented to Council, that it was not heard until past 11:00 PM with four presentations against this project and that very little was said by the Council and staff with regard to the actual subject matter of the appeal which basically had to do with the environmental concerns. She stated when they heard the appeal, most of the discussion by Council centered around whether they should go through a bifurcated process separating Use and Negative Declaration issues from the environmental and design issues. Another point discussed was whether Council wished to consider both the office and hotel projects together at that point and time; no one suggested a continuance. She did not believe Council gave any rationale what- soever on environmental grounds for the decision reached; she felt this to be important stating the hotel project, which is continguous to the office project, received a Negative Declaration. Also, she mentioned the Lagoon project in the area which received a Negative Declaration some time ago and yet this project did not receive one. She stated it is not a popular project, but indicated these are design issues. Environmentally, about 9 points were brought up by the appel- lants that night, and some contained far reaching issues for the area and therefore, should be considered once again by the Council so they can delineate its reasons with specificity as to why or why not it is Certifying a Negative Declaration, noting this will impact upon other projects in the area and that she felt the decision was reached hastily. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to reconsider City Council's action of April 3, 1989, regarding the Proposed 110,000 Square Foot Office Building at the Civic Center. Under discussion, Councilmember Boro disagreed with Councilmember Thayer, stating he listened to the tapes on this item and noted there was rebuttal from Attorney Cecelia Bridges on the points made by the appellants before he made his motion, and indicated if someone had reservations on it, they should have spoken up at that time. He stated the issues were heard, noting the Use Permit on the hotel project has been approved and the Negative Declaration certified. Mayor Mulryan stated he would vote with the motion, noting in his judgment, it was the imposition on Council's part of a Focused EIR, which is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of the adjacent drainageway and is also inconsistent with Council's action on the hotel. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None After further discussion, Councilmember Frugoli moved and Mayor Mulryan seconded, to have this item heard as the first public hearing on May 1, 1989. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 23 21. RESOLUTON OF APPRECIATION FOR JOHN CHILDRESS, YOUTH SERVICES OFFICER, POLICE DEPARTMENT, 1989 EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR (CM) - File 102 x 9-3-30 Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt Resolution of Appreciation for John Childress, praising his accomplishments. RESOLUTION NO. 7950 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR JOHN CHILDRESS, YOUTH SERVICES OFFICER, POLICE DEPARTMENT, 1989 EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 A.M. JEANNE �A. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1989 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/89 Page 23