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