HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1988-02-16SRCC MINUTES (Regular 2/16/88 Page 1
IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16,
1988 AT 7:00 PM.
Regular Meeting
CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION - File 1.4.1.a
1. No. 88-4(a) - (#7).
No reportable action was taken.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16,
1988 AT 8:00 PM.
Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor
Albert J. Boro, Councilmember
Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember
Joan Thayer, Councilmember
Absent: Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember
Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City
Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM
RE: FEE FOR CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE SYNOPSIS AND TITLE FOR ANY PROPOSED
INITIATIVE MEASURE - File 9-10-2 x 9-3-16
Mr. Fielding Greaves, resident at 20 Eucalyptus Lane, San Rafael, spoke
on behalf of the Marin United Taxpayers Association, asking that Council
place an item they have already voted on, "$100 Fee for Synopsis and Title
of an Initiative Measure", on a future agenda for reconsideration to change
the amount to $0.
Mayor Mulryan asked if any Councilmembers wished to have this item brought
back on a future agenda.
Councilmember Thayer moved for the item to be brought back at a future Council
meeting and that the amount be reduced to $0.
Motion died for lack of a second.
RE: NEWSPAPER RACKS - File 2-11 x 9-3-16 x (SRRA) R-125
Mr. Michael D. Imfeld, spoke on behalf of the Marin Action Coalition Re:
AB2093, prohibiting vending machine pornography in places where it is exposed
to minors and asked Council to have an Ordinance passed restricting the
display of pornography.
Mayor Mulryan stated this matter was recently before the Council, who directed
staff to draft an Ordinance for their review. Staff was directed to review
AB2093.
RE: NUCLEAR FREEZE - File 9-1
Col. Walter Filler asked Council to have the subject of opposition to the
Nuclear Freeze placed on a future agenda.
Mayor Mulryan informed Col. Filler that San Rafael has not been declared
a Nuclear Free Zone, indicating only the County of Marin has and that it
does not affect San Rafael.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to approve
the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items:
Item
Recommended Action
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Approved as submitted.
Meeting of January 19, 1988 (CC)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/88 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regula 2/16/88 Page 2
4. Resolution Authorizing Execution RESOLUTION NO. 7679 - AUTHORIZING
of Agreement with Pacific Gas & THE SIGNING OF A COMMON USE
Electric Company for Gas AGREEMENT WITH PG&E FOR SILVEIRA
Facilities in Silveira Parkway PARKWAY
(PW) - File 4-4-7
5. Approval of Five -Year Federal
Aid Urban (FAU) Funds Program
(PW) - File 4-10-66
RESOLUTION NO. 7680 - APPROVING
THE FIVE-YEAR FEDERAL AID URBAN
PROGRAM COMMENCING FY 1988/89
RECOMMENDED BY THE MARIN COUNTY
URBAN SYSTEM COMMITTEE
6. Extension
of Contracts for
RESOLUTION
NO. 7681 - AUTHORIZING
Consultant
Planning Services
THE EXTENSION
OF CONSULTANT
with Bryan
& Murphy and Forsher
AGREEMENTS
(6 months extension
& Guthrie
(Pl) - File 4-3-185
with Bryan
& Murphy and Forsher
& Guthrie)
7. Approval of
Memorandum of Under-
RESOLUTION
NO. 7682 - PERTAINING
standing (MOU)
with Mape, Child
TO THE COMPENSATION
AND WORKING
Care Unit
(CM) - File 7-8-4
CONDITIONS
FOR CHILD CARE PROGRAM
PERSONNEL
(between the City and
MAPE, Child
Care Unit, 2 -year
Agreement)
9. Resolution Authorizing Staff to
Waive Competitive Bidding
Procedures and Authorizing
Purchase of Five (5) Police
Vehicles (PD) - File 4-2-222
12. Legislation Affecting San Rafael
(CM) - File 9-1
RESOLUTION NO. 7683 - AUTHORIZING
STAFF TO WAIVE COMPETITIVE
BIDDING PROCESS AND AUTHORIZING
THE PURCHASE OF FIVE POLICE
VEHICLES THROUGH STEVE SNYDER
CHEVROLET (lowest responsible
bid - total cost of $66,162.20)
Approved staff recommendation,
to support Federal Legislation
proposed by the National League
of Cities prohibiting the Internal
Revenue Service from taxing accrued
vacation, sick leave, and compen-
satory time in the year that it
is earned, rather than the year
it is used.
13. Claims for Damages: Approved City Attorney's
a. Robert Neville (PW) - recommendations for denial of
Claim No. 3-1-1302 claims a & b.
b. Stephen M. Boyle (PD) -
Claim No. 3-1-1306
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli
3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF SHEEP GRAZING AGREEMENT
(PW) - File 4-10-212
Councilmember Breiner stated in conversation with Mrs. Jean Starkweather,
concerns have arisen of soil slippage caused by sheep overgrazing on
some slopes.
Public Works Director Bernardi stated that the County's Agricultural
Commissioner reviewed these areas with staff. He indicated there were
some areas staff was concerned about in this last inspection regarding
some overgrazing, but it was found to be in an area where the sheep
was corralled for the night. The concern was whether the seeds would
germinate after the sheep left the area, and they did. He indicated
that some sheep grazing could cause some slippage, but noted the land
also slips due to its natural incline, adding that the present shepherd
is doing a better job than the previous one.
A suggestion made to Councilmember Thayer from a concerned citizen,
was that the sheep should be kept away from the ridges and woods; also
that the shepherd who tended the flock last year did not do this. The
sheep should be allowed to graze behind the houses on the lower portion
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/88 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regula-' 2/16/88 Page 3
of the slope as a fire break, and should go to pasture later in the
year just before getting into the fire hazard season; also, they should
be monitored.
Mrs. Jean Starkweather, resident of Terra Linda, disagreed with Mr.
Bernardi stating that last year's grazing of the ridges at Terra Linda
was a disaster. She stated recommendations made to staff are as follows:
1) That the sheep be grazed behind the houses since the purpose for
having sheep is to lessen fire danger to buildings. 2) That the sheep
not graze on the ridges noting if the ridges and grassland burned,
although it would not look good the grass would return. She stated the
shepherd did exactly the opposite of what was agreed to, and as a result
the earth was pulverized and the plants there now are not the same plants
that were there before. Mrs. Starkweather recommended that Council
initiate a management plan for the open space area.
Mayor Mulryan directed staff to meet with Mrs. Starkweather and the
County. Agricultural Commissioner to review neighborhood concerns, and
to bring the item back to Council at the meeting of March 7, 1988.
Mrs. Connie Berto, resident of Sleepy Hollow for 30 years, stated she
agreed totally with Mrs. Starkweather, and submitted a letter she wrote
to Mr. Don Dimitratos, Director with the Marin County Parks and Recreation
Department dated July 21, 1987 regarding the damage done by sheep grazing.
Councilmember Boro suggested that staff look at the amount of time the
sheep would be in a specific area, including the size of the flock.
8. ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT WITH MOORE, IACOFANO, GOLTSMAN RE GENERAL PLAN
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP ON MARCH 5, 1988 (Pl) - File 4-3-161 x 115
Councilmember Thayer stated that although she agreed that Consultants
Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman have helped with the General Plan, she questioned
what this firm was doing that City's staff could do.
Planning Director Moore stated one benefit accrued from the original
workshops was that these consultants are a third party and have no vested
interest in the Plan. She noted while staff does not necessarily view
itself as advocates, some members of the public do and this does have
an affect on the nature of communications and comments. She stated that
the firm is particularly adept at facilitating various constructive
and positive discussions including breaking down into small groups,
reporting of meetings, and that they were extremely effective in the
workshops which were held in the Spring of 1986.
Councilmember Thayer stated while running for Council, there was a tremen-
dous amount of community input regarding costs of the General Plan.
She looked at this cost carefully and found that this particular firm
has done reports which have not been utilized by the City.
Ms. Moore responded she knew of no report by Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman
that has not been used.
Councilmember Boro interjected that this firm had put together a slide
show which was used at a Planning Commission meeting as well as some
of the neighborhood meetings which showed results of the survey taken.
He also felt that in the upcoming meeting scheduled for March 5, 1988,
there will be many interested people who could use some professional
facilitation. He indicated Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman is effective and
for the amount of money they are paid they do "deliver".
RESOLUTION NO. 7684 - ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT OF MOORE,
IACOFANO, GOLTSMAN (hereinafter, Consultant)
EXHIBIT F (to facilitate General Plan Community
Workshop Saturday, March 5, 1988 at Terra Linda
High School Cafeteria, 9:00 AM to Noon, cost $2,315).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli
10. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS RE DETERMINATION THAT 1301-1311 FOURTH
STREET IS A DANGEROUS BUILDING AND ORDER FOR REPAIR/DEMOLITION
(CA) - File 3-3-44
Public Works Director Bernardi stated all of the timetables still need
to be met with the critical timetable being the 30 -day period in which
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/88 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regula_ 2/16/88 Page 4
the owners are to submit plans to the Planning Department for process-
ing for the reconstruction of the building.
RESOLUTION NO. 7685 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN RAFAEL, SITTING AS THE BOARD OF APPEALS, PURSUANT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM CODE FOR ABATEMENT
OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, DECLARING THE REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1301-1311 FOURTH STREET, AP 11-253-10,
A DANGEROUS BUILDING AND ORDERING ITS IMMEDIATE
REPAIR OR DEMOLITION
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli
11. RECOMMENDATION FOR DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AT 1313 FIFTH AVENUE
(BLUE HOUSE AND PARKING LOT) (RA) - File SRCC 2-7 x R-245
Councilmember Boro asked if the funds from the sale to the Redevelopment
Agency would be kept in a separate account and if it would be used for
items as specified from this account, and City Manager Nicolai answered
affirmatively. She stated some of the monies would be used to purchase
a portable to be placed in back of the Blue House for the Purchasing
Department while some minor repairs are being done on the property.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to approve
the staff recommendation and that in accordance with City Resolution
5734 entitled, "A Resolution of the City of San Rafael Establishing
a Policy for the Sale of Surplus Land", refer the proposed sale along
with a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission for its review,
recommendation and its determination as to the conformity with the General
Plan.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli
14. PUBLIC HEARING - UP87-47; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF A 718 SQUARE FOOT SECOND DWELLING UNIT IN AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE; 42 SEAWAY; MARGARET MCAVOY, OWNER: JOHN W. ROSENBERG
FOR MARINA VISTA IMPROVEMENT CLUB, APPELLANT; AP 9-042-12 (Pl) - File
10-5
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Moore stated that the Planning Commission conditionally
approved the second dwelling unit Use Permit on January 12, 1988, and
after discussion of points brought up by the Appellants, the Marina
Vista Improvement Club, the appeal has five major objections, including
the Improvement Club's contention that their CC&Rs (Conditions, Covenants
and Restrictions) prohibit such a use in the area. Staff did consult
with City Attorney Ragghianti prior to the Planning Commission's consider-
ation of this matter for their final decision, and was advised that
the City is not bound by such private covenants. She indicated that
other objections concerned traffic, parking, noise and property values.
Ms. Moore indicated the proposed second dwelling unit meets all require-
ments of the City's Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance. She noted for example,
four spaces would be provided rather than three as required by the Ordi-
nance. Ms. Moore stated that the proposal would result in no changes
to the external design and no modifications to the interior in terms
of converting current non -living space to living space. The dwelling
currently functions as a dwelling for the Applicant, her son and his
family and they propose no significant change to that living arrangement.
Ms. Moore stated that the perceived loss of property value is what the
Planning Commission and City Council heard at the time the original
Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance was being reviewed, stating it has come
up typically at the time the first second dwelling unit application
was being considered in a given neighborhood, which is the case in this
instance.
She indicated that the Planning Commission found there were no reasons
brought forth to have findings made where there would be adverse affects
to public health, safety and general welfare, and that the only question
before the Planning Commission is essentially a civil one, which was
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/88 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regula 2/16/88 Page 5
the status of the CC&Rs which the City is not a party and is not bound
by them.
John Rosenberg, Attorney representing Marina Vista Improvement Club,
stated that over 80 percent of the people who own lots in the subdivision
are against this proposal, and that there would be a change in the character
of their community as a result of this. He indicated that as early as
1946, when the CC&Rs were recorded, before the lots were broken up and
sold to the public, some people bought their property then and since,
and said all of them knew without a doubt that the property was restricted
to single family dwellings, indicating there now is an application to
change the character of the community. Under the current Ordinance,
Mr. Rosenberg stated there is a requirement of owner occupancy at the
time that the first rental unit is rented; however, he pointed out that
the Single Family Residential District Ordinance under which the applica-
tion is made, contains a "kicker" that states, "On subsequent application,
when the owner has to move away because he is ill or because there is
a change in employment, that requirement of owner -occupancy can be relieved
by city action". Therefore, he indicated it is possible, although one
might condone an owner -occupied situation, stating he understood that
in this situation the person is quite elderly and it is possible that
in the short future, he or someone else will be back in order to change
the character of the property to probably a duplex use. He reasoned
that at that point either by Ordinance or further Use Permit application,
they can modify any conditional approvals by permitting the non -owner
occupancy aspect to be relieved and felt this to be more important and
serious to the community.
Mr. Rosenberg referred to his appeal letter and petitions on file stating
there is no question that anytime additional units are permitted there
is an intensification of use which is unique in this case because most
of the lots in the subdivision have water frontage with no baffles or
screenings of foliage to prevent or soften the noise factor.
He agreed with City Attorney Ragghianti that the CC&Rs are private docu-
ments and the City is not a party to them, but stated the Homeowners'
Association has the right to force those obligations, indicating they
are here to ask the City Council not to force them to go to court, which
they will do, because they cannot allow their CC&Rs to be violated.
Mr. Rosenberg indicated the City would have to then be a party in those
proceedings if done, and they would have to take steps to enjoin the
issuance of Building and Use Permits. Another question may also be there
by City's Planning staff directing that there be a recordation of a
Use Permit which may remove the City from its discretionary immunity
it might otherwise have had.
He indicated that they would prefer avoiding litigation and the expense
the homeowner would be exposed to as well as the Homeowners' Association.
There is significant public concern to warrant sustaining the appeal,
stating they believe the noise problems and intensification of the use
are detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Also, that this is a one-way street with no exit. He indicated anytime
there are rental units on properties there could be an increase in on-stree,
parking, adding there already are problems with regard to the small
18 feet of paved surface for the passage of emergency vehicles.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that the Planning Department indicated they had
never had such an application before when it ran foul of the recorded
CC&Rs, indicating this is a different situation from the typical second
unit dwelling application, and noting this happens to be the first.
In response to Mayor Mulryan's inquiry as to what degree the City should
help the enforcement of CC&Rs and is there any legal basis for granting
this appeal, City Attorney Ragghianti responded that if it is found
that it meets all of the provisions of the Second Unit Ordinance, he
would be suspect that there would be any legal basis on which to deny
it. He also stated that the arguments made by Mr. Rosenberg are good
arguments in the sense of the private deed restrictions that encumber
the property, but noting it is important from a legal perspective that
the City of San Rafael specifically is not a party to these private
deed restrictions. He indicated if the City were to require certain
conditions of approval as it has in certain subdivisions, we would lobby
those particular conditions, but would still not be parties to the restric-
tions which encumber the property. He also stated that in his opinion,
the whole statutory scheme that is set forth in the Government Code
that deals with second dwelling units, envisions that public entities
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/88 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regula; 2/16/88 Pgae 6
throughout the State of California will encourage the location of these
units and that the purpose of the legislation was to give cities an
opportunity to adopt Second Unit Ordinances or to suffer "imposition"
of the Second Unit Ordinance drafted by the legislature.
Therefore, Mr. Ragghianti stated he believed that the City is immune
from any exposure to liability in connection with the issuance of this
Use Permit, and he does not believe that they have any legal obligation
to enforce private deed restrictions. He indicated it is clear from
the record, that the Appellants intend to litigate this matter, and
that Mr. Rosenberg is aware that if he chooses to do so and name the
City, that the real party in interest is Mrs. McAvoy who will bear the
burden of defending this matter. Mr. Ragghianti suggested to Council
that they not become involved in this matter, stating it is a private
matter and if this was the only basis upon which the Appellant took
exception to the granting of a use Permit legally, it is insufficient.
Councilmember Thayer stated she realized that the City is not a party
to the CC&Rs. She asked, however, if the converse to an extent could
be argued regarding the Ordinance, which she stated is mandated to a
certain degree by State law, would preempt such CC&Rs to keep an owner
from complying.
Mr. Ragghianti stated he could not give a definitive answer, indicating
he felt an argument can be made that it was the intent of the legislature
to permit the location of second dwelling units in order to respond
to what the legislature perceived as a crucial Statewide shortage of
available housing. He stated he does not know the answer because he
was not familiar with the case that posed the particular issue.
Councilmember Breiner commented that there are some places in the Second
Dwelling Unit Ordinance that she felt should be strengthened and hoped
that after the General Plan is adopted that this will be reviewed. She
added as long as the State has mandated that a vehicle be created by
which they can approve these with certain given conditions, that if
those conditions are met in general, then the Council should not exempt
any existing neighborhood from them because the impact would then fall
more heavily on the other neighborhoods. For this reason, Councilmember
Breiner indicated she would be in favor of the second unit in this par-
ticular location, noting that Council and the Planning Commission should
consider, even though it is not included in the Ordinance, if there
are second units in the area, how many, and if there is a cumulative
impact; also,if there is adequate parking, is it tandem parking?
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Boro agreed with Councilmember Breiner, noting there is
need for additional housing in the City and that he had supported this
process since its inception because of the requirement for residency
on the site. He also indicated in the proposed General Plan that was
before the Planning Commission, there was a proposal to withdraw this
requirement but it is still in the Plan coming forward; but indicating
if this Council feels that the process should be tightened up in the
future regarding any property sold as a second unit, he would be willing
to do that because it is critical that the requirement always remains
with one of the units being lived in by the owner.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to deny
the appeal and uphold Planning Commission's conditional approval of
a 718 square foot second dwelling unit at 42 Seaway, and directed staff
to prepare a Resolution of Denial and bring it back to Council for adop-
tion at the meeting of March 7, 1988.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Boro, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli
Mayor Mulryan stated Council has no legal basis to do what was asked
by the Appellant, but indicated that one of the things to consider in
the future, is whether or not CC&Rs should be one of the elements that
Council considers in an application, whether or not that in itself raises
a question of disharmony in the area.
City Attorney Ragghianti responded that would be appropriate and is
a matter uniquely within the legislative function of the Council as
it is a policy matter.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/88 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 2/16/88 Page 7
15. STATUS REPORT ON SAN QUENTIN DISPOSAL SITE - File 160
Assistant Executive Director Ours stated they have been working with
Eljumaily-Butler Associates of Santa Rosa to insure compliance with
the State laws in the closure of the San Quentin Disposal site. He noted
the first series of testing for the site has been completed, having
to do with air testing, noting water testings are still being done.
Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Duane Butler to elaborate on the migration of
methane and what the City might expect; also what, if anything, needs
to be done before that property could be considered usable.
Mr. Duane Butler, P.E., stated the landfill owner fenced those areas
on his property which might pose a threat to persons who enter the prop-
erty and has also removed covers from the storm drain system which was
found to contain explosive gases, thereby venting the gas system. Owner
then embarked on the "Calderone AB3525" study which requires both air,
subsurface and ambient air testing including groundwater testing of
all active enclosed landfills. He stated it is not uncommon for landfills
not to have complied but indicated this one -has complied with the Calderone
testing. He stated nothing was found of the 10 constituents chosen by
the ARB (Air Resources Board) to be most indicative of the presence
of hazardous waste; ambient air.
Mr. Butler stated that Harding -Lawson Associates worked for the landfill
owner and met the provisions of the Calderone Legislation, reporting
migration in 3 directions; 1) Southerly, next to lands owned by the
Marin Municipal Water District. They believe there is as much chance
that the migration is due to materials buried on the land to the south,
as it is from migration from this site moving south; 2) Migration to
the east, a depth about 6 feet below the pathway on the shoreline park;
and 3) to the Northeast toward the storm drainage previously examined
by City staff. None or very minor amounts have been found migrating
to the west and none found as far out as the probes which have been
established along the frontage road along the highway.
Mr. Butler stated that the landfill owner has asked to have a series
of air tests done, not required by State law, but being undertaken by
himself. Two documents were given for review, one, "The Monitoring Plan",
which has been given to City staff for review, which the landfill owner
proposes to examine in more detail, the on-site gases and the ambient
air gases as well as the prospects of migration at the boundary, also
the prospects of migration in the landfill. Reported to date, is that
the landfill gas analysis where the in-place probes, not required by
the Calderone Legislation, were drilled at different locations in order
to have good coverage, and hazardous waste was not discovered.
Mr. Butler indicated that the landfill owner is required to address
the water quality portion of "Calderone", under and adjacent to the
landfill, which report has just been mailed to the City.
He stated that concerning the gas migration, the Bay Area Air District
has to make the decision under the Calderone follow-up as to what the
proper mitigation would most likely be through one of two methods, either
a landfill gas extraction system or a methane migration control system.
He also stated pending the reaction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District on the migration issue, and pending results that the landfill
owner will apparently make available to City staff prior to the sub-
division regarding on-site generation of gases, that the City should
be able to design a project either with venting systems under the founda-
tion such as Captain's Cove, or gas extraction system if required by
the Bay Area District in order to make the project a feasible and realistic
subdivision.
Mayor Mulryan thanked Mr. Butler for his excellent report.
16. STATUS REPORT ON HIGHWAY 101 ACTION COMMITTEE ALTERNATIVES (PW) - File
170
Associate Civil Engineer -Traffic Rumsey stated that since the original
release of the study made in December 1987 by Barton-Aschman Associates,
Inc., a number of briefings have been held by the consultant with County
of Marin staff and Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers,
with presentations made to Sonoma County, the Bridge Board and individual
City Councils as well.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/88 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 2/16/88 Page 8
Mr. Rumsey indicated based on discussions at the February 10th meeting
with the Highway 101 Corridor Action Committee, they are considerably
far away from a consensus throughout the corridor, noting that the needs
of Sonoma County, Central and Southern Marin and San Francisco are all
diverging. He stated a copy of a proposal by Councilmember Spotswood
of Mill Valley was a part of the staff report; including staff's analysis
of one concern to the City which is the at -grade light rail crossing
that is part of the proposal for the Rail Highway Alternative. He also
indicated staff has some concerns about the interface between the east -west
circulation and believes this study is feasible as part of one of the
component alternatives. Also, based on conditions, they could get proper
coordination between the City's signals and the signals on the light
rail system. The City has a situation whereby this will be a north/south
corridor having north/south one-way streets running parallel to the
facility which makes it possible to achieve this signal coordination.
A primary concern is the length of whatever the light-rail vehicle might
be, and the Committee will need to know more about the stopping character-
istics to be sure it is able to stop without moving into an intersection
causing a blockage. He stated that the Public Safety Department is inter-
ested in having some kind of interface allowing them access across the
light-rail system. Some of these questions probably will not be determined
unless this becomes part of the preferred alternative and a final design.
Mr. Rumsey indicated that it is feasible to study.
Mayor Mulryan interjected that he had a problem with this being feasible
to study, noting it was not clear whether or not it would work, and it was
logical to him that if any effective public transitway through the City's
community funneled traffic from Sonoma County to San Francisco or the
ferry, that it would have to be above grade. For example, he asked if
the system would be without crossing gates, with interruptions every
two to three minutes? He indicated he read this to be the only way possible
and they would have to give up safety and some other things.
Mr. Rumsey stated that the Sacramento and San Jose systems as well as
the Guatalupe Corridor are running through a number of their intersections
at this time, noting that in Sacramento, their system runs parallel
to city streets and crosses over to the corridor. He indicated that
a grade separation would be preferred, and that this is being looked
into as to whether it would be feasible for a corridor to be financed,
noting it would cost $17 million to elevate this system.
He stated of two alternatives to be tested, one of the tests would be
to see what impact the delays would experience running at grade and
the amount of patronage this system would attract. Some other engineering
factors would be done only if this is to be the preferred alternative,
indicating staff will have another opportunity to review this as they
move toward the preferred alternative.
Councilmember Thayer pointed out that the direction given to Council's
delegate, Councilmember Frugoli, is to get feedback from the Council
as to whether they want to go along with further studies on either one
of the two proposals. She indicated there has been a breakdown with
regard to various opinions and there are some who do not believe in
light rail at all; the Larkspur people are upset because one of the
proposals would put the terminus of the railroad in Larkspur which is
an integral part of the rail. The Highway proponents were disturbed
over the at -grade level crossings. She stated one suggestion made by
a member is that they take components that work, and there are certain
things the committee may be able to agree upon and it would then be
a composite of the two.
Councilmember Breiner asked about some areas having light rail below
ground surface, and Mr. Rumsey responded that the cost for an elevated
area would be easy to assess, but below ground is not and it would take
a very detailed engineering investigation to know what all the necessary
factors would be to design a below grade system.
Councilmember Breiner indicated there is a definite urbanization impact
from the side of elevated light rail that should be considered.
Councilmember Boro referred to Councilmember Spotswood's proposal, stating
that even though the County of Marin is to review this proposal with
the consultant, he was shocked at some parts of the proposal which state
that the Rail and new Busway would terminate in San Rafael. He stated
it does not make sense indicating that the whole thrust would be to
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/88 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular' 2/16/88 Page 9
get people on the buJ and not to have them chanya. He pointed out that
the City should discuss this issue, and mentioned that he was also troubled
with the idea of the 1� or .hG sales tax, mentioning that if either
the County or Sonoma passed it, then it is proposed that the Golden
Gate Bridge District turn over its bus fleet to whatever County adopts
the sales tax who would also run the transit system with the current
level of funding. Mr. Boro stated the .3,2-� sales tax would bail out the
Golden Gate Bridge but should instead provide transportation for the
corridor.
Councilmember Thayer stated she was in agreement with Councilmember
Boro and mentioned the destination point of the whole system and where
it would be placed. She felt Councilmember Spotswood came up with this
alternative because there is a feeling that the 101 Corridor Action
Committee's two alternatives proposed are utterly out of sight financially,
and that the amount of money required would never be raised, indicating
that if they did, a lot of the local cities and counties would want
a portion of that for local concerns as opposed to resolving problems
on Highway 101.
In response to Councilmember Thayer's request for direction by the Council,
Mayor Mulryan stated that the Council is concerned about the blight
comments in the Engineering Report that the City of San Rafael could
get along with it being at -grade which is not necessarily true at all.
He gave examples such as the absence of crossing gates, the links of
the trains and what future projections these trains might have to be
with interruptions of the intersections. He mentioned that the Planning
Department feels there are at least 3 or 4 key intersections that must
have some protection if it is to be operated downtown.
Councilmember Breiner suggested looking into the possibility of the
busway serving also as a toll road for car pools as well.
Councilmember Boro suggested that the committee should look at how quickly
the Northwestern Pacific roadway could be used, indicating there should
be some short term and long term solutions.
After further discussion, Council accepted the staff report indicating
that various alternatives are being studied Countywide.
17. APPROVAL OF WORDING OF ORDINANCE RE CHARGE FOR PARAMEDIC SERVICE TO
NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, PROPOSED TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE VOTERS
AT A SPECIAL ELECTION ON JUNE 7, 1988 - File 9-3-16
City Manager Nicolai commented that she met with the San Rafael Chamber
of Commerce on the proposed ballot wording after it was approved in
concept by Council to be placed on the ballot. She indicated the Chamber
was concerned that the business district be charged in some parity with
the residential unit charge, and that because the ballot measure was
worded allowing up to .5� for each square foot of space, there were
concerns that the City could go ahead and implement the .5,, rather than
having any kind of parity with the residential. Ms. Nicolai indicated
that although the ballot wording itself does not need to be modified,
the Ordinance has been modified to take care of their concerns.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to approve
wording of proposed Ordinance re Charge for Paramedic Service to
Non-residential Structures, to be placed before the voters at a special
election on June 7, 1988.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli
18. APPROVAL OF BALLOT WORDING TO CHANGE CITY ATTORNEY POSITION FROM ELECTED
TO APPOINTED, PROPOSAL TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE VOTERS AT A SPECIAL ELECTION
ON JUNE 7, 1988 - File 9-4 x 9-3-16
Councilmember Boro asked Councilmember Breiner about having a "blue
ribbon" committee formed to spearhead this item, and Councilmember Breiner
responded she is trying to organize this within the next week or two.
After further discussion, Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember
Thayer seconded, to approve the ballot wording as follows:
"APPOINTED CITY ATTORNEY BALLOT MEASURE
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/88 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regula_ 2/16/88 Page 10
Shall the Charter of the City of San Rafael be amended so as to make
the office of City Attorney appointive instead of elective, effective
at 12:00 midnight the day prior to the general municipal election in
1991? The text of said amendment to Section 1 and Section 11 of Article
VI of the Charter is set forth in Section of
Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of San
Rafael on Monday, the 7th day of March, 1988, and is now on file in
the office of the City Clerk."
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli
19. CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) AND SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000 (Pl) - File 9-3-
x 115
Planning Director Moore stated specific dates needed to be set for the
public hearings by the City Council for the San Rafael General Plan.
She noted at the present time, Monday, February 22, 1988, at 7:30 p.m.
is scheduled as a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting for
the purpose of the Planning Commission presenting its recommended Plan
to the Council. Saturday, March 5, 1988, is the date scheduled for a
community workshop on the Draft San Rafael General Plan 2000 from 9:00
a.m. to Noon at Terra Linda High School cafeteria. After that a public
hearing should be scheduled on the revised draft General Plan EIR for
the week of March 14, 1988, noting this date would provide staff maximum
amount of time to prepare a final EIR for the City Council's consideration
by mid-April. She noted that under the Resolutin staff is utilizing
for the processing of applications, as authorized in 1986, there are
many projects consistent with the Draft Plan that are awaiting processing,
but staff needs information from the EIR which needs to go through the
review and certification process.
Staff is also proposing that two of the Council's regular meetings be
utilized to deal with the less controversial parts of the General Plan,
specifically the Natural Environment and the Health and Safety sections,
and that the meetings of March 21 and April 4, 1988 be organized to
accommodate public hearings for those sections of the General Plan.
She stated that staff believes the Community Development section of
the Plan, which includes Land Use and Circulation Elements,will need
some special meetings and would prefer that those meeting dates be held
in April.
After discussion, the following meetings and dates were scheduled:
Public Hearing on adequacy of draft General Plan EIR to be held Thursday,
March 17, 1988 in the City Council Chambers, commencing at 7:30 PM.
Public Hearings on the Natural Environmental and Health and Safety sections
of the General Plan 2000 at regular Council meetings of March 21, and
April 4, 1988.
Council to check their calendars and coordinate dates with City Manager's
office for Council's review of the Community Development section which
includes Land Use and Circulation Elements in April.
Ms. Moore stated that, as was done prior to the Planning Commission con-
sideration and now the start of the Council's consideration of the Plan,
staff will send a notice to every single property owner within the Plan-
ning area.
20. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE NO. 1541 - AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1522 TO PROVIDE FOR
AN INCREASE IN COMPENSATION FOR CITY COUNCIL - File 7-3-2 x 9-1
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1522
TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE IN COMPENSATION FOR CITY COUNCIL"
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense
with the reading, to refer to it by title only, and adopt Charter Ordinance
No. 1541 by the following vote, to wit:
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/88 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 2/16/88 Page 11
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli
21. UPDATE OF PROGRESS AND DISCUSSION OF TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN
COMMITTEE - File 11-16
Councilmember Breiner stated as the result of the last meeting she attended
on the Transportation Expenditure Plan, she was bringing this item to
Council for direction. She indicated that San Rafael population and
sales tax are major shares of the whole project, and stated there has
been a proposal by a Councilmember from Larkspur who said if, in fact
there is not one representative per community then they would not buy
into it. She indicated if Council feels strongly about how this Transpor-
tation Authority should be constituted, she would like to know before
her next meeting. A 5 member, 7 member and 13 member authority have
been discussed.
Mayor Mulryan stated he thought jurisdictions representing the majority
of the voters in the area must indicate "aye" in order for a matter
to pass.
Councilmember Boro stated the numbers in the report speak for themselves,
mentioning San Rafael has 49 percent of the tax base and 19 percent
of the population, indicating he would favor a 5 member authority.
After further discussion, Council voiced their opposition to having
one vote per one community, preferring a 5 member authority. Councilmember
Breiner indicated she would carry the Council's direction back to the
committee for further discussion.
22. DISCUSSION OF CREATION OF GENERAL PLAN PROJECT PRIORITY CATEGORY
(CM) - File 115
City Manager Nicolai stated that one of the policies Council will be
faced with regarding the General Plan is whether to deal with projects
on a first come, first serve basis or based on some priority criteria
to be considered first and foremost in the whole review process. She
indicated in meeting with local businesses, it came to her attention
that there is a category that is not contemplated in those criteria
coming forth from the Planning Commission. This is in relation to dealing
either with existing businesses in the City of San Rafael or those wanting
to locate in the City that employ an above average of employees who
are residents of San Rafael, that pay substantial wages and utilized
a traffic systems management approach. She stated this category could
add to achieving a jobs/housing balance in one category that has not
been addressed, where affordable housing meeting the service level jobs
is one aspect, and the other would be retaining employers that would
hire wage earners.
Council was asked whether they would be interestd in taking a more in-
depth look at this concept.
After discussion, staff was directed to bring back a more detailed report
for review.
ADD ITEMS:
1. U.S. POST OFFICE - File 11-1
Councilmember Boro indicated he read of the "mess" at the post office
and asked staff to contact Post Office personnel to ask if they have
considered alternatives in solving the closing of the Post Offices in
Marin County on Saturdays, leaving only one open in San Rafael, which
will cause crowds and traffic congestion.
1. STREET SWEEPING IN CANAL NEIGHBORHOOD - File 9-3-40
Councilmember Boro stated he asked for some work to be done on a trial
basis on street cleaning in the canal area, and to date he has heard
nothing on it. He reminded Public Works staff to bring back to Council,
a report on having a trial on street cleaning within the next few weeks.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/88 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 2/16/88 Page 12
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
JEANNE �LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1988
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/88 Page 12