Loading...
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