HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1984-03-19SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84
Page 1
In the Council Chambers of the City of San Rafael, Monday, March 19, 1984
at 8:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence L. Mulryan, Mayor
Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember
Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember
Richard Nave, Councilmember
Jerry Russom, Councilmember
Also Present: Robert F. Beyer, City Manager; Peter J. Muzio, City
Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
FIFTH AVENUE WALKWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PW) - File 4-1-348
Ms. Judy Conard, representing property owners on Fifth Avenue, spoke and
requested use of concrete instead of asphalt. Council discussed the dif-
ferent aspects of this project and directed Public Works Director Bernardi
to negotiate the use of concrete instead of asphalt with low bidder, Bresnan-
Dalecio, Inc. on Tuesday, March 20, 1984.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to authorize
negotiations with Bresnan-Dalecio, Inc. up to an amount below the 8e.cond low
bidder.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to approve
the recommended action on the following consent calendar items.
TtPm
Recommended Action
1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meetings Approved as submitted.
of February 21, and March 5, 1984 (CC)
2. Request for Authorization to Apply for Approved staff recommendation
California Arts Council Grant (Lib) - to apply and receive funds
File 222 from the California Arts Council
to develop a membership program.
4. Approval of Final Map - Oakwood Sub- RESOLUTION NO. 6759 - APPROVING
division (PW) - File 5-1-244 FINAL MAP OF SUBDIVISION ENTITLED
"OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION UNITS 1
THROUGH 5.
5. Set Date for Interviews for Vacancy
on Design Review Board (CC) -
File 9-2-39
6. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with Marin Association of Public
Employees (MAPE) Child Care Unit (CM)
File 7-8-4
Set date for Special Meeting
of April 2, 1984 at 7:00 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 6760 - PERTAINING
TO THE COMPENSATION AND WORKING
CONDITIONS FOR CHILDCARE PROGRAM
PERSONNEL (MOU with MAPE-S.E.I.U.
Local 949 Child Care Unit - from
9/1/83 thru 12/31/85).
7. Consideration of Guidelines for Nego- Approved staff recommendation
tiating Master CATV Franchise Agreement to approve guidelines for the
(CM) - File 9-7-4(d) negotiation of a master CATV
franchise agreement with VIACOM.
8. Response to LAFCo re Deefield Park Re-
organization and Marinwood CSD Sphere
of Influence (CM) -File 5-2-87
Approved staff recommendation
"to include only the Deerfield
Property in the expanded Marin -
wood CSD Sphere of Influence,"
and directed City Manager's
Office to notify LAFCo of this
position.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 2
Item Recommended Action
10. Claim for Damage (PW)
Approved George Hills Co., Inc.
recommendation for denial of
Margaret
Susan Mayer -
File 3-1-861
claim.
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Breiner, Frugoli,
Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
3. CAPTAIN'S
COVE CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION
- File 5-1-289 x 10-3
a
11.
a. Agreement (Pl)
Councilmember Breiner inquired whether it would be possible to have
staff work with the developer on the possibility of making some of
the units available to San Rafael City employees who work in the
safety arena, and who might be interested in buying them. She stated
that, if there are some units selling at $85,000 or if there are going
to be 16 units for sale through the Marin County Housing Authority,
the City would benefit if some of these were made available to City
employees. A discussion followed after which Councilmembers agreed
that the agreement should reflect these changes.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to adopt
the resolution authorizing the signing of the agreement, as amended.
RESOLUTION NO. 6761 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT
WITH DEBRA HOMES REGARDING THE PROVISION OF
BELOW-MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN
THE CAPTAIN'S COVE PROJECT, SMITH RANCH
ROAD AT YOSEMITE, as amended.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
b. Approval of Final Map (PW)
Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt
the resolution approving Final Map of Subdivision entitled "Captain's
Cove; a Condominium".
RESOLUTION NO. 6762 - APPROVING FINAL MAP OF SUBDIVISION ENTITLED,
"CAPTAIN'S COVE; A CONDOMINIUM".
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SELECTION OF CONSULTANT TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE BELLAM BOULEVARD
INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS (PW) - File 4-3-114
Councilmember Frugoli asked why, based on previous experience with them,
the firm of DKS was selected for this project. Public Works Director
Bernardi replied that the reason DKS was selected is because their
time table satisfied the schedule which was presented to Council
some time ago. DKS indicated that they could get the job done earlier
by at least two months.
Councilmember Nave moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
autnori.ze the City Manager to sign a service agreement for engineering
services for Bellam Boulevard Interim Improvements with DKS Associates.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
PUBLIC HEARING - EAST SAN RAFAEL TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM (P1)
File 10-2 x (SRRA) R-189
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 3
Planning Director Moore briefed Council indicating that as a follow-up
to a workshop meeting on February 13, 1984, several East San Rafael
policy issue items were contained in a staff report to the City
Council on February 21, 1984, which were: traffic levels -of service,
consideration of development application processing during preparation
of the neighborhood plan, and adoption of traffic mitigation fees for
East San Rafael. Council directed staff to prepare additional infor-
mation regarding traffic improvement fees in East San Rafael.
Both Federal and State funding sources have indicated that there will
be limited ability to provide funding for needed transportation improve-
ment in East San Rafael. The only Federal program available to fund
the proposed East San Rafael transportation improvements is the FAU
(Federal Aid Urban) program. State funding is divided among regions
with a regional advisory board, the Metropolitan Transportaion Commis-
sion, and the regional CalTrans office recommending project funding
to the State Transportation Commission. Local CalTrans District 4
staff indicated that they do not expect funding for any new projects
(beyond the Highway 101 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane and Manuel T.
Freitas northbound onramp) to be available through 1990. Our infor-
mation indicates that we need the funds well in advance of that. As
previously stated, there are a variety of funding sources available
to generate local funds to pay for needed roadway improvements. These
sources alternatives include gas taxes, special taxes, assessment
districts, general tax, revenue sharing, redevelopment funds and traf-
fic mitigation fees.
On a national and state level, many cities are relying on private de-
velopment to fund major interchange improvements. Several recent
projects have raised questions about the applicability of transportation
improvement fees to land use intensification. The only adopted City
policy which addresses this issue is the Northgate Activity Center
Overlay Zoning District. This zoning establishes base land use in-
tensities and requires use permit review for changes which would in-
crease peak period trip generation. The Northgate Activitiy Center
Overlay Zoning District also requires any development project which
increases P.M. peak period trip generation to pay a transportation
improvement fee. The Northgate Activity Center Overlay District
gives the City use permit authority over such intensifications of
existing structures. A major reason for staff and Planning Commission
recommendations and City Council adoption of the overlay district was
to give the City such discretionary authority. A decision to eliminate
fees for intensification will require revision to the existing North -
gate Overlay Zone.
The review of projects within the East San Rafael area has followed
the policy direction included in the Northgate Activity Center Plan.
Where the City had discretionary review of development projects,
projects which increased evening peak period trip generation have
been required to pay a transportation improvement fee. The only re-
uses of existing buildings subject to discretionary review have been
the 1981 remodel of 28 Bellam Boulevard from a Blue Chip catalog
store to a restaurant and the 1982 development of a recycle center
in an existing building at 1060 Andersen Drive. There has been
some intensification of uses in East San Rafael which did not require
discretionary permits and were not charged transportation improvement
fees. A typical example of this would be the Whole Earth Access
store replacing Skateland at 863 Francisco Boulevard.
The policy alternatives on land use intensification are to charge fees
to address the transportation problem or to allow use changes without
fees. Use intensification can add to the traffic problem and justifies
charging fees as has been done in the past. Also, the increased
intensity of existing land uses and new development will require more
transportation improvements than originally projected in 1981. The
additional need for a new Highway 17 east -west crossing and San Quentin
interchange improvements significantly inflate the total improvement
package cost and require reconsideration of the existing $890 evening
peak period trip improvement fee. Funding alternatives vary from full
local development funding to a 50/50 match between State/Federal funds
and local development/redevelopment funds. Northgate Activity Center
fees have been demonstrated not to have an adverse effect on develop-
ment in Northgate; no appeals of required Northgate traffic improvement
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84
fees have ever been filed. Consequently, it is fair to conclude
that such fees would have no more impact on business vitality in
East San Rafael.
Ms. Moore then explained a comparison chart as follows:
1. Northgate Activity Center Fees
All improvements full local development
funding.
2. East San Rafael Fees
All improvements full local development
funding.
3. East San Rafael Fees
Shared funding as shown
4. East San Rafael Fees
Shared funding as shown
Page 4
$11 000,000
$1840/trip; new
development
$37,000 000
$6,806/irip; new
development
$11,000,000
State/Fed. 30% match
$2,300,000
Redevelopment/City
$1,000,000
Already collected
$22,000,000
$4,184/trip; new
development
$18.500,000
State/Fed. 50% match
$7,000,000
Redevelopment
$1,000,000
Already collected
$10,000,000
$1919/trip; new
development
Ms. Moore stated that she wished to bring to the attention of Council
a correction in the staff report which indicated that Northgate Acti-
vity Center Level Traffic Mitigation Fees in East San Rafael would
generate 300/0 of the $37,000,000, that figure should be 50%.
Mayor Mulryan stated that the situation was well reviewed, and that
what was required now was for Council to direct staff and to put
together an ordinance to raise the fees; he asked whether Ms. Moore
was recommending that the ordinance be established along the lines of
the fourth alternative above. Ms. Moore replied that this is staff
recommendation and the reason for that is because it is not reasonable
in the East San Rafael area to use the approach used in Northgate
whereby new development would totally fund improvements. The cost of
those fees would be too great. But a 50/50 local and State/'Federal
share would be equitable.
Councilmember Frugoli inquired about the figure of $37,000,000 and
how it was obtained- Ms. Moore replied that an attachment to a
previous staff report indicated all the improvements that were needed
in the East San Rafael area, and the preliminary engineer's cost
estimates were included. That's how the figure of $37,000,000 was
generated. The reason that figure is so high is because we are
talking about major reconstruction at the Bellam, 101, and 17 inter-
change, relocating the northbound on and off ramp for 17, for example.
Recently, it was found that a new crossing at 17, south of Bellam is
needed. And that is a very expensive project also.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that he feels this is unjustified be-
cause most of the traffic problem is northbound on 101 due to San
Francisco -Sonoma traffic which uses 101 and which can't be controled
by San Rafael. He added that he felt the problem was not with Bellam
and that the people of East San Rafael should not be charged for the
northbound traffic on 101.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 5
Mayor Mulryan asked Councilmember Frugoli if he was objecting to the
$37,000,000. Councilmember Frugoli replied that he felt this figure
was extremely high particularly because it was penalizing the East
San Rafael (Bellam) area for traffic problems that are generated on
Highway 101 through San Rafael.
City Manager Beyer stated that several months ago, Council authorized
staff to proceed with the actual prioritizing of these projects as well
as looking at more detailed land uses in the area. The report, when
presented to Council, will reflect that perhaps the improvements will
not have an impact as it is thought at the present time and that projects
that might be planned for 5 or 6 ,years from now may escalate even higher
than what is being discussed today.
Councilmeber Nave expressed concern about the fairness of imposing fees
on undeveloped lands at this time, while looking to the year 2000. He
stated that the improvements and programs for East San Rafael should be
limited to the immediate future. Further, that the East/West crossing
may not happen for another fifteen years.
Mayor Mulryan asked Ms. ivloore when the undeveloped land would be assessed
mitigation fees, and she replied that it would be prior to the issuance
of the building permit.
Councilmember Breiner stated it is important not to penalize the
Bellam area merchants for the traffic that is backed down by the freeway
traffic. A traffic consultant or traffic engineer should be checking
and monitoring the midday level of service so that it would be possible
to learn what the actual traffic is without the problems created by the
freeway. She said it seemed important to have that differentiation
between those two kinds of level of service.
Councilmember Russom stated that Councilmember Nave's comments directed
at the fairness of application of mitigation fees was quite well taken.
He also agreed that there could be a danger of charging current developers
fees for projects that may never be built; but added that if not enough
fees are charged now, at some point later it will be necessary to say that
there can be no more development, or else extremely high fees will have
to be charged to developers. He stated the sensible way to resolve the
situation is to make the most intelligent assessment of the area and
what has to be done to mitigate the traffic situation, with the cost with
the cost to be spread over from now to the time when the work is completed.
Mayor Mulryan stated that his understanding was that San Rafael citizens
through the State, Federal and Redevelopment will be paying around
$26,000,000, and the balance only will be paid by property owners.
Mayor Mulryan then asked for public comment.
Mr. Fred Grange stated that basically he is opposed to the concept of
traffic mitigation fees because it discriminates against future home-
owners, renters and businesses; and it might encourage developers to go
elsewhere. He urged Council, if they decide to charge these fees, to
acquire credit on behalf of any developer who can demonstrate that his
project benefits the traffic flow. Such might be the case with the con-
struction of the extension of Kerner Blvd. which should be paid for not
by the City but by the developers in the area.
Mr. Patrick Burke spoke, representing Cagwin & Dorward Landscape and
Engineering Co., which owns a site a 1637 Francisco Blvd. The site is
being planned now for a 28,000 sq. ft. building to be built for a single
identified tenant. There are three requests that would make the planning
process smoother: (1) The real problem area is the Bellam/Francisco inter-
change. Projects should be assed on the basis of the number of peak hour
trips through this interchange, not on total peak hour trips. (2) Staff
has suggested informally that projects south of Pelican Way should be
assessed one half the traffic mitigation fees of projects north of
Pelican Way. It is requested that Council direct staff to assess the
project in a. less arbitrary manner, maybe it should be 527o; another 200
feet, 54%... (3) Being at a very important stage in the planning of the
project, it is requested that Council give a firm direction to staff
tonight so that the impact of the traffic mitigation fees on the feasi-
bility of the project can be determined.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 6
Mr. Gil Deane asked if there was a concise definition of what a traffic
mitigation fee is? Also, if, regardless of the total and mix of the
source of the total, is it possible for Council to determine what the
traffic mitigation effect is in the East San Rafael area, and how that
would relate to the traffic increase that will result from whatever pro-
jects are approved. In other words, is mitigation 100% of the cost?
Planning Director Moore replied that the fee is a dollar amount per P.M.
peak period trip. The way that fee was calculated is that there is a
$37,000,000 package; the number of additional P.M. peak trips expected
in the East San Rafael area with buildout development is calculated
approximately, and the result is a proportionate share of that total
transportation package, and that is how the fee is calculated - it is
all based on trips generated at P.M. peak time.
Mr. Laurie Felton discussed the size of the proposed Canalways project
on Kerner Blvd. -some 250,000 sq. ft. - which is going to employ approxi-
mately 1,000 people. He asked if the traffic mitigation fees being
discussed tonight are going to alleviate this instant problem of 1,000
additional people using the Bellam-Francisco interchange. He added that
he understands that the developer has assured Council that they will
have staggered hours. What will happen if, after the project is completed
the project is sold and is turned into a multi -business project. Who
will monitor the staggered hours?
Mayor Mulryan stated these questions will have to be addressed when the
project is before Council on its own merit; the basic approach on the
fees is based on those 1,000 employees and does include some traffic
mitigation management measures to be taken.
Sheila Hoffman, resident of the Spinnaker Point Community and chair-
person of the Friends of Spinnaker Point, stated that on February 21,
at the Council meeting, Councilmember Russom specifically mentioned that
while recognizing that we were already at Traffic Level E service in the
East San Rafael ares, use of fees similar to the Northgate fees would be
totally insufficient to meet the needed interim improvements in East
San Rafael. She stated that the $37,000,000 is today's assessment money
and recommended that a better solution be found which may create more of
a burden to developers, but not be intended to prohibit development.
Upon being questioned by Councilmember Nave, Ms. Hoffman stated she .
has lived in her home for two and a half years. Councilmember Nave in-
dicated that was before mitigation fees,and added that all citizens
should be involved in the various costs that are needed for development
nd improvements. Ms. Hoffman stated there are currently approximately
125 units at Spinnaker Point of which about 100 are occupied. Building
is continuing; however, there are about 20 units for resale. Prices
have actually come down rather than increased because people are very
concerned about the area, the proposed buildout, the fact that getting
in and out of San Rafael 2-1/2 years ago took half an hour and now it
takes much longer. Therefore, the value of the properties, whether or
not the extra $2,000 is paid, has actually decreased.
Mr. Clifford Elbing indicated that both the U.S. Post Office and Golden
Gate Transit should be required to pay mitigation fees, as they generate
much traffic in the area.
William T. Bullard, Attorney representing Wendy's at Andersen and Jacoby,
stated that Council at a previous meeting set a maximum or ceiling fee
for their project of approximately $55,000. At this time, a plea is made
for some kind of relief from this fee. Mr. Bullard stated that his
client, Mr. Gilmore, is willing to pay his fair share for traffic miti-
gation fees, but believes $55,000 is unfair. His project will not impact
any of the critical intersections, will provide at least $20,000 annually
in sales tax, plus provide about 120 jobs primarly for the youth of the
area.
Planning Director Moore stated there was a not -to -exceed figure imposed,
which was a 60% reduction of the fee for a 2,500 sq. ft. building.
Councilmember Nave stated the high mitigation fees are going to create
problems of whether or not we stay competitive when other shopping
centers start going up.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 7
Mr. Herbert H. Neinstedt, Executive Director of Marin Property Owners
Association, referring to a letter which was sent to the Council, stated
that the issues that evolved from the traffic mitigation fee program are
the equity of the fee, the payment schedule and early construction of the
various traffic improvement projects which are necessary. In underscoring
the problems with regard to Federal and State funding, he referred to the
most recent one which is the landscaping near the Bellam-Highway 17 inter-
change which cost $400,000. Yet, that is one of the ones being con-
sidered for revision. Support has been expressed for special assessment
districts. Mr. Neinstedt added that consideration must be given to the
fact that inflationary times will continue for at least the next two years,
and that in itself is going to aggravate the situation.
Councilmember Frugoli referred to special assessment districts as a
possible mechanism for financing of mitigation fees, and the City should
study this and the possibility of extending the financing of mitigation
fees over a 20 -year period so developers will not have to pay the fees
immediately.
Attorney Lee Jordan, representing Cal -Pox, Inc., stated that the staff
report indicates that special assessment proceedings are a constituted
method of obtaining traffic mitigation fees which can be blocked by
property owners who object or cannot be obtained if you do not have a 60%
sign-up. He indicated he believes that is not entirely true. There are
proceedings that can be conducted which will avoid the necessity of that
6070 sign-up. Those special assessment proceedings are a means by which
the total costs of the traffic improvement package are spread over a
greater portion of the area which benefits from those improvements. The
proposal which is before you now will place the entire burden on properties
which have not yet been developed, even those which in the last few years
have paid a fee approximately half of what is now projected. Further, it
is important to remember that there are a number of properties which will
undergo development in the future, vacant lands, such as those of my
client, which nevertheless have been involved in traffic mitigation
measures at an earlier stage in the processing of their subdivision appli-
cations. Some properties have made contributions in the way of signali-
zation, dedications of rights-of-way, and some means ought to be devised
which will allow credit for that kind of contribution at an earlier stage
of development. Lastly, to assume that those businesses which concentrate
traffic during the peak hour are the ones that must bear the total burden
of traffic improvements is not totally equitable. There are a number of
communities which have taken a flat rate approach to traffic mitigation
fees, and have imposed those fees on the basis of the square footage of
development regardless of when the traffic generation may take place.
Mr. Jordan indicated that he hoped the public would be allowed to make
further comments before an ordinance was adopted, and Mayor Mulryan agreed.
Mike Liberman, with Robert Fields & Associates, urged the Council to find
an equitable way of assessing traffic mitigations fees so that projects
would not be held up or unfairly assessed, as the high fees would just be
passed on by developers, thus increasing the cost of land, rents, etc.
Ray Swanson asked whether all this was still at the planning stage and
Mayor Mulryan replied that the package includes a variety of lists of
projects which are at different stages of development.
With no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed.
A lengthly discussion followed between Council and staff during which
concerns were expressed about the amount of mitigation fees. After
further discussion, the following motions were made:
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to
reaffirm that Federal, State and local funds, including traffic improvement
fees, be used for needed transportation improvements in East San Rafael,
and that staff study the possibility of special assessment proceedings
in connection with those, as well as the possibility of assessment on a
square footage basis as opposed to strictly peak hour traffic generated.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regu-ar) 3/19/84 Page 8
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Russom seconded, to re-
affirm established City practice of requiring transportation improve-
ment fees for intensification of existing land uses when discretionary
City permits are involved, and direct staff to also look into the
possibility of considering lowering them in some cases when justified.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli & Nave
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Nave moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, that the
interim mitigation fee for East San Rafael for peak hour trip be $1,493
per trip and $1,453 per dwelling unit. Any other fees calculated by
square foot will use the percentage increase from $890 to $1,293 per
trip as a base to calculate those fees.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli & Nave
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The motion failed.
Councilmember Russom moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded,, to direct
staff to prepare an ordinance that establishes the total of approximately
$11,000,000 to be generated by mitigation fees in the East San Rafael area.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli & Nave
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Russom indicated he would like the City to pursue the
possibility of assessment district formation, as well as a study of a
City-wide tax for traffic improvements.
12. PUBLIC HEARING - CANALWAYS - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: SOUTHEAST
OF THE END OF BELLAM BOULEVARD: CANALWAYS GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, OWNER:
J. BLEDSOE, PARTNER: DAVID COLDOFF, REPRESENTATIVE: AP 9-010-22, 23,
24, 25 AND PORTION 9-010-02 (P1) - File 5-1-288
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Mayor Mulryan prefaced this item by stating that the Canalways EIR is
a Planning Commission referral to Council. Many people are very con-
cerned about the Canalways project, as it is a project of great
magnitude which will have a.great effect on the San Rafael community.
This hearing is not for the approval or disapproval of the Canalways
project; it is for the consideration of the EIR, to determine whether
or not the EIR thoroughly describes the project, and whether its
mitigation factors include all the possible or reasonable mitigation
steps that could or should be taken to offset the effects of this Project.
Planning Director Moore briefed Council and stated that there have been
some questions such as "Why the EIR now since the merits of the project
are not before Council at this time?" The City does not have a master
EIR document which clearly sets forth what the traffic is in East
San Rafael. This EIR, and its addendum, does that. It does not just
take into account the traffic impact in the Canalways project. It looks
at it in the context of the impact from build-up in East San Rafael.
Because we are at the point where any additional projects that would be
approved by the City might trigger exceeding levels of Service D in the
area, which is a definition of a significant adverse environmental traffic
effect, it is necessary for the City to have a certified EIR in order
to be able to approve any projects. Without an EIR, the City would have
no options but to deny all development projects coming forward beyond
this point because we cannot insure traffic level service D. The scope
of the hearing is the adequacy of the EIR. She indicated that Art Brook,
who is the planner for the Canalways project, has been the administrator
in this EIR contract and will be providing more details for the pre-
sentation of the EIR.
Senior Planner Brook stated that the purpose of the hearing is to review
the EIR and determine its adequacy. The EIR must describe the
project, the impact of the project, alternatives and mitigations as
well as all the comments and responses to comments which were made
during the public review period on the EIR. In the review of this
particular project, the Planning Commission determined last year
that an EIR would be required. At the conclusion of two public
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (_Regular) 3/19/84 Page 9
hearings the EIR was focused on wildlife, hydrology and sedimantation
impacts. These impacts were not described in the East San Rafael
Urban Design and Development policy statement that the City had pre-
viously prepared for the greater area.
In terms of impacts and alternatives which are described in the EIR,
the original project that was proposed was different from the 25 -acre
development 55 -acre filled area that was described in the City's EIR
document. The project proposed substantially more fill, the acreages
were almost reversed. There was a little over 55 acres of of develop-
ment and only 25 acres of habitat area. To respond to this situation,
the EIR now includes some fairly substantial range of development
alternatives. One of the unusual aspects of this particular site is
that the salt marsh harvest mouse has been on the site. The mouse is
protected by Federal legislation and a special permit is required for
any project which affects the mouse, which permit must be approved by
the Fish and Wildlife Service. The mouse was not known to exist on
the property when the City prepared the original documents, so there
iias a change in the information available. One of the alternatives
in the EIR that deal with the mouse is Alternative 5, which proposes
a tidal restoration project at the front of the Canalways site.
Alternative 6, proposed by the Audubon Society, would preserve an
area proportionate to the site which is the Pickleweed area and would
be used by the mouse.
There are four additional alternatives presented to Council tonight.
In terms of the alternatives described in the EIR, the third option
that is presented here was recommended by the EIR consultant. It is
his judgment that this option maximizes the habitat values of the
five different types of wildlife that were found on the site, the mouse,
herons and egrets and ducks. The fourth alternative is the one cur-
rently proposed by the applicant. It includes a 250,000 square foot
6 -story office building which was set into the habitat area, or an
attempt would be made to develop a habitat area behind it. This option
was prepared after the draft EIR was circulated. The third alternative is
basically what the developer has attempted to do - to develop some
of this interior area with a fresh water pond which would augment and
enhance some of the habitat mixture which is proposed in the EIR.
Mayor Mulryan asked if the proponent is suggesting Alternative #4
indicating willingness of acquiring the 40 acres. Mr. Brook said
that is correct. There is some dispute with the wildlife agencies
and some of the local wildlife interest groups as to whether the
4th alternative would be very valuable since we would have a 6 -story
office building on one side, and major arterial streets on the other
side. This would be a small area enclosed by development and it
wouldn't be as valuable as a:.sim-klar area on the other side of the
office building.
Other issues includedsedimentation, which was found not to be a
significant problem because they would not be generally open to tidal
action and therefore would not suffer from a high sedimentation rate.
The flooding issue was analyzed. The EIR concluded that all of the
prime alternatives would still maintain flood capacity, given a flood
similar to the one that was experienced several years ago and the
failure in the City pump electric supply. As far as the traffic
issue is concerned, the Bellam interchange currectly functions at
level of Service D. The Canalways project at build -out would use
the remaining level of Service E if it were constructed prior to
major interchange improvements.
Corte Madera has concerns about the proposed off-site mitigation in
their area. They are concerned about the potential for flooding of
Highway 101 and asked that any improvement be subject to their review,
which they would be. The EIR has indicated that engineering and
maintenance should be required, the levee should be properly engineered.
There is also discussion for the need for public access along the
site in Corte Madera, and finally there is a discussion of potential
on-site development impacts related to the dredging and the refilling
of the Corte Madera site.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 10
Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Brook to confirm his understanding that if
Council had other alternatives it might want to suggest be considered,
now would be the time to do so. But now is not the time to make a
final conclusion on alternatives or mitigations.
Mr. Brook stated that this was correct.
Councilmember Frugoli inquired if this EIR is not approved, would
there have to be a focused EIR on the project specifically? Mr. Brook
replied that if the project was found to have significant traffic
impacts, a focused EIR would be needed.
Councilmember Frugoli stated he had two questions, the first one in
the Initial Study, #6, relating to increased existing noise levels.
The answer was "No". Mr. Frugoli stated that it was unrealistic
to assume that 1,000 people would not increase the noise level at any
location. The second question from the Initial Study was on population.
Mr. Frugoli stated it was difficult for him to believe that the added
1,000 people would not affect the area. Regarding a third item, on
Transportation, Mr. Frugoli stated that even though projects have
parking facilities, often drivers park in the street because it is
more convenient. He also said that there were several other items
which had not been properly addressed, and he asked Mr. Brook to ex-
plain the reason for the answers given regarding noise.
Senior Planner Brook explained that in 1977, the City prepared an
EIR that described all the cumulative buildout effects for development
in the area, and in the review of this project, the City staff focused
the analysis on any effects that were different from the impacts that
were previously described in the overall development of the area. In
this area, in terms of noise, we found that there is a potential for
some noise effect along Bellam Boulevard dueto the increased traffic
volumes that are currently proposed on Bellam in the blocks from
Kerner to Playa del -Rey.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that this was not covered. Mr. Brook
replied that what is being addressed in the Spinnaker EIR as a primary
reason for that increase is that the San Rafael Sanitation District
project and the Spinnaker -on -the -Bay project provided some additional
development that was not available to use when that initial assessment
was prepared.
City Manager Beyer asked Councilmember Frugoli if he wanted those com-
ments to be spoken to, saying that these were covered in another EIR
so that they would be addressed in some form. Councilmember Frugoli
replied that these, comments should be covered, because if they are not
discussed at this time, then in the focused EIR, it will show that
they were not covered satisfactorily. The other questions to address
are: utilities, communications, human health services, etc.
Councilmember Breiner stated that she had several questions also, and
particularly confusing statements regarding the location of the pumps
should be clarified. Also to be addressed is an item on Page 103 of
the EIR,it says that the area available for run-off retention exceeds
the City drainage district commitment in all three alternatives. On
Page 108, a response to a question states thatfuture development in
the watershed would increase run-off, increasing the likelihood of
flooding." A comment says that there is no problem, but I guess there
is no problem if the pumps are pumping, but the whole thing is rather
inconsistent. Another item would be to know which alternative not
only is good in terms of habitat and other things, but in terms of
flood plain and flood prevention, and the possibility of additional
costs to the City because the run-off is increased.
Senior Planner Brook stated that the pumps are currently in the corner
of the City drainage assessment district pond. The pond is a 17 -acre
pond that drains the majority of the East San Rafael area going back
up to the San Quentin ridge, then almost to the Gun and Rod club, and
back over to Bellam Boulevard. The majority of the areas along
Andersen Drive and south of Bellam Boulevard drain south of the City
storm drainage pump. The only increased costs would be summer
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 11
circulation of water required to maintain marsh vegetation and an
assessment district is proposed to pay those costs.
Kathy Campbell, Director, Canal Community Alliance, read a statement
stating that she was addressing Council on the certification of this
EIR for two reasons (1) to protect the financial and social invest-
ment of the Canal Community Alliance and neighborhood residents
toward the completion of a thorough, comprehensive neighborhood plan;
(2) to publicly state that this EIR is incomplete, incorrect and in-
adequate. She further stated that the Initial Study was made in
April 1982 and was based only on a landfill study. There are a num-
ber of thingswrong with this study and with the February 1983 draft
EIR which resulted from it. The Environmental checklist on Page 64
of the draft EIR did not acknowledge potential impacts on the environ-
ment, such as deterioration of air quality, increase in noise levels,
light and glare, The EIR based on the Environmental checklist of
the Initial Study did not adequately address items having significant
impacts, such as transportation, public services, energy, land use
and utilities. So, what we have here is a narrowly focused EIR that
was supposed to have been a fairly modest document focused not on
traffic but on vegetation, wildlife and hydrology. It does not con-
tain an accurate project description, and now, besides being presented
for certification as a valid EIR, it is also being presented as a
Master Traffic EIR. She added that such a focused EIR surely cannot
be expected to carry so much weight on its rather narrow shoulders as
a complete, correct and adequate environmental impact report.
Mr. Jeff Stahl, resident at 3422 Kerner Boulevard, San Rafael, stated
that he has lived at that address for the past 11 years and has seen
many changes. One of the important impacts in the area is noise which,
with a population increase over the period of 1970-80 of 52.5%, has in-
creased and will continue to increase. Mr. Stahl could not find this
item in the EIR. Pursuant to Section 46050.1 of the Health & Safety
Code, an analysis of the following sources of environmental noise
should be included: highways and freeways; primary arteries and master
local streets; passenger and freight, on-line railroad operations and
ground rapid transit systems; commercial, general aviation, heliport,
military airport operation and aircraft overflights; local industrial
plants; and any other ground stationary noise services identified by
local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment.
With the new industrial park which houses United Parcel Service on
Kerner Boulevard, the Golden Gate Transit, Burger King, Marin Square
Shopping Center and soon a Wendy's and a heliport, a study of cur-
rent noise levels as guaranteed by our General Plan should be made
before the EIR is certified.
Planning Director Moore, in reply to Mayor Mulryan's inquiry about
these questions, replied that because comments and objections are
different at this meeting than they were at previous meetings on
the same subject, she would require some time for research, and
would come back to Council with answers.
Al Bianchi, Attorney for the sponsor of the project, stated that the
new comments and criticisms of the EIR would bring frustration to
the project. These points were not raised at previous meetings.
The cost of the program has been in excess of $30,000, in addition
to 19 months of carrying costs for this project. If Council finds
that the 200+ page document and all commentaries are not accurate,
and this item must be continued, that at least it be brought back
to Council in the shortest possible time.
Angela Wood, Friends of Spinnaker Point, addressed Council on the
subjects of Light and Glare, which were not considered at the time
the initial EIR was being prepared because it related to the
Herzstein property. Also mentioned is Aesthetics and Visual Impacts.
The mitigation for the obstruction of the view is totally inadequate
since it calls for merely landscape architecture which will scarcely
impact on the massive bulk and height of the proposed office struc-
ture.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 12
Mr. Gil Deane, resident at 153 Vista del Mar, San Rafael stated
that, according to a letter from the State of California Clearing-
house to the City it was stated in part that "comments must be
addressed in detail, giving reasons why the specific comments and
suggestions were not accepted. The responses should indicate any
factors of overriding significance which required the suggestions
or comments to be rejected. Responses to comments must not be con-
clusory statements but must be supported by empirical or experimental
data..." He then called attention to Pages 82 and 83 of the EIR, in
which the response to a comment of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (#8) states... "This comment is informational and states the
opinion of the commenting agency." Similar non -responses occur
throughout the EIR. For example, Comment #21 on Page 89, Comment
#16 on Page 87, etc. In the belief that the position of
the State Clearinghouse correctly states the CEQA and Judicial re-
quirements, it appears that the EIR is inadequate for this as well as
other reasons.
Mayor Mulryan requested that City Attorney Muzio study the objections
and legal references to the EIR made at this meeting, and report
findings to Council. City Attorney Muzio asked that the statements
read by the previous speakers be made available in writing.
Mr. Al Bianchi requested that these written comments be made avail-
able to him also.
Mr. John Bodle, with the Conservation Committee, stated that there
is one aspect in the EIR that has not been properly addressed, that
is the second paragraph of Page 159 of the EIR, which addresses
the 25/55 acre ratio of development and tidal restoration. This
ratio should be adhered to. An alternate plan which addressed this
item was submitted but was not taken into consideration. It is an
important point for the preservation of the black -crowned night -
herons and snowy egrets that nest and feed on West Marin Island.
Bonnie J. Martz, co -chairperson of the Canal Community Alliance's
Task Force on Housing and Land Use, stated that reference has al-
ready be made by others at this meeting to the problems of the EIR
for Canalways based on an Environmental Checklist form that was
originally filled out for the old Herzstein Trust landfill project
and never revised to reflect the specific components of the Canalways
proposal. Two items of importance are population and housing. No. 11
of the Checklist deals with population and asked if the proposal will
alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human
population of an area. This item was checked "no" which would seem
appropriate for a landfill project. But, Canalways is not a land-
fill project. It proposes 250,000 square feet of office space which
will house 1,000 employees. Also proposed is 350 housing project.
These will result in an increase in population of 35 to 40%. In
response to Item 12 referring to impact on housing, the answer was
that there would be no impact. It stands to reason that with 1,000
additional employees in the office building, there will be a demand
for housing in the area. Thus, the potential impact on the area's
housing is significant and this subject is not adequately addressed
in the EIR. By certifying this document, it will allow it to become
a Master EIR, as permitted under CEQA guidelines, to serve as a
benchmark against which future project EIR's for the area will be
measured. A Master EIR that addresses neither Population nor Housing
in the Canal area can scarcely be considered a benchmark document
against which to measure anything.
Mary Kay Sweeney, Canal Community Alliance, stated that public ser-
vices were not properly addressed in the final EIR. The Hertstein
Trust document stated "the cumulative development of East San
Rafael will increase the need for public services. This is discussed
in the Final EIR for the Urban Design Development Policy Statement."
That policy statement was written in June 1977. There have been
restraints imposed by the passing of Proposition 13, and those
restraints have severely affected the schools and placed financial
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 13
burdens on them Currently, the Canal Community Alliance is
financially supporting part of the English curriculum at Bahia.
Jack McDonough referred Council's attention to Item 17 of the
checklist "Human Health". The question of whether the proposal
will result in exposure of people to potential health hazards is
answered NO. However, Page 40 says that "water quality in the
retention pond and overflow has not been measured; that water
reaching the site contains elevated concentrations of oil and grease;
and leachates from the San Quentin landfill may reach this site.
In response, City staff said that a Water Quality Management Plan
should be developed for the habitat area; that installation of an
impermeable barrier against leachate was the responsibility of
the landfill operator; and that the type of fill could not be iden-
tified at that time. The California Solid Waste Management Board
has contacted the City noting that it was not provided an oppor-
tunity to review the EIR.
Marta Sullivan, stated that in going through the EIR Checklist,
Item 2 referring to AIR, was checked "No"; and that when there are
1,000 persons in offices each day and 350 additional residential
units, the air quality is going to be affected by carbon monoxide
emissions of increased traffic. Air quality impacts are discussed
in a letter from Art Brook to Malcolm Sproul, dated February 24,
1983 stating that the entire area would not exceed adopted standards.
Due to the current high levels of traffic in the Canal area, these
studies may no longer be valid. Another air quality item pertains
to odors and nuisance from the new sewage treatment plant being
constructed at Andersen Drive. The consultants responded in the
EIR by saying that this was not in the scope of the EIR and that
discussions appearin Appendices A and C of the FEIR. The issues
pertaining to the CMSA plant and potential odors and nuisance need
to be addressed in the EIR, along with proposed mitigation mea-
sures. Regarding animal and plant life, the entire initial Draft
EIR was dedicated to a series of extremely controversial wetland
management plans. It seems that only the consultants involved with
the project, and the EIR, feel that these systems are designed to
protect the wildlife using the existing wetlands system. The final
EIR should reflect the needs for a feeding area for nesting herons
and egrets from West Marin Island as well as habitat for winter
migrant and spring and summer nesting species of birds, and recom-
mend mitigations which reflect the statements included in the ex-
pert testimony of the letters from the regulatory agencies and
environmental groups.
Don Dickenson, speaking as a member of the Board of Directors of
the Conservation League, stated that it is essential for this EIR
to contain a thorough analysis of Alternative 6. The consultant
should analyze an alternative that not only is consistent with City
policy, but also maximizes the safe water habitat that currently
exists on the site. Concern was also expressed about the City's
int.ent to have the EIR serve as a Master EIR for future decision
making in the areas particularly as it relates to traffic impacts.
Mary Kay Sweeney, Canal Community Alliance,referred to Energy and
utilities, and stated that due to the undeveloped nature of the parcel
and the magnitude of the proposed project, information needs to be
included regarding sewage lines needed on this site.
Ted Kreines, president of Kreines & Kreines, stated that he had given
assistance to previous speakers and handed a report to Citv Attornev Muzio
for his regi-e.w. --
With no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Mulryan stated that he would like to refer this item back to
staff for review and comments and to come back to Council at a
later date, and asked how long it would take for a response to be
prepared. City Manager Beyer replied that it would take a minimum
of 60 days.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 14
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
deny the adoption of the Resolution certifying the Final EIR.
Mr. David Coldoff, Architect and Planning Consultant for the appli-
cant, stated that the question is one of equity. The project has
been in process for 19 months, the checklist in existence for 24
months. The checklist was made against the 1977 EIR for East San
Rafael General Plan, and whether or not the project made changes to
that EIR, the question is whether or not the entire checklist has
to be reconstructed because there happens to be a series of alter-
natives which may or may not be accepted by the Council on the pro-
ject. Granted, the City Attorney should have an opportunity to look
over the comments and see whether or not he would advise Council as
to their impairing the completeness of the EIR for certification,
but the question remains as to the need to review the entire check-
list.
Mayor Mulryan replied that the comments will be taken and interpreted
in relationship to this project and responded to. Mr. Coldoff asked
if it is appropriate to reconstruct a new environmental checklist on
the basis of a series of alternatives when the project application
has not been revised.
Planning Director Moore stated that she would have to take the
question under consideration along with all the other comments and
information provided at this meeting. Mr. Coldoff stated that he
would like to put this in the record and that he has considerable
doubt that it is a necessity.
Councilmember Nave said that 60 days seemed excessive. City Manager
Beyer replied that it might be, and he did not know whether there
is any substantive base for the questions that were raised. He
understood Council wanted detailed responses and the whole item will
have to be checked out.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
(Councilmember Breiner left meeting)
13. PUBLIC HEARING - Z83-17 - ZONE CHANGE FROM "U" TO P -C -M DISTRICT
FOR PG&E SERVICE CENTER SITE - 1220 ANDERSEN DRIVE: SAN RAFAEL
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, OWNER: THE DESCON PARTNERSHIP, JOSEPH KENT,
AIA, REPRESENTATIVE: AP 18-180-31,37,39 and 40. (P1) -
File 10-3 x R-232 x SRCC 4-4-4
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Moore briefed Council stating that on February 14,
1984, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the
certification of a Negative Declaration and adoption of a zone change
from "U" (Unclassified) to P -C -M (Planned Commercial/Light Industrial)
District for the PG&E Service Center at 1220 Andersen Drive. The
Planning Commission also conditionally approved environmental design
review for the new service center. All requirements have been met.
With no comments from the public, the hearing was closed.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Nave seconded to adopt
the resolution certifying a Negative Declaration for Rezoning of
property at 1220 Andersen Drive.
RESOLUTION NO. 6763 - CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR REZONING
OF PROPERTY AT 1220 ANDERSEN DRIVE.
Mr. Paul Judge, with the Canal Community Alliance, stated that they
objected to staff recommendation to adopt a resolution certifying a
negative declaration on the 11.93 acres of unclassified land in
Neighborhood 30. We are aware of the negotiation with the Redevelop-
ment Agency to exchange PG&E land for its property on Second and
Lindaro and understand the dilemma this could possibly bring by asking
someone to exchange property and then require an EIR. However, this
11.93 acreage is now vacant grassland, and any development calling for
4 buildings, encompassing 26,700 square feet will have an impact
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 1.4
SRCC MINUTES (Reg r) 3/19/84 Page 15
particularly on traffic and circulation. Therefore, we request a
Focused EIR on 1220 Andersen Drive with the cost to be shared by the
City and the applicant.
Mayor Mulryan asked City Manager Beyer if he wished to comment on the
above, and Mr. Beyer stated that an Initial Study and a Negative
Declaration were done on the total project of the relocation to this
site, and then the new development on the PG&E site.
Planning Director Moore stated that the Initial Study is available for
review.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
The title of the ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY
SECTION 14.15.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA,
SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM "U" (UNCLASSIFIED)
DISTRICT TO P -C -M (PLANNED COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
DISTRICT (1220 Andersen Drive)"
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to dis-
pense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to
it by title only for the first reading and pass the Ordinance, numbering
Charter Ordinance No. 1480, to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
(Councilmember Breiner returned to meeting)
14. PUBLIC HEARING - VACATION OF PORTION OF JACOBY STREET (PW) -
File 2-12 x 2-7
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
City Manager Beyer stated that he had a meeting with adjacent property
owners that raised some potential issues which might affect them. Time
is needed to review these questions, and it is requested that this item
be continued to April 2, 1984.
With no comments from the public, Mayor Mulryan continued the hearing
to April 2, 1984.
15. PUBLIC HEARING - SALE OF SURPLUS LAND TO SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY - VACATED PORTION OF JACOBY STREET (PW) - File 2-7 x 2-12
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
At the request of City Manager Beyer, and with no comments from the
public, Mayor Mulryan also continued the hearing to April 2, 1984.
16. PROPOSAL TO SELL CITY PROPERTY AT END OF BELLAM BOULEVARD JOINTLY
WITH SAN RAFAEL SANITATION DISTRICT (CM) - File 2-18 x 147
Mayor Mulryan stated that the City is in the process of putting the
property out for bid and there is considerable interest in it. It
was learned that it would enhance both the San Rafael Sanitation District
property as well as the City adjacent property if they were both sold
jointly and if housing were put on those properties. Mayor Mulryan
urged the Council to support this idea.
Councilmember Breiner asked if this would include a fair amount of low
and moderate housing. Mayor Mulryan replied that it would.
Attorney Jay Paxton, representing the Housing Authority, stated that
due to the financial constraints that apparently face the San Rafael
Sanitation District, it has imposed rather rigid requirements with
respect to the nature and the structure of the transaction. He urged
the City, in its effort to link the two properties together in a
single disposition, that the City do what it can to preserve its own
flexibility with respect to the other parcel.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to
accept the suggestion to market the City property at end of Bellam
Boulevard jointly with the San Rafael Sanitation District with the
proviso that there be flexibility in City financial arrangement.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regul 3/19/84 Page 16
17. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS (CM) - File 9-1
Councilmember Breiner stated that this item is to be considered to-
gether with Item 21c.
18. KERNER BOULEVARD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (PW) - File 6-35
Public Works Director Bernardi briefed Council stating that the adop-
tion of a number of Resolutions authorizing the City to invite sealed
bids is the next to last step in proceeding with the public improve-
ments of the Kerner Boulevard Assessment District. The estimated con-
struction costs including contingencies are $2,679,000, and the right-
of-way acquisition costs are $2,346,000. The entire bond amount is
$5,855,000. The plans and specifications have been prepared and are
being approved by us. The project is ready to go to bid, and we
recommend approval of the various items.
Councilmember Frugoli had a question on Petition for Special Assessment
stating that he had spoken with one of the property owners who worried
about the amount he would have to pay. Mr. Bernardi replied that in
reviewing old documents it was found that there was a requirement that
current or future property owners pay their fair share of the construc-
tion of Morphew Lane. Then the Retirement Board bought the property
as an investment and inherited the obligation of paying for part of
Morphew Street.
Bond Counsel Edwin N. Ness, with Sturgis, Ness, Brunsell & Sperry,
stated that the Council for a number of years has had the policy of
having the Engineer work out problems that may arise with property
owners on assessment districts. This project is no exception. Every-
thing has been done to iron out any problems. Also, Council should
note that there has been a change in the Resolution of Intention in the
Surplus paragraph, and a substitution inserted there. Also, a Petition
for Special Assessment Proceedings was added to the package; it came
from the Marin County Employees Retirement Association.
Mr. Fred Grange stated that he initiated this district and has worked
on it for some time; however, at this time, he is having some problems
that he feels cannot be resolved this evening and is asking for a
postponement of two weeks.
Public Works Director Bernardi recommended that the item not be post-
poned, stating that the final protest hearing is scheduled for May 7,
1984, and that will be a public hearing when this can be heard.
Council agreed to continue to work with Mr. Grange on his stated
problems.
a. Filing of Additional Petition - Petition filed.
b. Resolution Amending Resolution of Intention as to Description of
Work and Surplus Paragraph
RESOLUTION NO. 6764 - RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION OF INTENTION
NO. 6447 AS TO DESCRIPTION OF WORK AND SURPLUS
PARAGRAPH. KERNER BOULEVARD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMLMBERS: None
c. Resolution Approving Agreement with Landscape Architect.
RESOLUTION NO. 6765 - APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE.
KERNER BOULEVARD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
d. Engineer's Report - Filed.
Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
e. Resolution Accepting Report and Setting Hearing of Protests_
for Date of May 7, 1984.
RESOLUTION NO. 6766 - ACCEPTING REPORT AND SETTING HEARING OF PROTESTS
FOR MAY 7, 1984. KERNER BOULEVARD ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUT'•ES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regu_dr) 3/19/84 Page 17
f. Resolution Calling for Construction Bids (Bid Date: April 19, 1984)
RESOLUTION NO. 6767 - CALLING FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS (BID DATE: 4/19/84)
KERNER BOULEVARD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCIL1EMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
g. Notice of Improvement - Original filed.
h. Notice Inviting Sealed Bids - Original filed.
19. REQUEST BY MR. SIDNEY HENDRICKS FOR TRADE OF 22+ ACRES OF WETLANDS
FOR 6.8 ACRES OF CITY-O`9NED PROPERTY AT END OF BELLAM BOULEVARD (CM) -
File 2-18
City Manager Beyer stated that his staff report explained the proposal
and he would happy to answer any questions concerning the report.
Mr. Sidney Hendricks, with Sea -Port Development Company, stated that
he had initiated the letter requesting the trade of the two parcels.
He understands that it has been recommended there be no trade, but
he would be interested in continuing to work on this project, such
as a trade with remuneration.
City Manager Beyer stated that if Council is interested in a trade,
this would have to go through a different process than the one for
disposal of the property.
Councilmember Russom moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to
instruct staff to respond to Mr. Hendricks' letter stating that the
City is not interested in making a land trade at this time.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
20. REORGANIZATION OF RECREATION DEPARTMENT (CM) - File 9-3-65
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Russom seconded, to
accept staff recommendation- that no organizational changes be made
with the Parks Division. Also, that City Manager's office take steps
to insure closer coordination between Parks Division and Recreation
Department for better implementation of Recreation Department programs.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
21. LEGISLATION AFFECTING SAN RAFAEL (CM) - File 9-1
a. AB 780 (Robinson) - An Act to Amend Section 3503 of the Elections
Code Relating to Elections.
SCA 44 (Montoya, et al) - A Resolution to Propose to the People
of the State of California an Amendment to the Constitution of the
State, by Amending Section 8 and Section 10 of Article II thereof,
Relating to Initiatives.
City Manager Beyer stated that these two bills were presented to Council
at the last meeting by Mr. Greaves of the Marin United Taxpayers Asso-
ciation. In this case, it is felt that AB 780 and SCA 44 will have no
direct effect on the City of San Rafael; for your information, the
League (of California Cities) has not acted on any of them.
Mayor Mulryan stated that he felt AB 780 should be opposed, and after
a short discussion by Councilmembers, Mr. Greaves stated that what was
asked was that the City Council adopt a resolution opposing both of
the above-mentioned measures.
Councilmember Nave moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt
a Resolution opposing AB 780.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli & Nave
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The motion failed.
Councilmember Nave moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt
a resolution opposing SCA 44.
RESOLUTION NO. 6768 - RELATIVE TO THE PROTECTION OF THE CITIZENS'
INITIATIVE PROCESS (Thereby opposing SCA 44)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Reg r) 3/19/84 Page 18
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
b. Operation Slush Fund
Mr. Fielding Greaves stated that Section 9130 of the Government Code
exempts the California State "Contingency and Printing Fund"from normal
audit procedures governing all other State funds under provisions of
Section 925.6 of that Code. The auditing system has been totally in-
adequate and numerous cases of personal abuse have been documented in
the press and by Operation Slush Fund. The League has taken action on
this and the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution urging
that Section 9130 be repealed, and so have 13 other governments in the
State of California.
City Manager Beyer stated that the League of California Cities rejected
a resolution supporting the repeal. Mr. Greaves replied that the League
gave two reasons for rejecting the resolution; (a) because it had no
direct impact on municipal government, and (b) it was inappropriate for
municipalities to act in such a way as to tell the State how to handle
its own affairs.
After a short discussion by Councilmembers, City Attorney Muzio was
requested to obtain a report from the State and bring this matter back
to Council.
c. Other Legislation
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to
adopt staff recommendations, as follows:
AB 2468 (Cortese) and SB 1300 (Marks) - Long Term Financing - Support.
ACA 55 (Cortese) - Constitutional amendment would give local voters
authority to vote (by 2/3rds) to approve a special property tax rate
to support local general obligation bonds for construction of capital
facilities - Support.
SB 575 (Foran) Joint and Several Liability - Reaffirmed support.
AB 2641 (Roos) Financing California Public Improvement Authority - Support
ACA 35 (Bader) Reimbursements for State Mandated Programs - Support.
SB 1426 (McCorquodale) Agency Shop - Opposed.
AB 3618 (Roos) Housing Element Revisions - Support.
AB 3114 (Harris) Immunity from Liability for Natural Condition of
Public Property - Support.
AB 2622 An Act to Amend and Repeal Section 65943 of the Government
Code, Relating to Development Projects - Opposed.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ADD ITEM:
Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
AWARD OF BID FOR RADIO COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT FOR USE BY POLICE DEPART-
MENT (CM) - File 4-2-173
City Manager Beyer reported that last December, bids were received
and opened for 8 Walkie-Talkie portable radios, for the Police Depart-
ment. At that time, the low bidder was the Repco Company, and we had
asked and they agreed that we test their equipment prior to purchasing
it. Based on our experience of testing them and the problems we had in
one week, we would recommend that this bid not be accepted and that we
accept the next higher bid which is about $40 more per unit,with the
Motorola Company. The reason this item was brought up at this time
is because the bids with Motorola are only good until the end of March.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
reject the bid from the Repco Company, and adopt Resolution awarding
bid for radio communication equipment to Motorola Communications
Engineers, Inc.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 19
RESOLUTION NO. 6769 - AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF RADIO COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVICE FROM
THE MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS, INC.
(lowest responsible bid) (for a total price of
$11,020.40 - 8 Walkie-Talkie Radios and
ancillary equipment)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
22. CLOSED SESSION
The Council did not meet in closed session due to the lateness of the
hour.
J LEO CINI , City C erk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1984.
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/19/84 Page 19