Loading...
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