HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2000-03-20SRCC MINUTES (R-11 ar) 3/20/2000 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MARL, 20, 2000 AT 8:00 PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Barbara Heller, Vice -Mayor
San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 PM
Vice -Mayor Heller announced Closed Session item.
CLOSED SESSION:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation
Significant Exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
One (1) Case
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM
RE: CITY CHARTER - File 1-1 x 9-3-16
Nancy McCarthy, President of the Marin United Taxpayers Association (MUTA), submitted a
letter for the Mayor and City Councilmembers, in which MUTA urged the Council to instruct
the City Attorney not to remove Article VII, Section 13 from the San Rafael City Charter,
stating they believed the Charter may only be changed by a vote of the citizens of San
Rafael, or by the Courts. Ms. McCarthy also read her letter into the public record.
RE: SPINNAKER POINT - File 5-1-238 x 9-3-66
Lois Roth stated she was speaking on behalf of several homeowners of Spinnaker Point, at
the end of the Canal district, adjacent to Pickleweed Park, the Recreation Center, and
City -owned properties. Ms. Roth reported that for the past three years, several
households have worked to maintain City land directly adjacent to their own properties,
trying to beautify the area. She stated they had been working in conjunction with Public
Works Director Dave Bernardi and Parks Superintendent Tom Rothenberger, and last fall, the
homeowners went to them with a proposal to create a planted area, rather than continuing
to simply maintain what had become an overgrown weed lot. She reported they received
approval of their project, and spent many hours with Mr. Rothenberger determining what
plantings would work, geographic conditions, and native trees that should be used. They
also reviewed the original architectural plans in an attempt to keep the project as close
to the original City plans as possible. Ms. Roth stated the City had provided a small
budget of $500 to initially get started, and the balance of the financing has been taken
on by the individual homeowners, including the planting and upkeep of the area.
Ms. Roth stated the homeowners had believed the project was a go, and they were waiting
for some of the materials to be dropped off. However, she reported they have recently met
with opposition to their project, noting two homeowners who have views toward the water
have vehemently opposed the project. She noted that when this occurred, the project came
to a screeching halt. The homeowners went back to Mr. Bernardi, asking what they should
do next, and Mr. Bernardi recommended they get a consensus from the neighborhood, which
they did. Ms. Roth explained they had a petition signed by more than thirty homeowners
with direct views or parcels adjacent to the area, all of whom support the project and
want it to continue. The only two homeowners against the project are the two opposing
parties. Ms. Roth reported they then went back to Mr. Bernardi, but unfortunately, the
agenda had been given over to one of the opposing parties. Ms. Roth noted it was
springtime, and time to get the planting done. She believed they were providing a much
needed public service by doing this, noting this particular area had not been built-up for
fourteen years. Ms. Roth stated they would like Council's support to get this project off
the drawing board, and for their help in being able to move forward with this project, and
provide a really nice area as the entrance to Shoreline Park.
Councilmember Cohen asked Ms. Roth to explain her comment that the agenda had been given
over to one of the opposing parties? Ms. Roth stated that after Mr. Bernardi recommended
they get neighborhood consensus and they got the petition signed, the next phone call they
received was from one of the neighbors who opposed the project, wanting to set an agenda
and hold a meeting to discuss this item. She stated such a meeting had not yet taken
place, and it has been weeks since that conversation, and the project coming to a halt.
She noted they had left messages for Mr. Bernardi and Mr. Rothenberger, explaining their
reticence at this point in going forward with the project, since it was being handled by
one of the opposing parties rather than a neutral party. She recalled the original City
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (R. --filar) 3/20/2000 Page 2
plans called for the planting of 14 trees, and they have already whittled that number down
to five trees in an area that would not affect anyone other than their own homes. She
stated the ground was ready to be planted, and if they had to wait much longer on this
project, it was going to be very difficult for them to provide the labor and support staff
to plant the area in time.
City Manager Gould stated he was unfamiliar with this project: therefore, he asked that
Ms. Roth provide a copy of what has been proposed. He noted Mr. Bernardi was in
Washington, D.C. lobbying for funds for the Canal dredging; however, Mr. Gould stated he
would evaluate the proposal with Mr. Bernardi's assistant, Deputy Public Works Director
Andy Preston, and determine if any approvals are necessary for them to move forward with
their plans.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the following
Consent Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Tuesday, Minutes approved as
March 3, 2000 (CC) submitted.
3. Request for Amicus Participation (CA) - File 9-3-16 Approved amicus participation.
Apartment Association of Los Anqeles
County v. City of Los Anqeles
(California Supreme Court No. S082645)
4. Resolution Authorizing the Recordation of Grant
Documents Conveying to the City a Public Pedestrian
Easement Over the Property Commonly Known as
"Terrace Lane", San Rafael, Marin County (CA)
- File 2-5-41 x 9-3-16
5. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM)
- File 116 x 9-1
RESOLUTION NO. 10604 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
RECORDATION OF GRANT
DOCUMENTS CONVEYING TO THE
CITY A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN
EASEMENT OVER THE PROPERTY
COMMONLY KNOWN AS "TERRACE
LANE", SAN RAFAEL. MARIN
COUNTY.
Approved staff recommendation:
AB 1806 (Pacheco), Property
Tax Revenue Shifts,
limitation: SUPPORT; AB 1784
(Lempert), Internet Tax
Freedom Act, continuation:
OPPOSE; SB 1637 (Burton),
Property Tax Revenue Shifts,
limitation: SUPPORT; SB 1335
(Rainey), Recovery of
Abducted, Missing, or
Endangered Child, Use of
Computer Technology: SUPPORT;
SB 1818 (Speier) DNA data
base: SUPPORT; H.R. 2372
(Canady), Private Property
Rights Implementation Act of
2000: OPPOSE.
7. Confirmation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Approved staff recommendation:
Committee Youth Appointees: Joel Segura and Confirmed Bicycle and
Christopher Goff (1 -Year Student Appointments, Pedestrian Committee Youth
Expiring End of Feb., 2001) (CM) Appointees Joel Segura and
File 9-2-55 Christopher Goff - terms to
expire end of February, 2001.
B. Resolution Proclaiming April 22nd as Earth Day RESOLUTION NO. 10605 -
in San Rafael (CM) - File 110 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING APRIL
22, 2000 AS MARIN EARTH DAY
2000 IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
'RENEW THE PROMISE".
12. Report on Bid Opening and Adoption of Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 10607 -
Rejecting All Bids for City Hall Third Floor RESOLUTION REJECTING BID
Community Development Furniture (Project No. CDD- PROPOSALS FOR CITY HALL THIRD
2000-02: Bid Opening Held on Wednesday, 2/9/2000) FLOOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(CD) - File 4-2-301 x 9-3-85 FURNITURE.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (R,, -,ll ar) 3/20/2000 Page 3
13. Resolution Authorizing Extension of Time for
RtSOLUTION NO. 10608 -
Completion of Improvement Work - "Woodland
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
Terrace Homes Subdivision" (Extended to and
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE
Including 3/16/2001) (CD) - File 5-1-326
COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT WORK
SIGNAL COORDINATION
- 'WOODLAND TERRACE HOMES
SUBDIVISION' (EXTENDED TO AND
INCLUDING MARCH 16, 2001).
14. Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director
RESOLUTION NO. 10609 -
to File an Application and be the Signatory for
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OR
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
Program (CMAQ) Funding in the Amount of $662,000
TO FILE AN APPLICATION AND BE
for Fourth Street Rehabilitation, Downtown Traffic
THE SIGNATORY FOR FEDERAL
Signal Coordination, and North San Pedro Road/
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
Civic Center Drive Traffic Improvement Projects
(STP) AND CONGESTION
and Commit the City to a Local Match of $416,500
MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY
and Assurance that the City will Complete These
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CMAQ)
Projects (PW) - File 11-15.1 x 11-10 x 11-1
FUNDING FOR A TOTAL OF
x 9-3-40
$662,000 TO THE FOLLOWING
(THIS RESOLUTION COMMITS THE
PROJECTS:
I. STP 75Z PROGRAM:
1. FOURTH STREET
PROJECTS AND ALSO STATES THE
REHABILITATION
($200,000.00)
II. STP 25Z CORRIDOR
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING IMMEDIATE BAN OF METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER (MTBE) AND CLEAN-
UP OF CONTAMINATED CALIFORNIA WATER WELLS (CM) - File 13-12 x 13-1 x 13-4
Bruce Bullard stated he appreciated the fact that the City had prepared a Resolution
to ban MTBE, and now urged the Council to move from a Resolution to enforcement,
which he believed was the next step. He pointed out that MTBE was officially banned
in Marin County on March 9, 1999, yet after a year, it was still here. Referring to
a news article regarding the new Toxic Substance Control Act, Mr. Bullard stated
this new law would not solve the MTBE problem, and would take five years to
institute. He pointed out that last week he submitted to the Councilmembers a Water
Quality Special Study memorandum from the Water Resources Management Group in Santa
Clara County, which points out a variety of the problems associated with MTBE. Mr.
Bullard referred to a list of attainment areas in the State of California,
explaining it was his position that attainment was here, in Marin County, and that
we had a right to ban MTBE, and by mandate, remove it legally. He explained they
took this position because there was no mandate holding MTBE in place in Marin
County. Mr. Bullard showed the Council a picture in USA Today of a 279,000 gallon
gasoline explosion caused by a leak in a gas pipe, noting they suspected MTBE was in
the gasoline that exploded, and pointing out that gas pipes do not have very good
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 3
PROGRAM:
1. DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC
SIGNAL COORDINATION
(180,000.00)
2. NORTH SAN PEDRO
ROAD/CIVIC CENTER
DRIVE TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENT (CO-
SPONSORED WITH MARIN
COUNTY)
(#282.000.00)
TOTAL: (662,000.00)
(THIS RESOLUTION COMMITS THE
NECESSARY LOCAL MATCH FOR THE
PROJECTS AND ALSO STATES THE
ASSURANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL TO COMPLETE THE
PROJECTS).
15. Resolution
Approving Street Closures for the
RESOLUTION NO. 10610 -
Italian
Street Painting Festival 2000 (RA)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
- File
11-19
TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF DOWNTOWN
STREETS FOR THE YOUTH IN ARTS
ITALIAN STREET PAINTING
FESTIVAL.
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller Phillips
& Vice -Mayor Heller
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING IMMEDIATE BAN OF METHYL TERTIARY BUTYL ETHER (MTBE) AND CLEAN-
UP OF CONTAMINATED CALIFORNIA WATER WELLS (CM) - File 13-12 x 13-1 x 13-4
Bruce Bullard stated he appreciated the fact that the City had prepared a Resolution
to ban MTBE, and now urged the Council to move from a Resolution to enforcement,
which he believed was the next step. He pointed out that MTBE was officially banned
in Marin County on March 9, 1999, yet after a year, it was still here. Referring to
a news article regarding the new Toxic Substance Control Act, Mr. Bullard stated
this new law would not solve the MTBE problem, and would take five years to
institute. He pointed out that last week he submitted to the Councilmembers a Water
Quality Special Study memorandum from the Water Resources Management Group in Santa
Clara County, which points out a variety of the problems associated with MTBE. Mr.
Bullard referred to a list of attainment areas in the State of California,
explaining it was his position that attainment was here, in Marin County, and that
we had a right to ban MTBE, and by mandate, remove it legally. He explained they
took this position because there was no mandate holding MTBE in place in Marin
County. Mr. Bullard showed the Council a picture in USA Today of a 279,000 gallon
gasoline explosion caused by a leak in a gas pipe, noting they suspected MTBE was in
the gasoline that exploded, and pointing out that gas pipes do not have very good
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (RPqular) 3/20/2000 Page 4
oversight. He referreo to another article, the result ui Congressional hearings,
which reports there are over two million miles of pipeline in the United States,
noting he believed catastrophe was waiting because oversight is bad. Mr. Bullard
stated he looked forward to the Council proceeding with hearings to establish
enforcement procedures.
Charlie Peters representing Clean Air Performance Professionals, a worldwide
coalition of motorists, stated it was exciting to see what the City was doing
regarding MTBE, and the concern regarding its effect on local people. Mr. Peters
noted he has spent more than 20,000 hours researching this issue, and found it
interesting that the staff report states the reason the City has MTBE in its
community is because it was required to be there. He stated it was his opinion that
there was not now, and there never has been, any requirement that there must be
oxygenates in the gasoline here. He reported that in cities such as Sacramento and
Los Angeles, the Clean Air Act amendments require that they have oxygenates in their
fuel, but here in Marin County there were no such requirements. Mr. Peters stated
he supported the Council's action in adopting the Resolution.
Vice -Mayor Heller noted this issue had already been referred to City Manager Gould,
who would bring additional information to Council in the future.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution
requesting the immediate ban of MTBE and the clean-up of California water wells.
RESOLUTION NO. 10611 - RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE BAN OF METHYL TERTIARY
BUTYL ETHER (MTBE) AND CLEAN-UP OF CONTAMINATED CALIFORNIA
WATER WELLS.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
Councilmember Phillips asked that Agenda Item #10 be heard next.
10. MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT (MS) - File 8-18 x 8-9
Councilmember Phillips referred to the list of Cash and Investments, noting Total
Investments showed a total yield of 4.53%. Assistant City Manager Kenneth Nordhoff
stated that was an incorrect figure, noting he would re -check the formula. He
believed the actual number would be close to 5.9%. Mr. Phillips noted, based on the
averages shown throughout the table, that would appear to be correct, and he
suggested accepting that number for the moment.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to accept the
Monthly Investment Report for the month ending January, 2000, as amended to correct
the total yield percentage.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
9. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A LEASE. WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE._
OF ONE AERIAL FIRE TRUCK WITH IBIS SECURITIES, LLC, AND MUNICIPAL FINANCE
CORPORATION. AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (NEW AERIAL
TRUCK APPROVED AT 1/18/2000 COUNCIL MEETING) (MS) - File 4-2-300 x 9-3-31 x 9-3-20
Councilmember Phillips stated the staff report referred to the yields the City was
currently experiencing as exceeding the financed cost of the fire engine. He wanted
to ensure that the yields were, in fact, greater than, and not less than, as shown
in the Monthly Investment Report, because the conclusion would be different with
regard to the financing of the fire engine. He pointed out the correction that was
to be made to the Investment Report, which he assumed would likely be close to the
5.9% figure Mr. Nordhoff mentioned, would exceed the finance cost.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the
Resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a lease, with Option to
Purchase, one aerial fire truck with IBIS Securities, LLC and Municipal Finance
Corporation, and authorizing certain actions in connection therewith.
RESOLUTION NO. 10606 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A LEASE
WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE ONE AERIAL FIRE TRUCK WITH IBIS
SECURITIES, LLC AND MUNICIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION, AND
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Remilar) 3/20/2000 Page 5
11. 1998/1999 FINANCIAL AUDIT: GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT REPUKT AND MANAGEMENT LETTER
(MS) - File 8-9 x 9-3-20
Councilmember Phillips stated he found the financial audit impeccable. He felt
staff had done an outstanding job of bringing the City to this point, and noted this
was another example of staff's truly commendable job in this department. Mr.
Phillips stated it was incumbent upon the auditors to provide a list of management
points, and one of the points they raised referred to purchasing, in which they
discussed the possibility of consolidating purchasing activities which, in their
view, would result in further economies. He asked for staff's reaction to that
recommendation, and when staff felt that was something that should be pursued? Mr.
Nordhoff stated this had been looked at when staff began preparing the two-year
budget; however, staff had not felt prepared to make the change at that point. He
noted staff would do further study and possibly bring the issue before Council at
the mid -period budget review this spring, showing Council where staff believed the
City might make some gains in terms of purchasing.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to accept the
1998/1999 Audit; Gann Appropriation Limit Report and Management Letter.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
PUBLIC HEARING:
16. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: (CD) - File 115
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000
a. REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT TO.
SECTION 14.16.030 OF SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADJUST THE AFFORDABILITY
STANDARDS FOR NEW BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) RENTAL UNITS
b. REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD?
DISTRICT. USE PERMIT. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT. TRIP PERMIT AND
PARCEL MAP FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW OFFICE COMPLEX AND NEW CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
CORPORATION YARD ON 11.97 -ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 2350 KERNER BOULEVARD/200
MORPHEW STREET (APN 9-291-08. 09. 10. 31. 32. 34. AND 47).
C. REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE APPENDIX B (LAND USE TRAFFIC
ALLOCATIONS) OF THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000, AS REQUIRED BY CIRCULATION
ELEMENT POLICY C-4 (TRIP ALLOCATIONS)
Planning Manager Paul Jensen explained this item was divided into three sub -items,
all linked by the General Plan amendment. He noted that as the three projects were
independent of each other, and each was subject to its own environmental review, the
procedure for this hearing was somewhat complicated. Mr. Jensen stated the first
step in the process staff was recommending was for the Council to hold individual
public hearings for each of the items. He noted staff would give a presentation,
beginning with item "a", and then it was recommended that Vice -Mayor Heller open the
public hearing, accept public testimony, close the public hearing, after which staff
and the consultants would be in a position to respond to any questions from the
Councilmembers. Council would then be asked to deliberate on each of the items,
short of taking any action. He noted that would be repeated three times, for items
..a", "b", and "c", and once Council had finished with item "c", the draft
Resolutions and Ordinances would be reviewed and discussed for approval.
16a. REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT TO,
SECTION 14.16.030 OF SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADJUST THE AFFORDABILITY
STANDARDS FOR NEW BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) RENTAL UNITS
Mr. Jensen reported the San Rafael General Plan 2000 included adopted policies and
programs for promoting development of affordable housing, and the primary policies
that have been adopted are Housing Element Policies H-19 and H-20. H-19 requires
that for every new market rate residential project, regardless of whether the
project is rental or "for sale", 10% of the unit count must be set aside for
moderate -income households. H-20 defines affordable housing projects as those
development projects that propose a minimum of 15% of the unit count for both
moderate- and low-income households. He noted the policies have been implemented
since 1986, and have been very successful in securing new below market rate units in
residential housing projects throughout the City.
Mr. Jensen reported Marin County's median income has been used as a benchmark for
determining affordability levels; for example, moderate -income is defined as 80% to
100% of the median income of the County, and low-income is defined as 50% to 80% of
median income. He stated that in the past five years, median income has increased,
on average, approximately 5.5% per year, and consequently, below market rate unit
rents and "for sale" prices have increased. While the below market rate standards
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (R— lar) 3/20/2000 Page 6
and price limits for new "for sale" below market rate units continues to address
moderate income, the rentals have increased to the point where they are comparable
with market rate, or the typical apartment -type units found in the community.
Mr. Jensen stated staff was recommending an amendment to the standards that would
lower the affordability levels for below market rate rental units. For market rate
projects, staff recommended that the 10% requirements be lowered from moderate -
income to low-income, and for affordable housing projects, where 15% of the unit
cost must be affordable to moderate- and low-income, staff recommended that those
standards be reduced from moderate- and low-income to low- and very low-income. He
pointed out that no changes were proposed for any of the policies or programs as
they are currently implemented for the "for sale", ownership below market rate
units, noting the changes would only apply to below market rate rental units.
Councilmember Miller asked, if the designation of moderate- to low-income was
changed to low- and very low-income, would there also be a cap on the earnings of
the people applying for those units? Senior Planner Stephanie Lovette stated it
would take the income levels down. Mr. Miller asked for approximate income levels.
Ms. Lovette stated the new income level for very low-income, at 50% of median, was
$29,950 for a 2 -person household, for a one person household it was $26,200, and for
a family of four it was $37,450.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the amendments to H-20, noting it stated 15% of the
units must be affordable to very low-, low- and moderate -income. He asked if the 8%
required for low- and very low-income referred to both "for sale" and rental units?
Ms. Lovette stated it was for both. Mr. Cohen clarified that 8% of the rental units
had to be designated for very low-income. Ms. Lovette stated that was correct, and
noted that for the BMR "for sale" program, the 8% would be for low-income, rather
than very low-income.
Vice -Mayor Heller opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
There being no public comment, Vice -Mayor Heller closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Phillips stated he understood making this change would make units
available to lower income individuals; however, beyond that, he wanted to know what
the implications would be?
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated the concept was to have a broader
range of affordability for different income levels in the community. He noted that
currently, the intent was to have employees such as civil workers and teachers be
able to qualify for ownership opportunities at moderate income levels; however,
retail or clerical workers were essentially out of the market within the current
program. Therefore, the intent was to provide low- and very low-income
opportunities for those individuals. He stated this amendment would create a
broader range of housing opportunities, to satisfy all segments of those employed in
the community.
Mr. Phillips asked if the City would have the same number of units available? Mr.
Brown stated that was correct, explaining the difference was in who could afford
them. He pointed out the current problem with rentals was that they were
essentially market rate, so there was virtually no subsidy necessary to create those
units. He stated the City was trying, at least in the rental market, to make those
units available to people who were otherwise shut out of the ownership market. Mr.
Phillips asked if there would be any significant social consequence due to the
selection process, noting that if they were saying the housing was going to be
available to more people, then they were going to have to eliminate more than they
would otherwise. Mr. Brown stated it would depend on the different segments of the
employment market that the City can provide housing for. He believed that whatever
the City did with the BMR program, it would only accommodate a relatively small
percentage of workers. He stated the City was trying to make it as equitable as
possible for a fairly broad range of employees in the City, those who, more than
likely, would not otherwise be able to find housing anywhere in Marin County.
Mr. Phillips noted the City was trying to get the income level lowered, and asked
how the City could assure itself that this was, in fact, happening? Mr. Brown
explained the City contracted with the Marin Housing Authority to do the placement
and income verification. Mr. Phillips asked if staff was satisfied they would, in
fact, implement the proposed change, so that their is a lower tier group? Ms.
Lovette stated the City receives an annual report from each of the rental properties
under the BMR program, she reviews them, and if there is an issue with the income of
any of the tenants or the rents that are being charged, she contacts the property
owner. She pointed out Housing Consultant Dick Bornholdt had been doing this for
the City for a number of years, since the BMR program began.
Councilmember Cohen noted Councilmember Miller had asked if there was an upper
limit, which there is; however, he pointed out that was not new, and was not
something the Council was considering with this amendment. He stated the City was
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Re- lar) 3/20/2000 Page 7
moving where the limit is, but pointed out there always was an upper limit, which
was enforced by the City, and people who made more than the limit were not eligible
for the BMR program. Mr. Cohen stated the way he looked at the significance of
this, particularly with regard to rental units at market, was the City was
essentially doing two things. First, with the market rate projects, the City was
stating, as a policy issue, that it wants everyone to include affordable housing
within the projects they build, and not just contribute to a fund so affordable
housing can be put off somewhere else. He stated the City wants affordability built
into every market rate project out there. However, he stated if the City was not
actually making those units affordable by the standards it was setting, because the
median number has moved up, then the City was not achieving its own policy, and that
was what the City was now trying to do with this amendment. Mr. Cohen explained
that for affordable housing projects, the City had stated it was giving incentives;
however, because the median moved, the City discovered that the behavior the City
was rewarding with those incentives was not really costing the developer anything,
as the developer was delivering market rate units, and then getting a bonus for
delivering market rate units. Mr. Cohen stated that had not been the intent of the
program when it was set up, and he believed the City would have to continue to watch
how these numbers work, because it appeared, with Marin County's economy, that this
was going to become more difficult to achieve, and would continue to be a moving
target. He believed median income was going to continue to move up, and as long as
the City pegs its standards to that, and not at what minimum wage workers are
earning, or what entry level retail jobs are paying, then the City will be missing
the mark over time. He stated he supported what was now before the Council;
however, he noted the City would have to evaluate how well these revised numbers
actually work.
Councilmember Miller stated he agreed with Councilmember Cohen, noting the City was
trying to finesse this program so that it can stretch out and affect more people in
the manner in which it was intended.
16b. REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD)
DISTRICT. USE PERMIT. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT. TRIP PERMIT AND
PARCEL MAP FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW OFFICE COMPLEX AND NEW CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
CORPORATION YARD ON 11.97 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 2350 KERNER BOULEVARD/200
MORPHEW STREET (APN 9-291-08. 09. 10. 31. 32, 34. AND 47)
Associate Planner Kraig Tambornini explained this project was a proposed office
development and Corporation Yard site on a 10.28 acre site (Phase I) in East San
Rafael, and the project involved a General Plan amendment to re -designate 3 acres of
the site as Public/Quasi Public for the Corporation Yard facility. He noted the
project would also be rezoned to Planned Development, to implement the Floor Area
Ratios (FARs) and the trip allocations to the parcel. Mr. Tambornini stated the
project was consistent with the General Plan, noting there was a detailed General
Plan Consistency Analysis in the report from the Planning Commission. He reported
key policies referred to in the staff report included Policy LE -50, which addresses
how the Corporation Yard should be relocated when a suitable site can be found;
Policy LU -17, which establishes the method for transferring Floor Area Ratio in
order to accommodate development of a public facility, such as the Corporation Yard;
Policy C-6, which covers the allocation of trips to projects which are considered
High Priority projects; Policy NE -15, which discusses adequate wetland setbacks; and
Recreation Policy 26, which addresses dedication of the Shoreline parkland. Mr.
Tambornini stated all of these policies were achieved in this application.
Mr. Tambornini reported this project had been reviewed by the Design Review Board
and the Planning Commission, and both gave favorable recommendations to the project,
with few exceptions. He noted the Planning Commission recommended the project be
scaled down from the original proposal, which had two phases, including a Phase II
office building. He noted the Resolution and Ordinance had been revised in response
to their recommendation that Phase II be eliminated from the project, and the Use
Permit and Tentative Map Conditions were also revised to reflect that change. Mr.
Tambornini reported the Planning Commission's other recommendation was that the
landscaping issues be brought back to the Planning Commission and Design Review
Board for final approval of the details, as the Commission believed, given the scope
of the project, that it would be necessary to fine-tune some of the landscaping
elements.
Mr. Tambornini referred to one of several letters staff had received from Leland
Jordan, attorney representing Cal -Pox, noting he wished to respond to some of the
points Mr. Jordan had raised. Mr. Tambornini reported Mr. Jordan indicated he did
not feel the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adequate, identifying sixteen
reasons why he felt the project could not be approved, and contending that the
project was contrary to the General Plan in some respects, as well as zoning and
subdivision regulations. Mr. Tambornini noted that although Mr. Jordan had made
these statements, his letter did not provide any specific reasons why. Responding
to the issue of the Negative Declaration, Mr. Tambornini referred to Attachment #10,
the Planning Commission minutes, in which there were detailed responses to issues
raised by Mr. Jordan, and also attachment #5, a memorandum prepared by staff which
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (RP�ular) 3/20/2000 Page 8
also detailed responses to his issues. Mr. Tambornini stated staff believed these
responses proved the Mitigated Negative Declaration did adequately mitigate
identified impacts and, therefore, staff did not find any inconsistency with the
Environmental Quality Act.
Regarding the General Plan, and zoning and subdivision criteria, Mr. Tambornini
noted the staff report thoroughly analyzed those issues, pointing out that Findings
were included in the Planned Development Ordinance, with regard to the land use
transfer, zoning criteria, and sub -division approval. Mr. Tambornini reported Mr.
Jordan had carried some of that argument over into six points. First, Mr. Jordan
stated he did not believe the project did, in fact, qualify as a Neighborhood
Serving Use and, therefore, was not a High Priority Use. Mr.Tambornini recalled
that in December, 1999, a Priority Project Procedure trip allocation was granted to
the parcel, and Council determined at that time that this was a High Priority,
Neighborhood Serving Use. Aside from that determination, there were also several
General Plan goals and policies which indicated public Corporation Yard facilities,
and other similar facilities, were needed in the City to provide significant public
benefit; therefore, staff believed this would qualify as high priority. Mr.
Tambornini noted Policy LU -50, which addresses relocation of the Corporation Yard,
and the Parkland Policy, were being implemented with this project, and staff felt
that qualified the project, as well as the PPP approval.
Referring to the second point, Mr. Tambornini reported Mr. Jordan had indicated the
project did not qualify for the bonus trip allocation. Mr. Tambornini stated staff
had made those findings and analyzed the criteria identified in Policy C-6, and it
was staff's determination the criteria had been met. He pointed out this was not a
trip transfer permit, it was a bonus trip allocation, an allocation of trips from
Appendix B, which contains all the trips allocated in East San Rafael.
Regarding Mr. Jordan's statement that the project did not qualify for an FAR
transfer, Mr. Tambornini explained the project was a Planned Development project,
which allowed for some flexibility with the zoning criteria. He noted Policy LU -17
did allow FAR's to be exceeded, and in this case, the total FAR allowable to the
project would not be exceeded, it would fall well below that, as the Corporation
Yard would develop at less than the 1.0 FAR allowed. He stated the Findings had
been made in the PD Ordinance, and staff had not found any validity to this
argument.
Mr. Tambornini stated Mr. Jordan had also indicated the Parcel Map did not comply
with the required lot design standards. He explained this property was comprised of
four parcels, and the parcel lines would be reconfigured to trade the Parkland
parcel for dedication, as required by the General Plan, and to create a Corporation
Yard parcel and an office development parcel, all of which would have adequate
access and exceed the minimum lot standard requirements. Therefore, staff did not
understand Mr. Jordan's contention on this point.
Mr. Tambornini directed Council's attention to his memorandum of March 17th,
outlining minor changes to the Conditions of Approval, which staff felt might help
clarify some of the Conditions. He requested that if Council were to move forward
and approve the entitlements, that these changes be included in the approval.
Mr. Tambornini reviewed the responses made at the Planning Commission hearing
regarding the Negative Declaration. First, he reported the issue had been raised
concerning the Parking Analysis in the Negative Declaration, and staff concluded the
project met the parking requirement of one space per 250 square feet of gross office
floor area. He noted this would be a professional office building, and 466 parking
spaces were required for 116,000 square feet of office, which would be provided on-
site. He stated the Corporation Yard would also meet its parking requirement,
pointing out there was no set standard, and this had been studied by the City's
Traffic Engineer and experts who would know the facility, including Public Works
Director Bernardi. He noted not only did this project meet its requirement, it
would have met the requirement even if it had been an office building of 32,000
square feet; therefore, there was no issue.
Regarding geological issues, Mr. Tambornini stated there had been questions
concerning the levee, and whether it had been adequately analyzed. He pointed out
this levee did not provide flood protection, and did not need to, as the site was
elevated at the height of the levee. He stated the levee's main purpose would be
erosion control for the site, since if it did breach, it would not inundate the
site. He stated this issue had been addressed and satisfied. He stated the
applicant's Soils Engineer was present, and could address this issue in greater
detail if Council had further questions.
Mr. Tambornini stated there had been three other issues raised by the City's
planning consultant, the applicant's consultant, and Public Works Director Bernardi.
The first was concerning the City's Emergency Response Preparedness Plan, and Mr.
Tambornini noted the Deputy Director would address that issue later in the
presentation to Council. Second, there was the issue of noise, and whether the pile
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Rr alar) 3/20/2000 Page 9
driving would create a significant adverse effect. Mr. Tambornini stated it would
not, reporting it would create an interior decibel of 52 dBA, which was the method
of measurement, and was well within the threshold of what was acceptable for a
residential use, let alone intermittent noise decibel ranges for office use.
Mr. Tambornini noted Louise Nichols of Nichols -Berman could summarize her response
to this issue, and Mike Siembieda from Ceres was available to comment with regard
to hazardous materials and hazards at the site.
Community Development Director Brown stated that for a complete record, he would
like Mr. Tambornini's memorandum of March 17th containing the revisions to the
Conditions to be made part of the public record.
Assistant Public Works Director Frank Prim responded to Mr. Jordan's concerns
regarding emergency response capabilities due to the relocation of the Corporation
Yard. Noting that Mr. Jordan, in his letter, referred to the relocation of the EOC
(Emergency Operations Center), Mr. Prim clarified that the EOC would not be
relocated. He explained that any event under SEMS (State Emergency Management
Service) would first begin as a small event, and emergency staff would act as an
isolated incident command center at the Corporation Yard; then, as the event
pyramids or escalates, the full-blown EOC would be activated in the Council Chamber
at City Hall. Mr. Prim noted that in the event that City Hall was damaged or there
was catastrophic failure to the building, the EOC would be relocated to any
government facility where staff could operate. Regarding the City's ability to
respond to emergencies, Mr. Prim stated the City had developed, through its GIS
mapping system, a multi -hazard plan for the City of San Rafael, in which staff has
identified all structures that could possibly collapse. He noted this gave the City
the ability to respond adequately, with the necessary resources to take care of the
event. He pointed out that if staff had to respond and make access from the other
side of the freeway, and the freeway had collapsed, staff could just put a "road"
across the freeway, noting it was standard Public Works operating procedure to
simply bulldoze their way across the freeway.
Louise Nichols, Environmental Consultant with Nichols -Berman, stated she had been
asked to address the issue of pile driving noise. She reported the noise levels
were estimated to be 95 decibels at a distance of 100 feet from where the pile
driving is occurring. She reported there were two ways of approaching this; one was
the impact on existing off-site office, which was what Mr. Tambornini had referred
to as far as the decibel reductions. She noted the nearest off-site offices were
estimated to be 400 feet away, and the natural outdoor decrease would be to 83
decibels at each blow, and together with a 30 decibel reduction inside with the
windows closed, would achieve the 53 decibel interior noise level. She stated that
because of that level, in relation to a 55 decibel threshold, there would not be a
significant impact. Ms. Nichols stated "future on-site" was where they had
identified an impact and mitigation, and that related to potential construction also
requiring piles at the Phase II office building, which was not now included in what
was being considered by the Council. Therefore, she stated they did identify an
impact, and they did identify a mitigation, although it was now moot.
Mike Siembieda, Registered Geologist in the State of California, reported he had
been working with the Fasken Trust on this property for over ten years. He stated
numerous investigations had been performed, and a question had been raised by one of
the attorneys regarding Health and Safety Plans for contractors on the site, and the
fact that they believed there should be a Health and Safety Plan in place at this
time. Mr. Siembieda stated he recommended, and it was standard industry practice,
that when the contracts are let, individual contractors develop their own site-
specific Health and Safety Plans, pointing out that electrical contractors and
grading contractors were going to have different kinds of plans, depending upon
their work schedules.
Mr. Siembieda reported there have been over twenty borings, fifteen backhoe pits,
well over 100 samples analyzed, and over 1,000 different analyses performed, and the
site was very consistent with the known history. Mr. Siembieda stated he and staff
believed the site had been adequately characterized, and the issue of Health and
Safety Plans should be addressed when the contracts are given to the individual
contractors.
Vice -Mayor Heller opened the public hearing, and invited public comment.
Richard Hannum of Hannum Associates, the architects representing this project,
pointed out on the architectural renderings of the existing property the section
designated for the Corporation Yard, the office structures, and the 100 foot wide
proposed continuation of Shoreline Park, which will be developed by the project, and
dedicated to the City. He noted they had entered into specific areas of agreement
along the way, and as a result of the Planning Commission hearings. Mr. Hannum
stated that working in conjunction with Mrs. Jean Starkweather, they had continued
to address and identify in greater detail the area of wetlands mitigation along the
site, creating the buffer zone to the Bay view marsh. He noted one of the things
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Re—lar) 3/20/2000 Page 10
that had come out of the Planning Commission hearings had been the recommendation to
expand those particular sections, which are noted as those sections through the
largest zone, which is 75 feet, set back in the lower left-hand corner, from the
identified high-water mark through the upland zone to the existing ridge buffer, and
then all the way to the edge of what will be the proposed structure, giving a full
75 foot width of fully restored and planted habitat. He pointed out that rather
than simply eradicating the plants that are there, such as fennel and pampas grass,
they would actually replant and restore the buffer zone as part of the project. He
noted four parking spaces had been removed to expand the buffer zone, and those
spaces were being relocated to other areas on the property. Mr. Hannum stated they
have continued to work with Mrs. Starkweather, and it has been agreed that this
particular planting would also be brought back to the DRB (Design Review Board) to
ensure that the planting is as agreed. He stated that would also be true of the
planting for the 100 foot park, and in addition, the area around South Pond would be
eradicated of fennel and pampas grass. Mr. Hannum believed the project would
consist of Class A office buildings, attracting the kind of tenants that will
provide the high level jobs the community needs, and he stated they were proud to
bring this project to the City.
Mr. Hannum acknowledged there would be a lot of public comment and testimony, and
noted the project sponsors would like to be able to address those issues; therefore,
he requested that he be allowed time at the end of the meeting to respond.
Jay Paxton, attorney representing the Barbara Fasken 1995 Trust, stated he would
like to reserve time to address issues the project opponents may choose to raise
before the Council, rather than try to anticipate and rebut them before they are
brought to the Council.
Mr. Paxton stated there were a couple of matters in the Conditions which he wanted
to bring to Council's attention. Referring to Page 8 of the Resolution, Conditions
#27 and #28 regarding Environmental and Design Review Permit, he pointed out there
had been a mis-numbering, with two sets of Conditions having the same numbers, and
noted he wished to address the first of those two Conditions. Regarding Condition
#27, relating to the requirement for a San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) permit, he asked that this Condition be amended to
state that the permit is required prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the
improvements within the jurisdiction of BCDC, as BCDC did not have jurisdiction over
the remainder of the park, and there was no reason the remainder of the project,
including the Corporation Yard, should have to wait for a BCDC permit when that was
outside their jurisdiction.
With respect to Condition #28, Mr. Paxton stated they would like to clarify that the
amount of the traffic mitigation fee stated on a per trip basis, $2,850 per PM peak
hour trip, was the number adjusted as of 12/20/99. He noted there was a bit of an
ambiguity in the Condition as it was presently drafted, as to whether that number
was to be adjusted as of that date, or whether it already had been adjusted as of
that date. He believed staff would confirm that number reflected a completed
adjustment; therefore, he suggested the current wording, "adjusted as of 12/20/99"
be changed to read, "updated as of 12/20/99". He pointed out that if the project
does not commence construction, that would be updated again, which is why the Lee
Saylor Construction Cost Index was referred to later in the Condition.
Mr. Paxton stated the last Condition he was requesting Council modify was Condition
#77, which relates to the requirement that the applicant enter into a landscape
maintenance contract for the life of the project. He stated they would be willing
to do that; however, they would like it to be made clear in the Conditions that the
contract itself need not run for the life of the project, but rather a contract
needs to be in place for the life of the project, and a contractor may be replaced
as long as a contract is kept continuously in force. Mr. Paxton suggested that in
the second line from the bottom on Page 48, where it reads, "The landscape
maintenance contract shall be provided for the life of the project and may not be
discontinued without prior approval by the City", be changed to read, "The landscape
maintenance contract shall be provided for the life of the project and may not be
discontinued without prior approval by the City, unless it is replaced with a
similar contract with another qualified Drofessional", which would make it clear
that they are not bound by a single contract. Mr. Paxton stated these were the only
Conditions they wished to have changed. He again requested to reserve time to
respond to public testimony.
Councilmember Cohen referred to Condition #27, asking if Mr. Paxton was recommending
the Condition be changed from "...prior to the issuance of a building permit", to
"...prior to the issuance of a gradinq permit"? Mr. Paxton stated that was correct,
for the improvement within the BCDC jurisdiction. Mr. Cohen asked if they were
trying to limit that action to impact on the Shoreline Park band all together? Mr.
Paxton stated that was correct, noting BCDC did not have jurisdiction over any other
part of the project, since the Shoreline bank consumed the entirety of their
jurisdiction.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Rer-•lar) 3/20/2000 Page 11
Lee Jordan, attorney representing Cal -Pox, Inc. in opposition of this project,
stated he had several documents which he requested be included as part of the public
record. The documents he wished to enter into the record included the General Plan
2000, San Rafael Municipal Code, Zoning and Sub -Division Regulations, East San
Rafael Neighborhood Plan, the City Council staff report for tonight's meeting, the
Planning Commission report of its February 29, 2000 meeting, the City Council staff
report for the meeting of December 7, 1999, and the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration. Mr. Jordan asked if these documents were part of the public record,
and City Attorney Ragghianti assured him they were.
Mr. Jordan noted it was extremely important, from his client's standpoint, that he
make all of their points carefully, clearly, and not omit any of them; therefore, he
stated he would largely read from prepared notes. Addressing the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration, he noted the California Environmental Quality Act states that
a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration must identify any potential significant
impacts which may result from the development under consideration, and if it
identifies any potential significant impacts, an Environmental Impact Report was
required, unless the Negative Declaration sets forth specific mitigation measures
which reduce the potential impact to a level less than significant. Mr. Jordan
reported the Courts have stated that if a Negative Declaration states additional
studies are necessary in order to identify the specific mitigation measures
necessary to reduce the level of the potential impact to below significance, then
the Negative Declaration is inadequate. Mr. Jordan suggested the Negative
Declaration now before the Council did just that, in several different areas. He
stated he had identified those areas in correspondence, which has been referred to
by staff. He felt the most crucial point, because it affects health and safety in
the area, was the element of seismic hazard. Mr. Jordan believed there was no
question that the Negative Declaration states the seismic or earthquake threat
constitutes a potentially significant impact. He noted it states the failure of the
levee through lateral spreading could constitute a threat to Shoreline Park and the
proposed building area, and goes on to state that additional studies were necessary
to determine the extent of the threat of possible lateral spreading, and the
measures that are necessary to avoid that hazard.
Mr. Jordan recalled that when he was before the Planning Commission, when he
referred to the Negative Declaration as requiring additional studies, Mr. Paxton had
stated it did not require more studies, it only required that more plans be
developed. Mr. Jordan stated that was not true, noting the Engineer's Reports upon
which the Negative Declaration was based, and the body of the Negative Declaration
itself, state additional studies were necessary to determine the possible seismic
impact on that levee, pointing out it even uses the word "studies", stating they
were necessary to determine what measures must be taken. He stated that was
directly contrary to Court decisions in this State, if the Negative Declaration was
to stand.
Mr. Jordan stated he had all the respect in the world for Public Works Director
Bernardi; however, he referred to Mr. Bernardi's memorandum contained in the staff
report, in which he tried to reduce the importance of this seismic hazard. Mr.
Jordan noted he did not know whether Mr. Bernardi was stating that this was an
impact that was not potentially significant or not, but if he was stating that, it
was directly contrary to the Negative Declaration and the Engineering Reports upon
which it is based, which state specifically that this is a potentially significant
hazard. He noted it also failed to address the specific mitigation measures
required, specifically with respect to the levee. Mr. Jordan stated this was a
problem, and not because of possible flooding. He acknowledged the levee was filled
to a level sufficiently high that it was not going to flood with the failure of that
levee; rather, the concern expressed in the Negative Declaration and Engineering
Reports contained within it was what the threat might be to the Shoreline Park and
the building area might result from lateral spreading. He believed additional
studies must be undertaken to determine the extent of that threat, and the specific
measures necessary to mitigate that potentially significant impact. Mr. Jordan
stated they believed the Negative Declaration was insufficient in that respect, and
all the other reasons set forth in his letter of February 29th.
Addressing the issue of the bonus trip allocation and the trip permit, Mr. Jordan
noted the staff report states the peak hour trips that would be generated by this
project exceed the trips presently allocated to this property by the General Plan;
therefore, the project requires a bonus trip allocation and a trip permit. However,
the General Plan states that bonus trips are to be allocated only for projects that
provide affordable housing, or are Neighborhood Serving Uses or High Tax Generating
Uses. Mr. Jordan noted the staff report states the project qualifies as a Needed
Neighborhood Serving Use; however, under the General Plan and the East San Rafael
Neighborhood Plan, it is clear that it does not qualify as such. He believed it was
very clear, quoting from those documents, that Neighborhood Serving Uses are "uses
which serve primarily neighborhood residents and employees". He stated the
Corporation Yard did not primarily serve the employees and residents of that area,
it served the entire community, as it was designed to serve the entire City.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Rer-lar) 3/20/2000 Page 12
Mr. Jordan stated, even assuming the Corporation Yard parcel did qualify for an
allocation of bonus trips, the office building parcel did not. He stated there was
no question but that the office building complex was not a High Priority Use, and
was not a Needed Neighborhood Serving Use, or any one of the other High Priority
uses. However, the Council, in being asked to approve this project, was being asked
to approve bonus trips for the two office buildings. Mr. Jordan noted the staff
report states the General Plan now allocates 296 PM Peak Hour trips to the property
occupied by the Corporation Yard site and the office building site. He explained
that of that property, 5.9 acres would be used for the office building complex, and
3 acres for the Corporation Yard, yet the 296 trips which are allocated under the
General Plan for that property, are divided between the two sites in proportion to
their acreage. He stated the office complex would have 196 trips allocated to it,
and the Corporation Yard 100 trips; however, the office complex standing by itself
requires 308 PM Peak Hour trips, thereby falling short by 112 trips, which meant
Council was being asked to allocate 41 bonus trips to the office buildings, and in
addition, take 71 trips from the Corporation Yard site and transfer them to the
office complex. He stated in carefully reading the General Plan provisions, that
simply was not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Jordan asked Council to assume that, rather than dividing the trips allocated
under the General Plan between the two parcels, that it was decided that the
Corporation Yard was not entitled to any of them, they all belonged to the office
building. He acknowledged that would be an illogical assumption, but noted the
General Plan did not intend to allocate any of those trips to the 3 acres on which
the Corporation Yard was to be located. Assuming that were true, it would still
mean that of the 41 bonus trips, 12 of them had to go to the office building
complex; however, there was nothing in the General Plan that allowed Council to
allocate bonus trips to anything other than a High Priority Use, and the office
project was not a High Priority use.
Referring to the proposed FAR transfer, Mr. Jordan acknowledged it was true that the
General Plan discusses the possibility of allowing FAR transfers. However, in their
judgment, such a transfer was not possible in this instance, for the simple reason
that this provision has never been implemented in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted
the General Plan sets forth policies to guide the Planning and Zoning decisions of
the community; however, those policies are nothing but policies until they are set
into law by incorporation in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated the General Plan could
indicate, by a land use map, areas to be designated for various uses, but until
those were incorporated into a Zoning Ordinance, they did not carry the effect of
law. Similarly, although the transfer of FAR may be a policy the City may wish to
implement, it has never been done in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Jordan stated they
did not believe the General Plan could be interpreted as allowing a transfer of FAR
from a parcel occupied by a public use to a parcel occupied by a private use, noting
that contravened the language of even the General Plan.
Addressing the Subdivision violation, Mr. Jordan noted that while this might be
considered a technicality, there was a provision in the Subdivision Ordinance which
stated no lot shall be approved unless it has frontage on a street. He pointed out
the proposed Corporation Yard had no frontage on the street. He noted there was
also a provision in the sections addressing minor subdivisions which states an
exception is that access to a lot may be gained over a private right-of-way;
however, he believed there was a difference between access and street frontage. He
stated almost every Zoning Ordinance he has encountered states that lots must have
frontage on a street, but frequently, because of topographical conditions, the
actual physical access is not practical directly from the street and, therefore, a
right-of-way of some kind is crossed over a neighboring property. However, there is
nothing that states a lot can be created which has no frontage on a street, and no
application for an exception from that subdivision requirement has been made by the
applicant in this case.
Mr. Jordan referred to the question of economic feasibility. He stated they
believed the applicant's proposal did not make economic sense from the City's
standpoint, noting what the City was doing was trading 308 PM Peak Hour trips, the
amount required for the office complex alone, for a lease of the Corporation Yard
site at a nominal rental. He acknowledged that at first sight that might sound like
a good deal; however, upon closer examination, it was not. He stated the office
complex, which will get all these trips, will never generate any sales tax revenue,
and is not a High Tax Generating Use or a High Priority Use. However, he stated
that if, rather than approving this project, the Council reserves those 308 trips
for High Tax Generating Uses, which are High Priority Uses, then in a few years,
upon approval of such a use, be able to buy a Corporation Yard site outright, or buy
it now and recoup the cost in a few years, the City would still continue to receive
the sales tax from the High Priority Use for decades to come. As an example, Mr.
Jordan referred to the BMW agency in East San Rafael, which required only 106 PM
Peak Hour trips, noting it was estimated BMW would generate over $400,000 per year
in sales tax revenues. He pointed out that was using one-third of the PM Peak Hour
trips the City was allocating to this office complex. He stated the City was fully
aware there were other High Tax Generating Uses just waiting in the wings to go into
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Re 'ar) 3/20/2000 Page 13
the East San Rafael area, which would generate that kind of sales tax revenue, and
much more. Mr. Jordan stated, as they saw it, it did not make sense from the
standpoint of fiscal responsibility, for the City to approve this kind of project.
Mr. Jordan suggested perhaps there was something in the applicant's proposal,
including the lease they have proposed and submitted, which has not been disclosed
and perhaps makes this a good deal for the City; however, all he has read in the
staff report was that this is a long-term lease of $1.00 per year. He noted there
could be something else which makes it a good deal, but the full proposal to the
City has not been publicly disclosed. He reported that for the past two weeks he
has been asking for an opportunity to see the proposal made by the applicant, any
correspondence exchanged between the applicant and the City, and any proposed lease
submitted to the City; however, he has been refused that right, and he believed that
was a violation of the Public Records Act. He stated that if the Councilmembers had
not yet seen the full proposal, they had even less reason to proceed with this
project. He stated no member of the public had been allowed to review the very
proposal which staff had told the Council justified approval of the project. Mr.
Jordan stated he would like to include as part of the record, copies of his
correspondence with the City Attorney, in which he requested the opportunity to
review the full proposal and was denied that opportunity.
Mr. Jordan noted it was important to remember that if the Council approved this
project, and upon further consideration, at some time in the future, decided that
the project did not make sense and was not a good idea, it would be too late. He
stated that once Council gave this project approval, the applicant, with that
approval in hand, would be free to proceed with the office complex, and there would
be nothing the City could do about it, and if the City should decide not to
construct the Corporation Yard at that location, the applicant would already have
his permits, and would be allowed to go ahead with the project, even if the
Corporation Yard was never built. He stated the City would have given away the PM
Peak Hour trips to what was clearly not a High Priority Use, and would have
sacrificed, over a period of years, millions of dollars of tax revenue that could be
produced if the City were to reserve those PM Peak Hour trips for truly High
Priority, High Tax Generating Uses.
Jean Starkweather, Marin Conservation League, noted the Planning Commission did
approve some of their requests as part of the Conditions, and she was particularly
pleased about the eradication of the invasive, non-native plants and the requirement
that they be kept out of the area for the life of the project. She stated they have
been chasing French broom and pampas grass up and down the shoreline for the City
for a number of years, with volunteer labor and small grants, and noted this would
be a very big help. Mrs. Starkweather stated one of the requests they had made, to
which the Planning Commission had agreed was reasonable, was to have a cross-section
made, which she did receive; however, there were no designations of lineal feet, so
while it showed such things as the property line, the wetland edge, and the existing
fence, there were no dimensions. She stated they had asked for the cross-sections,
to see exactly where the lines were for the widest and most narrow parts. Mrs.
Starkweather referred to the habitat restoration area, which was labeled Section A,
and asked for the size. Community Development Director Brown reported Section A was
75 feet, Section B was 55 feet, and Section C was 45 feet. Mrs. Starkweather
explained one of the reasons they had wanted the dimensions of each section was
because during development of what had been called the East San Rafael Wetland
Mitigation Plan, when the slopes were re -graded, the graded 4:1 slope had been part
of the mitigation area, as was an area at the top of the slope which was part of the
upland habitat. She stated it had been her understanding that this side of the pond
would have a 10 foot setback at the top, because the slope was greater; however,
from what staff had now been able to find out, the fence was placed in an area not
at the back of the ten feet, but at the front of it, so there was less space than
they thought they were having set aside, which was a bit distressing to them. She
stated they would like to know the total length, or at least the linear feet in each
of the sections, and asked Council to direct the applicant to provide those footages
in each of the sections from the marsh to the property line, from the property line
to the current fence, and then to the new fence.
Mrs. Starkweather stated it appeared their other concerns had already been
addressed, noting they were particularly interested in the watery edges to the site,
the Bay view marsh site, the south pond site, and the Bay.
Jay Paxton noted Mr. Jordan had written three letters to the City wherein he raised
a number of points. He stated many of those points had been raised before the
Planning Commission, and had been responded to in the rather thorough staff report
now before the Council. Additionally, he had raised other points during this
meeting to which Mr. Paxton wished to respond.
Mr. Paxton stated Mr. Jordan argued that this project was defective because it not
only served the neighborhood in which it resides, but serves other neighborhoods, as
well. He believed it was fair to say that complaint simply stated the project was
too good, it did more than it should. Mr. Paxton stated it was obviously critical
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Re lar) 3/20/2000 Page 14
to that particular neighborhood, just as it was to every neighborhood in San Rafael,
that the city have an adequate Corporation Yard facility that will serve the
residents of each of the neighborhoods. He did not believe there was anything in
the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or anything else which stated a
Neighborhood Use failed because it served more than a single neighborhood.
Mr. Paxton noted Mr. Jordan also stated the office building was not a part of the
Neighborhood Serving Use. Citing a precedent, Mr. Paxton noted many of the
Councilmembers had served on the Council or Planning Commission for a number of
years, and would recall the Regency II project on Smith Ranch Road, which was
accorded Priority Status under the PPP as a Neighborhood Serving Use because it had,
as part of the proposal, a child care center. Mr. Paxton stated it had been clear
when the Council acted on that project, as it was clear in this one, that the
project encompassed both a public serving element, and other things which were not
public serving. Mr. Paxton stated that was also true of High Tax Generating uses,
noting people sell things, and there is more going on than just generating tax. He
stated this was a unitary proposal, whereby the applicant proposes to give the City
a site for its Corporation Yard for a dollar a year for fifty years, as part of an
overall development. He pointed out, as Regency II was established, the overall
development was the project that had to be considered, and which Council did
consider when it made a PPP allocation to this project as a Neighborhood Serving
Use.
Referring to Mr. Jordan's argument that there were projects "in the wings", that
everyone knew about and which would provide great sales tax, Mr. Paxton pointed out
no such projects were before the Council when the PPP allocation was made for this
project. He explained it was not a question of looking at Mr. Jordan's client's
project and the proposed project, and then deciding between the two of them, as Mr.
Jordan's client did not put a project on the table at the PPP process. Mr. Paxton
believed that to go back today and argue the same things Mr. Jordan had already
agreed with respect to neighborhood -serving convenience uses and the wisdom of the
PPP allocation was to simply re -visit a decision Council made some months ago to
accord PPP priority to this project. He noted Council had found then, and it was
amply demonstrated in the public record, that the project did qualify as a High
Priority project, and it did serve its neighborhood in a very important way.
Mr. Paxton stated he wished to read from the General Plan, as he wanted to make
certain the record was quite clear. He noted that in the General Plan, the question
of the transfer of FAR's among sites was addressed in LU -17, and he quoted, "FAR
transfers between or among sites shall not be permitted except where the Council
finds one or both of the following", and referring to the second item, he continued,
"A significant public benefit will be provided, such as securing a new public
facility site, such as a park, school, library, fire station, etc.". Mr. Paxton
stated this was exactly what this application brought before the Council, noting it
exactly met the specific criteria set forth in LU -17. He noted that for the
transfer to occur, three criteria needed to be met, and the development of the
beneficiary parcel had to be consistent with the General Plan 2000, except that
FAR's may be exceeded, which Mr. Paxton stated was absolutely the case in this
instance, as amply demonstrated in the staff report and the rest of the public
record. Referring to the first criteria, he stated it must be demonstrated that all
applicable zoning and design parameters are complied with. Mr. Paxton noted he
would address that issue further during his discussion; however, he pointed out this
was in the Planned Development District, there was a Development Plan before the
Council, and it conformed to the project his client was proposing; hence, the
project would conform to the Development Plan if Council adopted it. The second
criteria requires that the traffic impacts from the subject properties impact the
same interchange, which he noted was clearly the case, as they adjoin one another,
and the total number of trips generated would not exceed the General Plan trip
allocations, which he noted they would not if Council allocates the bonus trips his
client has requested. Addressing the issue of the bonus trips, Mr. Paxton referred
to Section 14.26.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, noting there was a statement of the
Findings that would be necessary for the Planning Commission to make in order to
grant a trip permit and allocate bonus trips, and this included three criteria.
First, the traffic Level of Service standards shall not be exceeded; second, the
proposed use of bonus trips is consistent with the specific purposes described in
the General Plan; and third, the granting of an increase in the PM Peak Hour trips
to the subject property would not, under the circumstances of this particular case,
materially adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood, and would not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be
materially detrimental to public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in
the neighborhood, or the general welfare of the City. Mr. Paxton stated, as shown
by the staff report, Council would have no problem in making these findings with
regard to the proposed project.
Noting Mr. Jordan had raised the issue of zoning as it relates to the transfer of
FAR's, Mr. Paxton referred to Chapter 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, which addresses
Planned Development Districts, pointing out it was abundantly clear from that
chapter that the very reason a Planned Development zone had been adopted was to
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (RF lar) 3/20/2000 Page 15
provide flexibility in the design of large sites. He noted the General Plan
contemplated that this would be done, and it was clearly implemented in the Zoning
Ordinance. Citing the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Paxton quoted from Section 14.070.10,
Paragraph B, which states, "One of the specific purposes of the Planned Development
District is to encourage innovative design on large sites by allowing flexibility in
property development standards". He also cited Section 14.070.030, which refers to
property development regulations and provides six criteria applicable to Planned
Development, noting those criteria referred to minimum area, which must be at least
2.50 acres; residential unit density, which was not applicable in this instance;
non-residential intensity; building height limits; trip allocations; and other
development regulations. With regard to "other development regulations", which was
the pertinent portion of the Ordinance with regard to FAR's within a Planned
Development, Mr. Paxton quoted, "Other development regulations shall be as
prescribed by the Development Plan". Mr. Paxton believed that, clearly, the
Development Plan, which they had a hand in drafting, was consistent with the
proposal they have presented to Council, noting it allocates the FAR pursuant to
this section of the Zoning Ordinance in a manner that is consistent with the
Ordinance, and consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Paxton noted Mr. Jordan had
made the point in his letter that this project would exceed the permitted FAR;
however, Mr. Paxton stated that if the City did re -designate a portion of the
property as P/QP, it would be considerably less than the permitted FAR for the site.
Mr. Paxton stated another issued raised by Mr. Jordan was the seismic safety of the
levee. He acknowledged this was an important issue, and one that needed to be
thoroughly understood. Mr. Paxton noted that in the staff report was a letter
addressing the issue of lateral spreading of the levee, and he asked Lyle Lewis, the
Soils Engineer who wrote the letter, to describe the actual conditions of the levee,
noting he believed it would become apparent to the Council, from Mr. Lewis'
description, that there was no substantive issue relating to the levee. Mr. Paxton
also pointed out the levee used to be an actual levee, when the land behind it was
lower than the water; however, it was no longer a levee, because the land had been
lifted up at least as high as the levee.
Lyle Lewis, Geotechnical Engineer with the firm Kleinfelder, stated he was also
representing the Fasken Trust. Referring to a drawing depicting a cross-section of
the Fasken property, Mr. Lewis referred to the levee, located in front of the
bayside marsh parcel. He stated that had once been a true levee from Murphy Rock
all the way to San Quentin, then, over time, most of the land was filled-in, except
for the areas where there are marshes and lagoons, and now most of it looks like the
Fasken property. He stated the outward slopes were generally the same all the way
along, approximately three horizontal to one vertical above the water line. Noting
the difference between the levee and a piece of land such as the Fasken parcel, Mr.
Lewis stated that if the levee fails, or an edge of the land fails, the water was
not going to come in. He stated as part of his studies for the Fasken Trust, he
looked at the dynamic stability of the levee, noting he had performed a similar
dynamic analysis several years ago along the same run of the levee. He explained
they had looked at two different earthquake magnitudes, a 7.5 and an 8.25 on the San
Andreas Fault at a close proximity to the site. He reported that for the smaller
magnitude, they estimated there would be a horizontal displacement of 0.2 to 0.4
feet, or less than half a foot, and for the larger earthquake, they estimated
approximately 1.5 to 2.5 feet. He stated this would not result in a failure, noting
the soil had to strain a little to mobilize its strength, and during the cyclic
loading, when it was straining, they estimated it would move approximately 2.5 feet
laterally, which on this particular section would not be enough to cause any great
damage. Mr. Lewis stated they also believed that if there was movement, it would
not be back more than approximately 50 feet from the edge of the water, and he noted
the buildings would be back at least 100 feet, and would be pile supported.
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti asked Mr. Lewis to identify the sketch or section of
the parcel he was referring to, so that it would be clear in the public record. Mr.
Lewis clarified he had referred to a schematic profile of the Fasken Trust site.
Mr. Paxton noted there had been a great many issues raised by Mr. Jordan, and he
felt he had addressed those that were most significant. He offered to address any
further questions the Councilmembers might have.
Councilmember Cohen asked, since Mr. Paxton had commented on many of the zoning
issues, whether he had any observations regarding the street frontage issue? Mr.
Paxton stated he did not have a comment on that issue, noting Mr. Jordan's letter
had been very non-specific. He noted that as he looked at the street frontage
issue, he felt it might not be very difficult to solve. Referring to the site
diagram, which he asked be made part of the public record, Mr. Paxton pointed out
Morphew Street, which was currently a dedicated public street that is to be
abandoned before the project is undertaken, and runs up into both properties, going
through a part of the Corporation Yard site. He stated if one were to insist there
be street frontage, it would appear that rather than abandoning Morphew Street down
to the point that had been proposed, it could be abandoned at a shorter distance,
and still provide street frontage, meeting what Mr. Jordan had referred to with
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Rf lar) 3/20/2000 Page 16
regard to having access through a private easement, yet be contiguous to a public
street. He believed this might be a possible remedy if it was required by the
Ordinance, although he noted he had not looked into that issue to verify Mr. Jordan
was correct in that regard.
Richard Hannum noted he had just spoken with Mrs. Starkweather, and his firm would
provide her with the dimensions she requested. Referring to the diagram of the
property, he noted the dotted property lines show what is existing, and the 4:1
upward slope that existed between the edge of the wetland and the property line was
as it had been built during the Shoreline mitigation program. The berm area located
between the property line and the shown existing ten foot fence is a ten foot flat
zone at the top of that area, which had been required as part of the Shoreline
project. He pointed out that fence was going to come down and be moved inward, by
upward of twenty feet in most areas, and almost fifty feet near the building, to
further expand the wetland buffer zone. He also pointed out that in Section C, and
near the building in Section B, the fences that were along that zone were ten feet,
and currently very large. He reported it had been requested that those fences be
reduced to four feet, so that they are visually "not present", but will still keep
animals out of that zone. In addition, they were to be set inward from the parking
area by two feet, because it was the intent that additional planting be inside the
fence.
There being no further public comment, Vice -Mayor Heller closed the public hearing.
Community Development Director Brown suggested Vice -Mayor Heller call a brief recess
to provide staff the opportunity to caucus, in order to provide adequate responses
to the Councilmembers' questions.
Vice -Mayor Heller announced there would be a recess of fifteen minutes.
Vice -Mayor Heller called the meeting back to order.
Community Development Director Brown stated the first issue that had been raised was
the seismic issue, and the lateral spreading of the levee. Mr. Brown pointed out
Mr. Lewis had already addressed the difference between what would be referred to as
a levee, and in this case, the bayfront edge of the site. Noting the letter Mr.
Lewis had referred to, which was written December 15th and was included in the
Negative Declaration, Mr. Brown asked Mr. Lewis to describe the response contained
in the letter, after which he proposed modifying the Conditions for clarity.
Mr. Lewis reported that during the process of studying the site, they had looked at
the dynamic stability of the outboard slope, and used another dynamic analysis
further up the coast of the shoreline, with similar conditions. He explained they
had used that as their model, and determined likely displacements under severe
earthquake conditions, noting an 8.25 earthquake was considered the maximum credible
earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. He reported this had shown, on the outboard
slope, that if there was movement, it would occur within 50 feet of the water, and
the movement that might occur would be a slight shifting of the soil in that area,
toward the Bay, and perhaps a little bit of dropping of the soil. He noted the bike
path might be slightly disrupted, although it could be easily repaired. The slopes
going down to the marsh areas were much less likely to fail or to have movement,
because the conditions were much more confined, and the slope was not as long; and,
because of the physical conditions of the side slopes, they were much less likely to
experience movement. He stated if movement were to occur, the outboard slope would
be where he would expect it to occur.
Mr. Brown stated Council was very aware that the City uses a "belts and suspenders"
approach when looking at seismic impact, and peer review is done, in this case by
the firm Miller Pacific. He noted it had been at their suggestion that Condition
111 was added as a mitigation measure, and staff had suggested a modification of the
wording to state, "A final evaluation of a levee for seismic stability shall be
conducted". He explained the actual purpose of that evaluation was to look at the
outboard face of the site to determine whether it has the proper inclination with
regard to the sea face, and whether the rip rap might need to be repaired or
replaced for stability. Mr. Brown suggested that for the sake of clarification,
Condition 111 be further modified to specifically add the wording, "...and a final
evaluation to review inclination of the outboard face of the site, and where rip rap
facing may need to be replaced or repaired, and necessary stabilization measures be
implemented either before the City accepts dedication of the Shoreline Park and
levee, or grants building permits for office building construction". Mr. Brown
believed this would clarify the intent of Miller Pacific in asking for the
subsequent final evaluation, in terms of the details for the protecting of that
face. Mr. Brown stated he also wished to note that Mr. Jordan had discussed concern
regarding damage to Shoreline Park and additional buildings. He noted he did not
understand the additional building concern, explaining the concern in this instance
was only regarding damage to the Shoreline Park face, and to make certain that since
that was going to be dedicated to the City, that it be protected so there are no
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (RF lar) 3/20/2000 Page 17
future maintenance problems. Mr. Brown stated there was no concern for future
seismic safety of the building, or inundation of the sites involved.
Councilmember Phillips noted Mr. Jordan had made reference to the fact that
additional studies were needed to satisfy CEQA, and asked whether that was a
requirement, or if there had already been studies to satisfy the points raised by
Mr. Jordan? Mr. Lewis reported they had done their analysis, and then in the peer
review Mr. Miller suggested the analysis be updated to fine-tune it. Mr. Brown
explained what they were really looking at was the entire bayside face of the
property, and whether there was existing rock rip rap that might need to be
augmented or replaced, to make certain the seaward face of Shoreline Park does not
begin to erode. Mr. Phillips asked if Mr. Brown was satisfied the City had met CEQA
requirement, even though that portion of the study had not yet been completed? Mr.
Tambornini stated staff was satisfied, noting they had identified the impact, and
the mitigation. He acknowledged staff knew there was some rip rap repair, and some
inclination may need to be augmented; however, those were fixes that had been
identified. Mr. Phillips asked if staff was satisfied the City met the requirement?
Mr. Tambornini stated that was correct. Mr. Brown stated there was absolutely no
concern regarding any damage to the project site or adjacent sites, it was simply a
matter of preventing erosion to the Shoreline Park band.
Mr. Brown stated Paul Jensen would address the next two points, the bonus trip
allocation and the proposed Floor Area Ratio transfer.
Mr. Jensen noted the comment had been made that the project was not considered a
High Priority project because it was not a Needed Neighborhood Serving Use.
Referring to PPP Resolution 10543 of December 7, 1999, in which the City authorized
PPP approval, he noted that within the Resolution, clear definitions were cited for
each of the High Priority Uses. Citing the definitions for Needed Neighborhood
Serving Use, he read, "A Use that provides a valued service or public benefit to the
community, such as the direct construction or a substantial financial contribution
to the development of a child care center, library, planned public trails and
bicycle paths, community facilities, etc. The Use shall be identified by a
Neighborhood Plan, the North San Rafael Vision, the San Rafael General Plan 2000, or
as recommended by the Priority Project Review Committee". Mr. Jensen stated the
words "San Rafael General Plan 2000" were critical, because it is cited in the staff
report that there is one policy, LU -50, and one program, LU -Z, which mandate the
relocation of the Corporation Yard. In addition, it had been found that the project
was, indeed, a Needed Neighborhood Serving Use.
Mr. Jensen pointed out that a number of years ago, the City used this same
definition when a small office building was approved on Smith Ranch Road, noting
that public benefit had been the donation of a fire station site. He believed that
was a comparable proposal.
Regarding the question of the transfer of Floor Area Ratio, Mr. Jensen noted Mr.
Jordan had stated there was nothing in the Zoning Ordinance to enable the City to
transfer Floor Area Ratio's for commercial uses. Mr. Jensen acknowledged there was
a section in the Zoning Ordinance which actually implements the General Plan for
transfer of density for residential uses, but not necessarily for commercial. He
noted Mr. Jordan was stating that, basically, there should be a Zoning Ordinance
section in place that allows the transfer of the commercial FAR. However, Mr.
Jensen believed, in essence, that was what Council was doing this evening, because
the PD Zoning is the enabling legislation, it is the Zoning of the property, and the
Council must comply with the General Plan, and the PD Zoning definitely allows the
City to transfer the density based on what has been proposed.
Mr. Jensen referred to another comment that had been made, which had to do with the
bonus trips. He stated Mr. Jordan was correct, that of the 41 bonus trips proposed,
29 were proposed for the Corporation Yard and 12 for the office project. Mr. Jensen
explained staff had looked at this as a project in its entirety, and since it was a
Planned Development and a project, as a whole, in a package that was being presented
to the Council, the bonus trips were looked at as a whole for the project. He
stated staff felt very comfortable that this complied with the intent of the bonus
trip allowances.
Mr. Brown addressed the question regarding the subdivision, and the requirement for
access onto a public street. He noted the actual subdivision map did not indicate
that Morphew Street would be abandoned; however, Condition #4 did state the 60 foot
roadway and utilities, which run across Parcels A and B, must be abandoned. Mr.
Brown agreed Mr. Paxton's suggestion regarding retention of a portion of the Morphew
Street right-of-way, to provide access to Parcels A and B, was appropriate. He
recommended Condition #4 be modified to indicate "...the abandonment of that roadway
and utility easement, except to provide a required access to Parcel A, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer". Staff believed that would take care of this
issue.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Rer•iar) 3/20/2000 Page 18
Mr. Brown stated the last issue concerned Mr. Jordan's public record request, which
he asked the City Attorney to address. City Attorney Ragghianti noted Mr. Jordan
and Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan had exchanged correspondence with regard to
Mr. Jordan's request to see the drafts of the lease in the Fasken proposal. Mr.
Ragghianti reported there were a number of objections Mr. Guinan interposed to Mr.
Jordan's request; however, Mr. Guinan's most recent letter to Mr. Jordan indicated
he was reconsidering, in light of the suggestion in Mr. Jordan's letter of March
16th, that there may have been responses between the Redevelopment Agency and the
project proponent with regard to the draft lease. Mr. Ragghianti stated, for the
purposes of this meeting, he did not believe the issue had any bearing on Council's
actions.
City Manager Gould noted Mr. Jordan had raised a question concerning the economic
desirability of this transaction, and while it had no bearing on Council's decision,
he wished to respond to that issue. Mr. Gould stated Mr. Jordan had suggested it
would be wiser for the City to forego this project, and simply purchase a similar
site somewhere in East San Rafael for a Corporation Yard and significant retail
development, in order to defray the bonded indebtedness for the purchase of the new
Corporation Yard site. Mr. Gould pointed out that since 1995/96, City staff had
been scouring the City, with particular emphasis on East San Rafael, looking for a
suitable relocation site for the Corporation Yard, and staff was not aware of
another three -acre site in East San Rafael that would be suitable for a Corporation
Yard use, or be available for purchase at this time. Further, although the City has
nothing against retail development, and seeks it where appropriate and consistent
with the General Plan, there was considerable effort at the State level, both in the
Legislature and amongst various task forces and commissions, to change the method of
sales tax allocation Statewide, away from the SITUS or Point -of -Sale basis, which
benefit San Rafael and other retail centers, to a per capita basis or other means of
distribution of sales tax, perhaps to the State itself. Further, there was
legislation afoot to further exempt various transactions from sales tax, which would
affect local sales tax generators. Therefore, tying the purchase of a new
Corporation Yard site to sales tax generation was not without risk. Mr. Gould
stated a fifty-year lease of 3 acres in East San Rafael for a Corporation Yard site
was of significant value to the City, because the Corporation Yard was an absolutely
essential facility to the municipal services provided to all neighborhoods in San
Rafael.
Mr. Brown stated the last issue he wished to address was not one that had been
raised by Mr. Jordan, but by Mrs. Starkweather. Mr. Brown noted staff was very
sympathetic to the need for specificity regarding the location of fencing and the
dimensions from the marsh habitat to the actual property landscaping and parking
lots, particularly considering that in the past, there have been misunderstandings
and a lack of implementation on some of those issues. Therefore, staff was
recommending that Condition #65, requiring that the final landscaping plans and
details come back to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, be modified to
also require the dimensions of the sections from the wetlands to the project
boundary, so there can be some certainty regarding those locations.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the proposed change to Condition #27. He noted Mr.
Paxton had requested the language be changed to read, "A permit shall be obtained
from Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) for improvements within
the jurisdiction of BCDC, prior to issuance of a grading permit for the improvements
within the BCDC jurisdiction". He asked if that was what had been intended by that
Condition, and how staff proposed this be addressed? Mr. Tambornini stated that
would actually put more of an imposition on the applicant to get BCDC approvals
beforehand, or split their grading permit in two. He noted it did not make much
difference to staff, explaining a requirement such as this was typically tied to a
building permit, and pointing out that BCDC had limited jurisdiction to shoreline
access improvements. He acknowledged the design of the office building portion
could be affected, where access points occur, if BCDC wanted additional access
points. Mr. Tambornini stated that if Condition #27 was changed as Mr. Paxton
requested, it could still be implemented, although it would place more of a burden
on the applicant, in terms of the timing and how they proceed with construction.
Mr. Cohen stated it had been his understanding that Mr. Paxton was requesting the
language be limited specifically to the grading permit for that portion within BCDC
jurisdiction, meaning the Shoreline Park. He noted that while it might not have
been the intent, it raised the possibility that the grading and building permits
could be issued, the building could actually be constructed, and the Shoreline Park
could languish, waiting for BCDC approval. Mr. Brown acknowledged the intent was to
limit it to the Shoreline band; however, in looking at the dimensions, he was not
certain if the 100 foot BCDC jurisdiction was entirely within the Shoreline band,
noting it might extend onto the property. In that case, the grading permit
preceding the building permit for the office building might also be affected. Mr.
Cohen asked, if the Condition was left substantially as it is, and it turned out
there was some difficulty with BCDC relative to the Shoreline Park, to the point
where it was actually threatening to delay the project, was that something the
Council could then reconsider? Mr. Brown stated it was. Mr. Cohen stated he would
be more comfortable proceeding on that basis, and then if for some unforeseen reason
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Rei lar) 3/20/2000 Page 19
BCDC was unreasonably holding up the Shoreline Park and impacting the project, the
Council could revisit this issue. Mr. Brown stated staff would agree, and noted the
applicant's representative was indicating acceptance. Mr. Cohen suggested the
language for Condition #27 should be left as it is, and then if there is a problem,
Council can re -address the issue.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was comfortable with staff's responses, and
appreciated their effort, noting this was a considerable project, and a lot of
effort and consideration had gone into it. Mr. Phillips referred to Mr.
Ragghianti's response to the dialogue back and forth between Mr. Jordan and the City
Attorney's office, during which time certain records Mr. Jordan felt were necessary
to complete his work were not made available. He noted it now sounded as though
staff was reconsidering the restriction placed on that access, and he asked if his
understanding was correct, first with the denial of the request, for whatever
reason, and now with reconsideration of that? Mr. Ragghianti stated Mr. Phillips
was correct, in part, noting he did not mean when he stated Mr. Guinan had
reconsidered that Mr. Guinan would change his mind. He explained Mr. Guinan had
told him that Mr. Jordan's last letter of March 16th had raised a point Mr. Guinan
had not previously considered. However, the letter exchange contained multiple
assertions by Mr. Guinan as to why the document was not a public document Mr. Jordan
was entitled to see. Mr. Ragghianti noted the reconsideration was with respect to
one issue only, and there were others which Mr. Guinan had raised, in addition to
the one being reconsidered.
Mr. Phillips asked if there was any way, at this time, to determine how significant
that one point was? Mr. Ragghianti stated there was no way he could make that
determination, as he had not participated in the exchange; therefore, he would not
be able to explain why Mr. Guinan was reconsidering it, only that something in the
March 16th letter, perhaps suggesting that the drafts may have been exposed to
representatives of Mr. Fasken and the Redevelopment Agency, had caused Mr. Guinan to
state that perhaps he should reconsider Mr. Jordan's request. Mr. Phillips asked
how Council should proceed, noting he sensed there might be some danger, under the
circumstances, in proceeding at this time without clearing that point. Mr.
Ragghianti stated, in his judgment, there was no danger in proceeding at this time.
He believed Mr. Jordan raised this point because he did not know whether the
Councilmembers knew what was in the lease. However, Mr. Ragghianti did not believe
that what was in the lease was crucial to any of the discretionary entitlements
Council was being asked to rule on, and it was his opinion Council could proceed,
independent of this issue.
Councilmember Cohen stated he, too, was satisfied with staff's responses to the
technical points that had been raised by Mr. Jordan concerning the status of the
Negative Declaration, the trip allocations, and the FAR transfers. He noted Mr.
Jordan had accurately argued in his letters that even though the project had been
given a Priority Project determination, the Council should still consider it on its
merits, and if it failed on its merits, then the Priority Project determination
would be meaningless. Mr. Cohen stated he had not heard very much pertaining to the
merits of the project, and he believed what Council had heard, once they got past
the technical challenges to its qualifications under the General Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance and CEQA, were arguments about this project as compared to a theoretical,
high sales tax generating use. He pointed out such a theoretical use was not before
the Council, nor was it in front of them during their deliberations on whether or
not to grant Priority Status to this project. Mr. Cohen believed that was the point
Mr. Jordan was trying to get to when he raised the issue of the lease, and the
documents he stated he was entitled to see but had been denied access to. He noted
Mr. Jordan's argument was that Council could not even compare this to the potential
for generating several hundred thousand dollars in sales tax from some other
theoretical project, unless they knew the value of the lease and could, therefore,
compute it. However, he reiterated that was not before the Council, and they were
not being asked to compare the two: therefore, he was not concerned with that
dispute.
Mr. Cohen noted that even though he had just argued that this comparison was not
what was in front of the Council, there were a couple of issues that had been raised
to which he would like to respond, because he felt they implied something he did not
believe was contained within the Priority Project Procedures the way it was laid out
in the General Plan, nor was it consistent with Council's intent when drafting that
ten years ago. He stated the City was not engaged in selling trips, and was not
looking to allocate trips to the highest bidder and, therefore, having to decide
when projects come before them which one has the greatest economic value. He stated
the City had set out a matrix for evaluating projects and giving them priorities in
competing for limited traffic capacity. He noted that when they get to the point
where there are projects of equal merit, they have to weigh the very fine points
between them, and decide which one does a better job of meeting those standards. He
reiterated that was not what was before the Council at this time, noting, in any
case, the issue of which one brings more dollars to the City should not be the
decision upon which the Council bases its Priority Project determination. Mr. Cohen
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Re gar) 3/20/2000 Page 20
acknowledged High Tax Generating Use is one of the criteria for being allocated
Priority, but there are other criteria.
Regarding the issue of office use, which Mr. Jordan raised in his correspondence,
Mr. Cohen stated he believed office use should be a High Priority use, noting that
while it did not generate sales tax, when looking at the entire economy of San
Rafael, it was clear there was a need for a wide range of economic activity. He
felt Class A office space clearly contributed to the function of a complete economy
within the City of San Rafael. Mr. Cohen stated he believed the City should find a
way to make it a priority on its own.
Addressing the project on its merits, Mr. Cohen stated he felt the project was
worthy of Council's support. He believed staff had answered as severe a challenge
on the technical issues as the City has seen on a project in recent memory. He
noted he appreciated Mrs. Starkweather's continued vigilance and protection of the
environment, and the project proponents' willingness to work with her to address
those issues. He stated he was satisfied the City criteria had been met, and felt
the Council would be discharging its responsibility in approving the project.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was satisfied with the staff reports, and the
responses to the issues raised by Mr. Jordan. Mr. Phillips felt City Manager Gould
had raised a significant point regarding the issue of where the City was going to
locate the Corporation Yard, noting he believed this project presented the
opportunity for relocation, perhaps the only opportunity. He felt that was critical
to San Rafael for a variety of reasons, and in many ways, it was the essential
element of the project. Therefore, he wanted to vote in favor of moving the project
forward.
16c. REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE APPENDIX B (LAND USE TRAFFIC
ALLOCATIONS) OF THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000, AS REQUIRED BY CIRCULATION
ELEMENT POLICY C-4 (TRIP ALLOCATIONS).
Mr. Jensen noted the San Rafael General Plan 2000 includes Appendix B, entitled
"Land Use Traffic Allocations", a table in the General Plan which lists all of the
undeveloped and underdeveloped properties in the two traffic -impacted areas of the
City, North San Rafael and East San Rafael. He explained PM Peak Hour trips were
assigned to properties on this list, based on the maximum development potential
permitted under the General Plan, and also with relation to the City's traffic model
for the two geographic areas of the City. Mr. Jensen noted this was generally used
as a guide for assessing development projects.
Mr. Jensen reported the policies in the General Plan required that Appendix B be
updated periodically, and as it was last updated in 1991, it was now necessary, from
a housekeeping standpoint, to update it to reflect development projects that have
been approved and constructed since 1991, and also to reflect changes in land use,
assessor's parcel numbers, and a number of other factors, including an update of the
City's traffic reserves for these two areas. Mr. Jensen noted a working draft was
included as an attachment to the staff report, with the final version attached to
the final draft Resolution.
Vice -Mayor Barbara Heller opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Mr. Jordan stated this item related very indirectly to the previous item, noting it
made reference in that portion relating to the parcels involved, as they relate to
the proceedings being conducted by Council. He asked that the comments already made
regarding the prior item be considered in relation to this item, as well.
There being no further public comment, Vice -Mayor Heller closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jensen explained the first order of business would be for Council to consider
the environmental review for the three items before them. The first was a draft
Negative Declaration for the Below Market Rate housing amendment, which was the
first attachment in the staff report for item 16a. The second was the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration, with the mitigation monitoring and reporting program
for the Fasken office and Corporation Yard project, which was an attachment to the
staff report for item 16b. The third was the draft Negative Declaration for
assessing Appendix B. Vice -Mayor Heller clarified these were each to be heard as
separate motions.
16a. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution adopting Negative Declaration for the San Rafael General Plan 2000
Zoning Ordinance text amendments to the affordable housing policies, programs
and provisions for new below market rate rental units.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Rei l ar) 3/20/2000 Page 21
RESOLUTION NO. 10612 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN
2000 AND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND PROVISIONS
FOR NEW BELOW MARKET RATE RENTAL UNITS (GPA 99-5 AND
ZC-99-8).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor
Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller
Boro
16b. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment,
Planned Development Zoning Ordinance, Master Use Permit, Environmental and
Design Review Permit, Trip Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map for a Commercial
Office and City Corporation Yard Development located at 2300, 2333 and 2350
Kerner Boulevard and 200 Morphew Street.
RESOLUTION NO. 10613 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT (GPA 99-2), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZC 99-5), MASTER USE PERMIT (UP
99-26), ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED -99-
71), TRIP PERMIT (TP 00-1) AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
(s00-1) FOR A COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND CITY CORPORATION
YARD DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 2300, 2333, AND 2350
KERNER BOULEVARD AND 200 MORPHEW STREET (AP NOS. 009-
291-07, 08, 09, 10, 31, 32, 34 AND 47)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor
Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller
Boro
16c. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration for an amendment to the San
Rafael General Plan 2000 to update Appendix B (Land Use Traffic Allocations).
RESOLUTION NO. 10614 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN
RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000 TO UPDATE APPENDIX B (LAND
USE TRAFFIC ALLOCATIONS) (GPA 99-4)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
16. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution approving an amendment to the San Rafael General Plan 2000 to: a)
the Housing Element (Policies H-19 and H-20 and programs H -C, H -DD and H -EE),
Land Use Element (Policy LU -10B), East San Rafael (Policy ESR -6) Appendix A
(Glossary) and the Housing Element Background Report to lower the Affordable
Housing Standards for new below market rate rental units (GPA 99-5); b) the
Land Use Map of the Land Use Element redesignating three acres of land from
Light Industrial/Office to Public/Quasi Public Land Use designation located at
2350 Kerner Boulevard/2000 Morphew Street (GAP 99-2); and c) update Appendix B
- Land Use Traffic Allocations (GPA 99-4)
RESOLUTION NO. 10615 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000 TO: a)
AMEND THE HOUSING ELEMENT (POLICIES H-19 AND H-20 AND
PROGRAMS H -C, H -DD, AND H -EE), LAND USE ELEMENT
(POLICY LU -10B), EAST SAN RAFAEL (POLICY ESR -6),
APPENDIX A (GLOSSARY), AND THE HOUSING ELEMENT
BACKGROUND REPORT TO LOWER THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
STANDARDS FOR NEW BELOW MARKET RATE RENTAL UNITS (GPA
99-5); b) AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE
ELEMENT REDESIGNATING THREE ACRES OF LAND FROM LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE TO PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC LAND USE
DESIGNATION LOCATED AT 2350 KERNER BOULEVARD/200
MORPHEW STREET (GPA 99-2); AND c) UPDATE APPENDIX B -
LAND USE TRAFFIC ALLOCATIONS (GPA 99-4) (Second
readinq and final adoation set for Council meetinq of
4/3/2000).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 21
SRCC MINUTES (Rei l ar) 3/20/2000 Page 22
16a. The title of the Ordinance was read:
'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE SAN RAFAEL
MUNICIPAL CODE (CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE), CHAPTER 16, SECTION
14.16.030 (AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS) TO LOWER THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
STANDARDS FOR NEW BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) RENTAL UNITS (ZC99-8) (Second
reading and final adoation set for Council meeting of 4/3/2000).
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title
only, and to pass Ordinance No. 1749 to print, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor
16b. The title of the Ordinance was read:
Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller
Boro
'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
SAN RAFAEL. CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE, BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY FROM PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT AND LI/O (LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE) DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD ORDINANCE NO. 1750)
DISTRICT FOR THE FASKEN PROPERTY MASTER PLAN, CITY CORPORATION YARD AND
COMMERCIAL OFFICE COMPLEX DEVELOPMENT (RE: ZC 99-5, 2350 KERNER BOULEVARD AND
200 MORPHEW STREET; AP NOS. 009-291-10, 31, 32 AND 34 [PTN.]) (Second reading
and final adoation set for Council meeting of 4/3/2000).
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety, and refer to it by name
only, and to pass Ordinance No. 1750 to print, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor
Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller
Boro
16.b Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution approving a Tentative Parcel Map, Master Use Permit, Environmental
and Design Review Permit, and Trip Permit, and for a 116,427 square foot
office complex and new 3.0 acre City Corporation Yard facility located at 2350
Kerner Boulevard and 200 Morphew Street.
RESOLUTION NO. 10616 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (s 00-1), MASTER USE PERMIT (UP
99-26), ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED 99-
71), AND TRIP PERMIT (TP 00-1) FOR A 116,427 SQUARE
FOOT OFFICE COMPLEX AND NEW 3.0 ACRE CITY CORPORATION
YARD FACILITY LOCATED AT 2350 KERNER BOULEVARD AND 200
MORPHEW STREET (APN: 009-291-10, 31, 32 AND 34) (As
amended to include the following changes: To include
and incorporate the changes to the Conditions, as
recommended in Associate Planner Kraig Tambornini's
memorandum of 3/17/2000; and as recommended during
this meeting, a change to Condition #4 regarding the
retention of a portion of Morphew Street; a change to
Condition #65 regarding required sections and
detailing of the final landscaping plan; further
revision to Condition #111 regarding the final
evaluation of the shoreline frontage; revisions to
Condition #28, referring to the traffic mitigation
fees, the wording to be changed to read, "updated as
of 12/20/99"; Condition #77 regarding the requirement
for a landscape maintenance contract shall be changed
to read, "The landscape maintenance contract shall be
provided for the life of the project and may not be
discontinued without prior approval by the City,
unless it is replaced with a similar contract with
another Qualified professional").
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller
None
Mayor Boro
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 22
SRCC MINUTES (Rer-lar) 3/20/2000 Page 23
OLD BUSINESS:
17. UPDATE ON ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA TASK FORCE PROCESS (CD) - File 9-2-45
Community Development Director Bob Brown reported the Task Force was definitely in
the home stretch of the process, and all participants were at the table. He stated
he would be seeking agreement from the Task Force members at their next meeting on
April 1st, which should be their final meeting. He reported they had reached
concurrence on a range of potential residential development for the site; however,
they now needed to establish concurrence on non-residential use of the property. He
stated there had been a request to re-examine a draft recommendation regarding
priorities for acquisition so if, in the future, there are ever environmental funds
available to purchase portions of the site or development rights, there would be a
recommendation regarding which areas would become priorities for acquisition. He
noted there were issues between the environmental proponents of that policy and, in
particular, the property owners, so that still needed to be rectified. Mr. Brown
stated there was also a recommendation regarding residential affordability, which
was brought forward at the last meeting, and was being re -worked by the housing
advocates on the Task Force. He explained they would be working on these issues in
small groups between now and April 1st, and hoped to actually have commitment and
signatures on the recommendations by April 1st.
Mr. Brown reported they were also working on an aerial depiction, which was an
example of what could be developed on the property, and he presented a "draft view"
to the Council. He stated staff was trying to convince the Task Force members that
this was only one example of what might be built under the proposed recommendation,
noting it becomes rather challenging any time they try to actually put people's
vision on paper. Mr. Brown explained the draft view represented one of the
relatively lower density development proposals, and many of the Task Force members
have asked that they develop another depiction that is actually more in the middle
of the development range. He stated that was something they would try to resolve at
the next meeting, and modify the graphic.
Mr. Brown stated they hoped to reach closure on April 1st, and if that was the case,
come before the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors in a joint session
on April 12th. He explained the purpose of that meeting would be to accept the
recommendations of the Task Force, thank them for their work, and then pass those
recommendations on to staff for their respective General Plan updates.
Vice -Mayor Heller invited public comment.
John Orteqa, resident of San Rafael, stated he was concerned that people were always
speaking for him, and in this case, that included the non-profit developers. He
stated he did not see where anyone from the Canal neighborhood had been represented
on the Task Force, and while he acknowledged this was a marvelous document, and well
intended, he stated he had ideas he did not believe had been considered by the Task
Force, and he did not believe their work had represented those in the Canal area.
Mr. Orteqa noted the only precedent was the General Plan, and again, he was not
aware of anyone from the Canal area being included on the committee for the General
Plan. Mr. Brown reported there had been no applicants from the Canal area for the
St. Vincent's/Silveira Task Force; however, all the members of the Task Force have
been involved in "loop out" sessions, with many various constituency groups.
Regarding the committee for the General Plan Update, Mr. Brown noted there were two
members from the Canal neighborhood, Miguel Gavaldon from the Canal Ministry, and
Gina Rivera, Director of the Youth Leadership Institute, who has also worked with
the Canal Ministry. Mr. Orteqa again pointed out there was no one from the Canal
area on the St. Vincent's/Silveira Task Force. Vice -Mayor Heller noted this
process, and the Task Force, had been in place for many months, and had certainly
been open to anyone who wanted to attend, noting all of the meetings had been open
to the public, and had attracted large audiences at every meeting.
Councilmember Miller clarified the situation with the Task Force committee, noting
there were three neighborhood representatives of the residents in that particular
area surrounding the St. Vincent's/Silveira property, which was the same principle
as was used for the Pickleweed Advisory Committee, where the committee was comprised
of residents of the Canal area. He explained that when they are dealing with a
specific neighborhood, they want the committee to be made up of people from the
neighborhoods that are going to be affected. Mr. Miller stated it was not a matter
of excluding the Canal, it was a matter of looking at the neighborhood and having
that neighborhood determine, for themselves, their own existence. Mr. Ortega stated
he had been concerned over the rate of the low-income housing, and wanted to make
certain it was included in whatever was decided there. He believed we were losing
our workforce through the gentrification that was going on.
Councilmember Phillips stated Community Development Director Bob Brown, Linda
Jackson, and staff deserved to be complimented, noting he had heard nothing but good
things about their participation.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 23
SRCC MINUTES (Rer•iar) 3/20/2000 Page 24
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to accept the report.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Heller
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
COUNCILNENBER REPORTS:
18. None.
There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:10 PM.
JEANNE�INI. 1ity Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2000
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 3/20/2000 Page 24