Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1995-04-17SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1995, AT 8:10 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul O. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember David J. Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk [0]""A#WK6]�I�Lei ZFtd.40110]ZFAKO)QW\ZMe) ,R)oiZ[WMZ1�4to) 0aii None. we) ZF9ofZ9WK0AInofZIDYA"I Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to approve the recommended action on the followina Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular Approved as submitted. Meetings of April 3, 1995 (CC) 2. Report on Annual Filings - Fair Political Practices Accepted report. Commission Forms 730, Statement of Economic Interests Bellam and for Designated Employees, Including Consultants, Kerner Boulevards (PW) - File 11-10 x 9-3-40 Geotechnical Review Board, Design Review Board, and Cultural Affairs Commission (CC) x 8-9 - File 9-4-3 6. Resolution Approving Renewal of Agreement 3. Authorized to Call for Bids - Routine and Emergency Approved staff recommendation. Tree Services - 1995 (PW) - File 4-1-474 4. Authorization to Request Proposals for Engineering Approved staff recommendation. Services to Signalize the Intersection of Bellam and Kerner Boulevards (PW) - File 11-10 x 9-3-40 5. Monthly Investment Report (Fin) - File 8-18 x 8-9 Accepted report. 6. Resolution Approving Renewal of Agreement with C.G. RESOLUTION NO. 9328 Uhlenberg for Audit Services for 1994/95 (Fin) - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN - File 8-1 AGREEMENT WITH C.G. UHLENBERG FOR AUDIT SERVICES FOR 1994/95 7. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Lease Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 9329 - with Dixie School District for Rental of Space at Oakview AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A School for Book Storage (Lib) - File 4-7-27 LEASE AGREEMENT WITH DIXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR USE OF OAKVIEW SCHOOL FOR STORAGE SPACE FOR BOOKS FOR LIBRARY BOOK SALE 9. Legislation Affecting San Rafael Approved staff recommendations: (CM) - File 9-1 Support SB602 (Wright) Local Use Tax: Leased Vehicles. 10. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Service Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 9330 Between City and County of Marin (Department of Information AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A Services and Technology) for Participation in the Marin SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE Community Access System (MCPAS) (CM) - File 4-13-93 COUNTY OF MARIN (DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY) FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE MARIN COMMUNITY ACCESS SYSTEM (MCPAS) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen (from minutes of April 3, 1995 only, due to absence from meeting). The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 2 8. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 7853 AND NO. 8071 ESTABLISHING PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTING GENERAL PLAN 2000 (Pl) - File - 115 Councilmember Cohen stated he had an opportunity to discuss this point with the Planning Director today, and he wanted to reiterate a comment he had made recently at a Planning meeting. He stated he feels we should revisit the definitions of Priority Projects. He noted that when we are asked to adopt three projects in the Resolution being recommended for adoption tonight, as providing significant amounts of affordable housing, high tax generating uses, or needed neighborhood serving uses. He recalled that when the General Plan was being drafted we talked about a way to define office space, particularly office space which goes with high paying employment, and we were not able to come up with something which suitably grasped that issue, and it was not incorporated into the Priority definitions. He stated that, given what has happened in this area, particularly in the software industry, and the need to pursue high paying jobs for economic balance and not just the retail jobs created generally speaking with the high tax generating uses, that we should have a category in the Priority Projects Procedure (PPP) for office projects. He would like us to have a tool, in case we have a project like that submitted, and we need to weigh that carefully against some of these other uses. Councilmember Heller asked would that be Councilmember Cohen's suggestion that this would go into this particular PPP policy, or that it go into the next General Plan? Councilmember Cohen responded that this is really a implementing Resolution, and the heart of the matter is in Policy C-7 of the General Plan, so it will have to be taken up when we revise the Circulation Element of the General Plan. That will take some time, because we will have to go through the Land Use Element, the Environmental Impact Report, etc. He just wanted it to be on the record about the importance of this, and that we should all give it some consideration. He stated the Planning Director agrees with him on this issue. He added that, given what is happening in our local economy, it behooves us to find a way to come up with a definition to make it clear that we want to encourage and support those kind of uses and that kind of development. It makes sense to set it as a priority. Councilmember Heller agreed. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded to adopt the Resolution amending Resolutions Nos. 7853, 8071 and 8313, establishing the Priority Projects Procedure. RESOLUTION NO. 9331 - AMENDING RESOLUTIONS NOS. 7853, 8071 AND 8313, ESTABLISHING PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTING SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000 Under Question, Mayor Boro commented that perhaps there is something our Planning staff could do as we go forward, pointing out the original three items, the affordable housing, tax generating and neighborhood serving retail, are very measurable benefits. One of the things we might want to see is whether there is any way to find out whether you can measure the benefits from the high paying jobs. Planning Director Pendoley responded that toward the next fiscal year, to begin an update of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and that would be the appropriate point to start to explore this issue. Councilmember Cohen pointed out that the work of the Marin County Economic Commission has really begun to focus on this issue, and the importance if attracting high -paying jobs, and the multiplier factor and reduction in traffic. There is some baseline work which has already been done along that line. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips SPECIAL PRESENTATION 11. PRESENTATION OF THE YOUTH SERVICE DAY AWARDS - File 102 Mayor Boro announced that after the awards had been scheduled for presentation it was found that most of the recipients would be out of town this week on Spring break, so it has been postponed to the meeting on May 1, 1995. 12. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT/ZONING CONDITIONS REQUIRING A SUPPLEMENTAL PARKING EASEMENT, 100 McINNIS PARKWAY FOR A RESTAURANT; AP 180-410-07; EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL, DENNIS HALE, GENERAL MANAGER, OWNER; THOMAS M. SHERWOOD, REPRESENTATIVE (Pl) - File 10-3 x 10-5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 3 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing. Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council, stating that when the Embassy Suites was approved in 1989, in addition to the 359 on-site parking spaces there was also a requirement that the hotel provide another 200 spaces off-site. Specifically, that was to be done with a parking easement on the adjacent property which is now occupied by the office building which houses Autodesk. Recently staff received a proposal from both property owners to delete the requirement from their respective approvals. Among other things, they presented a survey they had done last August during a peak operating period, which would tend to show that the existing hotel parking basically does meet the needs not only of the hotel but also the restaurant and the conference facilities. This was considered by the Planning Commission and they recommended approval. The Planning Commission, particularly Commissioner Starkweather, urged staff to meet with the respective tenants and see if they could come to some kind of operating agreement in lieu of the easement and the more formal arrangements, to cooperate on parking during peak times. Staff did meet with them, and there seemed to be good feeling and an oral commitment, but we were not able to get an exchange of letters which would indicate some kind of agreement between the two parties. Nevertheless, staff is recommending approval to the change of these permits. Councilmember Heller inquired, does Autodesk propose to close off that parking lot at night? Mr. Pendoley replied that they do. He added that the Planning Commission required that they leave a drive -way between the two, with dividers or bollards in place which could be moved. Councilmember Heller observed that essentially the parking would be lost to the hotel if it is needed, and Mr. Pendoley agreed. Councilmember Heller inquired, had they verbally agreed to allow reciprocal parking if needed? Mr. Pendoley explained that in the meetings staff had with them they were in agreement, but when we asked for a follow-up written agreement we were not able to get it. Councilmember Heller stated she wondered if they would not allow parking on the Autodesk site when the hotel has special occasions. Mr. Pendoley stated that both parties are represented tonight, and they could address that issue. Mayor Boro stated he has had several discussions with the Planning Director and with representatives of Embassy Suites and Autodesk on this point. He stated his concern is more from the overall planning point of view. Historically when the site was planned we thought of it as one site, and we tried to accommodate overflow parking on a location which obviously would have parking available at night and on weekends. He stated he can understand and respect Autodesk's concern about security. He stated he know there are some financial incentives for Embassy Suites not to continue with this agreement, because of the fact that its history has shown that it is generally not needed, and the property owner considers this a cloud on his title, and would like to have it taken away. On the other hand, he feels there could potentially be a public need on some occasion, rare that is might be, to use that parking area. He noted it seems to him that the spirit he would like to see before the Council approves this request, is that they have some agreement the parties involved could come it, which would basically honor - on initiation by the hotel primarily - when they have an event such as a trade show, which might bring large crowds to the hotel. There would be some natural spill-over and he would like them to find a way to work with Autodesk to provide the security and make the parking available. He stated he understands that to date there has not been much occasion for that, but if it does happen we have an obligation to the citizens of the City, since we had planned for this, to have the site there to accommodate that kind of use. He stated that perhaps when the representatives speak to the Council they could address that issue. Thomas Sherwood, attorney speaking on behalf of Embassy Suites, stated that the staff has very accurately described what the state of their discussion has been to date. He noted that at the time the condition for an easement was imposed there was no history for the site. There was some concern about the parking generation from the convention meeting space. Out of an abundance of caution the City had at that time imposed the condition we are discussing tonight, and it was appropriate at the time. On the basis of this condition, an easement was granted by Mr. Joe Shekou across the parcel, which allows parking 365 days a year from 6 PM until 8 AM. It is an unlimited evening use, which was consistent with the City's condition at that time. He noted we now have almost five years of history, during which time that parking lot has never been there, since the office building did not go forward for several reasons. Mr. Sherwood stated there are very occasional instances when there is a confluence of hotel occupancy, restaurant use and convention use, which results in both the parking lot being full and parking spilling over onto the street. In fact, many people park on the street even before the parking lot is full. He noted most people want to park as near to the front door as possible, and that is one of the problems with the easement in question. It is from the parking lot which is behind the hotel, so we would be asking people to park some distance away, out of sight of the hotel, and there is some question as to what extent that would be used even if it was available. He feels that people would prefer to park up and down the street, in sight of the entrance to the hotel, before they would use that parking SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 4 area. That has been the history to date. Mr. Sherwood added that one item merits correction. There was some indication in the staff report that there was some overflow parking during the County Fair. That has not been the case. That had been a concern at the time this project was approved, but the hotel is just as concerned as the City about what happens during the Fair and they carefully monitor people coming into the hotel during the Fair. He stated there are vacant parking spaces during the Fair, so we do not have cars spilling out on to the street during the four days of the Fair. Regarding the motivation for the changes, there are economic considerations for Embassy Suites, since they are paying for a 365 day year, 12 hours a day, parking rights, which are not required. Also Autodesk is concerned about security. He noted it is interesting that the Council would be talking about high paying software related office uses. Autodesk, as one of the major employers in San Rafael, are concerned about the implications if that parking lot is left open all the time and hotel guests are allowed to park in there. Also, Mr. Shekou is concerned about the cloud on the title. He stated they had discussions with Mr. Shekou, some of which were with Mr. Pendoley, in an effort to come to some accommodation. The bottom line is that Mr. Shekou says that while he might be willing to talk about it at a business level, he does not want it imposed as a condition of approval by the City. Mr. Sherwood noted that Autodesk has indicated a willingness to work with Embassy Suites. There is a potential for a good symbiotic relationship. He pointed out that there are times when the Autodesk operations are such that they use their parking lot for nonparking activities, which could spill over. He feels there is an equal chance that they would be parking in the Embassy Suites parking lot from the office site, without any consideration of the fact that the easement does not flow in both directions. While Embassy Suites is more than willing, on an informal basis, to make every effort both with Autodesk and Mr. Shekou to have an informal arrangement to allow overflow parking on those rare instances where an event occurs which will necessitate overflow parking, Embassy Suite could give Autodesk notice in advance so that the bollards can be taken down to provide access and to allow them to gear up their security. He stated Embassy Suites cannot guarantee to the Council that they can reach that agreement. He stated that, given what we know today, he feels that were the City planning this hotel today it would not request the condition. It is simply overkill. He noted that staff and the Planning Commission feel that way, and he would ask that the condition be eliminated; he supports that staff recommendation. He noted that Mr. Dennis Hale, General Manager of the hotel, is present, in case the Council has any questions of him. Mayor Boro noted Mr Shekou is not present, nor is there a representative of Autodesk. Councilmember Cohen stated he has a question of Mr. Hale of Embassy Suites. He asked would he be right in assuming that the hotel is interested in providing adequate parking for the guests and for visitors to the convention center. Dennis Hale responded that is correct. Councilmember Cohen added that if it was Mr. Hale's perception that parking availability was a problem it is something he would want to address, and asked if that is a reasonable assumption? Mr. Hale replied that is right. There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed. Mayor Boro called for Council discussion. Mayor Boro stated he feels the City Attorney may be able to assist on this issue. He noted Mr. Sherwood make a comment that apparently the property owner, Mr. Shekou, would be willing to do something, but not as a condition of approval but as part of a business transaction, or something to that effect. He asked the City Attorney for comment. City Attorney Gary Ragghianti stated he is not surprised that Mr. Shekou's position is as Mr. Sherwood articulates. He does not think there is any way the City can be assured that there will be occasional or casual use, or opportunity for use, of the Autodesk property for overflow parking unless there is a written agreement. To think otherwise would be foolish. He stated this matter comes to the Council at the request of Embassy Suites, to amend a condition of their use permit and zoning which was imposed five years ago. If the Council amends it, then the effect will be that the easement, or parking agreement, or encumbrance on the Autodesk property will extinguish, and there may never be another one. So, the Council's decision needs to be made in that light. On the other hand, if the Council believes that the facts simply do not any longer necessitate the continuation of this condition, then the Council may delete it. Mr. Ragghianti added he believes that this is one of the rare, unusual or infrequent occasions when the Council could do what it wants, and no court would set it aside. It is a matter of Council discretion. Mayor Boro stated he certainly understands the position of the hotel, and that they feel they do have adequate parking, and the other two parties have their interests. It just seems that we are dealing with what has happened and what we know today, but as the future comes about there could be needs put on that site which could necessitate potential use or need for parking. He stated he is not sure how we will get from where we are, to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 5 grant the wishes of the three groups involved, and at the same time have some "hook" on the future so that if there was a need, it would not be used but just sit there and we would have more parking on the street. He noted there could be further development in that area and the parking could spill over into Marin Lagoon. He stated he is trying to find a way we could do this, and not make it a condition, but at the same time have the parties in good faith come to us and say they will have the agreement which hotel will initiate, and Autodesk will work with them, so that if and when the parking is needed on a rare occasion, it can be used. Mr. Ragghianti noted that one of the options available to the Council is to "invite" Autodesk and Mr. Shekou or their representatives, to a meeting to seek to have all of the parties who are involved in this meet and confer prior to the time they come here, in the hope that they will accomplish what Mayor Boro has just articulated. If they can, that will be fine. If they cannot, the Council will still have to make the decision. Councilmember Cohen stated he understands Mayor Boro's concerns, and is certainly open to a suggestion on how we can follow up on the City Attorney's recommendation. He added it seems to him that when we imposed this condition it was uncertain what the demand would be. We now have five years of experience, and some specific parking counts taken at time when it was calculated to be as high as it would get. He stated that would clearly indicate that there is not a basis for the concern the City had in 1989 regarding the parking demand for the hotel. He noted we have a couple of successful business enterprises here, each trying to do the right thing for their own business purposes, and he is not sure he can see justification for demanding that this condition continue to exist. He suggested that if there was some way to mediate a business arrangement, he would be receptive, but he is not particularly in favor of continuing this condition. Mayor Boro stated he agrees that the three parties have justification to ask what they are asking for, and two of the parties seem more than willing to do this, but he thinks that in the public interest it would be worthwhile to see if we could have some loosely knit agreement that if, and when, the event came about we would at least know that the parking would be available. He stated before we let go of it, he would at least like to sit down and have some discussion with the three parties, to see if there was some way that they could reach an agreement, outside of this body. Councilmember Zappetini stated that one issue would be the party using the overflow parking would have to provide the additional security, and have a requirement for a certain number of days' notice to work it out. Mayor Boro stated that, as he understand it, both the Embassy Suites and Autodesk have talked about that in spirit, and the issue seems to be getting some discussion on a positive basis with Mr. Shekou. He suggested that if the Council is going to make a motion, we could instruct that he (Mayor Boro) and one other Councilmember, would meet with the applicants and perhaps the City Attorney or Planning Director, to see what we could work out for the long term. He stated he thinks The Council sees the merits of this application and what they are attempting to do. Councilmember Heller stated she agrees with Councilmember Cohen's position, and feels that there is a history that there is adequate parking. She stated she understands Mayor Boro's point, and agrees with it also. She feels we might have such an event in the future, for which the parking would be required, and she would like to see the three parties work together and have a written agreement. She noted that Autodesk might have a function in the future, and would like to ask Embassy Suites for the use of some of their parking. She stated that in the final analysis they all deserve what they are asking for. Councilmember Zappetini asked City Ragghianti, Embassy Suites brought in new people who we have a chance to reopen the easement? "No", unless the same three parties who a then. what if we did away with the easement an then were able to bring in more business. Would Mr. Ragghianti responded that the answer is e unable to agree now would be able to agree Councilmember Cohen noted that his impression is that both the hotel and conference facilities are quite successful, and he feels we can make a reasonable judgment based on what we have seen so far. However, in the interest of trying to protect the public interest, he would be willing to move that we continue this item to allow an opportunity for the Mayor and one of the Councilmembers to meet with the interested parties to see if we could mediate some kind of agreement which would address the City's few remaining concerns, and get the easement concern resolved. He stated he would be willing to participate in the meeting if that is acceptable. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to continue this Public Hearing for 30 days, to May 15th. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 6 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips Mayor Boro asked that Planning Director Pendoley make the arrangements for the meeting. 13. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED94-88) FOR THIRTEEN TOWNHOUSE UNITS, 1120 MISSION AVENUE; AP 11-172-25; APPELLANT, JOSEPH CARAMUCCI; WESTAMERICA BANK PROPERTIES, OWNERS; ROBERT BLUMENFELD AND MARK LEVIN, REPRESENTATIVES (Pl) - File 10-7 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. He announced that the appellant, Joseph Caramucci, has asked that this item be carried over to a later date. He stated it has been the policy of this Council to carry over an item at the request of the appellant, for at least one time. Staff recommends continuance to May 15, 1995. Mayor Boro continued the Public Hearing to May 15, 1995. 14. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DISTRICT ZONING (ORD. 1444) TO REVISE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A 122,528 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING AND A 4, 100 SQ. FT. CHILD CARE CENTER; HEIGHT EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 42 FT. OFFICE BUILDING; USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER; AND A 3 -LOT SUBDIVISION AT 110 SMITH RANCH ROAD AND THE END OF CARLOS DRIVE (REGENCY CENTER PHASE 2), SAN RAFAEL, AP 155-121-04, -05, AND -10; PELL DEVELOPMENT CO., OWNERS; TWM ARCHITECTS AND OBERKAMPER & ASSOC., REPRESENTATIVES (Pl) - File 10-3 x 10-7 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing open. Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council, stating that this is Phase 2 of the Regency Center office complex. The original complex was built in the mid -80's. The design which is before the Council tonight is very similar in style and character to the first building, but somewhat different in footprint. When this was considered by the Planning Commission last Tuesday, the applicant requested a couple of relatively minor amendments. They asked that the traffic mitigation fees which would be charged to the child care center be waived. There is a General Plan policy which provides for that. They have also asked that payment of the traffic fees which would be due for the rest of the facility, the existing office building, be paid in some type of phased program. The Planning Commission did not take that issue up, but urged the applicant's representative to discuss it with the Council. There are two exceptions involved in this case. One is to require slightly less than the maximum amount of parking required. The parking proposal which is before the Council for the combined child care and office, is 27 spaces less then the theoretical maximum which is required by the Zoning Ordinance. However, this property has a series of easements, which require that all of the parking on the property be shared, and that has worked well. This building itself will be providing almost 500 additional spaces, and staff sees no problem with the request with regard to parking. The other request is to allow the building to be 42 ft. tall instead of the 36 ft. ordinarily required bay the Zoning Ordinance. That is to accommodate a couple of critical design elements. One has to do with the change to Building Code requirements for buildings of this type, which comes from seismic safety regulations, and the other one is to allow for lighting conditions which are unique to the needs of buildings which operate with a large number of computer screens. Mr. Pendoley concluded by explaining that a very important condition on this project is that it will be subject to Priority Projects Procedure (PPP). Councilmember Cohen inquired, has this project already been through PPP? Mr. Pendoley responded that this project did go through the PPP four years ago; however, it did not get discretionary approval. Councilmember Cohen asked, if we approve the proposal tonight, would it get discretionary approval and would still be held up subject to going through the PPP in July? Mr. Pendoley replied that is correct. Mayor Boro noted that Mr. Pendoley had made a comment about the traffic mitigation fees, stating they included the existing building. Mr. Pendoley explained that the existing building was approved with an agreement which allowed for payment at a later time, and he thinks the particulars allowed for payment when the second building was approved for development. Councilmember Heller inquired, does that refer to condition #144, which indicates $500,000 unpaid? Mr. Pendoley replied that is correct. He added there is an annual escalator on that which is tied to the cost of construction. Mayor Boro asked to hear from the applicant's representative. Robert Wright of TWM architects, who were the architects for the first phase of the project, stated they will be doing the second phase as well. He stated he is sure all of the Councilmembers? are familiar with the existing building, and he presented recent photographs of the site. He commended Mr. Pendoley and his staff for a very thorough report, and he noted they first came with an application for the second phase in 1984, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 7 and over the process of the General Plan and PPP it has been before the City probably five times. He stated they feel they have developed a project which will be suitable for the site and acceptable to the City, and is time now to get it up and open for leasing. Mr. Wright described the project as being 122,000 sq. ft. of office space, with a $,100 sq. ft. child care facility adjacent to it. The second building will be virtually identical to the first, although somewhat larger in is square footage. The materials will be the same, and the concept behind the landscaping and hardscape will be compatible, so the two buildings will look as though they have been planned to be constructed at the same time, and as a cohesive project. The child care facility will be located somewhat away from these two buildings, primarily because of its function, and also it will have a different character than the office buildings. It will be single story, wood frame, and relatively low in profile so it will not attract attention but will blend in and be appropriate more for use of children rather than adults. Mr. Wright notes that there are a number of conditions which staff has imposed on the project and he finds them to be acceptable. There does not seem to be any problem with them. He pointed out, as Mr. Pendoley had stated earlier, that it is the developer's request that Council waive the traffic mitigation fees on the child care facility. It is there hope to provide that facility at below market rate (BMR) so they can get an operator in there to provide child care for families which may not otherwise afford it. To burden that project with the additional $22,000 would obviously have an impact on the availability of a lower amount of money for the children who attend. He pointed out that was condition #70. Also, condition #144 requested that the developer pay the traffic mitigation fees up front, prior to the issuance of a building permit; however, in the past that was not done in the first phase nor for any of the projects which have been done int he Smith Ranch area. Most of them were bonded, or provided letters of credit, to assure the City that the money would be there at the time of the traffic improvements. He noted these have been very minor improvements done at the Intersection in quite some time. The first major improvement was the northbound on-ramp which was constructed about 1980. Then there was the signalization of Redwood Highway and Smith Ranch Road, which as one around 1986. Mr. Wright stated he understands there is still quite a bit of work to be done, from land acquisition to intersection design, etc., with the Smith Ranch/Lucas Valley Road Interchange. Obviously that will take some time. For that reason the developer would prefer providing to the City a letter or credit, basically stating that they do have the funds and they will be available at the time they are needed for the developments. Also, condition #145, which states that the building permit for this project will not be issued until the building permit is issued and construction is started on the child care facility. It is the developer's hope that we can proceed with it so that the child care facility and the office building both open at approximately the same time. The child care facility, which will be a single story, wood frame construction, obviously will take a very minor amount of time to build; however, the office building itself will take about ten months to build. He stated that with the extra sentence which staff has now provided, he hopes they can reach agreement with the City to ensure that both facilities can be open and occupied at the same time. Mr. Wright noted that the developer, Mr. Joe Pell, and his daughter, Deborah are present, and also their civil engineer, Lee Oberkamper. There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to hear a little more discussion on the traffic mitigation fees. He stated staff stated they would have a proposal tonight on how the traffic mitigation fees could be handled, and he was curious as to whether the applicants wanted to make a presentation. Ms Deborah Pell stated she does not have anything to add to what Mr. Wright reported. However, she would like to read the language of the condition on Building #1: "The fees shall be paid at the time the City Council determines that the improvements are necessary and if the need for construction of the improvements is phased, payment can be phased accordingly." She stated they want the City to rest assured that once the improvements are designed and under construction, etc., they will make the money available, and they want to give the City whatever assurances are necessary that the money will be there. However, when they built Regency in 1985, they thought that in five or ten years down the road those improvements would have begun, and they have not yet. She stated that without the assurance, it seems rather absurd to put that significant amount of money in an escrow account to be reserved for those particular improvements. However, they want to make sure that the City feels assured that the money will be there; they have no other intentions. But, until the improvements are ready to go, they would rather that the money not be transferred. Councilmember Cohen asked, they have no problem with the comment that the amount would be adjusted based on the CPI? Ms. Pell replied, she does have a problem with that concept, in the sense that in 1985 it would have cost a certain amount of money, but if it goes SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 8 20 years out it will be a very significant increase, and she is not sure that it is totally fair to keep putting a CPI on it every single year. There has to be some known quantity of money that a developer will have to put "in the kitty", but that is what the language says. Mayor Boro pointed out that if they had paid the money then, the City would have invested it, and they would have had a fixed amount. He noted they are asking not to put the money up until it becomes more definite, so the City is making sure that the money keeps current with construction costs. That os the concept. Councilmember Cohen stated he can see the developer's point, but actually it is a reasonable position for the City to take, that we will not demand the money until there is a project to be constructed. If we have the assurances the developers mentioned, he does not see a problem with it. He asked, the $500,000 which is referenced in condition #144 -- was that adjusted, or is that what was assessed at the time of construction of Regency I? Mr. Pendoley responded that was the original amount, without the adjustment. Councilmember Cohen pointed out that there would be an adjustment on that at some point, when we get a project. Mr. Wright stated there was one more issue he neglected to mention. The traffic mitigation fee is based on the 274 trips, which includes the 122,528 sq.ft. office building, as well as the 2,250 sq.ft. maintenance storage facility. It is the developer's contention that the 2,250 sq. ft. storage facility is not a traffic generating use. It is isolated from the office building, and is not an occupied space. There are approximately 5 trips attributed to that. It is the developer's preference that the building not be included in the traffic mitigation calculation and that the trips associated with the office building be modified to 269 as opposed to 274. Councilmember Cohen stated that is a reasonable point, and asked if it would be reasonable for the City to put in a conditions which said that if the use of that building was to change, we could make an adjustment? Mr. Wright responded that would be fine. Mr. Pendoley stated staff does not have a problem with that concept. However, staff would suggest that we provide language which would state that the final fee will be set by the Public Works Department, and that the issue of the storage facility will be determined by the Public Works Director. He stated these are done in a very straight line, engineering way, and typically something like a storage facility would be exempt at the time that the building permit come in, and a traffic study will be provided showing that it does generate traffic. He stated staff agrees with the concept, but he feels that the final, exact amount, of the fee should be set by the Public Works Director. Mayor Boro stated he is concerned about the money and when it is called, and who has the discretion to call it. He stated that in a number of circumstances we have collected traffic mitigation fees and used those funds as seemed appropriate in that particular district. He stated he is assuming that the discretion of calling the money in will be when the City says it is ready, and that there will not be a veto on the part of the applicant because it is not what they expected, or wanted. He stated he is supporting the concept stated by the developer, but he wants to make sure that when the call is made the developer will not say that is not what they had in mind for their money. Ms.Pell stated this is a complicated subject, and she suggested the project be approved, and they will sit down with the staff in the next few weeks and work out specifics of when the money is called in if there is a letter of credit. She stated that would be the best way to work it out, because it is complicated and not really clear, certainly not in the paragraph which was written for Regency I. She noted there is an issue of phasing, and she feels they can sit down and work out a procedure which will not be complicated and something they can all deal with. Mr. Pendoley stated he supports that. He stated there are other conditions which could be implemented with a subsequent contract, like the BMR conditions. Staff will rework condition #144 to say, "Phased payment can be allowed subject to recommendation by the Public Works Director", and it could come back to the Council as a Consent item. Ms. Pell added that they would reserve the right to pay before the call, at some point, to say we will pay off the whole fee. Councilmember Cohen stated that is a reasonable approach, and if we are going to do that we might as well at the same time resolve the issue of trip generation for the storage area, and try to make the determination. Mr. Pendoley responded they could do that in the same way. Mayor Boro said he does not see a need to bring it back, assuming the Council approves both of these issues in concept. We will leave it to the staff and the applicant to work it out. As long as the staff feels that the City's interest is protected. We are talking about the concept of a letter of credit, and we apparently have ways in which to deal with that; and the trip generation issue can be resolved. However, we can reserve the right to have it come back if needed. Mayor Boro asked if the Council has any comments on waiving the traffic mitigation fees for the child care center? Councilmember Heller stated that she in favor of it. She noted SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 9 we are asked to grant a height waiver for the building, and she wondered if that is something we should look at seriously in our next General Plan review, because we are getting into more high tech buildings. Also, are they going to put fiberoptics into the building. Mr. Pendoley stated that the height issue is something we need to look into in the future. In two weeks the Council will be receiving recommended General Plan Amendments and Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Downtown, and 42 ft. is the height we are recommending for Downtown. Also, this building is being set up for fiberoptics and the Public Works Director has set up a committee to study policies for the City on that issue. Mayor Boro stated he is pleased that they are studying fiberoptics. Mayor Boro then mentioned the wording on condition #145, and that the two buildings be opened concurrently. Mr. Pendoley responded staff has no problem with changing that condition to tie it into occupancy. Mayor Boro inquired about the question on parking. Mr. Pendoley explained the applicants are asking to provide 27 spaces less then is required by the Zoning Ordinance, and staff feels that is well covered by the parking agreement which covers the entire property in question. Councilmember Cohen asked Mr. Wright if Mr.Pendoley's comment on condition #145 meets his concerns. Mr. Wright replied he believes it does. Their concern was that they did not want the child care center to e started prior to the issuance of the building permit for the office building because it would be sitting there vacant for anywhere between 6 and 8 months prior to completion of the office building, so it made no sense from a construction standpoint to do that. Councilmember Cohen inquired, would "completion of the child care center prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the office buildings" be acceptable? Mr. Wright replied that would be satisfactory. Mayor Boro stated he had studied the graphics, and the child care center looks very fine. With the new office building it will be a beautiful complex. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt the Resolution adopting a Negative Declaration as presented by staff: a. RESOLUTION NO. 9332 -RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE, USE PERMIT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, SUBDIVISION, AND HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR A 122,258 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING, A 2,250 SQUARE FOOT STORAGE BUILDING AND A 4,100 SQUARE FOOT CHILD CARE FACILITY, 110 SMITH RANCH ROAD AND AT THE END OF CARLOS DRIVE (REGENCY CENTER, PHASE 2), AP 155-121-04, 05, AND 10. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips b. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.15.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM P=D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT BY AMENDING A PORTION OF THE SMITH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS (REGENCY CENTER PHASE 2 - AP NOS. 155-251-04, 05 AND 10)". Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance NO. 1676 to print by the following vote: to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips C. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt the Resolution as presented, with changes in condition #145 to reflect occupancy as opposed to issuance of a building permit, and that condition #144 be referred back to staff to work with the applicant. RESOLUTION NO. 9333 - RESOLUTION APPROVING USE PERMITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS FOR A 2,250 SQUARE \FOOT CHILD CARE FACILITY; A BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTION BUILDING AND A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION/ LOT LINE REALIGNMENT; 110 SMITH RANCH ROAD AND AT THE END OF THE CARLOS DRIVE AP 155-121-04, 05 AND 10. (Regency Center, Phase 2) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips d. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to waive traffic mitigation fees for the child care facility which is referred to in condition of approval #70. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 10 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips 15. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS AS AMENDED, CONTAINED IN TITLE 8 OF THE MARIN COUNTY CODE, AMENDING SECTIONS 6.10.010 AND 6.10.050; AND REPEALING SECTION 6.10.012 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE - File 4-13-54 x 9-3-30 Mayor Boro declare the Public Hearing opened. Walt Kosta, Police Commander, explained that this is an amendment to an existing Ordinance to make it easier to enforce the barking dog Ordinance, so they can take action when they deem it necessary. Hew pointed out that the Marin County Sheriff's Department and the Mill Valley and Novato police department are suing similar working to that being recommended by the San Rafael; Police Department. Mayor Boro asked if there are any comments from the audience. Mr. Doug Keats, a resident of San Rafael for six years, stated he fully supports this Ordinance. He has had a serious problem in his neighborhood with barking dogs an there has been uncertainty on the part of the Police Department as to what to do. This will clarify it, and give us what we need to take action. There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS AS AMENDED, CONTAINED IN TITLE 8 OF THE MARIN COUNTY CODE; AMENDING SECTIONS 6.10.010 AND 6.10.050; AND REPEALING SECTION 6.10.012 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE". Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1677 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OLD BUSINESS 16. REPORT ON PERS RETIREMENT OPTION (Fin) - File 7-9 x 9-3-20 Finance Director Coleman briefed the Council regarding the PERS option, stating that the staff report outlines some of the differences between our current plan and the PERS plan. He also outlined issues to be resolved if at some point we wanted to go to PERS. He explained the first step, if we want to evaluate and look at the PERS option, would be to ask PERS to da a rate study, which would cost approximately $2,100. It would involve looking at the age and salary of all of our employees. Councilmember Cohen inquired, what kind of information would we get in the rate study? Mr. Coleman responded it would not be a full actuarial report. They would look at age and salary of employees, as well as years of service, and factor that into the system -wide rate assumptions they already have. These rates would probably only be good for two years, and we would have the same problem we have with Marin County, in that somewhere down the road PERS could change their assumptions and our rates could change. Councilmember Cohen noted that PERS has such a huge pool that the rates do not seem to change that dramatically. He feels it semi be worth $2,10 to ask the questions and see what the possible numbers from PERS might look like. He noted we could buy supplemental insurance and still save significant amounts, and he feels we have an obligation to ask about whether we could provide the same benefits for our employees at a savings by going to PERS. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 11 Councilmember Heller agreed Council should look at it and see if it will provide savings for us int he future. Mayor Boro agreed. Mr. Coleman noted that one issue not mentioned in the staff report is the City health plan is with PERS, so that would not have to be negotiated. Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to accept the staff report and authorize staff to expend approximately $2,100 for a PERS approved rate study. NEW BUSINESS 17. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS None. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1995 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/17/95 Page 11