Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1996-02-05SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5,1996 AT 8:05 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember David J. Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Others Present: Suzanne Golt, Acting City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBER Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Barbara Heller, Councilmember CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEMS - 7:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 1. a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(a)): Case Name: Pembroke v. City of San Rafael, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. C92 -1869 -BAC b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(c)): • The Kaplan Trust C. Conference with Labor Negotiator - (Government Code Section 54957.6); Negotiators: Suzanne Golt/Daryl Chandler IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5,1996 AT 8:05 PM RE: CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: RE: RECRUITMENT OF NEW CITY MANAGER - FILE 9-1 Tom Obletz, President of Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, addressed the Council and read a portion of a letter into the record concerning the recruitment of a new City Manager. Mr. Obletz stated that although the Federation appreciated the recent community meeting with Hughes, Perry & Associates concerning the search for a new City Manager, they felt there were some issues that need further consideration. Asking that the Federation's letter to the Council be entered into the record, Mr. Obletz quoted the last paragraph, "The future should not be an extension of the past. This truly is a unique opportunity that comes along only rarely. We appreciate you listening to our position and hope you will integrate some of our thinking into the recruitment process for the new City Manager of the City of San Rafael". Mr. Obletz noted the letter makes the point that perhaps there are times when community contact with members of City staff is presented in the context of "what do you want" as opposed to "how might we help you?"; however, he stated that in the number of years he has been dealing with the City, he wanted to commend the City Clerk and her staff for an extremely open policy, and a policy of extreme helpfulness at all times. Mayor Boro stated he would suggest forwarding a copy of the Federation's letter to the recruiter so that he will be aware of their concerns. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: 11114iyi RECOMMENDED ACTION SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 2 3. Resolution of Appreciation for Lindsay Martin, Child Care Center RESOLUTION NO. 9542 - Director, Short Pre -School, A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION Employee of the Quarter Ending 12/31/95 (CM) TO LINDSAY MARTIN, CHILD CARE - File 102 x 4-10-188 x 9-3-65 CENTER DIRECTOR, SHORT PRE-SCHOOL, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING 12/31/95. 6. Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Improvement Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 9543 - for the Construction of Public Improvements, Deer Valley Apartments RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL (Formerly Known as Oakridge Apartments) (PW) OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - File 5-1-327 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - DEER VALLEY APARTMENTS (FORMERLY OAKRIDGE APARTMENTS). 7. Merrydale Overcrossing - Extension of a. RESOLUTION NO. 9544 - Temporary Construction Easements (PW) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF - File 2-2 x 6-42 SAN RAFAEL TO AMEND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTRACT BETWEEN EDM INVESTMENTS AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR TWO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR THE MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT OF $5,000. b. RESOLUTION NO. 9545 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO AMEND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTRACT BETWEEN GREAT WESTERN BANK AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR THE MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING PROJECT FOR A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT. C. RESOLUTION NO. 9546 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO AMEND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTRACT BETWEEN CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR THE MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING PROJECT FOR TWO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS. d. RESOLUTION NO. 9547 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO AMEND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTRACT BETWEEN MARIN ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC. AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR THE MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING PROJECT FOR A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT. e. RESOLUTION NO. 9548 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO AMEND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTRACT BETWEEN CIVIC CENTER PARTNERS AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR THE MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING PROJECT FOR A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro None Cohen The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETINGS OF JUNE 19, 1995 AND JANUARY 2, 1996 (CLOSED SESSION) AND SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS OF JANUARY 16, 1996 (CC) Mayor Boro announced that he was abstaining from the minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of January 16, 1996 only, due to absence from the meetings. Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the minutes of the Special Meetings of June 19, 1995 and January 2, 1996 (Closed Session) and Special and Regular Meetings of January 16, 1996. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Phillips & Zappetini NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 3 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (from the minutes of Special and Regular Meetings of January 16, 1996 only, due to absence from meetings) 4. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR ALBERT PARK/FREITAS PARK TENNIS COURTS RESURFACING (PW) - File 4-1-479 x 4-3-66 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-66 Councilmember asked for an update concerning when the project will be starting and the projected completion date. She also asked if any fund raising plans have been formalized? Recreation Director Sharon McNamee stated the project would be scheduled after the bids come in, noting the weather would be a determining factor. Ms. McNamee reported that although there have been several discussions regarding fundraising, specific fundraising activities and dates have not yet been set, noting the committee will be addressing this issue over the next couple of weeks. Mayor Boro noted Freitas Park is mentioned in this report, and asked if the City is starting a project at that park, and how it would be funded? Ms. McNamee reported the tennis courts will be financed from the Parkland Dedication Fund, and planning for improvements to the playground and other areas of the park should begin in April. She noted there is a long list of neighbors who want to become involved in the project. Public Works Director David Bernardi reported staff will be preparing plans and specifications for the project this month, and will probably be calling for bids the first week of March. He noted that, weather permitting, they should be able to begin construction by the end of April. Ms. Heller asked if this meant there would be resurfaced courts by this summer, and Mr. Bernardi responded they would be completed by June. Councilmember Phillips referred to the report's mention of "structural integrity", and asked if this referred to the cracks on the surface of the tennis courts, or something more significant. Mr. Bernardi stated that in addition to the crack repair, the report is also referring to the way the surface of the courts becomes wavy because of the fill that it sits on. He reported they will study this as part of the project. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to authorize staff to call for bids on the Albert Park/Freitas Park tennis courts resurfacing. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro None Cohen RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANTS OF EASEMENTS TO PACIFIC BELL FOR INSTALLATION OF PACIFIC BELL'S FACILITY ON CITY'S PROPERTY AT (1) LAGOON ROAD AND (2) MISSION AVENUE AT BRYN MAWR DRIVE (PW) - File 2-2 x 4-14 Mayor Boro stated he was abstaining from this issue due to conflict of interest. Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing execution of grants of easements to Pacific Bell for installation of Pacific Bell's facility on the City's property at (1) Lagoon Road and (2) Mission Avenue at Bryn Mawr Drive. RESOLUTION NO. 9549 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT OF EASEMENT TO PACIFIC BELL FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PACIFIC BELL FACILITIES ON A PRESCRIBED PORTION OF CITY'S PROPERTY (AP# 184-042-03) AT LAGOON ROAD. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Phillips & Zappetini NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (due to conflict of interest) RESOLUTION NO. 9550 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT OF EASEMENT TO PACIFIC BELL FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PACIFIC BELL FACILITIES ON A PRESCRIBED PORTION OF CITY'S PROPERTY (AP# 011-162-17) ON MISSION AVENUE. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Phillips & Zappetini NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 4 DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (due to conflict of interest) SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 8. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO LINDSAY MARTIN, CHILD CARE CENTER DIRECTOR, SHORT PRE-SCHOOL, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING 12/31/95 (CM) - File 102 x 4-10-188 x 9-3-65 Mayor Boro presented the Resolution of Appreciation to Lindsay Martin, Child Care Director at Short Pre -School, who was named Employee of the Quarter Ending 12/31/95. Mayor Boro explained to the audience Ms. Martin had been selected by her fellow employees as Employee of the Quarter, and would receive a $100 cash award, and will be entered in the Employee of the Year contest, in which the winner is again chosen by fellow employees, and receives a $500 cash award. Mayor Boro noted Ms. Martin began working for the City of San Rafael in 1967 as the Tiny Tot Instructor in the Recreation Department Program. Mayor Boro stated this is one of the most successful child care programs in the County, noting much of that is due to people like Ms. Martin. Mayor Boro congratulated Ms. Martin, and thanked her for her many years of service to the City of San Rafael. Ms. Martin stated it was an honor to work for a community such as San Rafael, to see the children grow up, and to start to see second generation children in the program. She commended the City Council and those who have been important in recognizing how significant it is for all of us to support the future citizens of San Rafael. She felt it was an honor to work with a City Council that recognizes the importance of this program. MONTHLY REPORT: CITY WORK PLAN REVIEW (CM) -FILE 237x9-1 Acting City Manager Suzanne Golt referred to the series of three-year goals that had been developed during the Council/Management retreat, along with objectives relating to each of those goals. She noted one of the follow-up activities that had been agreed to was for an on-going review of the work plan each month by the Council in Open Session, tracking the progress of each of the objectives. She noted this was a good opportunity for staff to report to the Council on what is actually happening and how we are doing, and also informs the public as to the progress that is being made on all of the various goals and objectives. Ms. Golt reported the Public Works Department had assisted in developing a Matrix program for producing this report, which lists the goals, objectives, the person responsible, target completion date, and status columns indicating the actual completion date and comments. Ms. Golt noted that as this is the first report to be presented to the Council, there are a lot of blanks in the comment section. She stated she will be meeting with the Management Team on Wednesday, who will be deciding how they can give Ms. Golt their status input, thereby allowing her to develop a tighter mechanism for providing this input to the Council. Ms. Golt stated she would be happy to hear any suggestions or questions regarding the formatting of this presentation. Councilmember Phillips stated he liked the format of this report very much, particularly the follow-up section. He noted they had discussed the possibility of discovering that changes might be necessary, either in the scope of the project or the timing of the project, and at each point when the report is presented to the Council, they have the chance to see if they are still on target. He asked if there have been any significant changes to the plan that was put together during the retreat? Ms. Golt stated there were no changes that she was aware of, noting staff would discuss this in more detail during their meeting on Wednesday, but she did not anticipate any significant changes. Mayor Boro explained to the audience that at the City Council meeting two weeks ago the Council had adopted a Mission Statement and a Vision Statement for the City of San Rafael, and five specific goals they wanted to accomplish, and what we are attempting to do now is to make sure these goals are achieved with specific objectives. He stated that he, or any member of the Council, would be more than willing to discuss these goals and objectives at meetings with any of the Homeowners Associations or service clubs in the community. He stated that, basically, the Council is trying to assure accountability to themselves, staff, and the public through this process. Councilmember Zappetini asked Ms. Golt how the update is accomplished, referring to item 5A as an example, and asking if this objective had been accomplished. Ms. Golt stated she was not certain of the status of this item, as it was to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 5 be followed up directly with the Councilmembers. Mayor Boro stated he could give a status report on this item, reporting that tomorrow morning he would be meeting with Steven Dobbs and the head of St. Vincent de Paul, at which time they will be interviewing four individuals who have expressed an interest in being a facilitator. Mayor Boro stated they will make their choice tomorrow, two days beyond the target date for completion of this objective. Councilmember Zappetini referred to the sections designated "Actual Completion Date" and "Comments", and asked Ms. Golt if the contact person for this information was in her department? Ms. Golt responded the contact person or department would be the person listed on the reports under "Subject Responsibility". Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to accept this report, its format, and its contents. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro None Cohen 10. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD CATERING AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (AMENDMENT TO TABLE 14.05.020 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE) (PI) - FILE 10-3 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and asked for the staff report. Councilmember Zappetini asked if this Ordinance related only to Scotty's Market, and Planning Director Robert Pendoley responded that it covered all of the Neighborhood Commercial Districts in the City of San Rafael. Mr. Zappetini stated that he worked for Scotty's Market, and asked if he would be allowed to vote on this issue? City Attorney Ragghianti asked if Scotty's Market had been a source of income of over $250.00 during the past twelve month period? Mr. Zappetini stated that was correct. Mr. Ragghianti then asked Planning Director Pendoley if this Ordinance would affect Scotty's Market, and Mr. Pendoley stated that it would. Mr. Ragghianti informed Mr. Zappetini that he was disqualified from voting on this issue. (Having been disqualified from voting on this issue, Councilmember Zappetini left the Council Chamber.) Planning Director Pendoley stated this amendment was being initiated at the request of many of the residents in Terra Linda, who felt that the catering operation at Scotty's Market should be allowed to remain in the neighborhood. Mr. Pendoley reported this operation is currently in a district where it would not normally be permitted without this Ordinance amendment. Mr. Pendoley stated the affect of this Ordinance amendment would be to allow catering uses to be considered under a Use Permit. Mr. Pendoley noted the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Mayor Boro referred to the staff report which states that if this Ordinance amendment is enacted, then the applicant would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit, meeting the specific requirements for a particular site. Mayor Boro asked if this Ordinance amendment was merely setting the stage, and not actually allowing anything to go forward, and Mr. Pendoley stated that was correct. Mayor Boro asked if a separate hearing would be held in response to each application, and if the same approach would be used throughout the City in all similar zones? Mr. Pendoley responded that was correct. Councilmember Heller asked if the request for a Use Permit would come before the Council or be handled at staff level? Mr. Pendoley stated staff was recommending that this type of permit be handled by the Zoning Administrator, which would involve a staff hearing. Mayor Boro asked if that would be a Public Hearing, and Mr. Pendoley stated that was correct. There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 14.05.020, TABLE 14.05.020, LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR THE COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE DISTRICTS, TO ADD CATERING AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) ZONING DISTRICT." Councilmember Phillips 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. 1693 to print by the following vote, to wit: SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 6 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen and Zappetini DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Zappetini (due to conflict of interest) (Councilmember Zappetini returned to the Council Chamber.) 11. PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTION OF THE COUNTYWIDE SITING ELEMENT FOR MARIN COUNTY AND ITS CITIES (DUMP SITES) (Fin) - FILE 13-2x4-3-32 Councilmember Zappetini stated he was abstaining from this item, due to conflict of interest. Mr. Zappetini left the Council Chamber. Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and asked for the staff report. Acting City Manager Golt stated Finance Director Ransom Coleman would present the staff report, and noted County representatives Dee Johnson and Michael Frost were present to answer questions. Finance Director Coleman reported State legislation requires each community to identify their disposal needs over the next fifteen years, and to develop a plan that would meet these needs. He stated that as a result of that legislation, the firm of R. W. Beck was contracted to develop a plan for Marin County, noting this had been done with all of the other communities in Marin County. Mayor Boro invited the representatives from the County to address the Council. Dee Johnson, Office of Waste Management, addressed the Council, stating the Countywide Siting Element has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors and is now ready to be adopted by each of the cities within the County. Ms. Johnson reported this is just one element of the overall County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, of which there are five segments, and noted there is only one more segment to be completed until the full integrated plan is completed. She stated this segment was a very important piece of the plan, as it concerns disposal, and noted we are very fortunate to have a landfill in the County that has been recently expanded, so the disposal projections actually exceed the fifteen years to approximately forty-five years. There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution adopting the Countywide Siting Element for Marin County and its cities. RESOLUTION NO. 9551 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE COUNTYWIDE SITING ELEMENT FOR MARIN COUNTY AND ITS CITIES. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen and Zappetini DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Zappetini (due to conflict of interest) (Councilmember Zappetini returned to the Council Chamber.) 12. PUBLIC HEARING - TO DETERMINE EXISTENCE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 527 BRET HARTE ROAD AND TO ABATE IN WHOLE OR IN PART: (PI) -FILE 3-3-49x 13-9 a. TWO FLATBED TRUCKS IN THE REAR YARD, PARKED IN VIOLATION OF SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.16.250; b. LUMBER, DEBRIS, CAR PARTS, ETC. STORED IN A MANNER VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC STREET AND CAUSING DETRIMENT TO NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES. Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and asked for the staff report. City Attorney Ragghianti reported this matter was being brought before the Council at the request of the Code Enforcement Officer, for consideration of a Resolution declaring the condition of property located at 527 Bret Harte Road to be a nuisance. He stated recently retired Code Enforcement Officer Bill Palmer would testify in this matter, as well as SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 7 current Code Enforcement Officer Claire Machado, as Mr. Palmer had originally investigated the nuisance complaints at this location. Mr. Ragghianti stated the staff report will be given under oath, as will the recitations of the inspections Mr. Palmer and Ms. Machado have been making upon the site, and certain evidence including correspondence and photographs that will be introduced. Mr. Ragghianti stated staff is requesting that at the conclusion of the hearing, the Council consider the adoption of a Resolution and request that the matter be put over to the Consent Calendar for the meeting of February 20, 1996, at which time the final Resolution will be presented to the Council for review. Mr. Ragghianti asked City Clerk Jeanne Leoncini to administer the Oath to Mr. Palmer and Ms. Machado, swearing to the testimony they were about to give, in order to protect the due process rights of the property owner, and in order to comply with current California law. City Clerk Leoncini administered the Oath to Mr. Palmer and Ms. Machado. Bill Palmer, retired Code Enforcement Officer, addressed the Council, stating he had first visited the property with Assistant Code Enforcement Officer Dale Connor on September 29, 1995. He reported that at the back of the property, adjacent to La Loma Court, they discovered two trucks, a supply of lumber, logs, firewood, auto parts, a dunebuggy type of vehicle, and miscellaneous trash and junk, all clearly visible from the public street. Mr. Palmer stated this is in violation of Ordinances, 120.03 which deals with lumber and other debris stored in view of the public; 14.16.25, referring to motor vehicle storage in residential districts; and 1.20.030V referencing inoperable vehicles stored in view of the public and improperly stored. Mr. Palmer reported he and Mr. Connor took photographs during their inspection, noting the photographs accurately portray what was on the property at that time. Mr. Palmer stated that was the last contact he had with this case. City Attorney Ragghianti indicated he had two photographs which Mr. Palmer had given him, and asked if he had taken both of the photographs, and if they were taken while he was at 527 Bret Harte Road? Mr. Palmer stated he had taken the photographs, and that they were photographs of the property at 527 Bret Harte Road, which were taken from the adjoining street, La Loma Court. Mr. Ragghianti asked if the photographs accurately depict the condition of the property when the photographs were taken on September 29, 1995, and Mr. Palmer stated they do. Mr. Ragghianti asked if the condition of the property, as observed on that date, constitutes violations of the San Rafael Municipal Codes previously referred to by Mr. Palmer? Mr. Palmer responded that in his opinion it did. Mr. Ragghianti asked if this was the last time that Mr. Palmer had occasion to visit the property, and Mr. Palmer responded that it was. City Attorney Ragghianti then passed the photographs to Mayor Boro for review by the Council. Code Enforcement Officer Claire Machado referred to that portion of the staff report which incorrectly stated the date of the inspection had been September 19, 1995, noting this was a clerical error and should read September 29, 1995. Ms. Machado stated that upon return from maternity leave she was given a copy of a notice from the City Attorney's office dated November 13, 1995, which determined two violations of the San Rafael Municipal Code. She reported the first was a violation under Section 14.16.250 relating to Motor Vehicle Storage and Maintenance, and cited two inoperative flatbed trucks parked on an unpaved surface in the rear yard, noting that at the time, these trucks were not owned by a resident owner. She stated the second was a violation of Nuisance, for the accumulation of boxes, lumber, trash, car parts, tires, and other debris stored on the property in plain view, in violation of the Nuisance section of the Municipal Code. Ms. Machado distributed copies of these two sections of the San Rafael Municipal Code to the Council for their review of the requirements of the codes. Ms. Machado reported the notice of November 13, 1995 required a re -inspection on November 27, 1995, and reported that re -inspection was conducted. She stated that at the time of the re -inspection, it was observed that some of the work had been done, noting some of the wood in the backyard had been stacked neatly along the redwood lattice screening on the underside of the deck; however, quite a bit of wood cuttings and debris was still there. She stated the flatbed trucks were still observed on the property during the re -inspection. Ms. Machado reported a second notice was sent to the property owner on November 30, 1995, stating that some progress had been seen, and requiring more work to be conducted. She stated the second notice also provided alternatives to the owner as to how to abate the trucks, and stated another inspection would be conducted on December 15, 1995. Ms. Machado stated the next inspection was conducted on December 22, 1995, noting that at that time she went to the property, observed the rear yard, and found there was still wood, debris, and the go-cart present, as well as many of the items seen before. Ms. Machado submitted two additional photographs to the Council, which she stated she had taken during the inspection of December 22nd. City Attorney Ragghianti asked Ms. Machado if these photographs accurately depict the condition of the property at 527 Bret Harte Road at the time that the photographs were taken on December 22, 1995? Ms. Machado responded that they did. Mr. Ragghianti asked if the conditions that are depicted in the photographs, in Ms. Machado's opinion, violate the provisions of the San Rafael Municipal Code mentioned in the staff report, and she answered SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 8 that they did. Ms. Machado stated that after the last re -inspection was conducted, it was decided that a Public Hearing would be necessary to declare this to be a Nuisance in order for it to be abated, since it had not been abated voluntarily prior to that time. She reported notification was sent to the property owner on January 23, 1996, informing him that this was still found to be not in compliance, and that a Public Hearing would be scheduled. She stated the property was also posted with this notice. Ms. Machado stated the next inspection she conducted was pursuant to a telephone conversation with Ethan Locks, the owner of the property, after he received the notice. Ms. Machado reported Mr. Locks stated he believed his property had been cleaned up, so she agreed to re -inspect. She stated the inspection was conducted on January 29, 1996, at which time she took two additional photographs during this inspection. She reported there was still wood and debris in the rear yard, and the trucks were in the yard, still in violation of these Ordinances. Mr. Ragghianti asked Ms. Machado if both of these photographs taken January 29, 1996 accurately depict the condition of the property on that date, and Ms. Machado stated that they did. Mr. Ragghianti asked if the conditions depicted in each of these photographs also violate the applicable provisions of the San Rafael Municipal Code mentioned in the staff report, and Ms. Machado responded that they did. Ms. Machado stated one of the questions in this case has to do with the issue of residency on the property. She submitted to the Council a copy of the letter she received from the Assessor/Recorder's Office in regard to the homeowner's property tax exemption for the subject property, and quoted, "According to the records of the Marin County Assessor's Office, Mr. Ethan Locks never received a homeowner's property tax exemption on the above mentioned property. However, Mr. Locks receives an exemption on Parcel #049-171-30. This property is located at 323 Richardson Way, in Mill Valley." Ms. Machado reported Mr. Locks has ownership interest in five properties within Marin County, noting he had a one-third interest on the subject property until 1994, when he acquired 100% interest. Mayor Boro asked if, in order to receive an exemption, the owner must live on the property? Ms. Machado responded that was her understanding. Ms. Machado reported she had conducted a re -inspection of the property at 527 Bret Harte Road at 10:45 AM this morning, and at that time there was still debris, lumber, and trucks visible in the rear yard. She stated she received a subsequent telephone call from Mr. Locks, again telling her that the rear yard had been cleaned -up, and she made another inspection of the property at 5:05 PM. Ms. Machado stated she observed the wood and debris now to be neatly stacked along the redwood fence; however, the trucks are still present. Ms. Machado submitted photographs taken at the inspections conducted today. City Attorney Ragghianti asked Ms. Machado if the photographs now being submitted to the Council accurately depict the condition of the property as it existed today, February 5, 1996? Ms. Machado responded that they do. Mr. Ragghianti asked if the conditions depicted therein still constitute a violation of those sections of the San Rafael Municipal Code mentioned in the staff report? Ms. Machado stated she would consider the lumber and wood to be in substantial compliance with the Municipal Code, and she would consider that part to be abated. However, she stated the trucks are still present and are still in violation of the Municipal Code. Ms. Machado stated she would again like to thank Mr. Locks for the work that was completed today. Councilmember Heller asked if Ms. Machado was reporting that one of the abatement issues was being dismissed? Ms. Machado stated she would consider the abatement of the lumber and debris to be in compliance with the Municipal Code and no longer an issue. City Attorney Ragghianti asked City Clerk Leoncini to administer the Oath to Mr. Locks, swearing to the testimony he was about to give. Ethan Locks then addressed the Council, and asked Ms. Machado where the abatement notices had been sent? Ms. Machado reported that throughout the course of her investigation, Mr. Locks had verbally stated that he resides at the subject property. She noted the Ordinance requires that she notice the property by posting, and also to serve the notice to the owner. She stated that because Mr. Locks maintained he was a resident on the property, and that this was his last stated address, that is the address where the notices were sent, and she stated that to her knowledge, Mr. Locks did receive the notice there. Mr. Locks asked if he was correct that Ms. Machado apparently knew he lived in Mill Valley, but the notices were always sent to the San Rafael property. Mayor Boro explained that was not what Ms. Machado was stating. Mr. Locks apologized, stating he misunderstood because the complaint states he does not live on the property and that is the reason the trucks are not allowed there. Mayor Boro stated Ms. Machado had been led to believe, by Mr. Locks, that he resided at the address on Bret Harte in San Rafael, and as a result of that, Ms. Machado sent the notices to Mr. Locks at that address; however, she has subsequently checked with the County Assessor's Office and found that he does not have a homeowner's exemption on that particular piece of property, but does have an exemption on another piece of property which Mr. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 9 Locks owns in Mill Valley. Mayor Boro noted it was his understanding that a homeowner's exemption is received only for the site on which you live. Mr. Ragghianti concurred, stating a homeowner's exemption is granted to a homeowner whose principal place of residence is the site of the exemption. Mr. Ragghianti stated all this was merely circumstantial evidence, noting the lack of the exemption did not mean Mr. Locks did not live there, only that there was no homeowner's exemption applied to the property. Referring to the issue of the flatbed trucks, Mr. Locks explained that these were trucks used for his business, noting he used to drive home at night and park them on the street, but received a lot of complaints that he was creating a hazard by blocking access to fire and emergency vehicles. Mr. Locks noted the Police Department had told him that his trucks were not being parked illegally, because they were being moved every day and they were registered. Mr. Locks stated he put the trucks on the bottom property to satisfy some of the neighbors, and is now being told that this, too, is a problem. Mr. Locks stated that when he built a six foot fence to contain his dog the neighbors complained, and he cut the fence down. He felt that this type of thing has just been going on and on, stating if it is not one thing it is another. Mr. Locks reported the wood that is on the property is used, as they burn it to heat their house. Mr. Locks stated he felt much of this was just harassment from the neighbors, noting they will not contact him directly. He stated at one time he invited the neighbors to his home to discuss their complaints, noting he had removed the dryer which caused the neighbors to complain about noise, and that those who live at the house began parking their cars on the other side of the street so that the noise of warming them up in the morning before work would not bother the neighbors. Mr. Locks asked at what point this type of thing ends? Mr. Locks stated he was first told he must pave the driveway, and then told he needed a gate and did not need to cement the driveway. He stated that if he could be told exactly what he needed to do, he would have no problem in complying. Mr. Locks apologized for taking so long to clean-up the wood, but stated he had been out doing a lot of hauling because of the bad weather. Mayor Boro noted the staff report states Mr. Locks' trucks are unregistered and inoperative, and asked if this was correct. Mr. Locks responded that the trucks were unregistered, but that they were not inoperative. Councilmember Zappetini cited the San Rafael Municipal Code, which states, "A person may store a vehicle which cannot be legally, safely, or mechanically operated upon a public highway, provided that it is upon a paved parking area." Mr. Zappetini stated Mr. Locks' trucks are not parked on a paved parking area, noting it is his understanding that this had been noticed to Mr. Locks four or five months ago, and that nothing has been done about it. Mr. Zappetini asked if Mr. Locks was now saying that he was unclear as to what was required of him? Mr. Locks stated he was unclear because he was first told that he should build a gate, and then later was told that he had to pave the driveway. He reported he has since paid Jesse Polk of Sausalito to cement the driveway, but the paving has not been done as yet because of the weather. He noted he had cleaned -up and stacked the firewood as quickly as he could. Mr. Locks stated the driveway will be paved as soon as the weather permits, and if the Council would like to place a time limit on the work being done, he will try to abide by that. Mr. Zappetini asked how long ago it was that Mr. Locks paid to have the driveway paved, and Mr. Locks responded he had spoken with Mr. Polk that morning, and had intended to bring a letter from Mr. Polk to present to the Council, but he was unable to meet with Mr. Polk today. Mr. Locks stated that if there are any other problems, he wished the neighbors would come to him about them, and not have to waste the taxpayers' dollars by going to the City. Councilmember Zappetini asked Mr. Locks if he lived at the property? Mr. Locks stated he and his wife have been going through some problems, and that he built the house in Mill Valley and had planned to live there, but he has, unfortunately, been staying at the house at 527 Bret Harte. He stated he had filed the homeowner's tax exemption on the Mill Valley property when he was staying there. Don Soldavini, President of the Picnic Valley Homeowners Association, addressed the Council, and referred to a letter from the Homeowners Association outlining the background of this issue, quoting, "On behalf of the neighbors and the Picnic Valley Association, many of whom are here in support, we enthusiastically support your action to pursue Nuisance Violations against Ethan Locks regarding his property at 527 Bret Harte Road. As a brief history, Ethan moved into the neighborhood roughly 5/90. Over a period of five years individuals have voiced concerns to each other, and to Ethan personally, regarding the condition of his property. After numerous calls to the City, and Ethan's disregard to our complaints, we invited Mayor Boro and the Chief of Police to a home in the neighborhood to discuss the problems and concerns on 2/94. Ten neighbors were present, and we felt that progress could be made. On 4/94, fifteen neighbors were invited to Ethan Locks' home to voice concerns regarding a variety of differences, and requested his cooperation. He appeared glad to have the meeting, and promised his immediate attention. This was short-lived, and soon returned to its original condition. On 7/95, Ethan moved to Mill Valley. The property remains disheveled, and there has been no remedy to our complaints. On 8/95 we wrote and sent both a personal and certified letter requesting his cooperation, or we would be forced to take our accusations to the City. He never responded. On 9/95, we again wrote to Mayor Boro, and began to press the City to address these issues. The specifics of our complaint were Codes that were at issue. Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Storage SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 10 Code 14.16.250: there are two unregistered and inoperative trucks in the rear yard, and an unregistered and inoperative pick-up truck on the side yard, all parked on unpaved dirt surfaces. The two trucks in the rear of the house are in clear view from the street. As neighbors, we are deeply concerned about the toxic issues regarding the leaking vehicle fluids and their long term ramifications. These are all combustible items, and pose an extreme threat. This is unsightly, and has a direct affect on the value of our homes. This is a residential zoning, not a used car or storage facility. Additionally, the street is literally soaked with oil, with constant repair of vehicles on the street. This has persisted for five years. Our interpretation of your Code is clearly that Ethan should remove these vehicles from the premises by February 15th. A toxics expert should inspect the property for clean-up. San Rafael's Municipal Code Section 01.20.030M: the property is strewn with household trash, mattresses, car part, lumber, firewood, and appliances. Residential use of Vehicle Code 8.30: there has been a tenant sleeping on the flatbed on one of the trucks behind the house, in a camper shell, for six to eight months. Our interpretation of your Code is that this is a violation. This tenant has been sleeping for more than three nights in a ninety day period. There is a power cord leading from the house to the camper shell on the truck. Due to the condition of the property, this is a health and human safety hazard. This should be remedied when the trucks are removed and the clean-up is completed. We thank you for your attention to these very important matters, which are of great concern to some fifty households in our neighborhood. These issues before you pertain to health, human safety, fire, police, and economic value issues, all foremost to all of us. Quality of life is most important to us, and is in the Vision Statement of the City of San Rafael." Additionally, Mr. Soldavini stated he had a written statement from one of the neighbors, regarding Mr. Locks' residency. Mr. Soldavini reported the neighbor had spoken to several of the tenants currently living in the house, who have stated that Mr. Locks does not live there. Mr. Soldavini noted there are several of the neighbors who frequently go by the house, both morning and night, and have not seen him in the area in months. Councilmember Phillips noted that Mr. Soldavini has stated the vehicles on the property are not operative, and Mr. Soldavini stated the vehicles have been parked for five years and have not been run or moved. Mr. Phillips stated that by looking at the pictures, he would tend to agree that by their appearance they might not be operable. Mr. Phillips asked, even though they have not been moved in five years, if they might still be operable, and Mr. Soldavini agreed that perhaps they could be. Mr. Locks referred to the findings of David Smail, County Senior Environmental Health Specialist, whom the City had asked to inspect the property. Mr. Smail's report, dated October 3, 1995, concluded the property was not badly maintained, and the only problem he found was that the wood was improperly stored in such a way as to allow rodents to go into it. Mr. Locks stated Mr. Smail inspected the entire property, and this was the only violation he noted. Mr. Locks noted the City had sent him this report, and felt it showed that the property was not considered badly maintained by the City Health Inspector. There being no further public contact, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Boro reported that two years ago he had attended a meeting with Mr. Locks and the neighbors, at which time Mr. Locks assured them that he was going to work with the homeowners. Mayor Boro stated that for Mr. Locks to now stand before the Council and state that this is a waste of public dollars because the City is working with the neighbors really does not jibe with him. He stated this has been an issue for two years now, in the minds of the neighbors. Mayor Boro stated it is rare for the Council to take the kind of action that is now before them, but felt in this instance it was certainly merited. Mayor Boro stated there was a further issue he would like clarified by the Code Enforcement Officer, with respect to who actually lives on the site, and whether or not the applicant lives there. He stated this is a separate issue, having to do with a second unit, noting that part of the City's Second Unit Ordinance states that in order to have a second unit, the property owner must live on the site. Mayor Boro stated he wanted that issue pursued, subsequent to whatever action the Council took on the abatement. Mayor Boro addressed Mr. Locks, stating these issues had been discussed many, many times, and noted Mr. Locks had a lot of neighbors who were very frustrated, stating they have tried to live within the confines of the law, and have tried to work with Mr. Locks. Mayor Boro stated he was pleased that Mr. Locks had responded at this time, and noted that if he could respond over the next two weeks, that would be great; but, if not, Mayor Boro stated he would urge the Council to take the abatement action that has been brought before them. Councilmember Heller stated she had not been following this problem for the past two years, but she has been following the letters that have been coming in from the Neighborhood Association. She reported that in the back-up records given to the Council she found there had been action taken against Mr. Locks by the Fire Department in 1991. She noted this obviously was not a brand new problem with Mr. Locks, and felt that perhaps he is not always as good a neighbor as the Neighborhood Association would like. Ms. Heller concurred that the City should follow-up on this issue. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 11 Councilmember Zappetini asked if the Council were to make the decision for the neighborhood association, and uphold the Zoning Ordinances, what exactly is the City going to do? City Attorney Ragghianti responded that if the Council votes to declare a Nuisance, on the basis of the evidence they have heard, Mr. Locks would be given a specific period of time to abate the Nuisance, by removing the flatbed trucks from the property or, alternatively, paving the surface area and satisfying the City that he is a resident of that address. Mr. Ragghianti stated staff suggests that if this is the decision the Council makes, Mr. Locks should be given until the next Council meeting on February 20, 1996, and if by then neither of those actions have taken place, staff will have prepared a final Resolution for the Council's consideration which would appear on the Consent Calendar. Mr. Ragghianti stated that if by February 20th Mr. Locks has not taken the necessary action, the City would sue him, by seeking to have the condition of the property declared a Nuisance, and once the City has obtained a Court Order, the City will go upon the property and remove the trucks, and lien the property, not only for the cost of removing the trucks, but also for all of the legal fees and expenses necessary to accomplish this. Councilmember Phillips stated that by the comments, letters and pictures, he shares the neighbors' concerns, but noted there was one thing within the Zoning Ordinance that concerned him, and that was the issue regarding residence. He felt the decision of whether or not a person was a resident played heavily upon the manner in which he could mitigate the Nuisance. Mr. Phillips asked how one could prove residence in this type of situation, noting he felt the Council was concluding, by the action being taken, that Mr. Locks might not be a resident of the property. Mr. Ragghianti stated there were several ways to prove residency, one being to produce evidence that proves he resides there. He stated such evidence could include witnesses, letters from individuals who attest to the fact that they have observed him on or about the property, or documents that show his residence or mailing address to be at that address. Mr. Ragghianti stated that, unfortunately, for the purposes of making a decision, the City is constrained by the evidence that the record contains this evening, assuming the Council wishes to make a decision at this time. He stated one must weigh the quality of the evidence submitted, and the information received in support of the contention that Mr. Locks does not reside there, against the information that Mr. Locks has put forward indicating he does, much like a court. Mr. Ragghianti stated the applicant and the City are required to put their best foot forward in terms of a hearing like this, and produce evidence to support the contention; therefore, if the City were giving Mr. Locks the opportunity to prove between now and February 20th that he is a resident, he can prove that to the Planning Department staff if he wants to, and if not, they will remove the trucks, otherwise this could go on forever. Mr. Phillips asked Mr. Locks if it was clear that it was his obligation to establish residency? Mr. Ragghianti stated not only must he prove residency, by evidence sufficient to satisfy the Planning Department, but he must also pave the area in the rear yard, or remove those trucks, all by February 20th. Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to declare the conditions present to be a Public Nuisance, and adopt a Resolution directing abatement of said Nuisance. Under discussion, Mayor Boro noted the one item with respect to the lumber and debris has been satisfied, so this Resolution has strictly to do with the issue of the flatbed trucks. City Attorney Ragghianti asked Mayor Boro to direct staff to prepare a revised Resolution for presentation to the City Council on February 20, 1996, for review and approval on the Consent Calendar. (Motion was amended accordingly). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS OLD BUSINESS Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro None Cohen 13. DISCUSSION RE: LOCH LOMOND UNIT #10 BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING LOCATION (PI) - File 5-1-297 x 229 Councilmember Zappetini stated he was abstaining from this item due to conflict of interest, and left the Council Chamber. Mayor Boro stated the Council was aware of the fact that the Villa Real Property Owners Association had not been notified, as they should have been, at the time the first Public Hearing was held. He apologized on behalf of the Council. Mayor Boro stated the issue before the Council tonight was to educate everyone as to what has happened, what is being proposed, and to discuss the options, if any, that may be available. Planning Director Robert Pendoley stated one of the strengths of a good planning program is offering all of the appropriate SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 12 opportunities for citizen participation, noting it was very unfortunate that he and his department made an error a couple of years ago, and did not give proper notice to the Villa Real Property Owners Association. He noted he was glad to have this opportunity to correct that situation, and apologized for the inconvenience that was caused to everyone. Reporting on the background of the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) program, Mr. Pendoley reported the City has had a Below Market Rate program since the early 1980's, noting it had evolved and come to its present form in 1988 when the Council adopted the Housing Element to the General Plan, which states that whenever the City approves a project of ten or more units, 10% of those shall be affordable to moderate income persons. Mr. Pendoley noted the policy does state that if this is impractical, the City may consider other alternatives. Mr. Pendoley explained that moderate income means household income that is from 80% to 120% of the median, or average income, noting that the average income is adjusted for household size. He stated that when this report was prepared last week, the latest available data showed the median income for a household of four in Marin County was $58,800; however, he received an update today from the State of California showing an increase to $61,300. Mr. Pendoley reported that basically, once a housing project has been approved, the City then enters into a Below Market Rate Agreement with the developer, and the specifics are proposed in that agreement for actually getting to the housing. He stated that what typically happens is that the housing price is pegged as being affordable to about that median income, noting it can be slightly less, and that they also leave room in the contract for it to be slightly more, because often it is difficult to find the right combination of factors so that people can actually get into the unit. However, he stated a fair rule of thumb in this case is that the target income would be $61,300. He explained that after running that figure through the formulas the City is required to use, that means the housing unit would probably sell in the range of $165,000 to $175,000. He pointed out that for a 1200 square foot condominium, which is being considered in this instance, that price would be considered market rate housing, only slightly below what one could find in the private market today for a comparable size condominium. Discussing the type of buyer who would be likely to live in these types of units, Mr. Pendoley compared the buyers to specific staff positions, reporting the Deputy City Attorney and Principal Planner would qualify for these units. He noted both of those positions require not only a college degree, but also advanced degrees, in order to work for the City of San Rafael. Mr. Pendoley stated the City is constantly being told by businesses out in the community that private sector employees with similar qualifications need this kind of housing. Mr. Pendoley stated this has been a very successful program in San Rafael, reporting the city has approved over 160 BMR units, and noting they have actually been included in private projects since 1987. He explained that beginning with Loch Lomond, the City decided to mix these units right in with the single family detached homes. He stated several of these types of units have been built, noting a number have been built in the Laurel Glen project, a single-family hillside project in the Terra Linda area, and added several units were also built in the Highlands Project, another single-family hillside project in Terra Linda. Mr. Pendoley stated the market rate units in those projects were selling for $450,000 plus. Mr. Pendoley reported that as far as we have been able to determine, there have never been any complaints to the City on the compatibility between the BMR's and the other units in these neighborhoods. Mr. Pendoley used a slide presentation to illustrate the proposed site of the BMR units, noting that when he refers to Loch Lomond, he is referring to the Loch Lomond #10 subdivision, which is the subdivision that is under construction at this time. Mr. Pendoley stated the property that has been designated in the Below Market Rate Agreement is Lot #9, located on Las Casas Drive, which extends uphill and sits on a cul-de-sac. Mr. Pendoley noted another feature of the subdivision is a private driveway that extends from Las Casas Drive, immediately adjacent to Lot #9, to which Lot #9 has access rights. He stated another important feature of this property is that it slopes in two directions, which is one of the reasons Lot #9 was recommended for the BMR, as the City knew that this unit, as a triplex, would require covered parking for six cars, in the form of three 2 -car garages. He stated it was important to try to hide the garages so that the structure would blend in with the rest of the neighborhood in the best way possible. Mr. Pendoley reported the slope will allow one driveway on the top part of the lot, and a double driveway on the lower portion of the lot, which is largely screened by the slope. He stated this was an important feature in recommending that Lot #9 be used. Mr. Pendoley presented drawings of the units that have been proposed, beginning with a drawing of the units as viewed from Las Casas. He explained the applicant was required to cut away the hillside from the drawing so that it would actually be possible to see the architecture; however, on the ground, as the slope goes down from Las Casas, the lower part of the building will be screened from Las Casas, so that only the top floor will be visible from the street. Referring to the view from the private driveway, again with the hillside cut away from the drawing so the architecture could be seen, Mr Pendoley pointed out the slope of the hill again largely blocks the view of the driveway, as seen from Las Casas. Mr. Pendoley stated he makes these points only to show why this lot was SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 13 chosen, because it makes it possible to screen or to hide a major part of the mass of this building, which the Planning Department and the Design Review Board thought was important for integrating this building into the neighborhood. Mr. Pendoley stated this design has been reviewed by the Design Review Board, and they recommended approval. He noted it was ironic that this is the first hillside design that has gone to the Design Review Board and was recommended for approval on the first try. He stated they have been very strict, but they felt this design fully complied with all of the regulations and was, in fact, very nice looking. Mr. Pendoley noted a couple of issues had been raised by the Villa Real Property Owners Association. First, he referred to the concern that the site might be impractical because of parking issues, citing the experience with a recent holiday party, and noting concerns for fire safety. Mr. Pendoley stated the Fire Department has reviewed this location as the site for a triplex, and they did not have a problem with it. Mr. Pendoley noted another concern that was raised was the fact that this property will not pay into the Mello -Roos District. Mr. Pendoley acknowledged this was correct, this property will not pay into the Mello -Roos District, reporting this was a policy decision the Council made when the sub -division was approved a number of years ago, and when the Mello -Roos District was set-up. Mr. Pendoley explained each person who buys in that subdivision receives a full set of information on the Mello -Roos District, and it should be very clear to them exactly what is paid. Mr. Pendoley stated another concern that was raised had to do with the possible tax loss to the City from having a BMR on this site instead of what would undoubtedly be a more expensive single-family detached home. Mr. Pendoley noted that may be true, but stated that was really irrelevant, given the City Policy, as the City Policy which requires on-site BMR housing whenever practical must be followed. The final concern Mr. Pendoley addressed was the quality of construction. He stated the Design Review Board was very fussy in reviewing this project, to be assured the same quality of material would be used on this project as would be used on the other homes that have been proposed for the subdivision. Mr. Pendoley noted this unit has not yet been approved, but if the process moves forward, it would be considered at a Public Hearing of the Zoning Administrator, and the City would be careful to condition any action to require that the same quality materials be used. Councilmember Phillips asked for clarification on the anticipated sales price of the units, and Mr. Pendoley stated that based on today's interest rates, they feel the sales price will be in the vicinity of $165,000 to $175,000 per unit, for each of the three units comprising the triplex, reporting that this would actually be calculated at the time of sale. Mr. Phillips noted that for this particular lot, we would have to multiply three times the $165,000 to $175,000 to get the total dollar amount for housing on that particular lot, and Mr. Pendoley stated this was correct. Mr. Phillips stated this was a little inconsistent with the inference in the letter from the Villa Real Property Owners Association concerning the amount of property tax this lot would generate for the City. Councilmember Heller stated it was her understanding that a buyer must have an income of $61,500 in order to qualify, and asked if this was correct. Mr. Pendoley stated that was the target requirement, although it is possible to qualify with a slightly lower income, noting the City has also, from time to time, accepted buyers with slightly higher incomes. He stated it is a matter of qualifying the buyer, and there is a range of qualifying income, with $61,500 being in the middle of the range. Frank Melcher, resident of Villa Real, addressed the Council on behalf of the Villa Real Property Owners Association, stating he would like to highlight a few of the points in their letter to the Council. Mr. Melcher stated there are several reasons why the Association feels the placement of the BMR unit on Lot #9 is impractical, and perhaps not the best option available. Mr. Melcher reported he had been walking up on the hill the night of the party, and had the Fire Department been there, he guaranteed they would have been appalled, as it was a very large party and the parking extended well down into Villa Real. He stated this did not turn out to be a problem, but all of the fire lanes were ignored, and he believes a fire vehicle could not have gotten up the hill that night. Mr. Melcher noted this occurred with only three houses built and occupied at the time, not the now anticipated thirteen sites that are to be built and occupied, plus the three Below Market Rate units. In Mr. Melcher's opinion, there was absolutely no way you could navigate a fire engine up that hill. Mr. Melcher stated the second issue is the Mello -Roos District, noting that in talking to a variety of the neighbors, and in looking at the material that was given to them during the course of buying their homes, they were actually able to determine that the Below Market Rate housing was exempt from the Mello -Roos District, but when Mr. Melcher first asked them if they were aware of this, they had no conception of that as part of previous discussions, and were only ultimately able to find this information in the printed documents they had received. In addition, Mr. Melcher stated they did not understand the conditions surrounding the Below Market Rate requirements, noting they were increasingly surprised at some of the Below Market Rate requirements in terms of the ability to fix them up, and the restriction on growth in terms of the value of the house to the owner, and a series of things that, even though people knew BMR housing units were going in, they did not understand what that implied. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 14 Referring to the "in -lieu" provision, Mr. Melcher stated that when they went back and looked at some of the earlier documents in the original Planning Department recommendation regarding this site, the staff recommended the payment of housing in -lieu fees would be a more practical alternative for this site. Mr. Melcher noted that at a concurrent time, there was a submission by the developer, Mr. Ham, strongly urging that in -lieu be accepted, and in that process he strongly stated he felt the neighborhood might object to the Below Market Rate housing, and he also cited that in 1989, San Pedro Cove's Unit #2 subdivision was granted an in -lieu fee as opposed to putting Below Market Rate housing on-site, noting that occurred a year after Mr. Pendoley's report indicated that after 1988 all the Below Market Rate units have been on-site. Mr. Melcher stated that in Mr. Ham's submission strongly urging in -lieu use, he cites that San Pedro Cove was not required to include on-site BMR units. Mr. Melcher stated that was an issue that should be factored into this discussion. Mr. Melcher encouraged the Council to consider that the Below Market Rate housing requirement speaks to 10% of the development. He stated, clearly, Loch Lomond #10 is a 28 house development; however, it does not come across as a 28 house development, noting it appears to be an 11 house development above Villa Real, and a disconnected 17 unit development that exists over the Loch Lomond site. Mr. Melcher stated there is no physical connection between the two sites, and noted that when you come up the hill from Loch Lomond #10, the eleven sites on the western portion are what you see. Therefore, he felt the siting of the Below Market Rate housing represents almost a 25% impact in terms of the components of the development that sit above Villa Real. Mr. Melcher stated it seemed to the Association that this was not the most practical approach in the siting of the Below Market Rate housing. Mr. Melcher directed the Council's attention to the discussion in terms of the disparity between the expected housing costs for the houses that are sited in Loch Lomond #10, which are currently in the $700,000 to $900,000 range, noting that if you take the three Below Market Rate housing units and multiply them at $165,000, that is roughly $500,000. Referring to an economic standpoint, Mr. Melcher noted that if the economics of taxes and the availability of public services is not a practical consideration for City Government, he does not know what is. He stated the Association felt that if an $800,000 home could be put on-site, and taxes obtained for that, it could mitigate the demands of the Mello -Roos District, and perhaps even increase the resources available to the Mello -Roos District and, through the in -lieu fee, still generate the Below Market Rate housing that adds $500,000 to the housing stock, plus adds additional jobs to the City in putting up the houses. He stated it seems as though the City would win in a multiplicity of ways, particularly having $130,000 in tax revenue over a ten-year period instead of a fifty-year period. Mr. Melcher stated it seemed as though this should be a viable option in terms of how to approach doing this in a way that would satisfy everybody in the community. Mr. Melcher stated the members of the Association truly believe that the issue of Below Market Rate Housing and affordable housing is an important issue, and that it is well within the City's interests and rights to pursue available and affordable housing. They just feel there are other solutions that might work, and would encourage the Council to seek other options as they review this matter. Mr. Melcher stated the point we are at in the process has been gotten to partly because of bad process, noting the Villa Real Property Owners Association appreciates the City's acknowledgement of the fact that the Association was not included in the discussion. However, he stated they felt there was no reason to continue the process forward, given the fact that it is the result of bad process, when they feel earlier discussion of some of these issues and other concerns might have led to a different conclusion early on in the process. Therefore, the Villa Real Property Owners Association encourages the Council, as they consider this issue, to give their concerns some consideration, and to seek the option that best meets the broadest needs. Mr. Melcher asked the members of the Villa Real Property Owners Association to stand and join him in thanking the City for helping them in their attempt to work this process out. Paul Panachelli, addressed the Council on behalf of the residents of Boyd Court, a Below Market Rate housing building. Mr. Panachelli stated there are twenty-five households at Boyd Court, and noted the building is 100% BMR units. Mr. Panachelli stated the residents of Boyd Court know the members of the Council are familiar with their complex, and that they recognize the importance of Below Market Rate housing and the benefits it brings to the community, and therefore they are present more for the benefit of anyone in the audience who may have misconceptions about the kind of people who live in Below Market Rate housing. Mr. Panachelli noted there were three residents from Boyd Court in the audience, representing the twenty-five households at the complex. He stated it was difficult to describe the make-up of the residents, as they are a diverse community, but noted some of the residents are young singles, professional people who work locally and probably could not otherwise afford to own their own home in Marin without having this type of project available, young families just starting out and using this type of affordable housing as a stepping stone, and several elderly people who have downsized and are living on fixed incomes, and who have been able to remain living locally and near their families because of opportunities like this. He reiterated he was not really here to address the Council, as they already know the residents, but to answer questions from anyone else who would like to know more about their community, noting they have had groups come to Boyd Court and check out the building and the residents. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 15 Mary Anne Christiansen, 75 Junipero Serra, addressed the Council, reporting she wanted to make it very plain to the Council that the members of the Association are not objecting to the people who live in Below Market Rate housing, stating that was beside the point. She felt Mr. Melcher explained beautifully the Association's real concerns, which have nothing to do with the quality of the people. She asked Mayor Boro, Councilmember Heller and Councilmember Phillips if they had visited the site of the proposed BMR unit, and they responded that they had. Tom Vasconcellos, 37 Las Casas Drive, addressed the Council, stating he lives in an area that is zoned R-1, and noting that Below Market Rate housing is fine, but asking why all of a sudden they will be living in an R-3 zoning area? He stated he felt this was spot zoning, and stated that if the City can do this in one neighborhood, they could do it in any other neighborhood, and he did not feel this complied with the zoning laws. Mr. Vasconcellos stated there was something wrong with an R-3 rating in an R-1 neighborhood, noting the reason he wants to live there is because he wants to live in a single-family residence, not in a triplex. Planning Director Pendoley stated a triplex could not be built in Mr. Vasconcellos' part of the neighborhood, as it is not zoned for it; however, when the Loch Lomond #10 subdivision was approved, it was approved with zoning that would allow for one triplex. Mayor Boro clarified this was done in order to achieve the affordable housing, and Mr. Pendoley agreed that was correct. Rick Berry, 83 Las Casas Drive, addressed the Council, noting he wished to express some of the same concerns addressed earlier by Frank Melcher. He stated his house is across the street from the home where the party was held, and noted it was fortunate that he was out of town the night of the party because it was his understanding that there would have been no way to get to his house if he had wanted to get home that night. He felt that as more and more people move into the development, this is going to become a much bigger problem. Mr. Berry reported that when he bought his house in March, 1995, it was explained to him that there would be Below Market Rate housing, but not being from California or Marin, he did not understand what that meant, and stated it has only been recently that he has understood the full implications of what this means. He asked what restrictions are imposed upon the people who buy these units, and when they go to sell them, what can they sell them for? Mr. Pendoley stated the retail price is controlled. He reported there is an escalator that is put on the price, noting he did not know which escalator is used, but citing the CPI as an example, and noting that if the CPI goes up 4% in a given year, then the price of that unit is allowed to go up 4%. Mr. Pendoley noted that lately, over the past five years with a basically slow real estate market, the Below Market Rate condominiums have actually appreciated faster than the uncontrolled market rate housing. He stated that because the initial sales price is lower than it would have been out on the market if it were not in the BMR program, and because it is allowed an escalator that may be better than someone could get for their single-family detached home, those who owned BMR's in the past five years have done better than a lot of people would have done with single-family detached homes. Mr. Pendoley acknowledged this was unusual and would probably not continue; nevertheless, that is the control that is put on the property, and that is how it has worked over the past few years. Mr. Berry asked if the units are still BMR homes after they are sold, and Mr. Pendoley stated that was correct, noting once they are designated BMR's, they remain so for forty years. Mr. Berry stated he realized that this was City policy, but noted he had some concerns about that, because he wants no disincentives on the people who buy these homes. He stated he would like them to maintain the homes and feel proud about them, and have the pride of ownership that he himself feels. Mr. Berry stated there are a lot of expensive homes up there, and he would like them to stay that way. Councilmember Phillips referred to Mr. Berry's statement that he was from outside of California, and therefore perhaps was not fully aware of BMR units and what they constituted. Noting that Mr. Berry had then stated he now more fully understands the significance of what BMR's are, Mr. Phillips asked Mr. Berry to explain what the other significant features are, in his mind, with regard to BMR's. Mr. Berry stated the main issue to him was the ultimate quality of the neighborhood, noting his concern had nothing to do with the quality of the people who would be moving into the BMR housing units, but that he just wants no disincentive placed on those people to take care of their property. He stated if they are only limited to some government index, which could go down for all we know, then Mr. Berry does not want any restriction placed on those people in regard to taking care of their property, just as he would or any of the other neighbors would. Mr. Berry stated it was explained to him, when he bought his house, what Below Market Rate housing was, stating he understood the house could be sold to a Fireman or a City Policeman, and this is not what bothers him. He stated he is concerned that there is a restriction on what the owner can sell the BMR unit for. Mayor Boro stated the reason for the restriction is so someone does not come in and make a killing, and the City loses the unit, noting the State of California has mandated every city to achieve a certain level of affordable housing, and stating that is very difficult to do in this County. Therefore, Mayor Boro explained that once we achieve it, we want to sustain it, and not have someone come in and buy a unit for $165,000, and then turn around and two months later sell it for $200,000, because all of a sudden the unit is no longer affordable. He reiterated that after the community and the City have done all they have to create affordable housing, we want to be able to sustain it. He stated this is the reason the rates are controlled, not to provide a disincentive. Mayor Boro SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 16 noted a Homeowners Association would likely be in place to regulate how the property is maintained, with fees collected to maintain that building just like any other condominium. Mr. Berry referred to Mr. Pendoley's statement that a BMR unit must remain Below Market Rate housing when it is sold, and Mayor Boro explained this was correct, that the value of the unit would be allowed to grow at a certain rate, whatever the index is, but would not be allowed to go to full market value, because if it were to be sold at full market price it would no longer be affordable housing. Councilmember Phillips noted that an owner of a BMR might witness the same kind of appreciation of that unit as the owner of a single-family detached home might witness in their home, or the same kind of percentage increase. Mr. Phillips stated that, as the Planning Director had indicated, the BMR unit owner might even witness more of an increase than the owner of a single-family home. He stated it was possible the BMR units might even be maintained at a higher level than the single-family homes. Fran Ford, member of the Villa Real Property Owners Association, addressed the Council, and stated that at a recent meeting with the Mr. Pendoley, he had told the group that the BMR units would be sold to City employees. Mr. Pendoley stated that on purchase of units such as these, the standard BMR contract states there shall be a lottery for the purchase of the BMR units, as there are usually a lot of people who want to buy the units, and the first choice at the lottery shall go to City employees. He explained that if, after the first chance at the lottery, no City employee purchases the unit, then the lottery is opened up to other non -employees who qualify. Mr. Pendoley stated this was established as Council policy, and has made it possible to accomplish the objective of having City employees, who might not otherwise be able to, live in town. Mr. Pendoley noted this was particularly important for safety employees, such as employees of the Police Department. Vicky Asher, resident of Boyd Court, addressed the Council, stating she had not known about this Below Market Rate project until she read about it in the newspaper last week, and she felt compelled to say, from her own personal experience, how much pride she takes in the ownership of her unit at Boyd Court. She noted her unit was only 790 square feet, but to her it was a palace. She stated she takes a great deal of pride in her unit, as do the other residents of the building. She reported that since she moved into her unit in 1994, she has been on the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association, and noted she is particularly proud of the fact that they are completely self -managed, having taken over the management of the property themselves, and managing to cut costs. Ms. Asher stated they do have restrictions on their units, and they are all aware of that, but noted she did not feel this made any difference in the upkeep, maintenance and cleanliness, noting they have a very beautiful building. Ms. Asher reported she has always been active in her community, but since becoming a homeowner in Marin County, she is even more so, noting she has become involved with the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, and has participated in the Graffiti Abatement Program, as well as trash pick-up programs and that type of thing. She stated she takes a great deal of pride in ownership, and urges the Council's support of this type of program that makes it possible for people of very average incomes to own a home in this beautiful County. Hugh Hart, 50 Balboa, addressed the Council, stating he mainly had questions for which he was seeking clarification, either from the Council or from the Planning Director. Mr. Hart stated he was confused as to how the sale is made, asking if it was an open market sale by the realtor selling other homes in the area, or how else it might be done? He also asked what the lottery means, and who runs the lottery? Mr. Pendoley explained the sale is actually supervised by the Marin County Housing Authority, under contract to the City of San Rafael. He noted it is also their responsibility to let people know that they can attempt to qualify for these units, and let them know that they must go through a certification process, very much like someone would if they were going through a bank. He stated that once they are certified to participate, there is the lottery, which is two phased, with the first try going to City employees. Mr. Pendoley stated once a person has qualified through the lottery and received a high enough number so that they can actually make the purchase, then they must go through the usual qualifying requirements to receive the loan. He noted a lot of this is accomplished through the initial certification process. Mr. Hart asked if that meant the loan would be carried by a private loan agency, and Mr. Pendoley stated this was his understanding. Mr. Hart asked if, within the terms of the sale, it is subsequently then possible for the property to be leased or rented by the owner? Mr. Pendoley stated it was his understanding this was not permitted. Mr. Hart stated it had always been his understanding from the Homeowners Association, where this has been talked about, that in the original plans for the subdivision this particular Below Market Rate triplex was to have been located in another area of the subdivision. Mr. Hart asked when the change was made to the present location, and what were the reasons for the change? He asked if the change was purely for the sake of proper location, or were there other factors to be considered? Mayor Boro responded that, to the best of his recollection, the current site was deemed to be the best site to accommodate the triplex from a physical point of view. Mr. Pendoley stated that initially another lot had been proposed, which the developer thought appropriate, but the Public Works and Planning staffs thought it was not appropriate because they did not like the fact that it was on a very sharp curve, which would mean sight distance problems with the location of up to three driveways. He reported that after that lot was rejected, the developer proposed three others, but staff felt each of those three lots would not permit the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 17 development of an attractive looking triplex. He stated that, finally, City staff picked Lot #9, noting they dug -in their heels and stated this was the lot that worked from an architectural point of view, as verified by the Design Review Board, and the Council concurred. Mr. Hart asked if the change in location was all done prior to the Public Hearings? Mr. Pendoley responded that was not the case, and stated what actually happened was that the developer had come to staff with a Below Market Rate Agreement in which he proposed the lot he had in mind, staff looked at it and decided they did not think it was a good idea. Mr. Pendoley reported that at this same time, members of the Loch Lomond Neighborhood Association were aware of the issue, not the people who live in the new subdivision, but rather the existing Loch Lomond neighborhood, and they came before the Council and stated they wanted to talk about it. Mr. Pendoley stated at that point the issue was put on the Council Agenda, and that is where he made a mistake in not sending notification to both neighborhoods. He stated he made an error and did not make proper notification, and that is why the issue is here tonight. In reaction to the outburst from the audience, Mayor Boro stated the Council agreed that it was not fair, but that this is what happened, and noted the Council is trying to see if there is a resolution or a way to address this issue. Mr. Hart stated he felt it would have been more above board if, with the acknowledgement that a mistake had been made, to say it was not just due to a clerical error, but that there were some objections from the Loch Lomond Homeowners' Association, which in some sense was factored into the decision to move the location of the BMR unit from its previous location to the current location. He felt it would have been a little clearer for the members of the Villa Real Property Owners Association to have had that acknowledged. Mayor Boro stated he wanted to make one point very clear, that the entire time the Council heard this issue, it was never a question as to whether or not we would have three units on the site, the only question was where we would do it. He noted that when Mr. Hart asked him why the Council did what they did, he responded it was his recollection the Council had been told that it was the best possible location from a physical, construction point of view, and that was the issue. Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council, recalling she had spoken to the Council before in support of affordable housing, and stating it is not unusual that we are all here and that there are many people in the audience who are not in favor of it. She stated she felt we all had to do a better job of letting people know that affordable housing is not going to take property values down, noting we have had inclusionary affordable housing in many parts of the City. She noted Marin Lagoon as an example, stating there are a number of BMR's there. Ms. Giambastiani also clarified that residency is a part of the restriction on BMR units, and they cannot be leased or rented. Ms. Giambastiani stated the fear of the unknown is a big problem in this issue, noting she believed the earlier speaker who stated it was not the people who would be residing in the units that they are concerned about. Ms. Giambastiani stated her son is an archeologist and his wife is a teacher, noting that together they make $61,500, so when we are talking about who is going to live in these units, whether it is a City employee or a teacher, she felt there are all kinds of people we need to provide housing for. Ms. Giambastiani reported a survey was conducted last year in which they surveyed public workers from among police/fire personnel, teachers, and hospital workers, to find out what their total household income was, how far away they lived from the community, and if they would like to live here if they had the opportunity. She stated they found that 75% of these workers qualified for affordable housing, noting most of them were in the moderate ranges being talked about tonight. Ms. Giambastiani urged the Council not to accept in -lieu dollars, stating we need to have people of all income ranges living throughout our community. She asked what kind of a community are we going to have if the only people who can afford to live here are rich old folks? Ms. Giambastiani stated we are all aging very rapidly, and we must make room for our young people. She asked, if the City took in -lieu fees instead of building the unit at this location, then where are we going to put it, and what other part of the community is going to say "Oh, no, do not put it here, because it might affect my property values." Ms. Giambastiani stated that somehow we must convince people these units are not going to lower their values, noting the prices of the homes in Marin Lagoon have not dropped one bit because of the BMR's there. She stated she has visited that community, and has not seen the property deteriorating. Ms. Giambastiani urged the Council to go ahead and build the triplex in this community. Frank Melcher asked if Mr. Pendoley had stated earlier that Loch Lomond #10 was the first development in which the City determined it would require on-site (BMR) housing? Mr. Pendoley stated that was incorrect, and that as far as he knew, it was the first time BMR housing was required to be integrated in and among single-family detached housing. Mr. Melcher referred to an earlier neighborhood meeting, at which Mr. Pendoley stated this project was, by far, the greatest discrepancy in property values, in terms of on-site BMR's versus other on-site houses in the surrounding neighborhood, by a significant factor of hundreds of thousands of dollars per unit. Mr. Melcher stated this was not the central point, or the only point, but noted this is the first time there has been a requirement to have multi -family units in a single-family development, and it represents the largest discrepancy. Mr. Melcher asked, referring to the issue of the common good being held, if there is more value in the combined tax revenue and the availability of low market rate housing combined together. He stated the Association felt there was room for other options that go beyond the existence of the current plan for Lot #9. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 18 Mayor Boro stated this project may be the first time multi -family units have been placed on-site in a single-family development, but it has also been done subsequently in other locations, which the Planning Director mentioned. Mr. Melcher referred to Subdivision #2 at San Pedro Cove, noting this location was in Mr. Ham's submission of his original interest in taking the in -lieu direction, as opposed to building the BMR units on-site. Mr. Pendoley stated that, as far as he knew, from the time the policy was adopted in 1988, the only project where in -lieu fees were accepted was one unit of the Spinnaker project. Mr. Pendoley stated he might be in error, and would check further to determine if any other in -lieu fees had ever been accepted. Nancy Hoffman, 48 Junipero Serra, addressed the Council, stating she is very well aware of Below Market Rate housing, noting her son had pursued this type of housing. She referred to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper which indicated Below Market Rate housing had been built in Marin City, and that they have not been able to sell these units. She stated there are a lot of places out there for people seeking Below Market Rate housing, if they will just look around. Ms. Hoffman stated this project was originally proposed to be in Loch Lomond at the top of Manderly Drive, but then a meeting was held to which the Villa Real Property Owners Association was not invited, and all of a sudden this BMR unit has been transferred to Villa Real. She stated she did not feel the residents of Villa Real had been given a fair shrift, and did not believe this location was a good place to build Below Market Rate housing. Ms. Hoffman stated she did not have anything against people who live in this type of housing, noting she felt they were good neighbors. However, Ms. Hoffman stated there were a lot of things to consider, and there is a lot of Below Market Rate housing currently on the market if people will just look for it. Frank Arini, resident of Villa Real, addressed the Council, stating that if we are going to help our children, instead of building attached homes, we should build single-family units so they can raise their families without having adjacent walls. Mr. Arini referred to Mr. Pendoley's statement that he planned to cut the hill so the triplex would be less visible, and Mr. Arini stated this felt to him as though someone was trying to hide an eyesore. He stated most of the people in Villa Real are very happy and proud of their homes, and he asked why we would want to hide this unit? Mr. Arini stated he was against the multi -family unit, stating if the City wanted to build single-family units for young people, he would be all for that. Bill Simmons, 42 Junipero Serra, addressed the Council, stating he had been President of the Villa Real Property Owners Association at the time Loch Lomond #10 was up for debate, noting there had been much debate. He stated he remembered his final comment expressing the opinion of the Villa Real Property Owners Association, which was "We're better with it than without it." Mr. Simmons stated he felt Loch Lomond #10 has progressed very well overall. He stated it is a tribute to San Rafael that the City has policed this matter, and a tribute to the builder, Ham Construction Company, for having adhered to the design criteria and the mitigation procedures that have been set-up. Mr. Simmons stated that when he completed his term as President of the Villa Real Property Owners Association, he received a copy of Mr. Pendoley's Report to the Mayor and City Council, outlining the proceedings that have taken place along the way. He stated that among the things that caught his attention was a statement in "Appendix 1, The Chronology of Loch Lomond #10 Sub -division." Mr. Simmons referred to a paragraph on Page 2 which states, "To meet the 10% inclusionary zoning requirement, three of the thirty single-family units would have to be placed for low to moderate income households." Mr. Simmons stated that was fine, every agreed this was desirable. However, he points out the report goes on to say, "Staff recommended that given the design, location, and anticipated price range of the lot and dwelling units, the payment of in -lieu housing fees would be a more practical alternative." Mr. Simmons reported Ham Construction Company had retained an attorney and discussed this at great length, relative to their feeling that in -lieu would be preferred. Mr. Simmons stated he did not know why that position had changed, if indeed it had changed. He asked Mr. Pendoley and staff to explain why the staff recommendation, which was made in the earlier report, has been changed so drastically. Mr. Pendoley stated Mr. Simmons was correct, that was exactly what the Planning Department had originally recommended to the Planning Commission in 1989 or 1990. However, Mr. Pendoley reported the Planning Commission did not agree with this recommendation, stating they felt it was practical to build on-site, and that was the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Council, and the Council concurred. Mr. Pendoley stated there were also some people in the neighborhood who testified this project should be required to build units on-site. Mr. Pendoley stated the Planning Commission and the Council were in agreement that it was proper to require these units to be built on-site. He reported what has happened since then is that it has actually been proven practical to build on-site, as the builder set-up a pricing structure that would support the BMR's, and came up with a design that was recommended for approval by the Design Review Board. Mr. Pendoley stated he felt everyone had to agree that it is practical, in that it appears very obvious that it can be built. He stated staff's recommendation was sustained, and he felt he would have to say that they had been proven wrong, and that it is practical to do this. Mr. Pendoley stated that since that time, they have made the same recommendation on all other single-family detached projects with ten or more units, noting several have already been built. Mr. Simmons stated times and viewpoints change, and noted that from their view, criteria also seems to have changed. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 19 Melvin Marlow, resident of Villa Real, addressed the Council, stating he had lived in Villa Real for thirty-seven years. Mr. Marlow stated there seems to be a proclivity toward fearing a possible lawsuit from the builder if the City should turn around on this commitment that has been made, and not permit him to follow through. He stated he did not completely understand how this would come about, noting it seemed to him there is a form of breach of contract on the part of the City to the property owners in Villa Real and Loch Lomond who entered that community with the idea that they were entering a single-family zoned area. Mr. Marlow stated that suddenly this project is being introduced. He noted an appendage was added for their community, and suddenly this is being used as a defense to permit the introduction of this triplex. He stated that at no time was a triplex brought to the property owners' attention when they made their investments. Mr. Marlow stated there is also a larger than normal disparity in the prices involved in the cost of the triplex units, compared to the surrounding properties. He noted that if you visit the surrounding properties, you would find those that have already been built are running in the $700,000 to $900,000 range. Mr. Marlow stated it seemed to him there has been quite a change in philosophy over the years. He noted he understands that young people need housing, stating he has two sons, and that his youngest son cannot afford a home of his own, so he rents. Mr. Marlow stated that when he was a young man, he might have liked a home in an upscale neighborhood, but he knew that in our Country we have a certain economic ladder we must go up, and as a result, one does a certain amount of striving to accomplish that. Mr. Marlow stated that as a result, as a young man starting a family, he rented, and then bought a house the size they could afford in the area in which they could afford it. With respect to the Boyd Park development, Mr. Marlow stated he fully respects the fact that there are very honorable occupants and owners in those units, noting he had visited the development when it was being built. He noted he could understand why they sold very quickly, as they were very conveniently priced. However, Mr. Marlow stated he felt one reason that community was accepted so easily and as quickly as it was is because it does not sit in the middle of a residential community, it is surrounded mainly by commercial properties and a park. With respect to the lottery, Mr. Marlow stated he was very surprised to hear there had been some earlier conversations about these units being offered with a preference toward City employees, noting he felt this was a drastic form of discrimination. Mr. Marlow reported that, carrying this conversation a little further, he had overheard that the City would still nominate certain select groups to permit them to enter this lottery. He asked if he was correct in these observations? Mr. Pendoley asked Mr. Marlow to clarify his question. Mr. Marlow stated he thought initially it had been stated that a preference was to be given to City employees relative to the lottery, and asked Mr. Pendoley if this was correct? Mr. Pendoley stated this is what the contract provides, that there will be a lottery for the Below Market Rate units, and first chance in the lottery will be given to City employees. Mr. Marlow asked is this not discrimination against other people who would very much like to have a property at this price, and Mr. Pendoley responded staff had been advised by the City Attorney that this was legal, and noted it is common practice in California. Mr. Marlow stated that in this day and age, that surprises him. Mr. Marlow reiterated he felt the philosophy in this Country was changing, noting there was probably nothing wrong with certain areas of socialism, but as far as he is concerned, we are not a socialist country. He stated many people have had to climb the ladder, and they know what it is to climb it, noting a person needs to take a step at a time and not jump over the loops to get to a higher point on that ladder than they have earned. Mayor Boro pointed out to Mr. Marlow that it had not been easy with the Boyd Court development, reporting the neighbors were not happy, and the people living behind Boyd Court were against it and fought it. He stated the City sat down with them and worked out a design that was acceptable to those neighbors. Mayor Boro stated he was very proud of the people from Boyd Court who were in the audience as representatives of that particular community, noting one is a programmer with one of the City's software companies, and another is an aide to a State Senator. He stated there are also older people who have moved to that community. Mayor Boro stated the issue before the Council is to identify the City's options, and determine if there is anything else that might be available to the City. He referred to the report Council had received which addresses the status of the contract, discusses the fact that it is policy to go forward with these units, if possible, and stated it has been determined that it is practical to build these units. Mayor Boro noted the question has been raised as to whether the City can go back and renegotiate that contract with the developer. Mayor Boro noted the City Attorney was willing to pursue what other options the City might have. Mayor Boro asked the City Attorney to review any options that might be available with regard to the contract. He directed staff to pursue other sites in Loch Lomond #10, referring to the entire development, as to other possible sites that might be practical for this particular use. Mayor Boro stated he did not want to speak for the entire Council, but felt there never was a question as to whether or not the City would do this, it was only a matter of where we would do it, noting we have always been committed to building those units on-site. Councilmember Heller agreed she would like to find out if there are any other options for another site that would be appropriate for these units. She apologized to the Villa Real Property Owners Association for the failure to notice SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 20 their community, noting it was a policy of the City to try to work with each and every neighborhood in the City. She stated a fact sheet might be helpful, showing the State regulations which mandate us as a community, as a County, and as a City, to build Below Market Rate housing, noting this is something that the City of San Rafael is told by the State of California that we must do. She stated the City's General Plan is our City law, and in that General Plan it states that the City accepts what the State has mandated us to do, and that we will follow through and build Below Market Rate housing, and put it in our communities. She stated she supports this, noting she has two daughters, one of whom is a teacher, and one who works for the United States Congress in Washington, D.C. Ms. Heller noted that, together, her daughters' salaries would not qualify them for one of these units. She acknowledged that it is very difficult, and that we must all work together. She asked for a fact sheet describing how many units we have, and what the State law and the City's General Plan mandate on us as a community. Councilmember Phillips noted the unit in question had gone through the Design Review process, and it struck him that it was in isolation, as there are no similar homes in the community. However, he felt it would likely be compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood, and asked if that had been the conclusion of the Design Review Board? Mr. Pendoley stated that had been an important concern to the Design Review Board, and noted they felt the architecture would be very compatible with the homes that have already been built in the neighborhood. Mr. Phillips referred to the contract that Mr. Ham had prepared in connection with this development, and asked if the contract had been disseminated to the purchasers of the surrounding parcels? Mr. Pendoley stated Mr. Ham had advised his department that every buyer is informed that there is a BMR slated for Lot #9, noting one of the people who lives in the development acknowledged that he was told there would be a BMR. Mr. Phillips stated he concurs with the others that it is unfortunate about the notification process. He felt the City has, in virtually all other cases that he is aware of, been committed to the process of notification, and to clear communication of the process to the neighbors, noting he is a neighbor just as the members of the Association are. He stated the City is committed to that process, and that this is an exception, noting it is very unfortunate, and stating that if he were in their position, he would be upset as well. Mr. Phillips noted it is now a statement of fact, and there is nothing the Council can do about it at this point in time, other than to recognize the importance of the notification process, which the Villa Real Property Owners Association has shown as being very significant to the neighbors. However, Mr. Phillips did feel that had there been notification, he would still be turning to the General Plan, which does have a policy regarding BMR's. He stated he subscribes to that policy, and feels it is an important element to our community to at least provide a portion of the housing market as Below Market Rate housing, and support those occupations that have been mentioned, which he felt add to the community. Mr. Phillips stated that, had the notification process taken place, he still would have turned to the policy that has been passed by prior City Councils, reviewed that, and viewed favorably that policy and made his decision with that as his backdrop. Mr. Phillips stated he did not feel in -lieu was appropriate, stating it skirts the issue and does not provide for housing, as the Council has decided by policy. Mr. Phillips noted he cannot categorically state that he is against in -lieu fees in all cases, but in this case, since it is practical to build on this site, it is not something that he would readily accept as an alternative or substitute for this General Plan policy. Mr. Phillips noted that several people have talked about climbing up, and he stated he subscribes to that, recalling that when he finished graduate school he was not making a great deal of money, but was able to buy a reasonable home in Terra Linda. Mr. Phillips stated he felt it was much more difficult now, as he has two children who will be graduating from college very soon, and noted he could certainly sympathize with them, as he suspects that when they hit the job market they will find they will not be able to afford very much, if anything at all. Mr. Phillips felt this was unfortunate and that if, as a community, we can do anything about that, and he feels this policy can, then we should do that. Mr. Phillips stated that when this issue comes back, he is going to be leaning toward the policy, which states that we should be supporting affordable housing in San Rafael. After discussion, Mayor Boro stated this item will be continued to the first meeting in March (March 4, 1996). He assured the members of the Villa Real Property Owners Association that they would be notified, and thanked them for attending the meeting. (Councilmember Zappetini returned to the Council Chamber) NEW BUSINESS 14. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: RE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROPOSED FUNDING FOR CITY PROJECTS - FILE 147 Councilmember Heller reported on the Community Development Block Grant Fund, noting she had met on January 30th with Supervisor John Kress to hear the Block Grant Funds. She stated funding available for this program year is beginning on a note of uncertainty, reporting that the U. S. Department of Housing (HUD) is giving out information that we will have a funding cut of up to 10%, compared to last year's amount. She reported there are three SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 21 different funding areas, which are housing, capital, and public service, and that twenty-one programs were recommended for funding, for a total of $304,000. Ms. Heller stated the City of San Rafael was recommended to receive a $37,000 grant for a new classroom for the Pickleweed Children's Center, which is in addition to $9,000 toward the Child Care staffing at Pickleweed. She reported that it was recommended the Maria B. Freitas Senior Housing be given $34,000, and $25,000 will be recommended for the Marin Center for Independent Living for the seismic upgrading, noting this was in addition to the $125,000 that the City will be giving them. Ms. Heller reported $17,000 has been recommend for the Contempo Marin Mobile Homeowners Corporation to continue the planning of the purchase of the mobile home park by the residents. Ms. Heller reported there will be a March 25th Countywide Priority Setting Committee meeting, which will discuss housing issues, and all of the recommendations will then be sent to the County Supervisors on May 2nd. RE: BUDGET OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE - FILE 9-2-48 Councilmember Phillips reported he had met with the Budget Oversight Committee last week, and they discussed the development of a five-year projection. Mr. Phillips stated Finance Director Coleman had previously given him four or five different approaches taken by other communities in California. Mr. Phillips noted some of these were more involved than others, and he wanted to get some feedback from the Committee, as to whether they felt it would be appropriate for the Budget Oversight Committee to take it upon themselves to recommend the City take a specific approach, and to involve staff to the extent necessary to prepare the five-year plan. Mr. Phillips reported the Budget Oversight Committee will present a report at the first Council meeting in March, which will discuss the status of the Committee. He noted that at that time, he and Acting City Manager Golt hope to have a charge, which they will present to Council and hope, in turn will be offered to the Budget Oversight Committee as a specific direction they might follow to develop this five-year plan. There being no further business, Mayor Boro asked those in the Council Chamber to please stand for a moment of silence, as he was adjourning the meeting in memory of Cliff Elbing, former member of the San Rafael Fire Commission, who served the City of San Rafael for sixteen years, and who passed away on January 31, 1996. Meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1996 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/5/96 Page 21