Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJT Minutes 1997-03-13SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1997 AT 7:05 PM Special Joint Meeting San Rafael City Council/ Design Review Board SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Albert J. Boro, Mayor Larry Paul, Chair Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Robert Huntsberry, Member Barbara Heller, Councilmember Andrea MacLeod, Member Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Richard Olmsted, Member Gary Phillips, Councilmember Peder J. Pedersen, Member Others Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Marilyn Williams, Planning Commissioner Robert J. Pendoley, Planning Director Sheila Delimont, Principal Planner Chantry Bell, Associate Planner Louise Patterson, Associate Planner Bill Tuikka, Associate Planer OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA 1. ACCOMPLISHMENTS a. b. c. 2. a. b. C. d. Rules of Procedures/Handouts Process Streamlining Review of Major Projects 0A.TT?.rT TUF. S Proactive Role Revise Single Family Design Review Procedure CAD Renderings/Models Awards Program CITY COUNCIL/DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DISCUSSION - File 9-2-39 x 9-1 Mayor Boro opened the meeting, thanking the Design Review Board members for attending. He explained that the Council has set a goal of meeting once a year with each Board and Commission to talk about issues which are important to both, and to provide an opportunity to interact. Mayor Boro, on behalf of the City Council, thanked the Board members for their hard work and effort. He added they appreciate the amount of preparation time required to get ready for a Design Review Board meeting, and the work which goes into the meetings themselves. Mayor Boro then turned the meeting over to Design Review Board Chair Larry Paul. Chairman Paul announced that they had broken the agenda down into two items: To discuss what the Board has accomplished in the last year or so; the second part of the agenda is to discuss some objectives which the Board has discussed, and things we would like to see happen in the future. First, Chairman Paul discussed the Rules of Procedure and the handouts which have been implemented within the last year. He noted that the Rules of Procedure have enabled the Board to operate in more of a standard operating procedure. Last year the Board members elected a Chair and a Vice -Chair, and now rotate once a year. That has helped to provide more leadership in the Board meetings. The Rules and Procedures have helped to streamline the process. Also, the flyers educate the public in just what the Design Review Board is, and what happens in the meetings. The Board is giving the public an opportunity to speak, as well as the applicant, and is keeping the meetings moving along. There are also handouts on the procedures for submittal requirements for conceptual and environmental design review. He explained that some larger projects require conceptual design review to see if they are going on the right track. Once they have the Board's input, they submit for the formal design review with more detail, and then usually the Board can take care of the project in one or two trips. As a result of that, the process has been streamlined, and Sheila Delimont has prepared a couple of samples of the projects reviewed under that process. Chairman Paul asked staff to explain and give examples of the process. Robert Pendoley, Planning Director, explained that two years ago the Board was asked to streamline the design review process and develop rules for the conduct of the meetings. He noted that in the past year 94% of the projects were SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 1 SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 2 recommended for approval after one or two trips to the DRB. That is the best turnover we are going to get with the present permit structure. The projects which do not go faster are either large and complicated, or ones where the applicant does not want to make a lot of changes. Mr. Pendoley added that one thing which affects the Board's work is changes made to the rules. He showed on the overhead a listing of the total number of permits which have been through the Planning Department since 1988. He noted that in late 1991 the City Council approved the new Zoning Ordinance and eliminated many permits. It increased the DRB's workload by mandating more Design Review permits; they went up even during the recession. The increased workload is an even greater incentive to turn projects over faster. Mr. Pendoley called attention to a memo listing cases the DRB has worked on in the past year. He noted we have not had many appeals, and most cases are able to get through the process in one or two trips, but some major or difficult ones take longer. He noted that the 729 Fourth Street is one of those, but it is well on its way to approval now. He added there had been a problem with color on the Whole Foods project, and the Garden Court building will have the first underground garage to be built in San Rafael. Another interesting project is the new gymnasium at Marin Academy, and the Ghilotti building on DuBois, which is done in corporate colors. The Unocal service station on Del Presidio in Terra Linda is very successful. Mr. Pendoley stated that the important point is the number of trips the projects have to make to the Board. Most of them go through very quickly. Mayor Boro asked when the new process started, and Mr. Pendoley replied it was about two years ago. The Rules have been in place since November, 1995. Mayor Boro stated he has heard positive comments regarding the Board. He stated the Council feels that the role of the Board is customer service and serving the needs of the public. On the other hand, a large number of the projects approved by the Board will be here for a long time, so if the Board has some major concerns, it is probably worth an extra trip by the developers. The Board has to use their judgment in such cases. He feels that the Board's interaction with the public has certainly improved. Mayor Boro added that he had commented to Chairman Paul that sometimes when all of the Board members are not present at a meeting, and an applicant is given direction, and then at the next meeting when there is a full Board there is a change. That is something the Board should be careful of, to really treat people fairly. You do not march them down one path, and then two members who were not at the prior meeting come back and they feel they are right in their recommendations for changes. The Board's goal should be to be sensitive to what the needs of people are; they should be treated fairly and judiciously. Councilmember Phillips stated that he assumed there was a good reason for a project going back to the Board as many as four times. He noted the average number of trips is one or two. He added he has not heard the same "rumblings" the Council used to hear a few years ago about how many times projects went back and forth, and how subjective the Board was. He feels the Board is certainly going in the right direction. Councilmember Miller stated he had the advantage of being on the Planning Commission when the Rules were adopted, and through the months following. He noted a considerable change by the public because the projects did move a lot faster. The subjectivity was no longer a problem. Regarding the project which made four visits, there were very good reasons for that. The basic problem of subjectivity was no longer an issue. Member Olmsted stated we must remember that some of the projects which have come back several times did so for some very significant reasons, either a design which really does not work, or a client who has an overly ambitious program. One of the things the Board tries to add to the discussion is a peer review as to whether or not the design works, and whether or not the program is feasible. There have been a number of applicants who have agreed with the Board. He feels that a healthy dose of pre -review is an important step and helps to explain why some projects take longer than others. Mayor Boro stated that the comments he has heard lately are generally very positive. When we are dealing with a major landmark downtown, you have to be very specific, and there can be good reason for several trips to the Board. He added that computer aided designs are very good for such buildings. SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 2 SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 3 Member Huntsberry noted that even on some smaller projects it is nice to get feedback. He noted the apartment complex on "D" Street, just north of Wolfe Grade. The applicants wanted two too many units, and the parking was not right, nor was the image of the neighborhood. The Board was firm with them, and they thought over what the Board had said, and came back with a really nice design. He stated he had stopped by the building as it was nearing completion and talked to the owner, who was very appreciative of the Board's input, which had resulted in a much nicer project. The neighbors had also made positive comments to the owner. Councilmember Cohen stated that speaking of customer service, there are two sets of customers, the applicant and the public. He stated he has not attended DRB meetings for a while, but it seems they have done a fair job of addressing the issues. He stated it is appropriate for us to have rules about design. This community has high standards, and is a wonderful place to live, and everyone expects us to keep it that way. The Board has an important role in the community. People need to understand that a building has to fit a site and location. We need to be able to say to the applicant that these are the rules, and this is the process, and if you follow these tips you can have a reasonable expectation of getting an answer within a short period of time. He can then decide if he wants to make another try. That was lacking for a while, and there were also changes in direction when Board members had not been present. In such a case, there are strong feelings when the applicant gets pulled back and forth. That should be avoided. On the public's side of the issue, their problem was that they did not have a place for public comment, no time for them to speak. They would then come to the Planning Commission and try to talk about design issues. Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciates the fact that this issue has been addressed. The handout, which invites the public to participate and explains how they can do so, is a very good step. Member Pedersen stated that sometimes when analyzing a specific project the Board cannot help but to look at it on a larger scale before we can address the specific project. Sometimes they cannot help but ask, "How did it get to this point, how do we analyze it?" He noted that has been the case on a number of projects which are backed by the City. He explained that during his first tenure on the DRB a number of years ago, the PG&E site was being reviewed, and the DRB was having two meetings a week to review the design by that particular applicant. It was being pushed hard by the Redevelopment Agency and the Planning staff. One DRB member resigned because of the pressure. It seemed like something was being done to the project before the DRB had a chance to look at it. He stated that puts the Board in a very difficult situation. He stated they would like to take a more pro -active role in, for instance, the Macy's building Downtown. There are two designs on the table, and we get our information from the Marin Independent Journal. Mayor Boro replied that the Planning Director knows he has some frustrations with the idea just discussed. He stated the City is a sponsor of Lone Palm Court, and as yet the Council does not know what it looks like. The Planning Director has said it is coming along nicely. However, the Council will not see it until it has been approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Director is working with the City Attorney to see how we can have some oversight when we are a project sponsor. Mayor Boro stated he is going to find a way to have the 729 Fourth Street project come before the Council, regardless of who approves it. He feels the Council should see what is going to happen at a major intersection in our City; not to design it, but at least to be aware of it. The way the process works, if there is no appeal ,that will be final. This is a major one, and the Council should be aware of it. Mayor Boro then addressed the Macy's issue. The Council has been saying all along that we are not interested in the design at this stage, but are interested in what these people are bringing to the table regarding the end result, as far as the content is concerned. That is the type of discussions they have had, and they will deal with design separately. One of the steps we have now put in, is that once the developer has been selected, we will have a joint meeting with the Redevelopment Agency, the City Council, DRB, and Planning Commission, to talk about what we want to accomplish on that site from a design point of view. We will talk about it and come up with some criteria, and keep a balance. Hopefully, it will pencil out on how it will work. He would like to have that type of workshop, which will be different than the usual process. Member Olmsted followed up on Member Pedersen's point, stating that one can imagine a project in which the City is a co-sponsor where a program is established which fits the City' s and the developer' s needs, but may prove to be unworkable when it is tested in the design phase. His concern with the direction the Macy's project is taking is that this critical review of the program as it relates to the workability of the design is not occurring, and the City may find themselves having bought into a program which in the final analysis does not work, but to which the applicant feels he has an entitlement. That is SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 3 SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 4 why he feels that setting the design aside at this critical phase is dangerous. Mayor Boro responded that every applicant feels they have an entitlement because they own the ground. In this case the City is involved. He feels that we have the Zoning Ordinance, design criteria and guidelines, height restrictions, and a Vision, and we are looking to the developers to understand what those things are all about, and to work within those guidelines. He noted that the DRB members might have some personal desire for a plaza, for instance. Member Olmsted responded, "That is not the point". He explained that it may turn out that in order for the developer to accomplish the program he has to bend those rules Mayor Boro just mentioned, but they were not put on the table, and nobody knew he was bending them until it gets to the Design Review process. They include such issues as stall dimensions and parking areas, how many compact car stalls you should have and how many standard car stalls, and also sidewalk widths. By the time the project comes before the DRB there are problems. He noted that Lone Palm Court does not work unless the goals of the City's Vision relating to sidewalks and how they are developed are met, while still meeting the goals of the necessary setbacks between the public spaces and the private spaces. So the program draws a design which requires bending of City rules to make it work. Those issues did not come up on the table until well on in the process. Mayor Boro responded that when a private developer comes in you do not have a crack at what he is proposing until he puts it on the table, and if he needs exceptions, he will talk about it. However, in both of these cases (the Macy's site) there was discussion about parking spaces, and one of the developers is talking about valet parking, which has been successful in San Francisco condos. The other developer has come up with some solutions to parking spaces, such as is used at "H" Street, so they both have dealt with that issue. He stated he would expect them to follow the City's guidelines for parking; however, they may ask for exceptions. The City is not saying at this point that there will be a certain number of apartments. We are looking for certain types of uses, and the developers will deal with what it will cost them to deliver. The DRB is assuming that the developers will work within the guidelines of the City. They will have to know what the guidelines are. He noted that they own the land and want to develop it, and may ask for variances and exceptions, but they feel they have an entitlement since they own the land. Chairman Paul stated that with regard to the Board taking a more pro -active role, here you have a professional Design Review Board which, as architects, we go before other cities' Design Review Boards so we understand the problems. That is why when we heard the complaints from the public about our process, we decided to react in a positive way and come up with clearer and more understandable rules of order, and a better way of conducting our meetings. We do not want to "massage" these projects over and over, but to give them our best shot in the first couple of meetings, and be willing to deny a project if we do not think it is going to work. We have to be willing to be overruled. In the past we tried to keep the projects around long enough to make them as good as we possibly could, so we could always recommend something for approval. We understand, through our experience with other Design Review Boards, how important it is to get clear direction. Chairman Paul stated that when there is a City -sponsored project, the City can utilize the DRB as design professionals, as a tool to help set some of the program ahead of time, so that when the developers set the program they have a better understanding of the design parameters, as well as the economic situation and the other factors which go into developing a project, so that it does not happen as it seemed to happen on Lone Palm Court, where the developer thought he had gotten this entitlement and it could not be varied at all. It would work better if the DRB could get into the process a little ahead of time, rather than wait until too far down the line. He cited the issue of the Macy' s site where there was much discussion of the design, which surprised the public who were presented with two designs which they thought were final and ready to go into working drawings. The Board may be put into the position of saying "No" to a developer who is saying that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency said they wanted that design. Member Pedersen agreed, stating it makes the Board look like obstructionists. Councilmember Heller stated she does not feel the Macy's project is a fair one to pick, because it was simply coming through the process, and suddenly it was on the front page of the Marin Independent Journal, and they are having a contest over which one is prettier. She noted that does not usually happen. SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 4 SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 5 Councilmember Cohen explained that the City took advantage of settling the legal problems of the Macy's site by buying the property and asking for proposals. He noted that the meeting on Tuesday night will not involve design. The issue will be, "How do we get the Downtown to be what the Vision describes?" We are saying we want to maximize high quality retail spaces which will attract national accounts. We also want housing, and not just affordable housing, but we want a mix. We would like some office space also, because there is a demand for it. Councilmember Cohen stated that where this comes into conflict, the developer thinks he has an entitlement. After the staff and the DRB look at it carefully, we may have to tell the developer that the project has to be revised. Perhaps the project does not really make it. We may have to give a little on the design issues in order to get it moving. The developer may say he cannot deliver what he wanted because of the changes the City wants, and there will be trade-offs. With Lone Palm Court, the Council did not see the design until it was done. If it was stated that the City was saying it was going to be done that way, it should be noted that it never came before Council. Member Huntsberry stated that perhaps Lone Palm is the key to this conversation. We said the setbacks were not enough, and it needed more articulation at Second and "C" Street, but one thing "set in concrete" was the units directly above the garage and the garage dimensions were driven by the City standards. If at that time the Board thought the front porches of those units along the public sidewalk should have been back 10 or 15 feet as an appropriate front yard, the "line in the sand" was drawn because they were not willing to move the entire garage back. Mayor Boro inquired, "Does the Ordinance allow them to put it where they put it?" Mr. Pendoley responded "That is a fundamental disagreement here, because it does". Mayor Boro stated then it is a matter of saying the Board wants a suburban approach rather than an urban one. He was apparently playing by the rules, but the Board does not like what he has done. Member Huntsberry explained that he is not saying that, but that is a good design for a front yard area. Maybe the building was right on the property line as an urban situation. Mayor Boro noted all we can do is work with the standards, and if he is not doing it, and says he wants an entitlement, that is different. Member Huntsberry explained that the second major point was that the Board felt that the articulation at Second and "C" Streets should be better, and the obvious solution was deleting one unit. The applicants said that deleting one unit would hurt the project, and they would not do it. They made some changes, and made it a better corner. In the case of Macy's, in the Vision they are suggesting that we have courtyards and public spaces which relate to the sidewalk, which might suggest that we have some building setbacks rather than building right up to the property line. If the applicant comes to us and says he needs 100,000 square feet, and the only way he can get that is to move everything right out to the property line, then it will not pencil out. Member Pedersen noted he could take some of the sidewalk. Mayor Boro stated that if the Board feels strongly enough about an issue such as this or Lone Palm, they could vote to deny it. Member Olmsted pointed out that on Lone Palm it was a split vote. Chairman Paul added it was important to get that design Downtown because of the Vision. Mayor Boro noted that Fair, Isaac is working on their design, and they will come in with a project and say, "This is what we want to do". Mr. Pendoley stated it should be in on Monday morning. Mayor Boro stated that is why we need to talk about the right criteria. Mr. Pendoley noted that Lone Palm complies with the Zoning Ordinance, and also meets the City's sidewalk standards. Staff has a difference with the Board on that issue. He added that with the issue of Second and "C" Streets, this is a highly visible corner. The Board was concerned about the sense of entry and how they would like it to look. It was designed to be a back door. He stated that his view was that it should go in a different direction in order to get a good corner. They could take out a unit or more, or use other design techniques. There is a public policy tradeoff, and these are affordable units. Mayor Boro noted the Council was involved with the Boyd Court condos, and we were sensitive to the affordable units, but also to the appearance of the building. Also, Embassy Suites looks as good in the rear as from the front because there are houses behind it. Member Olmsted noted there is the question of adequate parking for Downtown projects, and also for adequate setbacks. He agreed that the public must be considered as well as the developer's needs. He stated he was one of the "No" voters on Lone Palm, and his primary reason was that of the relationship of the public needs, the City' s needs and the needs of the developer. From then on it became a policy decision, and the DRB does not make policies. SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 5 SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 6 Chairman Paul discussed entitlements, and stated that one of the things we have in the Zoning Ordinance deals with the FARs (Floor Area Ratios) and maximum building envelopes. That is the starting point for a project, and where we use our professional experience. In some cases, the architect and applicant understand the requirements, but it can at times be difficult. Mayor Boro noted that is why a computer image is helpful. Everyone can see it, including the public. Councilmember Heller stated that many times she feels a certain frustration because the public expects the Councilmembers to know everything, and unless they have the time to study a project and the requirements, it can be difficult. She noted that Member Olmsted said "to our standards", and Mr. Pendoley said "to the City's guidelines". Member Olmsted asked,"Do we have the City's guidelines to adequately spell out the setbacks?" Mr. Pendoley replied the guidelines and the General Plan address the back of sidewalk, and it would be incumbent on the applicant to come up with a design which would make it work. Member Olmsted stated it is not adequate to have a large living room at the back of sidewalk on a major Downtown street, as in Lone Pine. There was a general discussion of the project at Fourth Street and Lincoln (729 Fourth Street) with regard to height limitations and respect for its neighbors, which are much smaller buildings. Mr. Pendoley noted that another important issue in that building is scale, and the guidelines address that issue. Chairman Paul stated that the Board is aware of not being subjective. Councilmember Cohen stated that there will always be a lot of subjectivity. He noted they could reduce the workload if we had design standards in most areas of the City, except for hillsides where we have detailed standards. We do not have the staff to create a set of design standards for every neighborhood in the City, and there has to be some subjectivity. People have to come up with their own interpretation, and developing a set of standards would not stop disagreement on design issues. The issue raised about City -sponsored projects was factual. There will be trade-offs. The Board can say it will meet the design standards, but if they do not feel it does, it will be right to recommend denial. Mayor Boro noted the Board members have their own personal feelings on lifestyle, and it gets in the way of City standards. Standards may work in one City, or even in some areas of a City, but not in others. Councilmember Cohen noted that one project recently approved, the Mission Avenue townhouses, will look urban and will be an intense project. Chairman Paul noted there is nothing wrong with urban housing in Downtown San Rafael. That was a little more urban than the Board would have liked, but it went ahead anyway. He thinks Boyd Court is a little more urban than the Mission townhouses. Regarding the Board having a proactive role, Member Pedersen stated he feels the Board would like to be seen as helping rather than being an obstacle, especially in the initial meetings, and perhaps putting recommendations into the vernacular, rather than architectural terms. Mayor Boro stated that when Jake Ours is working on an RFP (Request for Proposal) for a particular site when the City is involved, the Board may wish to contribute to the language. City Manager Gould agreed with that concept. Chairman Paul stated the City would be the client and the Board would be the consultant to the client, helping to develop the programs and considerations. For instance, for the PG&E site we wanted a signature building, and did not want a big box retail. We were fortunate enough to get a good company willing to develop such a project. Councilmember Cohen stated that the next Redevelopment project coming up involves a historic area which includes some of the most interesting historic buildings in the Downtown area which we would want to preserve. The DRB would be of assistance when we are describing how we would expect someone to approach that, even before the RFPs are written, and possibly recommending cleaning up the rest of the block. The DRB would be the appropriate people to help in the RFP process. Member Olmsted stated he would like the City to have other standards similar to the Hillside Design Standards, which would be helpful. The Hillside Design Standards have been very successful. Mayor Boro stated that he is hearing that when the City sponsors a project, there should be a professional review by the DRB. SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 6 SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 7 Councilmember Miller inquired if, on the "B" Street project, we could consider the one site only, and come up with design guidelines for a site specific proposal? Chairman Paul stated we could put it on the agenda as conceptual for what we would like "B" Street to look like. Mr. Pendoley stated that at the end of a two-hour workshop you would have a rough set of guidelines. Member Huntsberry added we would have a rough set of recommendations for the Council, and Mayor Boro agreed. Councilmember Phillips stated he would feel comfortable having the Board in the process. He asked how the Board sees their role, and if we are not completely satisfied with which design is selected, how would the Board help the City to get another plan? Member Olmsted explained that the design process begins with the DRB testing the sample sketches, and small scale floor plans. They begin to get a sense of the parking spaces and entry points. It is at that point that the programmatic problems will be identified, long before you get into other considerations. He added it might be helpful if the designer got a peer review of the process. Chairman Paul outlined ways the Board could be proactive in looking after the City' s interests and knowing their needs. If the DRB and Planning Commission look at the design issues and also the requirements of the public, and if the building is too massive, recommend ways to scale it back. The process should work well for the Fair, Isaac project. There would be questions about the plaza, and working within the space. Mayor Boro noted that public space is an issue with design criteria, and in the case of the Macy' s site, how many units would you lose, or retail square footage, if you gained more landscaping at the back of sidewalk? Councilmember Phillips noted there was great response from the public on the Marin Independent Journal contest. The DRB would be instrumental in informing the public during the design review stage. Chairman Paul added that if it has to be Mission Revival, it has to be good Mission Revival. Member Huntsberry noted that sometimes the Board recommends a different version for a project, and the applicants like it much better. Chairman Paul noted we should not be driven by the Marin Independent Journal. They presented a couple of color renderings with no context of the pedestrian issues. Member Huntsberry noted the pictures were from different corners. Regarding the Macy's site, Councilmember Cohen stated the City has $2.1 million to be recovered, so we will have to negotiate with the developer. The City told them we want enough retail space, but never said we wanted an apartment complex. Perhaps we should talk about the subsequent design issues. What we ought to do is have the developer take a look at the design after they have been chosen. City Manager Gould stated the City will work with the project to achieve the best possible design. It would be wise to have the project architect have the first say, and then submit it to the group. Councilmember Phillips noted the public cares about how the building will look, but they do not care about how many units there will be. He noted the City has some say as to what it will look like, and added that Jim Schafer said he would be willing to change it. Mayor Boro responded we are going to change it, but we are not there right now. Councilmember Phillips asked, "Where does the DRB come in with regard to expressing their opinions?" Mayor Boro replied they will have time, and the Planning Commission will also. He noted we have two great architects to deal with. We need to discuss the principles, and whether we want Mission style or glass, etc. Councilmember Heller stated she is concerned about respecting the rights of the people who own the property. She asked if they could say this is the kind of building they want to have, and have the architect design it, and if some of the features do not quite work, then okay? She stated she does not think that as a City or Planning Department we can come in and say we do not like their Mediterranean, or whatever, and the City demands that it be French. Chairman Paul responded that the City owns the land right now. Mayor Boro noted that a developer should come in with a project, knowing what our standards and guidelines are. There was general discussion regarding the issue, and Mr. Pendoley stated that you cannot regulate excellence. That comes out of someone's art and knowledge. There is only so much the DRB can do, and sometimes the best you can do is SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 7 SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 8 push it to acceptable mediocrity, or recommend denial. Mayor Boro stated if you set a standard, especially in a high traffic area, and said this is critical and the design issues are important, you can always deny it and test the water by sending it to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pendoley responded that is what the Board has done under the new procedures. It has recommended denial a number of times. He added that the Board is consistent about saying they will not tell an applicant how to design, but will give them the guidelines. Councilmember Cohen stated we will not get to design standards in the near future. On the other hand, he is looking for a model. The General Plan was right in the 180s, and we will not do the revisions in the same way. This General Plan will pull the pieces together and make them work, and we will not rewrite the Plan. A little later we can address the neighborhoods we have not done yet. He noted that we can start to do design standards for fill areas in San Rafael. We do not want to say, "This is the design we want". We have an opportunity to articulate what we think are the important design issues for the Macy's project, and what our client wants to achieve on their property. We should decide what design concepts we think are important. Once we address that, we will have to respect the adjacent building. We will not tell the applicants how to solve the challenges, but give them the design criteria and tell them we will work with them. If we will do that on "B" Street, and on Fair, Isaac, it should work. If the same issues come up frequently, we will set a pattern. Chairman Paul stated we do not want to pick a design. Those are both excellent firms. You can take the things they have done and the ones which did not make it, for background. One thing which has helped was our handouts, where we asked for more information which will help in analyzing the projects. One thing which comes up a lot is grading, especially for hillside homes. Member Huntsberry noted that we did develop the checklist which has been a great help to us, and the applicant. Mayor Boro asked for discussion on single family design review. Chairman Paul stated that there was a question about the single family homes coming before the Board for review, in an effort to streamline the process. Many times the single family homes do not seem to affect the public, but in fact they do. He pointed out that Academy Heights is one which has come before the Board. It is only six homes, but it affects homes in the area. He noted that many times only the applicant comes before the Board on a project, and because of the Hillside Design Guidelines, they do not have any problems, and staff could evaluate the project. Mr. Pendoley stated staff feels very comfortable with that direction. Mayor Boro stated there was a reason for having single family homes come before the Board, and if the Board wants it changed, we should talk about it and understand why we started that process. Chairman Paul stated that on some of the projects the CAD renderings help us to understand the project very quickly, and help the public to understand also. Requiring some of the major projects to require CAD renderings gives a virtual model which shows all sides of a project. It is very costly except when it is done in-house, but it helps the applicant design their own project. We are seeing more and more of them at presentations. Mayor Boro noted we have a premier firm here in town, and there are UC students who are doing the work. He would like to see some action on that. Mr. Pendoley reported they have just formed a committee consisting of Board members Huntsberry and Pedersen to work on that issue. Mayor Boro stated he will give them the names of contacts at UC Berkeley and at AutoDesk. Councilmember Heller stated she has been working on the committee regarding the Police radio issues, and we should look at all of the Downtown buildings with regard to wiring and facilities for computer technology, some of which technically have to be in the ground. Member Pedersen stated there is considerable retrofitting for the new technology. Councilmember Heller added that if the developer will pay for such installations, it would be a benefit. Chairman Paul announced they were talking about some sort of awards program for some of the people who have come through the DRB, for excellence of design. The Council would give out the awards, or a Resolution. The Council agreed it was a good idea. Mayor Boro asked for closing comments. Mr. Pendoley stated that at present we are processing the same number of permits that we did in 1989. In 1989 we did it with five staff planners, and today we are doing it with the three planners in the audience. He stated that is a reflection of the expertise they have developed over those years. Commissioner Marilyn Williams stated her impression is that the DRB is a useful SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 8 SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 9 function for the City. While there are guidelines, what they bring to it is the peer review and the creativity, and they allow for flexibility with the architects. They serve as a public forum before projects come before the Planning Commission, and are very helpful. They provide the expertise and knowledge the Commissioners do not have, and their function works very well. The public process is working very well through the DRB in their role in the planning process, particularly in the design aspect. Mayor Boro stated he likes the idea of the DRB being in on the process early on. Chairman Paul stated he thought we should invite a member of the Council to come to the DRB and observe the new process, to give the Council a better feeling of how it is now. Mayor Boro thanked everyone for attending, and for their input. There being no further business to come before the Special Joint Annual Meeting of the San Rafael City Council and Design Review Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM. ROBERT J. PENDOLEY, Secretary Design Review Board APPROVED THIS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REGINA BUCHANAN, Deputy City Clerk for JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk DAY OF 1997 SRCC/DRB MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 3/13/97 Page 9