Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1999-01-19SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1999 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Vice -Mayor Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:40 PM None. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Minutes approved as submitted. Monday, January 4, 1999 (CC) 2. City Work Plan Review (CM) - File 237 Accepted report. 3. Resolution of Appreciation to Macerich for RESOLUTION NO. 10351 Their Support of City Hall at the Mall (CM) RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - File 247 x 102 TO MACERICH FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF CITY HALL AT THE MALL. 4. Appointment of Mayor Boro to Represent City of Approved appointment of Mayor San Rafael on the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Boro to the Northwestern Interagency Task Force (CM) - File 248 x 9-1 x 117 Pacific Railroad Interagency Task Force. 5. Resolution Authorizing an Agreement with RESOLUTION NO. 10352 Acclamation Insurance Management Services ("AIMS") RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE for Liability Claims Administration and for SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH Risk Management Consultation (MS) ACCLAMATION INSURANCE - File 4-10-308 MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES (2/01/99 - 6/30/01). 6. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract to RESOLUTION NO. 10353 Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc. for Glen Park Avenue Drainage Improvements Project (PW) - File 4-1-496 7. Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Rafael Declining to Directly Accept Funds RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR GLEN PARK AVENUE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO MAGGIORA AND GHILOTTI, INC. (Lowest Responsible Bidder @ $227,227.00). RESOLUTION NO. 10354 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 2 Made Available Through the Juvenile Accountability DECLINING TO DIRECTLY ACCEPT Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) Program FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH Administered by the Office of Criminal Justice THE JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY Planning and Authorizing the Funds to be Expended INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT (JAIBG) by the County of Marin for the Mutual Benefit of PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE Both Units of Local Government by Establishing a OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE Juvenile Drug Court (PD) - File 9-3-30 PLANNING AND AUTHORIZING THE FUNDS TO BE EXPENDED BY THE COUNTY OF MARIN FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF BOTH UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY ESTABLISHING A JUVENILE DRUG COURT. 8. Street Closures for Youth in Arts 1999 Italian Approved staff recommendation. Painting Festival, Thursday, June 10, 1999 through Monday, June 14, 1999. Fifth Avenue Will Be Closed Thursday, June 10th from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM, Reopen from 4:00 PM to 10:00 PM for the Farmer's Market, Close Again at 10:00 PM, and Remain Closed Until Monday, June 14th at 4:30 PM. Julia Street and "A" Street Will Be Closed Thursday, June 10th at 7:30 AM Until Monday, June 14th at 4:30 PM (RA) - File 11-19 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 9. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO MACERICH FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF CITY HALL AT THE MALL (CM) - File 247 x 102 Mayor Boro introduced Peter Galli, General Manager; Andrew Cook, Leasing Representative; and Jeanette Guledge, Marketing Director. He stated Council was presenting a Resolution of Appreciation to Macerich Company for their support in a concept brought forward by Councilmember Heller during a Council goal -setting session approximately two years ago, regarding the concept of having a presence of City Hall at Northgate Mall. Mayor Boro noted this has been seen at other locations, and Council felt this would be a good way for the City to have outreach to the community. Mayor Boro noted how significant Macerich's contribution was to this effort, explaining the space the City will be using is being rented to us at the rate of $1.00 per year. Macerich is also contributing $20,000 toward staff support, with additional funds for renovation and building costs. On behalf of the Council and the people of San Rafael, Mayor Boro thanked Macerich for their contributions, and presented Mr. Galli with the Resolution of Appreciation. Peter Galli, General Manager, thanked Mayor Boro, noting this had been a long process, pointing out this had been one of the goals of the North San Rafael Vision, and he believed it was a good partnership. Mr. Galli stated that while they were very excited about the opening, and the Resolution of Appreciation, they were even more excited to see the City out in North San Rafael, to see the extended services, and to give an extra hand to all the citizens there. He stated they looked forward to getting City Hall at the Mall open, and helping as they can. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AS SELLER, AND MCF PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC., AS BUYER, RE: MENZIES PARKING LOT AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF OPTION AGREEMENT (CM) - File 4-10-309 x 226 x 9-3-84 X 2-1-53 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 3 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. City Manager Gould stated he was very pleased that this project, which has been discussed for the past two years, was back on again, and ready to move forward. He reported in the Spring of 1997, the Marin Community Foundation issued a Request for Proposals to develop a 25,000 square foot office building for its headquarters, and at that time, the City proposed a long- term lease of the Menzies parking lot, immediately adjacent to the Falkirk Mansion, as a possible location. Discussions ensued with the Foundation, and the proposal evolved into an offer of sale of the parking lot, with the proceeds benefiting Falkirk. Mr. Gould reported a number of meetings were then held with community stakeholders, the initial review was very favorable, and in July, 1997 Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate a Purchase Option Agreement with the Marin Community Foundation for this project. Mr. Gould reported the Foundation proposes to purchase the 3/4 acre parking lot from the City to develop a 22,800 square foot office building for its headquarters, with the option, some time in the future, of possibly expanding by another 10,000 square feet. He noted the main building would offer extensive meeting facilities, which can be used by non-profit agencies and community groups. Mr. Gould reported the firm of Hannum & Associates has been working with the Foundation to design this building, and the Foundation has also engaged the firm of Page and Turnbull to do an Historic Preservation Impact Report, which he stated was absolutely critical for this project. Mr. Gould stated this was going to be a landmark project, and would be proof of what sustainable development can be, noting it would be highly energy efficient, ecologically advanced, and highly environmentally friendly. Mr. Gould stated the purchase price for the Menzies parking lot was negotiated at $1.1 million, and all of the proceeds would be designated for maintenance and restoration of the Falkirk Cultural Center. He noted it may be that Council chooses to invest some of those funds immediately in upgrades, including the sprinkler system and repairing the aging wiring, or they may choose to invest the entire sum, and then put the investment earnings back into the building over time. He stated those were decisions for another day; however, this would be a very important infusion into the City's ability to maintain the jewel which is Falkirk. Mr. Gould reported the Foundation was moving forward with this application, and City Attorney Gary Ragghianti had worked with staff to develop the Option Agreement now being presented to Council. Mr. Gould noted it was approximately 95% to 98% complete, and he felt the Councilmembers would find it was substantially in a position where they could judge its worth. Mr. Gould noted the consideration for the Option was set at a mere $10.00, and pointed out the City had also recently received a $25,000 grant from the Marin Community Foundation for roof repairs at the Falkirk mansion. He explained the Option Agreement allowed the Foundation to do its due diligent testing, noting there was nothing in the City's records to indicate there was any hazardous material on the site, nor in the early report from the Marin Community Foundation. Mr. Gould stated the Agreement would allow Marin Community Foundation, if it chose to someday in the future expand the building and could not meet the additional parking requirement on the site, pay into a parking fund. He explained a formula had been worked out which would ensure there would be sufficient monies for the City to build Class A parking to meet that parking requirement in the vicinity. Mr. Gould reported there was also an Easement Agreement that would allow Marin Community Foundation access for utilities and landscaping over a portion of the Falkirk property; likewise, there would be an easement in favor of the City for twenty parking spaces inside the parking structure, to be used for public parking. He noted there was also a desire to allow the public to park in the parking structure when it is not in use by Marin Community Foundation staff, or being used for events. Mr. Gould stated the term of the Option was until June 30, 1999, with a possible extension to the end of the calendar year; however, every indication was that Marin Community Foundation would like to move forward without further delay. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 4 Councilmember Cohen referred to the parking, noting it seemed to "come out as a wash" on the public parking, but there was a significant loss of employee parking. He asked if the City was going to be able to make up that parking? Mr. Gould reported there was a parking permit plan that would allow City employees to park in the City -owned parking structure adjacent to City Hall, where there is currently available parking. Mr. Cohen asked if that parking lot was currently under-utilized? Mr. Gould responded that it was. Referring to the issue of additional parking, Mr. Cohen asked if, when talking about allowing the Foundation to pay into a fund, would that be to provide the parking needed for the expansion of the additional 10,000 square feet? Mr. Gould stated that was correct. Mr. Cohen asked if this meant the City might possibly lose some of the parking that is currently proposed, or were they merely referring to a provision for additional parking? Mr. Gould stated this would be only in the case of additional square footage on the building site, and if it were impossible to meet the parking requirement on the site, this would give the Foundation the option of paying into the Parking Fund, so the City could replace that parking elsewhere, presumably in the vicinity. Mr. Cohen asked if that would be their parking? Mr. Gould stated it would be public parking. Mr. Cohen asked if the twenty spaces under this proposal were theoretically at risk, and might have to be moved elsewhere? Mr. Gould stated that was not the case, explaining the twenty public spaces would be available to the public in perpetuity, as part of this Agreement. Mr. Cohen asked, if the Foundation were to expand the facility from 22,000 square feet to 32,000 square feet, would additional Foundation employee parking be required? Mr. Gould stated that was correct. Mr. Cohen asked where those employees would park? Mr. Gould stated if they could not park on the site, then the Foundation could pay into a parking fund, in which case the employees would have to park elsewhere in the area. He noted the City would try to find a way to increase public parking in the area, such as decking City Hall lots, or working out other arrangements on the Falkirk parcel, noting there were several other options the City could employ to make sure there was parking nearby. Mr. Cohen clarified the Agreement requires Marin Community Foundation to pay into a fund to provide for that parking, but does not guarantee that those spaces will be available for Foundation employees? Mr. Gould stated that was correct. Councilmember Cohen referred to the staff report, which states a formula has been worked out to ensure sufficient funds to allow the City to develop additional parking, and asked how that had been determined? Mr. Gould stated they had used a construction formula which would set various parameters that would be in place at the time, and would allow the City to recapture enough money to build Class A parking on top notch real estate in the area. Economic Development Director Jake Ours stated the Marshall Valuation Service, published by Marshall & Swift, does an annual update of construction costs, geographically tied to this area, noting that twenty years from now we would be able to look at that update and determine the value of the parking. He stated it was always adjusted, and the land was also part of this particular adjustment. Mr. Ours stated this was the only way they could look into the future, and make sure there was something that was keeping up with the changes. Dr. Thomas Peters, President and CEO of the Marin Community Foundation, summarized the Foundation's four primary purposes for wishing to build on this site. First, while they wanted to build a permanent home for the Marin Community Foundation, the most important factor was to reflect the Foundation's permanence, and its commitment to this community, with a permanent home. He noted it was also a financially prudent decision for the Foundation, since in a relatively short number of years, owning, rather than renting, would mean even more of the Foundation's assets would be available for grant -making in Marin County. Dr. Peters reported over a quarter of a billion dollars had been granted by the Marin Community Foundation into this community in the past twelve years, noting they were hoping to increase that number. He explained this was part of a financial plan that would allow the Foundation to make even more substantive support to the many individuals and organizations in the community. He stated the second purpose was to design a building that would be a vibrant community center, noting as Mr. Gould had indicated in his report, the Foundation was envisioning something far more than the central offices for the Foundation. He stated that in their role as convener, they wanted to be able to provide community meeting rooms and facilities that will be used during the day and evening, and in their role as a resource, they want to be able to provide an even expanded amount of special library services, and other technical assistance to the wide array of individuals and organizations who are involved in the very critical and creative work of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 5 many of the community-based efforts in Marin County. The third purpose was to contribute a building that is part of the renaissance of the cultural and political center of the City of San Rafael. He stated the Foundation was extremely proud to participate with this Council, Mayor, City Manager, and staff in efforts to revitalize and enhance the County center, starting, as noted by Mr. Gould, with the Falkirk restoration, but including much more. Dr. Peters stated he and the Trustees were very proud to be joining in an effort this Council was leading, which he felt was a wonderful effort, not only for this City, but for the whole community. Finally, Dr. Peters stated the Foundation's intense purpose was to construct a building designed and erected to the highest feasible standards of environmental sensitivity and sustainability. He noted he had been asked why this was on a short list of four primary purposes, in terms of the Foundation building on this site. He explained one of the main themes of grant -making by the Marin Community Foundation has been to pick up on the energy, creativity, and purpose that many individuals and organizations in this community have toward protecting the environment. He believed we had an opportunity here in what the Foundation sincerely hoped would be an effort to construct a building that could serve as a model, not of something at a remote financial capability, but that is available to builders and designers of reasonable means, to employ some of the best thinking, not only here in the United States, but internationally, for a building that this Council, the Foundation, and the entire community can be proud of. Dr. Peters stated the Foundation had been honored to retain the services of Richard Hannum and Associates, and were extremely pleased with their efforts to date. He noted the Foundation was not ready to submit a final plan just yet; however, as Mr. Hannum would report, they had some characteristics and processes which Dr. Peters believed both the City and the Foundation would be proud of. Richard Hannum, Architect with Hannum and Associates, stated he was pleased to be able to speak to Council regarding this project, which had dominated much of his firm's thinking for the past couple of years. He reported they had undertaken this project two years ago as an interactive process with City Manager Gould, the City's Planning Department, and Economic Development Director Jake Ours, in an attempt to find a way to bring the Marin Community Foundation to San Rafael. Mr. Hannum stated his role in this project was to respond to the goals and needs of the Marin Community Foundation, and to work with the City of San Rafael to mesh the two together at the Menzies parking lot site. He stated it had been mentioned that a lot of consideration had been paid to Falkirk, per se, noting Mr. Turnbull's organization specialized in historic preservation. Therefore, a great deal of attention would be paid to how those two come together on what is considered a very sensitive site. Mr. Hannum explained the selection dealt with the rebuilding and emergence of this area as the cultural center of Marin, noting they anticipated this project would contribute to the re-emergence of this area, and make a strong contribution. Mr. Hannum reported the mandate of this project was to be a "developmentally green" project, which can demonstrate to the community how to build, and how to make something that is done in an extremely intelligent way, and uses the best of what we know and have today, in order to be able to show people how it is possible to be environmentally conscious, and still be commercially viable. Mr. Hannum noted the project budget was not established to be one that is a "Taj Mahal" response, it was established to be a representation of what can be done. He stated this was in no way to indicate any retraction from the very best elements possible in the design. Mr. Hannum reported they had convened a session several months ago to discuss sustainability as it related to this particular project, drawing together some of the best minds in the area to discuss this, and coming up with a number of elements that would be represented in the project. Foremost, once one gets past the initial idea of environmental sustainability, which refers to the materials used to make the project, was the concept of how they measure energy, and how energy is used. He noted whether it is deep energy, which is used in the creation of materials, or the energy used in cleaning them up when they are done with them, or the energy used on a day-to-day basis, they measure and bring all of those SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 6 issues together in this project, noting this was an unusual opportunity. Mr. Hannum stated that with the beginning of this next quarter, they would be preparing the design that is being discussed, and bringing it forward through the normal public process, through the Planning Commission and the DRB (Design Review Board), and eventually, to Council for final review and approval. Mr. Hannum reported, as a point of reference, the standard office building in this country today uses approximately 30,000 kilowatt hours, per square foot, per year, to run a building, noting that was common, and was the operating average. He stated if they were extraordinarily successful, they would accomplish a reduction of one-third, and get down into the 20,000 kilowatt range. However, the goal set for this project was 8,000 kilowatts; therefore, they would be setting a standard for how energy could be used by taking advantage of daylighting conditions, natural ventilation, fresh air ventilation, operable windows, the use of materials, thermal heat transfer, and groundwater cooling. He stated all of those things would come to bear on this project, were readily available in this market, and were the kinds of things we could expect to see as the project moves forward. Mr. Hannum noted they looked forward to the opportunity of moving on the project this quarter. Councilmember Phillips stated he was intrigued by Mr. Hannum's comments, and anxious to see the process begin. However, he was also a little concerned that what they were proposing might run into a glitch somewhere along the construction cycle, and extend the completion date. He asked if that was something Council should be concerned about? Mr. Hannum stated the types of glitches Council would be concerned about were the kinds of things that were an uncertainty, which the Community Foundation could not tolerate. He noted, as demonstrated by the care with which they had come forward, they would not begin the process until they had surety, not only that it would be completed, but that it would be completed as expected. Councilmember Cohen noted Mr. Hannum mentioned the energy costs of construction, and some specifics regarding energy use. He asked if he understood correctly that they were also analyzing construction techniques, to look at reducing the energy used in producing materials, and in the construction of the building? Mr. Hannum stated that was correct, reporting they were looking at "deep energy", and looking at where they were getting their materials. As an example, he explained that if they are using a wood material, they are looking at either recycled, reused, or woods grown in planted, sustainable conditions, so that they are reducing the impact on the environment. He state they were also looking at how much energy it takes to process, deliver, and install any one of these materials, which has to do with where they choose to source; therefore, they were not sourcing materials from far away, tending to use things locally. He noted if they were to use steel, the steel they would be bringing into the project would be completely recycled steel, 100% content, so they would be dealing with a very low energy impact to reuse cars and batteries, and old pieces of other buildings. He stated that was being taken into consideration on all of these aspects. Councilmember Heller asked when they planned to begin, and when they planned to finish? Mr. Hannum stated they would begin as soon as possible, noting they had, in effect, already begun. He explained the process involved reaching consensus on the design, satisfying the needs of the community, and finding out how to make the building in the most intelligent way. Mr. Hannum stated they expected to bring the project to the Planning Commission this quarter, noting that would place them on a fairly accelerated path to reach conclusion on the project. Mayor Boro invited public comment. There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro commented on Dr. Peter's enthusiasm, noting the Councilmembers shared that enthusiasm. He referred to the comments earlier this evening concerning the Vision for North San Rafael, noting the City also had a Vision for the Downtown, and was trying to live that out now. He stated, as part of that Vision, they have this area around City Hall, with Falkirk, the Boyd Museum, and the Rafael Theatre on Fourth Street becoming part of the cultural center of this community, and he believed this kind of project, and having an organization such as the Marin Community Foundation within our midst, was certainly a credit to our City, and something everyone was looking forward to. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 7 Councilmember Cohen noted Downtown San Rafael has become so popular, we need to pay attention to where we put all these people, and where they put their cars when they come here. However, that problem not withstanding, he believed this was a wonderful opportunity, and allowed the City to take a big step toward solving what has been a long-term problem for San Rafael, since acquiring the Falkirk mansion, which is the ongoing maintenance, and the ability to leverage an under-utilized public asset, and create a fund that is going to ensure the long-term preservation of Falkirk. Mr. Cohen stated this was truly a wonderful project, noting he was very pleased to see them move forward, and looked forward to the end of this particular process, and welcoming them to San Rafael's and Marin's cultural center. Councilmember Miller stated he saw this as a sign of the times, which he defined as governance, in which the civil sector moves out in front, as we have the evolution of the governmental sector, and joins together with the private sector, so that we have a true full governance of our people through all three sectors. He felt that having this building and the Foundation sitting in our midst made it a sign of that great and glorious governance of this country. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution as presented, approving the Option and Easement Agreements between the City of San Rafael and the Marin Community Foundation Property Holdings, Inc. regarding the Menzies parking lot, and further authorizing the City Manager to execute same. RESOLUTION NO. 10355 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF OPTION AND EASEMENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND MCF PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC. (Regarding Purchase of the Menzies Parking Lot). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 11. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF FEDERAL LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,081.00 FOR CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM AND PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY (PD) - File 9-3-30 Police Chief Cam Sanchez clarified these funds were not to be used for overtime, they were designated for crime prevention programs. Chief Sanchez reported that last year the Department of Justice distributed funds across the country for crime prevention, and the City applied for this grant, which required only a 10% match of funds, to enhance our crime prevention services to the community. Chief Sanchez noted San Rafael was one of seven agencies in California to receive this grant to enhance those services, and the funds were now ready to be given to the City. Referring to where the money would be allocated, Chief Sanchez noted these funds would basically enhance all the City's crime prevention programs, such as the Citizens Academy, some of the children's programs, and the printing of materials that are distributed to the residents each year. Chief Sanchez reported the Department hoped this summer it would have its first Youth Camp, sponsored by the Police Department, for at -risk youth. He stated they have been working on this project for approximately six months, along with the schools, churches, juvenile court system, and the Department's own juvenile detectives and juvenile coordinator. He noted that with these funds, they would be able to have the first At -Risk Youth Camp for young people who are first time offenders, and those young people who have been referred to the Police Department by the Courts. He stated they believed part of their job, as a proactive Police Department, was to begin to invest time and money into some of these efforts for our young people. Chief Sanchez stated the other program the Police Department was very excited about was the "Are You Okay?" program. He explained this program would require a computer system, which was what the $6,000 was for, and would allow the Police Department to check on the senior citizens in our City, twice a day, on a daily basis. He stated this was computer generated, explaining it would be done automatically, every day, by the computer, and if a senior citizen did not answer his or her telephone, an Officer would automatically be dispatched to do a welfare check. Chief Sanchez stated this would require two people manning the computer, one at night and one during the day, both of whom would be senior volunteers. He noted the Department had been working with Whistlestop, and they were all SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 8 very excited about this program. Referring to the B -PAD program, Chief Sanchez explained this was actually part of the Department's recruitment process, noting they had determined the process needed some "tuning up". He stated this was a computer generated testing process used when the Department recruits and tests for new Police Officers, Chief Sanchez reported CAL -GANG was a $2,500 computer which would, in essence, give the Department the opportunity to finally be linked -up with every Police agency in the State regarding such things as gang intelligence and gang crime. He noted that currently, when the Department does gang intelligence and crime statistics, it needs to call Santa Rosa Police Department or the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department, and use their information, which they FAX to us, noting that was a little archaic. He estimated the $2,500 would give the San Rafael Police Department immediate access Statewide, which meant that if a gang -related crime were to occur in San Diego, and there was a known gang member who was either traveling or missing and wanted, that information would immediately be entered into the CAL -GANG computer, which would appear on every computer in the State that is hooked -up to the CAL -GANG system. He explained that if we were to have a crime committed in our City, like the one that occurred this weekend, and if they have not found the suspect, as they have not in this particular crime, our Police Department would immediately put the information into the CAL -GANG system, and it would immediately be distributed Statewide. He believed this was one of those things that was very important for the Police Department to have, pointing out it was also the lowest cost item for which these grant funds would be used. Chief Sanchez stated they believed these grant funds would be coming once a year, and hoped these programs would be successful Statewide, and that our Police Department would be successful in these endeavors, so we would continue to receive this money on a yearly basis. Councilmember Heller asked if the Department was already participating in the "Are You Okay?" program, and who would be overseeing the program? Chief Sanchez stated the Department was not yet involved in this program; however, the Department had been working with Whistlestop, and other service agencies within the City and County, to give us lists of individuals who would want to participate. He reported they conducted a survey, and more than 80% of the seniors who utilize Whistlestop and other senior services stated they really wanted to participate in this program. Chief Sanchez stated all they would have to do is fill out an application, which the Department's senior volunteers would take out to their homes and fill out for them. He stated they would, at no cost, automatically be put into the system, and then every morning the assigned senior volunteer would come in, simply press a button, and immediately phones would begin ringing in seniors' homes all over the City. If there is no answer to a telephone call, that call would automatically be transferred into Dispatch, and an Officer on that beat would be dispatched to go and knock on the senior's door, to see if there was a problem. Councilmember Heller asked how many seniors could participate in this program? Chief Sanchez stated there was no limit on the number of seniors who could participate in this program, noting the Department currently had over 155 seniors who utilize Whistlestop, and have indicated they would like to be part of this program. Councilmember Heller stated she would like Chief Sanchez to report back on this issue, perhaps six months or a year after it begins, to see how the program is going. Councilmember Phillips also referred to the "Are You Okay?" program, which he felt was a terrific program, pointing out that with an aging population, he believed we would see more and more use, and noting that, obviously, an "on-time" call could be critical in certain instances. However, he wondered how disruptive this might be if a number of calls were responded to by the Police Officers, and if perhaps the Department might be able to utilize volunteers to prevent some of the disruption? He reiterated he felt this was a great program, but wondered what would happen if people did not respond, as they sometimes do not with their alarms, and whether this might become terribly disruptive to the Police Department? Chief Sanchez stated he did not believe it would be disruptive to the Department, noting they had just gone over to their new scheduling, and he was happy to report there were plenty of people out there to do this. He pointed out the Department does respond to them anyway, but if they did not get there in the appropriate amount of time, it could be a worse situation. Therefore, he did not believe this program would impact the Department so much that it would disrupt other services, and stated the Department believed this was a critical service. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 9 Chief Sanchez reported that in February the Department would have its first Citizens Academy for seniors, noting the seniors were very excited about this, as were the Police Officers and the senior volunteers. He pointed out the senior volunteers would be the ones who visit, and actually begin this program for the Department by talking with other senior citizens, and after that, the Department believed this program would be a great investment in time and effort. He also believed the money was really insignificant, compared to some of the things that might occur if the Officers were not there in time. Councilmember Phillips agreed, and complimented Chief Sanchez on initiating the program. Referring to the At -Risk Youth Camp, Councilmember Phillips agreed this, too, was something that was sorely needed in this community, as well as most others. However, he was concerned about "critical mass", noting not all youth crime was of the same nature and, therefore, he wondered how the camp would be directed, since there would be a cross-section of situations that needed to be addressed. He suggested perhaps this should be broadened to the County, in its entirety, so we can focus our attention on certain kinds of behavior that might need to be addressed on a more focused basis; for example, gang crime might be different than speeding. He asked Chief Sanchez to describe the program, and how it was going to be administered to those who have varying kinds of problems and issues. Chief Sanchez stated the Department's Juvenile Officers, and Pat Carson and her staff of family and child counselors had come to the conclusion that the biggest problem the Department had right now was keeping our "at -risk" youth, which Chief Sanchez defined as "criminally -headed young people", in school. He stated that was why the Police Department was teaming up and partnering with the schools. He explained it was all related in the crime, not going to school, hanging out, and doing things when they should be in school, and noted that was what this program was going to be about. He reported Pat Carson and her staff, and the Department's Juvenile Officers had probably counselled, on a yearly basis, over 200 to 300 students in this City, and over 150 families, who are in dire need of more direction. He stated he was trying to get the Police Department and the Officers more involved, being the catalyst, and being proactive, to keep these young people in school and, hopefully, assist them in redirecting their lives. He reported Pat Carson and her staff would be the ones to actually make the selection of these young people, based on what the Court system has told us, what the families request of us, and what the schools request of us. He stated the Department saw this as a very big partnership, and something that would be about self-esteem and staying in school, and the choices young people make with regard to gangs, drugs, and violence. He stated the Department wanted to be able to address this, and part of that would address the parents. He noted some of the young people the Department counsels on a daily basis, seven days a week, are from very dysfunctional families, where both parents are there; however, 80% are from homes with only one parent. He stated there was a relationship between that and why these kids are not going to school, and why they are choosing these other areas to follow. He explained this was what the program was really all about, trying to redirect them, and keep them in school. Chief Sanchez stated he did not want anyone to think this was just going to be a fun time, explaining it would be a learning experience for them. He pointed out that 100% of these young people on their list had never been outside Marin County, and the Department needed to get them away and do some wonderful things. He reported they had some great resources to do that, and he believed this would be a very exciting time for them. Chief Sanchez felt it was too early to know whether the Department wanted to go Countywide with this program, noting there were enough families and young people within our City limits who impact our schools, whom the Department needed to get to first. Councilmember Phillips asked that Chief Sanchez return to Council with more detail concerning this program, as he believed the Councilmembers would be very interested in the project. He stated they would also look forward to a further report on the Department's Officers being adequately trained to assume this role, which he expected would not be an easy one, and might require some special abilities, or background in training. Chief Sanchez reported the Department had Juvenile Officers Gilson and Guidi, plus four interns, in addition to the outside speakers the Department would be bringing in. Councilmember Cohen referred to the level of funding for the Citizens Academy, asking if the amount proposed would fund it at its current level, or if it represented an expansion of the program, and what it represented in terms of what we would be able to do with the Citizens Academy? Chief Sanchez reported the $45,089 would keep it at its current level. He noted SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 10 two to three years ago the Citizens Academy, and all crime prevention, were funded through asset forfeiture funds and donations; however, he reported asset forfeiture funding had changed, and we could no longer use those funds, and donations were running out. He explained the Department has had to move some funds around to complete some of the crime prevention programs, such as Neighborhood Watch, things the Department does for the young people at the schools, materials and brochures that are passed out every year, and the materials and curriculum for the Citizens Police Academy, which number 40 to 50 people every three months. He reported the crime prevention fund was currently a little less than $100, noting the Department needed this money just to keep the program going. Chief Sanchez noted we were now at the mid -year point, and he believed there would be enough money to finish this year, and even to begin next year's programs. However, he stated he hoped these funds would return and continue to be a source for these programs, because he believed it would likely be the only source for a while. Councilmember Miller referred to the "Are You Okay?" program, noting as someone who had spent thirteen years in ministering to the aging, he believed these kinds of programs were very effective, and saluted Chief Sanchez for directing attention toward this target population of elderly people, particularly those who are confined to their homes. Mr. Miller noted the loneliness factor that comes about from not having any relationships, stating this would help with a very solid psychological and social need. He stated he would like to see consideration given to coordination of this and other programs like it, such as the Post Office's program, and the program that will be undertaken by the Fire Department. He believed that if they could sit down and see how we could coordinate the programs that we have, so they all fit into context and have a more coordinated approach, then we would be able to make a far greater impact. Chief Sanchez felt getting together with the Fire Department was a great suggestion, and noted the Police Department was already in partnership with the Post Office and its program, because many of these were the same individuals. However, he pointed out the Post Office's program was a Countywide program. He reported the City of Novato had the only other Police Department in Marin County that already had the "Are You Okay?" program in their City, and it seemed to be working out very well, noting they, too, were working in partnership with the Post Office. Mayor Boro invited public comment. There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro commended Chief Sanchez and his staff for seeking out this grant so the City can continue with its crime prevention programs. He noted he was extremely excited about the Youth At -Risk Camp, and believed it was a great step forward. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 10356 - RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF FEDERAL LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,081.00 FOR POLICE CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF OCTOBER 13, 1998 DENYING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT 14 BROADVIEW COURT, SAN RAFAEL (CD) - File 10-5 x 10-7 x 10-13 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Bill Tuikka reported this permit involved the establishment of an 848 square foot second -dwelling unit, to be established on the lower level of the dwelling at 14 Broadview Court. He stated the unit would consist of a kitchen, living/dining area, with a separate bedroom and bathroom. The entrance would be at the rear of the unit, and the entire unit would be separate from the main house, with no internal circulation. He noted vehicular access to the unit would be from a driveway that was proposed to be at the rear of the house, from the Jewell Street elevation. He reported the applicant had stated this rear access was necessary in order to preserve the existing two -car carport, which is accessed from Broadview, and to preserve a useable backyard area. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 11 Mr. Tuikka reported the City's Traffic Engineer, Nader Mansourian, had examined this driveway, and determined that as designed, there was adequate turnaround and visibility at street level. Mr. Tuikka stated landscaping was proposed at the driveway, and had been carefully considered for screening from the neighboring house, as well as view -blocking issues from the houses above. All of the mature trees on the site, with the exception of a few junipers, would be saved, and remain with the new project. Mr. Tuikka stated the staff report contained an analysis of conformance with General Plan criteria, shown on Page 3 of the report to the Planning Commission, and Page 4 and 5 of that report listed how this project complied with the Zoning Ordinance standards. He reported the Planning Commission reviewed the project on October 13th, and denied the project, based on their belief that the driveway would cause a potential safety problem because of limited visibility, as Jewell Street turns a blind curve in that area. Mr. Tuikka stated the Commission was divided on the issue of the aesthetics of the driveway, but several Commissioners stated the aesthetics could be handled with appropriate planning. He reported the Design Review Board had reviewed the project, prior to the Planning Commission, and in their reviews of June and August they stated the driveway could be adequately screened in order not to have detrimental effects on the neighboring houses. Mr. Tuikka stated the applicants have appealed the Planning Commission's decision, based upon their belief that the project is in accord with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, and that the project will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood or properties in the area, and that the proposal does meet all the criteria for permit approval. Mr. Tuikka noted that in order to examine the safety issue, the applicants had presented a Focused Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, Inc., and the study concluded the proposed driveway was expected to have an imperceptible impact on Jewell Street, and had been designed to be safer than many of the existing driveways in the area. Mr. Tuikka also noted appropriately designed and properly permitted second - dwelling units were an important source of affordable housing in San Rafael, and based on staff's analysis and the evidence in the record, staff recommended the appeal be upheld, and the project be approved. Mayor Boro asked if the Traffic Study now being presented to Council had been presented to the Planning Commission? Mr. Tuikka stated the traffic study had been prepared as part of the appeal, and had not been presented to the Planning Commission. Mayor Boro invited comments from the applicants. Hadden Roth, Attorney representing applicants Paula and Ed Weiss, noted the staff report contained two reports concerning the favorable economic impact of this project. He stated he had reviewed the very comprehensive staff report, noting all the issues had been looked at and addressed, including safety, design, drainage, aesthetics, and environmental concerns. He believed the best solution had been arrived at and, through the process, they had arrived at a good project. Mayor Boro asked for comments from the consultants and the City's Traffic Engineer concerning the driveway, to set the stage for public comment. Daylene Whitlock, Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, Inc., stated her firm had been asked by the applicants to prepare the Focused Traffic Analysis, because of questions and concerns presented during the Planning Commission hearing. She noted, most specifically, the concerns had to do with sight distance, and the associated potential for accidents as a result of the limited sight distance at that location. She stated they looked at this particular driveway location, as well as locations of immediately adjacent driveways in the vicinity, and noted that, in fact, the driveway immediately east of this driveway location had even less sight distance than the one being proposed. Ms. Whitlock stated there was no standard criteria they could compare against, noting this was not a standard street, and being a little narrower and winding, it did not apply to the normal 30 to 32 foot residential street where people can be expected to travel 25 miles per hour. She believed if someone were to try to travel this road at a sustained speed of 25 miles per hour, they would hit something or run off the road, noting the standards just did not apply to streets with speeds this low. However, she stated they did contact the California Highway Patrol, who maintains SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 12 Statewide accident records, including those for the City of San Rafael, and obtained a history of the street, between Grand Avenue and its terminus at the eastern end. She reported that other than a couple of accidents at the intersection with Grand Avenue, where the four-way stops are, there were no accidents along Jewell Street. Based upon this data, which she noted was the only evidence available for looking at safety implications, they believed the potential for an accident was fairly low. Ms. Whitlock reported this driveway could be expected to carry an average of seven trips per day, and given the five to ten seconds it takes to enter or exit a driveway, there would be a very small window of time that someone would have to be coming around the curve at exactly the same moment. She felt, with only 200 cars per day travelling up and down that road, the odds of that happening were very low. Based upon the fact that there had not been any accidents at any of the other driveways along there, as well as the limited volume of traffic expected to exit the driveway and the very minimal volume of traffic on the street, they did not see any reason to expect there would be an accident problem or a safety implication in allowing this driveway, when the other driveways seemed to be operating just fine with the same type, or worse, restrictions. Councilmember Phillips noted Page 23 of the report from the Planning Commission hearing indicated Chairman Atchison had a question regarding fire trucks, and how they would be accommodated, and asked Mr. Tuikka whether this was necessarily an issue the Council needed to be concerned with, or needed to factor into its decision? Mr. Tuikka stated Mr. Atchison's question had referred to Fire Department access to this unit. He explained that currently there was no driveway, and the house would be accessed either from Broadview or Jewell Street, walking up the hill with the fire equipment. Councilmember Phillips asked if fire trucks would be able to access the site? Mr. Tuikka stated if they were large fire trucks, they would be able to access the site from Broadview, although large trucks would not be able to go up this proposed driveway. However, he pointed out there was no driveway there now, so the situation was not being made any worse. Noting that he did not wish to sound confrontational, Councilmember Phillips stated he was curious, with regard to Ms. Whitlock's conclusions, whether she was proposing to be independent and objective in her analysis, or since she was receiving pay for services, was she an advocate? Ms. Whitlock stated she was not necessarily an advocate, noting, in fact, she had worked for the City in the past, and opposed things the City had wanted done. She stated typically, as a Traffic Consultant, it was very important to maintain objectivity, noting it would not matter who was paying the bill, she would still give the same answer. Councilmember Cohen stated he knew Ms. Whitlock had worked for the City before, and respected her work; however, he had a question about one of the conclusions as presented in the staff report, and something she had just repeated. He referred to the second point in the staff report, concerning the issue of limited sight distance and low traffic volume, noting he understood the odds of two cars colliding there were relatively low because there were few cars coming out of the driveway, and few cars coming down the street, so the chance of them being at the same place at the same time was low. However, he felt this implied the sight distance problem was real and did exist, and should two cars be in proximity at the same time, they were going to hit. He wondered at what point we stopped playing the odds game, and stated this was too big a risk to take? Ms. Whitlock stated that because traffic was a fairly fluid dynamic, there were no really solid answers, and one of the things she would never say, if she could avoid it, was that this will be safe, noting once people are involved, you lose the element of control, because nothing is safe when people are involved, and there is always going to be someone who might do something stupid. However, because of the low speeds on this street, and the low speeds at which someone would be coming up the driveway, even if there was an accident, the potential for it to be an injury accident was even further removed. Ms. Whitlock pointed out there was a driveway immediately adjacent to this one, and as near as anyone knows, there has never been an accident there, even though those people can hardly see twenty-five feet, and could not see a car soon enough to even hit the brakes. She noted from the proposed driveway, a driver would at least be able to hit the brakes, because they can see further down the street. She noted if we were going to apply standard criteria and expect everything to meet the standards and minimum design criteria, there would be no driveways on parts of that street, there SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 13 would be lots that were not accessible, and we would have "landlocked" lots, because no one could get to the street and have adequate sight distance. Councilmember Cohen stated another way to phrase that would be to say that we have a bad situation there, and because we already have a bad situation, we can go ahead and make it worse. He noted this did not appear to be a landlocked lot, and he felt this was something the Council needed to discuss. Ms. Whitlock agreed, but referring to the question of whether this would be making it worse or not, she pointed out there were no comparative standards, and while the sight distance was not huge, she had no numbers to compare it against in order to state what would be a minimum acceptable amount. Mayor Boro clarified the sight distance was fifty feet; therefore, it was not a matter of someone going into that street completely blind, they had fifty feet; and what Ms, Whitlock was saying was that the reaction time was minimal. Ms. Whitlock stated that was correct, noting that stopping time at 20 miles per hour was approximately 24 or 26 feet per second, which meant the driver would have two seconds to react, which was long enough to hit the brakes. She also noted if two vehicles were traveling that slow, the chances were minimal that there would be any injuries, or even a serious accident, compared to a higher volume/higher speed street, and they did not believe it was a significant enough concern to represent a problem, or to defeat the standards of significance the City would normally set. Councilmember Phillips noted hitting your brakes was different that actually stopping, and asked if Ms. Whitlock meant there would be adequate time to stop, or adequate time to hit your brakes, slow down, and crash? Ms. Whitlock stated in absolutely the worst possible scenario, with someone who came out of that driveway at just exactly the same time someone else came around the curve, they would probably hit each other, but they might hit each other at 5 miles per hour. However, she noted it would have to be that someone came around the curve just as the other driver came to the bottom of the driveway, stating that was a very minute chance, and even then, with such low speeds on this street, it would be a fender bender. Councilmember Heller noted it was her understanding, in reading the report, that this was the second location selected for the driveway, with the first option having been discarded. She asked if Ms. Whitlock had looked at the original site from a safety standpoint? Ms. Whitlock stated she had not. Councilmember Miller asked to hear Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian's views. Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian reported he and Mr. Tuikka had met on- site with neighborhood representatives in June or July to discuss this project, noting they looked at the location of the driveway, suggesting, if it were economically feasible, to relocate it toward the west, to add more distance from the curve. He stated he told the neighbors the driveway's location seemed all right, but was not something the City liked to see everyday. He compared the driveway to other hillsides in San Rafael, and they all seemed to have the same formula, low traffic volumes, narrow roadways, and sharp curves, with some areas much denser than this one. Mr. Mansourian stated staff was later contacted and told the applicant and his engineer had looked into the relocation of the driveway, but because of the steep hill, it would be too costly to relocate. Mr. Mansourian stated staff reviewed Ms. Whitlock's report, and concurred with her findings that the volumes were low, the chance of an accident was very low, and the adjacent driveway, which currently exists, had basically no visibility. Mr. Mansourian acknowledged it was basically a judgment call, rather than a scientific analysis at this point. Councilmember Phillips asked Mr. Mansourian if there would be adequate time to brake and prevent an accident, or if the cars were just going to crash? Mr. Mansourian stated this had also been a concern of his, and the applicant was required to not back down the driveway, which was why they were designing a turnaround area. In addition, he stated the cars would not necessarily be able to stop immediately in just fifty feet, and might collide. Mr. Mansourian stated he preferred one hundred and fifty feet of visibility on the City's 25 mile per hour roadways, noting at Mission Avenue and "E" Street, we have a hundred and fifty feet of visibility, although the speed is more than 25 miles per hour. Mr. Mansourian pointed out that given this area, it was possible the cars would hit, but believed the chances of that happening were very small. Mr. Phillips stated the chances were small because you needed both events taking place at exactly the right time; however, if both events did take SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 14 place at the same time, it was inevitable that there would be a crash. Mr. Mansourian stated that was correct. Attorney Hadden Roth reiterated that the cars coming down the driveway would not be backing down, they would be turning around at the top and driving forward down the driveway. Mayor Boro invited public comment from members of the audience who live in the neighborhood. Sid Waxman, 31 Jewell Street, President of the Montecito Area Residents Association, noted this evening, returning from San Francisco, he was walking across Hetherton Street and narrowly missed being hit by a car, and now he was hearing testimony about cars hitting each other. He stated children play in the yard directly across the street from the proposed driveway, and there are many pedestrians in that area. He noted perhaps there might not be many car to car collisions, but asked what was going to happen when the nose of a car coming down that driveway pokes out, and a car coming around the curve sees it? He believed the second car would most likely avoid the collision by veering left, and most likely veer into pedestrians or the kids playing in that unprotected yard directly across the way. He stated that concerned him much more than the repair bills on the fenders. He felt that was a much greater risk, and the City should be on warning about that. Mr. Waxman noted his name appeared on several of the documents submitted to Council, and he had appeared before several hearings of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. However, he noted that yesterday a Councilmember had told him this sounded like a case of "bad blood", of neighbors against neighbors. Mr. Waxman stated he had agreed this was, indeed, a case of neighbors against neighbors, and he felt it had gone too far, when his neighbors are coming to him and complaining about barking dogs, or where cars are being parked. He believed people needed to talk to their neighbors, noting that when he is upset about someone parking their junky truck in front of his house, he talks to them. Mr. Waxman stated what we had here was a governmental structure, dealing on three levels with a problem that should have been addressed first through the neighbors. He believed the Weiss' were certainly at fault, because they have been very "in your face" with respect to the neighbors; however, he also felt they, as the neighbors, should also have been speaking with the Weiss'. Mr. Waxman stated when he looked at the "artillery" that was here, the Traffic Engineer, the lawyer, the Landscape Architect, and looked at the cost of trying to get an 850 square foot apartment approved, with parking on the lower side, he wondered why they had not been talking. Walt Robinson, 104 Jewell Street, displayed a transparency showing his home and the property at 14 Broadview Court, the property lines, and the area of the proposed driveway. Mr. Robinson stated the proposed plan would result in a twelve -foot driveway approximately nine feet from his living room window, noting he and his wife enjoyed the natural, open area, which would be ruined by a fence and an ugly, noisy driveway in front of their living room window. He also reported he had been maintaining the area for approximately twenty years, including part of the Weiss' property, noting he mows a portion of their property every year for weeds, while the remainder of their property remains a fire hazard during the entire summer, being left totally unattended. He believed any new landscaping would be neglected, if the past twenty-two years was any indication of their interest. Mr. Robinson stated he found this driveway extremely invasive, considering it was for only a single unit, which required only one parking space, according to the City's Municipal Code. He noted the Weiss' still had the option of coming through their existing carport, or coming further down Jewell Street. He acknowledged this would be more costly, but noted in the past, the applicant had stated cost was no object. Katie Hogan, Real Estate Broker with The Madison Company, stated her experience in this area began when she listed a duplex on Valencia Street a number of years ago. She noted at that time, she had approximately 14 open houses every Sunday, and experienced a lot of weekend traffic issues, not only in finding a parking place for her own vehicle, but also for any potential buyers whom she was hoping to entice to that area. Her concerns regarding this property had to do with safety issues concerning the driveway, and where it is placed. Also, as she drove up to the property, she found that driving up Valencia and then turning either left or right onto Jewell Street, the front of the car obstructs the driver's vision. She believed the proximity of the proposed driveway's access to where Valencia comes up and the driver cannot see over the top of the car was probably no more than twenty feet. She stated as she turned the bend and came up to the property, there did not happen to be any cars parked there; SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 15 however, she noted that on weekends, drivers cannot find parking places in the heavily dense areas of Valencia Street, and they park in the R-1 areas, where there are fewer vehicles per property, which was one of the benefits of owning a piece of property in an R-1 designated area. Ms. Hogan acknowledged second dwelling units were a benefit in adding additional housing, but noted if they are a detriment to the surrounding R-1 neighborhood dwellings, where people purchased property for the sole purpose of having more quiet, solitude, and less traffic, parking, and density issues, then it begins to have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. She noted putting in a driveway, in and of itself, was not a matter that would normally come before the Council; however, in this instance the driveway is linked to a second unit, and within ten or eleven feet of the neighbor's house. Ms. Hogan stated she looked out the neighbor's living room windows, and the driveway is within twelve feet, making the impact enormous. Ms. Hogan stated, with regard to parking and driveway issues, she felt something needed to be done that would be better than what is being proposed. Bob Semple, 84 Jewell Street, pointed out a large tree on the property, and asked how a driveway could be put in without taking the tree out? He believed the people proposing the driveway were very intelligent, but the driveway was not. He stated the driveway, as proposed, was probably the most dangerous spot in the road, which is a blind curve. He reported that two weeks ago two cars stopped nose to nose, just inches from a head-on collision, right near the proposed driveway. In addition, there are "No Parking" signs on both sides of the road, further illustration of the bad visibility. He stated the proposed location, in addition to being dangerous, would also degrade the view from the Robinsons' window, reducing their property value. Mr. Semple reported speeders were frequent, and the proposed driveway would likely increase the probability of an accident, as the road was too narrow and twisty. He noted he lived down the street from this property, and five or six years ago a speeder did $500 to $600 damage to his car, which was parked, and Mr. McAllister's car has been hit twice while parked in front of his property. He noted he walks his dog three or four times a day up Jewell Street, and at least once a week he has to yell at someone who drives past at high speed. He reported one time he was in front of his house and a driver hit the gas coming around the corner, noting the driver must have been doing at least 30 miles per hour. He pointed out this location was only two or three blocks from San Rafael High School, and on Friday night there are football games and such. He did not believe the traffic studies were done on Friday nights when there were activities at the High School. Mr. Semple suggested the driveway be like the one at 94 Jewell Street, which is big enough for trucks, and could be built near Valencia Street, at the west end of the property. He believed it would be much safer, and far less of a nuisance. He noted another alternative would be to open the back end of the carport, and enter the rear of the property from Broadview. He stated that while these alternatives might not be the least expensive options, either would be safer and better for the neighborhood. Mr. Semple stated many of the neighbors had worked hard on the neighborhood plan, noting any improvements were welcome; however, he felt this hazard was not welcome, especially considering the fact that two reasonable alternatives were available. He stated either alternative would be less expensive than the possibility of future legal fees being considered. Councilmember Phillips noted the proposed driveway and Mr. Robinson's driveway were quite close together, and asked if there was any reason to believe that cars coming from the proposed driveway would be in any more danger, or be any more of a hazard, than those coming from Mr. Robinson's? Mr. Semple agreed they would not, but asked, "Why make a bad situation worse?" Mr. Semple acknowledged the Robinsons had a similar problem, but noted he could see a little further down the street. Mr. Robinson pointed out where the road turned sharply, noting that with the height of his driveway, he could see at least 75 feet down the street. Scott Kaplan, 217 Jewell Street, Vice President of Montecito Area Residents Association, noted his neighbors had come forward and told Council they were not very happy about seeing this project. Referring to earlier neighborhood meetings, he recalled the second -dwelling unit Ordinance had not been addressed, and asked why it had not been? He stated an initial explanation from City staff had been that the neighborhood, as a whole, was sufficiently protected because the intent of the Ordinance was that the onus of the new project would be borne by the property gaining the benefit from the second unit. Mr. Kaplan stated if the Councilmembers believed that was true, they should note how many of the neighbors had come to speak about it. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 16 Bob McAllister, 115 Jewell Street, stated he lives directly across from the project, and for the past eight years has been working at home. He noted he spent three weeks last summer replacing the roof on his home, and from the roof had an excellent view of automobile and pedestrian traffic. He stated the most dangerous problem comes from vehicles heading east, around the bend in front of his house. He reported many cars, especially those driven by neighbors who live on this street, attempt to take the curve at safe speeds; however, he believed there was an equal number of people who do not, and a smaller portion of people who are downright reckless, noting anyone who walks this portion of Jewell Street could tell Council of being forced to jump into the bushes or drainage ditches. He reported his car had been sideswiped twice, as was Mr. Semple's, and someone who lives at 103 Jewell Street. Mr. McAllister stated traffic coming west up Jewell Street poses less of a threat, but noted those so disposed viewed that brief section of open road as an opportunity to accelerate between curves, and could present a problem with cars coming the other way. He noted a further complication, which had not yet been referred to, was Jewell Court, which slopes downward behind shrubbery on both sides of Jewell Street, and is almost directly across from the proposed driveway. He pointed out this was an extremely narrow street, with so few opportunities to turn around, that many vehicles simply do not, and back out at a high rate of speed. He noted that while this probably would not affect cars exiting the proposed driveway, because those cars could see this, it was most definitely a complicating factor, especially when cars were coming from either direction on Jewell Street. Mr. McAllister referred to the applicant's traffic report, noting that while it was well written, he believed there were several inaccurate assumptions. He noted on Page 2 of the report, there were several paragraphs referring to the purported lack of accidents and presumption of the quality of driving in the area. He stated the location of the car counter used for the preparation of this report was 50 yards from the proposed driveway, eastward on Jewell Street, and cars entering or leaving Jewell Court, going to the right down Jewell Street, were not counted in the study. He noted that while that would not greatly affect the car count, he felt it pointed to a little sloppiness on the part of the report. He stated that while he respected the expertise and opinions of both Mr. Mansourian and the Traffic Recorders, he felt that given the very limited time they were able to dedicate to assessing this situation, they could not have a real feel for the situation that those who live there day in and day out have. He reported several members of the Planning Commission took time to visit the site, noting he observed them driving this section of Jewell Street from both directions, back and forth at various speeds, as well as walking the site on foot. He noted this had been during the middle of the day, when traffic was lightest, and the sun was safely overhead, and the Commissioners still agreed with the neighbors' assertions of the potential danger of this location. He noted Council could only imagine what those of them who travel this road daily experience, driving around that corner heading west, late on sunny summer afternoons or early evenings, and likewise, going east on sunny summer mornings. He noted all one needed to do was add in a neighborhood full of sixteen dogs being walked, and six pre-school children within three lots of this location, and they could see this was a recipe for trouble. Mr. McAllister thanked Council for allowing him to speak, noting he hoped Council would put this inappropriate, inconsiderate, and potentially dangerous project to bed once and for all. Jan Robinson, 104 Jewell Street, distributed a neighborhood petition to Council, stating the neighbors were concerned, noting they had a Vision for their neighborhood, and how they would maintain a certain standard of living. She noted she was a licensed realtor, and reported if she were to put her house on the market, she was bound by California State law to disclose that this proposal was before the City Council, because it had an adverse effect on her property. Sally Kibbee, President of the United Montecito Neighborhood Association, and member of the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood Project Review, stated the applicant's appraiser, Mrs. Rollins, had included pictures of a complex at 143 Jewell Street in her presentation, noting this inclusion was to point out that the neighborhood already had densely used property, and inferred that one more would not make any difference. Ms. Kibbee reported this ten -unit complex had been built at the apex of the unconcerned planning and building going on in the 19701s, and was a prime example of the kind of building they were trying to prevent from happening again, noting this was a badly designed building, and so was the proposed driveway at 14 Broadview Court. She believed each represented a total lack of concern for the environment, the neighborhood, and the neighbors. Ms. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 17 Kibbee stated they have been working on the 14 Broadview project for nearly a year, noting that in the beginning they had concerns about the building of the separate unit; however, the placement of the driveway has always been paramount in their objections. She pointed out that except for a short diversion for the loop, the driveway had been fixed steadfastly in the proposed location, noting this was the easiest and cheapest way to put in the driveway, and that has been the only consideration. She stated there had never been an attempt to meet with the neighbors to discuss alternatives that would be less intrusive, pointing out there was 12,000 square feet available to locate this driveway elsewhere on-site. Ms. Kibbee noted there had been a parallel situation on Union Street, and former Planning Director Robert Pendoley had stepped in and pointed out alternatives to solve the problem. She did not believe the neighbors were getting that kind of consideration any longer, noting they stand up and express their concerns, and in the very next instance, the Planning Department declares all neighborhood concerns have been met. She believed that because they are persistent, an attitude had developed that makes them out to be the "bad guys" and the enemy, and she stated that was not justified. She stated she had personally been involved with project reviewing since 1990, and while she was not an expert on planning, she had learned a lot, and was no longer an amateur. She noted she had extensively read the Ordinances, and was reasonably familiar with them, especially those concerning neighborhoods. She felt she brought legitimate arguments to the table, as many other neighbors did, and did not believe they were wasting anyone's time with frivolous, erroneous ideas. She stated they based everything on Ordinance foundation. Ms. Kibbee stated they had included in their report, and in an exchange at the Planning Commission hearings, the issue of the potential for double fees for illegal construction. She pointed out inspection activity was initiated by the neighbors, noting they had reported sounds of serious construction coming from the area of the proposed second unit. She reported there was extensive foot -dragging, first in reporting the matter to the Building Inspectors, and then in getting the Building Inspectors to go out and look it over, noting that when they finally did, they only peeked in the window. Ms. Kibbee stated they still did not have any idea how extensive that activity was; however, what was observed was enough to put double fees into consideration. She noted the inspection report was not included in the Planning Department's packet to the Planning Commission, stating the neighbors gave it to them because they thought they should know double fees were a possibility. Ms. Kibbee believed this was a very good example of disregard for neighborhoods, noting that if the illegal second -unit situation were ever to be resolved, these attitudes must substantially change. She stated they needed the neighbors to participate, but they would not if their opinions were not taken seriously. She stated they believed it was imperative the Planning Director reevaluate the neighborhood's involvement in the planning process, so their legitimate concerns were seriously considered once again. Ms. Kibbee presented a letter to the Councilmembers, which she read for the record: "There is a requirement in the 2nd Unit Ordinance that the premises must be occupied by the owner during the life of the second unit. We are very concerned that this will not be adhered to by this applicant. We have found that in the past this person has been less than constant in his truthfulness when making legal declarations or living by Society's rules. Please see the attached document to support this statement. Item #1. He is claiming a homeowner tax exemption in Sonoma County on property owned at 1018 King Street, Santa Rosa, from 1992 to the present time. Item #2. He is currently a registered voter in Marin County from 1995 using the 14 Broadview Court address. Item #3. He allowed his contractor to start construction on the second unit at 14 Broadview Court before the project had received approval or a building permit was issued. Item #4. He stated in his letter appealing the Planning Commission's decision, that there was an existing 2nd unit from before 1991. This was in fact an illegal 2nd unit well known to the neighbors. Under the circumstances of this past history, it is thought that in the best interest of the Community, no 2nd unit Use Permit be issued to this applicant". Claudia Ciucci, stated she was raised in the house across the street from the Robinsons and the proposed driveway, and had over fifty years experience with the neighborhood, the house, the street, and the hillside across from her. She reported that today she had watched a half -bus make a t -turn, using Jewell Court to back into to drop someone off. She noted SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 18 that was another factor she had not heard mentioned, pointing out there were several driveways and a blind curve converging on Jewell Street. She stated that when this kind of density occurs, parking problems occur, and no matter how many "No Parking" signs are posted, people either knock them down or blatantly ignore them. In terms of traffic, she believed this would only make things worse, noting everyone, even the applicant's consultant, believed it was a bad idea, and she did not understand why the City would want to make it worse, and do it again because it was done before. Referring to safety concerns, Ms. Ciucci noted there were nineteen dogs and dog walkers, a lot of pedestrians on the street, and eighteen children within a block or two of this location. She also felt the aesthetics and economics were somewhat blended here, and she could not quite separate them. She did not understand why the person who was going to profit from the development did not have to bear the brunt of the impact. She asked why his two -car carport and nice, big backyard were protected, while all of their front yards bore the brunt of the cars coming in and out? She did not believe anyone could state that this driveway was a good idea. Ms. Ciucci stated she had recently read that California was growing at the rate of India, faster than any other state in the country. She acknowledged we needed affordable housing, but just as we cannot build highways for enough cars, because then there will be more cars, she also believed it was impossible to accommodate that growth. She stated we should not increase density in neighborhoods that are trying to regenerate, noting she would hate for it to become Valencia Street in front of her property, as well as in the back. Ms. Ciucci stated she was perplexed by the behavior of the Project Planner, noting she and her neighbors had been told they were wasting their time, and there was nothing to object to. She felt they had not been met with "an ear", and she did not believe they had ever been listened to, rather she consistently felt they were being told, "go away, this is the project and it is fine". She stated she had witnessed Mr. Tuikka going back and forth to Planning Commission meetings with the applicant, advising him what to do, how to behave, and what to say, noting she expected some kind of neutrality, or at least a lack of bias in her treatment. Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro stated this issue would not be debated any further at this time, noting a couple of things had come to light during the testimony that he felt Council should consider. First, he stated it was a policy of the City to encourage second -dwelling units, if they meet all the requirements of the City's Ordinance, noting that was something the State had mandated the City attempt to achieve in all of its neighborhoods, if it meets all parts of the Municipal Code. However, at the same time the City has discretion, as it approves these second units. He noted it became apparent, in reading the staff report, discussing the issue with the Community Development Director, and in visiting the site, that this was a very narrow street, and potentially a lot of the things discussed could, and might, happen. He stated one issue that piqued his interest was using the approach on Broadview, and he felt that was one issue that needed to be looked at and evaluated. Further, he noted it had been pointed out the property line goes down 170 feet, and he would like someone to evaluate what it would do to the sight distance if the driveway were to be moved down, and whether it would improve it, or be safer for the people coming from the project, as well as people who are on the street. Mayor Boro stated the City had an applicant who had a right to request a second unit, and also had neighbors who had the right to express their concerns. He felt there were some valid concerns, as well as options that had not yet been looked at, and suggested staff look at some of the alternatives with the applicant, and begin working with the neighbors on the alternatives. He believed there was room to develop a solution on the site to accommodate a second unit, but also felt it was important to look at some of the alternatives the site affords. Councilmember Cohen asked whether Mayor Boro envisioned keeping this matter before Council, having the applicant and staff working with the neighbors, and then coming back before Council, or did he envision this going back before the Planning Commission? Mayor Boro stated Council would allow staff to advise them, and then make that decision. Councilmember Cohen stated at this point he was not completely satisfied with the alternative before Council. He also noted that during the public comment he had been struck by the number of people who felt compelled to apologize for taking Council's time. He explained that was what the Councilmembers were there for, they were elected to listen and take input, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 19 and people should never need to apologize for coming forward when they have a concern, noting that was why we had a public process, and he often was more swayed by neighbors who speak from the heart than by all the professionals money can hire. He acknowledged the professionals have expertise, and the Councilmembers had to weigh that expertise; however, he noted they also had to make a judgment about the kind of community we all want to live in. He stated he appreciated the City's Traffic Engineer summing up the Traffic Study, and he believed it was an accurate assessment, noting it came down to a judgment call, and was not a matter of science. He stated he was not convinced the Traffic Study provided a compelling argument that the safety issues raised by the neighbors were addressed. He agreed there was no stopping distance there, and should it happen that two cars are there at the same time, they were going to hit, or even worse, someone was going to veer off to avoid that, and something worse was going to happen. He stated he did not see any reason to make a bad situation worse, particularly when it appeared there were alternatives, and he felt the argument made by several people that the property benefiting from the improvement should bear the brunt was a point well taken. He stated he was not satisfied with the present alternative, and if it was the desire of Council to study other alternatives, he would go along with that, noting he was not willing to uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission decision at this point. Councilmember Miller stated he believed this was a safety issue, and felt the Planning Commission had quite rightly boiled it down to a safety issue, not a second dwelling issue. He noted he had found Mr. Kaplan's remarks quite compelling regarding the evaluation of the Traffic Study. He pointed out staff had looked at the absence of accidents; however, there have, indeed, been unreported accidents out there, and the Traffic Consultant would not have been able to pick that up. In addition, referring to the neighbors' observations concerning the quality of driving, he noted that being there, living there, walking there, and being around it all the time allowed them to see what, in fact, actually happens around there, and this weighed more heavily for him than the observations of the Traffic Report. Therefore, he was not happy with the safety factor, and he concurred that there was room to look further to see how the City could do this, and how it could happen if the City and applicant worked with the neighbors. He stated he would like the extended period to be used to really work and see how the other alternatives might work, and be a lot more creative in the process, stressing community-based creativity, where everyone works together as neighbors. Councilmember Heller agreed this was a beautiful area, stating she, too, would like to bring this issue back to staff, and look at the two alternatives that have been presented, changing the location of the driveway and/or coming up onto Broadview Court. In addition, referring to the information sheet distributed by Ms. Kibbee, Ms. Heller stated she would like staff to look into Item #1, which states homeowner tax exemption is claimed in Sonoma County, and also look into our own rules and regulations as far as a legal unit. She pointed out that in the applicant's letter of appeal, Item #5 had been struck, and she wanted to be certain the neighbors were aware of that. Ms. Heller stated she would also like to have all of the items addressed from staff's point of view, and have staff clarify what the neighbors are asking for. She noted she was quite willing to have Council re-examine this issue at a later date. Councilmember Phillips stated he agreed with Mayor Boro's suggestion, noting that while this project might, in fact, allow the City to expand its second units, he did not find the current configuration acceptable. He felt, particularly if there were alternatives, and with the message being sent to the applicant, that some additional flexibility with regard to alternatives would be heeded. Mayor Boro asked City Attorney Ragghianti whether this issue should be brought back before the Council or before the Planning Commission? City Attorney Ragghianti stated if Council believed the Planning Commission could provide information that would be helpful to Council in ultimately making a decision on this appeal, Council may ask them to provide it by way of conducting a hearing. However, once the appeal was filed, the Planning Commission decision lost all of its power and effect, and was suspended, and this item came to Council on a new basis; therefore, he would not suggest Council send this back to the Planning Commission, rather he would suggest it be sent to staff, and have Council set another date for return, so the hearing may be concluded. He asked Council to bear in mind the public testimony portion had been concluded; however, if staff made further recommendations to Council, it would be fair to allow further comment by both the applicant and the neighbors. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 20 Mayor Boro asked City Attorney Ragghianti to pursue the issues contained in Ms. Kibbee's letter of January 15th, and report to Council when the application comes back before them. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to refer this item to staff for review of alternatives to the driveway as proposed, and direct staff to work on those alternatives, both with the applicant's representatives and the neighbors, to try to come up with a mutually agreeable alternative to this project. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro noted the date would be determined by the applicant, staff, and the neighbors being able to get together and getting this resolved, noting the item would again be agendized as soon as that happens. Councilmember Cohen clarified it had been his intent that the item be brought back before the Council. City Attorney Ragghianti suggested if the applicant, staff, and the neighbors could not agree, he recommended staff set a date when they are ready. He noted it should be made clear to the neighbors, as well as the applicant, that this appeal remained open, noting it was not over, and no decision had been made. Mayor Boro announced there would be a short recess. Mayor Boro reconvened the City Council meeting. 13. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS: (CD) - File 115 x 10-4 x 10-5 x 10-2 a. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-1/USE PERMIT 89-4(c) TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL PLAN FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR 65 MITCHELL BOULEVARD. THIS APPLICATION IS INTENDED TO SATISFY THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, DATED OCTOBER 1, 1998 WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO OCCUPY 3,600 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE FOR A TOTAL OF 13,782 SQUARE FEET, FOR A FAR OF 0.47; 65 MITCHELL BOULEVARD, SAN RAFAEL; APN 155-131-11, SEMIK OUNGOULIAN, OWNER. b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-2/ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT ED 98-123 TO AMEND APPENDIX B OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO PROVIDE TRIPS FOR THE SITE AND TO ALLOW TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FOR AN ADDITIONAL 24,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING FOR A FAR OF 0.30; ONE THORNDALE DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL; APN 175-360-04, M & S CALIFORNIA FUND, L.P., OWNER; HANNUM ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTATIVES. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Sheila Delimont explained the first General Plan Amendment was a single Amendment with two components. The first component was for 65 Mitchell Boulevard, and was intended to satisfy the terms of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, entered into by Council, which would allow the applicant to occupy an additional 3,600 square feet in the existing building. She noted it would also allow the remaining 1,677 square feet of building to be used as storage by the building tenants. Also before Council was a proposed revised Condition of Approval for this project, and a minor change to the General Plan Amendment, to clarify that the additional 3,600 square feet of the building was to be occupied as office space, for a Floor Area Ratio of 0.47, and the remaining area, as clarified in the Condition, was to be used as storage space. She stated the intended amendment to the Condition would allow the applicant to shift the storage space in the future if he chose to, noting the additional space to be occupied was currently on the first floor, as well as the storage space. However, through a future Use Permit amendment, if the applicant should choose to come forward, he could then shift the storage space to the second floor. She noted that was strictly the intent in the change of the Condition. Mayor Boro invited public comment on General Plan Amendment 98-1. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 21 There being no public comment on General Plan Amendment 98-1, Mayor Boro introduced General Plan Amendment 98-2, and asked for the staff report. Ms. Delimont reported this was the location of the former Commerce Clearinghouse building, noting that when the building was first constructed it had been designed in such a way that some of the interior parking space could be converted to office space in the future, and in fact, in 1981 the City and property owner entered into an agreement which would allow that future conversion. However, when the General Plan was prepared, this was overlooked, and staff did not incorporate into Appendix B of the General Plan any trips for such conversion. Therefore, before Council was an amendment to Appendix B to add 53 trips for this site, and to take them out of the Trip Reserve for North San Rafael. She stated all of the conversion would take place within the footprint of the building, noting there would be some minor design changes, including some windows added. She felt there were some real pluses for the City with this project, such as the landscaping being augmented, the benches softened, and the lighting redesigned so it was not so much of a beacon in the evening. However, the major plus for the City would be the shuttle service being proposed, which would operate for two hours during the AM and PM peaks, would be free to riders, and would basically serve not only this project, but other office complexes in the neighborhood, as well. Ms. Delimont stated this implemented one of the North San Rafael Vision's primary objectives, which was to get a shuttle bus in operation, as this would be the first "building block" in that shuttle service. Ms. Delimont noted that when this went before the VIA Committee they were very excited about it, and they were enthusiastically backing the project, noting they were going to have this item on their next agenda, to see how they could build upon this, and become proactive and go out to the community at large to see if the shuttle could be expanded once it is in operation. Ms. Delimont stated the project complied with all zoning and General Plan requirements. She noted there was a proposal to relax the Traffic Mitigation Fees, and the agreement did allow Council some flexibility. She explained that because the service was expected to cost between $50,000 and $60,000 per year, they were asking that the traffic fees be set aside while the City reviews the issue, noting their Traffic Study indicated that with the shuttle service and TSM measure, there would be no impact on traffic. Ms. Delimont reported staff did have some Conditions that would allow the City to monitor this over a period of a year, while it is in service, and then evaluate it. She noted there was also a Condition which allowed that if the City found the shuttle service was not operating, was not cost effective, or the ridership was extremely low, they would have a way of getting out of providing that service; however, the City would establish benchmarks in order to evaluate that in the future. She noted the benchmarks would be taken to the Planning Commission, so they can accept them, and have a way of evaluating this. Ms. Delimont clarified there was a minor change to the General Plan, noting in Appendix B, under reserve trips, the number 95 would be deleted, reflecting that there were now 42 trips for the Hartzell School site. Mayor Boro referred to Item #15, which addresses the Planning Division/Public Works Department conditions, noting this described the criteria she mentioned, and states that 45 days following the effective date, City staff and the applicant shall come together to approve the results of the shuttle service. He asked, if it is found to be that this is not feasible, would Traffic Mitigation Fees then be calculated as an off -set? Ms. Delimont reported that was correct. Mayor Boro noted it sounded as though the applicant was supporting the shuttle service, as well as the community. Ms. Delimont agreed, noting the applicant had proposed this, and had brought it forth as their public interest to justify the General Plan Amendment. Mayor Boro invited public comment. Rick Zalatoris, of Maier & Seibel, Inc., stated his company was the General Partner of the firm that purchased One Thorndale Drive from Commerce Clearinghouse approximately a year and a half ago. He explained they were a Larkspur Real Estate Investment firm that specialized in forming limited liability companies that purchase office buildings. He noted they purchased One Thorndale Drive not only for its expansion opportunities, but also for the unique architectural qualities of the property. He stated the building had a retractable roof, which could be a stunning atrium area, with unparalleled views. He noted the property had "good bones", but was in need of renovation to compete with other Class A office buildings as a headquarters building. He stated they wanted to make One Thorndale Drive a SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 22 place to be proud of, and to that end, they hired Richard Hannum, of Hannum & Associates; Jay Paxton, Attorney, of Hellman Burke, to help them through the planning process; and Hargraves & Associates as Landscape Architect. He pointed out Hargraves & Associates was responsible for the design and renovation of Crissy Field, and also the Sydney Olympics. He stated they had strived to make this project acceptable to the community, noting they had obtained support for the project from their neighbors at Villa Marin, and from the community, through the approval of the Vision Committee, and the Planning Commission. Mr. Zalatoris stated they had already started the shuttle bus promotion, noting he had presented it to Northgate Mall, and was trying to get them to participate in the service. He noted they were very committed to the project. Richard Hannum, Hannum & Associated, stated it was much easier, as an Architect, to do good things in a community if you have an enlightened client, and he thanked Maier & Seibel, Inc. for undertaking the project in this fashion. He also thanked the Community Development Department, and Ms. Delimont in particular, for the amount of time spent in putting this project together, noting it had been quite an arduous project. Mr. Hannum stated the "castle on the hill" had been a problem for everyone for a long time; however, they had managed to put together, through this process, a way to satisfy several goals for San Rafael, and for the County. He reported they had expanded a building that was not really sized or suitable to sustain a headquarters facility, managing to expand it without creating any new construction, and this has allowed them the opportunity to maintain job opportunities within San Rafael that might otherwise have been lost. He stated the other issue was the hill itself, which was left denuded after the grading for Northgate Mall, noting that would be addressed by the client, as well, as part of this process. Mr. Hannum stated the issue of the shuttle bus had become a major one, and he felt it was important, on behalf of Maier & Seibel, Inc., to understand that after it had been proposed to put the shuttle in, and after they worked out all of the issues with their neighbors in Villa Marin, they discovered the Traffic Reports did not indicate any negative impact as a result of the expansion, therefore requiring the shuttle bus. However, the shuttle bus was part of their commitment to the community, and as Mr. Zalatoris indicated, it was part of their expression of this building as a first class office environment, noting if you were located on top of the hill and away from all transportation, it was important to do something that was going to bring the building into the mainstream of the community. Therefore, he felt Maier & Seibel, Inc. should be applauded for the efforts and commitment they had made on behalf of what was, as described by Councilmember Miller, a true public/private partnership. Councilmember Phillips noted Mr. Hannum had mentioned the hillside, and asked if someone was going to talk about that? Mr. Hannum noted they had brought the landscape planning for the hillside before the Design Review Board a few weeks ago, and referred to photographs of the hillside. He noted that after two, four-year draughts, it had been difficult to sustain the trees; however, there were new irrigation systems, supported by MMWD (Marin Municipal Water District), so they had an opportunity to plant, sustain, and establish the trees. He pointed to specific areas where they were required by the DRB to cluster trees, in such a way as to break up the horizontal lines from the benching. He noted they could not take out the benching, because it was the grade line of the hill; however, they would be able to soften what appeared to be the horizontal cut. He stated that with additional landscaping required by the DRB, they would be covering this with material that would normally be green during the summertime. He stated another commitment made was that they would go up to 40% of native plantings, so they would be able to increase the amount of native planting on the hillside. Additionally, there had been a request from the DRB, which they agreed with, that there be more of a flourish made at the location entry drive itself, because it was a primary entrance. He noted this did not necessarily mean something decorative, but something to scale that would give a little prominence to that area. Referring to the areas to the south and north, he noted one could see this was the most offensive area, and it was agreed, as part of the Condition, that they would be bringing back to DRB another plan that addressed all of those issues, and how this area would be specifically planted. Councilmember Phillips asked if that would be coming back before the Council? Mr. Hannum stated it was his understanding that it would go back to the DRB, and if they approved it, that would be it, noting it was an extensive planting program for the hillside. He stated one of the commitments they made to Planning when they entered into this process was that they would really be looking at the hill as a whole. Therefore, one of the elements was an easement across the property, to allow the people SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 23 who are maintaining the vineyard to have access to the vineyard, which they do not currently have, as it is on the other side. He noted for many years it was run down and not doing terribly well, but now it was coming back quite well. Mr. Hannum stated it was not intended that they simply "plant out" the hill, because that would not look like a hillside; it was intended that they soften the long lines, and give back more of the character of the natural hillsides around Marin. Councilmember Phillips stated he was quite interested, as he believed the community was, in what becomes of this, and hoped it would be far more attractive than it currently is, noting if it were half as attractive as it was presented in 1970, it would be wonderful. Mr. Hannum stated there was some insight to that, noting George Hargraves was doing the other part of the landscape plan for this project, and he detailed some of that plan. Mr. Hannum pointed out the atrium garden was shot, it was tired and old, and it leaked. Therefore, partly because he is a good friend of Mr. Zalatoris, Mr. Hargraves agreed to do a pocket garden on the inside. He explained it would have public access, and there was already public access food service, noting people from Villa Marin often go there for lunch. He stated the garden would be replanted as an art piece, by Hargraves, and they believed something very special would come out of that. He noted the fountain would be rebuilt, a grove of tall, standing trees would be planted in the middle, and the roof, which opens completely, would be rebuilt, so it will be functional and work as an open atrium, with fresh air ventilation system for the entire building. Mr. Hannum noted this would also allow for placement of the stainless steel benches, so anyone who wants to go and sit up there may, and will have access to the garden. Mr. Hannum believed this would provide something to be added to the garden tour, noting he felt it was going to be a particularly special place. He pointed out that was the level of consideration they were giving to this project. Referring to the "bones" of the building, he noted the building had been designed by Bob Markee, who had been one of the better architects in the country, and particularly in Marin County, and he felt this was something that could, in our lifetime, be deemed an historic building, because it is a great representation of a particular type of architecture, although it was tired, and it was time to give it some respect, and give it a new lift. Councilmember Heller asked who gets to use the shuttle bus, where it will go, and how often? Jay Paxton, Attorney, stated anyone could use it. He noted there would be no charge, and they expected it would run on a fifteen minute headway, two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon, during AM and PM Peak. He explained if someone were to start out at the One Thorndale Drive building, there would then be a pick-up at Villa Marin, the shuttle would go down the hill, behind the Northgate Shopping Center across Merrydale, to Civic Center, then up Civic Center Drive to pick up at the bus pad, and loop back up the hill and serve 4040 Civic Center, the Board of Realtors building and the Marin Executive Center building, come down the hill, serve the Gables Condominium project and AutoDesk property, which is in need of some parking, go back up Civic Center Drive and once again stop at the bus pad, cross over the freeway, stop just above the bus pad for the southbound bus, then continue back, serving 899 Northgate, and then back up the hill. Mr. Paxton stated he and Mr. Deitrich, of DKS, who has been working on the shuttle, have driven the route, and they believe it can be done in approximately a fifteen minute headway, even with some traffic. Ms. Heller asked if the shuttle would go to the shopping center? Mr. Paxton stated there would be a stop next to 899 Northgate, although they hoped to work with the shopping center expanding the route, with perhaps some service at noon, as well. Mayor Boro asked if representatives from Northgate Mall had been receptive to this idea? Mr. Zalatoris stated he had spoken with their representative, Peter Galli, who took a lot of notes and seemed interested; however, Mr. Galli stated he had to discuss the concept with his senior management. Mr. Zalatoris suggested Mr. Galli also present it to the Merchants Association, as he felt it would also be very beneficial for them and, therefore, the cost would not be just out of the owner's pocket, but rather it could be a shared cost from the merchants and ownership of Northgate. Ms. Heller asked if they had considered discussing this plan with Safeway? Mr. Zalatoris stated they had, noting they were going to promote this very heavily. Councilmember Phillips asked how large the bus would be? Mr. Paxton reported they were looking at a 10 to 12 passenger bus, pointing out the Traffic Study projected thirty-five people using it per hour during the PM Peak hours. Mr. Paxton noted they were already looking at working with Whistlestop Wheels, or some other provider in the community, to provide the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 24 service, and then their company would pay for it. Mayor Boro stated another opportunity, in addition to Safeway and Northgate, would be the little mall across from Northgate, pointing out that a Chili's (Restaurant) would soon be opening there. Mr. Paxton stated they saw this as a building block for a shuttle system, in accordance with the Vision, and asked for the City's help, and for Council to ask staff to assist them in working with others in the area who might add other building blocks. He noted when they first proposed this project, City Manager Gould had been very clear in pointing toward the Vision, and Ms. Delimont and Mr. Brown had been equally clear in keeping them focused on the Vision for a shuttle, which was why they were now bringing it to Council. Mr. Paxton stated they were presenting this in order to have a project that does not have any footprint in the community. He noted that in looking at the Traffic Study, with the other TSM measures that are being proposed, this project actually took a net of ten trips off the street in North San Rafael during the PM Peak hour. Patricia Schumacher, President of the Villa Marin Homeowners Association, stated the Association was totally supportive of this project, noting they had learned to work together over a period of six months, and had a system worked out to solve any problems that might arise in the future. Mayor Boro stated it appeared as though the Association and the new owners of the building had found a way to work together, noting as Councilmember Miller had pointed out, when that happens, only good things happen. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Cohen stated this was a great project, and recognized the point that Mr. Paxton had made, that when we have a building that is adding fuel to San Rafael's economic engine, and yet still reducing the impact, it was pretty marvelous. In addition, he felt the shuttle was a wonderful thing, and believed Council should ask staff, and themselves, to work on this and see it as a building block, and see what great things can come of that. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration and approving the General Plan Amendment for 65 Mitchell Boulevard, referred to as GPA 98-1, and One Thorndale Drive, referred to as GPA 98-2 (as amended by staff's memo of 1/19/99). RESOLUTION NO. 10357 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CONSISTING OF TWO COMPONENTS: 1) AN EXEMPTION TO THE GENERAL PLAN FLOOR AREA RATIO (GPA98-1) AT 65 MITCHELL BOULEVARD (APN 155-131-11); AND 2) AN AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX B - LAND USE TRAFFIC ALLOCATIONS - TO PROVIDE FOR 53 ADDITIONAL TRIPS GENERATED BY A 24,000 SQUARE FOOT TENANT IMPROVEMENT (GPA98-2) AT 1 THORNDALE DRIVE (APN 175-360-04) (As Amended; GPA98-1, 65 Mitchell, "As Office Space" Has Been Added To Clarify The Use Of The Additional 3,600 Square Feet; GPA98-2, Appendix B, The Number 95 To Be Deleted, And New Number In The Reserve Is 42 Trips, Reflecting 53 Trips Used By One Thorndale Drive)(As Amended By Staff's Memo of 1/19/99). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillps & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving the Use Permit amendment (UP98-4c) for 65 Mitchell Boulevard. RESOLUTION NO. 10358 - RESOLUTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR 65 MITCHELL BOULEVARD (UP 89-4c) APN 155-131-11 (As Amended, Re: Conditions Of Approval For UP89-4(c), 65 Mitchell Boulevard, Condition la Has Been Modified To Reflect That The Storage Space Can Be Relocated To Another Area Of The Building With A Future Use Permit Amendment. The City Attorney has reviewed the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, and approved this change). SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 25 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving the Environmental and Design Review Permit for One Thorndale Drive (ED98-123), APN 175-360-04. RESOLUTION NO. 10359 - RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR ONE THORNDALE DRIVE (ED98-123), APN 175-360-04. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None MONTHLY REPORT: 14. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT - File 9-3-11 City Manager Gould stated Council would meet in a Special Closed Session meeting on Thursday, January 21st, from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM, regarding Labor Negotiations. He also reported the Councilmembers would be contacted regarding the Council's Priorities Study Session, which he would like to hold in February, and noted the Redevelopment Agency and Citizens Advisory Committee on Redevelopment dinner would be held at 7:00 PM tomorrow evening at Scopazzi's. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 15. a. SUSTAINABILITY VISION FEST - File 120 Councilmember Miller reported on the successful "Sustainability Vision Fest", co-sponsored by the City of San Rafael, which was held on January 16th at the San Rafael Community Center from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM. There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:50 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 1999 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/19/99 Page 25