Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2001-08-06SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2001 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 6:00 PM: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor Barbara Heller, Councilmember Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6(a)) Negotiator's Name: Daryl Chandler Employee Organization: San Rafael Firefighters Association City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM Contempo Marin: - File 3-2-97 x 13-7-1 Mayor Boro stated he was aware many in the audience were present with respect to issues concerning Contempo Marin, and as explained in discussions earlier today with Mr Tom Davis, there was a full agenda this evening. As the Council Meeting of September 17, 2001 had been set aside to deal with this issue, with ample opportunity being afforded to those wishing to speak, he was allocating a combined fifteen minutes this evening to those wishing to express their concerns. Mayor Boro stated he had a list of approximately ten speakers and requested that they keep their individual comments to less than two minutes. Tom Davis, 22 Yosemite Road, Contempo Marin, thanked the Council for their time. He urged Councilmembers to change their minds regarding settling the MHC (Manufactured Homes Corporation) case by amending the Rent Control Ordinance, as planned. Mr. Davis stated it was his belief Council had made a wrong decision, as a result of inadequate staff work, and being made aware of the potential consequences of losing the lawsuit; however, they were not properly informed concerning the possible costs of entering into this settlement agreement. Mr. Davis listed some of the costs as follows: • Removing almost 400 units of affordable housing from future rental control protection; • More than doubling the value of MHC's property interests at Contempo Marin, rendering future efforts to acquire the property for affordable housing much more difficult, if not virtually impossible; • Taking the property rights of Contempo residents, specifically their right to sell their homes on the terms which have been in effect since 1992, with both the seller and buyer protected by rent control. Mr. Davis stated that MHC in its complaint alleged that monthly rents at Contempo Marin average between $900 and $1,200 below fair market for similar property. If permitted, they intend to raise rents to the market rate for all future homeowners. MHC further allege that below market rate is equated to increased sales prices for homes at Contempo. Mr. Davis stated that a $1,200 change in rent equates to a $120,000 change in sales price, and as the complaint had been perused by all, there was no need for him to explain the formula. Mr. Davis noted that to change the Ordinance would result in transferring the equity value from each Contempo resident to MHC. He stated Council justified this on the grounds that they were protecting the City from exposure to legal expenses and claims for damages, which in his opinion, rendered the residents entitled to compensation equal to their lost value of $120,000 each. He reported that there are 395 home sites at Contempo Marin, making a total of $47,400,000 in potential compensation claims against the City. While not possessing any means of arguing the merits of those claims this evening, Mr. Davis stated he wished to place on record the amount the City is risking by proceeding with this settlement. The prudent course is to defend the Ordinance, employing a law firm with a proven record of success on this issue and with confidence in their ability to win the case. Naturally, there is a risk of losing; however, there SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 2 would be a far greater loss and the odds of being defeated greater, should the homeowners' equity be given to MHC. Mr. Davis stated the Council and citizens of San Rafael should realize the enormous risk being taken, before it is too late to change course. Warren Edgar, stated he had been a homeowner at Contempo Marin for the past 22 years and spent much of this time as a member of the Contempo Marin Mobile Homeowners Corporation Board of Directors, whose purpose it was to affect park purchase. He stated they labored for more than eight years on the City's requirements for park purchase in return for a Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Years had been spent complying with and overcoming obstacles and requirements, until the $5 -million cushion turned up as the last minute killer of opportunity, dashing the voluminous hours of volunteer labor. Mr. Edgar stated that the $5 -million figure should have been on the table immediately after MHC purchased the park. Mr. Edgar introduced Roy Chernus, Legal Aid of Marin, stating Mr. Chernus would be his advisor when the time came to file his claim, with the others, against the City, to recover the equities which have been taken. Roy Chernus, Executive Director, Legal Aid of Marin stated he was present at the request of the homeowners at Contempo Marin who have been clearly hurt by the City of San Rafael's settlement of the MHC Federal lawsuit. Mr. Chernus stated that his clients are the City's constituents and Legal Aid represents the homeowners in another action against MHC in the Marin County Courts. He stated they were with the City of San Rafael at a strategy session on February 16, 2001 in connection with the suit which MHC filed against the City, and on leaving that session, they believed that the homeowners would be consulted in advance of any settlement which would effect them. Having spoken with City Attorney Ragghianti, he was made aware that they were to be informed, not consulted; however, they were not even informed until after the settlement was a done deal. Therefore, instead of working with the City to assist the citizens, they now, regrettably, find themselves on the other side. Mr. Chernus stated they are very aware of the legal and economic complexities of the issues being discussed and litigated. On one side are the seniors and the other modest income residents of Contempo Marin who are living in affordable housing in the wealthiest county in California. Their manufactured homes cannot realistically be moved, rendering them economic hostages of their landlord, MHC, reportedly the largest owner in the United States of sites for such homes. He stated that the enlightened City of San Rafael, among others, recognizes the extraordinary leverage which MHC had over its tenants and passed an Ordinance which walked the tightrope of allowing MHC a reasonable return on its investment, while providing affordable rent and a fair return on the investment of the residents in their homes. Unfortunately, MHC challenged San Rafael's Ordinance and other Ordinances and it was Mr. Chernus' opinion that a reasonable return was not sufficient for MHC. He stated that in its desire for a greater return, MHC filed suit and, no doubt, raised the specter of appealing to the 91" Circuit, and even the United States Supreme Court; therefore, minimizing the City's exposure for damages and attorneys' fees must have been a priority. Mr. Chernus stated that rather than attempting to work out a settlement with the assistance of Legal Aid and the constituents, it was decided to leave them in the dark; therefore, instead of being on the same side, the City's constituents have turned to Legal Aid to protect their rights, potentially against their own City. He stated that this was sad and so unnecessary and emphasized that in the future, he would respectfully suggest that the City consider a more collaborative approach. Mr. Chernus stated that he was present to clearly inform Council that Legal Aid will put the settlement agreement and any amended Ordinance under a legal microscope. They would be as diligent, zealous and attentive to detail on behalf of the residents as MHC's attorneys have been on its behalf. He noted that the City's hope to have the case go away could possibly be somewhat premature. The alternative approach, noted Mr. Chernus, would be for the City to demonstrate it was not going to amend the Ordinance, which would have the effect of transferring the lions' share of these people's equity to a corporate landlord, and join forces to work together for a fair solution. He requested that Council clearly understand that when some of the most vulnerable citizens are hurt at the hands of their own city, to appease a corporation which is already guaranteed a reasonable return on its investment, this is a gauntlet which will be picked up, and is a battle which will be fought. He requested Council to consider that should it be worth so much to MHC to challenge the Ordinance, it is even more important to the residents to challenge this settlement. Mr. Chernus stated it is up to the City Council to decide whose side they are on. Felix Brundel stated he has been a self-employed gardener in Marin for 25 years and fourteen months ago cashed in all his savings to purchase a home at Contempo Marin. He has $97,000 invested in his home, savings of more than fifteen years, and on reading the July 13, 2001 letter from Assistant City Attorney Guinan, he realized that his $97,000 investment had been wiped out. Mr. Brundel stated that he currently pays $8,300 annual rent, his home is/was worth approximately $100,000 and should the rent SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 3 increase dramatically, the market value of the home would decline significantly. He indicated now that MHC can double or triple the rent for the next occupant, virtually all the value will be in rent, rendering the structure almost worthless. He stated that in one stroke, the only significant affordable housing in San Rafael has been eliminated, his equity has been destroyed and its transfer approved in the form of future high rents to the Chicago headquarters of MHC. He noted that if the City of San Rafael and MHC were running a sting operation, the Contempo Marin residents could not have been separated from their equity more slickly. He stated the residents looked to the City to defend their interests and were abandoned without a fight. He hoped that on reflection, Council would reconsider their present course, which he believed to be unjust, politically unwise and lined with legal pitfalls. Art Lamstein, 294 Yosemite Road, stated he had resided and raised a family at this address for approximately thirteen years and the equity in his house presently is zero, in light of the fact that the high proposed rents have virtually diminished the market. In his opinion, the City could prevail against MHC, as it would have the Supreme Court on its side. Mr. Lamstein reported that in 1992 in the City of Escondido, there was a decision upholding its Rent Control Ordinance for mobile home owners. This Ordinance does not allow mobile home park owners to increase space rent when a mobile home owner sells it in place. Mr. Lamstein reported that Michael Ruse, City Attorney for the City of Pleasanton, in a March 2000 article entitled "Mobile Home Vacancy Control Provisions Survive Facial Challenge" states that "with respect to rent control, the 4t" Appellate District Court has held that the appropriate standard is a more deferential standard of review, because rent control was essentially legislative in nature and accordingly, the Court stated that rent control provisions would be upheld as long as they do not arbitrarily regulate a park owner's property rights. Because protecting the existing park tenants' equity in the units and preventing excessive rents from being charged new tenants are legitimate governmental concerns, the provisions were not arbitrary in so far as the facial challenge". The case in question was Montclair Parkowners Association v. City of Montclair. Mr. Lamstein stated the City of San Rafael could prevail in this case and the homeowners could assist in achieving this. Peter Halleran thanked Council for the opportunity to speak, confirming he had already distributed a letter. The settlement decision was based, in part, on arguments that MHC is not getting a fair market return, and the mobile home owners are enjoying artificially robust returns, due to rent control, claims which he stated were false, exaggerated and arbitrary. MHC argues, and City Manager Gould had stated, that homes in Contempo Marin have a premium of $70,000 - $80,000 or more, because rents are $700 - $1,200 below market, yet MHC solely determines what a fair market rent is based only on what they perceive they should receive. Mr. Halleran stated that the mere fact that the Richardson case created a formula which states that for every $100 of below market rent, a home gains a premium of $10,000, does not imply that every $100 in additional rent MHC seeks is somehow proof that a home's value is $10,000 too high. Parkowner lawyers take a few highly inflated and even hypothetical prices of expensive mobile homes, in the region of $300,000, and tout them to the City and the press as an argument that mobile homes no longer represent affordable housing, and therefore, the City's purpose in enacting rent control and vacancy control no longer exists. Mr. Halleran stated that such figures are a ruse; the truth is that the average home for sale in Contempo Marin was, before the lawsuit and proposed settlement, between $70,000 and $120,000. His home is a typical example: purchased in 1989 for $70,000, plus $15,000 in improvements, for a total of $85,000. Last year homes similar to his were on the market for $90,000 - $120,000, which at best would give him a 50% return in twelve years, in a period of time when conventional homes have increased 400%, and is hardly robust. Mr. Halleran commented that interestingly, his rent during this period also increased by 50%; therefore, the park owner's return in this regard has matched his. However, in that twelve years, the park owner has also received $85,000 in rent on this space, an amount greater than the initial cost of Mr. Halleran's home, and this rent is a major part of the park owner's total return. MHC now receives rent of approximately $3 -million, increasing annually, on a park which they purchased in 1994 for $18 -million, a price discounted for rent control, and is a fair return by any historical standard. It fails to take into account the return they receive from homes which they themselves market in Contempo Marin and will receive an unfair competitive advantage from the City by allowing them to set rents arbitrarily. Mr. Halleran emphasized that presently, only MHC decides what a fair market rent will be; there is no standard in the Bay Area to justify anywhere near the proposed immediate rent hikes to $1,500 - $1,800 per month. He stated that since a home price is inversely dependent on the amount of rent the buyer must pay, MHC wishes it to be perceived that the equity value of such homes is very low, essentially salvage value or the blue book value as determined by the National Automobile Dealers Association. Mr. Halleran stated used cars in a parking lot or a long-term campground are not the subject and such a crafty officious or confusing attempt by MHC is coldhearted and a manipulative technique. Contempo SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 4 Marin is a shared -equity hybrid rental situation where the combined initial investment of the home owners is actually equal or greater than that of the park owner. Without vacancy control, the City will be enabling one party to have sole power to determine the value of the equitable stake of the other party, and will undermine all home sale contracts in Contempo, rendering it impossible for buyer/lender to determine the real value of the home. Mr. Halleran believes this is unfair, inequitable and unconscionable. In conclusion, Mr. Halleran urged Councilmembers to read the letters he and others have drafted addressing this issue, to ensure they fully understand the enormity of the issue under consideration. He heartfully thanked the City for the hard work and honest efforts and for standing behind the homeowners in the past, urging them to rethink the issue and once again, do the right thing by vigorously defending rent control with vacancy control, a municipal issue already affirmed by the Supreme Court and in State Courts. He stated this case will not quietly go away. Having seen the movie, Tora, Tora, Tora, Mr. Halleran stated he believed the City will find itself borrowing the words of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, who, having learned of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, stated, "I fear that all they have done is to awaken a slumbering giant and fill him with a terrible resolve". Norma Churchill distributed folders pertaining to this issue and stated MHC hoped to procure the homeowners equity; she is a fourth generation Californian and purchased her home with the labor of her parents and grandparents. She believed the fruit of the labors of ancestors should be inherited by their children and grandchildren; they did not labor all the years of their lives to enrich MHC. Jerry Frate, member of the Contempo Marin Homeowners Board stated that by removing vacancy control, the City Council has eliminated close to 400 units of affordable housing. The future residents in the park will be required to pay over $3,000 per month to reside there, this figure being a combination of space -rent and mortgage payment, with such payment projecting to an income of over $100,000 per year. He noted these are not people in an affordable housing category; therefore, as the Ordinance is amended it gives away 400 units of affordable housing to the landowner. Mr. Frate stated that in the future, the type of people residing at the park will be unable to live in San Rafael, and probably not in Marin County. He raised the question of whether MHC would drive the school busses, fight fires and teach in schools, and whether the City Council would provide and protect workforce housing. He urged the Council to rethink the Ordinance which abandons future City residents and assists MHC to strip the park of the City's affordable homes. Alvin Gabler, Director, Executive Board, Contempo Marin Homeowners Association, stated he has resided at 66 Yosemite Road for the past seven years and to paraphrase the words of the great Roman, Marc Anthony, he had not come here to praise this agreement with MHC and the City, but to bury it. Mr. Gabler noted the agreement was arrived at without the input of the Contempo Homeowners, a recipe for disaster. The homeowner community was treated with utter disregard and disrespect by the City, by not factoring in their wishes, thoughts and desires. He stated that many of the residents of the park are elderly, infirm, on fixed incomes and with little mobility; in essence, all MHC needs to do is wait a few years, and they have the time and resources to do just that. By the process of attrition, everyone will have lost: the homeowners for obvious reasons and more ominously, the City, as not only will the affordable housing stock be down by almost 400 units, rather a corporate bully, MHC, will be given in to, and when a bully prevails, surely tragedy will follow. Mr. Gabler urged the City to reconsider this agreement and hear the voice of the people before it is too late, politically, economically and most importantly, morally. Coleman Persily, resident, Contempo Marin Mobile Home Park, and Vice -President, Golden State Mobile Homeowners League, thanked the City Council for what they had done to protect the residents of mobile homes. He stated Gary Ragghianti, City Attorney and Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney had always come to their defense, with Mr. Ragghianti going to Court to defend their Ordinance and Mr. Guinan helping reduce the CPI increase. Mr. Persily stated that Councilmember Cohen, not in attendance at this meeting, is a union leader and Councilmember Miller had always been their friend and he inquired what had happened. He stated that when MHC filed the suit, an outside attorney who was not qualified to defend the City was hired, nor was the Federal judge qualified to recommend settlement. This is the reason, he stated, they were stunned at not having been consulted in advance of making the settlement. Had they been consulted, they would have recommended attorneys with years of experience in defending ordinances. Mr. Persily reported that a firm of attorneys won this exact type of lawsuit, the Montclair case, before the California State Supreme Court, and the Escondido case, before the U.S. Supreme Court, where both decisions denied park owners their demand to abolish vacancy control. He requested that between now and the meeting which will have this item on the agenda, the City merely consult the firm of Endeman, Lincoln, Turek & Heater and hopefully not cringe before the large MHC Corporation. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 5 Marie Schooley stated she had an acronym for the Council, SCARE, "Save Contempo and Rest Easy" as the elections are coming. She stated she is an 82 year old widow on social security, with a little help from her son, and expected to remain at Contempo Marin for the remainder of her life, with the help and protection of the City of San Rafael. She stated that last year she had attended a meeting with others where they were informed the City was "caving" on the idea of park purchase; however, they were reassured that the City would fight for them on the subject of rent control. She stated that vacancy decontrol was what MHC desired and it was handed to them on a silver platter. This gives them not only the equity, but renders the homes unsaleable. Ms. Schooley stated the City is probably unaware that MHC has a plan to replace every old mobile home in the park with a modular home, to meet Marin standards. They have already begun a system of harassment, issuing notices, two of which she personally had received for speeding, which she claims she does not engage in. She believed those in the office make these phony charges. In some instances, widows have been offered a very tempting $50,000 for their $80,000 value homes, which they accept under the assumption there is no alternative. Ms. Schooley indicated there are hundreds of "For Sale" signs throughout the park in an effort to vacate prior to November, adding that not one low-income house would remain. She believed that the City Charter requires this park be maintained for use as a mobile home park which will not be the case with the planned installation of modular homes. She urged Council to take action as the City would be the loser, the residents having already lost; however, she trusted the outcome would be somewhat better and would allow the residents to remain and be protected by the City. Jim Cline stated he and his wife resided at 37 Yosemite Road. He is a healthcare worker at Marin General Hospital and his wife is a multiple sclerosis patient and an active volunteer worker. Mr. Cline stated that four years ago they placed a new manufactured home in Contempo Marin to avoid the commute from Santa Rosa. When purchasing, they were aware they would have to pay increased amounts of rent; however, the rent control agreement was very much a part of their decision as it was impossible for them to purchase a comparable home to their present one. Mr. Cline reported that when they received the letter from Assistant City Attorney Guinan, they chose to put their home up for sale, as it appeared the City Attorneys and Management had a done deal, and believed it would permit someone else to assume their existing space rent of $672.50, plus the $7.50 second phase, yet unsettled. The park management informed potential buyers that rents will rise to at least $1,000, assuming the buyer is approved by the park. This is an inference they may not allow new buyers admission, or delay admission until forced to accept. Mr. Cline stated this sounded like a taking by MHC and he inquired if City Manager Gould would be agreeable to dispense with some or all of his windfall home profit, including financing and relocation monies provided in his recruitment agreement. Mr. Cline stated that as a matter of interest, MHC in their own advertising refutes the claim that they are suffering a taking of equity, their latest advertisement declares a three bedroom, two bathroom home, not landscaped, for sale for $219,900. By comparison, Mr. Cline stated his home could have sold last year, with some stretch of the imagination, for $300,000; however, in the past two weeks, at an asking price of $249,950, their home was visited by many potential buyers, all very complimentary of looks, location and size, albeit no offers. This, he stated, demonstrates that a great deal of equity has already transferred to MHC, who have complete control over price, have an investment of much less than $100,000 in their sites and can alter the space rent. They can even lease option to obtain a promise of $1,500 per month for fifteen to twenty years, and Mr. Cline inquired how this could be a taking of any but Contempo Marin homeowners' equity. He urged Council to reconsider their position in signing the agreement with MHC. Frank MacMurray, resident at Contempo Marin and employed by the Golden Gate Ferry stated he is one of those people necessary to maintain the County operational, and unless there is affordable housing in line with their salary, they cannot remain here. His equity at Contempo Marin has been placed in the hands of MHC (The Money Hungry Corporation). Mr. MacMurray stated he was very curious concerning the political approach to this issue; having received the letter from the City, he questioned why this was being done and why residents had not been approached at the outset for input into the decision, as they are voters. He believed that evaluating the situation in Marin County, there are many renters who would like to see affordable housing, of which the City had just destroyed 400 units. There are many homeowners who do not believe that their equity should be handed to a large corporation, as has been done in this instance, and should this issue go before the voters in future elections, with 1,000 voters at Contempo Marin very upset and willing to go out to the community informing them of the City's action, he believed those voters would not be very happy with the situation. Mayor Boro thanked the speakers and announced a short recess before resuming with the remainder of the agenda. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 6 Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, Minutes approved as submitted. July 16, 2001 (CC) 3. Acceptance of Statement of Disclosure from Rick Accepted Statement of Disclosure from Keefer, Newly -appointed Member to the Citizens Rick Keefer. Advisory Committee on Redevelopment (CC) — File 9-4-4 x (SRRA) R-140 IVB 4. Designation of Voting Delegate and Voting Alternate Authorized Councilmember Barbara for League of California Cities Annual Conference Heller as Voting Delegate and Mayor Business Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2001 Albert J. Boro as Voting Alternate for the at the Sacramento Convention Center CC) — League of California Cities Annual File 9-11-1 x 9-1 Conference Business Meeting scheduled for Saturday, September 15, 2001 at the Sacramento Convention Center. 5. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) — Approved staff recommendation: File 116 x 9-1 ACA 10 Local Government Finance: Property Tax Revenue Allocation. Local Agency Relief. Assemblymember David Cogdill — SUPPORT SCA 5 Local Government: Special Taxes. Transportation. Senator Tom Torlakson — SUPPORT 6. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending June Accepted Monthly Investment Report for 2001 (MS) — File 8-18 x 8-9 Month Ending June, 2001, as presented. 7. Resolution Amending Resolution No. 10656 RESOLUTION NO. 10882 — RESOLUTION Pertaining to the Compensation and Working AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 10656 Conditions for Unrepresented Management and Mid- PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION Management Employees and Elected City Attorney AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR and City Clerk (MS) — UNREPRESENTED MANAGEMENT AND File 7-3 x 7-3-2 x 9-3-14 x 9-3-16 MID -MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES AND ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK (JULY 1, 2001 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2002) 8. Resolution Waiving Planning Application Fees for RESOLUTION NO. 10883 — RESOLUTION Exterior Modifications to an Existing 26 -unit WAIVING PAYMENT OF FEES FOR AN Affordable Housing Project, 162/172 Belvedere ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN Street (Belvedere Place) (CD) — REVIEW PERMIT (ED01-84) AND File 9-10-2 x 10-2 x 229 BUILDING PERMIT FOR BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION TO MAKE EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING 26 -UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 162/172 BELVEDERE STREET (BELVEDERE PLACE APARTMENTS); APN'S 08-072- 01 AND 08-072-02 9. Resolution Authorizing Entering Into a Contract RESOLUTION NO. 10884 — RESOLUTION with the Department of Education for Playground AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO A Safety and Facilities Renovation and Repair CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT Program in the Amount of $22,560 and Authorizing OF EDUCATION FOR PLAYGROUND the City Manager to Sign Contract Documents (CS) SAFETY AND FACILITIES RENOVATION File 4-10-325 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-66 AND REPAIR PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,560 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 7 10. Resolution Authorizing Temporary Closure of RESOLUTION NO. 10885 — RESOLUTION Mission Avenue Between "C" and "E" Streets on AUTHORIZING THE TEMPORARY Sunday, August 26, 2001 for Falkirk's Annual CLOSURE OF MISSION AVENUE Summer Concert (Lib/Cult. Aff.) — File 11-19 x 9-3-84 BETWEEN C STREET AND E STREET ON SUNDAY, AUGUST 26, 2001 FROM 10:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M. FOR THE ANNUAL FALKIRK SUMMER CONCERT 11. Resolution Accepting a Grant from the Marin RESOLUTION NO. 10886 — RESOLUTION Community Foundation for the Safe Routes to ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE Schools Program and Authorizing the Director of MARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR Public Works to Execute an Agreement with THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS Nelson/Nygaard for Consulting Services Associated PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE with the Marin Community Foundation Grant (PW) — DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO File 4-10-326 x 194 EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH NELSON/NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES FOR CONSULTING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION GRANT 12. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an RESOLUTION NO. 10887 — Agreement Between the City of San Rafael and RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Claude H. Lambert and Micheline Lambert MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT Regarding Future Annexation of Real Property, 344 BETWEEN THE CITY AND CLAUDE H. Summit Avenue; APN 016-021-22, to the City of San AND MICHELINE LAMBERT Rafael (PW) — File 5-2-102 REGARDING FUTURE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF REAL PROPERTY AT 344 SUMMIT AVENUE, APN 016-021- 22, TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 13. Resolution Authorizing Extension of Time for RESOLUTION NO. 10888 — Completion of Improvement Work —Vista Marin RESOLUTION APPROVING AN Subdivision (extended to and including July 10, EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE 2002) (PW) — File 5-1-332 COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT WORK AT THE VISTA MARIN SUBDIVISION (EXTENDED TO AND INCLUDING JULY 10, 2002) 14. Resolution Accepting Proposals for Construction RESOLUTION NO. 10889 — RESOLUTION Services for Court Street Plaza from CSW/Stuber- ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR CIVIL Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. and Daniel ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION Macdonald, AIA Architects, Inc. for $29,500 and MANAGEMENT CONSULTING $42,000 Respectively, and Authorizing the Public SERVICES FROM CSW/STUBER- Works Director to Execute the Agreements (PW) — STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. File 256 x 4-3-381 x (SRRA) R-423 FOR COURT STREET PLAZA FOR $29,500 AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 10890 — RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES FROM DANIEL MACDONALD AIA ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR COURT STREET PLAZA FOR $42,000, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT 15. Resolution Authorizing Temporary Closure of RESOLUTION NO. 10891 — RESOLUTION Downtown City Streets from 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. AUTHORIZING THE TEMPORARY in Connection with the San Rafael Cycling Classic CLOSURE OF CITY STREETS FOR THE on Saturday, September 8, 2001 (RA) — SAN RAFAEL CYCLING CLASSIC ON File 11-19 x 119.1 SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2001 FROM 6:30 A.M. TO 4:30 P.M. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 8 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen PUBLIC HEARINGS: 16. Public Hearing Re: BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT: (PW) RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 — FILE 6-48 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened and asked for a report from Dave Bernardi, Public Works Director. Mr. Bernardi stated this was an annual action to be taken by the City Council regarding the assessments and levying of assessments. The money collected is used to manage the cattail infestation in the lagoon and as has been done for the past number of years, the intent is to use these funds again this fall in similar fashion. The community when consulted was in agreement with this measure and staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. In response to Councilmember Heller's request as to roughly the amount of funds collected to be expended on the cattails, Mr. Bernardi stated this figure was approximately $25,000. Regarding how soon this problem would be cleared, Mr. Bernardi stated the program was a five year one, and recognizing that only $25,000 per year was collected, the original project was approximately $125,000. At the end of this period it will be re-evaluated to ascertain if additional removal would be warranted in future years; however, at this point, the report identifies specific areas each year where this work should be carried out. With regard to Councilmember Heller's inquiry as to progress, Mr. Bernardi stated it has been successful. There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 10892 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 17. Public Hearing Re: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $3,500,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FINANCING FOR THE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 55 FAIRFAX STREET ("CAHIP") (RA) — File 140 x (SRRA) R-438 x R-173 City Manager Gould stated this was discussed earlier at the Redevelopment Agency Meeting, with a similar staff presentation, and inquired if there were any further questions. Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and there being no comment from the audience, closed the public hearing. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 10893 — RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $3,500,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FINANCING FOR THE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 55 FAIRFAX STREET ("CAHIP") AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 9 18. Public Hearing Re: 1115 POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD (CHAPEL COVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) — AN AMENDMENT TO THE PEACOCK GAP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN TO ADJUST THE ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ON THE PROJECT SITE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN; A REZONING OF THE 9.4 -ACRE ST. SYLVESTER'S CHURCH SITE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT TO A REVISED PD DISTRICT WITH ADOPTED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING REGULATIONS; A MASTER USE PERMIT, AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, AND A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 15 -UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS (CD) — FILE 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 Kristie Richardson, Current Principal Planner, introduced Lisa Newman, the City's Planning Consultant working on the Chapel Cove project, who would make staff's presentation. She also introduced Mr. Syd Temple, hired by the City to review the hydrology report and drainage plan for the project, one of the primary issues, who would make a brief presentation. Lisa Newman stated that Paramount Homes, represented by Peter Hellman, is the applicant seeking approval of several applications to permit redevelopment of the St. Sylvester's Church site. The proposed Chapel Cove development plan includes retention of the historic chapel and construction of new parking lots to serve it, on two parcels adjacent to Pt. San Pedro Road. Fifteen residential lots would be created with access from two new streets, Chapel Cove Drive, a public cul de sac, and Chapel Cove Court, a private cul de sac. The existing emergency vehicle access, located between 200 and 204 Riviera Drive, would be retained and enhanced with new landscaping and paving. Ms. Newman stated that thirteen lots, ranging in size from 13,000 to 35,000 square feet, would be developed with homes from one of four different plans. These homes would range in size from 3,700 to 4,300 square feet, with the four plans providing two different designs for one-story homes, a split-level design home with one story on one side and two on the other, and one two-story home design. Of the fifteen homes, only five would be two-story. Two lots adjacent to the chapel are proposed for below market rate homes for purchase at moderate income levels, to be situated on 10,400 square foot lots; the units themselves would be approximately 1,400 square feet with a two -car garage. Parcel C on the north corner of the site, would be retained as a private park for the neighborhood's use and is on approximately .64 acres, to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. An existing drainage ditch along the north and northwest perimeter of the site would be retained in a 25 foot wide easement and enhanced as a wetland and storm drainage feature, with the addition of new landscaping and irrigation. A 50 -foot building setback from the edge of this easement over the adjacent lots (six lots) would be maintained and would create a wetland buffer, consistent with the City's wetland overlay district requirements. Therefore, the 25 -foot drainage easement, together with this 50 -foot wide building setback, essentially creates a 75 -foot wide buffer between the existing homes on San Marcos Place and Riviera Drive and the proposed new homes. Ms. Newman stated that on the east side of the project site across the rear yards of lots 1 through 4, a private open space easement would be established to maintain the existing wooded hillside in its present condition. This hillside adjoins existing private open space from the Peacock Ridge development. These three elements of the plan: the drainage easement and building setback, the park and the open space easement, are intended to constitute an open space buffer around the perimeter of the site, as is shown on the Peacock Gap Neighborhood Plan map and the City's General Plan 2000 land map. Ms. Newman stated that the grading proposed for the plan would involve cutting down the existing benched area on the northeast corner of the site, where the rectory is located, and redistributing approximately half of the material across the site, in order to raise the lower elevations which are below minimum flood standard. The other roughly half of the cut material would be exported offsite. In terms of the process to date, Ms. Newman stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 29, 2001, and pursuant to receiving public testimony in a lengthy discussion, voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project applications, with modifications to several conditions of approval and several added conditions. The Planning Commission directed staff to investigate a new item of concern which was whether future second units within the BMR (Below Market Rate) homes could have restricted rents. The City Attorney advised that this could be accomplished through the BMR agreement; therefore, this has been incorporated into a new Condition # 121. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 10 Also, since the Planning Commission hearing, staff has modified one other condition relating to the potential for future swimming pools to be located in the project. The Planning Commission was concerned to identify where any waters would flow from such swimming pools as they did not wish these waters to enter the lagoon, primarily. Therefore, in cooperation with the Director of Public Works, the Condition has been modified to read "that any such overflow from pools should enter the sanitary sewer instead of the street storm drain system". Ms. Newman reported that subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, comment letters had been received from agencies and neighbors, copies of which have been distributed to Council. In reviewing what has essentially been the primary issue of concern throughout the Planning Commission hearing, as well as neighborhood meetings, the focus was on the hydrology, drainage and water quality — the existing condition and the proposed plan. The specific concerns have been flooding onsite, which is an historic pattern and frequently has stretched to surrounding properties, and the potential for pollutants in storm water runoff to worsen the existing water quality problems in the lagoon. As described in the staff report, the project's hydrology report and drainage plan have been peer reviewed by Questa Engineering, a firm hired by the City to check on the adequacy of the plan. Questa has prepared recommended mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval which have been incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration and has concluded that the plan, with mitigations and conditions, would significantly reduce the amount of storm water runoff flowing into the lagoon, and that the quality of the storm water would be improved from the existing condition. To illustrate this point, Ms. Newman stated that due to the deteriorated condition of the site today, nearly all storm runoff flows towards the lagoon, given that the pipe leading under Pt. San Pedro Road has been crushed due to settlement in the road. Ms. Newman reported that presently, parking lots comprise a significant portion of the site's impervious surface. Under the Chapel Cove plan, storm water flowing into the lagoon would be limited to the rear yards of six homes, those homes that adjoin the drainage ditch, and the park. This water would be directed to the improved perimeter ditch which is intended to function as a bio swale, filtering out pollutants before water enters the lagoon. All the other impervious surfaces under the proposed plan, the roofs, driveways and streets, would drain towards the marsh. Ms. Newman indicated that based on a recent site visit between the applicant and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, two small wetlands located at the north end of the site in the vicinity of the proposed park, would be retained rather than filled, as was previously proposed, and a new detention basin would be created in the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to the existing wetland pond. The purpose of the detention basin would be to capture and filter the street storm water runoff from the project before it goes into the marsh, further improving the wetland and water quality mitigations provided in the plan and the mitigation measures. Ms. Newman reported that based on this agreement, a revised grading plan was prepared and is included in this evening's material. Ms. Newman indicated that Syd Temple, Questa Engineering, would make a brief presentation and she acknowledged Arlin Purcell, Impact Sciences, who prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, who was present this evening and would answer any questions. Finally, Ms. Newman reported that prior to the hearing a letter was received from the applicant requesting two minor changes to the Conditions of Approval: Condition # 114 — Mr. Hellmann, applicant, has requested that the words "easements or" be inserted, to read: Public and private drainage shall be kept separate where possible. Public drainage systems shall be located within the public easements or street right of way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The purpose of this change is due to the fact that the new drainage detention basin would be contained in the easement. Condition # 122 - The Planning Commission had created this condition to minimize the height of two two-story homes which would potentially obstruct views from up-slope homes; therefore, it was a question of when the reduction in the home heights should be verified. The change would read: Pad elevations in home foundations shall be lowered on lots 9 and 12 for a total reduction in building height of 3 feet. This reduction shall be verified prior to issuance of a building permit. (instead of a grading permit). SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 11 The reason for the change in this instance, is to lower the pad height and diminish the building height itself and the appropriate time to check for this is with the building permit. Ms. Newman reported that staff had considered these proposed changes and found them acceptable. Syd Temple, Questa Engineering, stated he was hired by the City to provide a peer review of the drainage plan of the Chapel Cove community and was present this evening to explain the flooding and drainage aspects of the project. Mr. Temple indicated there are two main sources of flooding which occur on the site: ♦ The first source from rainfall and runoff — a storm rains on the upstream watershed and collects in low portions of the site and drains onto the site; ♦ The other portion of flooding which occurs on the site comes from Bay waters. During rains from intense wintertime storms, the wind blows from the south. A wave fetch develops between basically, the Bay Bridge and the Community and wave run-up occurs and overtops the levees along Point San Pedro Road. The water there then accumulates at the junction of Riviera and Point San Pedro Road and has a tendency to flow towards the north and collect on the site. To divide it up, Mr. Temple stated he would address rainfall runoffs and the existing conditions. Currently, there is approximately an 11 -acre watershed above the project site and it basically, flows to the perimeter ditch. Typically, it has two ways to leave the site: through a drainage pipe which goes over to Riviera Drive and eventually into the lagoon, or continue down the ditch to a series of culverts along Point San Pedro Road, going into an existing wetland area and through a culvert into the Bay. Mr. Temple reiterated Ms. Newman's comments that these culverts presently are dysfunctional, with not a lot of drainage going through; therefore, water begins to collect in the perimeter ditch and on the site and backs up, getting deeper and deeper, similar to a bathtub, and tends to force all of the water through this small pipe going to the lagoon. However, this small pipe does not have existing capacity; therefore, when the elevation of the water reaches the height of the berm which protects the back of the properties, it weirs over and flows through the backyards of the homes in this area. This is caused mainly by reason of the fact that there is no real major outlet of water along Point San Pedro Road. Under the proposed conditions, Mr. Temple stated a very standard urban /suburban type of drainage plan will be instituted with a series of drop inlets and pipes connecting to a subterranean storm drain system which will run through streets and yards and eventually, drain into the marsh. This is basically taking a watershed of approximately 11 -acres which typically drains to this pipe to the lagoon, and reducing it in scope to approximately 2 -acres which will actually drain to this pipe, with a majority of the run-off being directed to the lagoon. Mr. Temple stated that in that sense, a very good job has been done in terms of directing the runoff, collecting it and moving it out into the wetland, a good place for it, as wetlands are basically biological filters and improve water quality as it eventually enters the Bay. A hearing took place on the site where neighbors discussed the fact that during an intense southwest wind, waters come over the low levees of Point San Pedro Road. Upon subsequent investigations the elevations were shot and it was determined that the lower corner works as a storage bathtub for the water when this occurs; hence the water collects in the Riviera/Point San Pedro area, quickly overwhelms the drop inlets and the drain's capacity in that area, then flows south, either along the road or behind the soundwall, an obscured concrete ditch behind the soundwall, and tends to collect in the lower portion of the site. Under the Proposed Conditions, this condition will still occur; the amount and frequency of the water is difficult to predict as there are so many different variables to be taken into account; however, two elements were decided upon to assist in improving the situation: 1. These pipes would become functional, resulting in an outlet for the water to evacuate the site instead of going towards the pipe which goes towards the lagoon; 2. A mitigation was added stipulating that there would be a no net fill below 3.5 feet NGBD, in a particular corner of the site; in effect, the area which functions as a low area and a storage area would be maintained; however, the building paths depicted for lots 14, 13 and 8 would be elevated above the base flood evaluation, according to FEMA, in the event of failure of the levees. In essence, an existing storage pattern of water on the site has been maintained, simultaneously, improving the drainage in a direction which does not cause flooding to the local neighborhood. The new grading plan mentioned, because of some wetlands, is a net benefit as it entails maintaining the area low, in anticipation of the no net fill criteria . SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 12 Mr. Temple stated this was a brief overview and invited questions. Regarding the area where the submersible pump, etc. has been, or would be installed, Mayor Boro inquired of Public Works Director Bernardi how this tied in. Responding, Mr. Bernardi depicted the pump station on the map, stating it was designed so that if in fact there is additional overtopping of the levee, should the pump station be flooded, the submersible pumps which will not short out and the pump station will continue to be operated with eventual evacuation of the water. Mayor Boro confirmed with Mr. Bernardi that this was separate from the pump referred to by Mr. Temple regarding the 100 -year existing note. Mr. Temple stated there are no pumps on the site, rather a passive drainage system; therefore, worthy of note is the fact that the development of the project will result in an actual net reduction of drainage area going to the lagoon. When asked by Mayor Boro to clarify, Mr. Temple stated that basically the storm drain pipes underneath Point San Pedro Road, which are not presently functioning, would be rehabilitated. Presently, water ponds in this area until it backs up, eventually going to the drainage pipe depicted; therefore, basically pulling the plug will allow water to positively drain out to the marsh. Mr. Temple stated that due to concern that the pipes should function when water in the existing wetland was very high, he had requested the drainage consultant for the applicant to ensure the pipes would still have a positive drainage outflow. Councilmember Heller inquired if new wetlands were being added or merely being refurbished. Mr. Temple stated he did not believe new wetlands were being added, rather enhancing the condition of the ditch to the south. As to the maintenance of these in the future, Councilmember Heller inquired who's responsibility this would be. Responding, Ms. Newman stated the Homeowners Association would maintain the ditch and park, and in response to the previous question, Ms. Newman stated there had been a revised grading plan prepared in response to additional comments from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and its request that the existing wetlands on the site be fully retained, as demonstrated by the new grading plan. Councilmember Miller, noting one pipe going to the lagoon to take care of approximately 2 -acres, and one below covering approximately 9 -acres, inquired if these were the two basic exits for the water. Mr. Temple stated there was a third and depicted it on the map. Councilmember Miller inquired as to the sizes of the pipes. Mr. Temple was not in a position to be exact regarding the sizes, stating they would be designed to standard City of San Rafael storm drainage criteria. Regarding the pipes covering the 9 -acres, Councilmember Miller inquired if these were two or three times as large as those going to the lagoon. Mr. Temple stated these had been sized correctly to handle the flow. Councilmember Miller inquired if there was not greater pressure coming down upon the bottom pipe, rendering the draw of the pressure to take even more from the top, leaving less than 2 -acres going to the pond. Mr. Temple stated that basically there would be a berm in the drainage ditch so that water collecting on one side would enter the pipe; however, most of the water flowing off the streets and gutters would be collected in the system depicted on the map. The means by which it achieves positive drainage is that the water elevation on one side of the street is higher than that on the marsh side, resulting in a positive head to flow through the pipes. In terms of flooding, Councilmember Miller inquired if this would cause a stoppage of the drainage. Mr. Temple stated it depended on the type of flooding: To take into consideration a 100 -year flood event as defined by FEMA, they would infer that the levees along Point San Pedro Road would fail during such an event. The 100 -year high tide would be 6.2 -feet and anything below that in the neighborhood would be a lake. Mr. Temple stated that nothing could be done in the event of this type of flooding should the levee fail, other than the fact that the paths have been raised to conform with FEMA flood regulations. He stated this is a gray area of flooding in that if the levees do not fail and there is no 100 -year tide, a large south -wind storm could cause the waves to lap up over the levees, causing a weir effect for water getting trapped behind Point San Pedro Road and pond. To make the record clear, Councilmember Miller confirmed with Mr. Temple that there would be considerably less water draining into the lagoon, resulting in considerably less pollutants; thereby being very respectful of the lagoon. Mr. Temple added that the project would have a net benefit to the properties which currently flood; however, in a huge event everybody would have flooding, as it is not feasible economically, to design storm drains or facilities for a storm of that magnitude. He stated that year in and year out the flooding which occurred in these properties during major storms, should be eliminated, except for the most extreme events. Councilmember Miller complimented Mr. Temple on answering the questions SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 13 Mayor Boro invited the applicant, Peter Hellmann to address the Council Peter Hellmann, Principal, Paramount Homes and the applicant for Chapel Cove, stated he was present with Al Cornwell, President CSW/Stuber Stroeh, Ross Dobberteen, Environmental and Biological Consultant, LSA Associates, and Mitch Randall, Morrison & Forrester, Expert on General Plans and Peacock Gap Neighborhood plans. Mr. Hellmann stated they were delighted to finally be present. He noted they had been working on Chapel Cove for over three and one half years and he was not in attendance to complain about the process or any problems with the City, as it had taken them over two years to file their first application. They had been going through a lengthy, yet productive series of meetings over the past three and one half years and had lost count at 25 meetings. He reported having met with neighbors and revising plans on several occasions. Simultaneously, they had been working with staff to ensure that their solutions were in keeping with the General Plan, zoning and the Peacock Gap neighborhood plan, etc. Addressing the neighborhood meetings, Mr. Hellmann stated that during that process a myriad of issues were raised and through the collaborative process he believed they had addressed all of them. The three principle issues which arose through this endeavor were: 1) Views, principally raised by neighbors on San Marino Drive; 2) Privacy, mostly expressed by neighbors on San Marcos Court and Riviera Drive; and 3) Storm Drainage, both with respect to quantity and water quality. Mr. Hellmann stated he had prepared a partial list of the changes made to their plans over the past three and one half years as a result of this process, which he distributed to Councilmembers. He stated the list was not exhaustive and did not include any of the changes made at the request of staff, the Design Review Board or Planning Commission, rather they are ideas raised through the neighborhood meetings. He indicated that some of the changes are somewhat trivial, e.g. the name of the project was changed as a result of input from the neighborhood; however several are substantive and material issues with the project. These include introducing a neighborhood park and Homeowners Association. Mr. Hellmann stated they are very proud of the long and productive collaboration with the neighbors and are deeply thankful for their input, energy and tireless cooperation. He indicated that an interesting element of the process was frequently, they found solutions to some of the problems met with competing interests in the neighborhood, rendering it difficult on occasion, to solve two problems simultaneously. He commented that solutions to views and privacy did not produce similar answers on occasion. With respect to views, it was intended to move the 2 -story houses out from the center of the project to open up the middle to enable those on San Marino Drive to see through, whereas those on San Marcos Court and Riviera Drive were more concerned with privacy, as to move the 2 -story homes out to the edge of the project, their privacy would be impacted. Mr. Hellman reported that their site plan, architecture and exhibits reflect over three years of effort to carefully balance the sometimes competing needs. Moving ahead, Mr. Hellman stated if there was an interest in seeing the slide presentation of the photo montages prepared, he would be happy to provide those. Mr. Hellmann reported that an important issue, which arose repeatedly through the process, was the question of whether the project or plans conformed with policies and guidelines of the Peacock Neighborhood Plan. He stated that staff would confirm and he concurred, that this had been analyzed exhaustively and thoroughly, concluding that it does conform. With respect to the amount of storm drainage and water quality, Mr. Hellmann stated he was a lay person with respect to hydrology and water quality, etc.; therefore, he would defer to the experts, both those accompanying him this evening and the City's peer review expert: ♦ Is the flooding situation presently suffered better or worse with this project? He believed both sets of experts would confirm that there is a net benefit to the neighborhood with his project; ♦ Is the water quality in the lagoon better or worse? He believed the answer is that it is slightly better. Mr. Hellmann stated that an important fact which had not arisen in the presentation thus far, is that as alluded to by Ms. Newman, the property is largely covered by parking lots presently. One of the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 14 major attributes of their plans is a net reduction of impervious surface in the property, resulting in less water flowing from the St. Sylvester's Church site than has flowed from it historically. In conclusion, Mr. Hellmann stated that Chapel Cove is a classic infill development, surrounded by nineteen neighbors. As with any infill project, impacts on neighboring properties are inevitable; however, with the assistance of the planning staff and the tireless cooperation of neighbors over the past three and one half years, he believed an outstanding job had been done of mitigating the impacts of the project on the neighborhood, resulting in his opinion, in a stunning project which carefully addresses and balances the significant environmental constraints of this particular site. He noted there were neighbors present in the audience to express their support for the efforts and he respectfully requested Council's careful consideration and support for the planning efforts at Chapel Cove. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened and invited questions from the audience. Fritz Lang stated his wife, Maribeth and he resided at 12 San Marino Drive and were present to oppose the development in its present proposed conditions. He referred to a letter to Council dated May 24, 2001, which outlines several of their concerns in detail. He summarized his comments in three points: 1) Mr. Lang stated they purchased their property, which overlooks and is visually impacted by this development, having reviewed the neighborhood plan, noting that open space was immediately behind their property. The City replaced the definition of this open space with "private open space" defined by backyards, which they take exception to. He stated that immediately east of the Chapel Cove development, there is a development in which a similar listed open space in the neighborhood plan was maintained and is not defined by "backyards". 2) Mr. Lang indicated that one of the final recommendations of the City was that there would be no net change in the flood storage volume of Chapel Cove. He stated he did not understand how this could be possible unless it has been re -graded considerably, which may be the case, as he had not studied the re -grading plan. He requested it be noted that since living there, lots # 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 have been under water to, in his view, one to two feet. Mr. Lang stated it was impossible to fulfill the requirements and allow this project to go ahead in its present design. 3) The hydrology study only considered static conditions. Mr. Lang indicated that as an engineer, he had great differences with the conclusions of this study. The hydrology problem in Chapel Cove is a transient one and not a static one and such studies had not been carried out. Furthermore, Mr. Lang stated that the hydrologist with Questa Engineering, hired by the City, had failed to put his professional engineering stamp on his recommendations and findings. As a reviewer, Mr. Lang found this outrageous in that it is impossible to review something in any professional engineering standing without sealing the work. He stated that when last he spoke with Mr. Temple, he had not sealed his work, which he did not blame him for, as he did not carry out any independent calculations, rather he had the developer perform the sensitivity studies necessary. Mr. Lang stated there was no way in which he would consider Mr. Temple's work, paid for by the City, an independent review, as it would not withstand any scrutiny. Mr. Lang was not aware of how bad this development would make the hydrology situation; however, his suggestion was that it be done with some engineering finesse, a transient study, not a dynamic one. Furthermore, Mr. Lang stated the datums established should be well published. He reported that at one meeting he was informed that if a gate valve would hold back 41/2 feet of water under the design phase, should the pipe fail because of blockage, similar flooding patterns would prevail as had been witnessed twice over the past ten years. Councilmember Phillips inquired as to the difference between transient and dynamic, with Councilmember Heller including a static study in the request. Responding, Mr. Lang stated that static study is simply evaluating the various water datums and deciding the height of the berm to be built to prevent a tide or the rainfall from draining or not draining. The dynamics of this is that there is water in momentum, which in time would flood into the area and retain itself because of wind pressure and the runoff coming above. This is a different situation than dealing with the static. Mr. Lang maintained that the problems encountered on Riviera are not a static problem, rather a dynamic problem. The water will drain out given appropriate time. He noted that Mr. Temple referred to the 100 -year event, indicating that should there be a 100 -year storm, everything is in a flood; however, the point of the matter is that the whole area is a flood plane and there have been two 100 -year storms in the past ten years. Those, he stated, are transient events which have a time component and have not been addressed. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 15 Mr. Lang stated that the City Engineer could infer that there is sufficient pumping capacity to pump everything out eventually, which he did not doubt; however, this would not keep water out of basements along Riviera. Councilmember Heller inquired as to Mr. Lang's engineering discipline. Responding, Mr. Lang stated he was both a Mechanical and Nuclear Engineer. Councilmember Phillips confirmed with Mr. Lang that he did not have experience in hydrology. To clarify, Mr. Lang stated he was a licensed professional engineer in the two disciplines mentioned, in many states. He had consulted with several governments in transient thermo-hydraulics and was not applauding himself as a specialist in water over land. He stated he did recognize an engineering problem when he encountered one and this problem had not been addressed. He was not aware of what the consequences of Chapel Cove are and submitted that the City was not aware either. Leo Isotalo, 90 Peacock Drive, President, Peacock Gap Homeowners Association, stated that as the meeting packet had arrived subsequent to their Board Meeting, he was not present with a resolution from the Board, rather to reflect the views of the majority, albeit not all. It appeared to Mr. Isotalo that the City and the developers had responded to a host of issues and with so much detail, on occasion, it was difficult to discern exactly what has happened; however, there certainly had been substantial progress. He stated he could not address the engineering issues; however, it appeared that a lot of attention had been given to the water quality, a major sticking point, particularly with respect to the lagoon. In that context, he commended a neighbor and friend, Suzanne Mabardy, a tireless neighborhood volunteer leader on lagoon issues. Regarding the flooding, Mr. Isotalo stated undoubtedly, some question marks remain which have to be deferred to those qualified to make the recommendations; however, it would be appreciated if at some point, Public Works Director Bernardi would raise the levee, as promised. Mr. Isotalo stated they have doubts in connection with all the responsibilities which are being assigned to the Homeowner Association to be formed, rather than the City. He accepted there are people who have been doing this who conclude Homeowners Associations will indeed take care of these issues and would await the outcome. He noted there was no monitoring device in place. Regarding park access, Mr. Isotalo stated he wished it had been set for all the adjoining lots, rather than the three or four only which adjoin the park. In conclusion, he noted from the agenda packet that both the County and State had responded subsequent to the deadline for comment in the last cycle before May 29th. One point in particular he wished Council to be aware of is that the County Community Development Agency had forwarded a very crisp letter concerning all of the quarry issues, suggesting these be incorporated in the final Mitigated Negative Declaration, and they are not. He also indicated that there is a point in the County letter which is exactly contrary to one of the expert's remarks passed on by Ms. Newman concerning air quality, to the effect that an expert hired by the City indicated that the conclusion of the specialist was that given prevailing winds, there were no significant air quality impacts on the site from the San Rafael Rock Quarry. The County indicates that they had investigated the neighborhood complaints and determined that at a minimum there are significant air quality impacts from the quarry uses. Mr. Isotalo suggested that somehow these recommendations from the County need to be incorporated by a letter of agreement or a full disclosure agreement, not merely the presence of a quarry, rather that there are a whole host of issues. Otherwise, he stated, the City might be vulnerable, given the pending legal actions which could involve the City. It is known the State and County are coming (forward) and they would like to see the City ensure that this recommendation from the County is incorporated, and rather than redoing the whole agreement, this could be in the form of a side letter of agreement. Mr. Isotalo stated he was impressed with the staying power of developers, noting their energy, and favored the development; however, some neighbors would not be happy. Susan Grady, representing the parishioners of St. Sylvester's Church, stated that in the scheme of things it may not be very important; however, they were very happy with the proposed improvements to their site by Mr. Hellmann and urged the Council to pass the project. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing and requested staff respond to the questions raised: the question by Mr. Lang regarding open space and its consistency with the neighborhood plan; the hydrology study and the issue regarding the engineer's bias or unbias, and why the stamp or seal is not on the report. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 15 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 16 Ms. Newman stated that with regard to the open space, it was true that the properties upslope from the project would be visually impacted and in the Initial Study in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, visual simulations of the project's potential visual impacts were reviewed; however, the point in doing this under CEQA was to evaluate public rather than private viewpoints. Mr. Hellmann actually worked personally with the individual homeowners, taking pictures from the rear of the properties and having computer generated images created of the changes in views. This was part of Mr. Hellmann's ongoing effort to work with neighbors to modify his plan, if possible, to address the issues. Regarding the neighborhood plan, Ms. Newman stated she, in her comments, had referred to the perimeter of open space depicted on the plan and indicated there is not policy language in the plan which addresses whether it should be public or private. She believed in their investigation it was clear the plan assumed the church would be retained on the site; therefore, effectively, the open space area, particularly in the northern portion of the site, was essentially, the church as a physical buffer between the existing homes on Riviera, San Marcos and San Marino and future homes which could be developed on the site, should the church in the future believe they had surplus area. Ms. Newman indicated she did not see that the plan's intention to be that this was a type of unique open space resource, rather it was a buffer, which was staff's assessment in their evaluation of consistency with the plan. Mayor Boro confirmed the conclusion was that the buffer would remain. Expanding, Ms. Newman stated the buffer was in a different fashion than that depicted in the plan which is being amended as part of the project applications; however, there was an argument that it could be improved in some respects as instead of buildings and asphalt, there would be a green drainage ditch, building setback across rear yards, the park and the hill slope on the east side preserved in private open space. She stated that ironically, in the neighborhood plan the eastern wooded hill slope is not depicted as open space. She indicated that with this project, a perimeter of open buffer area is being achieved, which it is believed is consistent with the intent of the plan. Regarding no net change in flood storage area, Ms. Newman noted Mr. Lang's comments that he did not believe this was possible and deferred to the applicant, his consultants or Mr. Temple to respond to this question. Mr. Temple stated that basically it is possible for the no net fill as there is an existing topographic map; therefore, it is possible to calculate the existing volume below any elevation on the site. To keep this volume and place fill in it, the aerial extent could be reduced. Expanding, he stated that should water flood two feet deep on the site and covering an acre, this flooding area could be reduced '/2 acre, making it four feet deep, with the same volume. He stated it is possible to maintain a no net volume on the site and the reason 3.5 feet was chosen was in view of the fact that this is the low area. He noted a comment was made regarding some lots being under two feet of water and stated this was a combination of several factors, including water coming over the levees from Point San Pedro Road, together with water which was backing up in the whole system, under the condition that one pipe was too small and others were non-functional. He stated that to make the pipes functional and provide the storage, the flooding which occurs should be reduced. Mayor Boro requested that Mr. Temple elaborate regarding the stamp issue and his relationship between the City and the Developer. Mr. Temple stated he was hired by the City of San Rafael as an independent reviewer. He believed he had insisted on the design engineer carrying out more work on the site than anticipated. In terms of his professional stamp, Mr. Temple stated he was more than willing to stamp all of the documents; however, it was his understanding that to be hired as a professional civil engineer and sign his name to a document containing an opinion, regardless of whether his professional stamp was affixed or not, under the bylaws of his license, he could be held liable and sued by working as a professional engineer. He did not believe the lack of the stamp had any legal ramifications whatsoever. Mayor Boro stated that although Ms. Mabardy was not present, Mr. Isotalo believed her issues were addressed. He was aware she had put a lot of effort into this and it appeared the issue of water going into the lagoon had been minimized and the City, working with the Homeowners Association, would continue to carry out testing of the lagoon. On the issue of the Homeowners Association, Mayor Boro stated the issue was raised concerning the performance of their duties. He inquired if there would be funding in place to hire someone or how it would work. Ms. Newman stated it was her understanding that the Homeowners Association would be sufficiently funded in order to have professional management and would contract for appropriate implementation of the various responsibilities. She noted the question was raised as to whether the fees would be affordable and cover all of the costs and Mr. Hellmann had responded with SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 16 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 17 written materials and testimony to the effect that they could both be afforded and the costs covered. She stated that in the Conditions of Approval, at the Planning Commission's request, there is a requirement that the City also be a third -party in interest to the CC&Rs. On this aspect, Mayor Boro inquired if City Attorney Ragghianti was aware of this. City Attorney Ragghianti stated this has been used previously and had also been rejected previously; however, in this instance he believed it was appropriate and in the best interest of the developer to ensure that the Homeowners Association is viable and well funded, as the developer remains exposed should this not occur and it becomes a material and important consideration with respect to a prospective purchaser's decision to acquire one of these single-family residences. He stated that in this instance the City was comfortable with sort of being a third -party beneficiary, in overseeing or attempting to do so. Mayor Boro inquired if the source of funding was similar to a Landscaping and Lighting District and if there would be a separate assessment on these parcels. Mr. Ragghianti deferred to the developer as to the actual procedure. He indicated that where this has been evident in the past, danger occurs when the developer undertakes to satisfy these obligations; however, does not budget sufficient funds and calculate how much will reasonably be required to implement these Conditions of Approval. Mr. Ragghianti stated this is where great care is taken at the front end usually in attempting to do so. Mr. Hellmann stated volumes of material have been provided on this subject. They are regulated by the Department of Real Estate principally, and also their Conditions of Approval and lengthy applications are required to be submitted to the Department of Real Estate and demonstrate to them the provision of adequate reserves for both the operating and reserve budgets which are needed for the various items contained in the CC&Rs . He indicated that a detailed pro -forma budget had been provided which works out to approximately $245 per month per home -site, to fulfill all of the requirements of the Homeowners Association, as discussed with the neighborhood and City staff. Mayor Boro stated that a similar situation prevailed with the homes in Loch Lomond and Mr. Ragghianti stated that was a Mello -Roos District, which was different from this proposal. In response to Mayor Boro's inquiry, Mr. Hellmann stated the fees collected by the Homeowners Association are a lien against the property; therefore, should someone fail to make the payment they could be foreclosed upon. Responding to Mayor Boro's inquiry regarding the letter from the County and the issue of full disclosure, Ms. Newman stated this letter was incorporated as part of the packet. It was presented to the Planning Commission and discussed during the hearing, resulting in changes to Condition # 23. There was a Condition in place which demonstrated that in the CC&Rs there must be disclosure to the prospective home buyers concerning the existence of the quarry; however, based on the County's letter, it was believed the City could do a better job. Words like "detailed disclosure", "existing quarry" and "impacts associated with this operation" were added, including, but not limited to, "air quality, dust and vibration", making it a lot more specific. Ms. Newman stated that the bottom line is what comes from the CC&Rs will be reviewed by the City Attorney. This is giving direction essentially. She pointed out also that in the County's letter, it was acknowledged that they had investigated numerous neighbor complaints and determined there were significant impacts; however, she believed they were speaking broadly concerning the vicinity and the City was called on, in its environmental evaluation, to look specifically at this site and evaluate potential air quality and other impacts. This, stated Ms. Newman, was done in the Initial Study in that the Environmental Consultant hired an Air Quality expert who reviewed an Air Quality Study prepared for the County, and based on the data collected at various points in the Peacock Gap area and beyond, came to the conclusion that given prevailing wind patterns at this particular site, there would not be a significant adverse air quality impact. Nevertheless, some mitigation measures have been incorporated to beef up landscaping at the front of the site, in particular, and the disclosure requirements emanated from the Initial Study. City Attorney Ragghianti added that Condition #23 simply memorializes the legal obligation of the developer. In any event, this disclosure would be made to prospective purchasers independent of any Condition of Approval in connection with this development project and put another way, it would be crazy not to do so. Regarding #114 and #122, Councilmember Heller inquired if the two words inserted met with his approval. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 17 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 18 Responding, Mr. Ragghianti stated it was nice to be asked; however, on #114 he suggested that in the second line the words "to the satisfaction" be stricken and in their place "subject to approval" be substituted, to read "public and private drainage shall be kept separate where possible. Public drainage systems shall be located within the public easements or street right-of-way, subject to approval of the City Engineer". He was making this recommendation in light of his failure to understand what "to the satisfaction of the City Engineer" meant. He suggested that on #122 that at the end of the first sentence, following the phrase "reduction in building height of 3 -feet" the words "on each lot" be added, for clarity purposes. Focusing on the drainage issue and reliance on experts, etc., and noting two qualified people can arrive at different opinions, Councilmember Phillips stated that in addition to the peer review, as evidenced by the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, he had the impression Mr. Bernardi had reviewed the peer review, and although not an area of his expertise, Mr. Bernardi had concluded that the work carried out with regard to the drainage, etc. was adequate. Mr. Bernardi responded affirmatively. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. a) RESOLUTION NO. 10894 — RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CHAPEL COVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AT 1115 POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD (APN 184-052-08) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. b) RESOLUTION NO. 10895 — RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PEACOCK GAP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN TEXT AND MAP TO REDESIGNATE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (ST. SYLVESTER'S CHURCH) SITE TO ALLOW 15 SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, RETENTION OF THE HISTORIC CHAPEL AND RELATED PARKING, AND OPEN SPACE AT 1115 POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD (APN 184-052-08) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: The title of the Ordinance was read: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro None Cohen c) "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT TO A REVISED PD DISTRICT WITH ADOPTED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 15 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, A PRIVATE OPEN SPACE/PARK BUFFER, AND RETENTION OF THE HISTORIC CHAPEL WITH RELATED PARKING AT 1115 POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD (APN 184-052-08) (ZC00- 04) (Re: Chapel Cove Residential Development)" Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1770 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution with amendments. d) RESOLUTION NO. 10896 — RESOLUTION APPROVING A MASTER USE PERMIT (UP00-09), ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED00-27) AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (TS00-03) FOR THE CHAPEL COVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1115 POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD (APN 184-052-08) (as amended) SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 18 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 19 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 19. Public Hearing — 171-181 THIRD STREET AND 201 THIRD STREET — (1) REZONING REQUEST FOR THREE PARCELS TOTALING 2.12 ACRES FROM MARINE (M) AND MARINE — CANAL OVERLAY (M -C) ZONING DISTRICTS TO MARINE COMMERCIAL — CANAL OVERLAY (MC -C) ZONING DISTRICT, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE DISTRICT; AND (2) USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT REQUESTS TO ALLOW A 16,172 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER WITH GENERAL RETAIL AND OFFICE USES PROPOSED IN TWO BUILDINGS ON TWO OF THE REZONED PARCELS, TOTALING 1.24 ACRES IN AREA, AND RELATED PARKING, CANAL -FRONT AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS; APN: 14-161- 22 & 23 AND 14-151-11; M, M -C AND W ZONING DISTRICTS; 171-181 THIRD STREET PARTNERS AND 201 THIRD STREET PARTNERS, OWNERS; JOHN CONELY AND DENNIS FISCO OF SEAGATE PROPERTIES, APPLICANT; FILE NO.: ZC 01-01; UP 00-16 AND ED 00- 44 (CD) - FILE 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened and Kraig Tambornini, Associate Current Planner, stated this application is for a shopping center on a parcel along the Canal, east of Montecito Shopping Center. The property is subject to some very specific General Plan policies and a very limited zoning district designation. The General Plan allows redevelopment of these parcels and the initial contemplation was development of the Canal plan and redevelopment of Montecito Shopping Center to possibly include these properties. Mr. Tambornini stated that approximately two years ago the owners of the property came forward with a view to developing the farthest parcel out. A pre -application and formal application were submitted and staff gave direction to the ownership to endeavor to generate something to tie into Montecito Shopping Center. They tried to do as much as possible; however, given their own ownership interest, they elected not to redevelop with Montecito Shopping Center. The project was favorably reviewed by the Design Review Board, which recommended approval of the design and the linkage design across the 201 Third Street property also. The Planning Commission grappled with the General Plan policy which is very specific in regard to connecting with Montecito Shopping Center. Although the design of the center was well received, there were questions pertaining to visual access and access to the development of the Canal front walkway. Mr. Tambornini reported that following the Planning Commission's recommendation, which was denial of the project for lack of a significant linkage with Montecito Shopping Center, staff met with the applicant and discussed ways to improve the linkage, and it has subsequently been decided to include the 201 Third Street parking lot site to link Montecito with the proposed shopping center. Election was made to go through the Use Permit process to secure a fifteen year lease with Montecito Shopping Center, tying it in and fulfilling Montecito's overflow parking requirements. Mr. Tambornini stated that staff believed this does help allay some of the concerns of the Planning Commission regarding meeting that specific General Plan policy to provide linkage. Other issues with traffic have been evaluated and it was concluded by the City Traffic Engineer, Nader Mansourian, that the project as proposed does not aggravate the conditions on Third Street and the proposed mix and circulation layout would be successful and workable. The Mitigated Negative Declaration makes appropriate findings and staff has prepared draft Resolutions for consideration by Council. Mr. Tambornini stated the applicant's representative was present and could answer questions. Councilmember Heller stated she was unclear as to how the physical proximity of the parking lot bridges the concern of the Planning Commission. Mr. Tambornini stated that the General Plan policy applying to this area indicates that parcels east of the shopping center should either be developed as marine uses or redeveloped as part of the shopping center. These properties would qualify as parcels east and from 201 to 171 Third Street, there is a continuous linkage. Landscape frontage improvements would continue from 171 Third Street across 201 Third Street, providing similar landscape treatments and the Canal walkway would extend across the back; a fence would be removed and the parking lot use would be memorialized to provide that linkage. This, in effect, bridges the gap as it does establish some common uses and physical improvements. Mr. Tambornini added that in this case, given the condition and opportunities out there, if it does offer something, a determination could be made that the policy is satisfied. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 19 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 20 He stated opportunities were explored to provide a physical connection between the parking lot with the proposed development, which would have provided a truer physical bond between the two; however, due to traffic concerns, the City Traffic Engineer was apprehensive that this would cause more vehicles to exit out the 171 Third Street driveway, causing more backup onto that site. Councilmember Heller, while uncertain on whether she agreed or disagreed with the Planning Commission, noted the staff report was not positive, using the language "helps address the Planning Commission's..." instead of something more confident. Kristie Richardson, Current Principal Planner stated that several options were being brought forward. Normally, the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the project would be before Council; however, endeavors were made to work with the developer to arrive at a solution which, it is believed, would address the Planning Commission's issues. Staff had not returned to the Planning Commission for their views; therefore, under the circumstances perhaps a different word could have been used. She stated that as explained by Mr. Tambornini, by bringing in a formal Use Permit for 201 Third Street, this site is being included in the project which not only creates the linkage between the project and Montecito Shopping Center, but also addresses the issue of visual access to the canal, in that it is opening up and maintaining a visual corridor through the parking lot site to the canal, which helps that issue also. Mayor Boro quoted from the end of page 3, "The Montecito Shopping Center currently is using the 201 Third Street site to provide overflow parking for 60 vehicles, which satisfies the requirements of prior Design Review and Use Permit approvals granted for the property" , and stated that when this was pursued, it was ascertained that the required overflow parking is on a seasonal basis at the high school, which the applicant still retains. They had been using this site; however, it has not been required and therefore, the linkage in the General Plan is to memorialize it at least for fifteen years to make it a permanent use for Montecito for that time frame. Willis Polite Jr. stated he was a partner of Dennis Fisco and John Conely and co-owner and general partner of all of these properties and he thanked staff for their continued efforts to resolve some of the issues. Mr. Polite reported working diligently to address the issues raised both by the Planning Commission and staff throughout the process and they are prepared to move forward under the proposed conditions. They believe the project will be a substantial improvement over the existing use and will be an enhancement to the general neighborhood. The issue of traffic has arisen repeatedly and Fred Choa, Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., who had carried out the traffic studies and worked with the City's Engineer, was present to answer any questions. Phil Grady stated his aunt had owned the property at 115 Third Street for her lifetime. This property is three properties east of the subject property. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting some of the members inquired as to events in the neighborhood and if there would be a continual use and he wished to report they anticipate coming forward in the future with greater use of their property. It is under the present zoning of this applicant and his only issue with this proposal is that the exiting of the site would cross Third Street, taking a left turn heading west towards the City and although the Traffic Engineer believes it is fine, it appears somewhat dangerous to Mr. Grady. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro invited Mr. Tambornini to comment further on the left turn issue. Mr. Tambornini stated there was one major concern with development of the shopping center use namely, how much traffic would be generated and whether or not Third Street would be impacted, and the City Traffic Engineer requested evaluating a mix of uses to balance the timing of traffic to and from the site. This was when the requirement was included to restrict an upper floor of the large building in the back to only office use, with general retail on the ground floor. Based on this it was determined that vehicles exiting the shopping center in the p.m. peak period would exit at the rate of approximately one car every minute. In analyzing the traffic flow on Third Street, it was determined that there were sufficient gaps in traffic flow to allow a vehicle to exit and make a left- hand turn. Mr. Tambornini stated he had discussed with the City Traffic Engineer the possibility of having a stacking lane in the median on Third Street; however, Mr. Mansourian did not wish to pursue this in favor of having sufficient stacking on site, whereby cars would wait for the gap to make their exit. While not having the exact numbers, Mr. Tambornini stated Mr. Mansourian's conclusion was based on the volumes acceptable for the site and the development and he did not identify a traffic hazard when making this turn, and had he, he would not have given a favorable recommendation to the project. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 20 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 21 Councilmember Heller stated she had been at the site today at approximately 5:30 p.m. when the traffic was very deep and having made a left-hand turn, felt it was quite safe. Councilmember Miller corroborated Councilmember Heller's remarks having had a similar experience on Sunday. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. a) RESOLUTION NO. 10897 — RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A REZONING (ZC 01-01) OF THREE PARCELS TOTALING 2.12 ACRES AT 171-181 THIRD STREET AND 201 THIRD STREET, USE PERMIT (UP 00-16) AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED 00-44) FOR A 16,172 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 171-181 THIRD STREET (171- 181 Third Street Shopping Center) (APN'S 014-161-22 & 23 AN D 014-151-11) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen Mayor Boro stated that as there was a denial from the Planning Commission on a recommendation, he inquired if wording was necessary to overturn the denial or whether it was implied in the three recommendations. In consultation with the Planners, City Attorney Ragghianti pointed out there is no appeal, rather a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council for denial, and the Council can choose to follow or disregard it. The title of the Ordinance was read: b) "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM MARINE, MARINE -CANAL OVERLAY AND WATER (M, M -C AND W) DISTRICT TO MARINE COMMERCIAL -CANAL OVERLAY AND WATER (MC -C, W) DISTRICT (ZC 01-01) (APN'S 014-161-22 AND 23; 014-151-11)" Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1771 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. c) RESOLUTION NO. 10898 — RESOLUTION APPROVING USE PERMITS (UP 00-16 AND UP 01-32) AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED 00-44) FOR A 16,172 -SQUARE -FOOT SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 171-181 THIRD STREET AND PARKING LOT USE AND SITE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS AT 201 THIRD STREET (171-181 Third Street Shopping Center and 201 Third Street) (APN'S 014-161-22 & 23; 014-151-11) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 21 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 22 OLD BUSINESS: 20. APPROVAL OF PICKLEWEED COMMUNITY CENTER EXPANSION CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH THE PARTNERSHIP RESOURCES GROUP FOR FUND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (CS) — FILE 4-3-394 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-66 x 12-5 Community Services Director Carlene McCart stated that four years ago when the City Council changed the rental fee structure and the application procedure for the Pickleweed Community Center, doors were opened to greater numbers not previously evident at that facility. This success has brought its own set of challenges, resulting in the fact that the facility no longer can meet the capacity and desire of the surrounding neighborhood. She reported that in 1999 the Pickleweed Advisory Board was commissioned to determine and prioritize community needs at the center. The report was completed in August 2000 and through a thorough process of six workshops and months of outreach, together with a written survey, the community priorities were determined and included six top vote getters: Computer programs; ♦ Access to computers and training; ♦ Dedicated art space; ♦ Live music performance and entertainment space; ♦ Facilities to house job training programs, as well as after-school tutoring; ♦ Indoor volleyball and basketball venues. She reported that during that time there was also strong support for expanded learning center services at the Pickleweed Community Center. One important step was concluded last summer and after a period of time the services of Group 4 Architects were commissioned. They came on board in November, led by Project Director, Jamie Barr, present this evening, and were hired to translate the community needs into an actual building program and conceptual plan. The City Project team included members of the Redevelopment Agency, Public Works Department, Community Development Department, Library and Community Services. Spaces necessary to accommodate the various types of activities requested by the community were identified and existing space, the condition of the existing building, opportunity to renovate and the efficiencies to be realized with the renovation were analyzed. From this it was possible to determine the extent of new space deemed necessary and several interpretations to the layouts and conceptual plans were developed. Ms. McCart reported that a conceptual plan was shown to the community in March, 2001; 45 people attended a meeting held in three different languages at Pickleweed and the goal for the evening was realized by confirming that the building plan itself responded adequately to that which the community had requested be incorporated into the new facility. A great deal of discussion took place regarding design issues; however, these will be reviewed after a decision is made on the project. Ms. McCart indicated this conceptual plan was presented to the City Council on April 2, 2001 in a Study Session, where it was evaluated and confirmation received that the building program did respond to the community and the City's needs. Subsequently, a professional cost estimate of the conceptual plan was commissioned and formulation of a funding strategy was initiated. On receipt of the cost analyses, it was ascertained that a closer association was necessary of what was determined to be a realistic funding scenario and the cost of the building. The project team worked diligently to preserve the building program, ensuring the component spaces which matched the activity needs were available. Some of the non-essential elements were reduced and part of the original conceptual plan was reconfigured. This was reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission and the Pickleweed Advisory Board, most recently last week. Ms. McCart stated that Dorothy Vesecky, member of the Pickleweed Advisory Board, wished to be present this evening; however, due to the late hour was unable to be in attendance for this item; however, she submitted a letter which outlines both the Pickleweed Advisory Board's support of the project and the concerns regarding some design issues related to the placement of the proposed gymnasium and the views. Ms. McCart reported that a final cost estimate on this plan was received and staff, at the point of recognizing there was a project to propose, discovered there was extensive dry rot on the east end of the building, which prompted a full structural analysis of the existing building, as it was imperative to possess full knowledge of the requirements to shore up the existing building to render it acceptable for a new wing. This analysis was conducted last month and a cost estimate was carried out for this work. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 22 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 23 Detailing the proposed plan, Ms. McCart stated it accomplishes the highest community priorities, maintaining all the current programs and activities at Pickleweed Community Center; it utilizes the most logical site in the park, expands parking by 16 spaces in a reconfiguration mode, without adding new parking and adds a landscaping component not presently in existence. Referring to a drawing of the proposed project, Ms. McCart depicted the existing building and the new square footage. She stated the entire project is approximately 23,000 square feet, the new addition representing 12,000 square feet of that total. Vaughn Stratford, Library Director, stated the Library and Computer Lab would comprise approximately 2,000 square feet. An entrance on the street was deemed important to afford visibility and ensure exposure. He reported that the Computer Lab is a shared space where Community Services would offer computer classes with the Library offering Internet access and homework support through the computer lab. The Family Literacy Program would be located here, together with tutoring, and given the space, the collection size is projected to be approximately 10,000 items. Mr. Stratford reported that presently there are approximately 2,000 items. Ms. McCart added that it more than doubles the space the Learning Center presently enjoys. Continuing, Ms. McCart stated that upon entering the Learning Center and exiting down the main corridor, the multi-purpose room would be maintained for social events and classes presently occurring. Three class meeting rooms will be maintained to assist in meeting the goal of job training, student tutoring and meeting space for the community. Down the hallway the space now occupied by the Teen Center at almost 1,000 square feet, is a perfect size for a dedicated art space, which will contain storage, large tables and areas to produce art and maintain projects over a period of time. A new entrance plaza is proposed leading to the lobby/lounge/cafe area, staff office spaces will be replicated in the new centralized entry area, a reception desk and from there it will be possible to enter the foyer and the gymnasium. The gymnasium will contain bleacher seats for 160 and have a capacity for very large group events, such as community celebrations, dances, performances, together with the typical sporting type activities occurring in a gymnasium. In association with this, it will be necessary to incorporate new restrooms in the plan, as well as maintenance and storage areas. The final component is a Teen Center adjacent to the new entry plaza which comprises approximately 500 square feet and is approximately the same size as a classroom. This is in response to the request from the operators of the current Teen Center Program that their facility be out in front with easy observation and access. This also has entry and exit into the foyer and will allow use of this portion of the building, under supervision, when the remainder of the building is not in use. Ms. McCart reported that this is one of the advantages of the plan in that it allows use of either wing, or the entire building at different times for different programming, without impinging on other operations. With regard to the site orientation, using a chart Ms. McCart depicted the building footprint, moving the landscape back to the sidewalk to the front of the building, reconfiguring the parking lot to allow for a further sixteen spaces, a proposed walkway which distinguishes the Childcare Center from the remainder of the body of the building and entices park visitors to the basketball court, while offering a view corridor from the front of the building into the park. Ms. McCart stated the cost for this plan is $6,589,814 and the project team has great confidence in this number in that more research has been carried out on this project than any other she has been involved with. Different scenarios were evaluated and different contingencies were costed out with the conclusion that this figure will provide the resources necessary to complete the project. However, Ms. McCart pointed out that a great portion of the funds will be expended on repairs to the existing building. She stated that within the structural assessment it was learned that there is approximately $1.4 -million of repair and renovation to be carried out to the existing building to bring it up to code and repair some of the damage done due to original flaws. Expanding, Ms. McCart stated there is a major design flaw in the roofing system which permitted water to run down through the walls, resulting in a continuous leaking problem. The building is twenty years old and is very heavily used; therefore, some of the wear and tear necessitates the repair, while portions pertain to the original construction and design issues. Contained in the $1.4 -million figure is the replacement of all the roofing, siding, electrical systems, lighting, flooring, HVAC system, windows, exterior and interior painting, giving a whole new body of life to an existing building. This will set the scene for accepting a new wing onto the Pickleweed Community Center, affording them equal life span. Ms. McCart reported that the funding strategy was developed with the assistance of the Partnership Resources Group and Elliot Levin, President of the Group, was in attendance to answer questions. She indicated that the City had obligated $1,292,000 to this project, $400,000 of which emanated SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 23 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 24 from the Fair, Isaac contribution, $300,000 from the Redevelopment Agency and the balance from two cycles of CDBG funding. She reported that through initial contacts with some of the Foundations in the area, staff was confident that $2 -million would be raised from these sources for this particular project. Having evaluated the project and assessing it against current and recently completed projects, Mr. Levin had advised that $2.5 -million is a reasonable amount to expect from private sources, and his company will identify those sources and assist in making application for those monies. Ms. McCart reported that there are two further rounds of CDBG to be applied to this project and staff will aggressively seek Proposition 14 funds, the State Library Bond Act Funds, for the portion of the project attributable to the expansion of the Learning Center. Should all of these outreach measures be successful, $6.9 -million worth of revenue would be realized for this project alone. The timeline included in this evening's packet will identify funding within one year and the design, development and construction plans can be completed within two years. Community Services Director McCart indicated being in a pivotal place in this process. Should the City Council conclude that this conceptual plan has the building program to meet the community and City needs, the cost analysis is appropriate and acceptable and the funding strategy attainable, staff recommends adopting Option 1, approving the plan and directing staff to proceed with the fundraising efforts, under the direction of the Partnership Resources Group. The remaining options are to reduce the scope of the conceptual plan and Ms. McCart reported the project team had put effort into keeping all of the components in the initial plan; however, it could be returned to the drawing board to determine if certain pieces could be extracted, or limited to the repair of the existing facility. This would ensure enhanced service to the community, albeit not more. Ms. McCart reported that discussions took place within the project group concerning the advisability of starting over with new construction; however, the architect advised against this at the present time. She indicated there are some efficiencies in starting over and designing one building, rather than fixing one and adding another; however, it is believed the square footage could only be reduced by approximately 10% - 15% and without a lengthy analysis of this option, the first indication of the cost is approximately $3 -million, in addition to the $6.8 -million. Community Services Director McCart stated there were people present who were in a position to answer questions on the specific portions of the projects as presented. Under the new additions, Councilmember Heller stated she applauded the women's bathroom and inquired as to why the multi-purpose room was being retained rather than constructing the gymnasium in its place. Responding, Ms. McCart stated the multi-purpose room would serve smaller types of events, such as dances and socials. It incorporated the small performance stage which is not replicated in the gymnasium and to put the gymnasium in this particular location in the plan, it would have to jut out into the new fields. Councilmember Heller inquired if this would result in a monetary saving. Jamie Barr, Group 4 Architects, reported that the issue with the existing building is the foundation system and the fact that the building is on bay mud makes it a floating building. Ms. McCart indicated that the problem has been in connecting the new construction to the existing one which entails creating a hinge with a narrow piece to connect the larger pieces, and to remove the multi-purpose room and insert another element would be extremely costly. She explained that it would be very difficult and would necessitate cutting into the existing building; however, to add one with a narrow connection is relatively simple. She indicated it would be necessary to over excavate on the bay mud and compact a lightweight fill to match the settlement of the existing building. In essence, she explained it is a very tricky site and a lot of different issues had been taken into consideration. Referring to the Options put forward, Councilmember Phillip stated he was unclear as to what was being requested of the City Council. City Manager Gould stated he believed staff was recommending they be allowed to proceed on a very ambitious plan to upgrade and expand the Pickleweed Community Center, with essentially, two years to pursue the funding to develop it to its fullest extent, as depicted in the conceptual plan. If after a year it is clear that the funding is not in hand, it would be necessary to reduce the scope of the project. Mr. Gould explained it was not staff's intention to create false expectations on the part of the community should it be impossible to execute the project. He stated it had been given considerable thought, having learned from mistakes of the past regarding cost estimation of such projects; therefore, a very conservative estimate had been put forward, recognizing it was a very large figure, which staff believes fully answers the community's interest based on the one and one half years of outreach. He believed it would be a thirty-year addition and improvement to that neighborhood; staff was very excited about SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 24 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 25 the project and he hoped to get the green light to attempt to accomplish it. Councilmember Phillips stated that a significant amount of the funds was coming from private fundraising and he inquired how this would work and the consequences of not attaining the goal. Regarding the fundraising plan and contingencies should the funds not be forthcoming, City Manager Gould introduced Elliot Levin, who would explain the process. Elliot Levin, President, Partnership Resources Group, stated they had been involved in this in a more concerted way evaluating what could happen, for the past four weeks. With respect to the inventory of the assets and what could happen, taking into account that on occasion, even with as large a number as a $6.8 -million project for a community center, success itself is the product of its own goals. In considering raising $250,000, it sometimes becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of the prospects and people tend to gauge their participation, frequently based on the scope of the program. Mr. Levin stated this was evaluated in five measurements initially: 1. The strength of the case and how compelling is the case for support of a program such as this, in fundraising terms 2. The depth of the pool of people and potential funders whom the City could petition for support; 3. Who is available to lead a program like this; 4. Timing and what else is happening out in the community which could negatively impact on raising funds for a program, regardless of how worthy; 5. Institutional readiness, assuming the previous four are in place, does the host have its act together sufficiently to go out and mount a program such as this. Mr. Levin stated they give positive marks initially in the first four weeks of exploration, to the last two items, in that the timing is fairly good in the community; presently, there are no programs which stand to directly compete with these, on the drawing boards; however, others may surface. Regarding readiness, the City has had some fundraising victories, referencing the fact that $800,000 was invested in Pickleweed in the form of the fields - phase one of this project. Mr. Levin indicated that by any stretch of the imagination, and even cold greedy fundraisers who can clear a room, can go out and observe that what the fields have done has been relatively magical to that community. He reported that his team visited on a Saturday and Sunday and noted the fields had become very much the Community Center of the Canal; therefore there is momentum and victory, a sign of institutional readiness, together with what they had been told and witnessed to some degree, the revival of programs and utilization at the Pickleweed Center over the last number of years. Mr. Levin stated they believe the case is strongest in terms of where this is a regional matter beyond just the concern of San Rafael, the wellbeing and vitality of the Canal Community has implications countywide. They also evaluate who benefits when a project such as this is successfully carried out, in addition to its intrinsic value for the community. An inventory is being generated presently; however, they believe others will benefit greatly by an enhanced community should this project, in fact, become the central address of the Canal neighborhood. He stated that beyond the symbol of community and the often hackneyed term of public/private partnership, the public has begun to step up, which can present a challenge to the private sector. They are aware of two major trusts now in development which will shortly be in place in the County, who have inclinations in the fields of endeavor which this project represents. To summarize, Mr. Levin stated that the greatest single fundraising asset is simply the scope of service. This is not merely relative to seniors, childcare, children, teens, rather it is a comprehensive service center and institutional funders, as well as individual donors, tend to have very specific interests. By virtue of what this project is, there is a breath of interest which it is believed creates a positive climate for attracting donors. Councilmember Phillips inquired if Mr. Levin believed this is seen as a City project and obligation. Responding, Mr. Levin stated it was their belief that as this is a City project, it will, in fact, be seen in part as a City project. He believed the challenge is to transform the message from this being a City owned and run Community Center, to the wellbeing of the neighborhood and the County, which tends to transcend, to some degree, the City's ownership per se. Other projects, both here in Marin and in the Bay Area, have quite successfully transcended this by obtaining a public/private partnership together. He noted that gone are the days in capital programs where any individual entity has gone solo, perhaps with the exception of medical center healthcare hospital fundraising. Virtually all are undertaken presently based on the existence or development of powerful coalitions for this purpose and it is believed that whether this be under City aegis or not, that significant contributions, if not ownership, from other sectors need to occur to ensure the success of this project. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 25 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 26 Councilmember Phillips deferred to Mayor for further comment Mayor Boro stated he had worked with Mr. Levin, whom he knew and respected and was pleased to hear the comments concerning the viability of raising funds for this project. He was aware good work had been done for the community and having attended a meeting with Public Works Director Bernardi at Falkirk on the morning the committee finalized the report, he sensed the pride and accomplishments; therefore, he fully endorsed what had been done and was aware it had the support of the community. Mayor Boro's concern was with regard to the $7.0 -million figure and the City Manager's comment that after two years, if progress was not sufficient, some choices would need to be made. He explained that he would like to see a scale of priorities in relation to dollars raised, in order that should a point of impasse be reached, the community expectations are apparent. Mayor Boro recalled that when a library was initially discussed, it did not meet with great success; however, recently it took on a whole emphasis, with a librarian being funded, a lot of enthusiasm and the anticipated state grant. However, the grant not coming forward would necessitate a decision on priorities. He supported a remodel of the multi-purpose room, to include upgrading of the sound system, stage and lighting, making it enticing to people to utilize, as it had potential for events. Mayor Boro inquired as to the possibility of staff returning with costs and priorities which the committee would be in agreement with, to ensure mutual understanding of the proposal. He did not wish to delay the project; however, by comparison, he reported that in the last three days three people had inquired as to the opening date for the garage downtown, an indication of how people's expectations run high. Similarly, there would be a lot of expectations on these components; however, the funding was not in place. He believed it was important for the City and the Community to be aware of the costs and the improvements, to assess the priorities as funding is realized, and ultimately, should only $5 -million of the $7 -million be raised, what portions can be dispensed with. He did not wish to see this or a future Council put in a bind because of non- production of the funds. City Manager Gould inquired if it would be responsive to Mayor Boro's concern, given there is a fairly good handle on the component parts cost of this project, to return to the Pickleweed Advisory Board and review for them their own listing of the priorities, evaluate the component costs of the project and request that they prioritize for the Council their interpretation as to the first, second and third priorities. Councilmember Miller stated this was an excellent suggestion as this is what the Pickleweed Advisory Committee's agenda has been from the outset in that they are interested in reality therapy and are not interested in unattainable goals. They could prioritize on behalf of the community as is evidenced by the attendance at meetings on this subject. He was enthusiastic that the committee is really prepared, the Council and staff having worked diligently developing it and they are now poised to assume this task. City Manager Gould stated staff would still like the Council's approval of the concept and direction to contract with the Partnership Resources Group to develop the materials necessary when conducting outreach with the Foundations, Corporations and those likely to make this type of commitment. Councilmember Heller confirmed with City Manager Gould that this would be at a City guaranteed cost of $55,000 and City Manager Gould stated that having examined the price structures of several other fundraising groups, he was confident this was on the low end of the scale. Councilmember Heller inquired if this fee included the materials or whether it was a straight fee, with additional expenses. Responding, City Manager Gould stated there would be limited expenses for normal incidentals such as printing and postage, etc. The City would receive the expertise of the Partnership Resources Group in evaluating the project, ascertaining funding sources and guidance towards a successful pitch. Councilmember Heller believed Dorothy Vesecky's letter had a very good point in that the panoramic view of the Bay would be lost and questioned if there was a way to save this by reconfiguring the deck to retain the view. Community Services Director McCart stated that in design development the issues surrounding this would be considered as they are aware it is a concern for the Pickleweed Advisory Board. As it made sense to have Mr. Levin's efforts commence, Mayor Boro inquired if positive direction was given, when it would be possible to return this issue to Council. Ms. McCart stated the next meeting of the Pickleweed Advisory Board is September 5, 2001 and she would like to afford them the opportunity of two meetings. Mayor Boro concurred and stated that based on Councilmember SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 26 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 27 Miller's comments, he believed there was mutual consensus to complete the project; however, a reality check was necessary to prioritize what is best for the community. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the revised Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 10899 — RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE PICKLEWEED COMMUNITY CENTER AND THE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH THE PARTNERSHIP RESOURCES GROUP FOR FUND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro None Cohen 21. City Manager Gould reported: - File 9-3-11 (verbal) a) Naming the Plaza Downtown: Lydia Romero, Assistant to the City Manager, would be distributing a ballot requesting suggestions on the naming of the new plaza in the downtown. A name needs to be decided upon in the next thirty days. b) Detox Center: The $250,000 for relocation of the Detox Center from the Silviera Ranch made it through the Governor's veto and is still in place. c) Garage (Third Street): The design for the garage is progressing nicely and having reviewed the Watry Group's input, City Manager Gould stated it meets the Traffic Engineer's requirements. Some general direction can now be given on the appearance and as the choices are handsome, he believed Council would be pleased with the presentation in September. d) Parkside Childcare Center: Mr. Gould reported having been informed by Dave Bernardi that he and the Public Works Department applied pressure to the contractor on the Parkside Childcare Center on Friday, emphasizing that it must be completed by August 21St. Mr. Bernardi had received this assurance. e) Berkeley Executive Seminar: Mr. Gould reported he was very much enjoying the Berkeley Executive Seminar and thanked Council for permitting him to attend. In discussions with a colleague, the City Manager of Beverly Hills, he confirmed that their #2 person for Parking Services, who is to become San Rafael's Parking Services Manager, is top notch and a credit to the organization. f) Canal Dredging: Responding to Mayor Boro's inquiry regarding dredging, City Manager Gould reported that when the Conference Committee completes its work in September, it will be on the President's desk. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 27 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 28 COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 22. a) League of California Cities Annual Conference - File 9-11-1 (verbal) Councilmember Heller reported she is looking forward to the League of California Cities Annual Meeting to be held at the Sacramento Convention Center, September 12 through 15, 2001, to be attended also by Mayor Boro. b) Retail Tenants, Rafael Town Center: - File 140 x (SRRA) R-380 (verbal) Mayor Boro reported that he and Councilmember Phillips had some frank discussions with Jim Schaefer on what was important for the Rafael Town Center. He noted there were some tentative tenants for some of the retail spaces and hopefully, there would be some finalized leases to report. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council Meeting at 11:10 p.m. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12001 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2001 Page 28