Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2001-11-19SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 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 — 7:00 PM: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Re: North San Pedro Road Construction — File 4-1-537 x 9-2-55 x 9-3-40 (Verbal) 8:12 PM Roger Marquis reported that an increasing number of cyclists are becoming alarmed by the plans for this stretch of road which carries a large number of cyclists. He indicated that there is no provision for bike lanes or shoulders and given the high-speed on and off ramps to Highway 101 along this stretch, cyclists fear it will be a very dangerous place to ride a bicycle. He reported that having gone over the plans, they have identified where the shoulder can be widened at little cost, also identifying as yet untapped funding sources. He hoped to work with the City Council and Dave Bernardi, Public Works Director, before the work commences, on this issue. Noting that Mr. Bernardi had been working on this, Mayor Boro requested that he keep Council apprised. Public Works Director Dave Bernardi reported that a series of suggestions made by Preston McCoy had been forwarded to the design consultant, who made some recommendations as to certain items of work which could be added to the existing contract. While it is intended to do this, the consultant also made recommendations to take no action, indicating that it would either create sub -standard bike lanes or require crossing the off -ramps at the location under Caltrans jurisdiction. Staff agreed to contact Caltrans to ascertain whether the striping through the off -ramp could be provided by them, and it is intended to formally notify and make the request to Caltrans next week. Mr. Bernardi reported that the original scope of the project did not include widening the roadway, rather it was to work within the existing pavement section; therefore, there would be additional cost associated with this. The contract has already been awarded and the equipment has been ordered for the traffic signal, etc. Should Council desire, Mr. Bernardi indicated that staff would pursue evaluating the additional cost of carrying out the work suggested by Mr. Marquis; however, there is no guarantee that funding will be available for this purpose. Should TBA (Caltrans Bicycle Transportation Account) funds be available, there is a matching component to be provided by the City. Mayor Boro indicated that sufficient correspondence and interest had been received over the past several weeks to warrant pursuing this issue, and he requested an assurance that discussion will take place before proceeding with the final plan. Councilmember Cohen reported he had been approached by members of the Marin County Bicycle Coalition who indicated they intended to forward a letter on this issue, requesting a follow-up meeting to evaluate the consultant's response and discuss possible opportunities. Responding to a query from Councilmember Heller, Mr. Bernardi confirmed that the project is scheduled to commence in the spring of 2002. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, November 5, 2001 (CC) RECOMMENDED ACTION Minutes approved as submitted. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 1 2. Call for Applications for One, Two -Year Term on the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District Board Due to the Expiration of Term at the End of December 2001, of Board Member Roy Smith (CC) — File 9-2-9 3. Extension of Terms of Noble A. "Rocky" Birdsey, Kristen Nute and Richard Schneider, until Adoption of the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CM) File 9-2-55 x 115 (2020) 4. Resolution Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a Lease With Option to Purchase Protective Clothing for Fire Department Personnel with Baystone Financial Group, and Authorizing Certain Actions in Connection Therewith (CM/MS) — File 4-10-329 x 9-3-31 x 9-3-11 x 9-3-20 5. Resolution Approving Agreement with ExtraTeam for Installation of Virtual Private Network (VPN) to the City of San Rafael's Network Servers (MS) — File 4-2-313 x 9-3-20 x 9-3-16 6. Report on Improvements to Existing Median on Point San Pedro Road from Main Drive to Knight Drive (PW) —File 11-15 x 137 x 8-5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 2 ADDroved staff recommendation: a) Called for applications to fill one, two-year term on the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District Board, with term to expire end of December, 2003. b) Set deadline for receipt of applications, Tuesday, December 11, 2001 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, City Hall. c) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, December 17, 2001, commencing at 6:30 p.m. Approved staff recommendation to extend terms of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee members Noble A. "Rocky" Birdsey, Kristen Nute and Richard Schneider until the adoption of the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. RESOLUTION NO. 10957 — RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL WITH BAYSTONE FINANCIAL GROUP, AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH RESOLUTION NO. 10958 — RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH "EXTRATEAM" FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORK (VPN) TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL'S NETWORK SERVERS RESOLUTION NO. 10959 — RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT MEDIAN LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON PT. SAN PEDRO ROAD FROM MAIN DRIVE TO KNIGHT DRIVE AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro stated he wished to publicly thank Dave Bernardi, Public Works Director, and his staff for the work done with the residents on Point San Pedro Road regarding the road improvements. He indicated this was a great partnership. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7. Public Hearing — CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1773 ENTITLED: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL HONORING THE MEMORY OF MAIA ROPION AND AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AMENDING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1997 EDITION, PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS FOR THE PREVENTION OF FALLS FROM HOTEL WINDOWS" (FD) — FILE 1-6-4 x 9-3-31 x 9-1 Fire Marshal Keith Schoenthal stated this item originated from the tragedy of Maia Ropion, (almost three years old) falling from an Embassy Suites hotel window on August 11, 2001, and passing away the following day. Having been directed by Council to make recommendations, this effort was led by himself, with assistance from the City Attorney's office and the Building Division of SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 3 Community Development. He indicated that subsequent to the presentation of these recommendations, Council directed staff to develop an Ordinance to implement them. This Ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting of November 5, 2001 and is under consideration this evening. Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated that primarily, it outlines the contents of the staff report and basically states that all new hotels or motels would be required to have commercial level fire sprinklers, (NFPA 13), and the current exception in the California Building Code, inserting window stops on all floors of a hotel, would be a requirement. He indicated that currently, all windows on the first three floors are required to have openable windows to allow firefighters access for rescue purposes in the event of a fire. Based on a decision by the California Building Standards Commission, the installation of a commercial level fire sprinkler system is deemed to be an adequate exception for permitting these windows to be locked down (all new hotels and motels). With regard to the existing hotel/motel stock, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated that all of the floors from four up would be required to have window stops installed and the Ordinance affords some lead-time for this purpose. Discussing how the first three floors on existing hotel/motel stock should be dealt with, Fire Marshal Schoenthal explained that an exception was created which specified that should the ground level on the outside of the room be 36 inches or less of a drop, the requirements would not apply. Therefore, a hotel or motel with an openable window and a 36 inch drop outside, even in the event a child could get to the top of the window sill, those properties would be excepted and would not be required to implement either installation. He indicated that the next step would be to require a minimum 36 inch high sill on the inside of the room, which is the current height requirement for guardrails on openings in hotels and motels. Secondly, furniture would not be permitted anywhere within a 36 inch boundary of the window opening, to alleviate any climbing issue. Finally, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated that a hotel or motel which is sprinklered (two exist currently, the Embassy Suites and Four Points Sheraton) has not been specifically addressed in the ordinance. Currently, under the ordinance they would be required to meet the 36 inch high window sill condition and move the furniture away from the windows; however, these properties would be permitted to use alternate methods of protection under the California Fire Code and the California Building Code, provided they meet the equivalency requirements on fire sprinklers. These property owners would be requested to demonstrate (show us) the equivalencies between the Building Codes at the time of construction and the current Building Code, to ensure the whole property is up to the current level of protection. Fire Marshal Schoenthal explained that the fire sprinkler exception was only inserted in the Building Code in the 1998 edition. Practically speaking, Mayor Boro inquired if the Embassy Suites and the Four Points Sheraton, assuming they meet the sprinkler system requirement, would effectively end up having window stops. Responding, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated the Embassy Suites had already completed the task on the entire property; the only remaining issue is a disagreement concerning the methodology, i.e. Embassy Suites wishes to use an exception in the Fire Code, which Fire Marshal Schoenthal indicated to them was not good code practice, and asked them to use the alternate means of protection, and show us the different levels. He reported having had some conversations with the State Fire Marshal's Office in this connection. With regard to the Four Points Sheraton, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated that further discussions are required concerning whether their fire sprinkler system is an NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R, which is a little less restrictive. In considering the ordinance, Fire Marshal Schoenthal referred Council to Division 3, which contains the Findings of Fact required by the California State Statutes when an ordinance is adopted which is more restrictive than either the California Building Code or the California Fire Code. Mayor Boro inquired as to the intention of the Four Points Sheraton. Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated he had left a message for the manager, who had not as yet responded. In preliminary discussions with the manager, Ms. Bell, her original comment on the draft staff report was that the Sheraton was willing to take the necessary steps to comply with the ultimate ordinance. Mayor Boro opened the public hearing, and invited comment from the audience James O. Abrams, Executive Vice -President, California Hotel and Motel Association, stated he was not present on behalf of the Sheraton or Embassy Suites hotels, rather in connection with the institutional issues which arise with respect to the hundreds of jurisdictions in California. He stated his organization's primary concern in situations such as this, is to achieve as much uniformity as SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 4 possible around the State and to ensure that situations are not created which would inadvertently result in liability for hotels, motels and inns throughout the State of California. He applauded the action of the Fire Department and did not have a quarrel with the fact that the City of San Rafael is acting aggressively in response to the happening at the Embassy Suites, an issue of concern to them for a number of years. Mr. Abrams stated, however, that his organization did have concerns with some of the provisions of the ordinance and requested permission to address these. He indicated that the goal was not necessarily to have the City Council cease action on the proposed ordinance, rather they would propose working with the Fire Marshal and his staff, perhaps petitioning the State Fire Marshal for some changes in the State Fire Code. Specifically, Mr. Abrams stated their concern over the last decade or so has been with the fact that beginning in 1989, high rise buildings, those typically over 75 -feet in height with habitable space, have had the requirement for openable/operable windows removed, provided the property was fully sprinklered, and the standard alluded to by Fire Marshal Schoenthal is an NFPA 13 standard, a commercial fire suppression system. Mr. Abrams indicated the problems typically faced in buildings less than high-rise and particularly, those two, three and four stories in height, are: ■ Children falling out of buildings, which, unfortunately, happens more frequently than anyone would like to believe, noting the situation at the Embassy Suites is not an isolated incident; and ■ Security, where people have succeeded in entering hotel rooms on the first or second floors. Mr. Abrams reported that until some two years ago, the Fire and Building Codes in California prohibited a low rise building, even if was fully sprinklered, from either fixing the windows in place or installing window stops. He indicated the fear was that Fire Department personnel would be unable to gain access and the tradeoff in most people's minds is that the building being fully sprinklered, would overcome most, if not all of the fire safety concerns. Consequently, stated Mr. Abrams, should a low-rise hotel or motel wish to fix the windows or install window stops on the first, second, third and fourth floors, this would be considered acceptable, provided a suitable fire sprinkler system was installed. He reported that his organization petitioned the State Fire Marshal and the Building Standards Commission to make those necessary changes, and these exceptions are now contained in the Building and Fire Codes; therefore, as opposed to a mandatory element, provided there is a sprinkler system, low-rise buildings have the option to fix the windows. Addressing the proposed ordinance, Mr. Abrams stated he appreciated Fire Marshal Schoenthal's statement that it would go beyond what is currently the State Fire Code, by requiring all new hotel, motel, and R1 occupancies, which include condominiums, timeshares, etc. to have window stops installed. He believed it to be a very good recommendation as the goal is to prevent falls from windows, both intentional and unintentional, together with eliminating the criminal element. He indicated that primarily, the problem is with the elements of the ordinance which deal with existing structures, two of which are located in San Rafael. His concern, however, was for all of the existing hotels, motels and inns throughout the State of California which have to come to grips with what would now be deemed a precedent, should the ordinance be passed as written. With respect to existing properties more than three stories in height, Mr. Abrams stated that as he understands the proposed ordinance, Fire Marshal Schoenthal is recommending these be required to have stops on all windows, which he believes to be a worthwhile measure. The fact that San Rafael is going beyond State law requirements is a matter for lawyers to argue; however, his concern was in connection with existing properties three stories or less. He alluded to the circumstance of where no sprinkler system is installed and the requirement that the innkeeper move all of the furniture a specified distance from the window, anticipating it will not be moved back. This, stated Mr. Abrams, will create considerable liability on the part of the innkeeper, who, while retaining some right to enter the room, does not have the right to casual entry to ensure furniture remains as placed. He indicated that, undoubtedly, furniture will be relocated and should there be a fall from a window, a fairly strict liability would be created on the part of the innkeeper, who, in certain circumstances, will not be in a position to determine the cause. Mr. Abrams stated his organization supports the innkeeper being allowed to install stops on windows to prevent their opening more than 4 inches, or fixing them in place, provided a suitable fire sprinkler system is installed in the property. He indicated that where he disagrees with the Fire Marshal is that in an existing building, the difference between an NFPA 13 system (commercial system) and an NFPA 13R (residential system) is primarily their placement. He explained that the residential system does not require sprinklers to be installed in closets and bathrooms and requested that an innkeeper in an existing building be allowed to use an NFPA 13R sprinkler system. This, he believes, will be sufficient from a fire safety standpoint, while not bankrupting the innkeeper. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 5 Mayor Boro requested that Mr. Abrams pause momentarily, stating he was bothered by the fact that this ordinance was not just written, and unless Mr. Abrams had only seen it today, it would be expected that he write to the appropriate department to work these issues out. He indicated that Council could not at this point, be presented with technical data with the expectation of agreement. He deferred to City Attorney Ragghianti for clarification regarding changes to the ordinance at this stage. Mr. Ragghianti explained that it is always possible to make a change; however, should this change be substantive and material, it returns to a first reading and the entire process begins again. Mr. Ragghianti indicated he had gleaned that Mr. Abrams did not wish to make a change, rather it was his intention to work with staff subsequent to the ordinance being passed. Mayor Boro requested that Mr. Abrams be explicit and to the point regarding his concerns with the language in the ordinance, subsequently, allowing Fire Marshal Schoenthal to react. Mr. Abrams stated his organization's concerns related to Sections 1116.2 — Existing Hotels and 1116.2.2 — Floors One through and including Three. Explaining, he stated that there is no option for the innkeeper to restrict the opening of the window; it is required to be openable in the event of no sprinkler system, together with moving the furniture. This, he believes will subject the innkeeper to significant liability, and he respectfully submitted that the City could arguably, have some liability also. Commenting that he had not known about the ordinance until last week, and apologizing for not writing sooner, Mr. Abrams suggested that on existing buildings only, the innkeeper should either be required or permitted to install window stops, to render them either fixed or openable no more than four inches, provided there is a fire sprinkler system which meets NFPA 13R standards. He indicated that new construction should certainly meet the requirements of NFPA 13, the more costly fire suppression system. Regarding properties with a sprinkler system, Mr. Abrams indicated that San Rafael would be unique in requiring that an innkeeper wishing to install stops on windows would be obliged to apply for a variance. He believes a sprinkler system should be sufficient to allow the innkeeper to either fix the windows or install stops. Concluding, Mr. Abrams indicated his organization would like to work with the Fire Marshal's Office before an ordinance is put in place and he apologized for the tardiness of his involvement. In response to a request for clarification from Fire Marshal Schoenthal, Mr. Abrams stated his second concern is with respect to existing hotels, three or more stories in height. Presently, under the proposed ordinance, innkeepers would be required to go through a variance process with the Fire Marshal's Office in order to obtain permission to install window stops, even with the existence of a sprinkler system. This, he stated, would make San Rafael unique in the State. He stated he believes that the installation of a suitable sprinkler system should suffice for allowing the installation of window stops or fixed in place windows. With regard to Councilmember Heller's question on the type of sprinkler system, Mr. Abrams clarified this only applied to existing properties. Explaining the differences in sprinkler systems, he indicated that a commercial system would require that the sprinklers also be placed in closets and bathrooms of guestrooms. A residential system with quick response sprinkler heads, NFPA 13R, does not require retrofitting the building, at considerable expense, to install sprinklers in closets and bathrooms also. Fire Marshal Schoenthal summarized Mr. Abrams' two concerns as follows: 1. The ability to use an NFPA 13R system as a second exception to section 1116.2.2 in existing buildings only; 2. To have this codified rather than having innkeepers go through the alternate means of protection in the Building or Fire Codes. Mr. Abrams added, that as part of this, the hotel would not only be required to install a sprinkler system, it would also be obliged to meet all other conditions in the code which had changed over the years, even though in most cases, the sprinkler system is deemed to be sufficient to deal with other types of changes. Providing additional background on comments with regard to the State Building Standards Commission, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated this was actually proposed to the Commission by Mr. Abrams' Association, the California Hotel and Motel Association. Prior to being heard by the Commission, it was heard by a committee of technical experts in the fire field, namely the Fire and SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 6 Life Safety Committee. He explained that this committee rejected the proposal and it was only on appeal by the Hotel and Motel Association to the Building Standards Commission, that the Commission actually permitted the use of a commercial grade fire sprinkler system for the one to three story hotel buildings, in the 1998 California Building Code. Regarding the fact that sealing the windows down in high-rise residential occupancies has been permitted for some time, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated that while this is true, in addition to fire sprinklers, there are other commensurate conditions in high-rise buildings which are not in mid -rise buildings. These include smoke evacuation systems and voice enunciation of fire alarms, etc.; therefore, the fire sprinkler system is not the only difference in fire protection between a mid and high-rise hotel. Regarding the specific concerns, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated it was his belief that both the California Building and Fire Codes already adequately address the issue of how existing hotels, motels, or any other occupancy, would be dealt with. There is a section dealing with alternate methods of protection, which does, in fact, require the property owner to essentially, as indicated by Mr. Abrams, appeal to either the Fire Marshal or the Building Official, alluding to the code and pointing out the alternate method they wished to use. He reported it would then be staff's determination as to whether these alternate methods meet equivalent levels of protection. Regarding codifying as opposed to applicants going through the process, Fire Marshal Schoenthal favored a continuation of going through the process. With regard to the specific question concerning the use of an NFPA 13R system, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated that the current California Building Code for new buildings requires the use of an NFPA 13 system. He believed the original request from the California Hotel and Motel Association to the Fire and Life Safety Committee of the Building Standards Commission was for an NFPA 13R system. The compromise agreed upon by the Building Standards Commission, the higher level body, in allowing window locks to be installed, was to upgrade the fire protection system. Fire Marshal Schoenthal submitted that in a new building with all of the other protection features currently being built in, above and beyond fire sprinklers, going back and using a lower form of fire sprinkler protection in the existing stock of hotels would not be favored. He preferred the NFPA 13 system and suggested the appeals process should be addressed. Having carried out some research, Fire Marshal Schoenthal explained there are significant differences between 1970 and 1998, when openable windows were first required by the Building Code. Explaining, he stated that in 1970, the corridors of an interior corridor hotel, were required to be fire rated; however, the doors did not have to be, nor were they required to be self-closing. Currently, doors are required to be rated and close when someone exits the room. He noted there are several other examples of differences between the 1970 and current Building Codes which he believed to be relatively significant for not excepting an NFPA 13R sprinkler system carte blanche, as the exception for floors one through three. Mayor Boro stated it was his understanding that in an old building, the sprinkler system is an NFPA 13R and Fire Marshal Schoenthal is requiring that, together with the installation of locks or sealing the windows, the furniture should also be moved. Fire Marshal Schoenthal clarified that he required the furniture to be moved away from the windows as well as ensuring the window sill height is at least 36 inches on the inside. The exception that no action is required should there be less than 3 -feet on the outside, remains. With regard to the second and third floors of the Four Points Sheraton, Mayor Boro clarified that should they have an NFPA 13R sprinkler system, they would not be permitted to lock the windows. He then explained that his goal would be that all hotels, existing and to be constructed, from floors two and above, would have the ability to lock or seal the windows and he inquired if this present ordinance presented the opportunity to achieve this, should the hotel so choose. Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated the hotel could always choose to fire sprinkler at the NFPA 13 level and this ordinance as it is written, would not permit them to install an NFPA 13R level system and lock the windows. However, they could use the alternate methods of protection and delineate all of their extra fire protection features. Mayor Boro clarified that this is the application process Mr. Abrams is opposed to. Councilmember Cohen stated he was comfortable with the recommendations and believed, to the extent this may have statewide implications, to be a good thing. While appreciating the background presented, he was not in favor of weakening standards which had been reviewed and rejected by the state, i.e., moving from the NFPA 13R. He believed the present process made sense as it was not possible to write the ordinance for the year in which a hotel may have been constructed. Councilmember Cohen stated that without the Fire Marshal's ability to review the specific conditions in a hotel, he would not be in a position to determine what needed to be done, in addition to sprinklering, to bring it up to current code standards for fire safety. This is the requirement for non- operable windows. Councilmember Cohen understood this was a process the innkeeper would need to go through; it did not appear illogical and the result would produce a SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 7 reasonable standard of fire safety. His understanding was the City is not in a position to order existing hotels to come up to current code and install a commercial fire sprinkler system; therefore, the choice was to comply with the ordinance as drafted, or apply for the review and seal the windows. While agreeing with moving the furniture, Councilmember Heller stated furniture tends to be relocated when in the way, as with small hotel rooms. She inquired if putting this condition in the ordinance would increase the City's liability, should an accident happen because it had been pushed back. City Attorney Ragghianti responded in the negative and explained there is a legislative immunity which attaches to the adoption of such an ordinance; there is also discretion involved in the exercise of that authority. He was confident that the adoption of this ordinance, or any other ordinance, cloaks the City Council in immunity, save and except circumstances not existing here. While he was aware someone could move the furniture, he believed it to be important that the ordinance dictates the standard to be achieved. Whether the movement of the furniture is in and of itself the reason for an inquiry and a claim, is an entirely different matter. City Attorney Ragghianti stated the ordinance could be adopted without fear of creating any liability by virtue of this provision on the City's part. Additionally, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated that in section 1116.2.2.2, in addition to the movement of the furniture, there is also a stipulation that the hotel provide a notice to their guests of the requirement. Subsequent to discussions with Susan Bell, Four Points Sheraton Manager, she favored a notice on the windows in lieu of handing guests a notice to this effect; hence the requirement for a notice in the ordinance. Councilmember Phillips noted that as a practical matter, it appeared Embassy Suites had already taken some steps to comply; therefore, with regard to the remainder of properties in the City, he inquired as to what changes some of these would be required to make. From the hotel properties he is familiar with, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated very few of them would be impacted by this ordinance, the Sheraton probably being the most affected location. He believed the Days Inn would fall under the exception, as their windows either open on ground level or on an exterior balcony surrounded by its own guardrail; he was not aware of this hotel having any openable windows from a two-story drop. The same applies to two properties on Lincoln Avenue; they either have a direct exit on the first floor to ground level, with a lower than 36 -inch drop, or they have exterior balconies. The only interior corridor property he was familiar with having exterior windows, is the Four Points Sheraton. Councilmember Phillips inquired if it was fair to conclude, looking into the future, that this would not be deemed an onerous ordinance for new hotels being constructed here. Fire Marshal Schoenthal did not believe so, as currently the State Building Code affords hotels the option to do this. Presently, they could construct their hotel up to four stories with an NFPA 13R sprinkler system; however, they would not be in a position to avail themselves of the exception. The ordinance specifies that an NFPA 13 system has to be used and they must use the exception which requires window stops. Mr. Abrams, Executive Vice -President, California Hotel & Motel Association suggested their goal is to create safety and the issue does not rest merely with children falling from windows, rather more frequently the issue is with intruders; therefore, a 36 -inch drop is irrelevant. He recommended that the way to preclude intruders from entering existing hotel rooms is fixing the windows in place or locking them down, to prevent their opening more than four inches. In this regard, he believed moving the furniture accomplishes nothing; therefore, should NFPA 13 be the appropriate standard, he suggested that the Fire Marshal and City Council address the issue of allowing existing hotels, motels and inns, regardless of how many stories, to lock down windows. Should the Fire Marshal have concern that NFPA 13 is somehow vastly superior to NFPA 13R, he requested that innkeepers in existing buildings be at least allowed to have the option of installing an NFPA 13 system, as has been ruled adequate by the State of California. Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated the option is always available to hotels and motels to use the alternate methods of protection, which would include the full package of protection, and not merely the fire sprinkler system, to seal the windows. The current exception in the 1998 California Building Code is far superior in other fire and life safety issues, not just the fire sprinkler area. Mayor Boro clarified that any existing hotel or motel could now install NFPA 13 systems, albeit expensive, if they so choose and Fire Marshal Schoenthal further clarified that this would be a piece of the alternate methods request to himself and Mr. Vincenti. This in turn, stated Mayor Boro, would permit them to lock or seal the windows should they meet the requirements. Somewhat confused on the issue, Councilmember Phillips inquired if the issue is as obvious as it SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 8 appears, why Mr. Abrams had a problem Responding, Mr. Abrams stated that presently should an existing hotel, motel or inn, regardless of when it was constructed, choose to install an NFPA 13 system, in and of itself and without going through a variance process, it is sufficient to allow the windows to be locked down. However, he believed that for San Rafael to indicate it will require something substantially different from that concluded by the Building Standards Commission and the State Fire Marshal in 1998 to be sufficient, would deter innkeepers from installing the sprinkler system, as it would entail much more than that required by the State Code. Instead, they would opt for moving the furniture and leaving the windows unfixed, which he stated, is not good for either the innkeeper or those falling out of or gaining unlawful entry through windows. Mayor Boro inquired of Fire Marshal Schoenthal why it was necessary to be more stringent than the State Code with respect to the owner retrofitting his property to an NFPA 13 sprinkler system. Explaining, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated when the process was first begun, the Embassy Suites contacted his office indicating they wished to use an exception in the Fire Code to install locks on all windows. He reported informing their fire protection engineering company of his belief that it was more appropriate to use the alternate methods of protection rather than an exception in the Fire Code. Explaining the difference, he stated that the Fire Code section in the chapter on exiting properties refers back to the original Building Code the building was built under, which did not contain the window lock exception. This exception was first presented in the 1998 Building and Fire Codes. On advising the fire protection engineer, in response to the written request to use the exception in the Fire Code, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated he indicated that the Fire Code only applies to how the buildings were originally constructed, and in 1985, it was not permitted to use window locks on sprinklered buildings. Using the scenario of Embassy Suites wishing to lock the windows, and practically speaking, Mayor Boro inquired what needed to be done differently by the innkeeper to use the exception to the Fire Code versus the alternate method of protection. Responding, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated that to merely use the exception, nothing more is required of them. He had requested that they submit to himself and Mr. Vincenti the overall fire safety package for the building, rather than a Fire Code exception, as the Fire Code refers back to the original construction. Mayor Boro inquired as to the result of the Embassy Suites' action. Fire Marshal Schoenthal clarified that Embassy Suites had done nothing differently, rather they installed the window locks without having gone through the appeal process. He indicated this issue is still in abeyance as he had requested a re -interpretation of their action from the State Fire Marshal's Office. Without casting a reflection on anyone, Mayor Boro stated the matter was somewhat confusing and hung up on terms. In an effort to clarify, Fire Chief Marcucci stated a building constructed in 1975 has certain features relative to fire protection, and today those features might not be as effective. Installing a sprinkler system would not negate the lack of fire protection in a 1975 construction; therefore, as alluded to by Fire Marshal Schoenthal, there could be doors installed in 1975 which are not solid core; the core doors may not be rated, i.e., there may not be sheet rock to prevent the fire from extending out or into the building. Fire Chief Marcucci stated the Fire Marshal's suggestion is to evaluate the building in totality to ascertain if and what improvements have been made. Over time, rated core doors may have been installed; however, until the appeal process has been discussed and carried out, staff is not willing to confirm that the sprinkler system alone will protect the occupant. Mayor Boro confirmed that this, in essence, affords the ability to re -inspect and re -certify rather than merely approving the installation of the NFPA 13 sprinkler system. Fire Chief Marcucci further clarified that in permitting the installation of the sprinkler system, should it for some reason not operate effectively because the doors are not rated, staff believes there would be some liability for the City. For this reason, he indicated discussions are necessary to ascertain what they have in place. In light of the fact that the Embassy Suites hotel has not followed the recommended process, Mayor Boro inquired as to the next step. Responding, Fire Chief Marcucci stated staff believes that should the Embassy Suites enter into discussions, they would not have a problem. Assuming they refused to have discussions, Mayor Boro inquired what could be done. Responding, Fire Chief Marcucci stated they would be informed that until discussions take place, it would be necessary to unlock the windows, as this is in violation of a section of law. He further explained that the City is held responsible for the building from the point of occupancy until obsolescence and he believed their reluctance to discuss this matter stems from a potential lawsuit. With regard to the Four Points Sheraton, a sprinkler system has been installed and the building retrofitted subsequent to a major fire, at which time they elected to install an NFPA 13R system. Staff now intends to discuss with them their alarm system, core doors and doors, and having SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 9 evaluated the sprinkler system, with some modifications, it is possible it could be certified as NFPA 13. Mayor Boro clarified that as these issues cannot go on a stand-alone basis, they need to be reviewed. Under current state standards, should an existing hotel retrofit its sprinkler system to meet the standards of NFPA 13, Councilmember Cohen inquired if they could lock the windows without making any other code changes. Fire Chief Marcucci confirmed they must discuss the total building with staff. Councilmember Cohen indicated he gleaned from Mr. Abrams' remarks that currently, under State law, should a hotel retrofit with an NFPA 13 sprinkler system, they are permitted to lock their windows, absent the other building code changes. Responding, Fire Chief Marcucci stated that in 1974 it was determined all commercial buildings in the City of San Rafael would be sprinklered, several years later requiring all residential buildings constructed to contain sprinkler systems, and this has resulted in a higher standard and lower fire loss. Returning to the question raised by Councilmember Cohen regarding the feasibility of locking the windows subsequent to installing an NFPA 13 sprinkler system, Mayor Boro inquired if this could be done. Responding, Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated this is the disagreement with the Embassy Suites, in that they deem this to be permissive authority under the State Fire Code. He stated he disagrees because of how the code section is written and has sought clarification from the State Fire Marshal's Office, with no response as yet. Councilmember Cohen suggested continuing this item pending clarification from the State Fire Marshal's Office, to at least understand the existing State regulations. While he supported the ordinance and was in favor of setting a higher standard, he was not clear at this point, if this would be the case. Fire Marshal Schoenthal commented that the ordinance before Council was not impacted either way; however, both Councilmembers Cohen and Heller disagreed. Mayor Boro was in favor of continuing consideration of this item to a future meeting, together with staff providing an Action Plan to deal with having hotels with sprinkler systems reach the goal of locking all windows. He requested that should Mr. Abrams have specific issues to be considered, it would be more productive to put them in writing to the Fire Marshal. Apologizing for the fact that this issue did not come to his attention sooner, Mr. Abrams stated they would be happy to work with the Fire Marshal. It was agreed to return this item for further consideration at the City Council Meeting of December 17, 2001, with the anticipated clarification from the State Fire Marshal's Office, together with an Action Plan for locking all windows. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to continue the public hearing to the meeting of December 17, 2001. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 8. Public Hearing — 41 VALENCIA AVENUE — CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR -UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON A 9,033 -SQUARE -FOOT PARCEL, LOCATED IN THE MONTECITO NEIGHBORHOOD; APN 014-032-15; MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (HR 1.8) DISTRICT; BRIAN MCLERAN, OWNER/APPELLANT; FILE NOS.: ED 99-104 AND V01-05 (CD) — FILE 10-7 x 10-4 Mayor Boro commented that this item was before Council on appeal from the Planning Commission, who voted to deny the project, and he requested that Kristie Richardson, Principal Planner, present the staff report. Principal Planner Kristie Richardson stated this was an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny applications which would allow development of a four -unit apartment building on Valencia Avenue. She indicated that the staff report and attachments include a description of the project, a substantial amount of background, and an analysis of the project's consistency with the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 10 General Plan and zoning ordinance. Her presentation would consist of a summary of the Planning Commission's decision and responses to some of their concerns, together with staff's recommendation. Ms. Richardson reported the Planning Commission considered the proposed project at two public hearings, June 26 and August 14, 2001, and ultimately, adopted a resolution denying the project on August 28, 2001, having three primary concerns: 1. They believed the project would over -develop the site and suggested it should be at the low end of the density range allowed under the General Plan, or three units; 2. They believed the proposed parking in front of the building to be in the wrong location and too close to neighbors; and 3. The Planning Commission was uncomfortable with the proposed drainage system which would include a cistern located under the parking deck to collect the project storm water run- off, releasing it through a pipe at the back end of the project behind the proposed building. Ms. Richardson presented staff's responses to these concerns as follows: 1. The proposed density of four units is within that allowed under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; however, perhaps a three or even a four -unit project could be redesigned on the site to address the concern regarding the over -development. A building with a lower profile, reducing the scale and mass of the structure, could possibly achieve this. 2. A redesign of the project could also address the parking issue, relocating parking either underneath or behind the building, which would be more consistent and in keeping with the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan. 3. Staff believes the drainage analysis and peer review carried out for the project adequately address the drainage issue. Ms. Richardson indicated that although the project engineer, Lee Oberkamper, was not present this evening, the City's peer review consultant, Syd Temple, Questa Engineering, was in attendance and could answer any questions concerning the hydrology and drainage plan. Ms. Richardson stated staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the project. Further, it is recommended this be done without prejudice, which would allow the applicant to return with a new application and redesigned project without waiting a year. She indicated that if the consensus of the City Council is to grant the appeal and approve the project, staff recommends Council's direction to prepare the resolutions for adoption at a subsequent City Council Meeting. Councilmember Cohen clarified with Ms. Richardson that staff was satisfied on the hydrology issue. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and invited the applicant to address the Council first. He suggested to all potential speakers that the focus be confined to the issues at hand. Chris Craiker, Architect for the project, 526 Third Street, stated he had been working on this particular project for five years. It had gone through a lot of different iterations at various times and this is the third plan to be approved by the Design Review Board. He indicated that three years ago with Planner, Chantry Bell, a plan for four townhouses/condominiums was approved, at which time Brian McLeran purchased the site, specifying that he favored constructing simple and interesting apartments. Mr. Craiker believed four units providing workforce housing at rental made a lot of sense. Mr. Craiker explained that with the assistance of Community Development Director Bob Brown, a concept was presented to the Design Review Board two years ago, who indicated the project could probably work with some specified modifications. It was again presented to the Design Review Board a year later, when they expressed their satisfaction. Being cognizant of the fact that the Design Review Board does not speak for the City or the Planning Commission, Mr. Craiker stated that everything requested was diligently responded to. He indicated that a number of meetings took place, at which the Planning Commissioners were present, before the project was approved for four units. Mr. Craiker reported two major problems with the site: drainage and the slope. He reported that the slope is a problem because not only is the lot sloping down, but Valencia Street also slopes. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 11 There is an easement at the top of the property on the adjacent property which has always been used as part of the egress; however, as this came in so high, other problems have been created on the site; nonetheless, they proceeded with the plan. Regarding drainage, Mr. Craiker believed the Planning Commission was, unfortunately, somewhat confused on this issue and while some Commissioners rightfully continued to raise questions, they were not satisfied. He indicated that Lee Oberkamper, Engineer, generated a solution, which was accepted by Fred Vincenti, Building and Safety Manager, both of whom agreed the concept worked. Unconvinced, the Planning Commission requested another party be retained; therefore, Questa Engineering was brought into the project and they suggested increasing the size. Explaining that the idea was to retain as much of the water as possible on site, Mr. Craiker stated that currently, there is a 5 -foot strip of land at the back of the property, owned by the City, although never improved; therefore, creating a drain would entail significant expense and effort. He indicated the project was designed with a tank to collect the site water to be distributed on site in a safe manner and as there never was a water problem on the site, it appeared unreasonable to have to do another layer. Alternatively, the water could be pumped up to Valencia Street to be distributed; however, this is a mechanical system he wished to avoid and believed unnecessary; however, it has always been the backup system. Explaining that the slope impacted the parking, Mr. Craiker stated the parking issue arose as a result of the applicant's request to return to the Design Review Board, subsequent to the first or second approval for the four apartments, to express the belief that the parking was warped and had a problem. Traffic Engineer, Nader Mansourian, did not favor it because it was steep, warped and went in various directions; therefore, it was flipped to its present situation. Mr. Craiker explained that the driveway is at the low end of the access with the parking straight in, rendering it relatively flat. This, he stated, solves two problems in that the entire parking lot is relatively flat and the driveway comes in at the lowest spot. The driveway could also be made twenty — thirty feet wide in asphalt; it was constructed at eighteen feet which Mr. Mansourian believed to be a good idea at the time, as it permitted more landscaping. Mr. Craiker noted that the Design Review Board's description was that "the reduced driveway width would allow more landscaping to be developed and would be in keeping with the adjacent apartment projects. The City Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposed driveway and recommended approval of the deviation, given the narrowness of the site and the property slope." Mr. Craiker explained they had the clear understanding that the proposed eighteen feet was acceptable, only to ascertain that the Planning Commission had a problem with the request for the exception from twenty to eighteen feet; however, he indicated they would adhere to the request. Parking in the setback was another issue, and Mr. Craiker explained that they requested this variation in the plan which permitted flipping the parking to make the access work. To have kept it as before would have entailed driving in on the adjacent easement of the property with no setback requirements necessary. Mr. Craiker indicated that had they known the Planning Commission would have a problem, they would have made modifications, and should have been afforded the opportunity to make the driveway wider, diverting the parking from the setback area. In questioning the reasons for the Planning Commission's denial of the project, Mr. Craiker stated the neighborhood had consistently requested three units and parking had not been an issue, even though parking is not sufficiently provided by anyone in the neighborhood. He indicated that the General Plan speaks to three to six units, with the zoning requesting five units; therefore, the four units proposed seemed consistent with the policies of the City Council and Planning Commission. He was aware the City Council and Planning Commission had the discretion to make special site conditions to create a lower density; however, he did not believe it was merited in this case. He commented that to reduce it to the low end of the density and General Plan would be a dangerous precedent and something he did not consider the City wished to achieve. Mr. Craiker stated he believed the City wished to achieve apartments for rent and not something less valuable. Considering the alternatives, Mr. Craiker stated that four apartments or three condominiums could be constructed, and inquired which option Council favored. Summarizing, Mr. Craiker stated they do not require any exceptions or variances, the drainage will work and the question was whether the requirement was for four apartments or three condominiums for sale. Brain McLeran, Owner/Appellant, explaining the reason for changing the project midstream, stated that on reviewing the plan and working with contractors and engineers, he drove down the driveways of buildings in the area and was uncomfortable with them. They were not practical and the similar driveway which had been approved by the Design Review Board initiated the change. Mr. McLeran reported relating this concern to Mr. Craiker . He indicated having made numerous visits to the site in an effort to resolve the problem and the idea of placing the parking in the front SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 12 was generated. This, he indicated, allows for easy access and lowers the building by placing it in the back rendering it more visually acceptable. Referring to Planning Commissioner comments, Mr. McLeran explained that from the inception with the Design Review Board, they went eighteen months through the process, and literally designed the project with the guidance of the City. This, he stated was where the frustration began with the Planning Commission, as having designed the concept, they presented it to the Design Review Board requesting guidance. He indicated that they adhered to all the requests and were surprised at the Planning Commission's reversal of the project. He urged Council to evaluate the project for its merits. Sally Kibbee distributed a petition bearing signatures in favor of a scaled down project with smaller units, at 41 Valencia Street, San Rafael. Ms. Kibbee, President of the United Montecito Neighborhood Association and member of the Montecito Happy Valley Project Reviewing Board, stated they had been evaluating this project since 1992. She indicated that most of the objections relating to this project have been public knowledge for a long time and in spite of what they consider to be obvious problems, the project owner and developer persists with the design, making no decisive changes to make the project attractive and legal. Ms. Kibbee noted the project as it is, would not be legal without allowing variances and exceptions. Ms. Kibbee stated that the house is set far back on the property and mostly below street level, and should the planned landscaping mature, it is doubtful the house will be visible. She noted that this is not in character with the other homes on the street which are all up front and for good or bad, visible from the street, and is the case with most urban residential neighborhoods. The very large parking and maneuvering area this insignificant house is generating is visible, however. She noted that one of the Design Review Board members commented that it resembles a single-family home; however, Ms. Kibbee believed it to be similar to a commercial parking lot. She commented that commercial parking lots have amenities such as interspersing trees and landscaping, which is not evident with this project. Ms. Kibbee stated that the parking would be less offensive should it be smaller and elevated into full view, especially for the next-door neighbors, who would have a unique privacy problem. She believed it was a mistake to remove all vegetation from the site; the mature plants and trees make an attractive contribution and are a contributing factor in onsite water assimilation. Ms. Kibbee noted that a lot had been written and spoken unnecessarily concerning the handling of water runoff on this property. It is a risky plan which would eventually cause trouble; however, the easy solution was one which the City would not favor endorsing. She explained that all the engineers are in agreement that sooner or later, the water would reach a municipal drainage area and inquired why this could not happen up front. She suggested bypassing the private property and the potential risk of damage and harm, by opting for a slow controlled release directly onto Valencia. Ms. Kibbee indicated that the City could facilitate this by making some long overdue improvements to the street by upgrading the drainage system. Alternatively, although more involved and complicated, Ms. Kibbee suggested recreating the present water assimilation by reducing the hardscape areas, increasing the vegetative cover and utilizing building materials which facilitate water permeation. The tank could be a contributing element; however, one of minimal proportions. Lorenzo Ersland, 196 Union Street, San Rafael, stated a triplex was built next door to his property, at which time a sump pump was installed. The natural slope is from his property onto this one and the City insisted, as a safeguard to ensure a fail-safe system, there be backup electricity in the event of a failure. This being in the mid-1990s during the heavy rains, Mr. Ersland reported that he arose one morning to discover his back yard and house were flooded. He recalled that when the developers built the adjacent driveway, rather than conforming it to the natural slope of the land, it was tilted back; therefore, the runoff not alone came from down the hill, but also from next door. On this occasion, a hairbrush had entered and broken the sump pump. There was a similar occurrence a year later, at which point he found it necessary to install a French drain along his property, hauling in topsoil, together with installing a sump pump. Not having a strong vested interest in this particular property other than being interested in his own neighborhood, Mr. Ersland noted this is a much steeper and larger property with substantially more drain runoff. Pumping the water up to Valencia Street would result in runoff down the street and eventually into someone's driveway and noting there is no City drainage system in that immediate neighborhood, he stated water does not magically disappear. Recalling the torrential rains of recent years, he questioned where the water would go when the cistern fills up. Lastly, Mr. Ersland raised the problem of mosquitoes in the catchbasins SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 13 Bob McAllister, 115 Jewell Street, San Rafael, stated that when Sally Kibbee first began her Neighborhood Association, approximately eleven years ago, an almost universal complaint from all parts of the neighborhood was to the effect that so many buildings were too large for their lots, and there was an abundance of cars and trucks. This, he stated, was the product of shortsighted planning thirty years earlier, and when it was decided that San Rafael needed more workforce housing near town and transit. Mr. McAllister indicated that since then, the requirements for onsite parking have been tightened citywide; however, in built-up areas, the benefits of this have been negligible. Mr. McAllister reported that in the late 1970 — early 1980s when residing in a ten -unit apartment building on Union Street, there were an average of eight vehicles in ten carports, and today, the same complex has half that number again parking on the street. He indicated that in 1995, many residents, together with the City Planning Department, developed the Neighborhood Plan, which they were assured would protect them from over -developed projects, with adequate and/or front yard parking; however, the message is not being heard. Mr. McAllister recalled the substantial amount of evenings he has spent evaluating yet another set of plans, all simply too large for this very difficult site. He commented that developers are not receiving the message that this neighborhood is no longer willing to be the dumping ground for projects which would not even be proposed in other parts of the City. He informed the City Council that this evening, they had the opportunity to send this message out and he sincerely hoped they would do so. Mayor Boro inquired if Mr. McAllister considered the eight parking spaces adequate. Mr. McAllister responded in the negative and explained there was no means of controlling the number of people living in the apartments, and in this situation, believed the standards were not adequate. He stated he could conceivably call the police every weekend because of cars parked in front of the fire hydrant, etc., as it was a constant problem. Mayor Boro invited Syd Temple, Questa Engineering, to describe the cistern and why he recommended it. Syd Temple, Questa Engineering, stated he had carried out the peer review for the drainage aspects of the project, indicating that basically, what is proposed on the system is not a retention basin, rather a detention basin. Explaining, he stated that a retention basin collects all of the water and stores it without releasing it, basically a catchment, while a detention basin collects the water and releases it at a rate equal to, or less than the previous rate. He noted there are four types of impacts to the hydrology on the site: 1. Increasing the peak runoff, the rate at which runoff increases for a period of time based on a rainfall burst; a detention basin collects that water into a pool, slowly releasing it. This is very successful in reducing the peak run off from the site; 2. Another impact is that with a site which is currently vegetated, or has a lot of open soil area with an overland flow, the water will be collected into a formal collection system and released after it has concentrated the flow; 3. Because impervious surfaces will be increased, such as roof and driveway areas, the runoff volume will be increased; and 4. The fourth impact is the effect on ground water levels. To pave over the soil would prevent water from soaking into the ground water, which would reduce some ground water levels. Taking these four basic impacts, Mr. Temple explained some of the pros and cons as follows: For runoff peaks, Mr. Temple explained that the cistern is an underground concrete tank, similar to a septic tank, and will do an excellent job. He indicated that from his review of the first design of the project, he noted that a 24-hour storm was not run, nor did it have an emergency out -fall. He noted that Mr. Oberkamper redid the hydrology calculations for a 25 -year, 24-hour storm, which resulted in upsizing the basin and adding an emergency secondary spillway. With regard to collecting overland flow and concentrating it, Mr. Temple stated that when the discharge from the cistern occurs, it goes to a flow spreader or perforated pipe along the back side and disperses the water across the back property line. This, he stated, is a very common type of mitigation done for smaller culverts, etc. Mr. Temple explained that the project will increase the amount of water which runs off the site, as less water will soak into the ground. It should be realized, however, that with a typical storm, the project will have a much greater impact in terms of runoff volume than with a rare 25 -year storm. Explaining, Mr. Temple stated that there are clay and shallow soils on the site and with heavy rain, SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 14 the soil is similar to a sponge with a rate at which it can absorb the water; therefore, when the rainfall exceeds this rate of absorption, the water will run off. He stated that in a 25 -year or large storm, with already existing soil saturation, a high amount of runoff will be generated, regardless of whether there is concrete or clay soil. To evaluate runoff volumes on a per storm basis for larger, rarer magnitude storms, not much difference is evident. The difference mainly occurs with average rainfall, whereby the cistern collects and releases the water at a slower rate. With regard to shallow ground water flow, Mr. Temple stated the project would be a benefit to this as it would prevent water from soaking into the soil, enhancing runoff for the site. Mr. Temple reported that when evaluating this, his one concern was that the system, being very simple with no mechanical components similar to a sump pump which could become jammed, would collect debris over time; therefore, it would eventually need to be maintained. The frequency of maintenance was difficult to forecast, depending on landscaping, etc.; however, it would be fairly hazardous to maintain by the homeowner. He explained that it is a closed space with decomposing material at the bottom and requires a certain knowledge to maintain. In this respect, he noted it would be necessary to hire a vacuum truck. He indicated it is a pretty passive system, requiring some maintenance, perhaps approximately every five years and is not typically used for individual residential properties; however, he was confident it would function as designed and based on the comments in redesign, would work. He believed it was feasible and the mitigations would reduce the impacts to less than significant. Recalling Mr. Temple's comment regarding releasing the water, Mayor Boro requested clarification on the method of release. Responding, Mr. Temple stated all areas drain into a central tank, which has a smaller orifice, similar to a funnel and is limited by the size of the pipe emanating from the tank; therefore, water backs up and is released at the rate the smaller orifice can handle. The orifice is sized to have a maximum discharge, which is less than the peak discharge from the site under existing conditions; thereby, reducing the peak discharge from pre -project conditions. Mr. Temple confirmed for Mayor Boro that it releases the water above ground into a mechanism, a pipe containing gravel and perforations. It will release from the tank similar to a soaker hose; albeit somewhat more permeable. Mayor Boro inquired how the collector could be prevented from stopping up from the debris. Mr. Temple explained that typically, each of the inlets has a grate to minimize the entry of material; however, it requires maintenance, which if not carried out, would be obvious to the owner because of backed up water, etc. In an effort to understand the system, Councilmember Heller inquired whether it was a common one. Mr. Temple indicated it was common and used in many municipalities across the country on a larger scale where a regional facility would have a pond or lake to store the water. This smaller scale is not so commonly used. Explaining a French drain, Mr. Temple stated it is similar to a permeable trench where the water is picked up in a pipe and drained; however, this was not such a system. Regarding the property to the right of the instant one, Councilmember Heller inquired how these areas drain. Responding, Mr. Temple could not be precise; however, he believed it drained down the hill across the property below and was eventually picked up in the street, moving laterally down the street to the nearest inlet to the municipal storm drain. He noted that almost all of the drainage goes down the hill. Councilmember Phillips inquired how Mr. Temple's report this evening varied from that presented to the Planning Commission, as he appeared to be comfortable that the drainage would be adequate. Mr. Temple stated he was comfortable with the system, his own house having a similar one, although not quite a detention basin. Although not having flow spreaders, he had noticed in the heaviest rains, the water only concentrates from the pipes for approximately five or ten feet and then disappears. He indicated that in terms of his remarks to the Planning Commission, on that particular evening there were a lot of other public speakers addressing the hydrology issue who provided data which was confusing in that it was comparing apples and oranges, which perhaps muddled the perception by voting time. He noted there are communities in California who do not permit these small cistern type systems because of the maintenance issue, together with the difficulty in predicting runoff volumes, as with too many in one watershed, from an engineering prospective it becomes difficult to predict inter - reactions. He noted that an isolated installation is not a big deal; however, he would not SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 15 encourage this type of mitigation strategy to the Public Works Director as a standard mitigation strategy. Clarifying Mr. Temple's position, Councilmember Phillips inquired if he was an advocate for the applicant or an independent. Explaining, Ms. Richardson, Principal Planner, stated that the City hired Questa Engineering to carry out a peer review of the hydrology and drainage analysis performed by the applicant's engineer; therefore, Mr. Temple works for the City. Councilmember Cohen noted that included in the meeting packet was a letter from Mr. Temple, dated July 25, 2001, and inquired if he had written a further review since then. Mr. Temple explained the initial comment letter was dated July 25, 2001. The plans were re- submitted and extra hydrology was completed and submitted to him on August 7t", Having reviewed the extra modeling, he concluded that Mr. Oberkamper had addressed the technical aspects and facilities design aspects put forward in his letter. Noting Mr. Temple's comments that generally speaking, he would not encourage this type of small individual facility on individual residential properties because of the maintenance responsibilities and also the increased oversight by the City, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether the City would have some responsibility to ensure that the maintenance was attended to or whether the City had some liability should it approve the project, and the maintenance was not carried out. While unable to speak to the City's liability of this aspect, Mr. Temple stated that this type of mitigation works well in exceptional cases. In this case, to design the storm water system and meet the concept of not having any increased peak run off leaving the site, there was no alternative other than a mechanical sump pump. He indicated that the neighborhood is largely built out and the storm drain systems are already installed; therefore, there will not be a lot of future building out in the storm drain watershed which drains this area. He noted that in order to meet a no net increase in run off from this site, this is virtually the only course of action available, other than a mechanical pump system, which he believed to be a worse system. Mr. Temple stated that in this case, since the likelihood is that there would not be large amounts of these small cistern type systems in this watershed, he believed it was feasible to move forward. Conversely, should it be a lot surrounded by undeveloped property, whereby several different lots would endeavor to use this type of technique, he would recommend upgrading the storm drainage system to handle the flow, or provide some type of local concentrated neighborhood system. Councilmember Cohen stated that presumably, a way could be figured out to take the drainage downstream in the project. Mr. Temple stated that to obtain the easements would be preferable; however, he believed there were constraints with the downstream property owner granting an easement. On the parking issue, Brian McLeran, Owner/Appellant, referred Council to this evening's packet and the report depicting #35 Valencia, the unit next door, as having 12 units with 12 parking places, #49 with 7 units and 7 parking places, #51 with 8 units and 8 parking places, etc., and pointed out that in comparison to the surrounding properties, he had 100% more parking. Mr. McLeran stated that in addressing the parking, he had spent several Saturday mornings at the site and observed that it works. There was a problem with people storing cars on the street, moving them between Jewell, Park and Valencia streets, and while tracking the situation, he observed people moving their cars to another block, repeating the process to another block some days later. He believed there was a storage problem in this area which the community needed to address. Referring to the petition distributed this evening, and also distributed to the Planning Commission, Mr. McLeran stated he took the petition to the neighbors to inquire whether they had signed it, and had learned that not one person who signed the petition had ever looked at the plans or the site. The inference was that the petition was to stop this huge development down the street, which completely misrepresented the situation, and Mr. McLeran indicated he took offense at the manner in which it was presented to Council this evening, as it was not carried out correctly. Mr. McLeran stated that since he began this process three years ago, at each meeting he had offered to walk the site with the neighbors at their pleasure, and he was repeating this offer this evening; however, not one here present this evening had availed of the opportunity. He indicated that Mrs. Myers who owns the property just north, #49, was the only one who took the time to walk the property with him, accompanied by her son and Chris Craiker, and having explained the project to her, she was in support of it. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 15 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 16 On the question of maintenance of the system, Mr. McLeran stated he is very familiar with the process of pumping out storm drains, explaining that his family owns a substantial quantity of real estate, and they contract with a sewer service on a regular basis for this service. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro inquired if staff had any further comment and Ms. Richardson responded negatively, unless there was some clarification necessary. Councilmember Miller inquired regarding the parking in front of the property, recalling from meetings that it was not ideal. Responding, Ms. Richardson stated that the neighborhood plan includes an appendix containing design guidelines for projects, and in particular, one which addressed driveways and parking areas, which specifies that in new projects or major reconstructions, ground level parking areas should be recessed or placed to the rear of buildings. Where front parking is unavoidable, it should be well screened and landscaped. Noting it was a difficult issue and most of the guidelines were being followed, Councilmember Heller stated it appeared that it would be a very nice building and a nice fit for the neighborhood. The parking was problematic to the neighbors, however, and she wondered whether it was feasible to move it down somewhat, or whether there was space for any extra parking on the side. Responding, Ms. Richardson stated that given the current design, she did not believe there was. It was possible, however, to redesign the project to either move the parking back behind the building or under the building and in this way, add some parking. She was not aware whether this had been studied. Ms. Richardson noted that the previous plan referred to by Mr. McLeran, which had gone through the Design Review Board for the townhomes, had the parking away from the street. Mayor Boro noted that Mr. Craiker had made a comment that he would not need a variance, he could go to twenty feet and the parking would not be in the setback, and requested clarification. Ms. Richardson explained that the exception request is to allow the driveway from Valencia to be eighteen feet instead of twenty and Mr. Craiker had indicated he could make it twenty. She indicated that the variance request is to allow the parking and maneuvering area within the setback, and again, Mr. Craiker has indicated it could be designed so as it is not within the setback. She noted that the plan as currently presented, has both parking and maneuvering areas within the setbacks. Councilmember Phillips stated that this evening's report is recommending denial of the appeal and yet in August, there was a recommendation to the Planning Commission that the project be accepted; therefore, he was curious as to the significant points transpiring which resulted in the recommendation to deny the appeal. Ms. Richardson explained that it is the policy of the Community Development Department to pass on in the case of an appeal, the Planning Commission's decision. She indicated that unless staff felt very strongly that the decision of the Planning Commission was wrong, they would not recommend otherwise. She noted that originally staff recommended approval of the project believing the issues had been addressed. Other than the Planning Commission's conclusion, Councilmember Phillips inquired whether in Ms. Richardson's view anything had changed with regard to the appropriateness of the project. Ms. Richardson stated she did not originally work on the project; however, in reviewing the Happy Valley/Montecito Neighborhood Plan, she believed the original planner evaluated the policies and not so much the design guidelines, and perhaps, did not recognize the design guideline which does encourage parking behind buildings or away from the street. In this way, she noted, the design of the project could have changed earlier on to address this issue. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether in Ms. Richardson's view parking is significant to the extent that it is not an appropriate project. Responding, Ms. Richardson stated that the number of parking spaces meets the City's zoning requirements for parking; however, the design and location of the parking could be in conflict with the design guidelines in the neighborhood plan. Councilmember Phillips requested clarification on whether it was or was not in conflict. Ms. Richardson stated the guidelines address unavoidable front parking and she believed Mr. McLeran stated in his presentation that he had looked at the driveway for the original project and SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 16 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 17 the steepness of it was a concern to him, for safety reasons; therefore, parking at the rear could be deemed avoidable. Community Development Director Bob Brown added that it could also be concluded that the fact that the parking is depressed below the street level, due to the slope, it would not be extraordinarily visible to pedestrians and motorists passing by; therefore, theoretically, the finding could be made that with landscaping and topography, the parking is not as obvious as otherwise would be the case. Following up on this point, Mayor Boro, noting that with the design guidelines and the fact that the applicant had been before the Design Review Board on at least three occasions and sought advice from them, questioned why the Design Review Board would not be evaluating the guidelines and recommending alternatives. Ms. Richardson stated she was unsure as to whether the guidelines were specifically brought to the Design Review Board's attention; she was aware that the policies in the neighborhood plan were, which do not speak directly to the parking issue. As he saw it, Mayor Boro stated there were three issues: density, design and water runoff. An independent third party had assessed the situation and indicated the system would work; therefore, unless something contrary could be proven, he had no reason not to believe the review. He did not see the density of three versus four as a big difference; therefore, the design was the major concern and was centered on the location of the parking and the fact that the building is at the back instead of the front of the lot. Councilmember Miller stated this was his basic issue in that guidelines as expressed in the Happy Valley/Montecito Plan are quite clear that the parking should be at the rear, and the question of whether it should be three or four units was not an issue with him. He indicated that the placement of the parking was contrary to anything he had or wished to observe in a neighborhood. While understanding this point, Councilmember Heller stated that perhaps this should have been pointed out to the applicant through planning, etc. She did not favor informing an applicant that the City allowed them to do something they should not have done, it being the City's mistake. She did not see it quite as unattractive as the old apartment next door and disliked penalizing any applicant for what she considered the City's mistake in not being clear. Councilmember Miller stated he would hate to penalize the neighborhood, having gone through a two-year process to come up with a policy, and then suddenly inform them a parking lot was being permitted in front of a building. He believed the community decision was aptly expressed and if the City and staff did not adequately guide the process along, they should take the consequences, which should not be adverse to the community and their policy. To clarify, Mayor Boro stated it was a guideline rather than a policy and other than not following the guideline, he was endeavoring to understand the harm. The design was the problem for the Planning Commission and Mayor Boro questioned whether the project would be that much better if it were reversed. Councilmember Cohen stated it appeared to him that the density issue could not be thrown out as the impact of the parking was the heart of the issue and four units necessitate the provision of eight parking spaces, with six parking spaces for three units, etc. He believed that perhaps the parking could be dealt with more creatively with fewer units, as the unit count drives the size of the parking apron. He agreed the applicant is meeting the parking requirement; however, placing all of it in front of the building is in direct opposition to the design guidelines worked out with the community. Councilmember Cohen did not understand why the Design Review Board did not factor these into their calculations, and is an issue which needs to be addressed; however, he agreed with Councilmember Miller, that the response should not then be to give permission to construct the project because the Design Review Board did not factor in the community plan which the City worked with the neighbors to generate. He was unaware of how this occurred; however, he was aware that the City Council does not permit the Design Review Board to approve projects. Councilmember Cohen stated he tended to agree with the Planning Commission's position, noting that perhaps, there could be a way to deal with the problems more creatively and without the variances. He indicated that perhaps one way to do this would be to realize that this is too much project for the site and by reducing it, the requirement for the parking could be reduced. without having an ocean of parking at the front of the building, which runs counter to the neighborhood design guidelines which took years to put in place. He believed now that the plan is in place, he felt an obligation to live by it to the greatest extent possible. Regarding the hydrology issue, Councilmember Cohen stated this is an engineering solution which SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 17 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 18 probably would work and he did not question the professional judgment that it is workable. He noted it is unusual on a site this size and believed it speaks to the difficulty of developing the site at the level proposed. He indicated that extreme engineering solutions usually denote something difficult and awkward concerning the development of a particular site, which he believed raises questions. Councilmember Cohen stated he supported the Planning Commission's position on this project. Mayor Boro inquired if Councilmember Cohen supported their position on all three points. Councilmember Cohen stated that the Planning Commission addressed the density of the project, the drainage and parking and he was not convinced the parking issues could be solved without dealing with the density. He believed the end result could be that three units are more appropriate than four; he did not wish to infer it was impossible to design a four -unit project appropriate for the site and consistent with the neighborhood guidelines, as he did not know that. He confirmed he was not requiring more than two spaces per unit; however, the difference between six and eight spaces was a significantly larger square footage in terms of a parking apron. He believed the parking could be dealt with more creatively with three units instead of four, which he believed could perhaps drive the Planning Commission's push for a three unit project on this site; therefore, he was somewhat sympathetic to the density issue, while not inferring there was no way he could ever foresee a four -unit project. Councilmember Cohen stated he had questions concerning the drainage and would prefer to see a different solution, such as taking the water downhill to tie in with public storm drain system. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to deny the appeal without prejudice. RESOLUTION NO. 10960 — RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED 99-104), VARIANCE (V 01-05) AND EXCEPTION (EX 01-02) REQUESTS FOR A FOUR -UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT PROPOSED AT 41 VALENCIA AVENUE (APN: 014-032-15) (without prejudice) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller and Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller and Mayor Boro ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Explaining his reason for dissenting, Mayor Boro stated he believed mixed signals were being sent, and while understanding the insistence of the neighborhood to have the parking at the rear, which he supported, he did not wish to send out a message that the City was determining the number of units. He suggested the project, when presented again, should determine the density, acknowledging this was also Councilmember's Cohen position. Noting there had been a lot of water under the bridge since the inception of this project, Mayor Boro stated he hoped it would be returned soon. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 9. Proposed Baylands Refuge: - File 257 (Verbal) Councilmember Cohen stated it was his understanding there had recently been some changes to the study area for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife's proposed Baylands refuge and that Community Development Director Brown had met with representatives. As soon as this proposal is made public, he would like to see it returned for Council consideration. Recalling that Council adopted a resolution taking a policy decision on the study area, Councilmember Cohen believed this area had changed consistent with this position and he would like to see this before Council as soon as possible. He would be inclined to propose a resolution taking a position on it, at least within the planning area of the City of San Rafael, if the requested changes have been made. If this has not been issued, Mayor Boro inquired how Council could take a position on it. Councilmember Cohen stated he had spoken with five or six different people, all of whom had similar observations; therefore, he believed someone had seen the project, whether or not it was being done secretly and selectively. Should this be the case, he noted it was not a very well kept secret; however, as soon as the document is made public, he would like to see it before Council for consideration and possible action. Community Development Director Bob Brown explained that the draft proposal is being shared with public agencies, as this had been one of the initial criticisms. His understanding is that they plan to release it for public review and comment at the beginning of 2002; however, he cautioned that as yet, they had not met one of their deadlines. Responding to Councilmember Cohen's request for a copy of the draft, Mr. Brown stated they did not leave a copy with him, rather it was "show and tell". SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 18 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 19 Mayor Boro stated he did not understand the speed with which this should be acted upon. Councilmember Cohen reported he had been told by private sector and public agency representatives that this is happening and he would like to see it shared with the San Rafael City Council as soon as it is made public. Community Development Director Brown indicated he had requested advance notice of its publication in order to prepare an agenda item for immediate Council consideration. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council Meeting at 10:21 p.m. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12001 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/19/2001 Page 19