Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2001-12-17SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2001 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None 1. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Name: MHC Financing, et al. v. City of San Rafael, et al. U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. of Calif., Case No. C003785 City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:03 PM None. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, Minutes approved as submitted. November 19, 2001, and Special and Regular Meetings of Monday, December 3, 2001 (CC) 3. Reappointment of Roy Smith to Marin/Sonoma Approved staff recommendation to Mosquito & Vector Control District Board for a Four- reappoint Roy Smith to the year Term (CC) — File 9-2-9 Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District Board for a four-year term, to expire December 31, 2005. 4. Request for Amicus Participation: (CA) - File 9-3-16 Approved amicus participation. Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District Case No. A087846 5. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF Approved final adoption of Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 1774 - An Ordinance of the City of No. 1774. San Rafael Amending Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) Related to Code Enforcement (ZC 01-06) (CD) — File 10-3x 10-1 6. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Contract RESOLUTION NO. 10981 — Between the Marin County Community Development RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO A Agency and the City of San Rafael for a Block Grant CONTRACT WITH THE MARIN in the Amount of $8,500 During the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2001-2002 Fiscal Year for Child Care Staff Salaries AGENCY AND AUTHORIZING THE (CS) — File 4-13-110 x 147 MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,500.00 During the 2001-2002 Fiscal Year for Child Care Staff Salaries SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 2 7. Resolution Granting Authorization to Access State RESOLUTION NO. 10982— and Local Summary Criminal History Information for RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCESS Employment Purposes for Employees Working TO CRIMINAL HISTORY Directly with Youth (CS) — File 9-3-65 x 9-3-30 x 7-4 INFORMATION FOR EMPLOYMENT, LICENSING OR CERTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN WORK WITH YOUTH 8. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending October, Accepted Monthly Investment Report 2001 (MS) — File 8-18 x 8-9 for the month ending October, 2001, as presented. 9. Annual Update on Investment Policy (MS) — Accepted report as presented. File 8-18 x 8-9 10. Resolution Authorizing an Agreement with Municipal RESOLUTION NO. 10983 — Services Bureau/Data Ticket to Provide Parking RESOLUTION APPROVING, AND Citation Processing Services for the City for Years AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO 2002, 2003 and 2004 with Options to Extend for Two EXECUTE, AN AGREEMENT WITH Additional Years (MS) — File 4-3-397 x 9-3-20 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUREAU/DATA TICKET, INC. TO PROVIDE PARKING CITATION PROCESSING SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR YEARS 2002, 2003 AND 2004, WITH OPTIONS TO EXTEND FOR TWO ADDITIONAL YEARS 11. Resolution Authorizing Agreement Between the RESOLUTION NO. 10984 — Marketing Department and the City of San Rafael to RESOLUTION APPROVING Conduct a Public Relations Campaign for the "Avoid AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE the Marin 13" Traffic Safety Grant (PD) — MARKETING DEPARTMENT AND THE File 4-10-330 x 11-1 x 9-3-30 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC RELATIONS CAMPAIGN FOR THE "AVOID THE MARIN 13" TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,521 12. Resolution Authorizing Extension of the Marin County RESOLUTION NO. 10985 — Abandoned Vehicle Service Authority Vehicle RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE Registration Fee Until April 2012 (PD) — MARIN COUNTY ABANDONED File 4-4-6a x 9-3-30 x 13-9 VEHICLE SERVICE AUTHORITY VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE UNTIL APRIL 2012 13. Resolution Authorizing Extension of Time for RESOLUTION NO. 10986 — Completion of Improvement Work re Northview RESOLUTION EXTENDING TIME FOR Subdivision (Extended to and Including December 15, THE COMPLETION OF 2002) (PW) — File 5-1-335 IMPROVEMENT WORK — "NORTHVIEW SUBDIVISION" (EXTENDED TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 15, 2002) 14. Resolution Accepting Offer of an Easement for Levee RESOLUTION NO. 10987 — Purposes Entitled "Easement (440 Canal Street, APN: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GRANT 14-194-02)" (PW) — File 2-5-44 x 9-3-40 DEED OF EASEMENT FOR LEVEE PURPOSES (440 CANAL STREET, APN 14-194-02) 15. Resolution Awarding Purchase Order for One Parking RESOLUTION NO. 10988 — Enforcement Vehicle from Municipal Maintenance RESOLUTION AWARDING Equipment in the Amount of $21,400.32 (PW) — PURCHASE ORDER FOR ONE File 4-2-314 PARKING ENFORCEMENT VEHICLE TO MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $21,400.32 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 16. 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) (Continued from meeting of 11 /19/2001) — FILE 1-6-4 x 9-3-31 x 9-1 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and there being no objection, continued it to the City Council Meeting of Tuesday, January 22, 2002. 17. Public Hearing — CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND LICENSE TO OPERATE, TO METASEARCH CONSULTING NETWORK, INC., DBA MARIN HAPPY CAB (PD) — FILE 9-9 Lieutenant Jim Kelly reported that staff had conducted a background check on the person doing business as Marin Happy Cab, and believed her to be financially responsible. He indicated that the service will benefit the citizens of San Rafael, providing needed transportation, and staff recommends granting the Certificate of Convenience. Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and invited comment from the audience. Ian Lambton, co-founder and co-owner of KDL Taxi, dba Marin Cab, stated it was his belief this application is premature. He had anticipated hearing from an attorney today in connection with the resolution of ongoing litigation; however, as of the present moment, Mr. Lambton indicated he still owned 29% of the name which is part of "Marin Happy Cab" and the telephone number it intends to use. While wishing he were in a position to fully support tonight's action, Mr. Lambton stated it was his belief that the sale of the telephone number and the operating name of the business had been conducted prematurely. At this point, Mayor Boro invited comment from the City Attorney on Mr. Lambton's remarks. Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan stated it was his understanding that KDL Taxi Service, operating as Marin Cab, is currently a corporation, and indicated having checked this with the Secretary of State's Office today. Mr. Guinan reported that the President and CEO of that corporation is Katherine King and whether or not there is a problem within the corporate structure of KDL Services with regard to the sale of the assets, is purely their concern and does not involve the City. Mr. Guinan indicated that this evening's action is an application from a group who purportedly purchased assets from KDL Taxi Services, and pursuant to the provisions of the taxi regulations in the City's Municipal Code, is applying for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate. He noted that the matter discussed by Mr. Lambton could well be true; however, it is a matter for him and the corporate makeup of KDL Taxi Services to determine. Should it turn out there was either a settlement or Mr. Lambton prevailed in the litigation and some of the sale was deemed to have taken place inappropriately and was revoked by a Court, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether the City would be in a position to revoke the Certificate to be granted this evening. Mr. Guinan responded affirmatively and explained that under the ordinance, should there be any change in the corporate structure, whether it be Court ordered or voluntary, the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is automatically suspended. Mr. Guinan indicated that should Council feel more comfortable, a condition could be imposed to the effect that prior to the new company commencing operations, it would be necessary for them to ensure they have a corporate resolution for the sale of the assets purportedly being sold by KDL to the new company "Marin Happy Cab". Mr. Lambton indicated that had the issue been resolved he would have no reason to express any opposition; it was his understanding, therefore, that the temporary, or otherwise, Certificate of Public Convenience to this new company is separate from whether the new company is operating with a telephone number belonging to a still existing company. Mayor Boro qualified Mr. Guinan's remarks to the effect that should Council desire, an amendment could be added to this evening's action. He noted that Mr. Guinan also indicated this item could be proceeded with, as the City is not involved with the disagreement between the old and new companies. Assistant City Attorney Guinan confirmed Mayor Boro's statements. Mr. Lambton requested that Council give the amendment some due consideration SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 4 There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro noted that Mr. Guinan, Assistant City Attorney, had checked the Secretary of State's records which indicated that Katherine Taylor was the President of Marin Taxi Cab; however, the staff report indicated she was the President of Happy Cab, and he requested clarification. Explaining, Mr. Guinan stated it was his understanding that Katherine King, along with Messrs. Dean and Lambton, are the current corporate owners of Marin Cab, KDL Taxi Services. Mr. Guinan indicated that the purchasing individuals are Katherine Taylor and Mr. Taylor, who will operate Marin Happy Cab. Requesting clarification, Mayor Boro inquired that in coming forward with a Certificate of Convenience, whether it was to be assumed they had the right and claim to the vehicles and all equipment. Mr. Guinan responded affirmatively and stated that Lieutenant Kelly, Warren Taylor and Lynne Ohlson, Police Department, processed the material presented by Ms. Taylor, some of which is included in tonight's packet, which indicates the Taylors are financially responsible and have listed the vehicles they intend to operate. Copies of the insurance certificates indicating those vehicles are insured are also included. Lieutenant Jim Kelly reported that a license for each cab and driver, a total of ten, who will be working for the company, have also been filed with the City Clerk's Office,. He indicated having received authorization to inspect the cabs prior to commencement of service. Councilmember Miller stated he believed it to be appropriate to go forward with this action without amendment, as in the event of something occurring in the process, it could be corrected. He commented that the City Council should not be involved in the internal workings of a corporation. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 10989— RESOLUTION GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND LICENSE TO OPERATE, TO METASEARCH CONSULTING NETWORK, INC., dba MARIN HAPPY CAB Councilmember Phillips stated that he believed, to some degree, this is a legal issue, and requested the City Attorney comment on the conclusion drawn by Councilmember Miller as to the appropriateness of not further modifying the Resolution, based on the facts presented. Assistant City Attorney Guinan stated he believed it was best to either vote it up or down, otherwise the City would become mired in the corporation's own problems and disputes. Councilmember Phillips stated this was not his intent; however, he inquired as to whether the City was still on "safe grounds" by passing the resolution or whether, for legal reasons, it should be further modified based on additional conditions. Assistant City Attorney Guinan stated the City was not exposed to any problems; it had this power under the Municipal Code and the General Police power. Councilmember Cohen stated it was his understanding this action was subsequent to a sale of assets and no evidence was presented that that sale of assets was inappropriate. He understood that should there be a court decision or other evidence to the effect this was somehow inappropriate, the City is in a position to revoke the Certificate. Given that, Councilmember Cohen did not see any reason for the City to become involved or pass any judgment on the dispute between the parties, and from staff's research, this appeared to be a legal sale. He commented that should Mr. Lambton be pursuing settlement or court proceedings, this was his business, together with his former partners'. Assistant City Attorney Guinan concurred with this assessment. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 5 18. Public Hearing — CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR A REZONING OF THE ALDERSLY CAMPUS FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT TO A REVISED PD DISTRICT WITH ADOPTED ZONING REGULATIONS, A MASTER USE PERMIT AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 30 -UNIT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON A 2.85 -ACRE PARCEL; APN: 014- 054-31 AND 32; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT; ALDERSLY GARDEN RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, OWNER; ROBERT JENKENS, NCB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPLICANT; FILE NOS. ZC01-04, UP01-27 AND ED01-72 (CD) — FILE 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 Community Development Director Bob Brown indicated that Ms. Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner, would present the staff report. Jayni Allsep stated these were applications for the Aldersly project and indicated that Aldersly has existed on Mission Avenue since 1921; the main campus located at 326 Mission and the single- family home situated at 308 Mission comprise the project site. Ms. Allsep stated that in 1996, the property was zoned to planned development at the time the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan was being implemented; however, no development plan was approved at that time. She reported that also in 1996, adjacent properties in the area were downzoned as a result of the implementation of the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan. Indicating that this evening's applications were submitted in June, 2001, Ms. Allsep explained they include a PD re -zoning which would provide development standards applicable to the entire Aldersly campus, given there are no standards in place presently. She stated that the PD also addresses the existing campus uses as well as the proposed 30 -unit assisted living facility and a future 200 square -foot expansion of the main dining room which serves the campus, located in the Fredensborg building. This 200 square -foot expansion, she stated, is not part of the Design Review application; however, it is identified and addressed in the planned development. Ms. Allsep reported that a further application represents a Master Use Permit, which addresses the uses to be permitted on the entire campus, including the proposed assisted living facility. Lastly, there is the Environmental and Design Review Permit, which focuses on the new development — the 30 -unit assisted living facility, parking and associated landscaping. Ms. Allsep indicated that the new development of the 30 -unit assisted living facility is proposed on the east side of the campus, the building to be located back in the northeast corner, with access from Mission Avenue. Reiterating that these applications were submitted in June, 2001, Ms. Allsep reported that a neighborhood meeting took place on June 27, 2001, and the project was reviewed by the Design Review Board at three separate meetings between July and October of 2001. She indicated that at their meeting on November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission heard presentations by staff and the project architect, and received comment from several members of the public, including many Aldersly residents, residents of the adjacent properties on Union Street and Mission Avenue and a representative of the Montecito/Happy Valley Project Review Board. Ms. Allsep reported that concerns expressed at this meeting included the mass and scale of the proposed new building housing the 30 assisted living units, the proposed tandem spaces to be located behind the residence at 308 Mission Avenue, part of the Aldersly campus, and the use of the Belle Avenue right-of-way for a proposed loading area, which would be relocated with access from Mission Avenue. Ms. Allsep reported that having received public testimony and closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the re -zoning and Master Use Permit, together with the Environmental and Design Review Permit. She indicated that in reviewing the initial study, a document previously transmitted to Council, the Planning Commission found this document satisfied the environmental review requirements in terms of addressing the potential environmental impacts. The Planning Commission also found that the mass and scale of the proposed assisted living facility was acceptable and the use of the Belle Avenue right-of-way for the loading area was appropriate, as it provided an opportunity to improve the existing deficiency of the current loading facilities on the campus. In response to concerns about the proposed tandem parking, Ms. Allsep reported that the Planning Commission noted that the spaces would be buffered from the adjacent residential yards by a solid 6 -foot wall and ten to twelve feet of landscaping, to be included in the proposal. She indicated that the Planning Commission also included a condition of approval which requires that on-site facility management assign and manage the tandem parking spaces, should they be SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 6 approved, in such a manner to minimize the turnover or use of the easternmost inward tandem spaces closest to the adjacent properties, and maximize the use of all on-site parking. She indicated that this condition is contained in the draft resolution for the Master Use Permit, under Conditions of Approval, as Condition #9. Ms. Allsep commented that tandem parking was suggested by staff early on, in recognition of the deficiency of on-site parking currently, as a possible means of maximizing on-site parking. Ms. Allsep indicated that this condition includes a provision that the Parking Management Program be reviewed or modified by the Community Development Director if necessitated by neighbor complaint, and could also be referred to the Planning Commission if deemed appropriate. Ms. Allsep alluded to a further comment from the Planning Commission, and reflected in the minutes, pertaining to their suggestion that staff and the applicant work together with the most directly affected neighbors regarding the details of the proposed wall which would screen the tandem parking area from the adjacent properties. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Allsep reported that two pieces of written correspondence had been received, and were included in this evening's packets: ■ Letter from Laura Thiel, 304 Mission Avenue, dated December 12, 2001, in which Ms. Thiel identifies her main concern as the tandem parking area proposed along the east side of the access drive. The Planning Commission had specific conditions addressing this area; and ■ A packet of materials from Sally Kibbee representing the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood Project Review Board, which includes a number of photographs, annotated plans and diagrams, as attachments. Ms. Allsep believed Ms. Kibbee would address Council this evening and provide further insight on the items contained in her packet; however, the main issues identified include the mass and scale of the building, concern regarding the building itself, the necessity for the PD zoning, safety of the proposed parking area and garage entry, and concern regarding the use of Belle Avenue and the loading areas. Ms. Allsep noted that all of these were concerns previously conveyed to and considered by the Planning Commission, were addressed in this evening's staff report and reflected in the Planning Commission Meeting minutes. Concluding her presentation, Ms. Allsep indicated she would be pleased to respond to any questions. To put the project in perspective, regarding the 30 units, Mayor Boro inquired if the net gain was 8, in addition to replacing 22 existing units. Ms. Allsep responded affirmatively and explained it included a variety of independent, assisted living and skilled nursing facilities. Mayor Boro also stated that in discussions with Community Development Director Brown regarding parking, he noted that apparently, there currently is a deficiency of approximately 28 spaces in on-site parking and this improvement will provide an additional ten spaces, reducing the deficiency to eighteen. Ms. Allsep stated it would reduce the deficiency by approximately 25%; however, she would verify the exact numbers. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened and invited a representative for the Aldersly applicant to address the Council in the first instance. Kurt Larsen, President of the Aldersly Board, stated he would make a brief presentation and attempt to explain the relevance and urgency of the project; the architect would make a more detailed presentation. Mr. Larsen explained that Aldersly, founded in 1921, is one of the oldest institutions in the neighborhood, older than any other house, and established one year before the high school was put into place. Aldersly, therefore, has a long history in the neighborhood, has been a good neighbor and is very well presented with greenery and landscaping. Mr. Larsen indicated that all along, they have successfully endeavored to work with the neighborhood and have maintained a good relationship. He indicated that since it was established in 1921, Aldersly has been continuously updating the facilities to take care of the convenience and wellbeing of its residents, as well as meeting government regulations, and has resulted in a better place to live and a better place for San Rafael and the neighborhood. Mr. Larsen reported that the last major improvement, completed in 1993, was a 20 -bed state of the art skilled nursing facility, which was second to none in all of Marin County. Mr. Larsen pointed out that Aldersly is a continued care community and non-profit organization; no one on the Board is compensated and the facility has always been in a position to support itself without any government assistance. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 7 He indicated that a void was ascertained whereby it was found that they were unable to provide the currently very popular assisted living care. Seven regular apartments were converted to assisted living apartments; however, these were found to be inadequate. Therefore, it was decided to put together an assisted living project. Mr. Larsen stated that in doing so, it was essential to ensure that firstly, the project paid for itself, and secondly, Aldersly being a non-profit organization with limited means, avoid over-extension, thereby placing the remainder of the operation in jeopardy. He indicated that on the other hand, it was required to be sufficiently large to ensure adequate care could be taken of the residents when needed; therefore, the compromise of 30 units minimum to be economically feasible, was arrived at. Mr. Larsen stated that in addition, Aldersly is unique in many ways, including the fact that because of its size, it is possible to give personal attention to residents. This, in turn, permits residents to stay much longer than in any other comparable community in Marin County or elsewhere. He instanced Chris Morrison who resided at Aldersly until he was 115, passing away two years ago as the world's oldest living man, and managing to put San Rafael on the map, not alone in America, but all over Europe, for having lived here. Mr. Larsen indicated that because Aldersly does take care of people, they age in place; therefore, it is necessary to find somewhere for these people to reside prior to entering or needing a skilled nursing facility, and this is the reason an assisted living facility is so relevant. To illustrate the urgency, Mr. Larsen explained that for the first time in Aldersly's eighty -year history, two residents are leaving this month to move into a new assisted living facility due to the lack of provision of adequate care. This, he indicated is not by choice, rather unfortunately, out of necessity; however, they will return should the new Aldersly facility be completed in time. To emphasize the urgency in getting this project approved, Mr. Larsen stated that in addition, there are presently fourteen residents who could be relocated to the skilled nursing facility. He noted it had taken many years, of which he had been a part, and hoped Council would take into consideration the need and the place Aldersly had and presently has in the community. Mr. Larsen introduced Robert Fouse, Architect. Robert Fouse, Managing Partner, DFD Architects, stated his company had been is existence for approximately nine years and specializes in senior housing work across the country. They have been fortunate to have been involved with a number of people in outstanding communities and he indicated none were finer than those with whom he is working in San Rafael. He complimented not only the Planning Commission and Design Review Board, but also the staff members with whom he had worked for twelve months carrying out the necessary work in preparation for this evening's action. Mr. Fouse reported that the project is not a simple one; assisted living has only been in existence for approximately eight or nine years as an understandable senior housing type, different and distinct from nursing, independent living or any other type available. He stated that it fosters and cares for a very specific set of needs for a very specific set of residents. It is not a nursing home, nor is it designed for persons needing daily nursing care, rather it is intended for very mobile and independent persons, who maintain enormous amounts of dignity; however, do have need, on occasion, for staff assistance from a facility equipped to handle this type of assistance. Mr. Fouse indicated that most commonly, this includes help with dressing and transferring to and from a wheelchair to shower, bath, etc., tasks which can become very scary for seniors. He commented that the number one item provided by staff in an assisted living facility is medication reminder, not administration of drugs, rather a simple reminder to a resident to take their drugs. This, stated Mr. Fouse, is not something which can practically be carried out in cottages spread across a field in a beautiful setting; therefore, it is as unfortunate for the residents as for the architect, that on occasion, the design of assisted living centers is found to move into more of an institutional setting; it is his desire as a professional, to endeavor to prevent this to the greatest degree possible and indicated his pride in the current project's development. Mr. Fouse stated it was his goal to be expeditious in his presentation this evening; however, he did have transparencies should they be necessary. For those unable to observe the charts to be presented, Mr. Fouse reported that most of the neighbors present to speak on the project had already seen them at a Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Fouse reported that it is proposed to build a two-story, 23,000 square -foot wood frame structure on the northeast corner of the existing Aldersly campus. This two-story structure sits atop a concrete structure underneath which parking will be provided. He indicated that the total height of the building on the eastern elevation is 29 -feet; the tallest point of the building, 42 -feet from the ground to the peak of the roof, is at the front door where a tower is located containing an elevator which services the building. Noting that this is more than a 23,000 square -foot assisted living center, Mr. Fouse stated that SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 8 one of the greatest blessings of Aldersly is that they have been in existence for eighty years; however, one of the negatives is that construction, planning and campus layouts were carried out somewhat differently in the 1930s and 40s, and appropriately, he was charged with remedying problems which have existed on this campus for a very long time. He explained that there is a dramatic deficiency in parking on the campus and as an agenesis to their design, they worked to include fifty-three new fully compliant with code parking spaces to accommodate parking for residents and staff on this campus. This, he stated, is far in excess of the number of spaces required for a regular 23,000 square -foot assisted living center, and he reiterated that the vast majority of these spaces are dedicated to the staff and residents of other parts of the campus. Mr. Fouse explained that it was their desire to make a sincere effort to park as many cars as possible on campus and alleviate some of the burden currently placed on Union Street, Mission Avenue and Belle Avenue. Additionally, Mr. Fouse reported that this campus has for years been serviced by delivery vehicles and such, from Belle Avenue, noting Belle Avenue is probably not the street to have been chosen had those making decisions presently been involved, as it is a residential steep street with numerous turns. He indicated that, unfortunately, the loading dock as it exists at Aldersly is unusable, being a very steep 90 -degree corner; therefore, truck drivers, being cognizant of insurance and employment, park in the street to unload. He reported that Aldersly and concerned residents had documented observing trucks parked in the center of the roadway loading and unloading, which is a dangerous situation and needs to be remedied. Mr. Fouse reported that in discussions a year ago with Nader Mansourian, Traffic Engineer, it was mutually concluded that the 900 turnoff, aside from being steep, was a problem for the truck drivers. Even in the event of it being flat, wide and perfect, the sense was that truck drivers were not likely to stop and back up on an inclined road to make a 900 turn onto the campus in order to be placed properly on the loading dock. Mr. Fouse stated that at that time, Mr. Mansourian suggested serious consideration be given to utilizing the right-of-way on Belle Avenue, beyond a retaining wall currently adjacent to one of the skilled nursing structures on campus, to create a sufficiently wide pull -off, to allow vehicles to safely load and unload. This, stated Mr. Fouse, has been accommodated in the proposal and will be presented to the Design Review Board again, to ensure the details of the retaining wall, curbs, etc., meet their standards and expectations. In response to additional parking concerns, Mr. Fouse reported that a month ago, discussions took place with the Planning Commission regarding the prospects of including new parking spaces on the shoulder of Ridge Road; cars are parked there presently, some of which he sensed belonged to Aldersly. He indicated that the Planning Commission and staff recommended formalizing these spaces which are presently on City right-of-way property. Regarding the size of the building, Mr. Fouse stated that it is not as small as the adjacent houses, which is a concern of neighbors. He indicated that it has been his goal as an architect, to be appropriately responsive, not only to the letter of the law, codes and standards, rather also to attempt to present an architecturally appropriate solution for a building of this size. He stated he had not sought any variances in setbacks, easements, square footage allowable, densities or building heights, in the belief that this was the proper way to place this building on this site. Referring to the shaded gray area on a chart, Mr. Fouse explained that it represented the location of the building when first he spoke with the Design Review Board. The dotted line indicated where the building was shifted west away from the eastern property line, in an attempt to create some additional green space between it and the backyards of several homes on Union Street. This, he believed, was a good decision in that it allowed for a superior building and granted an opportunity to implement some architectural detailing, which provides a better buffer between this large building and the houses immediately to the east. Mr. Fouse reiterated that this 23,000 square -foot building is located atop a parking structure containing fifty-three spaces. The parking structure has been sunken into the ground at its most extreme place approximately 8 '/2 feet, and going deeper began to jeopardize utilities, drainage etc., as well as lowering the upper building into the hole, presenting significant difficulties in respect to light, window placement, etc. Mr. Fouse indicated that over the last year, careful consideration was given, not only to the horizontal placement of the building on the campus, rather also vertically, depressing it into the ground as much as possible without jeopardizing some of the aesthetics and the important functional parameters of the building. Explaining that a landscape plan was developed with a licensed landscape architect, Mr. Fouse stated this was done to ensure not only choosing the correct quantity of trees, but also the correct size and species, to afford a proper and appropriate foreground for this building. He indicated the presence of a landscape buffer along the eastern side of the property most adjacent to neighbors, and in addition, on a terrace level not accessible to anyone other than staff, large potted trees, providing a second level of landscaping, in an attempt to break down the mass and scale of the building. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 9 Mr. Fouse stated that towards Mission Avenue, as dictated by the mandate to provide as much parking as possible, not a lot of green remains; therefore, significant vertical landscaping is evident, together with ground cover landscaping, again intended to soften the overall campus. He noted that presently, the eastern side of Aldersly is not the most attractive. Reminding all that Aldersly is gorgeous, Mr. Fouse stated that being involved with senior housing throughout the country, he would relish the idea of working on campuses such as this regularly, as opposed to once in a great while; however, the eastern side of Aldersly has received less attention recently. He stated that the buildings depicted in the foreground of the illustration are not in use and are proposed to be removed as part of this application. Referring to a further chart illustration, Mr. Fouse stated that although not a small building, it is his hope that as an architect, he had made a good attempt to break it down into proper volumes, playing with the scale and massing, and utilizing extremely high quality first-class materials to help create a building, while not as small as those adjacent, is certainly as nice, if not nicer, and one which properly deals with a residential setting, yet provides for the services and needs of these particular residents. Mr. Fouse explained that the exterior of the building is 100% masonry and/or stucco, the delineation of which is explained in this evening's packet, and he anticipated the break of the materials was appropriately sensitive to the mass of the building. He indicated that traditional Aldersly buildings had concrete tile roofs as opposed to the modern asphalt; this building will contain a concrete tile roof, which it was believed was not only important for consistency of the campus, but also as a gesture and statement of permanence. Mr. Fouse reported having spent a great of deal of time in the past year with neighbors, residents and City staff, discussing the building. He believed that fundamentally, as an architect, his job at this stage was to define the project in an accurate way, so that those not so adept at reading drawings could obtain a sense of what is being described. He realized it was unpleasant for neighbors to realize a large building was being constructed next door; therefore, sincere efforts were made to deal with this in an effective way. Using further charts, Mr. Fouse stated that efforts were made to superimpose the building into photographs to attempt to demonstrate the visual effect behind the most effected adjacent residences on Union Street. An image from the north, Belle Avenue, Mr. Fouse explained is where the building is set depressed into the hole and from that perception, is only a story and a quarter in height, relative to Belle Avenue. Mr. Fouse stated that large buildings often impact views and he had learned on his second day in San Rafael, of an important mountain he needed to be very aware of and treat properly. He presented a view, graciously permitted by a resident, which, unfortunately will be impacted. Pointing to the old solid line, Mr. Fouse stated this was the presentation as it was made to the Design Review Board several months ago, and as a result of the shift to the other side of the garage plane, the dotted line now depicts where the building will be set relative to the photographic image. Recognizing that part of the view would be removed, Mr. Fouse stated he wished this were not true; however, he issued an assurance that everything possible had been done to remove as little of the view as possible, noting that the peak remained unobstructed. Mr. Fouse was aware this did not alleviate the disappointment of the overall loss of the view; however, it was his hope the drawing did represent the endeavors to be appropriately sensitive to the neighbors on three sides of the building, Aldersly being the neighbor to the fourth side. Concluding, Mr. Fouse stated that the basic floor plan of the building is very straightforward and responsive to a functional need essential for the proper operation of an assisted living center. Although larger than some other buildings in the neighborhood, Mr. Fouse stated it was his hope that once constructed and with the landscaping in place, it would be good and positive for the neighborhood, Aldersly and the City of San Rafael. Councilmember Miller stated the problem was from the Union Street side and requested Mr. Fouse display the chart with this depiction. Explaining, Mr. Fouse identified the image from the intersection of Union Street and Mission Avenue, one house up from this intersection and halfway between Mission Avenue and Belle Avenue on Union Street. Commenting on the concern expressed in Laura Thiel's correspondence regarding her property at 304 Mission Avenue, and the proposed 9 -foot wall which would compromise her privacy, as well as block the afternoon sun, Councilmember Heller inquired if this was taken into consideration and whether there were any mitigating factors to assist this situation. Responding, Mr. Fouse stated that Ms. Thiel's property was impacted as much, if not more, than any other neighbor's. He identified the location of this property on the chart as being next to the single - story white -framed wood building which is part of the Aldersly campus, and as a result of the parking goals set forth in his initial meetings with the City, Mr. Fouse stated Ms. Thiel's property SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 10 had the most adjacency to the proposed tandem parking. He displayed the chart identifying the location of Ms. Thiel's house and stated that her property line, particularly that portion which defines her backyard, is adjacent to the proposed tandem parking spaces to be installed in the rear of the white house. He indicated that Ms. Thiel's yard is lower in elevation than that of the existing yard of the white house; the elevation of the white house is lower than the existing paved area on the Aldersly campus which is currently active. He stated that in order to make a proper vehicular transition from this area, it will be necessary to raise the ground beneath the proposed new parking an average of 21/2 feet, which would allow level parking in the nine tandem parking spaces. Mr. Fouse reported that he and Ms. Thiel had proposed that it was their belief the appropriate response, in this condition, was to provide a 6 -foot solid masonry wall to block the view of these cars from Ms. Thiel's backyard. He indicated they further suggested that this brick wall should not be placed on the property line, rather should be placed at the curb of the parking spaces, thus placing the green space on Ms. Thiel's side of the fence, and permitting landscaping on her side of the masonry wall, where a hill will make up for the necessary elevation change. Mr. Fouse stated that putting the hill on her side of the wall allows for a better job with landscaping and permitting the brick fence to be a backdrop to some significant new landscaping. He reported that the overall 9 -feet is the dimension measured from Ms. Thiel's yard to the top of the new wall because the bottom of the new wall is 3 -feet above her yard. Mr. Fouse reported that he was instructed by the Planning Commission to work directly with Ms. Thiel, which he would do. He indicated there was a choice of either a 9 -foot masonry wall straight down with the landscaped area flat, or maintaining the wall at 6 -feet and making up the 3 -foot difference with berming landscape in between the wall and the property line. He had not been apprised of Ms. Thiel's preference as yet. Responding to Councilmember Heller's inquiry regarding sunlight, Mr. Fouse stated he had not carried out a sun study from Ms. Thiel's backyard, which this afternoon was very shaded, and he did not believe the brick wall would change the sunlight across the entire plane of her yard. He commented that any vertical element in the sun casts a shadow; therefore, this wall will cast a shadow, which he did not believe would be dramatically different from that at present, as a result of the building. He clarified that he had not carried out this study and could not state in all candor, exactly what it is. Councilmember Cohen clarified with Mr. Fouse that what was originally the back yard of the white building had been brought up level with the tandem parking area and he inquired as to this parking area's dimensions. Responding, Mr. Fouse stated it was 38 -feet, i.e., 9 x 19 spaces. Councilmember Cohen inquired if it would be possible to insert a slight down slope, to which Mr. Fouse responded affirmatively. Councilmember Cohen stated that lowering a 6 or 9 -foot wall by a foot, would produce a rather significant difference in Ms. Thiel's backyard, and Mr. Fouse concurred. Councilmember Cohen inquired as to what would preclude this from being done. Responding, Mr. Fouse stated it would be his intention to do this; however, suggested rather than sloping all the way to the wall, it would be necessary to slope to the center to avoid casting drainage towards Ms. Thiel's property line. Councilmember Cohen inquired what the grade was relative to the street. Mr. Fouse stated it was probably approximately 3'/2 feet higher. Councilmember Cohen inquired if the parking could be sloped, capturing the drainage and taking it down to Mission. Mr. Fouse stated he believed this could be done and explained that as a general practice when doing civil layouts, he tries to keep the water further away from the property line than this; however, should this be the instruction, it could be done. Councilmember Cohen stated that while wishing to hear from the neighbor, any reduction in terms of height to be gained would help. Sally Kibbee, President of the United Montecito Neighborhood Association and member of the Montecito Happy Valley Review Board, residing at 15 Eucalyptus Lane, stated there had been considerable confusion with regard to the neighborhood participation in reviewing plans for Aldersly and this needed to be examined. She indicated having perused old files in the Planning Department to ascertain what had been happening, and now realized that the neighborhood reviewing in question does go back to when the United Montecito Neighborhood had two Board Members, knowledgeable in the building trade, reviewing the plans, which was probably in 1994 and 1995. She recalled it was at this reviewing, they were informed there would be 8 -foot setbacks along the eastern property line. Ms. Kibbee reported that in 1999, another flurry of project reviewing took place. She stated that the president of Mara, Lorenzo, Ursline, invited her to sit in on a presentation to the neighborhood; she did not recall the plans, however, does remember cautioning Aldersly regarding insufficient on-site parking. The present plan, she indicated, was first offered to the neighborhood in June of this year, and she questioned whether there was any neighborhood representative at this meeting who was knowledgeable and capable of making in-depth evaluations of these plans, as it would have been immediately evident there were problems with the height and setbacks, just for starters, and they would not have been given a passing grade, as is claimed by Aldersly. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 11 Ms. Kibbee stated that this meeting has been described as the conceptual meeting and it appears because none of the immediate property owners attended, they have somehow, lost their chance to have their issues or suggestions for changes considered. She noted that since then, nothing had been done to address what the neighbors consider are problems which would have a negative effect on their property, and they had been told repeatedly they should have attended the June meeting when plan changes were considered. Ms. Kibbee stated that since June, the neighbors had attended every public meeting to register their complaints; they visited the Planning Department and viewed plans, and although receiving late notices, still managed to attend meetings. She indicated that at a meeting with Community Development Director Brown in October, he inferred it was a little late in the process to have many changes made; however, they do not consider it should ever be too late for a troubled project to be turned around and put on a path not harmful to nearby property. Ms. Kibbee stated they believe their legitimate problems should be carefully considered at any and all times. Ms. Kibbee reported having requested a minimum 5 -foot property line setback, which truthfully, would not be wide enough to do the job properly, cautioning that Council should not be confused by the architect's claims that the setbacks are 11 -feet, as he was referring to the setback from the upper story to the property line, and not from the garage foundation at ground level. She stated that the proposed plan's setbacks are grossly inadequate for providing the landscaping space necessary to hide or minimize this very tall building from neighboring view, and it is not only screening to hide the building, rather it is screening to create a privacy shield against the viewing from two stories of windows, which otherwise, would have a clear view into the neighbors' backyards and bedroom windows. She noted that a row of trees is being suggested to screen the building; however, these would be planted in a strip of ground which in some spots, is less than the 3 -foot wide minimum. She reported that the garage foundation is on one side and the retaining wall opposite, and remarked that it is questionable how successful the growth of trees would be, let alone provide major screening. Assuming they do survive, Ms. Kibbee stated there is a distinct possibility that in time, root invasion will occur, which would create a potential to the vulnerability of the retaining walls. She indicated that to adequately screen this building from the neighboring properties, very tall trees, such as redwoods, need to be planted and they need space to survive. To be completely successful in screening, Ms. Kibbee stated depth is required with multiple inter -planted layers of low and medium sized plants and bushes; an 8 -foot setback would more efficiently accomplish this. Ms. Kibbee stated that the trees and pots on top of the garage do not make for a functional greenbelt, rather it is a novelty idea, the time for which has not yet come. Further, she stated, the residents whose windows are on that level will have their outlook impaired and their sunlight blocked. Ms. Kibbee stated that their photo presentation of the backyard areas of Union Street offers a picture of how difficult screening this tall building will be. She indicated that this presentation depicts the backyard vegetation, some of which is sizeable; however, is not hiding the rear building. She stated that this building is not only set 15 -feet away from these backyards, it is only two stories and she could only imagine the result from a building 10 -feet closer and four stories, with a garage, two floors and a ten foot high roof. With regard to the other setbacks, particularly the non-existent ones on the west and south sides of 109 Union Street, Ms. Kibbee indicated that Title 14 emphatically states no parking or maneuvering in the side setbacks, and she argued with Community Development Director Brown, that anyone presuming a fence of any height would be an acceptable substitute for trees and bushes should take a look at the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan, where there are over 25 hints concerning improving and creating landscaping in neighborhoods. She stated that fencing is not the answer, rather maintaining all vegetation in setbacks is. Ms. Kibbee reported that the architect repeatedly refers to the building height, starting from the first living -unit floor to the highest peak of the roof and questioned what the garage was. She indicated that Title 14, chapter 7- Planning Development Regulations, specifies that "building heights shall be consistent with height standards contained in the General Plan". Having measured the building plans from the ground at various places, on their height graphic, she indicated it was found that all were over the City's 36 -feet maximum height. Elaborating, she stated that at the southwest corner, there are two different measurements because of an inconsistency in the two plans used; however, both measurements identify the building as over the legal height limit. In a further photo presentation of the Union Street properties, on this occasion taken from the street, Ms. Kibbee indicated there are two three-story Aldersly buildings in plain view. These buildings, she stated, are set 75 and 80 -feet away from property lines and the proposed building is anticipated to be placed almost on top of the neighbor's property line and will be much more visible than the drawings indicate, particularly at 117 Union Street. Ms. Kibbee stated that there is no question the proposed building needs to be reduced in height SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 12 and while many suggestions have been made, one of the most promising is to reduce the roof area which peaks at 10 -feet. Further, she indicated that more consideration needs to be given to relocating the equipment to be housed under the roof. There is also a major concern as to whether the equipment identified in the Charles Salter Associates report, can actually be accommodated in the building as presently designed. She noted that 5 times 5 — 7 tons is a huge amount of weight and questioned whether the supports of the garage, now 14 -inches in diameter, would be adequate to do the job. She stated that should it be necessary to increase their size, it would not jeopardize the parking spaces as set up. Regarding the parking survey carried out by Whitlock and Weinberger Transportation, Ms. Kibbee stated this is a survey of Aldersly's parking needs and is a professional evaluation based on national standards for this type of facility. She indicated that while information concerning all of these parking arrangements, etc., are interesting, the bottom line is, the professional evaluation is the one which needs to be considered, and this indicates that at peak times, there is a shortage of 28 on-site spaces, i.e., 28 cars will park on neighborhood streets. She stated that this calculation does include the tandem parking. Particularly troubling about this, stated Ms. Kibbee, is that apparently, nothing is being offered by Aldersly to correct the shortfall. She noted it had been suggested that parking be placed underground to reduce the building height and this, she stated, would be another way to increase on-site parking. Directing her comment to Mr. Fouse, architect, Ms. Kibbee stated that underground parking is very commonly used, including on in -fill sites, and while there are building problems involved, none of them are extraordinary or impossible to accomplish. She suggested that $1,000,000 was a suspect amount, noting that everything is inclined to cost $1,000,000 these days. Ms. Kibbee stated it was their belief that if Aldersly were truly committed to meeting all of their on- site parking requirements, this idea would be receiving serious consideration. She noted that it was also unfortunate that the City's Planning Department had not been putting more pressure on Aldersly, inferring they could at least work with them to find other parking solutions, such as satellite parking. Ms. Kibbee reported that an unfortunate outcome of this is the handling of the development at 308 Mission. She indicated that this property has deep residential roots in the neighborhood and its relationship to neighboring single-family properties can or should not be totally erased; however, this is what is happening. She stated that this property is being treated as an expedient entity, thrown into the great pot of Aldersly's development needs, and any specific consideration for special use of this site, which would be compatible with nearby property, will be diminished, being swept away in a great wave of parking needyism. She commented that in a desperate attempt to locate every tiny area for parking, no matter how inappropriate, this property will no longer be a residential site, as the excessive parking in the backyard is turning it into a parking lot. She cautioned on speculating otherwise once it is included in the planning requirements. With regard to the tandem parking, a concern to the Planning Commission, Ms. Kibbee stated there is lots of this type of parking evident, even at Aldersly presently and directed Council to photograph #3 of the existing parking layout. She indicated that the drivers involved work it out somehow; the real problem with tandem parking at 308 Mission is that the tandem cars are there at all. She stated there are too many cars in this backyard, regardless of how they are parked, and ripping out mature trees and bushes, valuable for buffering and screening, to make room for them, in unconscionable. Ms. Kibbee stated it was her personal belief that neighbors should not be redesigning projects; however, because of the hard core refusal to make any changes or consider any new ideas, it seemed imperative to produce an illustration to demonstrate that changes could be made which would be of great benefit to the neighboring property, yet not totally upset the designer's apple - cart. She indicated that the only thing not addressed by their revised parking and driveway design is the grading, which they believe should be changed to approximately the existing levels of Mission, especially 308. Also, she stated that to accommodate truck deliveries in the garage, adjustments are needed. Otherwise, their plan gives release in some very important areas by retaining landscaping along neighboring property lines, easier automobile maneuvering, removing excess and inappropriate parking and increasing safety for drivers and pedestrians, all fitting and without losing any parking spaces. Ms. Kibbee stated that some statements made in the written material presented indicate this project conforms to the Montecito/Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan, being similar to the neighboring property; however, she reported that the one similarity is the use of brick. The building is not only huge, larger than any previously built and not very attractive, and certainly unlike the older buildings at Aldersly, which are of a smaller scale and completely surrounded by landscaping. She indicated that the Design Review Board had pushed more designing interest into the building; however, it remains one which could be placed on any site, even downtown, and SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 13 does not have the distinctive residential qualities of the older Aldersly campus buildings. She noted that the design is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods of small individual houses. Reporting that she had a birthday at the beginning of December, Ms. Kibbee stated this consistently makes her wonder how much longer she can live alone in her house, as she is aware she will require some type of care in the future. She is, therefore, interested in evaluating prospective places while possible, hence she scrutinized this project somewhat more carefully than usual. She stated that as interesting as moving to a place in her neighborhood might seem, she would not wish to move to Aldersly, and especially subsequent to exposure to the warm and friendly Board Members of the organization. Also, she stated she did not believe this plan was in the best interest of the potential residents, particularly those assigned to the rooms on the west side of the building. She directed Council to Plan A32 and explained that ten feet away from the brick wall of the minor building, there is no sun, little light and no landscaping. She stated that this project would also be hard on the current residents of the minor building who are used to having sun and light, as much of it will be gone when the new building is constructed. From experience with these people, Ms. Kibbee stated that she now knows, with their refusal to make exterior changes, they are not likely to rearrange the interiors, no matter how beneficial. Another problem observed, stated Ms. Kibbee, is the absence of easy circulation between the present campus and the new building. In the event a wheelchair-bound resident needed to reach the garage, as all the paths around the proposed building have steps, to take an elevator from their current campus to the garage would necessitate going up to the first living floor, crossing the lobby and descending in the elevator to the garage, or going to Mission Avenue, rolling up the sidewalk and returning to the garage, via the driveway, which is somewhat steep. She commented that needless to say, Aldersly is no longer on her possibility list. Ms. Kibbee informed Council that included in her packet is a copy of the petition circulated to the residents around Belle, Ridge, Marinita and Union Streets, which was signed by almost every property owner on the list. She indicated that trucks using this narrow neighborhood street are a severe problem and need to begin using another street, such as Mission. She noted from the minutes that neighbors (plural) met with Bob Brown, Community Development Director, and Nader Mansourian, Traffic Engineer, to discuss parking and the loading area; however, she reported that Steve Patterson, who owns a duplex on Belle, was the only neighbor present, and while he is knowledgeable concerning the problems relating to that intersection, he does not necessarily, represent the remainder of the neighborhood. Ms. Kibbee stated that the neighbors desire to have Aldersly's delivery trucks and employment parking off their street. She commented that while improvements to the roadway at Belle and Ridge might be beneficial, it should be for the benefit of the residents and their visitors, not to make it better for the undesired trucks on the street. Further, she stated, should any improvement or changes be proposed to streets at Ridge or Belle, other property owners and residents need to have the opportunity for input. They believe the City's Traffic Engineer should cast a wider net and capture more neighbor opinion on what needs to be done with these streets. Ms. Kibbee stated she would conclude this portion of her presentation and requested time before the close of the public hearing to address one further issue. Mayor Boro informed Ms. Kibbee that her presentation to this point lasted twenty minutes and it should be remembered that others needed to be afforded the opportunity to speak, taking into consideration that another public hearing was scheduled subsequent to this one this evening. He confirmed that Ms. Kibbee had submitted a written document and had just read an essay and somehow, he would request staff to endeavor to dwell on the issues it is possible to deal with. He then recognized the next speaker from the neighborhood. Laura Thiel, 304 Mission, thanked Council for addressing the issues in the letter she submitted. She indicated her main concern is that, being on the corner of Mission and Union, her next-door neighbor has a backyard which was rented to renters, and the only sounds she heard were those of mowing the lawn and sprinklers; however, her concern is that the proposed project will remove her neighborhood, leaving her surrounded by cars. She stated that this is the first house she ever owned and this is her first experience of dealing with this type of procedure. Addressing Community Development Director Brown, Mayor Boro stated that when discussing the project today, he noted from Ms. Kibbee's letter of Friday last, she addressed flipping the parking, which would have less of an impact on Ms. Thiel's property, and inquired if he had pursued this. Mr. Brown stated he had shown the revised plan presented by Ms. Kibbee to Nader Mansourian, Traffic Engineer, who believed that the current proposed layout is quite functional. He indicated that one of the reasons suggested for the change is that people will be confused as to how to SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 14 enter the driveway, as there is a center island containing posts. As pointed out by Mr. Mansourian, in this country, most people are used to bearing right when there is a divided road or driveway; therefore, he believes this to be a very logical plan. Mr. Brown indicated that Mr. Mansourian reviewed the alternative and did not consider it as logical in terms of its access. Expanding, Mr. Brown stated it does switch entrance and exit, flipping them, and as indicated by Mr. Mansourian, people will be confused and will attempt to enter right, even with signage. Mr. Brown noted that the benefit of the plan is that it does pull the parking spaces further from Ms. Thiel's property and provides for a pedestrian walkway; therefore, there are advantages. He indicated that Mr. Fouse had evaluated this and could comment also. Mr. Brown stated that it was his understanding from Mr. Mansourian's comments that either plan could be made to be workable. Mayor Boro inquired whether Ms. Thiel was familiar with this alternative, to which she responded in the negative. Ms. Thiel thanked Councilmember Cohen for the lowering idea. Don Shepherd, 109 Union Street, stated it was a beautiful project; however, it was too close and would inhibit his privacy and sunlight. He directed Council's attention to the retaining walls and carport at 109 Union Street and stated that according to the design committee, they intended to stagger the wall all the way up the street; however, at 308 Mission Street, the wall is three feet and would be up -scaled. He explained that the wall's biggest bearing is at his home, where it is 7 '/2 feet tall; his carport is being supported by a retaining wall or a block of concrete blocks just below the wall and his concern is that should the wall fall, his carport would disintegrate. Mr. Shepherd stated that at 113 Union Street, the wall is only 3 -feet high; therefore, he refutes the Design Committee's inference that this pertains to the entire block as it is not evident from the other end. He requested this be taken into consideration, as perhaps it is not necessary to remove the wall at all. His other concern related to parking on the side of his carport and Mr. Fouse had indicated the installation of some greenery; therefore, he anticipated this being worked out. Don Defina, 123 Union Street, corner of Belle and Union Streets, stated there are six homes on Union Street which will be affected by this building. While having no problem with regard to the need for Aldersly's expansion, Mr. Defina believes the design is more intrusive and invasive to their privacy as single-family residences. He indicated that this is a planned development proposed to be five feet from their property lines, towering almost 40 -feet on average and will perhaps be 120 -feet wide. Referring to the photographs shown by Mr. Fouse, architect, Mr. Defina stated these were taken from the bottom of Union Street, depicting the small houses in front and the scale of the building peaking over and hidden nicely behind trees. Mr. Defina reported that he took a photograph from his window, two stories up, to demonstrate what the scale would be when looking over the Montecito Valley. He produced such a picture, together with his own drawing, to illustrate the scale when constructed. Mr. Defina stated that with the low buildings throughout the community, they will be subjected to having a very large apartment building against single-family residences. They believe the architectural design could be more in keeping, as suggested by Councilmember Cohen, to follow the contours of the land, similar to other Aldersly campus buildings. Mr. Defina stated that this building, perhaps for reasons of economy, is one big massive structure; therefore, neighbors are faced with this large wall of masonry in their backyards. He invited Mr. Fouse to peruse his rendering, which demonstrates another perspective of how the building will appear in the neighborhood. JoAnne Maxwell stated she had been with Aldersly for fourteen years, was the Director of Health Service for eight years and since 1996, has been the Administrator of the facility. She explained that, for most seniors, the basis for the decision to move into a retirement community is related to the ability of the facility to meet their needs, which include the need to be near family, the human need of companionship and interaction with those with similar pasts, and the need to reduce the daily workload of home maintenance, meal preparation, housekeeping, etc. Ms. Maxwell indicated that a retirement community creates an incredible support system and extended family, which offers strength to a resident in time of great concern or sadness. Ms. Maxwell further explained that the residents understand only too well that as one ages, medical issues are certain to arise; therefore, the foresight they used in choices of living arrangements will offer them the capability of living in their own home, or moving to a higher level of nursing assistance on the same site. This, she stated, will afford them the ability to remain close to their spouse or many friends, they will have access to familiar surroundings and faces, will not be isolated and will remain safe. She indicated that the larger assisted living facility on campus is essential for Aldersly to complete its mission of sheltering and caring for its residents when a medical issue compromises the resident's capacity to perform the normal activity of daily living. Further, it is vital for the wellbeing and peace of mind, not only of Aldersly residents, but their family members, and will be a resource for those in the community who will need the services of assisted living. She commented that as earlier discussed, two residents are leaving the facility due to the fact that SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 15 Aldersly does not have the capability of caring for them on-site presently Ms. Maxwell reported that as the population continues to age, many will face the challenge of dealing with health issues and emphasized the urgency for the completion of this building. She stated it is immoral and ultimately cruel, to any human being to have to leave their home at a time in their life when they are most vulnerable and losing control of independence. She urged Council to make the project viable. Jack Fitting, 326 Mission Avenue, stated that he and his wife have lived at this address for three years and in Marin County for forty years; they found this a suitable place for them to plan the rest of their lives, it is a garden community and provides all of their needs. He noted there are two fulltime gardeners employed, and as he and his wife enjoy garden work, they try to add to the community in turn. Mr. Fitting stated they are part of the community, living in and enjoying San Rafael, are part of Montecito Shopping Center and the Montecito Neighborhood Group and as they age and continue to reside at Aldersly, they need the absolute assurance that what they have bought into as a home will continue to be their home. This, he stated, is what the 29 additional units will offer. He realized the attendant problems; however, in turn, the residents have problems and he requested that Council consider all who are part and parcel of the community. Kay Corlette stated that she and her husband, Bob, have lived at Aldersly for the past ten years and it is their home. She concurred with JoAnne Maxwell's sentiments in that as they grow older, they desire to remain in their homes, and unless there is an assisted living facility, this will not be possible. She indicated that she and her husband are luckily still living independently; however, she was aware the time will come when they will require more assistance, hopefully not a skilled nursing environment, and trusted Council would find this beautiful plan to their satisfaction. Jan Popovich, 326 Mission Avenue, stated she had lived in Marin and owned homes in both Sausalito and Larkspur since 1941. Her husband was postmaster for many years until his death in 1981. Ms. Popovich stated she moved into Aldersly and believes it to be her final home; San Rafael is very fortunate to have such an excellent retirement home for Marin's senior citizens and for the staff who provide all the amenities for their convenience and happiness. She indicated that this is essential, not only for residents who are left alone, rather those with families. She reported that Aldersly had been in existence long before many other retirement homes were built and has faithfully served Marin for eighty years. Ms. Popovich stated it was her belief that the new assisted living facility is beautifully designed to blend with the present buildings and with the awesome landscaping it offers throughout the complex, the residents of the area should be very proud to have this improvement made for the future, while maintaining their property values. She highly recommended that the new building presented for the very vital assisted living care be finally approved without further delay. She stated that the residents of Aldersly all give their grateful thanks for this approval. Returning to address the City Council, Sally Kibbee referred to the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 13, 2001, specifically page 168 in tonight's packet, which identifies the secretary's interpretation of what the testimony was from different people, and stated that she used to have a lot of trouble with this until she began making a copy of her oral presentations and delivering it to the secretary, because of being misrepresented. She indicated this one is particularly offensive as it makes her sound like a blithering idiot in that she did not say what is represented and it does not make sense. Ms. Kibbee stated she has copies of what she actually said, together with her presentation this evening and would like the record corrected to better represent her words. She indicated she also had a copy of Ms. Thiel's presentation, which should also be looked at. Ms. Kibbee stated she would be happy to discuss this matter with City Manager Gould. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro explained that he fully supported the idea of expansion and improvement at Aldersly; however, he was also attempting to understand the impact on the neighborhood, to ensure that all alternatives were considered. Having visited Aldersly many times, he believed it to be a wonderful facility and had no question with regard to what they do or the fact that it should be sustained and improved. He noted there were 22 units of assisted living, obviously antiquated and insufficient, with a gain of an additional 8 new units; however, a massive facility was also being gained to achieve this. Mayor Boro requested Community Development Director Brown to explain some of the rationale involved. Mr. Brown stated that the Contract Planner, Ms. Allsep, could provide the difference in square footage between the buildings to be removed and the replacement. Ms. Allsep stated she did not have it broken down by square footage; however, Mayor Boro was correct in terms of the 22 units to be replaced. She clarified that not all of the 22 units being replaced are assisted living units, SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 15 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 16 indicating that there would be 13 skilled nursing beds eliminated, 7 assisted living units and 2 independent living units. Therefore, she stated, the driving force behind this evening's proposal is the need to provide additional assisted living, as there is so little on the campus presently. Community Development Director Brown stated that by and large, the building is larger than that at present, and as is evident from some of the photomontages, there are buildings of various scales and heights, some of which will be removed and some of which will remain. In some cases, from the neighbors' perspective, they will be getting a building which is taller for a longer distance and closer to their homes than currently. Also, as pointed out by the applicants and understood by staff who have worked on a number of assisted living facilities, Mr. Brown indicated there is a significant economy of scale with assisted living. He explained that there is a very high and costly care component which needs to be spread over a certain number of beds to make it cost effective, and he believed the applicants had alluded to this also. Mr. Brown stated it was staff's perception that the only way to reduce the scale of the building, from the neighbors on Union's perspective, would be either to depress the parking fully, which would gain approximately 6 feet, or eliminate portions of the building. He indicated that in terms of depressing the parking, Aldersly carried out an engineering analysis, which was enclosed in this evening's packet. Mr. Brown stated that certainly, there is an added expense in so doing; there is also an unknown, which is the existing old minor building immediately adjacent, and excavating to a greater depth next to the minor building poses a great deal of unknowns in terms of the engineering, cost and feasibility. This, he stated, is what they presented to the Planning Commission. In terms of eliminating building mass, Mr. Brown stated his only thought was that it would be necessary to eliminate one wing on the second floor of the living level, essentially eliminating seven units. His guess was the applicants would conclude that eliminating seven units from a 30 - unit facility would not make the resulting facility cost effective in terms of its operations. Mr. Brown, however, deferred to the applicants on this issue. From a staff perspective, Mr. Brown stated they concurred that Aldersly has fit well into the neighborhood; the building, while larger, provides a service, and in addition, there are a variety of buildings of different height and scale in proximity to the residents, some of which are to be removed and replaced by this structure. Mayor Boro requested that Mr. Brown comment on Mr. Shepherd's remarks and question concerning the retaining wall and the impact on his property. Mr. Brown deferred to the architect, Mr. Fouse, as to the structural stability of the wall and carport and indicated that staff could become involved to ensure that should there be damage, Aldersly would be responsible. Mayor Boro stated there were two issues: does it need to be as high as it is purported to be and will it cause damage? Mr. Brown deferred to Mr. Fouse. Mayor Boro requested that Ms. Thiel's concerns be addressed. Community Development Director Brown stated that staff, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission believed that the impact of the tandem parking spaces was not excessive on the adjacent property for a number of reasons: ■ Staff's expectation of the Planning Commission's condition to the effect that those spaces get relatively little use; therefore, there would not be a lot of cars starting conversations, etc. in that area; ■ There is a full masonry wall which would buffer virtually all the sound; and ■ There is an adjacent landscape area of approximately eleven or twelve feet, which should mitigate the appearance of the wall. Recognizing that Councilmember Cohen had proposed reducing the height of the wall, Mr. Brown stated that even reducing it one or two feet would make a significant difference and was a good suggestion. He indicated that staff agrees with the Planning Commission's conclusion that the impact should not be severe, given the tandem spaces. With regard to flipping the parking, Councilmember Heller inquired if and how this would work. Responding, Mr. Brown stated this was the proposal made by Ms. Kibbee in her materials and staff believes certain aspects of it can work. He indicated that one of the rationales in Ms. Kibbee's design was to have some landscape buffer adjacent to the roundabout, which he stated, would not be feasible, as it would eliminate the landscape island around the central posts and in turn, expose the posts to being struck. Assuming, therefore, this stays relatively as designed, Mr. Brown stated he believed, and Mr. Mansourian, Traffic Engineer, agreed, that this driveway plan and parking spaces could be made to be workable, particularly by not switching the entrance and exit, as proposed by Ms. Kibbee, and allowing traffic to bear right, both in and outbound. In terms SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 16 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 17 of the redesign, Mr. Brown stated it does eliminate some landscape potential at the front along Mission, by placing a parking space adjacent to the building. He indicated that assuming the dimensions on the plan are correct, it should be made to be workable. He deferred to Mr. Fouse, architect, for thoughts other than those of Mr. Mansourian and staff. Councilmember Phillips stated that in evaluating the appropriateness of the project, he looked at a number of factors: In reviewing the Design Review Board's comments, Councilmember Phillips stated they appeared to indicate, without exception, that the project is "very well done" , quoting Mr. Huntsberry, which appears to be the conclusion of the other members with regard to this general observation. With regard to the Planning Commission's deliberation, Councilmember Phillips stated he was particularly struck by Mr. Kirchmann's conclusion that it is an appropriate project, in large part because it reminded him of the St. Isabella project, which had similar issues and with which Mr. Kirchmann was involved. He noted that now that the St. Isabella project had been there for a period of time, it appears to be well received and is an important part of the community, as is the Aldersly project. Councilmember Phillips stated he was also struck by the fact that the project does not include a variance and while it may not be perfect and ideal with regard to the neighborhood, it still fits, as he understood, without any variance. He indicated that in evaluating the photographs of the current versus the proposed, it appeared to be far more attractive; albeit slightly larger, but an added feature to the neighborhood. He stated he was persuaded by the fact that it is an important part of the community and will become even more so as time passes, with additional capacity. He was in favor of the project. Councilmember Cohen concurred. He believed there is a difficult tradeoff to be weighed and noted the issues raised by the neighborhood concerning the size and scope of the building in terms of the surrounding residential character. He stated that the tradeoff is the recognition of the service provided by Aldersly, the need for this facility at this location and the aging population of the community, and he forecast that the demand for this type of service would increase. Regarding the engineering study on lowering the building, Councilmember Cohen stated that in addition to the cost and challenge of implementing this, the north end of the building would end up in a deep hole; thereby solving one problem and creating a whole set of others, particularly for the residents. Noting that not much could be done with regard to the larger impacts, Councilmember Cohen stated that a couple of areas had been identified this evening, and inquired if the project could be referred back on those issues, without returning to Council. He stated it appeared to him that with a relatively minor slope on the tandem parking spaces, a relatively significant impact could be made on the height of the wall at the back. He believed losing 18 -inches off the 9 -foot wall was a pretty significant change in elevation and was doable. He indicated there was also the other question concerning the one section of retaining wall. Mayor Boro stated that at the conclusion of Councilmember comments, he would invite Mr. Fouse, architect, to comment on both of these issues. Councilmember Cohen stated this is where his interests were at this point and agreed overall with Councilmember Phillips' sentiments. His question was with regard to the immediate impact on some next door neighbors and should it be possible to make minor improvements, he would like these pursued. Councilmember Miller stated that basically, he saw such investment of social and human capital in this project of assisted living as very striking for the community. He recognized the massing; however, regarding the trade between the significance of the project and the size of the building, he would favor the significance of the project for the community. Councilmember Miller believed there were two areas which could be improved, i.e., different areas along the wall in terms of size and height and also, the idea of moving the parking. To accomplish these would grant more respect and understanding to the neighbors. He fully supported the project; albeit further work needed to be done in terms of the wall and parking. Mr. Fouse, Architect, stated the answer to the question on the wall would not be particularly short. Regarding Mr. Shepherd's concern, he explained that along the entire eastern property line of the Aldersly is an existing retaining wall separating their property from the backyards of the homes along Union Street. He stated that in his original proposal to the Design Review Board, this wall was to remain as is; however, it was suggested by the Design Review Board at the second meeting, that for aesthetic reasons, that wall should be replaced with a new retaining wall following the property line. He indicated that the existing retaining wall is perfectly straight; it is a linear wall running north to south along the entire eastern property line. The actual property line staggers and there is a small corner of approximately eighteen inches change at each backyard of the Union Street residences. Mr. Fouse stated it was suggested by the Design Review Board, that the new wall follow that actual property line, to provide some additional articulation and visual interest along the east wall. Having been requested, he agreed to deal with the wall as a bricked surface as opposed to concrete, which was the desire of the Design Review Board. Mr. Fouse SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 17 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 18 stated there are some engineering questions regarding the wall which cannot be determined until completion of documents; however, his original intent was to leave it as is. With regard to the Design Review Board's request, Mr. Fouse stated that candidly, he was at a loss as to how to respond; he agreed with Mr. Shepherd but was not presented with that option by the Design Review Board. Assuming the Design Review Board's request was proceeded with, Mayor Boro stated Mr. Shepherd's other concern was with respect to the impact on his existing structure. Responding, Mr. Fouse stated it was dramatically easy for him as a registered architect in the State of California, to guarantee that should he knock down a building on Mr. Shepherd's land, he would be presented with an enormous problem; therefore, this will not happen. With regard to the parking solution presented by Ms. Kibbee, Mr. Fouse stated he did receive a fax from Ms. Allsep this afternoon; however, was unable to evaluate it thoroughly. He explained there were a couple of reasons the parking solution was not similar to that designed by Ms. Kibbee. He stated he had not had the opportunity to explore the issue of whether turning radiuses, driveway widths, etc., put forward in Ms. Kibbee's solution, would work; however, he could do so. He explained there were multiple reasons his parking solution depicts the parking on the left rather than the right of the driveway: It was his desire and intent to turn headlights away from the Union Street houses; therefore, rather than having cars come in and turn towards those homes, he opted to redirect them, believing headlights to be the greatest factor with a vehicle to impinge upon privacy; ■ For the population in question, left hand turns into parking spaces are easier than right hand turns because of more space; therefore, the left hand side tended to be loaded to ensure that a car coming in to turn would have a larger radius. Believing the drive circle underneath the building to be somewhat misunderstood, Mr. Fouse clarified that this drive circle is a one-way loop with a drop-off at the front door of the building. This, he stated, is his most significant concern with Ms. Kibbee's idea of reversing entrance and exit. He explained that for the passenger side of the car to end up against the curb, it is necessary to turn to the left, and generally speaking, a one-way drive has enough space for a pull off, and sufficient space for another vehicle to pass by, which is the design logic utilized, and which he believes to be the superior solution. Commenting on Councilmember Cohen's solution with regard to reducing the height of the wall, Mr. Fouse stated this was doable, and proposed that on completion of civil engineering documents, it be dropped as far as the code will allow; Council could stipulate that it be dropped as low as possible. He reported being under orders from the Planning Commission to discuss this whole condition at length with Ms. Thiel, and it was his desire to do so. He stated the 6 -foot wall was his idea and it could be made shorter; however, he believed 6 -feet to be the correct answer and would welcome a stipulation to drop the wall as much as possible. Returning to the retaining wall, Councilmember Cohen stated that if the Design Review Board's request is having a negative impact on one for whom it is presumed to be nicer, perhaps this is the wrong direction. He specified that Council has the option to either refuse it or perhaps, more preferably, return this particular piece to the Design Review Board for further consideration. Community Development Director Brown concurred with this suggestion, adding that in any event, the loading area needs to be returned to the Design Review Board. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. 1) RESOLUTION NO. 10990 — RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ALDERSLY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AT 308 AND 326 MISSION AVENUE (APN 014-054-31 AND 32) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 2) The title of the Ordinance was read: "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 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE ALDERSLY GARDEN RETIREMENT COMMUNITY AT 308 AND 326 MISSION AVENUE (APN 014-054-31 AND 32) (ZC01-04)" SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 18 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 19 Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1775 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 3) Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution with the following two stipulations: 1. Council directed that the tandem parking spaces be sloped down toward the Thiel property, to the maximum extent allowed by code; the drainage to be run off to avoid a negative effect on this property; and 2. The issue of the retaining wall on the back of the properties on Union Street to be referred back to the Design Review Board for a more elegant solution. RESOLUTION NO. 10991 — RESOLUTION APPROVING A MASTER USE PERMIT (UP01- 27) AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED00-72) FOR THE ALDERSLY GARDEN RETIREMENT COMMUNITY AT 308 AND 326 MISSION AVENUE (APN 014-054-31 AND 32) with stipulations: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: NEW BUSINESS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19. ACCEPTANCE OF THE ANNUAL REPORT INCLUDING A BLIGHT PROGRESS AND AGENCY OWNED PROPERTY REPORTS AND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REPORT FOR THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RA) — FILE 8-18 x 8-9 x 13-16 x 13-7-1 x (SRRA) R-62 Economic Development Director Nancy Mackle stated the set of documents before Council this evening are required by the State in specific format and may be somewhat user -unfriendly. She indicated they summarize basic financial information in a format not usually used by the City. She stated that an affordable housing report was attached for Council review, which addresses what the City Council and Agency Board have done to pursue additional affordable housing. Ms. Mackle stated she would give an update on what occurred over the past year and one half. Referring to the Below Market Rate program, where 10% of all new construction must be affordable, Mr. Mackle stated there are two projects downtown presently being leased, The Lofts at Albert Park and the Rafael Town Center, both bringing affordable housing. She indicated there is a down -payment grants program, whereby some buyers of Below Market Rate housing are assisted in making their down -payments, and Council has also moved to save some once affordable at -risk units, San Rafael Commons and a particular BMR unit. Ms. Mackle reported that the Agency has given grants to non -profits for many years, Canal Community Alliance, Homeward Bound and St. Vincent de Paul Dining Room being three recent examples. She stated that Community Development Block Grants have been allocated towards housing in a variety of ways, including Developmentally Disabled Homes, etc. Ms. Mackle reported that the Canal Area Housing Improvement program has recently been put in place with BRIDGE Housing. Putting together funds from the Marin Community Foundation and other areas, BRIDGE Housing has acquired 40 units of housing on Fairfax Street and 26 units on Belvedere Street. Briefly updating, Ms. Mackle stated that on Belvedere Street, the permanent relocation of those tenants who were required to move has been completed and temporary relocation has been carried out with half of the units to enable the extensive rehabilitation necessary in those apartments. Plans have been approved and the work is out to bid. The rehabilitation on Fairfax Street is not as extensive; however, some maintenance issues are being worked on also. Ms. Mackle reported somewhat of a change with both these apartments as they are now under new non-profit ownership with specific governmental funding; therefore, tenant verification of income is being carried out, together with observation of the numbers occupying each unit. She indicated there will be somewhat of an adjustment period with this change in management; however, it does bring 26 units of affordable housing. Ms. Mackle reported that the Agency Board approved a C.A.S.H. program, which will create 13 affordable units, rehabilitating some units in the Canal. In addition, Ms. Mackle reported that the City has hired additional Code Enforcement Officers to begin carrying out more housing inspections throughout the City. The General Plan is under way SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 19 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 20 and she indicated that as has been discussed previously, the real issue for affordable housing is creating new construction. Ms. Mackle stated that the General Plan process is looking at locations for these new units throughout the City. Summarizing, Ms. Mackle stated she evaluated the progress made in housing over the past year and one half and reported that the Redevelopment Agency has expended $2.6 -million in affordable housing. With the BMR program and the affordable housing activities of the Agency, she indicated that over 250 affordable units have been acquired in the last eighteen months. Ms. Mackle commented these figures are not shown in the report. Referring to the chart in the staff report dealing with BMR Units, Mayor Boro noted there were 201 Rental and 77 Owner, and inquired if there were now an additional 250 affordable units. Ms. Mackle explained this was the total inventory in the BMR program; the units she discussed were affordable units gained this year, not the total inventory, and included the new construction, BMR units, grants to non -profits, Belvedere Place and Fairfax Street. Mayor Boro stated he would appreciate receiving a report over the next month or so, demonstrating the total number, including the further 55 coming on line in the downtown, plus the 26 being developed with BRIDGE Housing. Ms. Mackle explained that these numbers are inclusive in the "Affordable Housing Inventory", depicted on the previous page of this staff report: Total Units: 1,250 Rental: 1,173 Ownership: 77 She noted that a subset of this is from the Below Market Rate Program, with the remainder through Redevelopment Agency actions. She confirmed for Mayor Boro that the 55 units (Schaffer and Zappetini) were included, and although not occupied, were close to completion. Updating the more recent Fair Rental Practices Initiative, FRPO, whereby property owners voluntarily signed up to restrain the amount of rent increases, Ms. Mackle reported that a data base is being maintained, which contains some mixed-use units. Of a total of 6,473 units, approximately 43% have been signed up by the FRPO program, i.e. 2,774 units, or 192 buildings. Ms. Mackle noted that since the last report, 149 units have signed up, which indicated some progress being made on obtaining additional sign-ups. She was aware this was a challenge for a voluntary organization and expressed satisfaction with the efforts. Regarding the posting of notices, Ms. Mackle stated it was anticipated that these would be posted in the apartment buildings where an owner had signed up; however, to staff's knowledge there had been very few posted to date, and the property owners are continually being encouraged to so do. Ms. Mackle stated that Mediation Services have also been engaged to monitor the situation, take complaints from tenants and inform staff of the types of complaints, FRPO or otherwise. She reported that since the initiation of the contract with Mediation Services on July 3, 2001, 154 calls have been received from tenants, of which only 22 were FRPO buildings. She explained that the nature of the calls have varied, with one quarter merely requesting information on whether the building is covered by FRPO, rental rights as a tenant, obtaining a deposit, etc. A further group requested some assistance from Mediation Services in the resolution of a dispute. These, she indicated may not go all the way to mediation, which has a specific meaning in terms of a confidential agreement, etc., rather there may be some other form of subtle diplomacy or back and forth phone calls. In any event, Mediation Services plays a big role in assisting the two parties in dialogue, albeit not always at the same time. Therefore, Ms. Mackle stated that the chart at the end of the staff report would demonstrate a smaller number going to mediation; however, in between these request for information calls and mediation, a lot of resolution has taken place. Concluding, Ms. Mackle stated there were property owners present who could answer questions, together with tenants who, perhaps, would wish to speak. Mayor Boro stated he was somewhat disappointed with respect to why the posting of notices has not taken place. Explaining, Ms. Mackle stated this is a voluntary organization, there had been some indication that some were willing to implement this; however, others have declined, stating they would sign up but did not necessarily wish to post a notice, favoring working out disputes with tenants independently. Whether they could be convinced otherwise, Ms. Mackle could not address. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 20 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 21 Alluding to the question on posting of notices, Al Aramburu, Marin Association of Realtors, stated he had been attempting to stimulate cooperation in this area and reiterated Ms. Mackle's sentiments to the effect that there are those who believe they are being pushed. Some are gradually coming on board, albeit with some reluctance. Mr. Aramburu reported areas of preoccupation include, the condition of the market, and Mr. Burke, Realtor, Frank Howard Allen, had provided some data; however, this only addresses the quantitative aspects. He stated he staffs a Property Management Committee and reported that the market is down considerably; there are a number of people in financial distress and unable to meet the terms of their existing or pending real estate agreements. He indicated that against this backdrop, this may be a secondary issue. Mr. Aramburu stated he, too, was disappointed at not obtaining more sign-ups and would continue the effort. He commented that Mr. Burke, Frank Howard Allen, could possibly elaborate; however, he, Mr. Aramburu, had been attempting to sign people on, some of whom had come on board. He indicated this would be slow and steady progress. Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Aramburu for his voluntary effort to date and indicated that at the time the property owners signed the FRPO agreement, he understood posting was a condition. Also, based on Mr. Aramburu's comments to the effect that the market is depressed, the FRPO agreement would seem almost to be an incentive and he was, therefore, surprised at the resistance. Having reviewed the minutes of the meetings held in this connection, Mr. Aramburu believed the expectations were very clear. He indicated one of the problems is the fact that this is a volunteer organization; the one formal organization, Marin Property Owners Association, would process the complaints and perhaps, working through them representing landlords throughout the County, it could be possible to accelerate this. Mr. Aramburu stated there remains the fact that landlords agree they signed the voluntary agreement; however, the document does not specify an obligation to post the notice. Mr. Aramburu stated he was committed to working to improve the situation and with the assistance of Marin Property Owners, hoped to have better news at the next review. With regard to the notices, Michael Burke, Frank Howard Allen Realtors, stated some confusion may exist, and explained that when owners first signed up, the document was a very simple, straightforward listing of five points of key issues, including maintaining the rent increases below a certain amount, limiting the increases and furnishing extra notice. He indicated that at that time, posting notices was not addressed. Mr. Burke explained that early on, an attempt was made to form an owners association, representatives of which met with the City and included discussions concerning mandating that owners post the signed agreement. He reported that, unfortunately, this owners' group did not get off the ground, resulting in the difficulty of having no Owners Association. There remains merely the signed document, and Mr. Burke stated that a mandatory posting was never part of his discussions with any of the owners; however, he encouraged them to post the document, as it would be in their best interests. Mr. Burke indicated there is no clear line of communication with the owners and it is not a simple matter of getting on the phone to inquire as to their reluctance to post the notice. He commented that he did not possess telephone numbers for the great majority of the owners, rather his communication is strictly by mail and it was through a series of eight or ten mailings during the past year, that he succeeded in getting the owners to sign up. He indicated that with all the letters of encouragement, notices are slowly being placed. Mr. Burke stated he noted some resistance because of the implication that the notice would also encourage tenants to call mediation. He recommended stepping back to evaluate the big picture, recognizing these owners are volunteering to change their rental policies in an attempt to assist the City, which is experiencing a housing crisis with rapidly rising rents, and is a good faith gesture. He cautioned against concentrating too much on the policing efforts, in favor of keeping the success in mind. He reported that 192 buildings had signed up, which is 44% of all buildings in San Rafael, and with such a major undertaking, he believed it to be extremely successful. Commenting on the economy, Mr. Burke stated it had its own means of correcting extreme situations and while recently experiencing a period of rapidly rising rents, this came after a period of flat rents in the early 1990s. The economy has reverted to not just producing flat rents, rather in many cases, declining rents, and those building owners who raised their rents last year to the absolute maximum market are now finding they are having to re -negotiate and cut rents and face a lot of vacancies. Jeanette Lyons stated she is a concerned renter. She is a Section 8 holder of nine years and her rent has been raised $800 in four years; she acknowledged the Housing Authority for their assistance with this. She indicated having received a further increase of $275, which her son is helping her to absorb. Ms. Lyons reported that her place floods and having gone to mediation, SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 21 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 22 this was corrected in the back; however, with flooding now in the living room, she has been relocated to a back apartment. Ms. Lyons stated she did not find landlords had been acting as described by Mr. Burke, in that she believed them to be gouging, having observed many eviction notices on the back apartments She expressed gratitude at having settled her own problem; however, predicted a further raise in her rent when her lease comes up for renewal, to absorb the damage which should have been taken care of initially. This, she stated, is taking place all over Marin; however, people do not discuss it, favoring moving away, instead of facing intimidation. Referring to San Rafael Commons, Ms. Lyons indicated attempting to get on the long waiting list and finding it impossible. She believed gouging was taking place and a ballot should be initiated on rent control, noting people had a right to live in a decent place. Mayor Boro stated tonight's meeting was not a forum to mediate these issues, rather it was to receive an update and inquired whether her building was part of the volunteer program, to which she responded in the negative. Referring to statistics in the Press Democrat, dated November 11, 2001, Ms. Lyons quoted "State rules fail to apply in Marin. How Marin County, with all their job growth and new home building in the last 25 years could have a certified plan is beyond me. Sonoma County Supervisor, Tim Smith, stated, Someone needs to point out to me where their affordable housing is, I'd like to see it." Ms. Lyons further quoted "Little had been done to improve the ratio, said Betty Pagett, Co - Chair of the Marin County Housing Council. Marin County has added 22,000 jobs and only 7,000 housing units in the last ten years." Speaking through a translator, Zidalia Mazariegos, 162 Belvedere, San Rafael, stated it was her understanding that the City of San Rafael gave money to BRIDGE Housing to purchase the building in which she lives, to ensure low rents, for which they are grateful. She indicated that the BRIDGE Housing agents have been very abusive, treating them with disrespect and intimidating some of the tenants. She reported having requested a meeting with a BRIDGE Housing representative to inform them of events and was forced to go into mediation. She stated that a tenant's decision of whether or not to go to mediation must be respected from the City officials, as well as from BRIDGE Housing, and because rents are low, this does not mean that those who invested in the purchase of the building, or property owner, should decide for them. Carlos Garcia, 260 Canal Street, Apartment 321, stated he is part of the Marin Tenants Union and it appeared that those property owners who signed the agreement are not checked for violating it, and many tenants are not aware of those who sign and abide by the agreement. He indicated that tenants would welcome having the agreement posted, noting that it does not account for those property owners who do not wish to sign it. Susan Mace, Terra Linda, stated her landlord signed the FRPO agreement on August 31, 2001; however, the on-site manager negates everything. With regard to the agreement, except for the rent, which is controlled by the landlord, she indicated that the manager has broken a number of health and safety codes, which she stated, are in place to protect tenants; however, she has been unable to find someone to represent tenants with issues such as this. She reported having gone through Mediation Services and the Housing Association and encountered the words "Unlawful Detainer", and as result, will lose her house. Ms. Mace stated that because rents are so high, it will cost approximately $2,500 to move, and being on limited income, she cannot afford this figure. While recognizing that the FRPO system is a good start, should the managers not comply, she did not see the point. Mayor Boro invited Ms. Mace to give City Manager Gould her name and telephone number, informing her that should this be a Code Enforcement problem, the City would pursue it. Jessuina Perez Teran, Legal Aid of Marin, stated in the spirit of the holidays, she would like to commence with a quote: "If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening, they want the ocean with the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did and it never will. Find out what people will submit to and you have found the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." Ms. Perez Teran stated that the City of San Rafael has come up with some creative solutions to the housing problem, for which she applauded them. These creative solutions, she stated, will certainly bring some relief to those who cannot afford a place to live or to purchase. She SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 22 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 23 indicated that in the absence of a sufficient housing supply, the housing market becomes a landlord's one, and she requested assistance with helping to shift the balance of power, so that renters do not have to endure substandard living conditions, or any type of abuse from property owners and their agents. She reported hearing that the rental market is softening up, that rents have gone down and more rental units are on the market; however, she indicated that as soon as the recession passes, tenants, once again, will be fair game. Rents will go up and the move -in specials and bonuses offered by property owners, will disappear. This, she stated, is not a time to lower the guard and take a back seat, in the belief that the market is taking care of itself. Ms. Perez Teran stated that while rents are not increasing as rapidly as a few months ago, some apartments are not being repaired and in some instances, tenants pay for the repairs. She indicated that some tenants have reported that owners and managers become aggressive when a request is submitted; therefore, owners have found a means of continuing making profits from their properties with no regard for living conditions. She urged that it should be remembered that even though property owners have voluntarily signed the FRPO agreement, California State law mandates that they must maintain and repair the premises and must fulfill their legal responsibility Reporting on a sporadic housing survey conducted to ascertain the housing situation in San Rafael, Ms. Perez Teran stated the followings were the findings thus far: Ten buildings did not sign the FRPO agreement and ten did: 162 Belvedere - Management had been verbally abusive and intimidated tenants; 129-137 Canal- Code Violations; 211 Canal — Code Inspection requested; 25% - 44% rent increase, effective 10/01; 219 Canal — Rent increase of 14.6%; 260 Canal — Former Owner sold the building, barely made repairs and took rental deposit, information being collected regarding the security deposit; 355 Canal — Three rent increases in the last 12 months, totaling $250; 400 Canal - Property Owner is FRPO, signed voluntary agreement on March 28, 2001 and issued a rent increase notice on April 28t", of 17.7%; 509 Canal - FRPO building, rents are low, as are repairs. Property owners get upset and aggressive when some tenants have requested repairs be made. Tenants have paid for repairs; 531 Canal - FRPO building, tenants report long periods to undertake repairs; 550 Canal - FRPO building, owner refuses to pay for flooding damages to personal belongings; 555 Canal - Three rent increases in the last 12 months — a total of 23.8% increase; 23 Fairfax - Only four units out of 23 signed up for the FRPO agreement. Two written requests and one oral request made by Ms. Perez Teran to Mr. Aramburu seven weeks ago, with no response as to which four units the agreement applies to; however, three rent increases from March through October 2001. The FRPO agreement was signed on February 22, 2001. Rent increase amounts of 11.5% - 23.8%. Tenants have paid for some repairs as requests ignored by property owner, who is abusive and enters apartments without authorization or proper notification. A request was made to one of the tenants to pay for half of the repairs; 90 Hoag - Also a FRPO building — manager is aggressive towards tenants when repairs are requested; 155 Nova Albion - FRPO building — manager commented being scolded by Fair Housing for stating "Don't need women with three children, pregnant and on welfare." Manager stated he had made a mistake by saying this; 20 Marian Ct.- A building presented as a case study for peer pressure at the initiation of the voluntary agreement on April 2nd, when the property owner decided to rescind the 30 -day eviction notice. Ms. Perez Teran stated he attempted to evict another tenant who organized in that building and contended it was due to over- SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 23 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 24 crowding. She stated there had always been more than four people living in the two-bedroom apartment and the manager stated the owner wanted all the old tenants to leave in order to increase the rent. Legal pressure was applied, the eviction notice was rescinded and the contract was amended to permit five occupants; 171 Merrydale - Manager was aggressive, abusive and set up an excessive late payment fee of $45.00 per day, without changing the contract. A letter was sent to the property owner, who was very responsive. The manager was immediately replaced and the excessive fee was rescinded. This is not a FRPO building; 280 Merrydale - Manager's unresponsiveness to make repairs; 1476 Lincoln - Not a FRPO building - $200 rent increase on September 1, later rescinded because of the tenants organizing activities. Code Enforcement inspection conducted with a $100 rent increase; 1722 Lincoln - Caltrans purchased the building and increased the rent $400 - $500. Former owner had signed the FRPO agreement ten days before selling the building; 1732 Lincoln - Leaky roof and rats. Flooding in some apartments damaged furniture. Tenants notified owner last year of the problem; however, repairs not made; 257 Union St. - Rent increase of $1,000 — no 60 -day notice provided. Ms. Perez Teran stated she would submit a copy of this information for Council's perusal. She thanked the City of San Rafeal for the efforts being made to relieve the housing crisis. She also thanked all the tenants present this evening and for waiting for so long, especially Cesar Abarca for coming from Oakland to provide the translation. On the issue of San Rafael's attempts to create more affordable and low cost housing, often referred to as workforce housing, Dorothy Vesecky, 400 Canal Street, San Rafael, stated progress is being made, for which she offered her congratulations; however, she indicated the problem with the whole concept was beginning with the wrong set of numbers. She noted that to be seriously interested in workforce housing, it was necessary to carry out an in-depth study of salaries and wages paid to people who work in San Rafael. From these numbers, she stated, it would be evident whether rents and purchase prices on affordable and low cost housing based on median income, are really appropriate and making housing available to the workforce. Ms. Vesecky indicated that some weeks ago, an article appeared in the Marin Independent Journal to the effect that a huge percentage of Marin incomes emanate from investment income, and with a lot of people driving to San Francisco or the East Bay to their employment, this all adds up to higher median incomes rather than higher median wages. She stated that it was necessary to take a good look to ascertain whether the housing needs of people working in and serving this community are being fulfilled. Regarding signs, Ms. Vesecky stated that tenants made the mistake of not insisting the signage issue be included in the agreement, foolishly believing this would be a central part and assuming that any landlord signing the agreement was being informed this was part and parcel. She indicated the fact that it was not in writing was the tenants' mistake. Ms. Vesecky noted that the initial group of landlords appeared to disappear to be replaced by others; pressure was applied to landlords to sign up, Mr. Burke became involved and may have been unaware there had been discussions concerning a sign; however, suddenly all these people signed up. She noted that a real show of sincerity could be made by placing a sign in the buildings so that those who reside in FRPO buildings will be aware of this fact. She indicated that without those signs, it is difficult to perceive a sincere desire to abide by the FRPO agreement by landlords who have signed. She believed that various landlords and involved people have been attempting to work on this problem and noted that communication needed to be improved. She wished everyone happy holidays. Coleman Persily, Contempo Marin, stated it was his belief the system established was not working and would not work. He appreciated the efforts of staff who have worked so hard to gain affordable housing; however, he believed the existing tenants were being forgotten and suggested reconsidering the entire concept. He stated that to really implement the 10% rent increase ceiling, an ordinance should be passed to this effect, and would dispense with the necessity to solicit further landlords. Rosa Ake stated she was a resident of 1722 Lincoln, which was purchased by Caltrans, who SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 24 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 25 raised the rent by almost $500. She reported having discussed lower rents with them, and going to a mediation meeting, which Caltrans refused to attend. She stated that a number of people in the back building have already left because of this rent increase, together with the unwillingness to carry out repairs. She indicated that the new manager had inferred they did not intend carrying out any repairs this year or next year. Explaining the reason why tenants believe this increase to be too high, Ms. Ake stated they were informed that there would be a large amount of noise and dust, etc., commencing in May of 2002, and tenants cannot afford to pay an additional $475. Klaus Warner stated he owns apartments in Marin County and pointed out that he had never raised rents more than $60 per month; however, the cost of maintaining apartments had sky rocketed and it was necessary to raise rents on a yearly basis. He reported a substantial increase in insurance premiums and requested some understanding for property owners from the City Council. Jose Martinez, 260 Canal, stated that two months ago, a new owner took over and although the previous owner did not repair the building, when he left he took their rental deposits. He requested Council do something to stop this abuse and implement a solution. Mayor Boro requested that staff report back to Council on the following issues: 1. BRIDGE Housing and the conflict described by a speaker. 2. An understanding of the issue with Caltrans, whether they intend to close these buildings in the next several months and their long-term prognosis. 3. A clearer picture of inventory by location, i.e., Downtown, East San Rafael and North San Rafael, to better understand the information. Responding to some of the comments, City Manager Gould stated that should there be health and safety violations in rental housing in San Rafael, staff needs to be informed. This can be achieved either by residents telephoning directly, reporting through Jessuina Perez Teran or through Mediation Services, and regardless of the means, staff needs to be aware of these violations in order to carry out inspections. He indicated that where violations are encountered, corrections can be compelled on the part of the property owner. Mr. Gould stated that Council had empowered staff to hire two additional Code Enforcement Officers; the County had relinquished inspection authority over all rental stock in San Rafael and it was not necessary to wait for quarterly reports, rather they should be reported immediately to facilitate prompt action. With regard to Caltrans, Mr. Gould stated staff was unsuccessful in enlisting them to sign the FRPO agreement. He indicated the State believes that on purchasing these properties, it carries out a study of market rents, and raises or lowers rents accordingly. In this case, he reported they felt the need to raise rents in this particular apartment complex. He indicated their goal is to raze those apartment complexes in the future; therefore, those residing there presently are under month to month rental agreements. Regarding BRIDGE Housing, Mr. Gould stated staff had been made aware of some difficulties in the two apartments purchased through Redevelopment, to be renovated and owned by BRIDGE. Staff is working with BRIDGE to correct some of these problems and a more detailed report will be forthcoming. With regard to the FRPO violations, Mr. Gould stated the tenant advocate has consistently been requested to furnish information regarding complaints, especially those which may be occurring in those apartments owned by property owners who signed the agreement. He indicated that tonight was the first indication of those violations and he requested that staff be briefed more frequently when such complaints are received. Lastly, Mr. Gould stated staff would be glad to provide the map of affordable housing in San Rafael, broken down into a more understandable format. Councilmember Cohen stated it was his understanding that the State needed to obtain a fair return; however, he believed this was an appropriate time to enlist assistance from the state representatives in discussions with Caltrans. He believed Senator Burton would be particularly interested in learning that Caltrans is a recalcitrant landlord in the present context; therefore, perhaps this information could be shared with his office in an effort to obtain somewhat more cooperation from Caltrans. Councilmember Cohen stated he was disappointed to hear that Caltrans is one of the landlords generating this type of concern. On the issue of posting of notices, Councilmember Cohen stated he did recognize the difficulty with a voluntary agreement and appreciated the work already done and progress made. It did appear, however, there was something fundamental to its working as envisioned, by having SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 25 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 26 some type of notice given to tenants as to whether or not the agreement has been signed. He questioned how tenants could be aware the agreement had been violated when they were unaware of its existence. Councilmember Cohen reported having had a number of conversations with people concerning the issue of the letter and how the information would be communicated; however, ultimately, the letter was forwarded in a generic fashion, in that one letter did not go to tenants whose landlord had signed the agreement, with a different one to those who had not. Councilmember Cohen indicated he understood the reasons, the cost and the difficulty in implementing this particular mailing; however, with no posting, tenants had no means of knowing whether or not the agreement has been signed, hence whether it had been violated, or whether they are subject to the whims of their landlord, as was the case prior to commencement of this program. Realizing there was no means of enforcement, Councilmember Cohen stated it appeared that the notion of requesting that some type of posting be undertaken in these apartment buildings, is fundamental to this project. He did not believe it to be stirring the waters, rather involving the tenants in the process. He believed that unless tenants are notified, the impact of the landlord having signed the agreement is weakened, as there is no enforcement mechanism whatsoever. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to set this as a goal for 2002, incorporating it going forward, and as new building owners sign the agreement, they understand that part of the expectation is that they post a notice or notify their tenants. He requested the property owners to work back with those who have signed the agreement to encourage them to post a notice and notify their tenants. He indicated it was his hope that the property owners who had signed on were proud they had taken somewhat of a moral stand in agreeing to limit rent increases and maintain buildings in a safe condition and he encouraged them to inform their tenants accordingly. Mayor Boro concurred with Councilmember Cohen on this notification, agreeing also that in the present market, it should be an asset to the landlord that it be known they exercise this practice of giving sufficient notice of an increase and limiting their increase to a certain amount. With apparently 192 FRPO buildings, Mayor Boro stated it was his belief the residents and landlords of these buildings could be ascertained and a letter generated congratulating the landlords and informing the tenants of their status. He indicated this could cost some money; however, he believed it to be important to take this next step, as to work and be a volunteer program, people should be aware of it. Although it may not be possible to legislate, Mayor Boro stated that at least information could be imparted. He requested staff to pursue this over the next several months and meantime, perhaps Mr. Aramburu and Mr. Burke could convince the landlords that rather than the City informing them and their tenants directly, it could possibly serve them better to take the initiative. He noted the City had offered to make the signs available and to print them in two languages, and he believed it important to at least close the loop. Mayor Boro stated this issue would be reviewed at an April, 2002, Council Meeting. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to accept the report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None NEW BUSINESS: 20. ELECTION OF VICE -MAYOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR YEAR 2002 (CC) — FILE 9-1 Councilmember Phillips placed in nomination the name of Councilmember Paul Cohen to serve as Vice -Mayor of the City of San Rafael for the year 2002. Vice -Mayor Miller seconded the motion, and Councilmember Cohen was elected Vice -Mayor by acclamation for the year 2002. Commenting on Mr. Miller's role as Vice -Mayor, Mayor Boro stated it had been lot of fun; Mr. Miller followed the food and lead Mayor Boro to it. He publicly thanked outgoing Vice -Mayor Cyr Miller for all his work and assistance in the past year and indicated he had set quite a mark for the new Vice -Mayor, whom he intended to be led to taller heights by. Councilmember Cohen stated his only comment was that he tries to take as his model, the late Senator Milton Marks, about whom it was said, "If there were three people in a room, one of them is Milton Marks". SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 26 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 27 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: 21. None. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 22. None. There being no further business, the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12002 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/17/2001 Page 27