HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2003-06-02SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2003 AT 8:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201:
Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
Case Name: MHC Financing, et al. v. CSR, et al.
U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. of CA
Case No.: C003785
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Gary O. Phillips, Vice -Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Absent: None
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:02 PM
None
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent
Calendar items:
ITEM
RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Call for Applications to Fill One, Unexpired Term
Approved staff recommendation:
on the Park and Recreation Commission Due to
a) Called for applications to fill
Resignation of C. Paul Bettini, with Term to
one unexpired term on the
Expire End of October, 2007 (CC) — File 9-2-4
San Rafael Park and
Recreation Commission, term
extended to expire end of
October, 2007;
b) Set deadline for receipt of
applications Tuesday, June
24, 2003 at 12 Noon in the City
Clerk's Office, Room 209, City
Hall; and
c) Set date for interviews of
applicants at a Special City
Council meeting to be held on
Monday, July 7, 2003,
commencing at 6:30 p.m.
3. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael
(CM) —File 116 x 9-1
5. Acceptance of Annual Report and Resolutions of
Appreciation to Members of the North San Rafael
Vision in Action Committee (CD) —
File 9-2-52 x 102
ADDroved staff recommendation:
SB 619. Housing — Senator Ducheny
— OPPOSE
SCA 1. Access to Government
Information — Senator Burton —
SUPPORT
Accepted report and Adopted
Resolutions:
RESOLUTION NO. 11310 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
JOHN ALDEN, NORTH SAN RAFAEL
VISION IN ACTION COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11311 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
STEVE BIANCHI, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 1
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 11312 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
JENNIFER CICCONE, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11313 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
MARILYN BOATRIGHT, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11314 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
SHIRLEY FISCHER, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11315 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
HENRI L. LESE, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11316 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
LLOYD LIEBES, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11317 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
MIKE MCGUIRE, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11318 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
CECIL NIELSEN, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11319 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
KAY NOGUCHI, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11320 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
LARRY A. PAUL, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11321—
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
MARK REAGAN, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11322 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
ANGELA RISDON, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11323 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
KIRK ROCKWELL, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 2
6. Resolution of Appreciation to Mike Angeli, Fire
Dept. Division Chief, for Contribution Re
Hazardous Material Incident Simulation (FD) —
File 102 x 9-3-31 x 13-11
7. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending
April, 2003 (MS) — File 8-18 x 8-9
8. Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding
Contract to Bay Area Contractors Corporation Re
"City of San Rafael Emergency Dispatch Center",
Project #11006; (Bid Opening Held on May 27,
2003) in the Amount of $399,500.00 (PW) —
File 4-1-559 x 9-3-31
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 11324 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
LEANDRO SOTO, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11325 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
AMANDA STALLER, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11326 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
ANNIE STERLING, NORTH SAN
RAFAEL VISION IN ACTION
COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. 11327 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
MIKE ANGELI, FIRE DEPARTMENT
DIVISION CHIEF, FOR
CONTRIBUTION RE HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL INCIDENT SIMULATION
Accepted Monthly Investment Report
for Month Ending April, 2003, as
presented.
RESOLUTION NO. 11328 —
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE
CONTRACT FOR "CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL EMERGENCY DISPATCH
CENTER," PROJECT NO. 11006, TO
BAY AREA CONTRACTORS
CORPORATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$399,500.00
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion, at the request of Mr. Steve
Patterson:
4. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1802 — AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL
CODE INCLUDING: 1) ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS REVISING
REGULATIONS FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS AND 2) SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TEXT AMENDMENTS ELIMINATING SECTION 15.06.030(b) RELATING TO LOT
DIMENSIONS AND DEPTH (CD) — FILE 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 x 13-16 x 5-1
Steve Patterson stated he was present at the last meeting when a substantial number of
speakers commented on this ordinance; however, on that occasion, he chose not to participate
as he believed there was sufficient representation.
Recalling two specific speakers, Mr. Patterson stated that Dick Watts, Sun Valley
Neighborhood Association, referred to the issue of hidden density - illegal units that seemed to
blend in; however, are not acknowledged by the City, and certainly not counted as housing
units. He indicated a speaker from Gerstle Park, residing in the pristine Antoinette area,
displayed a slide depicting illegal units in what appeared to be a totally single-family area.
As a member of the San Rafael Steering Committee for General Plan 2020, Mr. Patterson
noted the existence of hundreds of illegal units in San Rafael from decades of no code
enforcement. While there is code enforcement now, for years there was virtually none, and
with the pressure to create new housing, supposedly, illegal units cannot be counted. Mr.
Patterson stated that even though the structures exist, cars park in front of people's homes and
people are present and have an impact, from the City's perspective, it is as if they do not exist.
From his perspective, he stated "if it looks and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck" and at this
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 4
point, older neighborhoods are the places that can least afford to accommodate greater
densities. He commented that it is almost like a "double whammy" when they already are
impacted by illegal units and then have to suffer a certain impact from a more lenient second -
unit ordinance that additionally impacts parking and density. While not requesting the City
Council consider amnesty for illegal units, Mr. Patterson suggested they consider some way to
acknowledge their existence and count them. He noted it has a major impact on total housing
units and would take the burden off some neighborhoods.
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated that likewise, the City would favor getting
State credit towards the required housing numbers through counting currently illegal units. He
reported having had extensive discussions with State HCD (Housing and Community
Development), the regulating agency, as well as legislators (San Rafael was not alone in doing
this), and if the units are not legally permitted, they do not count. Code Enforcement has
worked closely with neighborhood associations in an attempt to identify and abate illegal units,
as there was concern that they provide substandard, and in some cases, unsafe housing. Mr.
Brown stated this evening's ordinance affords an opportunity to create further incentives to
legalize those units, particularly in modifying some of the parking requirements.
Mr. Brown reported that in putting the program together where legalization of these units is
encouraged, staff was considering possibly bringing to Council an incentive for a period of time
of not double feeing building permits for the legalization of currently illegal units.
Appreciating this, Mayor Boro stated it would be worthwhile one more time to make the case
regarding counting illegal units. Referring to some discussion regarding an amnesty for
projects built without permits, Mayor Boro stated this was something different. He explained
that in encouraging affordable housing, the City often waives fees; therefore, if the ordinance
was changed and parking was something that could accommodate the unit becoming legal, not
charging a fine, instead charging the original fee, could be an incentive to legalize and get some
of these units in the count. (It was clarified this would not apply to new applications for second
units). Mayor Boro stated Mr. Brown would pursue this and report back.
Councilmember Cohen believed the suggestion was to simply pay the fee as though it were the
application, and this was encouraged; however, it did not indicate an amnesty or waiving of the
requirements. He stated that in most of these cases, the illegal units did not necessarily meet
the standards; they would have to make some arrangements on parking and perhaps would
use the more lenient standards to accommodate this.
Councilmember Cohen stated that one of the effects of this, part -mandated by state law, is to
reduce the public review which also reduces the expense; therefore, the permit would be
significantly cheaper to obtain. He would not favor waiving the fees altogether and rewarding
having previously escaped obtaining a building permit.
Indicating the answer was not to assume this policy meant that all illegal units just remain while
the City was looking for new units to add to the count, Councilmember Cohen believed the ideal
to be that some of the illegal units that could not be accommodated under the new policy got
abated and some others that could, became legalized and would count. He believed that
hidden density would become less hidden and would count towards the City's housing goals by
legalizing the existing units. Anything that could be done to figure out a way to do this should be
pursued and publicized.
Mr. Brown stated staff would return with policy choices on this issue
Sarah Kushner, 201 Ross Street, Gerstle Park, stated she was concerned regarding the
ordinance's compliance with AB1866. She stated she called Sacramento today and spoke with
the gentleman who works in the Housing Department for the Assembly who wrote the analysis
of this bill before it was chaptered. She indicated she had copies of the chaptered AB1866.
Ms. Kushner indicated her concern related to language in AB1866 that explicitly states "second
dwelling units are put on properties that have a current existing unit." Changing the word
"existing" to "primary' in the current ordinance allows a homeowner with a sufficiently sized lot
to build a new primary residence and call his older, smaller, existing residence the second unit.
Reporting that she is a victim of this, Ms, Kushner stated she would like the language cleared
up for everyone. Going through the ordinance she suggested striking principal, primary, single-
family dwelling, and replacing each instance with the word "existing."
Indicating this was discussed at Council and Planning Commission levels, Community
Development Director Bob Brown explained that the ordinance as written states that "a second
dwelling unit shall be permitted per residential lot containing a single-family dwelling."
Confirming there has to be a current residence, he indicated it does not specify "existing," rather
states "containing a single-family dwelling." Responding to the speaker's remarks, Mr. Brown
stated that to have an existing small home of between 500 and 800 square -feet, an owner
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 4
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 5
would have the option of declaring that the second unit and building a new principal dwelling
elsewhere on the lot. If that was not permitted, they also would have the ability to take that 500
or 800 square -foot home, expand it as large as desired and build another small unit elsewhere
on the property. From the Planning Commission's and staff's perspectives, it did not
necessarily matter as the size of the second unit is constrained by City ordinances; therefore,
which unit is designated the second unit would not make a lot of difference in terms of impacts,
as the existing small dwelling could be expanded, even including a second unit in it. It,
therefore, would not preserve small bungalow units as they could be expanded even under to-
day's codes.
Understanding the intent, Councilmember Cohen stated there was a third alternative in that an
owner could take the existing unit, remove sufficient features to allow it to fall just below the
City's threshold definition of a unit, get a permit for a single-family home on a single-family lot,
build the new home and then apply for a second dwelling unit for what previously was the
existing unit. He believed, therefore, that the language change being discussed would not get
the result, rather it would force people to circle around it and get to the same point, which he
believed should be avoided. Councilmember Cohen did not believe the proposed language
"gets to it", nor was he sure legally, there was a way to get to it by denying a request to build a
larger home. He noted staff had been requested to evaluate the issue of oversized homes,
shading, etc., in existing neighborhoods. This would be agendized in the future, and he
believed that to be the appropriate place to consider this issue, as he did not believe sticking
with the word "existing" was the solution.
Mayor Boro invited a motion with the understanding that Mr. Brown would pursue one additional
time the issue of counting those illegal units that could be identified. Secondly, staff to explore
an incentive to those units that do meet the legal requirements, to become legal, so they could
be counted.
Councilmember Heller inquired whether this issue had been identified and discussed at ABAG
(Association of Bay Area Governments) or whether ABAG had requested permission from the
State to allow these to be evaluated.
Responding, Mr. Brown stated he was aware it had been discussed as part of the ABAG talks
regarding setting the numbers and the process utilized. He felt they believed they were also
hamstrung, in that the units are counted based upon legality and he did not know how they
would establish a process where theoretical illegal units that are assumed to be there, all of a
sudden have some presence in terms of counting. He commented they had grappled with this
and had not come up with a solution; however, he could make the pitch again.
Mayor Boro suggested that at the same time, Mr. Brown could also make the pitch concerning
the units at Dominican College which were added, i.e., the dorm units which are truly housing
but currently not counted.
Mr. Brown explained there is movement on that front, indicating it appeared the state is willing
to accept a census definition regarding housing units that would include senior, assisted living
units and dormitory units; therefore, he felt inroads were being made on that front.
Councilmember Cohen indicated he was not certain how the City could indicate that an illegal
unit would be abated as soon as someone admitted to its existence, while at the same time
wanting to count it for the purpose of satisfying the state. He believed it should be recognized
there were some challenges in this connection.
The title of the ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE
MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING: 1) ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS REVISING
REGULATIONS FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS AND 2) SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
TEXT AMENDMENTS ELIMINATING SECTION 15.06.030(b) RELATING TO LOT
DIMENSIONS AND DEPTH"
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the
reading of the ordinance in its entirety, and refer to it by title only, and adopt Charter Ordinance
No. 1802 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 6
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
9. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO MIKE ANGELI, FIRE DEPT.
DIVISION CHIEF, FOR CONTRIBUTION RE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INCIDENT
SIMULATION (FD) - FILE 102 x 9-3-31
For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Boro stated this was a Resolution of Appreciation to
Division Chief Angeli. He referred to a newspaper article and reported that on May 10th, 2003, a
major exercise involving weapons of mass destruction was conducted at the Marin County Civic
Center to test the effectiveness of responding Marin and Sonoma Counties' public safety
personnel. This response included fire, police, emergency medical personnel, area hospitals
throughout Marin County and fire personnel from Sonoma, for a total of 250 participants. Mayor
Boro reported that Chief Angeli was selected by the joint planning team as the Incident
Commander for this effort and he put many hours of his knowledge, commitment and
experience into this, together with hundreds of hours in planning the event and ensuring that the
hazardous material team and fire personnel were adequately trained and had the knowledge,
skills and ability to respond.
Mayor Boro, on behalf of the entire community, congratulated and thanked Chief Angeli for
providing a measurable support, not only to the San Rafael Fire Department, but Marin County
Fire Departments, the Hazardous Material team members and hospitals in this training exercise.
Thanking the Mayor and Councilmembers, Division Chief Angeli stated he would like to
acknowledge the fact that a lot of work went into this exercise. Not necessarily being the
primary person, rather the person assigned to carry the operation out, he acknowledged the
support from his wife Karen and daughter Michelle. Chief Angeli explained this was a
culmination of a process where a response plan was developed for weapons of mass
destruction. The budget and process of obtaining grant money to support the equipment was
evaluated and the fire service, police agencies, hospitals and other participants got together
and a design team organized the event, which afforded the opportunity to plan and ascertain
what did and did not work.
Chief Angeli stated they would be pursuing additional grant money to refine both the plan and
the process and it is hoped to implement these changes and be prepared for the worst.
Mayor Boro stated the Council, staff and community take a very serious attitude towards the
issue of homeland security, which has many aspects. He indicated the community of Marin is
subject to natural disasters, i.e., fires, floods, etc., and the San Rafael Police and Fire
Departments work with graduates of the Citizens Police Academy and Disaster Area Relief
Team to get citizens involved in the event of a disaster of any type. He stated the public would
hear more about this as it is a very important issue for the community.
10. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO MEMBERS OF THE VISION IN
ACTION COMMITTEE (CD) — FILE 102 x 9-2-52
For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Boro explained the North San Rafael Vision in Action
Committee came into being after the Vision for North San Rafael was formed several years ago,
and was similar to a group who had worked to keep the Downtown San Rafael Vision alive.
He indicated there were Resolutions of Appreciations for each member indicating they had
served on the North San Rafael Vision in Committee, devoted to implementing the Vision for
North San Rafael. This committee contributed greatly to the many community defining projects
in North San Rafael, including preparation of the Promenade Plan, definition of the Town Center
concept at Design Charettes, through work with Macerich (owner of Northgate Mall), the
installation of median entryway landscaping on Manuel T. Freitas Parkway, reconstruction of
the Terra Linda Pool and Freitas Park, fundraising for landscaping Del Ganado Creek and the
translation of the Vision into General Plan 2020. Mayor Boro noted that a lot these had already
happened, some were yet to come; however, they all would happen.
Mayor Boro stated the Resolutions indicated the Committee had promoted community
education and involvement in creating a sense of place in North San Rafael and that he and the
City Council of the City of San Rafael commended all members of the VIA Committee for their
tireless and selfless efforts on behalf of their community and the City of San Rafael.
On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Boro thanked each member present this evening.
He presented Resolutions of Appreciation to John Alden, Marilyn Boatright, Shirley Fischer,
Henri L. Lese, Lloyd Liebes, Mike McGuire, Cecil Nielsen, Larry A. Paul and Angela Risdon.
Shirley Fischer stated it had been five years of work on the VIA Committee plus four years of
work before that bringing the North San Rafael Vision to a reality, albeit pieces were still to
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 6
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 7
come. She expressed their appreciation to the City Council for assisting in the creation of the
Vision and then following through with it, noting the extension they received which was not in
the plan. Ms. Fischer stated they were very grateful to the City Council for their support in the
process and they hoped to continue.
Henri L. Lese stated that in this time of fiscal austerity he was pleased to announce that the VIA
Committee had under spent its allotted budget and would be refunding the amount of $46.16 to
the City. He presented a check to Mayor Boro, who passed it on to Mr. Nordhoff.
Community Development Director Bob Brown to forward Resolutions of Appreciation to those
unable to attend:
Steve Bianchi, Jennifer Ciccone, Kay Noguchi, Mark Reagan, Kirk Rockwell, Leandro Soto,
Amanda Staller and Annie Sterling.
Due to the fact that a number of people were present regarding item #13 on the agenda, Mayor Boro
announced he would move the item ahead of Public Hearing item numbers 11 and 12.
NEW BUSINESS:
13. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF SAN RAFAEL ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM TO TEMPORARILY PROHIBIT
GRANTING APPROVALS TO OR ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR CREMATORIA PURSUANT
TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 (CA) —
FILE 13-1 x 10-3 x 10-2 x 9-3-16
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that at the May 19, 2003 meeting, he was requested
to explore alternatives that might be available for the consideration of the City in connection with
certain discretionary land use entitlements that had been issued to an applicant, and this report
was the culmination of those efforts.
Mr. Ragghianti stated he would forego a recitation of the facts leading to this evening as he
believed the Council was more than well aware of the circumstances that gave rise to the
outpouring of comment and opposition to the proposed use. He indicated that when his office
began to review the matter, the following facts were taken into account:
A Use Permit had been issued to the applicant; and
An Environmental and Design Review Permit and application for a Building Permit had
been submitted to the City.
Mr. Ragghianti stated that one of the express Conditions of Approval of the Use Permit was the
acquisition of a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. This permit had been
issued; however, was appealed, confirming said appeal was filed today and he had received a
copy of it.
In connection with the review conducted, Mr. Ragghianti stated it was staff's opinion that both
the statutory and case law permit the Council's consideration tonight of an Interim Urgency
Ordinance pursuant to California Government Code §65858. He explained that is the sole
expression in the Government Code for what is commonly referred to as Moratoria Ordinances,
the purpose of which is to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to permit public
agencies to adopt as an urgency measure such an ordinance which prohibits any uses that may
be in conflict with a contemplated General Plan, specific plan or zoning proposal being
considered or contemplated to be considered shortly. Mr. Ragghianti stated that the ordinance
before Council did provide the facts setting forth the pertinent history with regard to how the
matter came to be considered this evening, as well as a series of facts indicating there may
well be, as a result of the outpouring of opposition to the contemplated crematorium here
proposed, a question as to whether the current General Plan and current zoning ordinance
provisions adequately promote the public health, safety and welfare, regarding the
appropriateness of the location of this proposed use.
Mr. Ragghianti stated that most importantly, no vested rights had yet accrued in connection with
the issuance of any of the permits. He noted no permit was yet issued from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, and now that the appeal had been filed, that permit would not
issue until the administrative remedies were exhausted in that regard. Consequently, the
ordinance this evening proposed for Council's consideration the imposition of an Interim
Urgency Ordinance which would prohibit the issuance of any permits for crematoria anywhere
in the City for a period of 45 days, pursuant to the express provisions set forth in this
Government Code section. Mr. Ragghianti stated it would apply in particular to the pending
application since it would be inconsistent and perhaps prejudicial to issue such a permit while
the City contemplated an amendment to its Zoning Ordinance and/or General Plan insofar as
any study it is about to conduct concerning the appropriateness of the location of such a use
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 7
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 8
where presently proposed, or elsewhere in the City
Mr. Ragghianti explained that such an ordinance under this Government Code Section must be
adopted by a four-fifths vote of the Council and is, unlike other ordinances, effective immediately
upon its adoption this evening, should it be adopted by the Council. He stated it is valid for no
more than 45 days should it be adopted this evening, thus if enacted it would expire under the
terms and provisions of this ordinance, on July 17, 2003, unless thereafter extended as
provided by this same section.
In conclusion, Mr. Ragghianti stated this was the result of the legal research conducted by staff
and the alternative staff considered best to present to the City Council, given the expressions of
the members of the public at at least four City Council meetings preceding this evening.
Councilmember Phillips inquired as to the extension period
Mr. Ragghianti explained this would be up to ten months and fifteen days on the first extension
and one year thereafter, with no more than two extensions possible. He indicated there would
be a public hearing on or before July 17, 2003, at which Council could consider extending this
ordinance for up to ten months and fifteen days. While it need not take the entire time, Council
could, should it so choose.
Acknowledging there were a number of people present who had an interest in this issue, Mayor
Boro invited comment from the mortuary representatives, to be followed by a neighborhood
representative and others who felt they needed to speak. He explained the issue was that of
adopting the Interim Urgency Ordinance.
Ron Henderson, Manager, Keaton's Mortuary, reported he had been associated with Keaton's
Mortuary as an employee and its manager during the past twenty-six years. He explained that
Keaton's had a long and proud history in San Rafael and their intention behind the application
process had always been to provide the best service possible to the community. He indicated
they had been a respected member of the business community in San Rafael for over eighty
years and had worked hard to ensure that the families they serve received only the highest
standards in the care of their loved ones.
Mr. Henderson reported that presently, Marin County had one of the highest cremation rates in
the country; 60% of residents make this choice and because of this, the staff at Keaton's
Mortuary determined the best way to guarantee their customers were cared for with the utmost
integrity and respect was to handle their needs within their own facilities. The decision was
made, therefore, to install the crematory in Keaton's location in San Rafael.
Mr. Henderson explained that before the application process was begun, he met with City
planners to ascertain the necessary steps involved to determine whether they met the
prerequisites. Since the application process began last summer, they followed all the steps
outlined to them, meeting and exceeding all the standards as determined by the State, City and
local laws. It was, therefore, with regret that they learned this evening the City was considering
adopting an Interim Urgency Ordinance.
Stating that in July, 2002, they applied to the Planning Department for a Use Permit, which they
had been advised was the first step in the process, Mr. Henderson reported that due to this
application there was public notification by the City of San Rafael. The Use Permit was issued
in September, 2002 and there was no appeal. Following receipt of the Use Permit they retained
an architect to assist with the modifications required to install the cremation unit. These
drawings required by the City and the Design Review Board were approved in February, 2003
and the application for a building permit was filed in March, 2003.
Mr. Henderson reported that in late 2002, an application was filed with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District. The Department then completed a health risk screening assessment and
determined that the installation of a crematory at Fifth and E Streets was well below the
established standards. He stated that in fact, they announced the probability of getting cancer
from the air pollutants in the Bay Area was almost one hundred times greater than could be
expected from constant exposure to the crematory. Mr. Henderson indicated these reports and
studies had shown time and time again that the emissions from a crematory retort are well
below the standards set across the country. He stated that during the application process the
public was again notified of Keaton's intention, as dictated by the District and in compliance with
the State, City and local regulations. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District issued a
permit to Keaton's Mortuary in May, 2003 after studies determined that the emissions from the
crematory were unlikely to cause adverse health effects for any exposed individual. Mr.
Henderson reported that the findings thus far from all the experts within the various City
departments who had been involved indicated that the installation of a crematory at Keaton's
Mortuary falls within all guidelines set out by the City of San Rafael.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 8
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 9
Mr. Henderson stated that throughout the past eleven months they had followed all of the steps
outlined by the City. They had worked with City Councilmembers and City administration to
ensure they were doing everything necessary correctly. He indicated they had met or exceeded
everything required by law, meeting with neighbors and business partners in the community,
and the feedback they had been receiving was overwhelmingly positive and in favor of their
decision.
Reporting they had offered to meet with representatives of the communities and local schools to
address their questions, Mr. Henderson stated they had created a document addressing many
of these questions and could furnish copies this evening to anyone requesting them. He stated
they had been open to discussion on many of the issues raised and would continue to be,
moving forward, indicating they wanted to maintain the trusted relationship within the
community they had spent so many years building. Mr. Henderson stated that it was for these
reasons they believed the application for a crematory at Keaton's Mortuary should be
processed. They had been shown no reason that the process should be halted or reversed and
their ultimate aim was to serve San Rafael and Marin County to the best of their ability while
remaining in compliance with the laws that govern them. He stated they would continue to work
with the community to understand their concerns and hoped they would be able to continue the
excellent standard of care they were so proud to have achieved. Mr. Henderson stated they
live and work in San Rafael also and have to maintain a high standard.
Peter Lagarias stated he owned a building at 1629 Fifth Avenue. He indicated that when last he
addressed the City Council he was not representing anyone (he is an attorney); however, since
then, he had been retained to represent Clean Air on Fifth Avenue, Teresa Dutton (tenant on
Fourth Street), Max Kniesche (owner of the American building at 1099 D Street), Marin
Academy, Doctor Robert Rosenberg (Endodontist), John and Armida Scopazzi (restaurant
owners on Fourth Street) and Brad Sears. He stated the appeal was to the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District and they believed they had a proper case to have the permit set
aside; however, they believed it important that the City Council take action also.
Mr. Lagarias reported that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District does not have zoning
laws at its heart and this is why they feel this Emergency Ordinance is appropriate. He
indicated they were not talking about a project that is inappropriate at every location, rather a
zoning use that is inappropriate at this location. Mr. Lagarias stated no one had addressed the
smell, noise and toxic air contaminants issues, explaining that these machines do not always
function perfectly and this land use proposal is not in the middle of a cemetery as the other
crematoria in Marin County and in many other cities in the State are, rather it is right in the
middle of downtown.
Mr. Lagarias stated there were numbers of citizens against this and Brad Sears could probably
address these figures should Council be interested. He explained there were people who
received absolutely no notice, indicating the notice that was distributed was to landowners in a
limited area; therefore, there were many reasons why they believed this was an inappropriate
land use.
In conclusion, Mr. Lagarias stated the issue was the general welfare of residents, tenants,
businesses, restaurant owners, bakery owners, dental offices and Marin Academy School. This
emergency action to stop this type of land use in the middle of downtown San Rafael was
needed. He agreed with almost all of City Attorney Gary Ragghianti's remarks and there clearly
was appropriate legal authority for the City to take this kind of action. He urged and pleaded
that this be done to maintain the quality of life in the Fifth and Mission Residential/Office district.
Noting the presence in San Rafael of one of twenty-one Missions in the State of California, Mr.
Lagarias stated this was not the appropriate place for this type of land use. He noted that
through a glitch, it got this far and it could be corrected.
Katherine Keaton, wife of the late Frank J. Keaton, stated her husband's mother and father built
the mortuary and her husband worked there until two days before died. She urged the City
Council not to allow a crematory to go into the mortuary, explaining it was built as a mortuary
not as a crematory. Ms. Keaton stated she would not refute some of the remarks made this
evening at this particular time; however, should Council wish to hear further from her, she would
be happy to answer any questions.
Noting such a marvelous job had been done with downtown San Rafael, Ms. Keaton recalled
some few years ago it was dying and has been brought back; however, this would be a further
death knell. She urged the City Council not to give consideration to a crematory in this area.
Mayor Boro requested that speakers address the issue of the Urgency Ordinance, not the
merits of the crematory and he requested that the audience please refrain from clapping.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 9
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 10
Patrick Murphy, Co-chair of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, stated they did
support the ordinance as written and believed it was in the best interest of the community. To
the representatives and management of Keaton's Mortuary, Mr. Murphy stated that when a
neighbor proposes a project, one neighbor communicates with another to ascertain if it would
work for everyone concerned. He stated the developer or current owner of Keaton's did not
attempt to involve the community in this proposal and since the issuance of the Use Permit
there had been an immediate galvanization of the residents and businesses against the project.
To any representative of a developer or company proposing a project in this community, Mr.
Murphy stated notice had been given that residents and business owners in San Rafael needed
to be considered, or they would encounter resistance rather than cooperation, opposition rather
than resolution. He invited developers to work with rather than behind them.
Margie Belrose, Belrose Theatre, stated she had not once heard anyone concerned with her
theatre which is next door to Keaton's Mortuary, her bedroom being five steps from the
proposed crematory. Noting schools were mentioned, she stated she has 50 — 60 pupils
attending per week, together with a dinner theatre. Having resided there for forty years,
respecting and never having had a problem with Keaton's, her bedroom being so close was too
frightening to her.
Steve Patterson, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, explained this was a group of
neighborhood associations and neighborhood leaders, dues paying members, who have public
meetings monthly. While he believed there were merits for a crematorium based on strict
planning criteria, Mr. Patterson stated that in this particular case, he had yet to hear one person
who supported the project and indicated it was a bad use, bad location and a bad idea.
Mr. Patterson stated the Federation rarely agrees 100% on any one issue; they had discussed
the issue at their last several meetings, recently taking a vote of their neighborhood
constituency, which resulted in 100% opposition to the potential crematorium.
He urged the City Council to pass the Emergency Ordinance and hoped they would scrutinize
the noticing procedure because this project got through with a Use Permit and no one was
aware of it. He stated the noticing issue was becoming a recurring one and requested that
Council look beyond the veneer of what they are told because the noticing criteria are flawed.
Having had experience with Keaton's Mortuary, Mr. Patterson stated he found it to be a class
operation; however, it was misguided and misdirected at this point. He indicated to Mrs. Keaton
that he had the pleasure of meeting her late husband, Frank Keaton, and found him to be a
class act and a supreme gentleman.
Walker Vaning, landlord residing approximately one block away, stated that this afternoon he
passed around a petition and in only three hours on Fourth Street, received 54 signatures
against the proposed crematory. He suggested that an alternative location be sought.
Brad Sears, stated Mr. Ragghianti had crafted a really fine Urgency Ordinance. It was very
sensible and completely appropriate and he hoped Council would follow through and deal with it
thoroughly. He thanked Mrs. Keaton for her financial and moral support and complimented Mr.
Ragghianti.
Michael Scianamblo, Endodontist in San Rafael, stated he had been in practice on Fifth Avenue
for approximately 25 years. He explained that when he opened his office he knew it was next to
a mortuary and was familiar with the Keaton family, whom he believed had done a wonderful
job. He indicated the City had also done a remarkable job in essentially rehabilitating San
Rafael. When Macy's relocated he was quite concerned about the direction of the community,
indicating that the present City Council and all those who came before were to be
congratulated.
On behalf of the dental and medical communities, Dr. Scianamblo stated they did not believe
any of them would have opened an office next to a cemetery because of the psychological
impacts and he did not now wish to have an office next to a crematorium for the same reason.
He resented not being adequately noticed and thanked Community Development Director Bob
Brown for responding to his letter. He noted that the City, Mr. Ragghianti and a number of other
people had taken issue with the Use Permit and had proposed the Interim Urgency Ordinance.
Doctor Scianamblo strongly commended all for their work and believing it was now appropriate
that this be considered, he hoped Council in their good judgment would vote affirmatively.
Mayor Boro stated the staff report was pretty clear with respect to the issues before Council,
and also as stated on page 2, the issue of a public outpouring of organized opposition that
could question the current General Plan or Zoning Ordinance and whether or not this particular
use adequately promotes and protects the public health, safety or welfare. He believed the
ordinance spoke to that issue also.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 10
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 11
Councilmember Cohen wished to reiterate that the issue before Council was not the noticing
issues — staff had already been directed to evaluate what happened in this case and return to
Council with some recommendations about how to improve this in the future — it was not
Keaton's Use Permit, nor the question of whether or not to amend the General Plan or Zoning
Ordinance to deal with the potential of crematoria in the City of San Rafael. What was before
Council was whether or not they would have an opportunity to discuss these issues. He was
aware that members of the community had repeatedly questioned the appropriateness of this
use in this location and believed their frustration at the City's inability to provide an appropriate
forum for them to hold that discussion had been clear.
At Council's request, Councilmember Cohen reported the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District held a public hearing in the Council Chamber, an unusual step for them, and he
believed the frustration was evident there also. He indicated that a lot of the community wanted
to talk, not strictly about the ambient air quality issues, but about the appropriateness of this use
in this location.
Based on the evidence and discussions before Council thus far, Councilmember Cohen
questioned whether or not the current General Plan or Zoning adequately promote and protect
the public health, safety or welfare; however, he was aware Council had not had the opportunity
to adequately consider that question.
While not making a land use decision this evening, Councilmember Cohen commented this was
the first time he had heard from any representative of Keaton's. He was glad they had decided
to state their case and should Council take the action recommended by staff (he hoped they
would), Keaton's would have an opportunity to speak to these issues. He believed it was owed
to the community to call a "time out" for as long as it took to provide a forum for the community
to consider what, if any, was an appropriate location for this type of use and whether it was
appropriate in the downtown area or any residential neighborhood whatsoever. He expressed
the hope that the City Council would adopt the ordinance.
Councilmember Phillips thanked the staff and City Attorney for bringing this "time out" option
forward for consideration, noting the Use Permit went through rather quickly and Council had
not had an opportunity to debate the appropriateness of this particular use. The concern
expressed by many publicly and he suspected privately also, was quite clear.
Councilmember Phillips believed there was reasonable concern based on the comments, and it
translated into at least one section of the ordinance. He referred to page 4 where it questioned
whether or not the City Council finds there is an existing, current and immediate threat to the
public health, safety or welfare, etc. Councilmember Phillips believed there was sufficient
information before Council to evaluate this in more detail. He commented that in his discussion
with City Manager Gould when the issue first arose, he was struck by the comment "is this a
use that any of you on Council (rhetorical question) would strongly advocate for." Having
considered this, he suspected his conclusion was similar to others and he recognized that
tonight's purpose was not to answer that question, rather afford some time to adequately
debate and consider that point. He looked forward to this and would support the
recommendation of the City Attorney to allow some time and opportunity to hear from both
sides before making a decision as to whether or not this was an appropriate use in the
downtown area. While he had his personal sense at this point in time, Councilmember Phillips
indicated this was for later discussion.
Councilmember Heller agreed with Councilmember Cohen's remarks. She inquired whether
something like this would be folded into the General Plan study and was informed it would not.
She was aware this was one of many general uses called out for which places needed to be
found, indicating it was not possible to simply across the board not allow any such uses. She
understood there were several other locations in the City and inquired whether these would be
evaluated also.
Responding, Community Development Director Bob Brown stated it was his understanding
there was no constitutional protection for crematoria; therefore, it was not similar to adult
entertainment uses where courts mandated that cities provide opportunities. When the General
Plan came before the Planning Commission and Council, staff would be discussing zoning
changes to modify lists of allowable uses. Those identified through public processes to be
problematic would be presented to Council; however, it was not intended to conduct a
wholesale re-examination of the hundreds of zoning uses in the code.
Councilmember Miller thanked the community for coming together to discuss and voice their
concerns. He thanked Keaton's Mortuary representatives for attending this evening, indicating
he had occasion to meet with Mr. Henderson and receive their viewpoint and it was exactly the
diversity of viewpoints when blended that leads to a direction for the total community to come
forth. He saw this as a beginning, accepting all viewpoints to work civilly together to arrive at
the direction the community wanted to take. He thanked both Keaton's and the community.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 11
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 12
Mayor Boro stated that the community addressed Council over several meetings. As was
outlined by the mortuary representative, they did follow the City's requirements. There were a
lot of issues regarding noticing, which would be dealt with; however, to the best of Keaton's
ability, they tried to do what they believed they had to do and the application was processed
under existing codes. He believed the community's presence over the past several meetings
had demonstrated their great concern and this would now allow a forum to collect input to
address the issue of whether or not the crematorium did have an impact on the public health,
safety or welfare of the community.
Mayor Boro thanked City Attorney Gary Ragghianti for bringing the ordinance to Council and
invited him to describe the process should it be adopted this evening.
Mr. Ragghianti reiterated that if the ordinance was adopted by the City Council this evening, it
became effective immediately and remained valid for 45 days. He explained that 10 days prior
to the expiration of that 45 -day period, a very short report/statement would be required by the
statute, indicating the steps being taken by staff to implement the charge contained in the
ordinance. He envisioned that report would indicate that the Community Development
Department would have input with regard to when this is considered. If there is a Zoning
Ordinance amendment proposed to change the present zoning provisions with regard to the
location of crematoria, it would go to the Planning Commission first for regular public hearing
and ultimately to the Council to consider, all the while the moratorium ordinance remaining in
effect.
Mr. Ragghianti stated that on or before July 17, 2003, when the ordinance expires, a public
hearing would be held at which the extension of this moratorium ordinance would be considered
and at that time, as indicated, Section 65858 provides that the Council may extend the
ordinance up to ten months, fifteen days. He indicated that one additional extension is
permitted under the ordinance for up to a year.
He did not believe there was anything else unusual about the ordinance in the way it is
implemented; however, he remained available to answer any questions.
Should the City Council take the action as recommended in the staff report, Councilmember
Cohen requested clarification that it in no way tolled the appeal period with the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District. He learned this evening that an appeal had been filed and those
who wished to appeal that permitting process should carry forward, as any action taken by the
City Council had no impact on that appeal period. City Attorney Ragghianti confirmed this to be
correct.
In addition, Councilmember Cohen stated the staff report indicated Council should adopt the
ordinance and give instruction to staff and he inquired whether this should be done separately.
Mr. Ragghianti stated that if the ordinance was adopted it was anticipated that at its conclusion,
the City Council would direct staff, as with other matters, to commence study of this matter.
Mayor Boro confirmed that if the ordinance were adopted this evening, the issue would come
before the City Council again on July 7, 2003.
The title of the ordinance was read:
"AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ESTABLISHING A
MORATORIUM TO TEMPORARILY PROHIBIT GRANTING APPROVALS TO OR ISSUANCE
OF PERMITS FOR CREMATORIA PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65858"
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the
reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and adopt Interim Urgency
Ordinance No. 1803 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Cohen stated that pursuant to that vote, Council to give instruction to staff to
undertake a review of relevant land use policies and ordinances for the purpose of presenting
proposed revisions to current General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding
crematorium operations within the City of San Rafael. Responding to Councilmember Cohen
with regard to whether a vote was required, Mayor Boro indicated a vote was not needed as this
was implied and in the record.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 12
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 13
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
11. Public Hearing —
RE: 4300 REDWOOD HIGHWAY; CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A
REZONING FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT TO A REVISED PD
DISTRICT, TENTATIVE MAP AND SIGN PROGRAM REVIEW, AND AMENDMENTS TO
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS
FOR CONVERSION FROM AN APPROVED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE COMPLEX, TO A
COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM CAMPUS; APN(S) 155-110-05 AND 06; PD 1758 DISTRICT;
REDWOOD ROAD VENTURES, LLC, OWNER; JOHN LOVEWELL, CHOP KEENEN, AND
PERRY PALMER, APPLICANTS; FILE NO(S): ZC03-01, UP03-04, SR03-08, ED03-09 AND
TS03-01 (CD) — FILE 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 x 10-8 x 125
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated this 130,000 square -foot light/industrial
project was approved in year 2000; however, the timing was such that it really did not hit the
market quite right. Instead, the applicants revised the design of the project as a "For Sale
Condominium Project" which would allow small businesses to own their own space. He
explained that up to 42 air space divisions would be possible within the sixteen proposed
buildings.
Mr. Brown reported that the principal changes to the project had been design modifications, to
be described by the applicant.
Referring to the issue of how the space and project would be occupied and how it would fall
within the number of allotted peak -hour trips, Mr. Brown explained that 182 peak -hour trips
were allocated to the project in 1999. Since many uses are allowed in the light/industrial land
use category and in this PD (Planned Development), there could be a combination of uses that
ultimately would occupy the facility. He indicated that to ensure that this mix of uses falls within
the allotted trip allocation, the Planned Development ordinance establishes a trip rate which is
different for offices, research and development, industrial uses and storage. As the
condominium spaces are sold and the business licenses applied for, Mr. Brown stated the
developer would provide an updated list of uses by square -footage with the calculated trip
utilization. He explained that these uses by the condominiums would be locked into a deed
restriction, so there would not be ongoing changes for the uses for which staff must continually
recalculate the trip utilization.
Mr. Brown reported this, unfortunately, is the situation staff has been dealing with with the
Bayview Business Park where there are seven different owners and a trip rate they are trying to
hit. As each use changes over time, staff has to have an ongoing calculation, which has been
difficult for all involved. He indicated this system would be much easier to administer; however,
it did lock in those initial condominium purchasers who would only be able to re -sell their units
for essentially the same type of use.
Noting Mr. Brown commented on the problems with one particular location, Mayor Boro stated
he recalled over the years an erosion of use, from one use to another, based on original
permits. He believed there would be a Property Owners' Association and inquired whether
there was a way to legally hold that Association accountable to once a year furnish a report on
the use and certify that.
Mr. Brown stated this was possible and the fact that things were being locked in through deed
restrictions, in and of itself, provided the authority to enforce; however, should Council wish to
have some annual mechanism to re -verify the uses anticipated were still there, this could be
done.
Councilmember Miller indicated he was specifically interested in the tenant inventory and its
mapping. Regarding what is called "warehouse cum office" where a small portion of the
warehouse is used as an office, he inquired whether this usage would be permitted, noting this
particular usage was in high demand in the County.
Mr. Brown explained it depended on initial sales, e.g., if initial sales are made to strictly office
users, this would lower the allowable trips rapidly and what remained could be relegated strictly
to warehouse and storage uses. He indicated this was a concern the Planning Commission
raised. Mr. Brown stated the later sales could be limited; however, he did not believe they
could change over time as they would be locked in. He indicated that some ancillary uses were
allowed, so should the primary use be warehouse, a small office to run that warehouse space
would not be disallowed. For light industrial uses, research and development, up to 25% office
is allowed and is assumed in the trip rate.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 13
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 14
Councilmember Cohen inquired whether there would be an opportunity for an individual owner
to come in and seek a change. Understanding that a change in use drifting higher was
undesirable, he inquired whether there was a provision, or whether one could be contemplated,
that would allow a change of use that would actually take the traffic usage lower.
Mr. Brown stated he was unaware of how the deed restriction had been worded, whether the
City was a party to it or whether it was strictly between the Association.
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti explained that from his experience with deed restrictions the City
was not a party to it. It is a restriction that is placed on the property by the owner, the purpose
of which is to restrict the uses to which the property may be put. They are recorded and run
with the property so that subsequent purchasers are made aware of them. He indicated that
changes to those deed restrictions are difficult; however, can be accomplished. Mr. Ragghianti
stated that in this case, he guessed no such change would be allowed without the permission of
the City.
Mr. Brown stated he would research this during the course of the hearing this evening.
Councilmember Cohen inquired whether the City would retain some element of control to
ensure the deed restriction remained in place.
While Mr. Brown was researching the conditions, Mr. Ragghianti stated that since this was PD
(Planned Development) to PD, the purpose of which was to permit the project proposed this
evening, he assumed that such a concern could be articulated in such a manner as to fashion a
condition of approval that would require what Councilmember Cohen was seeking, i.e., not to
occur without further consent by the City. No such changes could be made without asking the
City's permission to do so. Mr. Ragghianti stated the restriction would have to be recorded at
the outset and no revocation of that restriction could occur, save and except by returning and
asking for permission, unless the City Council wished to build in something that permitted a
lower use to be made.
Mayor Boro stated this was the reason he asked the question earlier about the Association
reporting. The comment was to the effect that there would be deed restrictions and it was
protected; however, the intimation now was that the City was not a party to the deed restriction.
He stated there could be a sense that the City would like to see some guarantee.
Mr. Ragghianti believed such a condition could be made if the City sought to do so, for the
reasons just expressed. He recalled that with the McInnis Apartments, albeit a different matter,
they returned every year to make their application for a certificate of compliance, not a
subdivision application for a certificate of compliance; however, it was analogous to that.
Referring to the Background on page 1 of the staff report and the section dealing with the site
currently undergoing a cleanup order from the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Councilmember Phillips inquired how long it would take to clear that out.
Mr. Brown deferred to the applicant for a response.
John Lovewell, Keenan/Lovewell Ventures, Palo Alto, applicants, stated the cleanup of the soil
was largely completed and the ground water would be under a recycling program for an
undefined number of years, as they were only recycling a few gallons per day.
Speaking personally, Mayor Boro stated he was pleased Mr. Lovewell was bringing this
application before Council as this had been a blight in the community, due to no fault of Mr.
Lovewell who had been actively attempting to turn it around. He indicated he would appreciate
if Mr. Lovewell could assure the Council that what was being proposed was almost as good
from an architectural point of view as the last project, and outline some of the differences.
Mayor Boro stated this was truly an entrance to the City coming in from the North to South and
was an important site. He indicated he would like to hear about the design and quality, in
addition to the questions on the condominium.
At the outset, Mr. Lovewell expressed his appreciation for the patience of the City and City staff,
noting the market had dealt quite a blow. Now there was a chance, however, to take
advantage of an opportunity to develop the site in a way he believed would benefit the
community. As pointed out, he considered it a gateway site which had been one of the key
issues on the applicants' minds. They had tried to be responsive to this and believed they had
come up with an exciting design. Mr. Lovewell stated he was very gratified by the response of
the Vision in Action Committee and particularly, the Design Review Board.
Mr. Lovewell stated that the current interest rate environment and SBA (Small Business
Administration) financing available made this a very viable market and he believed they could
meet the need the Marin Economic Committee had talked so much about. They had issued an
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 14
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 15
urgent appeal last September for more buildings of this type; therefore, he was delighted to be
able to provide something that met and addressed that need.
Mr. Lovewell introduced architects Kevin Jones, Kenneth Rodriguez & Partners and Gary
Layman, Guzzardo Partnership.
Kevin Jones stated they were extremely pleased to have brought forth a better project than
previously and of all the ideas they considered, both then and now, he believed one of the key
elements about their current proposal was based on the concept of trying to develop a project
which had a very strong sense of landscaping, buildings serving as backdrops, which was
somewhat unusual when considering industrial warehousing uses.
Mr. Jones stated the buildings were of high quality materials, with a variety of stone entrances,
stonework, etc. There was clear glazing set in aluminum frames and each building had a rich
stone material creating an entry gateway, with a wood trellis feature above.
Indicating Mr. Layman would address the planning palette, Mr. Jones stated they would be
discussing establishing a very strong pedestrian/auto alley into the site with some very refined
materials in terms of the flat work, decorative pavers, and fountain elements, also using pockets
in between the building to help establish very strong pedestrian and user spaces.
Mr. Jones believed the focus was distinctly different from heretofore and was attempting to
create a concept of a very strong and rich landscape palette of materials, letting the buildings
serve as a strong backdrop to that context while using very high quality materials in the
buildings themselves.
Gary Layman stated he would address some of the re-engineering and re -visioning they had
regarding the site. They considered it an opportunity to create a gateway statement.
Using a chart, he explained they generated the idea of the buildings taking the form of a winery,
using a vintage concept and working it across the frontage. He indicated it would have an
agricultural feel to it, together with seasonal variation. The buildings themselves would have a
variety of very warm tones affording individual character, each trellis having a different vine
type. Mr. Layman stated this was key to the concept of ownership as opposed to a macro
project feeling.
Mr. Layman stated the plaza was enhanced to provide a very formal architectural feeling
leading to a central plaza containing a fountain, trees, seating and a gathering place. Individual
spaces were created between the buildings for gardens. He described this as decomposed
granite paving with trees, perennial type plantings, ornamental grasses — a lush palette, yet
one that is very conservative in terms of water, resulting in a very appropriate use for the site.
Regarding the perimeter of the site, Mr. Layman stated a lot of evergreen trees were used to
blend in with the adjacent sites.
He stated they were very proud of the interface along Gallinas Creek, indicating it would be
enhanced with new native plant materials, thereby increasing the biological diversity within the
area and making it a real asset to both the project and itself. As part of this, Mr. Layman
identified a secondary open space, taking advantage of the view towards the creek and the
surrounding hillsides.
Referring to drawing L2, Mayor Boro inquired as to the perspective when driving up and down
Highway 101.
Referring to the plan, Mr. Layman stated they had articulated the entryways with fruitless olive
trees set in a decomposed granite plaza. He identified sculpted London Plane trees which
articulate the architectural entrance identified in the center portion of L2 and explained this is
further reinforced with a wood arbor covered in vines. The buildings would be a palette to grow
the vines, creating a soft rich texture throughout the project. He indicated there would be vines
in the foreground of the street frontage and a continuous evergreen hedge screening views to
the parking.
Having had experience with the renderings versus reality, Mayor Boro inquired how quickly this
would grow.
Mr. Layman stated there would be some impact within two to three years. The grapevines,
although they start small, are very prolific and would create an impact fairly readily. He
believed they would be head pruned which creates a sculptured as opposed to a trellis form,
affording more plant material, rather than structure. The hedge is fast growing and would be a
nice presence within a couple of years.
Regarding parking, Councilmember Heller inquired as to the number of parking spaces, and
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 15
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 16
should more be required, by whom the decision would be made
Community Development Director Bob Brown explained that because there is a mix of uses
with different parking requirements, the 426 presumes to provide a goodly number of spaces.
As the individual business licenses are approved, there is a provision where the City would
check them against the trip rate, parking, etc. As discussed with the Planning Commission, Mr.
Brown was unsure of where additional parking would come from; however, theoretically, should
parking not be needed, it could revert to a landscape area.
Councilmember Heller inquired whose responsibility it was to oversee this. Mr. Brown stated it
would be done as part of the initial occupancy.
Mr. Lovewell stated he requested this late provision in the event some owners of units who did
not need much parking would like to have more landscaping. Mr. Brown stated this would be a
staff approval and would have to go through the Community Development Department.
Councilmember Cohen inquired whether the watering would be done with reclaimed water, and
Mr. Layman responded affirmatively.
Although a condominium project, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether it would be built out
even if the spaces were not all taken. Mr. Lovewell stated probably half of the buildings would
be built, in no particular order, and would continue as sales arose. Councilmember Cohen
confirmed that the land would not be sold, rather the buildings would be built and sold off. Mr.
Lovewell indicated they might retain some. Councilmember Cohen stated his concern was that
the City not get into a situation where there were different owners building portions of the site
and Mr. Lovewell indicated this would not happen. He added that they hope to commence in
July. Councilmember Cohen recalled reading an article in the San Francisco Business Times to
the effect that the applicant appeared to have caught the market and it was very interesting that
this type of development was getting some attention around the Bay Area, as there were similar
projects proposed where people recognized the need. He indicated his only disappointment
with the article was that they missed this project.
Regarding parking and trees depicted on a map, Councilmember Phillips inquired as to how
long it would take for the trees to develop and how tall they would get.
Mr. Layman explained they would be a mixture of 15 gallon 24" boxed sized trees; however,
larger specimens would be considered for key areas such as the entry frontage area. He
explained that the London Plane trees were chosen for their rapid growth and come in relatively
good sizes immediately out of the nursery. He identified a tree approximately five years old,
which was almost 22 -feet. California natives, however, were somewhat slower growing.
Mayor Boro inquired as to the lighting scheme. Mr. Layman stated that a lot of time was spent
on site lighting in an effort to strike the correct balance of retaining the warm daytime feeling
without washing it out with bright lights in the evening. He indicated there was a delicate
balance between having security lighting and perhaps more ambient aesthetic lighting and he
believed this had been achieved with a very even, consistent level of lighting throughout the
site. It was non -glare and would have a subtle sophisticated feeling.
Mr. Brown explained that in looking at the Development Plan, pages 5 and 6 discuss how the
allocation of uses would occur for the condominiums when they were sold. Page 6 — (d)
discusses the fact that there is a requirement for a Notice of Use Restriction that would be
recorded and the Condominium Unit may also be used for one or more of the other uses
specified; however, only to the extent that such uses have a lower traffic generation rate. He
did not see any ability to modify the uses based upon unallocated trips up to the 182 should
there be use changes that required fewer, or in the original sale of all the units, the 182 was not
reached. Mr. Brown reiterated he did not see any provisions for re -allocating or changing use
to increase.
Mr. Brown stated he had a copy of the proposed Deed Restriction, attached later in the
material. He indicated the good news was that on page 2 of the Deed Restriction, Section 3
indicates that Covenants and Restrictions are enforceable by the City of San Rafael.
Therefore, whatever use restriction the document employed on the condominium unit, the City
could enforce it, which was good. However, there were provisions for amendments in Section 4
and staff was not entirely sure as to the meaning of the language. Mr. Brown stated it basically
states that changes cannot be made to the Notice and a new notice rerecorded without the
agreement of the City; however, with regard to the exception, the language was somewhat
unintelligible to staff.
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti clarified that it was intelligible; however, "it taketh away what is
giveth" in the first sentence. Having discussed this with Mr. Lovewell, Mr. Ragghianti stated he
would articulate his concerns and perhaps find a way to a solution. He explained that in looking
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 16
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 17
at paragraph 4, the wording superseding "except that" provides that the Notice of Deed
Restriction may be superseded by the recordation of another Notice with respect to a
Condominium Unit by this Declarant as the owner or by its successor. Mr. Ragghianti believed
that trumped the first clause which indicates that it cannot be amended without the prior
approval of the City; therefore, what the City wants to be certain it is able to control, that is
reasonable, in connection with this use, must be articulated first. While he did not know the
answer, he believed this was the time to discuss it. He suggested perhaps it meant that no
amendment of the restriction could occur that would permit a use in the unit that would exceed
the trip allocations permitted without the City agreeing to that. He issued a reminded that this
would be recorded and notice would be given to a prospective purchaser that this is a
requirement that must be complied with. Although this Declarant could be long gone, or
another owner could decide they wished to amend the Deed Restriction, the City must now
indicate to the applicant the concerns discussed earlier and fashion the language, which Mr.
Lovewell indicated he was willing to consider.
Summarizing, Mr. Brown stated that should the Council be interested in providing some future
flexibility to modify these uses, still within the 182 trips, he believed Section D of the
Development Plan would have to be changed to allow upon resale the unallocated trips up to
the 182 maximum to accommodate use changes approved by the Community Development
Director. He indicated that the Notice of Deed Restriction would also have to be changed after
the allowable uses were listed, to indicate that there is an amendment procedure consistent
with the provisions of this Planned Development Ordinance and Section 4 of the Notice, and
then make the changes in Section 4 as indicated by the City Attorney.
Councilmember Cohen stated that the language in the Amended and Restated Development
Plan speaks to his concern, which basically indicates that if it is locked in at this level it could be
used below this level, and presumably it could be ratcheted back up to that point with a later
use. He did not favor getting into trying to craft a provision which stated those other trips
become free floating and could be allocated all around the project. Councilmember Cohen
stated that except for the clause just identified, there appeared to be some adequate control by
the City.
Referring to page 2 — 4. Amendments, Councilmember Cohen questioned whether the
language " without prior approval of the City of San Rafael" could be included somewhere.
Mr. Ragghianti stated this addition could be made; however, he was unsure whether it should
be added there. In the first instance, it should be determined what City Council wanted to be in
control of and when this was ascertained, staff could suggest to Mr. Lovewell that it be
incorporated into the Restriction, if he concurred. He believed it would then be fair that Mr.
Lovewell's attorney evaluate it also.
Councilmember Cohen stated it appeared to him that once the mix of uses was decided and the
traffic allocation understood based on that mix of uses, no change could occur without prior
approval of the City of San Rafael, ever. Mr. Brown concurred. Councilmember Cohen clarified
this was whether it was amended, restated or anything else. Should someone seek a change,
it would be necessary to seek approval from a future City Council, with the understanding that
should someone wish to ratchet down within that building, this Development Plan indicated this
could be done.
Mr. Ragghianti stated this could be written into Paragraph 4, should Mr. Lovewell agree
Mr. Lovewell stated that generally his instructions to his attorney were to the effect that when a
Deed Restriction was placed on a property, it was locked at that level or something less than
that and in no case, did he desire to exceed the 182 trips. He indicated he favored the City of
San Rafael being involved in the approval process.
Mr. Ragghianti stated that in concept should the City Council wish to impose this, the language
could be written and submitted to Mr. Lovewell's attorney for his review and comment.
Recalling a situation with a parking lot at a shopping mall that had four ownerships and the
problems that pertained over the generations of owners, Mayor Boro stated that for the future
the City needed some control, so that in the event things began to slip, the City could ensure
the original intent was carried out. He suggested this wording be proceeded with, subject to
agreement by the Community Development Director, City Attorney and attorney for the
applicant.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
1) The title of the ordinance was read:
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 17
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 18
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP,
ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SO AS
TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD
1758) DISTRICT TO A REVISED PD DISTRICT (ZC 03-001) FOR CONVERSION OF AN
APPROVED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE COMPLEX TO A COMMERCIAL
CONDOMINIUM CAMPUS LOCATED AT 4300 REDWOOD HIGHWAY (APN: 155-110-05
AND 06)"
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. 1804 to print, by the following vote, to wit:
with the understanding that language satisfactory to the City Attorney, Community
Development Director and the property owner would be crafted regarding the City retaining
an element of control to oversee any proposed change of use as outlined in the
Development Plan. If the language was acceptable to all parties, it need not return to the
City Council.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
2) Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 11329 — RESOLUTION APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP
(TS03-001) AND SIGN PROGRAM (SR03-008) AND
AMENDMENTS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE
PERMIT (UP03-004) AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED03-009) FOR
CONVERSION OF AN APPROVED LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE COMPLEX TO A COMMERCIAL
CONDOMINIUM CAMPUS LOCATED AT 4300
REDWOOD HIGHWAY (APN: 155-110-05 AND 06)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
12. Public Hearing —
RE: PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE 2002; CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
DETERMINING DEVELOPMENT IN THE CIRCULATION -IMPACTED AREAS OF LUCAS
VALLEY ROAD/SMITH RANCH ROAD/HIGHWAY 101 AND FREITAS PARKWAY/HIGHWAY
101 (NORTH SAN RAFAEL) AND BELLAM BLVD./1-580/HIGHWAY 101 INTERCHANGE
(EAST SAN RAFAEL) (CD) — FILE 115 (PPP)
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Associate Planner Raffi Boloyan reported that the City Council initiated PPP (Priority Projects
Procedure) in January of this year. At the conclusion of the submittal deadline, three
applications were filed, one in North San Rafael - McInnis Park Apartments IIB, and two in East
San Rafael - the Hilton Gardens Hotel time extension and a new application for a 289 unit
Senior Retirement Community on the vacant lot behind Home Depot. He stated that one of the
applications was a time extension and should be considered with the new applications.
Mr. Boloyan stated that when PPP was initiated by the City Council, the City Traffic Engineer,
Nader Mansourian, recommended against the release of any new trips in the East San Rafael
area. This meant that the only trips available for competition this year were those 53 granted
under previous PPP years.
In the North San Rafael area, Mr. Boloyan reported Mr. Mansourian did not release a specific
number of trips, rather recommended reviewing the project on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Boloyan stated that the applications were reviewed by a staff composed PPP committee,
and subsequently by the Planning Commission, on April 29, 2003. For the North San Rafael
area, both the PPP committee and Planning Commission recommended PPP approval of the
single North San Rafael project. The project received all its land use entitlements last month
before the Council. The slight deviation in the overall affordability was justified through the
increased affordability providing both units as very low-income and the impact on the traffic
system in North San Rafael would be minimal.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 18
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 19
Mr. Boloyan reported having received a call from the applicant for North San Rafael, indicating
he was unable to attend this evening.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the portion of the public
hearing regarding North San Rafael.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 11330 — RESOLUTION GRANTING THE 2002 PRIORITY PROJECT
DETERMINATION FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING THE
LUCAS VALLEY ROAD/SMITH RANCH ROAD/HIGHWAY
101 AND THE FREITAS PARKWAY/HIGHWAY 101
INTERCHANGES (NORTH SAN RAFAEL) City File No.
PPP03-001
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The public hearing continued regarding East San Rafael.
Mr. Boloyan reported that in East San Rafael, only the 53 trips were available for release this
year. Those granted were based on a specific trip distribution and their impact on the Bellam
Interchange.
Mr. Boloyan stated that when analyzing both projects together it was determined they would
exceed the available traffic allowable this year; therefore, the Planning Commission voted 4:2,
with one member absent, to recommend to the City Council approval of a third time extension
for the Hilton Garden Hotel Project and denial, without prejudice, for the 289 unit senior
retirement community. He explained that in the dissenting votes, Commissioners expressed
their support for denying both applications and returning all 53 trips to the trip pool for future
years.
In terms of the Oakmont Project, Mr. Boloyan stated that while staff and the Commission felt the
proposed use was beneficial to the community, the granting of traffic allocation at this time was
determined to be premature. He indicated that the proposed retirement community would
neither be consistent with the General Plan nor the Planned Development zoning and would
require amendments to both. These are lengthy processes and could take well over the one
year approval period for PPP.
Mr. Boloyan stated that furthermore, there was an issue with the traffic allocation and trips, and
it was determined by the City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Mansourian, that more trips would be going
through the Bellam Intersection than were available, which would cause the level of service to
be negatively impacted. Therefore, until the project was further along in the development
review process, it was deemed to be too premature to grant a traffic allocation.
Regarding the Hilton Garden Hotel, both staff and the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the third time extension for this project based on the fact that the trips are already
counted in the traffic system and the continued feeling that it is a high priority use.
Mr. Boloyan reported that note was made that any Priority Project determination granted would
only be valid for one more year and within this one year, building permits would have to be
secured and construction commenced. He indicated that some concern was expressed by the
Planning Commission on whether this should be the last extension to be granted for this
project.
Mr. Boloyan stated that both applicants were present
Mayor Boro noted that with regard to McInnis Park IIB Apartments, they had all their approvals
and then requested PPP, and in the case of the Hilton Garden Hotel, he inquired why the City
continued to grant the permits when nothing had been resolved on the project. Once resolved,
he inquired how the City could be sure that when started, it would be completed.
Mr. Boloyan explained that the Hilton Gardens Hotel had received all planning entitlements —
land use and design approvals — in May, 2002. These would remain valid until May, 2004.
On the question of construction commencing within a year, Mayor Boro stated this could mean
pouring foundations and then waiting, and he was concerned about completion as basically, it
was taking an allocation of traffic. Taking the allocation for a third year was a pretty extreme
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 19
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 20
exception and he inquired as to the type of assurances that once approved, the project would
be completed.
Community Development Director Bob Brown explained that in the current process, there were
none and this applied not only to this project, but to any project that begins construction. He
stated that in certain cases, the Environmental Design Review Permit contains language that
the construction has to be expeditiously continued; therefore, they cannot stop for six months
and maintain the entitlements, they would have to reapply which could mean a partially
constructed building or foundation. Mr. Brown stated that the only other way to ensure
construction occurred was by having a financial bond/construction bond, which tended to be
expensive, particularly in situations where financing is difficult to achieve where it could add a
cost to a project that simply could not be borne.
Regarding the Corporate Center, Mayor Boro recalled a planned development approach
whereby within a certain period of time the first building had to be built, with an understanding
as to how the remainder would play out; however, there was some guarantee that the first
building would be constructed. Mr. Boloyan stated this was a Development Agreement. Mayor
Boro questioned why this should not be considered in this case, as the trips were extremely
precious and if given, they should be used.
Mr. Brown stated an option could be to have a date by which construction must begin. Once
construction commenced, they had essentially vested in their entitlements and it would become
very difficult legally to force them to continue. While the applicant could lose his building permit,
once construction was initiated, Mr. Brown believed the City's options were fewer; however, a
requirement that construction commence by a certain date or the trips would return to the City
could be imposed.
Applicant Fred Grange stated that approximately 30 minutes ago he spoke to Maurice Leduff,
Night Manager at the Larkspur Courtyard by Marriott regarding occupancy rates. He indicated
Mr. Leduff reported that after 9/11, the rates went from approximately $159 to $99, and
occupancy went from approximately 80% to 40%. A year later, rates went up from $99 to
approximately $129 and occupancies went from approximately 40% to 60%. Mr. Grange
reported that currently, the rates are approximately $139 and the occupancy rates have
increased to approximately 80%. Therefore, while the occupancy has returned to near pre
9/11, rates are still approximately $20 lower.
Mr. Grange stated that prior to 9/11 when he got into the process there was a big need for a
hotel. The idea of putting out well over $100,000 to apply for a hotel demonstrated the fact that
he really wanted to build a hotel; however, 9/11 and the financing had prevented him. He
stated the direct market for the Hilton Garden is the Garden Inn; therefore, to have gone forth
had he been able to secure financing and build an empty hotel would not have done anyone
any good. Mr. Grange reported that the market is back and strong and by the time construction
is commenced with the hotel, the market should be fully back. He indicated that financing is
opening up.
Mr. Grange stated he wished to assure each Councilmember the reason the hotel had not been
under construction was not because of him, rather the market, indicating he fully intended and
wanted to build the hotel.
Councilmember Cohen inquired as to who would operate the hotel
Mr. Grange stated he would not be operating the hotel and it most likely would be Hilton
themselves, or John Manderfeld, Marin Management, who operates probably more Hilton
Garden Inns than any other single operator.
Councilmember Cohen inquired how this worked.
Mr. Grange explained that to operate a Garden Inn, the operator has to go through stringent
requirements from the franchiser. He stated there is some competition between the Hilton
people who want to operate the hotel and other private operators such as Mr. Manderfeld, the
difference being that in Hilton, machinery is set up to manage lots of hotels; however, it does
not have the entrepreneurial, private local component that makes some businesses succeed
where the larger ones cannot. Mr. Grange reported he had checked out all of Mr. Manderfeld's
hotels, including a new one just opened in Oakland. His service is excellent and he did not
believe Hilton brings anything better to bear, except that Hilton offers some financing to get the
management contract.
Explaining how this works, Mr. Grange reported that by signing a twenty-year contract with
them, they basically run everything. If there is money remaining, the contractor gets it;
however, if not, the contractor pays some money, which basically has been the dilemma. Mr.
Grange stated he did not have the funds it would take to keep a hotel fully staffed, open and
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 20
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 21
operating without the kinds of occupancy and room rates that are now becoming evident again
Noting Mr. Grange referred to the Marriott, Councilmember Cohen suggested that in that
market, the rates at Embassy Suites and Four Points Sheraton would also be considered,
resulting in some competition. While geographically the Hilton Garden was closest to the
Marriott, he suggested the market had to be larger than just that peninsula.
Responding, Mr. Grange stated they already had conducted a market study that determined the
Courtyard is one of the more successful hotels in this area, catering to a particular market,
surprisingly, primarily the East Bay and Larkspur areas. He explained that each hotel chain has
its own reservation system; therefore, should the Embassy Suites, for instance, be fully
occupied, they would direct the customer to another Hilton and in this case, his Hilton. Hilton
Garden Inn would enjoy the Hilton reservation system and in that way would not be competing
with the other hotels; however, would be competing somewhat with the Embassy Suites as it
also is a Hilton product, albeit two different areas and two different types of product. Mr. Grange
indicated that the real competition would be the Larkspur Courtyard.
While occupancy and its impact on occupancy tax was an issue with him, Mayor Boro stated
that a bigger concern pertained to whether Mr. Grange had a contract with Hilton to build the
hotel if 9/11 was no longer an issue.
Reporting he did not have a contract in place with Hilton, due to no hesitancy on their part, Mr.
Grange explained that when the contract is signed with Hilton, the building must be constructed
within one year or penalties would be incurred. He indicated that once he has his approvals
and financing in place he would be in a position to sign a contract.
Mr. Grange explained that the San Rafael Hilton was not unique in that there were
approximately 140 Hiltons about to be built across the country at 9/11; however, only in the
region of 20 were actually built. The only local exceptions he was aware of were in Gilroy,
Oakland and Napa.
Bill Mayberry, Oakmont at Shoreline Center, stated they were a Senior Living company
operating in Marin County and believed there was a huge market in Marin County, especially in
San Rafael.
He displayed a layout of the project, describing it as a very unique Senior Living project with all
the services on site. He indicated that residents could live within a single casita or inside the
main facility, which is even closer to the services. Also, one wing is entirely set aside for health
care to enable residents to age in place.
Mr. Mayberry stated they are offering 44 low-income units, 20 of which would be allocated to
seniors and a further 24 for worker housing. He explained that offering worker housing on-site
would eliminate the traffic impacts, lower the employment turnover rate and bring some
affordable housing to San Rafael. These workers could also utilize the transportation system
within their community.
As could be seen from the project description, Mr. Mayberry referred to a number of services
throughout the community, including an in-house general store, theatres, meals, etc., where the
project could almost operate independently other than numerous ancillary services from smaller
businesses within San Rafael feeding the project.
Mr. Mayberry stated that during the planning process some issues arose, one of which had to
do with the location of the project and another pertained to landfill, together with tonight's traffic
issue.
Using a sketch, Mr. Mayberry stated that on coming into a community they seek infill properties.
As the senior population was growing, he noted, however, nothing was set aside for locations
for communities such as this. He reported that the parcel is out by itself on Shoreline Parkway;
the reserve is to the side of the project and identifying the location of the Bay, he stated there
were no neighbors on two sides. The area in front would be a staging area for BMW's new
cars, i.e., a quiet use of storage for some of their newer vehicles. Mr. Mayberry identified a part
of the property impacted by Home Depot, also wetlands and reserves, indicating the project
was nestled in the back without a lot of neighbors.
Mr. Mayberry introduced Mr. Tom Brunsing who had been monitoring the landfill for
approximately sixteen years.
Tom Brunsing indicated he would address two issues brought up by the Planning Commission:
one concerning landfill gas post -closure issues and another dealing with differential settlement.
By way of introduction, Mr. Brunsing stated he was born and raised in Marin County and as a
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 21
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 22
child went to that landfill before it was closed. He had the pleasure of living in San Rafael for
several years while attending Berkeley.
Mr. Brunsing stated he had been working on the landfill as a consultant for fifteen years and
was struck at the outset by how beautiful it is out there. He indicated having had many
arguments about the idea of using it for anything other than a residential type use; therefore,
was delighted with Mr. Mayberry's proposal. Understanding it was different from that originally
planned, he expressed his support for the project as a citizen.
To put landfill gas into perspective, Mr. Brunsing stated this is an inert landfill. It received
construction debris, tree cuttings, etc., and is not a household garbage disposal landfill. Having
measured the quantity of landfill gas on first coming aboard, he reported it was 11 lbs. per day
and as this was fifteen years ago, he believed it probably was down to 3 lbs. per day currently.
As to the significance of this, Mr. Brunsing explained that this particular parcel consists of 19
acres; therefore, the total landfill gas in question is actually very minimal and something akin to
the pilot light of a few furnaces. Nonetheless, he stated this piece of property had been highly
regulated in terms of the safety issues for landfill gas or anything associated with the prior
landfill activities. The level of rigor put into analyzing it to obtain a permit to close it and for
post -closure use far exceeded what a traditional residential development would have to go
through, i.e., the stability of the slopes on a landfill, drainage, etc.
Mr. Brunsing stated that specific engineered solutions to address in a landfill include gas
mitigation measures, early warning systems, etc., which are already in place for other buildings
there. He indicated they are highly redundant, the engineering is not difficult and the regulators
involved with that are very comfortable with those types of engineered solutions. Mr. Brunsing
emphasized that the landfill gas issue is not an obstacle for which it is difficult to engineer a
solution.
Regarding differential settlement, Mr. Brunsing reported that when this landfill was closed, the
estimated magnitude of total settlement was 6 -feet. He explained this was arrived at by a
cautious geotechnical engineer appropriately putting a safety factor of three on it. He stated it
was calculated at 2 -feet and multiplied by 3 to ensure it was not underestimated. Having
various means of monitoring settlement at this landfill, Mr. Brunsing reported that the total
amount of settlement had been approximately 2 -feet historically over fifteen years. He
indicated that the settlement in question is not about the construction debris in the landfill.
Having seen it go in as a child, he stated it was highly compacted and afforded good stability.
Speaking as a geotechnical engineer, Mr. Brunsing stated this was something that could be
built on and there were 25 feet of highly compacted cover, resulting in 50 -feet of good, solid
foundation to build on.
Bay mud being underneath this, Mr. Brunsing explained that everyone present probably had
heard about building on Bay mud. He stated it was not done in the 1940s and 1950s because
there was land. It was initiated in the 1960s due to the lack of land and somewhere around the
1980s "we learned how to do it right." The horror stories reported were due to the learning
process. From the settlement standpoint, Mr. Brunsing reassured the City Council that there
never were six feet, rather two, and most of that is already gone. He believed the only
difference that would occur in settlement today is based on adding a small amount of weight
building buildings.
From a geotechnical engineer's perspective, Mr. Brunsing stated that buildings had already
been built on that landfill and they were built by designing a slab that could take greater
differential settlement loads than a conventional structure would have. He explained that a
conventional structure could take three-quarters of an inch of differential settlement; however,
the kinds of designs he was referring to could take several inches. He emphasized this was
differential settlement, not total settlement, indicating there were only a few inches of total
settlement left.
Mr. Brunsing stated these were not difficult problems for them to address. He was very
comfortable with that and was personally very anxious to see the project go forward as he
believed it to be a tremendous use of a very beautiful piece of property.
Conducting business nearby, Councilmember Miller stated that for months and months he
heard the pounding that went on in the pilings for Home Depot. He inquired why this had to be
done and what the features were now that mitigated this.
Mr. Brunsing reported he had not worked on the design of the Home Depot; however, had an
understanding of it. He explained that the Home Depot set a criteria because forklift trucks run
in an area open to the public, the level of the slab had to remain extremely level so that for
safety reasons, in the event a forklift truck was left unattended, it could not roll. He indicated
that the Home Depot set criteria so extreme their geotechnical engineer proposed the
alternative of going to piling foundations.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 22
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 23
Mayor Boro stated that in this particular project there would be approximately 900 residents,
which raised the whole issue of earthquake safety, indicating that presumably special
precautions would need to be taken which would be somewhat different from Team Chevrolet,
etc., while not as extreme as Home Depot.
Responding, Mr. Brunsing stated that the Planning Commission addressed two issues, both
appropriate. One pertained to landfill gas and the other differential settlement; one was an
environmental problem while the other was geotechnical. Regarding public safety, he
indicated that the primary question was the environmental problem, whether it was a problem
and whether there was a safety issue, and this had to do with the landfill gas. Mr. Brunsing
explained that the systems at Home Depot, Sonnen BMW and Team Chevrolet for addressing
landfill gas are very similar. While there are different manufacturers, the system is a redundant,
very reliable, fully alarmed and fully monitored system. It is composed of vents into the
underlying granular material and a blower system that runs ambient air through that granular
material, an impermeable liner above, monitoring systems in the granular material, which is the
base rock underneath the slab, and then monitoring systems in the building itself.
Mayor Boro stated his issue did not pertain to the gas, rather earthquakes, indicating he had
seen the maps which identified the canal as being the highest area because of the Bay mud,
and with 900 elderly people living there, he questioned how this could be dealt with.
Mr. Mayberry stated that the earthquake issue was a required study prior to closure of the
landfill with regard to the stability of that facility under extreme earthquake conditions. He
indicated that the requirements for landfills under state regulations, which mimic federal
regulations, are more severe than they would be on other types of facilities; therefore, they had
to put in a more thorough study and it had been extensively evaluated. Mr. Mayberry reported
that a primary benefit at this facility in terms of stability is that unlike many landfills, this facility
does not have high benches. He indicated that Martin Bramante elected to stop landfilling at a
certain point because of regulatory costs; therefore, he did not continue to stack and stack as
could be seen in many solid waste landfills resulting in extreme slope stability issues. He stated
this landfill did not have that, rather it had a very conservatively designed slope stability system
and that had been readdressed each time a structure was added.
Mr. Brunsing stated that Bob Wright, architect, who had built the buildings out there, was
present and would address the liquefaction issue and how the structural people looked at the
design of that area.
Bob Wright, TWM Architects, stated his firm was the architectural firm responsible for all the
buildings out at Shoreline Center. Regarding the Home Depot project, he reported there were
in excess of 900 piles out there, some as long as 250 feet, which was a requirement of Home
Depot, as well as the fact that it is a heavy building. This building stores construction materials
for lengthy periods and has truck access totally around it.
Mr. Wright stated there is a hinge in the parking lot, with concrete slab around the building and
the parking lot asphalt. He indicated this was designed so that the building itself would be
stable, the driving area around it for trucks would be stable, while the parking area would settle
over time; therefore, it starts up high and hinges down low. This was done primarily because
that type of building is very heavy, unlike the BMW building, etc., which were meant to settle
gradually with the site. He indicated that BMW and the service building of Team Chevrolet are
not on fill sites; however, the parts and service portion of Team Chevrolet is on a fill site, and
this also was designed to settle with the site over time.
Regarding the residential buildings proposed for Oakmont at Shoreline, Mr. Wright reported that
these are very light. He explained that fill is brought in, engineered to understand what the
settlements would be and the foundations designed so that the buildings settle with the site. He
indicated this is very common and done frequently in landfill sites or sites dealing with Bay mud,
all over Marin County. He reiterated that the type of buildings should not be an issue.
Regarding the health and safety issues of allowing a senior population to reside there,
Councilmember Heller recalled an issue where Childcare Centers could not be located over a
landfill area, and she inquired whether there was state law, etc., that would preclude a project
such as this.
Mr. Mayberry reported that a health assessment is required, which depends on the type of
landfill, what was stored, what the materials are and the test wells.
Responding to Councilmember Heller's question as to who makes the decision, Mr. Brunsing
stated that the Integrated Waste Management Board in Sacramento would review it, it would be
designed by an engineering firm, a risk assessment would be conducted and any appropriate or
necessary mitigative measures would be designed. The four redundant measures he has
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 23
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 24
previously referred to were in fact, designed to comply with those regulations and the review of
those regulators.
Bob Wright stated that the Childcare Center Councilmember Heller was referring to was that
proposed at the Regency Center. He recalled going before the City Council as a PPP project
some time ago and it was not the fact that it was not allowed by the state, rather the perception
of potential families that they would not want their child to be there; therefore, it was not a
marketable item. He indicated that an operator did not necessarily want to operate this use
there as they believed they would be restricted by the perception of having a Childcare Center
on a landfill site, which is the reason they chose to locate the facility off of San Pedro Road.
Carolyn Koo, Principal of Krane Transportation Group, stated they conducted the traffic work for
this project which so far has just consisted of trip generation and distribution projections in
accordance with the City's PPP provisions. She reported they had worked many times with
Oakmont projects and were aware of the very low volume of traffic generation that results from
these senior citizen developments. In this case, Ms. Koo stated they performed a very
conservative study, based upon not just ITE trip generation rates, which are nationwide rates
often used in traffic studies, rather they carried out surveys of the most similar facility they
locate nearby, the Springlake Village Retirement Community, which has similar program and
characteristics to this project. She indicated that had they used standard rates they would have
shown perhaps 21 total AM trips and 29 total PM peak hour trips. Their study showed 48 trips in
the morning and 48 in the evening based on trip rates from Springlake Retirement Community.
She stressed, therefore, that what they have presented is very conservative. She indicated
they had also used the peak hours between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and to
actually conduct the study in San Rafael, they would choose the peak hour for San Rafael.
Using the actual higher trip rates, according to surveyed results at the Corte Madera Assisted
Living Facility owned by Oakmont, Ms. Koo stated they had a very real world directional trip
distribution. Given that they found the trips distributed on the San Rafael system would be quite
a bit less in volume that a project such as the hotel, and realizing how precious the trips were,
they believed they had over-estimated what they actually would be in essence.
Ms. Koo stated that with the proposed 24 units of housing on site, which their study had not
taken into account, the trips would be even more reduced on the system and she was confident
in all of these statements. As far as trips go, she believed they were offering a very low trip
generator and very low impact project for East San Rafael.
In conclusion, Mr. Mayberry stated he hoped Council would see the importance of their project
and provide the encouragement needed to move forward with the process to gain approvals at
a later date.
Noting Mr. Mayberry had mentioned earlier that the project had changed slightly,
Councilmember Phillips reported he was impressed with the presentation and inquired as to the
changes.
Mr. Mayberry stated it had not changed significantly; however, they had worked towards trying
to develop it more as a whole community, and looking towards the addition of the worker
housing aspect of it by being able to house possibly 24 to 30 employees on site made a huge
change to their previous offering. He stated their business had a fairly high turnover rate; they
favored doing more for their employees to encourage them to stay.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was impressed with the project. He referred to page 5 of the
staff report where it stated "The Commission recommends that the City Council deny this
project without prejudice. The Commission found that the proposed project is not consistent
with the General Plan nor the Planned Development Zoning District and would thus require
amendments to these plans" and he indicated all agreed with this. Continuing, Councilmember
Phillips read "The appropriateness of the residential land use in this industrial area should be
evaluated first, as part of the environmental and merits review of the project, which would
potentially result in a lengthy process." Mr. Mayberry indicated his agreement with this also.
Councilmember Phillips noted that it then stated "The granting of a traffic allocation is
premature at this time" and he inquired how Mr. Mayberry felt about this.
Mr. Mayberry stated it really should be directed to staff as to how long it would take to process
a project of this magnitude. Having spoken with staff and being aware of what would be
required of them, he believed it would take a General Plan amendment, rezone, etc., and he did
not know whether this would all run concurrently.
Given the fact that the Shoreline Center EIR is dated at this point, Community Development
Director Bob Brown stated that an addendum would be required, which essentially would be the
same time frame as a new EIR. He believed the timing would be approximately eighteen
months to two years.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 24
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 25
Councilmember Phillips stated it appeared therefore, to have merit, but was premature
Mr. Mayberry concurred should it take that amount of time to process.
Councilmember Phillips indicated he was trying to understand the conclusion the Planning
Commission was basing their recommendation to the City Council on.
Councilmember Heller inquired about the range of the low-income units.
Mr. Mayberry stated that at Corte Madera, they had only nine low-income units and were based
on HUD very low-income numbers. He was not aware of the current numbers. He indicated
that five units were low and four very low in Corte Madera.
Mr. Brown requested the speaker clarify that this is for the rental of the unit, not the care
component, which would be over and above the actual rental unit.
Councilmember Heller clarified that with this project, 24 would be worker housing and the
balance low to very low income for seniors.
Mayor Boro inquired how it would work should those in the very low to low income need to
move into assisted living.
Mr. Mayberry stated this has not been addressed as yet. Their intent would be to have a senior
independent section and a worker housing section, together with healthcare. Mayor Boro
stated this was a big issue presently with the state and the state paying back to the providers
for those on Medical, Medicaid, etc. He stated it was a big concern in the health industry.
Mr. Mayberry agreed and stated the healthcare building would be licensed for assisted living
and Alzheimer's. This would not be a licensed and skilled nursing facility.
Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Mayberry, noting the issue had been gone into in some detail;
however, he was aware Mr. Mayberry wished to expose the City Council to the project and he
expressed appreciation for his time and input.
Mayor Boro stated it appeared the issue before Council was the allocation of the trips, should
the Council choose to do so, to the hotel.
Councilmember Cohen stated that one of the things to be avoided was trip banking. He
explained the City was not seeking to allow anyone to grab trips to be allocated in a particular
area and hold them for a long period of time, and this was the reason that some limitations were
in place. He stated that both of the projects suffered from similar problems in that regard, albeit
arrived at in different ways.
On the Oakmont issue, having read the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting,
Councilmember Cohen believed they got it right in that this project, while intriguing, had a long
way to go and he believed it premature to allocate trips to it until some of the other hurdles were
cleared. He reported having had the opportunity to meet and review the project and
appreciated the information received this evening; however, he did not believe there was
sufficient information to grant the allocation.
Indicating he had some concerns about the hotel, Councilmember Cohen stated it was not clear
to him that the economy would rebound and the hotel market would recover within a year. He
noted it was rated as excellent based on the assumptions of a room rate of $135 per night and
an occupancy rate of 70%. An additional issue was that he was not sure the economic
analysis was required, which was the reason he asked the question regarding competition.
Councilmember Cohen stated that if these are new dollars, then it gets that rating; however, if
some of those occupancies come from other hotels in San Rafael, they are just shifting as far
as the City is concerned. He indicated his understanding that through honors programs, etc.,
some people find a hotel by calling Hilton and saying "this is where I am going, what have you
got that is close?" Others, go on the Internet and say "I am going to San Rafael, what hotels
are available to me in that market?" and then choose from those available; therefore, all the
hotels within a certain quality level and price range are competing with one another.
Councilmember Cohen noted Embassy Suites was at a certain occupancy rate and is down
now. He indicated it had to rebound and this hotel would have to add to that before it became
new dollars to the City. He stated it appeared a couple of years ago there was demand and it
could be repeated; however, he was somewhat leery of the finding that it gets an excellent
rating.
Appreciating the explanation of building and procuring an operator for a hotel, Councilmember
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 25
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 26
Cohen stated he possibly had a way of addressing a concern that this just did not become trip
banking or a substantial start, which he believed was certainly a possibility. He inquired
whether the allocation of these trips could be conditioned upon a contract to operate the hotel.
He noted Mr. Grange indicated that once he signed a contract, he had a year to get the building
erected and ready to operate; therefore, this would allay Councilmember Cohen's fears that
there could be a substantial start and then a pause waiting for the economy to recover.
Councilmember Cohen inquired whether this could be put as a condition, indicating the trips
would be reserved over the coming year; however, they would not be released until or unless a
contract was evident and there was an operator ready to step in.
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti stated he believed this could be done. One of the reasons he
hastened to state this in this instance was that this was the third year this project would qualify
for PPP and given that circumstance, he believed it was not unreasonable for such a condition
to be added. He stated the City Council did have the power to do this and set a reasonable time
limit for demonstrating some indication that this project within the next year would actually break
ground and be constructed.
Councilmember Cohen stated it was the "and be constructed" part that concerned him.
Mr. Ragghianti stated the fact that Mr. Grange could enter into an agreement did not
necessarily mean the hotel would get built in the next year.
Mayor Boro stated the representation made was that Mr. Grange had not entered into an
agreement because once he did, he had a year to build the hotel. He believed Councilmember
Cohen's question was that should a contract come forward which stated this, then the City
would be sure it would get built and the trips could be allocated, should this happen between
now and May, 2004. This would be the condition for allowing the trips, rather than just giving
them. Mayor Boro inquired whether it could be conditioned upon a contract which
demonstrated performance.
Mr. Ragghianti stated a year was available under the PPP program and inquired if there was a
difference in giving a year or giving a year to have a contract.
Mayor Boro stated it was a concern that maybe a building process would start within a year and
then sit.
Not having the PPP language available to him, Mr. Ragghianti stated he believed that within the
year there was an obligation on the part of an individual granted PPP to commence
construction.
Councilmember Cohen recalled working on an office building project in Sausalito and having
poured the foundation, laid out the slab and placed the anchors for steel columns, the project
sat for a further ten years. He indicated they had made a substantial start by pouring concrete,
locking in their approvals, etc. Councilmember Cohen stated it finally did get built; however,
what struck him about Mr. Grange's comments was that for him to get a contract, he had to sign
with Hilton stating he would have it open in a year, which was different from making a start in a
year. He stated that by tying these trips up for this purpose, a hotel was required.
Mr. Ragghianti stated he understood the concern of the City Council and believed that in view
of the fact that if it is to be the third year, such a condition would be appropriate. There was
nothing in the PPP guidelines that would prevent such a condition from being imposed.
In terms of the PPP, Councilmember Miller inquired whether the City was obligated to give the
third year. Mr. Ragghianti responded negatively.
Mayor Boro stated he was aware the City was not obliged and he did not have a problem with it
as long as there was a beginning and end. According to Mr. Grange, the beginning was when
he procured a contract, which would require him to have the hotel constructed within one year.
Should he provide a contract sometime during the year that demonstrated that, the PPP trips
could be granted at that time.
Mr. Grange outlined the steps as follows:
1) PPP;
2) Building Permit;
3) Starting Construction.
He indicated he was happy to get a contract with an operator; however, it would not necessarily
be Hilton, rather it was more likely to be Manderfeld who was anxious to sign a contract.
Should a contract be received, Mayor Boro confirmed Mr. Grange's commitment that it would
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 26
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 27
have to be completed in a year, which was his portion of the contract
Mr. Grange stated he had somehow failed if he had not impressed upon the Council that the
reasoning for the hotel not being here was not his fault.
Mayor Boro stated the City did not want to see foundations poured and the land sit for five
years until the economy got better. Mr. Grange stated that should the foundations get poured,
he would be a million dollars further into it and he did not wish this to happen either. It was his
understanding that if the application was approved to go forward a further year, a year from now
they would either be there or the PPP would be gone. This he indicated was standard and he
was happy with it; however, he could also provide a contract should it be required.
Councilmember Cohen stated he still had some concern regarding the possibility of the building
not being constructed. It appeared to be a banking situation to him and he felt awkward about
that as he did not have any substantial information to say it is not. He indicated he was not
aware of any backup materials and his inclination was to not allow PPP banking.
Councilmember Heller stated it was her inclination to allow this one last year, with no more
extensions. She suggested perhaps inserting a guarantee to the City; however, she believed it
was fair to grant Mr. Grange one last year, as the economy had not been in his favor.
Mayor Boro stated that if Mr. Ragghianti and Mr. Brown could come up with appropriate
language and there was a performance and time guarantee, then it would be up to Mr. Grange,
as he believed Mr. Grange would have to present the City with something before there could be
an approval.
Mayor Boro stated he believed eventually, the economy would turn around. The real key was
whether a building could be started and completed within the next year to eighteen months. He
inquired whether there was a way for staff to work with Mr. Grange to bring something back that
would do that, rather than just wait and hope.
Recognizing it was not Mr. Grange's fault, but the market's, Councilmember Cohen stated he
did not have a lot of confidence that the market would get any better over the next year. He
indicated that the process is designed to afford confidence that a project that gets an allocation
has a reasonably good chance of proceeding in a year, and he did not envision this with either
of these projects. He noted the hotel could be somewhat closer; however, that was not at the
whim of anyone present.
Councilmember Cohen inquired whether there was a way to continue this so that Mr. Grange
could demonstrate to the satisfaction of Council that he had a contract with an operator, he
was ready to proceed, and had obtained the financing, etc. If this evidence was available at
some point in the next year, he inquired whether the trips could be allocated, or whether action
had to be taken this evening, and not return for a year.
City Manager Gould stated this would place Mr. Grange in a catch 22 situation where he was
out seeking financing and one of the central questions would be whether he had all the
entitlements from the City. Should he lack trips in order to build the project, Mr. Gould believed
Mr. Grange was stuck. He believed the same question would come from the would-be
operator.
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti suggested that PPP could be granted to Mr. Grange and require
that he return within a certain time period with either a contract with an operator or something
else, and failing delivery of this, he would lose the trips. He stated the time period and what the
City required could be specified this evening.
Mayor Boro stated he supported the hotel and did not have a problem with it; however, he was
concerned about the banking issue. He stated he did not wish to continue to give and give and
not receive; therefore, somehow the burden had to be on Mr. Grange. Should he have
everything ready to go except the trips, the City could be on record as guaranteeing the trips
promptly should he produce whatever was required. Mayor Boro questioned why the trips
should be given without any of the other factors discussed.
Mr. Gould stated that as he understood Councilmember Cohen's suggestion, it was to add a
condition to the PPP allocation that indicated the allocation would only be valid if he could
begin construction within a year, and also present a management contract for the operation of a
hotel, which would provide some added assurance the hotel would actually be built and
operated. Should he be unable to do this within a year's time, his PPP allocation would lapse
and become available to anyone else with a project to compete for. Mr. Gould stated it was the
Planning Commission's suggestion that after three years they did not see any reason to extend
it beyond that, which also appeared to be the sentiment of the City Council.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 27
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 28
On the issue of banking the trips, Mr. Brown stated that in a different market where there were a
host of other projects clamoring for those trips who could conceivably be ready to go within the
year, there would be real competition, and at that point it would make sense to consider others
that could have a higher likelihood. He indicated that in this market there were no other takers
that could reasonably accomplish anything within a year. Mr. Brown stated the project is in
many ways unique in the fact that it is very low trip generation and, in particular, with very low
impact on the Bellam Intersection because the expectation is that a lot of trips would be coming
over 580. In that sense, he did not believe there would be another opportunity for a project of
this scale, given the very unique trip distribution it has.
As he understood it, Mr. Brown stated the concern was that the project would get underway and
not be completed, and in this event he believed it would make sense to require either a
franchise agreement or operator contract within that year, in addition to the building permit
issuance.
Responding to Mayor Boro's question on whether staff was in a position to present that wording
this evening, Mr. Brown stated that if the Council was comfortable with inserting a condition on
requiring the issuance of the building permit and a franchise agreement or contract with the
hotel operator within the one year or the trips lapse, he believed it could be done this evening.
Councilmember Cohen stated he could support this, and whether it was appropriate to
incorporate it in a motion or not, he did not believe there would be any further extensions for
this project. He indicated that something had to happen this year or it would return to neutral.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was struck by Mr. Brown's comment with regard to demand.
The demand was not there and while there had been a lapse of three years, at the same time, a
significant event had taken place. However, he indicated that patience appeared to be wearing
thin and it was highly unlikely that a further extension would be granted; consequently, he was
comfortable with the provisions mentioned by Mr. Brown. Likewise with Oakmont, while it was
an interesting project and he favored it as an entity, he believed it did have to go through some
hurdles at this point and was, therefore, premature.
Regarding Oakmont at Shoreline Center, Councilmember Cohen confirmed the draft resolution
did include a denial without prejudice, noting the poor rating came from timing issues, and he
suggested the applicant carry out the suggested work.
With regard to the Hilton Garden Hotel, Councilmember Cohen stated it appeared to him that
legitimately, the rating should be good or excellent. He indicated that the Council was being
requested to make a finding that it is an excellent project and he was not quite prepared to go
that far this evening. He believed the argument for good or excellent could be made pretty
easily and he confirmed this change could be made.
In addition, he suggested incorporating where appropriate, the language that this allocation is
not granted unless the City is presented with a contract either with Hilton or an operator who
has a franchise with Hilton to operate the hotel in a timely fashion.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded to adopt the resolution,
incorporating the above-specified amendments.
RESOLUTION NO. 11331 — RESOLUTION GRANTING THE 2002 PRIORITY PROJECT
DETERMINATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING THE
BELLAM BOULEVARD/1-580/HIGHWAY 101 INTERCHANGE
(EAST SAN RAFAEL) City File Nos. PPP03-002 and PPP03-
003) (as amended)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Miller
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
14. Transportation Expenditure Plan: - File 170
City Manager Gould indicated he had neglected to include in the Weekly Report Mayor Boro's
call for applications for the Citizens Advisory Committee on the Transportation Expenditure
Plan. He stated the applications are due on June 12th and would come before the City Council
on June 16th, for verification.
Councilmember Cohen confirmed he would be available at some time on June 13th to conduct
an initial review of the applications, indicating he would not be in attendance on June 16, 2003.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 28
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 29
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
15. None.
There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:22 p.m.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12003
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2003 Page 29