HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2003-10-06SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Pagel
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 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
OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:00 PM:
None
CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM:
None
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Gary O. Phillips, Vice -Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Absent: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:15 PM
House Joint Resolution #20: - File 9-1
Kris Recend, 480 South Cloverdale Blvd., Cloverdale, California 95425 addressed the issue of amending
House Joint Resolution #20, together with the State Domestic Preparedness Grant Program.
John Jenkel, Greighton, California, addressed House Joint Resolution #20 and its effects on the local
economy.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as
follows:
ITEM
Approval of Minutes of Regular Meetings of
Tuesday, September 2, 2003 and Monday,
September 15, 2003 (CC)
2. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael
(CM) —File 116 x 9-1
3. Resolution Authorizing Agreement with County of
Marin for the Marin Literacy Program to Provide
Literacy Services in the County Jail (Lib) —
File 4-13-86 x 9-3-61
4. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending
August 2003 (MS) — File 8-18 x 8-9
5. Resolution Authorizing Notice of Completion Re
Academy Heights (CD) — File 5-1-340
6. Report on Bid Opening for the Santa Margarita
Creek Improvements at Del Ganado Road,
Project No.10783 (Bid Opening Held on
Tuesday, September 16, 2003) and Resolution
Rejecting All Bids (PW) —
File 12-9 x 9-3-40 x 8-5
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Minutes approved as submitted.
ADDroved staff recommendation:
AB 1160 (Steinberg). Housing.
Second Units — OPPOSE
S 150 (Allen) & H.R. 49 (Cox). Internet
Tax Non -Discrimination Act —
OPPOSE
RESOLUTION NO. 11420 —
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF
MARIN FOR THE MARIN LITERACY
PROGRAM TO PROVIDE LITERACY
SERVICES IN THE MARIN COUNTY
JAIL (from July 1, 2003 through June
30, 2004 and may be extended by
mutual agreement of the parties)
Accepted Monthly Investment Report
for month ending August 2003, as
presented.
Item removed from Agenda at the
request of staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 11421 —
RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS
FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA
CREEK IMPROVEMENTS AT DEL
GANADO ROAD
(Directed Staff to seek alternatives to
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 1
7. Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding
Contract for Second Street Resurfacing, City
Project No. 10756-02, Federal Aid Project No.
STPL 5043-(017) to Maggiora & Ghilotti in the
Amount of $313,800.00 (Bid Opening Held on
Tuesday, September 16, 2003) (PW) —
File 4-1-563 x 9-3-40
8. Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding
Contract to Pat Nelson Construction, Inc. re
Gerstle Park Tot Lot and Restroom
Improvements, Project No. 10717 (Bid Opening
Held on Tuesday, September 30, 2003) (PW) —
File 4-1-564 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-66
9. Resolution Authorizing the Signing of a Below
Market Rate Rental Housing Agreement and a
Resolution Authorizing the Signing of a Below
Market Rate Ownership Housing Agreement
Between Michael O'Mahoney and J.F. Sullivan
and the City of San Rafael re: Lincoln Mews
(1515 Lincoln Avenue) (RA) — File 229 x 13-16
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 2
modify the project design in order to
decrease the cost to be within
budget, and re -bid the project.)
RESOLUTION NO. 11422 —
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE
CONTRACT FOR SECOND STREET
RESURFACING, CITY PROJECT NO.
10756-02, FEDERAL PROJECT NO.
STPL 5043-(017), TO MAGGIORA &
GHILOTTI, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$313,800.00
(lowest responsible bidder)
RESOLUTION NO. 11423 —
RESOLUTION AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR GERSTLE PARK
TOT LOT AND RESTROOM
IMPROVEMENTS TO PAT NELSON
CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $187,384.43 (lowest
responsible bidder)
1) RESOLUTION NO. 11424 —
RESOLUTION APPROVING
AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A
BELOW MARKET RATE
RENTAL HOUSING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND
MICHAEL O'MAHONEY AND
J.F. SULLIVAN REGARDING
LINCOLN MEWS (1515
LINCOLN AVENUE)
2) RESOLUTION NO. 11425 —
RESOLUTION APPROVING
AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A
BELOW MARKET RATE
HOUSING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL AND MICHAEL
O'MAHONEY AND J.F.
SULLIVAN REGARDING
LINCOLN MEWS (1515
LINCOLN AVENUE)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen (from minutes of 9/2/03 only, due to absence from
meeting.)
Subsequent to the vote, the following Consent Calendar item was discussed, at the request of Mr. Mike
Ghilotti, Ghilotti Bros:
6. REPORT ON BID OPENING FOR THE SANTA MARGARITA CREEK IMPROVEMENTS AT
DEL GANADO ROAD, PROJECT NO.10783 (BID OPENING HELD ON TUESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003) AND RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS (PW) —
FILE 12-9 x 9-3-40 x 8-5
Mayor Boro explained this related to the rejection of bids for the Santa Margarita Creek
Improvements as they were higher than budgeted. He reported having had a discussion this
afternoon with the President of the Santa Margarita Homeowners Association and a meeting
was scheduled for tomorrow (Tuesday) with the Public Works Director to discuss how to
proceed and re -scale the project to budget.
Mike Ghilotti noted the San Rafael City Council moves much quicker than most. He indicated
his concern related to the fact that given the present climate, the bids received would probably
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 2
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 3
be the most competitive. He believed the apparent low bidder's price would increase based
on having to do less of his own type of work and indicated it was Ghilotti Brothers' feeling that
the apparent low bidder now could be utilized in an effort to mitigate cost.
Cognizant of the fact that he was speaking subsequent to the vote having been taken, Mr.
Ghilotti stated his concern was that the City would probably have to spend $5,000 - $10,000 re-
bidding the job and in so doing, would lose vital time entering the winter season, with the
possibility also of an increase in cost.
Mr. Ghilotti stated he would await the rebid.
Mayor Boro stated he hoped Mr. Ghilotti would work with the City on this, noting that both the
City and the community were very anxious to complete the project. He hoped that with some
fine-tuning from the community, Mr. Preston, Public Works Director, Mr. Ghilotti and other
bidders, the project could proceed.
Mr. Ghilotti stated Ghilotti Brothers would be available to discuss cost savings and value
engineering.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION:
10. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL
REPORTING TO KEN NORDHOFF, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, FROM GOVERNMENT
FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (CM) — FILE 102 x 9-3-20 x 8-5 x 8-9
Indicating this was a presentation to the Assistant City Manager / Financial Director Ken
Nordhoff, Mayor Boro explained it was the second year in a row this award was received from
the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada for financial
reporting achievement. Noting cities compete for the award, Mayor Boro stated it demonstrated
not only the excellent job done by Mr. Nordhoff and his staff, but the citizens of San Rafael
could rest assured that the City's financial reports are not only accurate but truly reflect what
happens in the community, reaching very high standards.
Mayor Boro stated that a plaque would be forthcoming; however, this evening he was
presenting a certificate.
On behalf of the City Council and the community, Mayor Boro requested Mr. Nordhoff to
express thanks to his staff for the great job being done by all.
Commenting that most of the work is done by his staff, Mr. Nordhoff explained that the process
takes place annually as staff believes it important that the City's financial reporting is carried out
accurately and is available to the community. He stated this type of reporting also exemplifies
Council's financial management policies and how they wish to run the City.
Mr. Nordhoff stated it was an honor to generate the information each year and staff was very
grateful to receive the award.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
11. Public Hearing — Crematoriums;
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 14.05.020 AND
14.05.022 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ELIMINATE CREMATORIES AS A
CONDITIONAL USE IN THE COMMERCIAL/OFFICE (C/O), RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE (R/O),
SECOND/THIRD MIXED USE WEST (2/3 MUW) AND FIFTH/MISSION RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE (5/M R/O) DISTRICTS AND AMENDING SECTION 14.06.020 TO ADD
CREMATORIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL (1) AND LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL (LI/0) DISTRICT SUBJECT TO A 650 -FOOT BUFFER FROM RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS AND DESIGN CRITERIA (CD) — FILE 13-1 x 10-3 x 10-2 x 9-3-16
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated this study resulted from the City Council's
adoption in June of a moratorium on the issuance of permits for crematories; the direction to
staff was to study the appropriate zoning districts for such a use.
Mr. Brown reported that staff's analysis of crematories was somewhat different from similar land
use studies, principally because it was not possible to quantify impacts associated with this use,
e.g., there are not unusual traffic or parking impacts from crematories.
On the issue of air quality, Mr. Brown reported that a great deal of input was received from the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) staff. To summarize their conclusions,
he stated that basically while any use that involves combustion adds to air emissions, the
BAAQMD found that the addition of a crematory would be insignificant and certainly less than
other common uses typically seen, i.e., restaurants with grills, coffee roasters, dry cleaners, gas
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 4
stations, etc. Mr. Brown noted that as frequently pointed out by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, the worst offenders are residential fireplaces, due to their very inefficient
combustion.
With regard to odor impacts, Mr. Brown reported that staff contacted numerous cities that have
crematories in very close proximity to residential and commercial uses and found that neither
those cities nor the Bay Area Air Quality Management District had received odor complaints
about those operations. Also, he stated the unusual step was taken of sending a staff member
to interview property owners near an installation in another city identical to that proposed by
Keaton's, and in that case, all of the owners contacted stated they detected no odors from that
facility's operations.
Mr. Brown stated that in the written materials before Council there were a couple of testimonials
from Sun Valley residents who reported smelling the Mount Tamalpais crematory on one
occasion when, apparently, there was an equipment malfunction — two complaints for that
facility in over sixty years of operation.
Reporting that the impact identified was the psychological effect a crematory seems to have on
many people, Mr. Brown explained that as was found with Keaton's proposal, and from the
experience of some other cities when such a proposal became controversial, there is a distinct
aversion by many to knowing cremations are occurring in their vicinity.
In its legislative matters, Mr. Brown stated the Council has very broad discretion. They could
choose to ban crematories as an allowed use throughout the City, or they could elect to only
allow them in industrial zoning districts with a minimum 650 -foot separation from residential
areas as recommended by the Planning Commission, which would then minimize the proximity
to residences and businesses with high client volume. He indicated the Planning Commission
also recommended two design requirements: the stack and loading door for crematories not be
visible from public streets.
Should the rezoning recommended by the Planning Commission be approved, Mr. Brown
stated the Use Permit previously granted to Keaton's for their downtown location would become
null and void since the project has not obtained vested rights by initiating their construction
under the current regulations.
Mr. Brown indicated the City Attorney also requested that he note the draft ordinance before the
City Council would repeal the moratorium ordinance, to occur upon the effective date of the
zoning ordinance changes.
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened
Councilmember Cohen stated Council received some information concerning the option of
limiting this to Industrial, Light Industrial/Office and the 650 -buffer, and inquired whether staff
had analyzed the impact of further limiting it to Industrial Zoning only and eliminating the Light
Industrial/Office zoning designation. Mr. Brown responded negatively, explaining he would
need to procure a larger zoning map and attempt to extrapolate.
Noting this was not similar to some other uses where it was required to designate a location in
town, Councilmember Cohen confirmed there was no constitutional protection for crematories;
therefore, in the event there were only five potential parcels if limited to Industrial Zoning, the
City would be perfectly within its rights to do so. Mr. Brown confirmed Council had this option.
Peter Lagarias, Attorney for several neighborhoods, stated there were zoning laws for the
purpose of keeping incompatible uses away from other uses. Indicating this was an industrial
use, he explained it involved a blast furnace and had psychological impacts. Noting their
appeal was pending with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Mr. Lagarias stated it
was their position that pollution problems exist with this type of machinery, even when working
correctly. Machinery failure presented a major pollution problem, and he indicated this
machinery does fail.
Mr. Lagarias reported they had found witnesses who had smelled odors from the unit in the
Tamalpais Cemetery. They had talked to people adjacent to other crematories in the Bay Area
and in other cities in the country and reported that an ash problem often occurs with this type of
equipment, with fine ash emanating from the stacks and falling down in the neighborhoods. Mr.
Lagarias stated this was precisely the reason for zoning laws, i.e., to have this type of use
segregated from homes, restaurants and offices, and he believed this was why so many
members of the community were upset with the location presented. He stated it was obvious
this was an inappropriate use at this location, being near homes, medical facilities, and a
school, and the question was whether it should be located anywhere in the City of San Rafael.
Mr. Lagarias stated that as he understood the proposal adopted by the Planning Commission
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 4
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 5
(4:2 vote) - two members of the Planning Commission voted to ban crematories throughout the
City - this proposal would allow a crematory in an area zoned Industrial, which also had office
buildings and restaurants, etc.
Mr. Lagarias believed a problem could be encountered in the future in that there could be
residents in some of these zoned areas. He noted the proposal was to locate crematories 650
feet from a district zoned residential or commercial, not 650 feet from any residential, office or
restaurant uses in an Industrial or Light industrial area. Therefore, he believed the City could
be faced with this problem in the future should no decision be made on whether it was
inappropriate to locate crematories in industrial areas with nothing but industry, or as with every
other crematory in Marin County, in the middle of a cemetery buffered away from any structures
of any type by at least 650 feet.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing
Regarding Councilmember Cohen's question of only allowing this use in the Industrial district
and not the Light Industrial/Office district, Mr. Brown referred to the map, Exhibit 7 attached to
the staff report, and explained that two areas that would be eliminated (zoned LI/O) were the
office park along Redwood and all the parcels in East San Rafael on the east side of I-580.
Therefore, the only Industrial zoned areas remaining would be those near Andersen Drive and
the sewage treatment plant and a small industrial area off Andersen Drive, closer to downtown
This would probably eliminate approximately two-thirds of the 310 possible parcels.
Responding to Mr. Lagarias' question, Mr. Brown explained that the 650 -foot buffer is from
residential zoning districts; however, as mentioned to the Planning Commission when
discussing one the options of allowing crematories in some of the commercial districts, the new
General Plan proposed to allow mixed use residential in the Commercial districts, but not in the
Industrial district. He clarified that neither the Industrial nor Light Industrial/Office would be
allowed to have mixed use residential.
Noting staff did not isolate just Industrial, Councilmember Phillips inquired whether there was a
reason for this. Mr. Brown explained that in looking at the map, staff primarily looked for
districts that were significant distances from residential and believed that both the LI/O and the
Industrial districts both met that criterion. As pointed out in response to Councilmember
Cohen's question, Mr. Brown explained that just allowing it in the Industrial district would
probably eliminate approximately two-thirds of those 310 parcels, with perhaps 100 parcels at
most being viable for this use.
Councilmember Phillips requested a description of the types of uses within Light Industrial. Mr.
Brown confirmed that office uses and ancillary uses, i.e., banks, financial services, restaurants,
etc., are permitted. He noted it would affect the Northgate Business Park, which has a
significant mix of office type uses, while the area in East San Rafael is somewhat more mixed,
with pockets of office use.
Mayor Boro stated that in looking at what Mr. Brown identified at Light Industrial, it appeared
some of the conflicts being experienced presently could come about again in the Light Industrial
area. With the estimation of approximately 100 strictly Industrial parcels, he believed the City
was allowing for this use; however, in an area that meets the use.
Of all the issues before the City Council over the past couple of years, Mayor Boro stated this
one really generated a lot of interest, not only from those residing in the immediate area but
also from people throughout the entire City. There was no question but that it was the
psychological issue; however, in contemplating some parts of the Canal and Northgate
Industrial Park as potential uses, he anticipated the issue coming up again. He indicated he
favored the Council considering potentially the Industrial zoning sites.
Councilmember Cohen indicated this was the direction he was going.
In looking further at the map (Exhibit 7), Councilmember Cohen confirmed with Mr. Brown that
the portion south of Andersen Drive was the Industrial zoning. He noted from the map that at
the western end of Andersen Drive there were four fairly large parcels colored in black and
inquired whether these parcels would be included in the zoning if Industrial use with residential
overlay was specified. Mr. Brown responded affirmatively, confirming there were more than
four.
Should he be reading the map correctly, Councilmember Cohen stated his concern was that
just south of that, the large area (blank on the map) was Davidson Middle School, and that was
unacceptable. He believed there would have to be some language relating to a buffer from
school sites as he did not consider the community would be any more accepting of this use
across the street from the school's athletic fields than they would be of across the street from
the library. Councilmember Cohen stated it would have to be reigned in a little tighter, adding a
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 6
reference to school sites. While he favored limiting it to an Industrial use, he believed places
where Industrial uses bumped up against other noticeable uses would also have to be
considered.
Commenting further, Councilmember Cohen stated that no matter how this would be restricted,
he was not comfortable with the recommendation that it just be a Zoning Administrator decision
He believed it had demonstrated itself to be a controversial enough issue that deserved hearing
before Planning Commission regularly noticed meetings that receive more publicity that Zoning
Administrator hearings. Having talked with staff and heard from the community about the need
to address noticing issues, Councilmember Cohen considered this one deserved the level of
scrutiny that a Planning Commission hearing would afford.
Councilmember Cohen suggested limiting crematories to Industrial zoning, adding a 650 -foot
buffer for any school site and hearings to take place at the Planning Commission level.
Councilmember Phillips seconded these suggestions.
Mayor Boro inquired whether this item should be returned to Council or amended this evening.
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated the changes essentially would be as
follows:
Division 3 -
Types of Land Uses — Column LI/O — Eliminate the CZ reference
Types of Land Uses — Column I — Substitute C for CZ
Additional Use Regulations — Language to read:
"Must be located at least 650 -feet from any residential zoning district and/or schools,
including private, parochial, public, preschools, nursery and child daycare facilities."
Hearings to be conducted at the Planning Commission level rather than the Zoning
Administrator level.
The title of the ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING
SECTIONS 14.05.020 AND 14.050.022 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ELIMINATE CREMATORIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE COMMERCIAL/OFFICE
(C/O), RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE (R/O), SECOND/THIRD MIXED USE WEST (2/3 MUW) AND
FIFTH/MISSION RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (5/M R/O) DISTRICTS AND AMENDING SECTION
14.06.020 TO ADD CREMATORIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL (1),
DISTRICT SUBJECT TO A 650 FOOT BUFFER FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND
SCHOOLS AND DESIGN CRITERIA"
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 pass Charter Ordinance
No. 1815 to print by the following vote, to wit:
Councilmember Phillips questioned whether there was a sufficient definition of schools.
Mr. Brown stated there were two definitions in the Zoning Code for schools and believed that
referred to was school - parochial or private, as opposed to school — vocational or
business/trade.
Councilmember Miller inquired whether it would also include preschools and child daycare
centers. Responding that it would not, Mr. Brown indicated that public schools should also be
included; however, it would not cover daycare facilities.
Councilmember Miller stated that should there be concern regarding possible toxics in the air,
places he would very much like to protect would be daycare centers and such facilities.
Councilmember Phillips suggested returning the item to Council at a future date, the issue
being difficult to deal with on the fly.
Mayor Boro inquired of City Attorney Gary Ragghianti and Community Development Director
Bob Brown whether they were comfortable with amending the ordinance on the fly and/or
whether they favored returning it to Council at a later date.
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti stated that with Council's indulgence for a short while he
believed they could exhaust the list. He suggested including daycare centers, nursery schools,
public schools and/or parochial and private schools and staff was now exploring whether there
were other institutions or uses that Councilmember Miller wished to include. Councilmember
Miller suggested including "preschools" would suffice.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 6
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 7
Mr. Brown stated that in addition to the 650 -foot buffer from residential districts, public, private
or parochial schools, preschools, nursery schools and child daycare centers would be specified
in the ordinance.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Heller stated she was happy to vote for this ordinance considering it to be very
important for the community; however, she believed it needed to be understood that part of the
City had lived within 400 feet from a crematorium for over 25 years. She assured the audience
that to her knowledge no problems had been encountered, either emotional, physical or health,
in the Sun Valley area and she considered it was a safe means.
12. Public Hearing — 127 Merrydale Road;
CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO
APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF EIGHT (8) ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE UNITS PROPOSED ON A
VACANT, 18,600 -SQUARE -FOOT SITE LOCATED AT 127 MERRYDALE ROAD; APN; 179-
142-04; MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (HR1.8) DISTRICT; SAN RAFAEL MEADOWS
IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (GREGORY ANDREW, REPRESENTATIVE), APPELLANT;
SIGNATURE PROPERTIES, OWNERS AND REPRESENTATIVES; FILE NO. ED03-062;
TS03-005 AND V03-008 (CD) — FILE 10-7 x 10-4 x 2-5-46 x 9-3-40
By way of background, Contract Planner Paul Jensen explained that in 1999, the City approved
a Design Review Permit and Tentative Map for the Merrydale Court townhouses - an eight -unit
townhouse project at 127 Merrydale Road. He reported the project was purchased by
Signature Properties in 2001, primarily for the purpose of routing their sanitary sewer and storm
water facilities through this site to serve the adjacent Redwood Village project. As a result,
Conditions of Approval required that Signature Properties develop a public pedestrian access
path through this project and revisit the old plans to determine whether or not they needed to be
revised to accommodate that access. Mr. Jensen stated that new plans had been submitted
which do accommodate the access and which resulted in downsizing the units, also downsizing
the footprint of the buildings in order to accommodate a separate access path from the
driveway.
Mr. Jensen reported that the project was reviewed and recommended for approval by the
Design Review Board. The Planning Commission approved the project on September 9, 2003.
Indicating that the appeal filed focused on two design issues, Mr. Jensen explained that the first
issue related to driveway width and garage backout depths, and the second, opposition to a
Variance approved for minor encroachments in the front yard setback.
Regarding the driveway backout depths, Mr. Jensen explained that the garage depths ranged
from 24' to 25' 9" and the Code requires a minimum depth of 26' when there is a 90 -degree
parking design. However, he indicated the Code does permit the City Traffic Engineer to
deviate from that standard when that degree is adjusted. Mr. Jensen stated that City Traffic
Engineer, Nader Mansourian, reviewed the project and determined that the backout depth
proposed is adequate for two reasons:
• The units are slightly canted, which allows for wider maneuver for vehicles; and
Because of the expected low amount of traffic along this private driveway, the potential
for conflicts between pedestrians using the path and residents parking and using the
driveway would be extremely low, and for that reason, Mr. Mansourian supported the
backout depth. Nonetheless, there is a suggestion in the appeal letter to install
protective bollards; Mr. Mansourian agrees with that recommendation, and it is reflected
in the draft resolution.
Regarding the Variance, Mr. Jensen reported that the project is designed so that a portion of
the front building, the covered porch and one of the guest parking spaces encroach within the
front yard setback. The project is also designed with surplus guest parking — two guest parking
spaces are required by Code, four are proposed. Therefore, essentially, the project could be
designed to comply with the setback requirement, albeit at the loss of the two surplus parking
spaces. Mr. Jensen stated that when the project was presented to the Design Review Board,
this was pointed out and it was suggested that the project be revised to comply with the setback
standard. He indicated the Design Review Board found that from a design standpoint, what is
before Council this evening is a better design solution for the project and also accommodates
additional surplus parking. Mr. Jensen stated they pointed out to staff that the lack of parking
along Merrydale Road warranted accommodating more parking on the site and maximizing the
amount of off-street parking.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 7
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 8
Mr. Jensen reported that the Planning Commission agreed with this recommendation and
supported the Variance. He stated he would be happy to answer questions, indicating that
Nader Mansourian, City Traffic Engineer, was present this evening and could address
questions concerning the driveway widths.
Councilmember Miller noted Planning Commissioner Paul's suggestion to reverse the
landscaping was not included. Mr. Jensen concurred.
Regarding bollards, Councilmember Cohen noted the staff report recommended bollards but no
chain, i.e., one bollard opposite each parking space, and he inquired as to the distance
between bollards. Mr. Jensen stated this would be approximately ten feet between spaces and
invited Nader Mansourian to explain.
Nader Mansourian, City Traffic Engineer, stated the space recommended for the bollards was
across from the driveway at the sidewalk location so that cars would not back up completely to
the walk path.
Councilmember Cohen inquired as to the reason for not recommending chains.
Mr. Mansourian stated they would not be effective in protecting pedestrians.
Councilmember Cohen inquired about increasing the number of bollards to prevent vehicles
from fitting between them. He indicated he understood the intent of locating them opposite the
parking spaces, which presumed the person was adequately in control of his vehicle and
backed out appropriately; however, this was not the person likely to jump the curb into the
pedestrian pathway, and he suggested locating them to physically prevent a car from getting
through the gap.
Mr. Mansourian stated staff evaluated the likely area where a vehicle's wheels would meet the
sidewalk in making a turn to determine the location of the bollards. He stated staff's
recommendation was to give an indication of the area where the sidewalk started to prevent
backing up too far. He indicated staff's concern related to SUVs and taller vehicles from which
small children might not be visible. He used the example of the gas tank location at the
Corporation Yard, explaining that with the bollards approximately four feet apart, no car could
penetrate to that area.
Gregory Andrew, Secretary, San Rafael Meadows Improvement Association, distributed a
handout to the City Council and indicated there were two items they took issue with. He stated
that overall, they were not opposed to the project.
On a chart included with the handout, Mr. Andrew identified the pedestrian access from
Merrydale into the future park. He stated this was a safety issue that clearly needed to be
addressed and some type of barrier needed to be installed as a curb would not prevent a car
from backing over and hitting someone. He indicated he was pleased to see staff move
towards some type of barrier but did not believe individual bollards would suffice, as personally
he considered this to be somewhat industrial. Mr. Andrew commented that the example given
by Mr. Mansourian was in an industrial setting, whereas this was an entryway into a park in a
residential setting. He did not consider individual bollards with reflective tape, etc., to be a
suitable design, believing a more attractive, yet effective design could be put in place. He felt
the spacing was important and while he could not anticipate a chain stopping every vehicle, he
believed that someone would be aware of hitting a chain and it would have some effect on
stopping a vehicle.
Mr. Andrew suggested that staff had not accounted for delivery trucks or a vehicle backing up at
a different angle, etc. He argued for a more attractive, yet still effective barrier, indicating they
were open to any variety of designs. The 24 -foot backup with the barrier was acceptable.
Regarding the Variance, Mr. Andrew stated that most importantly, this was a project that could
be built without a Variance and he believed there was no compelling reason to grant it; the
arguments continued to be weak and did not really get to an overriding consideration of the
Variance. He stated that approximately six weeks ago, staff arrived at the conclusion that a
Variance was not needed, recommended against it and recommended designing a project that
complied with the setback; however, it was turned around in an approximate three week period
when it went from the Design Review Board to the Planning Commission. Mr. Andrew stated
the project had the two required parking spaces and did not need surplus parking.
Having been through the North San Rafael Vision process, Mr. Andrew stated that in this case,
the project could be built without a Variance and he believed that the North San Rafael Vision
surely called for housing in this area as infill and called for attractive designs; however, he
questioned why this should be at the expense of a Variance.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 8
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 9
Mr. Andrew agreed that the entryway as presented was probably more attractive than a facade;
however, not at the expense of granting a Variance. He suggested removing the two parking
spaces (highlighted in red on the chart) and shifting the building slightly away from Merrydale.
The entryway and eight units could be kept in the project; however, should four parking spaces
be required, he suggested removing one unit. He noted the Code requires two units and two
spaces and pointed out that when the project was approved previously, no Variance was
requested and the project went forward. Mr. Andrew believed the City and applicant could
obtain the project they wanted without granting the Variance and it would be detrimental to
North San Rafael to grant it.
Mike Ghielmetti, Signature Properties, concurred with Mr. Andrew that the project could be built
without the Variance and also with the staff report regarding the bollards; however, offered an
alternative. He stated staff had done an excellent job with the explanations in the staff report.
On the bollard issue, he indicated they believed 24' to 25' 9" was adequate. From the drawing
it could be seen it was not a well -traveled, or heavily speeded driveway.
Referring to the drawing, Mr. Ghielmetti explained that currently, there is landscaping against
the fence and suggested flipping it to locate the sidewalk closer to the fence and the
landscaping in between. He believed this would be more attractive than a bunch of bollards in
a very small, private, residential driveway. He indicated that placing bollards would remove
some of the landscaping area and he believed this to be a more acceptable alternative, keeping
pedestrians a full 26 -feet away from vehicles. He noted it was a raised curb, not unlike any
sidewalk in any public street.
Councilmember Cohen inquired whether the proposal was to move the landscaping and locate
the bollards as recommended by staff. Mr. Ghielmetti stated that this would remove some of
the landscaping area as instead of 2 '/2 feet, there would only be 1 '/2 feet, and they would like
to retain this for aesthetics. They proposed having no bollards, noting that pedestrians would
be more than 26 feet away, separated by the raised curb. He stated they would be happy to
place bollards; however, believed the alternative would favor a more aesthetically pleasing
atmosphere, noting landscaping had a slowing effect on people.
Regarding the setback notions, Mr. Ghielmetti reported there were basically four feet of setback
variation, two of which were taken up with making the projection on the outside, which they
considered more aesthetically pleasing. The other was creating an extra parking spot in the
center. He indicated that the Design Review Board and Planning Commission agreed,
believing the parking space was adequately screened with no visual impact and the design of
the project merited it. Mr. Ghielmetti stated they believed this design to be a big improvement
from that inherited, it is less intrusive in terms of height and every other setback meets or beats
the prior except for this one.
Councilmember Phillips noted a chain was mentioned and he inquired whether this would
consume a similar amount of space as a bollard. Mr. Ghielmetti stated this would be a matter
of inches and from their perspective, he believed a chain would not fit the neighborhood. He
noted the prior project was approved without bollards, although it did have an extra 1'/2 feet
average of backout distance; however, he believed this would provide that same amount of
distance.
Councilmember Phillips requested a description of the curb. Mr. Ghielmetti stated it was
basically the same profile as a sidewalk curb, i.e., 6 inches, noting this was a very slow speed,
low -traveled driveway.
Mayor Boro stated he understood that by flipping the landscaping, there would be no need for a
bollard. Mr. Ghielmetti stated that while it would not be a 26 -foot backout, pedestrians walking
on the sidewalk would be at least 26 feet away. He stated the distance to the face of the curb
would not change; however, the landscaping would put more distance between pedestrians and
vehicles.
Councilmember Heller inquired of Mr. Mansourian whether landscaping would take the place of
a bollard or whether the safety factor be just as high.
Mr. Mansourian stated the landscaping would add the needed buffer as on backing up, on
hitting the curb, the vehicle tire would have 2 '/2 feet before reaching the sidewalk. He stated
that bollards would be in addition to the proposed buffer.
Mayor Boro inquired whether Mr. Jensen had any comments on the pros and cons of flipping
the landscaping with or without the bollards.
Mr. Jensen stated this was a very good solution, explaining staff had suggested this a long time
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 9
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 10
ago and he did not recall the reason for its dismissal on going through the Design Review
Board. He stated it did provide the additional area for a buffer transition.
Mayor Boro inquired whether Mr. Jensen believed that with the landscaping as proposed, there
was no need for bollards. Mr. Jensen responded affirmatively. Mayor Boro inquired as to the
downside of having the landscaping and bollards. Mr. Jensen indicated there were none.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
With respect to the Variance, Mayor Boro stated that in reading the staff report and from Mr.
Andrew's comments, he noted there was a lot of going back and forth; however, the
recommendation from the Design Review Board was that this is a superior design, plus two
additional parking spaces are obtained. Mr. Jensen concurred.
On the question of landscaping and bollards, Councilmember Cohen stated he favored Mr.
Ghielmetti's suggestion of flipping the landscaping as he was seeking to make it clear that this
is a public access to the park, not just the sidewalk for this project. He liked the bollard and
chain idea because it created a physical separation, and believed the landscaping would do
that. He believed that keeping the row of bollards behind the parking spaces, as recommended
by staff, was still a good idea in a situation where vehicles were backing up and accepting a
slightly limited backout distance. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not believe the cost of a
6 -inch bollard in the landscaping, in terms of the visual impact or loss of landscaping, was that
great. He would like to see the landscaping flipped and a row of bollards physically at the
backout line. He stated this was a case of narrowing the backout distance to facilitate the
proposed design and he did not believe the trade off to be that much.
On the issue of the Variance, Councilmember Cohen stated it was unusual for a neighborhood
association to argue against onsite parking. While he understood the point, he believed the
tradeoff came down to whether it was worth the minor Variance in order to encourage additional
parking on the site.
Councilmember Cohen noted he had not read anything in the appeal in terms of consistency
with the North San Rafael Vision that specifically ran counter to the concept, and he believed
the tradeoff here was well worth it. Given the limited parking, he believed the logic by which the
Design Review Board recommended this design and the Planning Commission approved it,
knowing that a Variance was required, was well founded.
Councilmember Heller stated it appeared a minor point to give the Variance when the benefit of
two off street parking spaces was realized. She stated it was her understanding that when
Merrydale was refinished and widened there would be no on -street parking available; therefore,
she believed the benefits outweighed any problems with a Variance on this piece of property.
Councilmembers Miller and Phillips agreed.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the resolution
with the additional requirement of bollards within the landscaped area and that the landscaping
as proposed be flipped so that it is between the driveway area and the sidewalk.
RESOLUTION NO. 11426 — RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE AN
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED 03-
062) AND VARIANCE (V03-008) FOR THE MERRYDALE
COURT EIGHT -UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT AT 127
MERRYDALE ROAD (APN 179-142-04), (as amended)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
13. Citizens Academv and DART Graduates: - File 9-3-30 x 9-3-31 (verbal
City Manager Rod Gould reported that two years ago, Council directed staff to develop a
program by which graduates of the Citizens Academy and DART (Disaster Area Response
Team) could be trained to become Emergency Volunteers in time of disaster and also to seek
out technology to alert these disaster workers in times of emergency. He reported that a
program was put together, training was commenced and he invited Lieutenant Kelly to present
an update on the status of this effort, as it was being restarted.
Police Lieutenant Jim Kelly reported that recruitment of volunteers for neighborhood teams
began in March 2002 with the goal of selecting neighborhood leaders who would maintain
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 10
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 11
security and leadership in their neighborhoods during times when Emergency Services could
not reach them for extended periods, such as in the event of an earthquake or similar disaster
He reported that 80 people attended the orientation, with as many as 250 expressing interest.
Volunteers were recruited and sworn in as Emergency Service Workers and registered with the
County Office of Emergency Services. Basic courses were conducted, i.e., First Aid and CPR,
training being provided by the Fire Department. Lieutenant Kelly stated he generated a list of
necessary equipment, i.e., reflective vests, etc., to provide a visual appearance of authority and
leadership, at a cost of $13,000; however, funds were not available at that time.
Explaining the reason for the outward appearance, Lieutenant Kelly stated that in 1999, staff
attended a crowd control class where it was shown that when the Toronto Blue Jays won the
World Series, a riot ensued in the City of Toronto. A camera was mounted in the downtown,
which showed a lot of people; however, it was not possible to distinguish police from citizens.
Lieutenant Kelly reported that the following year, a similar situation occurred; however, all
Emergency Service Workers were dressed in reflective vests and hats and this time, the same
camera depicted a lot of authority. He, therefore, believed that to outfit trained citizens to be out
in the neighborhoods when the police could not, they would provide that outer security of
authority and leadership, even in the absence of Emergency Services.
Lieutenant Kelly reported that staff had been working to secure some Homeland Security funds.
Attempts were also made to secure a state grant; however, both were unsuccessful. He hoped
funding could be obtained to outfit the volunteers and subsequently, conduct further training,
such as neighborhood checks, welfare checks in homes, calming people down, working with
the police, distributing supplies, etc. They would also like to work with the Fire Department and
their DART teams, conducting neighborhood exercises, staging mock drills, etc. He stated
securing funding was the next important step.
Councilmember Heller noted that under DART, some equipment is available and she inquired
as to what other equipment was needed and how this could be combined with Fire and Police.
Lieutenant Kelly explained these volunteers would work with DART graduates; however, they
would have a different scope of duties. While DART graduates mostly deal with turning off
gas, rendering first aid, etc., the Citizens Academy graduates would focus more on
neighborhood security.
Councilmember Heller inquired whether both groups would be combined. Lieutenant Kelly
stated that both groups would be trained together to work together; however, would have
separate duties. He stated their equipment would be very similar to that used by DART.
Mayor Boro noted both the strengths of the DART and Citizens Academy classes would be
enhanced and deployed. Lieutenant Kelly noted that some were graduates of both programs
and dual -trained.
Councilmember Heller inquired as to who would be in charge of the program. Lieutenant Kelly
stated he had been working with Fire Division Chief Waterbury who is in charge of the DART
program; he, Lieutenant Kelly, for many years was in charge of the Citizens Academy
program; therefore, both groups would work together in terms of training and neighborhood
exercises, while maintaining two separate groups.
Mayor Boro reported on attending a seminar in San Francisco last week on Homeland Defense,
hosted by the Bay Area Council. He stated that the speaker at lunch, a Mr. Miller, once
Barbara Walters' co-anchor on ABC, interviewed Bin Laden live in 1998 when he talked about
what he would do to the United States.
Mayor Boro reported that Mr. Miller apparently, was a good friend of the then Commissioner of
Police in New York, and on becoming the Chief of Police in Los Angeles, he convinced Mr.
Miller to resign from his seven figure job on Madison Avenue and move to California; Mr. Miller
is now the Captain in charge of Homeland Defense for the City of Los Angeles. Mayor Boro
stated they apparently, were going all out believing they are a major target between Hollywood
and the airport, which heightened his concern. Mayor Boro stated it was difficult to talk about
this to people, being a long distance from New York; therefore, he attempts to inform people
that it is more than Homeland Defense in that it could be of a man made nature. He believed
the Citizens Academy and DART programs were applicable to any type of major disaster where
the community is cut off.
Complimenting Lieutenant Kelly on the program, Mayor Boro stated he would be happy to work
with him in an attempt to secure funding, noting he had been appointed to the U.S. Conference
of Mayors Task Force on Homeland Defense.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 11
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 12
Lieutenant Kelly stated that once funding is available, re -recruiting would take place as there
were people very eager and interested in this program.
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
14 None.
There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12003
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/06/2003 Page 12