Loading...
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