HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2004-02-17
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 AT 8:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Cyr N. Miller, Vice-Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Esther C. Beirne, Deputy City Clerk
OPEN SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBER – 7:00 PM:
Mayor Boro announced closed session item.
CLOSED SESSION – CONFERENCE ROOM 201 – 7:00 PM:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken
.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:01 PM
MTBE: 13-1 X 13-4
Bruce Bullard thanked the City Council for their support in having MTBE removed from the state’s gasoline
program and urged them to support Governor Schwarzenegger’s waiver request to prohibit oxygenated
gasoline. He indicated that this information is available on the California Air Resources Board website and
urged Council to write to President Bush requesting that he grant this waiver, based on science only, and
with expediency.
Councilmember Phillips thanked Mr. Bullard for bringing the MTBE issue to his attention.
Mr. Bullard also thanked City Manager Rod Gould for his support.
Mayor Boro requested that Mr. Gould keep the City Council apprised of the situation.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as
follows:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Call for Applications to Fill One, Four-Year Term Approved staff recommendation:
a) Called for applications for
on the San Rafael Fire Commission to the End of
appointment to fill one, four-
March, 2008, Due to Expiration of Term of
year term on the Fire
Charles I. Daniels, Jr. (Current Term to Expire
Commission to the end of
End of March, 2004) (CC) – File 9-2-5
March, 2008;
b) Set date for receipt of
applications for Tuesday,
March 9, 2004 at 12 Noon in
the City Clerk’s Office, Room
209; and
c) Set date for interviews of
applicants at a Special City
Council meeting to be held on
Monday, March 15, 2004,
commencing at 6:30 p.m.
4. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF Approved final adoption of
Ordinance No. 1820.
ORDINANCE NO. 1820 - An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of San Rafael Amending
Section 14.04.030 of the San Rafael Municipal
Code to Relocate Upper-Story Size Limitations,
Amending Section 14.25.020 to Allow for Zoning
Administrator or Public Referral of Design
Review Applications to the Design Review Board,
Amending Section 14.25.030 to Require
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page
1
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page 2
Submittal of Shadow Diagrams in Conjunction
with Design Review Applications, Amending
Section 14.25.040 to Require Zoning
Administrator Review of Applications for New
Multi-Story Homes and all Upper-Story Additions,
and Amending Section 14.25.050 to Revise
Design Review Criteria and add a Criterion
Addressing Solar Shading (CD) –
File 10-3 x 10-7 x 10-2
5. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael Approved staff recommendation:
S. 1306 The California Missions
(CM) – File 116 x 9-1
Preservations Act. (Senator Boxer) -
SUPPORT
6. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending Accepted Monthly Investment Report
for month ending December 2003, as
December 2003 (MS) – File 8-18 x 8-9
presented.
7. Resolutions Authorizing Amendments to the 1) RESOLUTION NO. 11497 –
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
ICMA-RC Deferred Compensation Plan:
ICMA DEFERRED
(MS) – File 7-4-5
COMPENSATION PLAN TO
PERMIT LOANS
1) Resolution Amending the ICMA Deferred
Compensation Plan to Permit Loans;
2) RESOLUTION NO. 11498 –
2) Resolution Amending the ICMA Deferred
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
Compensation Plan to Permit the
ICMA DEFERRED
Adoption of the Vantagecare Retirement
COMPENSATION PLAN TO
Health Savings (RHS) Program;
PERMIT THE ADOPTION OF
3) Resolution Amending the ICMA-RC
THE VANTAGECARE
Administrative Services Agreement;
RETIREMENT HEALTH
4) Resolution Amending the ICMA Deferred
SAVINGS (RHS) PROGRAM
Compensation Plan to Permit the
Adoption of a 401 Money Purchase Plan
3) RESOLUTION NO. 11499 -
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
ICMA-RC ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES AGREEMENT
4) RESOLUTION NO. 11500 –
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
ICMA DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN TO
PERMIT THE ADOPTION OF A
401 MONEY PURCHASE PLAN
8. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to RESOLUTION NO. 11501 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Continue Joint Powers Agreement for the Bay
CITY MANAGER TO CONTINUE
Area Employee Relations Service (BAERS)
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR
(MS) – File 7-1-47
THE BAY AREA EMPLOYEE
RELATIONS SERVICE (BAERS)
9. Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding RESOLUTION NO. 11502 –
RESOLUTION AWARDING
Contract to Republic Electric in the Amount of
CONTRACT TO REPUBLIC
$120,750 for Traffic Signal Management
ELECTRIC IN THE AMOUNT OF
System; STIP, Project No. 10751 (Bid Opening
$120,750.00 FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Held on Tuesday, January 20, 2004) (PW) –
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM – STIP,
File 4-1-565 x 9-3-40
PROJECT NO. 10751 (BID OPENING
HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 20,
)
2004(lowest responsible bidder)
10. Resolution Accepting a Quotation from Econolite RESOLUTION NO. 11503 –
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A SOLE-
Control Products for Purchase of Traffic Signal
SOURCE QUOTATION (PER
Cabinets and Controllers in the Amount of
SECTION 11.50.090 OF CITY
$83,719.35 and Authorizing the Director of Public
MUNICIPAL CODE) FROM
Works to Execute the Purchase Agreement (PW)
ECONOLITE CONTROL PRODUCTS
- File 4-2-331 x 9-3-40
FOR PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC
SIGNAL CABINETS AND
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page
2
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page 3
CONTROLLERS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$83,719.35 AND AUTHORIZING THE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO
EXECUTE THE PURCHASE
AGREEMENT
11. Resolution Approving a Safe Routes to Schools RESOLUTION NO. 11504 –
RESOLUTION APPROVING A SAFE
Grant Application for Traffic Calming and
ROUTES TO SCHOOLS GRANT
Information Devices at Bahia Vista and Valecito
APPLICATION AND TRAFFIC
School Areas (PW) – File 202 x 9-3-40 x 9-2-1
CALMING AND INFORMATION
DEVICES AT BAHIA VISTA AND
VALLECITO SCHOOL AREAS
12. Resolution Approving Map of Subdivision Entitled RESOLUTION NO. 11505 –
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL
“Map of Lot 16, Smith Ranch Homes” (PW) –
MAP ENTITLED “MAP OF LOT 16,
File 5-1-352
SMITH RANCH HOMES” (APNs: 155-
450-05 & 06)
13. Resolution of Appreciation to Stephanie Lovette, RESOLUTION NO. 11506 –
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
Economic Development Coordinator, Employee
STEPHANIE LOVETTE, ECONOMIC
of the Quarter Ending December, 2003 (RA) –
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR,
File 102 x 140 x 7-4
EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER
ENDING DECEMBER, 2003
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of Councilmember Heller to
take an individual voice vote:
3. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1819 - AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE
SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 14.14 CREATING AN EICHLER AND
ALLIANCE HOMES OVERLAY DISTRICT, AMENDING SECTION 14.25.040 TO REQUIRE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR ROOF MODIFICATIONS TO
EICHLER AND ALLIANCE HOMES, AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
SAN RAFAEL TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM R5 AND R7.5 TO R5-
EA AND R7.5-EA (EICHLER AND ALLIANCE HOMES COMBINING DISTRICT) (CD) –
FILE 10-3 x 10-7 x 10-2 x 9-3-85
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 approve final adoption of
Ordinance No. 1819
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SPECIAL PRESENTATION:
14. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO STEPHANIE LOVETTE,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING
DECEMBER, 2003 (RA) – FILE 102 x 140 x 7-4
Having read through the Resolution of Appreciation, Mayor Boro stated he could honestly say
he was really proud to know Stephanie, noting how much she had accomplished in her four and
a half years with the City of San Rafael. He stated the Resolution discussed the many
committees she had been involved with, including, Pickleweed Community Center Expansion
and the Canal Development team; however, he believed one of her most important
accomplishments was her work with the Girl Scouts in the Canal. Mayor Boro stated this was
very commendable and he acknowledged the contribution of Lydia Romero, Assistant to the
City Manager, working together with Stephanie with the Girl Scouts.
Mayor Boro stated that Stephanie was an exemplary employee and he expressed pride in the
work she does for the City, noting she would be eligible to compete for the Employee of the
Year at the annual State of the City Dinner. He congratulated and thanked Stephanie.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page
3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page 4
Expressing thanks to the City Council, Stephanie Lovette stated they were wonderful to work
with. She thanked City Manager Rod Gould and Economic Development Director Nancy
Mackle for providing the tools to do good work, and also Lydia Romero for her assistance with
the Girl Scouts.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
15. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS); CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO: 1) CONSOLIDATE THE
NOTICING PROVISIONS IN ONE CHAPTER; 2) PROVIDE A CONSISTENT REQUIREMENT
FOR NOTICING RADIUS; 3) INCREASE THE NOTICE TIME FRAME FROM 10 TO 15 DAYS;
AND 4) MODIFY THE POSTING REQUIREMENTS (CD) – FILE 10-3 x 10-2 x 10-6
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Principal Planner Kristie Wheeler stated that in June 2003, Council directed staff to begin the
process of studying the City’s noticing requirements following several meetings where members
of the public expressed concern, primarily for the Keaton crematorium. Although the City had
approved Use Permit and Design Review Permit applications for the crematorium, Ms. Wheeler
stated that many of the neighboring residents and property owners were unaware of the
proposal until they received a notice from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. She
indicated that this notice was mailed to property owners and residents within 1,000 feet of
Keatons and provided greater notification than the City’s requirements. Consistent with the
City’s noticing requirements, Ms. Wheeler stated notices were sent to property owners within
300 feet of Keatons.
Reporting that in November, 2003, the Planning Commission held a study session and
discussed some possible revisions to the noticing requirements, Ms. Wheeler stated that at that
meeting they provided staff with a few recommendations, some of which staff put forward for
implementation. She indicated that those recommendations included providing a public notice
to non-owner occupants, residents and commercial tenants, increasing the noticing radius from
300 to 600 feet, mailing notices twenty days prior to hearings rather than ten, and posting
property more efficiently. Ms. Wheeler stated the Planning Commission also suggested that
whatever noticing revisions were brought forward be revenue neutral.
Subsequent to the November study session, Ms. Wheeler stated staff evaluated some of these
suggestions and on January 22, 2004 presented their proposed changes to the noticing
requirements. In summary, she stated that the Planning Commission did recommend staff’s
proposed provisions to the City Council.
Ms. Wheeler stated that the first proposal was to consolidate all noticing requirements in one
section of the zoning ordinance rather than having them throughout the code, and the other was
to increase the noticing timeframe from ten to fifteen days. She reported that staff also
proposed providing a more consistent requirement for noticing radius. Explaining, she stated
that the zoning ordinance currently requires different noticing radii for different types of land use
permits. For example, a Design Review Permit that goes to the Planning Commission is
noticed to property owners within 300 feet; however, a Design Review Permit that is heard by
the Zoning Administrator is noticed to property owners within 100 feet. Ms. Wheeler indicated
that Design Review Board meetings do not necessarily require a notice, although they are often
noticed.
Ms. Wheeler stated staff proposed that all Design Review Board meetings, Planning
Commission meetings, Zoning Administrator and City Council meetings be noticed to property
owners within 300 feet for all types of land use permits, so there would not be a difference
between any of them.
Ms. Wheeler noted that the City Council’s recent adoption of changes to the City’s design
review requirements dealing with second story additions also incorporated a change to bump
up the level of review. She explained that originally, second story additions were reviewed at
the administrative level; however, they would now be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and
possibly, the Design Review Board; therefore, those second story additions would receive the
300 foot radius noticing.
Reporting that probably the most significant proposal from staff with regard to noticing
requirements was to improve the method of posting properties, Ms. Wheeler explained that
currently, the Zoning Ordinance includes a provision that requires posting; however,
unfortunately, over the past five or six years, that posting requirement had not been
implemented simply because of the ineffective way it is written out.
Indicating that posting would be required for a variety of different types of applications but not
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page
4
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page 5
all, Ms. Wheeler specified these to be Planned Developments, Rezonings, General Plan
Amendments, Tentative Maps, Variances, Use Permits, which involve new construction, and
Environmental and Design Review Permits involving development of a vacant lot, or the
addition of building area on an existing developed property.
As proposed, Ms. Wheeler stated the public hearing notification sign, similar in appearance to a
real estate sign, would be posted on the subject property and would include a notice that
provides information about the project, the public hearing body, date, location and time of the
public hearing, and who to contact should they require additional information. She indicated
that the sign would also have a small plexiglass box containing copies of a notice they could
physically take with them.
Regarding the Planning Commission’s initial recommendation to increase the noticing radius to
600 feet and to notify non-owner occupants, Ms. Wheeler stated staff did not propose this
change, primarily due to concern about the increase in staff time involved in preparing and
mailing the additional notices, and also the expense, primarily postage. She stated that while it
could be possible to capture the additional expense through an increase in application fees, the
additional staff time could not be captured. Ms. Wheeler explained that currently, there is one
fulltime and one three-quarters time clerk who serve twenty-five staff members in the three
divisions of the Community Development Department.
Instead, Ms. Wheeler stated staff decided to focus attention a little more on improving the
posting in the belief that it would vastly improve neighborhood notification of property owners
beyond 300 feet as well as residents. Ms. Wheeler stated that staff respectfully requested the
Planning Commission to afford them the opportunity to use this as an initial step to improve
noticing and then revisit noticing non-owner occupants and a greater noticing radius should it
be found that the posting requirements were ineffective. She indicated that the Planning
Commission agreed, believing the 300-foot radius to be adequate and a good first step, and it
could be revisited should it prove to be ineffective.
Ms. Wheeler reported that Commissioner Alden was the exception to this in that he did not
recommend approval believing that non-owner occupants should receive a notice. She
indicated he was not as much concerned with the noticing radius as with the non-owner
occupants.
Indicating that Community Development Director Bob Brown had presented a prototype sign,
manufactured by West Coast Signworks, Ms. Wheeler stated this sign when installed would be
approximately 3 feet tall, which was a concern for the Planning Commission in that perhaps it
would not be sufficiently visible. Pursuant to discussions with the sign company, Ms. Wheeler
reported they had been unable to locate a pre-manufactured sign frame that would be taller;
however, staff ascertained they could use metal posts and attach the sign itself to the posts. To
make the sign more sturdy however, a different type of material would be necessary; therefore,
the cost would increase by approximately $25 per sign.
Ms. Wheeler stated staff anticipated having approximately 20 signs on hand which would result
in an additional $500 to manufacture. The sign with the increased height in the posts would be
approximately 4½ feet once installed in the ground, the posts being 6 feet and in the ground 1½
feet. She indicated it would look somewhat similar to the sign displayed in the Council
Chamber this evening, albeit a little taller.
Indicating she did not include an estimate in the staff report to reproduce the white part of the
affixed notice, Ms. Wheeler stated they would be approximately $6.85 each. They are of fairly
durable material so they would withstand weather and would have a double stick tape on the
back for easy placement and removal.
Ms. Wheeler reported that staff proposed to include an application surcharge to cover the initial
expense of manufacturing the signs, their ongoing maintenance and printing of notices.
As the signs are somewhat awkward, Ms. Wheeler stated staff was considering contracting with
a company that installs real estate signs, and at approximately $60 per sign, they could be
installed should the applicant so choose. She indicated that the Community Development
Department did not have a vehicle to transport such a sign, and this expense would also be
passed on to applicants.
To go to a 600-foot radius, Councilmember Phillips inquired as to how many projects/notices
there were on an annual basis.
Based on the Zoning Administrator, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission, Ms.
Wheeler stated staff sends approximately five notices per week and her estimate was that an
additional six hours per week would be added to do the noticing.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page
5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page 6
In terms of staff expense, Community Development Director Bob Brown estimated this would
be approximately an additional $250; however, should current staff be unable to accommodate
the additional time, which he did not believe they could, it would be necessary to bring in
temporary help on something that had a very tight deadline, and in that sense he had greater
concerns than the cost.
Setting the personnel issue aside, Councilmember Phillips confirmed this to be $250 per week
with most of the additional cost being passed on. In satisfying the personnel issue, he inquired
whether these costs could be passed on also.
Mr. Brown stated they could and explained that essentially, the number of notices would
quadruple; therefore, the cost would quadruple, and this could be incorporated into the
application fees.
Ms. Wheeler stated she believed Mr. Brown’s primary concern was the lack of bodies to do the
work.
Understanding this, Councilmember Phillips stated he was concerned that the radius had been
a problem and he was not totally accepting that the sign, which he believed would improve the
situation, satisfied his concerns and those expressed during the campaign and at other times
about the noticing process. Based on input, etc., he indicated he needed to ponder the merits
of 300 feet versus what appeared to be a better solution, 600 feet.
Councilmember Heller inquired whether Keatons was noticed to 100 or 300 feet. Mr. Brown
stated it was noticed to 300 feet; however, the difficulty was that the City sent out a 300-foot
notice and the State sent out a 1,000-foot notice. She confirmed with Mr. Brown that from the
300-foot noticing, two inquiries were received.
Regarding the posting requirements, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether under these
regulations, Keatons would have been required to post a sign, to which Ms. Wheeler responded
affirmatively.
Regarding the issue of notification of non-owner occupants, Councilmember Cohen stated he
believed the situation existed where a lot of people could not afford to purchase homes in this
community and there were long term lease holders or renters who were legitimately impacted
by some of the decisions made by Council. Having just seen another demonstration of the
City’s mapping program, he believed that generating a set of labels addressed to occupant at
all the affected addresses did not appear to be that complicated. He inquired as to the staff
burden involved and whether alternative methods had been considered to address this.
Mr. Brown stated that essentially, it would double the number of notices, which was a staffing
issue; however, to relate an experience from another city with a similar situation, he indicated
the City did not have the technological capabilities presently with the noticing program to
perform a sort, i.e., locate those properties that have an absentee owner and generate an
occupant label. Rather, San Rafael would have to generate occupant labels for every property;
therefore, every property with an owner in residence would get one occupant label and one
owner label. In this other city, Mr. Brown stated he received far more complaints, as did the
Planning Commission at hearings, to the effect that paper was being wasted and the noticing
was too aggressive.
Ms. Wheeler stated she had provided a table, page 4, in the Planning Commission staff report
that compared the number of notices that would be mailed by just noticing property owners
within 300 feet and property owners and residents within 600 feet. She explained she took
example projects: Marin Academy, a larger project and a small residential property. For Marin
Academy, Ms. Wheeler stated they went from 112 notices for the 300-foot radius, to 854 for the
600-foot property owner and residents. She stated it takes 19 minutes to affix labels to those
112 notices and 2 hours 22 minutes for the greater notice; therefore, the clerks estimated it
would take approximately five minutes to affix a sheet of labels on the notices.
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated it was staff’s belief, and the Planning
Commission agreed, that it was at least worthwhile trying a more obvious posting provision.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Referring to the comment that not all types of applications would be posted, he inquired as to
those that would not.
Ms. Wheeler explained this could be a Use Permit that did not require any physical change to
the property, i.e., a change in use from retail to perhaps a restaurant in a zoning district
requiring a Use Permit for that type of use. She indicated that health clubs require a Use
Permit; there had been several over the past couple of years, and she confirmed for Mayor
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page
6
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page 7
Boro that home occupancy did not require noticing.
Noting there could be hearings before the Zoning Administrator, the Design Review Board and
then the Planning Commission, Mayor Boro inquired whether each one would require noticing
and posting resulting in the sign being displayed for a prolonged period of time.
Ms. Wheeler explained that the proposed posting would be fifteen days prior to each public
hearing; therefore, with multiple meetings, the sign could be at the location for some time;
however, not for the duration of the application processing.
Noting it was a lot different from what he had envisioned, based on what he thought, not what
he was told, Mayor Boro inquired as to posting on a commercial building downtown, indicating
he was trying to understand why something more common such as a real estate sign could not
be utilized.
Indicating this was a real estate type frame, Ms. Wheeler stated that at the study session she
presented a number of examples from other communities of signs she found posted. Most
cities, and those for whom she had worked, typically would take the 8 ½ x 11 or 8 ½ 14 notice,
staple it to a wooden stake and put it in the ground. She reported having found one in San Luis
Obispo recently in the gutter in front of a property where the public hearing had taken place
some two – three months prior, and while this was not a very good example of how to post a
property, it is how properties are typically posted. She noted that in Santa Rosa the opposite
pertains where a very large billboard is used. Ms. Wheeler stated the sign on display was
durable, would stand out and would be noticed without being too ostentatious and expensive;
however, staff was open to ideas and suggestions.
Mayor Boro inquired as to procedure in the event of no lawn, such as Fourth Street. Ms.
Wheeler stated staff proposed to have just the white notice posted in a window or other
prominent location.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would be willing to see whether or not lots of criticism was
received regarding duplicate notices. Also, he wondered whether there could be a way to use
technology to sort out owner/occupants and who were not, noting the exponential impact arose
from going to 600 from 300. He explained that going from mailing one notice per property to
two, i.e., labels for addresses and a list of labels for property owners, would entail 38 minutes
for a large project and 14 minutes for a small project, which did not appear overly burdensome
and was worth it to include tenants in the notification process.
Mr. Brown stated it would be more than a doubling, as in buildings such as apartment buildings,
one would be generated for each apartment, and the same held true for office buildings where
there were multiple tenants.
Concerning commercial properties and with respect to the Keatons issue, Councilmember
Cohen stated he learned that the people operating businesses were not necessarily the
owners, and they were not necessarily notified by their landlord, yet they felt potentially
impacted; therefore, he believed commercial notification could be evaluated.
City Manager Rod Gould stated that sending notices to occupants raised problems with postal
delivery, especially in apartment buildings where they are bundled and thrown in a tray or on
the floor in the front lobby and they never reach the occupants. He was unsure, therefore, how
effective notifying all the occupants would be, especially of multi-unit apartment complexes.
Councilmember Miller stated he had a philosophical problem with this in that it was
disrespectful to the resident, the person living there, and he believed residents demanded even
greater respect than owners.
Mr. Gould stated he was simply making the practical argument that sending notices to
occupants did not necessarily mean they would be received.
Councilmember Miller stated the City needed to consider its role and should the U.S. Mail
Service fail to deliver, this should not be construed as a lack of respect on the City's part for the
residents and occupants of those buildings.
Concurring with the sentiment and principle espoused by Councilmember Miller, Mr. Gould
stated that while it was not always possible to count on the post office or resident owners or
occupants to open their mail, one thing that could be counted on in San Rafael and Marin is that
people are acutely aware of any change in their physical environment. He indicated that when
a sign that big was located in front of anyone’s place of business or home, it would attract
attention from owners, occupants, passersby, all kinds of people would stop to find out what
was going on. Mr. Gould stated it was his opinion that type of signage would peak the interest
of the entire public and would do a far better job of getting the word out as to what was being
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page
7
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page 8
considered and when they would be heard than any noticing requirements currently under
discussion.
Councilmember Heller stated that when she first saw the Planning Commission suggestions
she was quite alarmed, seeing only dollar signs. She noted that no members of the public
attended the meeting when the item was before the Planning Commission, as was the situation
this evening on this particular item. She suggested that perhaps some language could be
inserted to the effect that should the Community Development Director believe a wider casting
of notices was necessary, this could be done, and she commented that affixing labels for over
two hours would not be conducive to retaining staff. Furthermore, she did not believe the City
could afford to hire someone to affix labels all day.
Councilmember Heller believed the City did not have the technology at this time to conduct a
sort of this nature; therefore, double labeling was necessary. She concurred with staff and
believed the sign would attract a lot of public not seen heretofore.
Councilmember Phillips believed it appeared as though some of these costs could be passed
on; therefore, the budget was a red herring. He recalled the hearing where comments were
made with regard to the noticing process and it being perceived as inadequate. He did not
believe the change suggested was adequate in that the radius and non-owner occupant had not
been increased and the sign may or may not be noticed. Councilmember Phillips indicated he
was not satisfied this would fulfill the demands placed upon the City with regard to the noticing
process to avoid some of the issues of the past.
While appreciating the staff report, Councilmember Phillips stated he was not willing to accept a
lower standard, based on his experience and the feedback he had received.
Mayor Boro stated he had a discussion with Mr. Gould and Mr. Brown this afternoon and having
read the staff report, he interpreted the first page as being the recommendation; however, from
the subsequent page he learned it was not. He noted the staff report indicated that 300 feet did
not get anyone out and 1,000 feet got an army out; however, staff suggested it was not
necessary to go beyond 300 feet to notice people and gain attention, rather with 300 feet and a
sign, the rest would be noticed, and this was the question for Council.
Understanding the comments concerning costs and Councilmember Phillips’ comments about
pass through, Mayor Boro stated he was unsure whether he was ready to go forward this
evening and he did not favor a 3:2 vote. He believed the sense of the City Council was that
they would like to pursue a little more in depth the issue of resident versus owner.
Mayor Boro believed Council could accept staff’s premise on a trial basis that the radius would
be complemented by the sign. He believed that whatever is done should work well and within
reason, with no failure occurring because something a little different should have been done.
He suggested that staff re-evaluate the resident issue and investigate technology in an attempt
to avoid duplicate noticing. Agreeing with Messrs. Gould and Brown, he believed people would
not appreciate receiving two notices, especially at this time of fiscal uncertainty. On the other
hand, Mayor Boro agreed there was an obligation to notify non-owner residents living in a
particular location to afford them the same courtesy as an owner. He believed the argument
would be that the sign would do it; however, he suggested ascertaining whether there was a
way to notice the resident.
Regarding the sign, Mayor Boro stated he did not recall seeing a similar real estate sign. (Ms.
Wheeler noted it was used by Century 21). He indicated that he liked the box containing a
description of the project.
Ms. Wheeler inquired as to the height of the sign, indicating it would be sturdier than a taller
one. She stated the sign company would create a frame without crossbars, which would not be
quite so sturdy.
Councilmember Cohen indicated that the height was fine, rather the issue would be placement.
In the event the applicant placed the sign, he stated staff would need to ensure it was not
located in an obstructed area, which could happen regardless of height. To go to six or eight
feet would ensure its visibility over parked cars; however, he did not believe another foot or two
would make a difference. Councilmember Cohen stated that in purchasing a group of these,
they should last, and having a solid frame was probably worth more than additional height.
Should this item be continued, Councilmember Cohen stated he would like staff to work a little
more on the issue of posting commercial buildings. He indicated his concern was that merely
putting the white notice in the window did not render it immediately distinguishable from any
other type of notice; therefore, he favored something such as a poster board indicating “Notice
of Public Hearing” in large type.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page
8
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page 9
Concurring with most of Mayor Boro’s comments, Councilmember Phillips indicated he did not
agree with regard to the radius. He gave the example of Drake Dawson and the Eichler issue,
where 300 feet would not have included him; albeit it was just diagonally across the street. He
believed mailing out more notices was a plus and did not think 600 feet was beyond immediacy;
therefore, he was not satisfied with 300 feet as being the radius. He considered it shortsighted
to assume something had changed with the sign that people may or may not notice. With the
feedback received, he believed more people in the immediate neighborhood should be
informed.
In referring this item back, Councilmember Cohen requested that staff evaluate technology,
principally some of the data issues to ascertain whether it was possible to identify
owner/occupants. The other issue was to investigate whether there was an alternative to peel
and stick labels. Noting Council recently approved changes to how printing is handled by the
City, he reported his office has a network printer with an envelope feeder which takes care of
mailings and is considerably faster than peel and stick labels. He requested staff investigate
such technology and report back.
Councilmember Heller inquired whether it would be beneficial to use a mail house and Ms.
Wheeler indicated she did not have such experience. Councilmember Heller did not favor
physical labeling and suggested evaluating printer capabilities and the use of a mail house.
Recapping, Mayor Boro requested that staff further evaluate the following:
Noticing residents;
Radius of 600 feet versus 300 feet, suggesting perhaps 450 feet, with some estimates
on potential costs;
Alternate official sign for display in a building window;
Technologies for mailing, other than the use of labels
Mayor Boro expressed appreciation to Mr. Gould and Mr. Brown for their efforts; however, he
wanted to ensure that whatever is done is done well and is effective. Mailing radius and
whether to notify owners or just residents was a call that would have to be made.
Item continued to a future date (uncertain).
16. Public Hearing – 515 NORTHGATE DRIVE (ALMA VIA ASSISTED CARE FACILITY);
REQUESTS FOR A REZONING FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) TO A
REVISED PD DISTRICT; AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
AMENDMENT AND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 137-UNIT ASSISTED CARE FACILITY, WHICH WOULD
RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF 7 UNITS, 16 PARKING SPACES AND EXTERIOR
MODIFICATIONS TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS; APNS:
175-060-51, 52, 53 AND 54; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD 1784) DISTRICT; FAITH
LUTHERAN CHURCH, OWNER; ELDER CARE ALLIANCE, APPLICANT; FILE NOS.: ZC03-
005, ED03-086, AND UP03-061 (CD) – FILE 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Associate Planner Micah Hinkle stated this was a reduction in the previously approved 137-unit
assisted living facility at 515 Northgate Drive. Indicating the project was returned due to cost
constraints, he explained the applicant proposed to eliminate the previously approved
basement garage, triggering the elimination of approximately 13,000 square feet and 7 units of
the previously approved dementia wing, in order to provide 13 additional parking spaces on the
rear parking lot.
Mr. Hinkle reported that the Design Review Board reviewed and recommended approval of the
project on December 16, 2003, and the Planning Commission recommended its approval on
January 22, 2004.
Mr. Hinkle explained the project applications included an Environmental and Design Review
Permit and Use Permit for the changes, and also a zone change to amend the Alma Via
Planned Development District parking standards. He indicated that the original parking
standards specified 60 spaces; however, the project would provide less than that.
Regarding planning issues, Mr. Hinkle stated that parking had been the primary concern for the
project. He indicated that a revised parking study was presented which basically stated that 40
parking spaces would be adequate for the proposed reduction in the project and the applicant
was proposing 44. Having reviewed the revised parking study, the traffic engineer determined
that 44 spaces would be adequate. In addition, Mr. Hinkle reported the applicant had agreed
to Condition of Approval #15 of the Use Permit, which would require the applicant to reduce
parking demand should it be found inadequate.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page
9
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page 10
Mr. Hinkle indicated the applicant was present this evening should there be questions.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Mayor Boro requested an explanation of how the project went from 60 to 44 parking spaces.
Mr. Hinkle reported that the original project proposed 60, which was over parked by the parking
requirements at the time (44 spaces were required). He indicated that the parking demand for
this type of use is not very high, as assisted care residents typically do not drive; therefore,
primarily, most parking would be utilized by staff. Should a situation arise where staff-parking
demand was higher, a TSM (Transportation System Management) program could be
implemented and there also is some landscaping reserved for two or three spaces.
Mr. Brown noted that the Aegis Retirement facility was one used as an example in the parking
study, and Mr. Hinkle called the manager to confirm the adequacy of their parking. The
response was that only on, for example, holiday luncheons where a lot of family attends on one
particular day in the year, would a problem arise with exceeding the parking. In this case, he
indicated there was on-street parking, together with the shopping center across the street.
Although these situations would be extremely rare, Mr. Brown believed there were alternatives
to parking on-site.
a) The title of the ordinance was read:
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD1784) DISTRICT
TO A REVISED PD DISTRICT FOR THE ALMA VIA OF SAN RAFAEL ASSISTED
LIVING FACILITY AT 515 NORTHGATE DRIVE (APNs: 175-061-51, 52, 53 AND 54)
(ZC03-005)”
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the
Charter
reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass
Ordinance No. 1821
to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
b) Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 11507 – RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL
AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AMENDMENT (ED03-
086) AND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (UP03-061) FOR
A 130-UNIT, 107,000 SQUARE-FOOT ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITY (ALMA VIA OF SAN RAFAEL) AT 515
NORTHGATE DRIVE (APNs: 175-060-51, 52, 53 AND
54)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
17. None.
There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
____________________________
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS ______ DAY OF __________, 2004
___________________________________
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/17/2004 Page
10