Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2004-10-04SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Pagel IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2004 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 SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None PRESENTATION BY ST. VINCENT DE PAUL SOCIETY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF MARIN COUNTY OF THE SR. ROSALIE AWARD TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (CM) — FILE 9-2-49 x 102 Explaining the award, Steve Boyer, Executive Director, St. Vincent de Paul Society, stated that when Frederic Ozanam first started the St. Vincent de Paul Society he was a rich kid. He was a law student at the Sorbonne University in Paris, his father was a doctor and he did not know any poor people. Mr. Boyer reported that when he chose to gather with other students to start the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, he went to a Daughter of Charity (St. Vincent had started the Daughters of Charity back in the 1600s) who taught him about the poor and she supported him. Regarding the Sister Rosalie Award, he stated the City supported the St. Vincent de Paul Society in their mission and work, especially when they had to move out of their dining room to provide their service from another building across the street. Mr. Boyer stated that staff, especially Joe Curley, assisted the contractor in making all the deadline dates necessary to get everything done, which they appreciated. He noted City Manager Rod Gould and Nancy Mackle, Economic Development Director were also very helpful, for which he wished to express the thanks of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Mayor Boro reported that this award was presented to the City at the recent St. Vincent de Paul Society dinner; however, as there was a conflict with a retirement dinner for the former Chief of Police, Jane Lange, Falkirk Director, accepted the award on behalf of the City. He believed it important that Mr. Boyer have the opportunity to formally present the award. Stating it was much appreciated, on behalf of the City, Mayor Boro wished the St. Vincent de Paul Society much luck and success in continuing the great work they do in San Rafael. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:04 PM None CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, September 20, 2004 (CC) 2. Call for Applications to Fill Two, Four-year Terms on the Park & Recreation Commission Due to Expiration of Terms of Commissioners Mark Lubamersky and Patrick J. Webb (Terms Expiring End of October, 2004) (CC) — File 9-2-4 RECOMMENDED ACTION Minutes approved as submitted. ADDroved staff recommendation: a) Called for applications to fill two, four-year terms on the San Rafael Park and Recreation Commission, to expire the end of October, 2008; SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 1 3. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1830 — An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael Repealing Chapter 2.10 of the San Rafael Municipal Code and Enacting a New Chapter 2.10 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, to Provide a Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to Government Code Section 87300 (CA/CC) — File 9-4-3 4. Resolution Approving One -Year Extension to Right -of -Use Agreement with Signature Properties for Use of Oakhill Open Space to Implement a Native Grassland Enhancement Program (APNs 175-060-18 and 19) (CD) — File 4-10-333 x 13-14.1 x 10-7 x 4-3-380 5. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) —File 116 x 9-1 6. Resolution Authorizing Purchase of State Homeland Security and Domestic Preparedness Supplies and Equipment, and Approving Waiver of Competitive Bidding for Such Purchases (FD) —File 9-3-31 7. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending July 2004 (MS) — File 8-18 x 8-9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 2 b) Set deadline for receipt of applications for Tuesday, October 26, 2004 at 12 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, City Hall; and c) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, November 1, 2004, commencing at 6:30 p.m. Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1830. RESOLUTION NO. 11642 — RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN EXTENSION TO A RIGHT -OF -USE AGREEMENT WITH SIGNATURE PROPERTIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A NATIVE GRASSLAND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM ON OAKHILL CITY OPEN SPACE Accepted report. RESOLUTION NO. 11643— RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF STATE HOMELAND SECURITY AND DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT, AND APPROVING WAIVER OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR SUCH PURCHASES Accepted Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending July 2004, as presented. 8. Resolution Authorizing Use of the Supplemental RESOLUTION NO. 11644 — Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) in the RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF Amount of $100,000 to Fund Overtime for STATE COPS PROGRAM Community Oriented Policing for Fiscal Year SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES FUNDS 2004-2005 (PD) — File 9-3-30 IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING 9. Resolution of Intention to Establish a Rule 20B RESOLUTION NO. 11645 — Underground Utility District on Medway Road, RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC Between Francisco Boulevard East and Canal HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER Street, and Setting a Public Hearing (PW) — PUBLIC NECESSITY, HEALTH, File 12-18-15 x 12-18 SAFETY, OR WELFARE REQUIRES THE FORMATION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT ON MEDWAY ROAD BETWEEN FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST AND CANAL STREET 10. Resolution Approving a Condominium Map of RESOLUTION NO. 11646 — Subdivision Entitled "Parcel Map of 1515 Lincoln RESOLUTION APPROVING A Avenue" (PW) — File 5-1-355 PARCEL MAP ENTITLED "PARCEL MAP OF 1515 LINCOLN AVENUE" (APN 011-092-25) SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 11 Public Hearing — DRAFT SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 POLICIES AND PROGRAMS PERTAINING TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT; APN: CITYWIDE AND SAN RAFAEL PLANNING AREA; CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, APPLICANT. FILE NO. GPA 03-002 (CD) — FILE 115 (2020) Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Linda Jackson, Principal Planner, recognized Jeffery Baird, consultant for the Housing Element, who had been involved for the duration in preparing this very important part of the General Plan. Ms. Jackson reported that when work started on the General Plan, the Steering Committee conducted an Issues Identification Exercise, two of which were discussed at the Special Meeting on September 28. Another top planning issue related to affordable housing, which is an issue in the City of San Rafael. Ms. Jackson stated that in a way the City is benefited by a state law which requires cities to plan for affordable housing, requires regional agencies to give local jurisdictions a number to plan for, and requirements needed to demonstrate planning capacity for those units. Regarding the regional housing need supplied by ABAG (Association for Bay Area Governments), Ms. Jackson reported that San Rafael's regional housing need for the time period of 1999 — 2007 is 2,090 units. Approximately half of these units have already been built, are under review or pending application. By state law, the City needs to demonstrate the planning capacity for the remaining units, approximately 1,000, and this is specified in the Draft General Plan - pages 373 — 378. Ms. Jackson reported that the state has a number of requirements for housing background information and rather than include those in the Housing Element directly, they are attached as new Appendix B to the Draft General Plan 2020. Indicating that the Steering Committee conducted a very open and deliberate search for housing sites throughout the City, Ms. Jackson stated this included a survey conducted during the spring of community groups of 36 sites, inviting feedback as to their appropriateness for housing. A Community Design Charette was also hosted, looking at six specific areas in the City to discuss the potential for housing. She reported that this work culminated in a list (page 375 Draft General Plan) and demonstrates the capacity within the City for new units to meet the housing need. Ms. Jackson indicated state law requires that the Housing Element be reviewed by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Comments were received that the housing sites needed more description, and this was the underlined text in Appendix B on pages 375-378. She noted that this information goes into much more detail than included initially and explains why these sites are available and could accommodate the housing. Reporting that the most current draft had been forwarded to the reviewer for a final check, Ms. Jackson indicated that staff anticipated receiving her comments soon and submitting them to Council prior to adoption of the General Plan. Ms. Jackson noted that Policy H-19 includes the Housing In -Lieu fee and details regarding the one to four single-family homes, etc., might be better considered when discussing the zoning ordinance at the public hearing to follow. Elissa Giambastiani, President, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated that the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce and Marin Consortium for Workforce Housing had long been supporters of San Rafael's efforts to create affordable housing in the community. They had supported a number of components of the Draft Housing Element, including encouraging mixed-use development by permitting housing in the City's commercial areas, and supporting the increased inclusionary housing requirement that would require affordable housing units, land dedication or mitigation fees for every home built in San Rafael that is larger than 1,800 square - feet. She indicated they had even supported the jobs/housing linkage ordinance because it proposed a reasonable fee that would not be so onerous as to stop housing development. Indicating that they had problems with two components of the Draft Housing Element, Ms. Giambastiani stated they were extremely concerned about the effect of the proposed increase in traffic mitigation fees on housing development, and believed that the list of proposed housing SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 4 sites might not be adequate to meet the regional housing need Ms. Giambastiani stated that the traffic mitigation fee proposed by staff is so large that they believe it would be an impediment to future housing development. Using the Loch Lomond proposal as an example, she noted that should there be only 1.7 new trips per unit, including AM and PM trips as proposed by staff, for 99 units at $9,610 per trip, the mitigation fee would be $1.6 million. They believed this number is so enormous that it would preclude any new housing development there. She stated that even a 10 -unit project downtown with a net increase of two trips per unit per day would be expected to pay $156,800 on top of the 10% inclusionary housing requirement. Aware that HCD had questioned whether or not the sites included in the Draft General Plan were truly available for new housing, Ms. Giambastiani stated they had the same question. She indicated they were unsure whether the number of units indicated in the Element could actually be built during the time period. Because the City had eliminated the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties, Ms. Giambastiani stated the regional housing need would have to be met on smaller, infill sites, many of which would have great neighborhood opposition, like Loch Lomond; two of the sites, in particular, are questionable due to the Highway 101 expansion. Should the Lincoln Avenue site be owned by CalTrans, they would prohibit anything being done with it until the highway expansion is completed, hopefully in 2008. She indicated that even more issues complicated the Marin County Civic Center site because of the requirement for voter approval of new development, and she believed North San Rafael would not approve of anything there. Ms. Giambastiani believed that estimating 100 units per year in downtown and 34 new second units per year was quite optimistic. Development using "air rights" is expensive and the parking requirements become problematic. She stated they were also aware that smaller sites were less likely to be able to provide units for very low and low-income residents, and less likely to be feasible for competitive funding. Indicating they were aware, perhaps more than most constituents, of the problems encountered in creating additional affordable housing, Ms. Giambastiani offered some suggestions regarding the certification of the Housing Element: 1) Staff should review the original list of potential housing opportunity sites (there were approximately 150) to see whether circumstances had changed during the past two years that would make any of them more appropriate for development; 2) Analyze the impacts of the traffic mitigation fees to ascertain how great an impact they would have on the creation of additional housing; 3) Look again at height bonuses — they may be insufficient to accommodate new housing developments. Mixed-use housing could be a greater source of new housing units should height bonuses be sufficient and traffic mitigation fees reasonable. Ms. Giambastiani suggested discussing this issue with Stephanie Lovette, Economic Development Coordinator; 4) Keep the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties within the City's sphere of influence. Even if the units could not be built during the 2007 time frame, it is possible for the development process to begin by then. Ms. Giambastiani expressed appreciation for the City's efforts to create more workforce housing and indicated they were always available to meet with staff or Council to assist. Nina Lilienthal -Murphy, President, Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association, having listened to the comments from the Chamber of Commerce, indicated she would like to see them walk through her neighborhood to check out the density and diversity. She stated it appeared as though through this General Plan, the majority of infill, affordable housing was going to the most dense neighborhoods, including hers. Reiterating that her neighborhood was one of the most diverse, Ms. Murphy stated that personally she thrived on diversity. She believed the majority present this evening lived in an all -white neighborhood; the City needed to be mixed up a little more, looking at the broader picture instead of one or two neighborhoods, which did not work. Referring to a building on the corner of Mission and Lincoln with approximately 30 affordable units, Ms. Murphy reported it had been brought to her attention that these were to be removed and replaced with 37 condominiums. Indicating that 20% had to be affordable, she stated this would be 8 at the most, and again, this did not work for anyone. She believed this apartment building needed to be kept affordable for those who could walk to work. It should be in the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 5 General Plan and should remain intact. Reminding Council she was the messenger for the neighborhood association, Ms. Murphy stated she hears consistently that residents do not want another condominium building that no one could afford. Noting the Macy's building and parking garage structure were stacked way high, she questioned whether this was setting a precedent for downtown. She believed it was a wrong assumption that everyone would walk rather than drive. Redwood Village having 133 units, she believed there would be 266 extra cars passing through her area. Wishing to continue to remain diverse and affordable, Ms. Murphy stated they liked their neighborhood as it is and did not need any more affordable housing. Regarding Brookdale, she stated that demolishing houses and replacing them with more density would not work. They would like to proceed with CalTrans' plan to erect the sound absorbing material on the west side of the railroad track, then a promenade in a park -like setting with a bike and pedestrian paths, leaving the remainder open. (Draft General Plan page 35, Exhibit 9, and page 64 — H-21 and 22). She disagreed with the removal of affordable housing to be replaced with condominiums, which no one could afford, especially those in the service industries, who had to come from out of town. Now that AB 2702 had failed, Ms. Murphy stated neighborhoods would be vigilant in enforcing the ordinance that was formulated for second units. She indicated that the removal of affordable housing did not make sense. Diversity thrives and all could learn from each other, given a chance. Mary McEachron, Attorney, representing San Rafael Marina, LLC, stated that the staff report noted the state requires the City to demonstrate that the Draft General Plan has no constraints on development of needed housing. She respectfully suggested there could be two constraints which are structurally included in the Draft General Plan: 1) The Project Selection Process would be considered tomorrow evening; therefore, she would not address it at length. She indicated that the criteria may make it impossible for a residential project to compete in a contested beauty contest, and may need to be reviewed; and 2) In addition to joining in the Chamber of Commerce's comments, she noted that the imposition of fees by the City on affordable housing itself has a dramatic impact on the affordability of all housing in San Rafael. Producing a chart, Ms. McEachron stated it compared General Plan 2000 to General Plan 2020 in terms of the cost per market rate unit of subsidizing affordable housing. Noting the City's percentage requirement for affordable housing was increasing, she stated it was increasing from 11 % to 25%. Nominally, it is 20%; however, the reality was that every four units required another unit. There are now only four units to support every subsidized unit, whereas there used be nine. Assuming the actual out of pocket cost to the developer for building an affordable unit was $100,000, Ms. McEachron stated that under General Plan 2020, the subsidy for each of those market rate units of that subsidized unit was $25,000, and at this point she believed this was almost beyond discussion. Regarding Traffic Impact Fees, Ms. McEachron stated that per home, these fees were tripling. She explained that between the recommended alternative in the Draft General Plan 2020 and General Plan 2000, the Traffic Impact Fees were tripling and market rate homes were subsidizing this for the affordable homes. She indicated that for the average below market rate unit in this scenario where the subsidy is only $100,000, the cost of each market rate unit to the new market rate homeowner was increasing two and a half times, up to $37,000. Explaining the problem with this, Ms. McEachron stated that the $37,000 is the addition to the cost of a market rate home which is not a starter castle. Should this discussion involve million dollar starter castles, she believed no one would lose any sleep over adding $37,000 to the price. In this instance the subsidy of $100,000 related to a small 1,500 square -foot unit, the type of affordable by design units Loch Lomond sought to provide; however, to provide affordable by design, adding an extra $37,000 to the cost of that unit would render it much less affordable. Regarding what the City could do about this, Ms. McEachron suggested 1) In discussing the PSP at tomorrow's meeting, Council consider whether residential projects could, in fact, compete; and 2) The City should itself participate in the creation of affordable housing by waiving all fees — application, building and mitigation fees — and this should be done on a mandatory rather than a discretionary basis. Regarding the Financial Incentive provision of the Housing Ordinance (staff report page 18, b.), Ms. McEachron stated this should be amended to read: "Planning, building and mitigation fees for affordable units shall be waived." Thereby, the City was expressing its commitment to and participation in affordable housing. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 6 Regarding the Housing Element, Hugo Landecker, referring to page 49 of the Draft General Plan and the comment that more housing would enhance the quality of life, indicated that he did not see how this could be so. Page 51 noted it increased the sense of community, and he disagreed that more housing would increase the sense of community; therefore, these were direct conflicts. Regarding affordable housing, Mr. Landecker stated he did not include low cost and very low cost in this category, and concurred with the previous speaker's sentiments that it is expensive, noting rents also for affordable units were high. Summarizing, he believed affordable housing did not support itself, and while he did not have an answer to the problem, it should be recognized. Mr. Landecker stated that page 61 - H-1 8a. deals with adequate sites and maintaining an adequate supply of land to meet the needs of multi -family and very low, low and moderate income housing. In order to maintain an adequate supply he assumed the program meant looking at rezoning in an upward way, i.e., in the future certain parcels would be zoned more densely. As he saw it, Mr. Landecker stated that a program such as that would affect the older and more dense neighborhoods. Indicating that page 62 — H -18g. addresses the revision of parking standards, Mr. Landecker stated this meant making parking standards more flexible for desirable projects; however, as parking was already in crisis, he was unsure how a desirable project could be defined. Page 64 — H-20 — Protection of Existing Affordable Housing - Mr. Landecker stated that before 2020 comes around, some of the existing affordable housing would probably change to market rate. He believed earlier affordable housing was on a 20 or 30 -year basis; therefore, some of that housing would become market rate. Mr. Landecker indicated he was not confident in the accountability of affordable housing. While there were deed restrictions that the owner would meet the standards of affordable housing, once the project is built, he questioned whether on occasion owners rented at market rate, as there was no monitoring of their books. Regarding the Jobs/Housing Linkage ordinance, Mr. Landecker gathered people thought businesses would pay for this from their profits; however, he believed the consumer of their product would pay, which was a further example of how the burden of affordable housing was being placed on those already having a problem paying for their market rate housing. Betty Pagett, Marin Housing Council, a group of housing advocates, funders and providers, thanked the City Council and staff for the eons of work on the Housing Element. It had been going on a long time and all had learned more than they wished to know about housing elements. Ms. Pagett stated she supported the changes in the inclusionary and jobs/housing mitigation that would come before Council later that evening, which she believed would help. The jobs/housing mitigation would bring some funds to assist in doing some of the things Council chose to do, together with the new workforce housing trust. Indicating that the inclusionary units help mainly just in the higher end of affordable first time ownership, Ms. Pagett stated there was no other way of creating those units, and she believed the way provided would assist in doing that. She commented that she learns daily of great pressure from people wanting those units, people who already work in San Rafael, and are part of the community and wished to remain. Regarding what happens to those in the community they try to serve who are extremely low income, mostly seniors, Ms. Pagett stated the greatest waiting list is for the areas of lowest rents. She indicated the only way they could do this is to compete for financing, noting they need sites near shopping, transit, etc., and sufficient units to provide services. Having just completed a survey of affordable senior housing in Marin County, she reported that most of those residing in that housing have yearly incomes of $8,000 - $12,000. Noting help would not be forthcoming from the State or Federal Government, Ms. Pagett stated they needed the City's help in being really clear about what are affordable housing sites and have them designated, to at least have some sites that are feasible for this type of development. Without that she indicated they would be unable to assist some seniors. Dirk Brinckerhoff, stated that the list of sites as put to the state gets to right about the required numbers for ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). In making that count, he indicated it had been assumed that the sites would be built out to the maximum allowable in the particular zoning. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 7 Linda Jackson concurred for the most part, noting that the City also had a policy that requires they are at the mid to high end of the density range. Mr. Brinckerhoff stated the City does not have a policy that requires they be built to that maximum. He listed two policies, one of which (H -18b) states "Do not approve development below minimum designated General Plan densities, unless physical or environmental constraints" would dictate that you can't build below the minimum. H -18b also states "Residential -only projects should be approved at the mid to high range" of the district's density. Given the political process, Mr. Brinckerhoff stated it was pretty much a certainty that none of these identified sites, unless something changed dramatically, would be built out to that maximum, and therefore, it was pretty much a certainty that these numbers could not be reached. For that reason, he seconded the fact that more sites needed to be identified and zoning applied that would allow more housing to be built on them. Tymber Cavasian, 22 Bayview Street, San Rafael, stated she liked a lot of the spirit of this element, which showed a lot of thought and creativity. Ms. Cavasian indicated there were several instances where the parking requirements would be lowered or considered waived in the Housing Element, specifically for mixed use, SRO downtown or air space downtown. She noted the recommendations were based upon expecting people's behavior to change and being close to transportation. Speaking for her neighborhood and others, she stated their concern was that the City was already under -parked and other goals, such as bike lanes, circulation function, traffic calming and safety improvements would likely have to tap the current on -street parking, should they occur. Ms. Cavasian requested that the question of whether all projects should have adequate off-street parking be evaluated, or as a minimum, some contingency space. She noted that higher density would produce a lot more cars and no parking, which would cause a big problem. Ms. Cavasian stated this was a general comment as the issue popped up consistently. Page 64 — H-21. Density Bonuses — Ms. Cavasian stated she believed an "either/or" approach should be encouraged. She considered the affordable bonuses should be the greater of the two; however, with the land use density bonus allowed, it appeared uncertain what neighborhoods and areas would end up looking like with this combination of bonuses. Page 65 — H-22. Infill Near Transit — She stated that again, transit hubs, stops and service are discussed and a little clarity on the language would assist in identifying the locations of the decreased parking requirements should this increased development density occur. Page 65 — H -23b. Zoning Standards to Encourage Mixed Use — Indicating she favored mixed- use, Ms. Cavasian stated that since extra allowances are offered, the extra review guidelines should also be stepped up to ensure it works for everyone. Regarding the overall affordability and funding questions, Ms. Cavasian questioned how it would be paid for and who would be affected by it. Jim Stark, Consultant, St. Vincent's School for Boys, noted from Appendix B that San Rafael indicated the City was very low in remaining vacant land. He also noted the many comments from the community regarding the difficulties of fitting housing within the existing neighborhood context, through which the City has to search to find opportunities to meet its obligation under the ABAG numbers. Regarding these observations, Mr. Stark stated that St. Vincent's is a site and a project that was, and remains ready to serve housing needs within the City of San Rafael. He indicated they had spent literally millions of dollars examining the site, identifying the constraints and designing to meet the standards given to them by the community through numerous planning studies. Jim Ganzman stated he was not well prepared and found the process to be exhausting; he had a lot of community commitments, including this, and it had been a difficult period. He indicated that any figures he used were subject to critique as he was not as familiar with the current draft as he should. This evening he was present to speak from the heart. Referring to the public hearing involving Loch Lomond Marina, Mr. Ganzman stated that a number of people referred to the ABAG housing requirements as though they were delivered from out of the blue and imposed on the City without any rationale or reason. He reported having attended a meeting in the Loch Lomond area approximately eight months ago, attended also by some Councilmembers, and it became clear that of the 2,090 housing units, two-thirds come directly from the current General Plan. He explained it is a number compiled by ABAG from the current General Plan as to what the current General Plan is seeking in terms of housing and has created in terms of housing needs based on job development. He indicated SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 8 that the remaining third is an overlay from the State of California and the amount is in direct proportion to the units that were planned for by the current General Plan. Mr. Ganzman expressed the wish that the documents, etc., that come from this process would reflect that fact. Mr. Ganzman stated that in order to look forward it is important to look backwards somewhat, and although surprised by Councilmember Miller's comments this evening, he was pleased to hear them, even though they were a little disturbing in terms of the viability of the City down the road with regard to its financial structure. Recalling that the current General Plan planned for approximately 10 million square -feet of new commercial development, Mr. Ganzman believed approximately 90% of that was actually constructed. He stated the principal justification for this construction was to create a stable financial situation for the City in terms of, presumably, sales taxes. Not having looked at the situation faced by the City in terms of the so-called crisis, he stated it appeared as though the City had not done very well and was struggling, as is every city in the County; therefore, he questioned whether all of this construction made sense in the end. Mr. Ganzman stated he was aware that General Plan 2020 anticipated building out that portion of the 10 million (square -feet) not constructed previously; however, suggested this be looked at carefully. Should this not be a reasonable and viable means of collecting the revenue the City needs to fund its operations, other alternatives needed to be explored. Not knowing what Councilmember Miller was implying, he stated there were other alternatives used by other cities in the County, many of which were doing quite well, and he would like to see the City explore these. In terms of housing, Mr. Ganzman believed there was an obligation to meet the demand essentially created by the City. He was unaware whether this could be done through new construction; however, he would like to see the City consider other alternatives. He noted it had been suggested in the past that some of the under -used commercial property in the City be converted to residences. He realized this was expensive; however, he believed it was something the City should look at. He believed the City should also look at other creative ways to subsidize existing housing, i.e., taking existing single-family housing and making them affordable. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing Councilmember Cohen inquired as to when the issue of the Traffic Mitigation Fees would be returned to Council. Responding, Ms. Jackson stated this would be on October 18 or 19, 2004. Councilmember Cohen stated it was his understanding that staff would evaluate comparable fees in other areas. Community Development Director Bob Brown stated staff was looking for data sources, and unfortunately, in many cases it was comparing apples and oranges because total impact fees are structured so differently in different cities. City Manager Rod Gould reported that a request had been received from Elissa Giambastiani, President, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, to have a meeting with four or five members of her Board of Directors to discuss this issue. That meeting would be held next week. Mayor Boro noted that Ms. McEachron's comment and chart were enlightening. Indicating that he was unable to participate in the Redwood Village item, due to a conflict of interest, Mayor Boro stated that from what he had been told, he understood the prices of those homes began at one level and at the time of going to market were substantially higher. He stated this had nothing to do with the fees, rather the developer deciding that the market would bear more; therefore, he charged more. Starting a project with more acceptable fees and a guarantee that the prices would not be raised was an issue to consider. Noting these fees would be further discussed, Mayor Boro stated the City was obligated under this plan to put in traffic improvements in order to handle changes in the capacity and that was what these charges reflect. With regard to Redwood Village, he commented that although it is a free market, the properties (market rate units) started selling at a considerably higher price, which had nothing to do with the City's fees, rather was taking advantage of the market. With regard to Ms. Giambastiani's computations, Mr. Brown believed there were some errors, e.g., the $9,600 fee per trip was discounted by Mr. Mansourian based upon the funds currently in place for traffic improvements. It ended up being more in the $7,000 range and that was just for the highest either AM or PM peak hour trips, not both combined. He indicated that the figure for combined AM and PM was more like a $4,000 fee. Mr. Brown stated that when staff meets with the Chamber of Commerce they would go over some examples so that all could agree on what the numbers really are. Mayor Boro invited staff to comment on Mr. Landecker's comment regarding how the City knows that the landlord charges what he is supposed to for affordable units. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 9 Stephanie Lovette, Economic Development Coordinator, stated this, was a large part of her job. Indicating that she tracks 25 apartment complexes annually, she stated she receives reports from all of those landlords and checks these against the tenant's income to ensure eligibility. She indicated she also looks at the rents, examining the market rate rents to ensure that even though the calculation in some cases on real old ones allows the affordable units to be higher than market rate, she ensures these are cut back to market rate, or just below. Ms. Lovette stated that purchased affordable units are also checked annually to ensure the owners are still there. Noting there are deed restrictions on these units, she indicated that should anyone attempt to sell them out of the program, it would appear on the title report and the Agency would be immediately notified. Ms. Lovette confirmed that both rental and ownership were tracked annually. Councilmember Phillips referred to discussions in the past on affordable housing for public servants, police, fire, teachers, etc. The theory was that they would work in San Rafael, thereby benefiting San Rafael, and he was curious as to whether or not this was the case. Ms. Lovette believed there was a difference between the rental and ownership units, noting they had a much better track on the 77 ownership units. She explained the City's policy was that first preference be given to City of San Rafael employees and subsequently, anyone living and working in Marin County; therefore, anyone in one of those units had met one of those categories. Ms. Lovette indicated they had not gone back to track whether they actually work in San Rafael. At the time of purchasing the unit it was known who their employer was; however, over time staff had not tracked to ensure they were still working for that same employer. Councilmember Phillips stated that a considerable amount of time, effort and money is spent providing these, yet very few police, and zero fire, personnel live in San Rafael. He questioned whether there was a mismatch between what the City was attempting to accomplish and what occurs. Ms. Lovette stated that one of the issues, especially for the Fire Department because of the shifts they work, was they were not as interested in the types of units available in the BMR program, which are most attached units with small yards, etc., and people make personal choices. She indicated there was evidence of a little more interest than heretofore; however, from those she talked to in the Police and Fire Departments, especially Fire, it is a mismatch in the housing type they are looking for. Councilmember Phillips questioned whether the City was being truthful with regard to the housing being provided or whether it was just a convenient statement of conviction that this was the right thing to do. Ms. Lovette noted that City Manager Gould had conversations about First Responders, and whether working for the City in Public Works or Police and Fire, these employees had been trained in disaster relief, etc. Even though there may not be as many firefighters in the BMR units, if they are City employees, those people had been trained as First Responders in terms of disaster preparedness. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether it was possible to get some statistics. Ms. Lovette stated that staff had statistics on who moved into the ownership units and who was there now; however, other than those who worked for the City, she was not aware of their employment status, and she would provide this information. Mayor Boro noted an additional issue was the fact that there are two -income families in Police and Fire who did not meet the affordable limit; therefore, even if they wanted to live in an affordable unit in San Rafael, they could not. Ms. Lovette indicated that this problem was being encountered in Police and Fire in one -income families, as unless they have a lot of children or a spouse who is not working, their incomes are too high. Mayor Boro stated that while teachers, etc., should be encouraged, the City could not legislate where they lived. Opportunities could be offered; however, even in situations where these units were possible, people chose to live elsewhere, preferring a different lifestyle. Councilmember Phillips stated he agreed with the need and did not question the motivation; however, was just curious. Regarding Redwood Village, Councilmember Heller stated it would be interesting to get some type of idea on whether the people buying there were move -ups or move -ins, these being expensive units. Ms. Lovette stated staff could talk to the developer who had been very good at tracking. Having carried out a series of Brown Bag seminars for public employees, workforce, etc., Ms. Lovette indicated she was surprised at the lack of interest. Some of the interest was for the market rate, which could be because people did not like the restrictions or housing type, or they chose to go into the more expensive units. Councilmember Heller confirmed with Ms. Lovette that the restriction remained on affordable units in perpetuity, rather than the previous 40 years. She inquired how this could be extended SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 10 and whether the previous units could be revisited. Ms. Lovette explained that with the present units, an agreement is entered into with the developer. Subsequently, as the units sell, an agreement is entered into with the individual property owners. The term is 40 years should one purchaser remain in the unit; however, should they move out, another 40 -year contract is signed. Ms. Lovette stated that while it would be difficult at this point to go backwards, the time periods were longer. She indicated that perpetuity had been difficult to do in the past because Fanny Mae and the lenders had not allowed it; however, it has now been opened up somewhat more. Mr. Brown stated he wished to briefly respond (and would go into more detail in writing) to three misconceptions: 1) In the housing sites lists, the City is just meeting the ABAG numbers — Mr. Brown stated this was untrue and explained the City was approximately 50% beyond that. There was an additional need for approximately 1,000 units and the table shows approximately 1,500 units. He indicated it was difficult to project which sites would be developed at a lower density. 2) The comment concerning commercial growth - that the City was essentially planning for the additional increment of commercial growth that was not built under General Plan 2000 — again, Mr. Brown stated this was untrue. The City had significantly reduced its expectations in terms of commercial development and would point out to Mr. Ganzman where this table could be found. 3) Regarding the comment that the City was programming in the highest density in already dense neighborhoods — Mr. Brown stated the Steering Committee went to great pains to look at the proportion of housing in each neighborhood given their proportion of the City total and tried to essentially replicate that so that it was distributed throughout the community. If Terra Linda constituted 20% of existing housing, it would accommodate roughly a 20% increase in density; therefore, there was a real concerted effort to spread the density out and not allow it to be concentrated in any given neighborhood. Following up on Mr. Brown's last point, Councilmember Cohen stated that the Steering Committee, in particular, really worked consciously on the whole issue of how the ABAG numbers are arrived at and what could be done to have an impact on what those numbers are in the future. He indicated that one of the things they do is evaluate the level of job creation and the obligation to provide the housing for those jobs. The Steering Committee not only cut way back on potential new commercial development, but also supported the entire issue of allowing mixed-use housing and housing in almost every zoning district in the City. Councilmember Cohen stated that every housing unit created that was a commercial site takes away a potential job and replaces it with a housing unit that matches a job previously created. General Plan 2020 was attempting to reflect how ABAG calculates those numbers and next time ABAG looks at those numbers, hopefully get them to be a more realistic assessment of what San Rafael could do. Councilmember Cohen stated it was not that the commercial growth had not produced the hoped for revenue, rather the state continued to take away the other sources of revenue, specifically property tax and vehicle license fees, leaving sales tax. He noted that the cities doing well in Marin included Corte Madera with two major shopping centers, and in speaking of the fiscalization of land use, that is what a lot of communities had done. He believed San Rafael had done an admirable job of trying to have a balanced economic development and not just chase big bucks; however, unfortunately, the price of pursuing good public policy was getting punished by the state. Indicating that he looked forward to the discussion concerning Traffic Mitigation Fees, Councilmember Cohen stated, however, that what is consistently heard from residents in terms of concern about the additional housing is the traffic impact. If this is not to be paid for through the imposition of Traffic Mitigation Fees, there needed to be a way to replace that funding, because these are the projects that need to be built in order to have traffic capacity to accommodate the housing proposed in this plan. Councilmember Cohen indicated that any discussion about this would not just be how to reduce those fees to make the housing more achievable, rather how to replace that funding with some other source the City could count on. Regarding the Housing Impact Fees, Councilmember Cohen reported that he had an interesting debate with a representative of the HBA (Home Builders Association) at the last ABAG General Assembly, their argument being that inclusionary fees do not work, rather essentially, are a tax increasing the cost of housing across the board. When pressed, he stated it got down to the fact that there is another cost, i.e., land, and land costs are going up. He indicated there was a reason the homes at Redwood Village (Estates) cost so much and explained that to build the same unit with similar amenities in Manteca, it would not sell for what it sells for in Marin because land costs are much higher and development challenges are much more complex. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 11 Councilmember Cohen acknowledged that costs are added to market rate units when the developer is requested to subsidize the affordable units; however, he agreed that essentially, the landowner was being taxed. He noted that the units would sell for what the market could bear and any rational developer would strive to get what he could for those units, likewise the landowner for the land. He believed the community had a right to get what it could for the impacts created by those units. The City wanted to have public policy that encourages housing in a way that supports a diverse community; however, there should be some way to recover the cost imposed on the community by having the housing. He stated that in some cases, there was a reason a lot of these places had not been developed until now; it was difficult and challenging and sometimes, perhaps the landowners' expectations or the return they would get by holding the land for some time were higher than they ought to be. Mayor Boro noted staff would return with answers to Public Hearing comments and these questions. 12. Public Hearing — VARIOUS ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 14) AMENDMENTS IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS OF THE DRAFT SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020; APN: CITYWIDE AND SAN RAFAEL PLANNING AREA; CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, APPLICANT. FILE NO. GPA 03-002 (CD) — FILE 115 (2020) Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Principal Planner Linda Jackson stated this concerned a set of zoning ordinance amendments, the primary purpose of which was to implement various Housing Element programs. She explained that the Housing Element calls for rezoning certain areas of town to allow housing and this was included in the ordinance before Council. Ms. Jackson noted that tonight Council was not being requested to pass the ordinance to print, rather the purpose of the public hearing was to hear comments on the proposed amendments and to obtain Council's direction on preparing a final ordinance that would be brought back for action with the resolution for adopting the Draft General Plan. Indicating there were two sets of ordinances in the staff report, Ms. Jackson explained: ■ Page 14 — Affordable Housing Ordinance, attached to the Planning Commission's resolution. She indicated this describes all the requirements for the affordable housing In -lieu fee and the Jobs/Housing Linkage fee. Page 29 — The proposed amendments to the various zoning districts, to Chapter 16 of Title 14 — Reaulations on Floor Area Ratio and other miscellaneous amendments. Ms. Jackson noted that these are in two sections in the staff report and staff proposed to reformat them into one ordinance to be brought back to Council at a later date to pass to print. Page 65 — Live/Work Regulations — Some amendments were being proposed. Ms. Jackson recalled the Steering Committee and Planning Commission recommended that in the area around Davidson Middle School residential use be allowed in the form of live/work units in this industrial area as a means of upgrading the neighborhood over time. Ms. Jackson noted that one of the concerns the Steering Committee had was that the live/work regulations were not strong enough to recognize the commercial nature of industrial zoning; therefore, the proposed changes were stronger in that sense. Page 5 — 4t" paragraph from end — Affordable Housing ordinance. Staff noted the draft ordinance proposed to allow density bonuses consistent with state mandates and allow a developer to choose an alternate bonus calculation that fit within the zoning parameters. Ms. Jackson indicated the staff report states that half of these bonus units are at the affordable level; however, the Planning Commission recommended that this be revised and the actual ordinance would reflect that this was a negotiable amount to be provided at affordable levels. Councilmember Cohen requested further clarification on this issue. Community Development Director Bob Brown stated that when staff started looking carefully at the State Density Bonus Law, it was realized it was not a good deal for a City such as San Rafael that has an inclusionary requirement in place. He explained that essentially what it does is by meeting the inclusionary requirement, developers automatically comply with the State Density Bonus Ordinance, which means the City has to offer at least a 25% density bonus. Mr. Brown indicated the City could not mandate that the bonus units be affordable. They could not be included in the calculation of the units to reach the percentage of affordability required; therefore, these bonus units would be market rate, and staff did not consider this to be a very SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 12 good solution for San Rafael. Noting the state permits limiting the State Density Bonus provisions to 25% density bonus, Mr. Brown suggested this be done. However, in some projects, e.g., EAH or a BRIDGE project, more than the State Density Bonus law could be proposed, while offering much higher affordability. He indicated staff originally stated that to go above the 25%, at least half the units had to be affordable; however, the Planning Commission suggested not putting in a hard figure. Should someone wish to go above a 25% density bonus they could make a proposal to the City, ultimately to the City Council, and should the City Council consider it worthwhile they could direct that a higher than 25% density bonus be given. He confirmed the Planning Commission made the change to leave it a negotiable amount rather than predefining that half the bonus units above the 25% density bonus had to be affordable. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Tymber Cavasian, 22 Bayview Street, stated she and her husband are small builders of residential houses and just built the house they moved into in Gerstle Park. She indicated she was present at the Planning Commission meetings when the In -lieu fees were being discussed and the Steering Committee definitely had them applying to greater than five units which made a lot of sense. Ms. Cavasian stated it then started downwards and there was a lot of discussion as to whether it should apply to one, two units, etc. She indicated she was horrified to read the fee would apply to one to ten units or a single-family home over 1,800 square -feet. She agreed with Councilmember Cohen's remarks concerning funding; however, on one -single family home, especially on a one up, infill basis, this decreases affordability and could end up with vacant lots that people just could not build on. Ms. Cavasian stated she did not like the Mansion or Starter Castle language and did not consider a 2,200 square -foot house to be that. In looking at the numbers of land costs, basic new construction costs and what had to be met in terms of code compliance, building at $200 a square foot was not so easy to do. She stated that adding lots at $350,000 to $550,000, pretty soon the houses cost $710,000 to $910,000, and adding fees to a single-family house when the cost was already high did not appear right to her. Ms. Cavasian requested Council consider that the number apply to four, five or above, or whatever the Steering Committee thought. Working on the Executive Summary's number of close to $20,000 that would apply to one single-family house on a little infill lot, she stated it could be a lot more affordable if people were free to build what the market wanted, without this fee. Nina Lilienthal -Murphy, Lincoln/San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association, indicated she was not comfortable with density bonuses. She listened to Mr. Brown explain about reducing fees for affordable housing, i.e., Redwood Village, for the AM/PM peak hours and inquired as to where the money for traffic signals was coming from. She indicated they hoped to get at least two signals to calm traffic on Lincoln Avenue, one at Linden and one at Grand, yet she kept hearing it could not be afforded and it would be opened up to four lanes, which was scary. Ms. Murphy stated it appeared as though the most dense areas continued to receive the densest population. She noted this was a community design for all neighborhoods and Lincoln was one of the Gateways to San Rafael. They did not want a canyon effect throughout Lincoln Avenue, overburdened parking structures nor greater Levels of Service along intersections, which create health and safety issues due to ingress and egress. Ms. Murphy stated it did not make sense to take down affordable housing and replace it with dense housing, which would create gridlock. Should the building on Mission and Lincoln be replaced with condominiums, she stated the City should put a plan in place to help relocate some of those people. Elissa Giambastiani, stated she was a little disturbed by Councilmember Phillips' questioning of whether or not this is the right thing to do. She noted affordable housing was not just for public employees. There was a whole raft of people working in San Rafael and in Marin County who need housing because they cannot afford what is here. She commented that public employees have a lock on most of the housing, i.e., one-third in Hamilton, and other people critical to San Rafael's lifestyle, health-care workers among them, should be considered. Ms. Giambastiani stated the City was doing the right thing; every time an affordable housing unit was built, whether it was for someone working in the City or San Anselmo, it was the right thing to do. When considering the Traffic Mitigation Fees, Ms. Giambastiani requested that Council take into consideration the fact that it takes three affordable units to create the amount of traffic generated by one market rate unit. She stated these were proven facts; affordable housing does not have the same impact on traffic as market rate housing. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro reported that a couple of items arose at the workshop on this subject held a few weeks ago, one of which related to the charging of a single-family home. He indicated he SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 13 personally had a problem with this on a single-family home, believing two to four units was a different situation. The other issue related to rounding, and Mayor Boro explained that when the computations are done, if the number of units is less than five today, an (in -lieu) fee is charged, over five today the unit has to be built. He favored getting the unit and as pointed out by staff, it takes many fees to build a unit, albeit the cost of the unit may be about $190,000, whereas to build one stand-alone would cost much more. Mayor Boro favored getting the unit, should that be possible. Councilmember Heller stated that she agreed with Mayor Boro at the time of the workshop and still agreed that the fee should not be charged on single-family homes. This is usually an infill, or small builder building his own private home. Believing it to be a great imposition on the single family, she indicated she would even go up to the first three houses. Councilmember Phillips stated he tended to agree with regard to the single-family unit. Responding to Ms. Giambastiani's comment, he challenged her conclusion, indicating he did not question affordable housing and, in fact, has supported it for some time. He felt entitled to question the effectiveness of some of the intended purposes, and differed, for the record, as he did not wish Ms. Giambastiani's conclusion to stand. Councilmember Phillips stated he exercised the right to further understand the issue and hoped the question would be taken in that light. Councilmember Cohen expressed thanks to Ms. Cavasian for providing some "off the top of her head" numbers, which he believed were eminently reasonable, to give an example why he believed this was good public policy. Indicating that $19,320 was a big number, he stated it should be remembered this referred to $800,000 or up houses, land costs of $350,000 to $500,000, $200 per foot to build these homes. He noted these were low-end numbers and were reasonable at low end. Addressing what $19,000 means with those numbers, Councilmember Cohen stated that taking a house costing an average of $800,000, the 2,000 square -foot house given in the example, the $19,320 proposed is about a 2.4% tax on that home to help provide affordable housing elsewhere in the City for the people that are going to work to provide services for those that would buy that $800,000 home. Regarding the land cost, Councilmember Cohen stated Ms. Cavasian pointed out this was something that would have to be dealt with as the landowner expected $350,000 to $500,000. He noted that unless they just purchased the land, they did not pay this amount and would realize a large capital gain. So to look at the $19,320 as a tax on the average cost of $400,000 for that lot, the tax in question is 4.8% on the landowner. Assuming the $800,000 sale price for the home was a fixed number, that is what the market would bear for a 2,000 square -foot home on an infill lot in Gerstle Park or wherever. He indicated that was what could be realized for building a nice home on one of those lots. Questioning what could move, Councilmember Cohen stated that some new construction costs are fixed; however, one thing that could move was what the landowner got for sale of that lot. He indicated that one of the things the City proposed to do by this was put a tax on the cost of the land and he explained that from the expected return of $350,000, the landowner would get $330,000 and the City $20,000 to build part of an affordable unit elsewhere in the City. He stated this could be looked at as taxing the land entirely. On the other hand, to just look at the construction cost, $10 a square foot was being burdened on a $200 a square foot construction cost. Councilmember Cohen stated that the land cost was an issue of expectation, i.e., what the property owner selling the land was expecting to get. The point had been reached in the City where he believed it was reasonable to reach down to the single-family level and tax those landowners' profits on the sale of a lot because that is what this policy does. He indicated that at the end of the day, it was a 5% tax on the sale of the land, which he believed was not unreasonable. Given the options for raising revenue, he stated that again, if the City could look at the broad scheme of things and start with a blank slate and draw out what good public policy would be about how to fund all these things, perhaps it would be done differently. He noted this authority is not available to the City and whatever local authority it had was severely constrained by Proposition 13. While understanding that $19,000 as a tax on a new home was a big number, he suggested it be considered in the context just given, as he believed it was good public policy, given the current circumstances. Councilmember Miller believed this was good policy given current circumstances and good policy, period, because in looking at the tax on a new home, whether an individual or whomever, they were getting a tremendous value. He believed the community had to receive their investment so that other homes could be provided at an affordable rate, and he saw it as a SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 14 return on the investment of the community to the individual Mayor Boro stated he was a very strong proponent of inclusionary zoning; however, philosophically, he did not apply it to a single-family home or individual. Councilmember Heller stated that perhaps she could be persuaded on some of the other numbers, however, not the single (family), believing it important to provide every bit of assistance possible. City Manager Rod Gould inquired whether it was the sense of the Council to apply this for two units and up, with which Mayor Boro concurred. Mayor Boro invited Community Development Director Bob Brown to elaborate on the "round down, round up" issue. Mr. Brown explained that staff viewed this first in terms of equity. He stated that presently, if the computation ends up being .5 or above, it is rounded up and a whole unit is provided, lower than .5 gets off scott free, until the next lower whole number. He indicated that the other observation was a lot of developers monkeying around with their total unit count so they could obtain a computation that then creates less than a .5 fraction. Mr. Brown stated staff's thinking was to attempt to take out the incentive for doing those types of shifts in total project numbers and allow someone just to pay an in -lieu or fractional fee for the fractional units. He noted Mayor Boro suggested another alternative, which was to try to get the full unit, i.e., rounding up beyond .5 and then take possibly a fractional in -lieu fee for a fraction below .5. Councilmember Miller stated he understood Mr. Brown's thinking; this would make things a lot cleaner and equitable and he was in favor. Councilmember Heller stated she was somewhat confused by the verbal information. Mr. Brown clarified that there were a couple of options, both of which were better than now. He stated that one option was simply taking an in -lieu fee for whatever fraction one came up with, with no rounding whatsoever, which was the suggestion of staff in the ordinance. The alternative he and Mayor Boro discussed this afternoon was the possibility of continuing rounding up above .5 so that a whole unit could be obtained, but below .5, taking a fractional fee. He indicated there still was a question of equity when someone had a .55 figure and suddenly bumped up to a full unit, which was a significant hit; however, it attempted to obtain more whole units, which was Mayor Boro's objective. Councilmember Phillips indicated he favored this suggestion, believing it works nicely, is clean and provides that fractional unit of revenue on one side and the unit on the other. Councilmember Cohen believed there was a logical inconsistency between taking .55% of a unit in a subdivision and fully burdening that with subsidizing one unit of affordable housing, while looking differently at a single-family home on an individual lot. He stated it may be because of the view that most of those are built by people building their dream home that their family would live in. Should that be the decision upon which this was being made, he suggested that perhaps it should be surveyed, as he wagered most of these were speculation homes built by developers who build one at a time, as opposed to subdividers building twenty at a time. Being willing to tax 45% or 55% of a unit for the developer building two, five or ten units at a time, Councilmember Cohen questioned why the City was not willing to impose a similar tax on the person developing one at a time. Indicating he would take what he could get, Councilmember Cohen stated he would appreciate at some point having an opportunity of casting his vote for extending this down to the individual unit; however, for the moment he would go along with the proposal (hybrid approach) on the subdivisions. Mayor Boro directed staff to make the changes as directed and return with written responses to comments received this evening. He indicated that the ordinance would be adopted subsequent to adoption of the General Plan. Before proceeding to item #13, Mayor Boro reported that a letter was received today from the owner and president of Cal Pox regarding an action taken at a recent meeting and a concern that Council may be considering a request from the City Manager to rethink that issue. They requested that when the final issues go before Council they have an opportunity of speaking on this issue. Noting there were no representatives present this evening from Cal Pox, Mayor Boro stated Council should be advised that when this happens, perhaps October 19, either the owner or their representative would have an opportunity to address Council on this item, even though the hearing is closed. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 15 COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: NEW BUSINESS 13. CONSIDERATION OF REORGANIZATION OF THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND LAND DEVELOPMENT FUNCTIONS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (CD) — FILE 9-3-85 x 9-3-32 x 9-3-40 Community Development Director Bob Brown stated that with the impending retirements of the City's Chief Building Official and Senior Building Inspector, staff realized it would be both a challenge to try to refill these positions and also an opportunity to address some issues with the building permit process. Explaining some indicators of difficulties with the building permit process, Mr. Brown stated that with regard to plan check turnaround time, the goal was three weeks; however, presently this was approximately six weeks. He indicated this was not only a problem in Community Development, but also with some of the departments feeding into the building permit process. He acknowledged that Fire Chief Martin was attempting to address this from the Fire Department side; however, these were significant issues for customers. Secondly, Mr. Brown reported that increasingly, there were difficulties with required field changes by the Public Works inspector to issues that were not identified during the plan check process. He indicated that these types of field changes were extremely expensive and frustrating to developers. Regarding some of the needs in the Building Division with the building permit process in general, Mr. Brown stated stronger management of the process was required. He indicated that presently the building official is largely a plan checker and does not have an opportunity to devote a lot of management time to the process. Better coordination was needed with Public Works and Fire, than was possible to achieve presently; greater focus on ADA compliance was required, together with providing better directions to applicants on how to meet the increasing requirements of the MCSTOPP Storm Drainage program. Mr. Brown acknowledged it would not be possible to replace the building official, Fred Vincenti, with a single individual, for a number of reasons. He noted Mr. Vincenti was a Civil Engineer and it would be unlikely to find a building official who was also an engineer and could do structural plan check. Mr. Brown stated it was also recognized that Fred was able to do what he does because he has thirty plus years of experience, noting Mr. Vincenti has virtually seen the development of almost every property in town or its redevelopment. Mr. Brown also noted that Fred is able to do the type of plan checking he does because he works weekends, and reported that unfortunately, Fred had a heart attack over the weekend. Indicating that his department was solely dependent upon one plan checker presently, Mr. Brown was unsure of what he would do over the next six to eight weeks, adding this reliance had been a concern since his joining the City. In working with the Public Works Director, Mr. Brown stated they evaluated staffing, making comparisons with other cities, and while they were always aware they were lean, surveying of other cities definitely proved it. Explaining another issue, Mr. Brown stated that when building inspection was separated out from Public Works seven years ago, Fred Vincenti had the capability of doing some of those Public Works functions, as he had been in that position in Public Works previously, and the new building official would not. He would not have that expertise, inclination or experience. Mr. Brown reported that when he and Public Works Director Andrew Preston looked at the hole they needed to fill, they believed it imperative to have greater involvement by Public Works in the plan check process and that meant essentially, an additional plan checker for the Public Works side, i.e., a Land Development engineer. He indicated staff proposed to take the Senior Building Inspector position and not refill it as a Building Inspector, rather with a Plan Checker, and the building official would then be free to carry out more management of the process. Based upon this individual's expertise, he would either contribute plan check abilities or additional inspection abilities, making it still a working management position. Indicating that staff was very hesitant to bring Council a proposal for additional staffing, Mr. Brown stated there would be an additional cost of approximately $110,000, which would have to be folded into the permit fees. Having had an opportunity of speaking with Dave Bernardi, General Manager, Marin Builders Association and Elissa Giambastiani, President, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Brown stated he gleaned from both that timing and accuracy were SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 15 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 16 most imperative from their perspectives. For their clients they wanted to see the City achieve its three-week turnaround time and also not subject their clients to very expensive field changes. When Ms. Giambastiani sought an assurance that the City would be responsive on those two areas with this proposed additional position, Mr. Brown stated he indicated it would. Concluding, Mr. Brown noted Mr. Preston was also in attendance should there be questions. Councilmember Heller expressed thanks for the explanation as she was wondering why things arranged this way a short time ago were being rearranged, noting it did make sense. She confirmed that staff had explored the fact that this could be folded into fees by increasing them somewhat. She believed that getting things done in a timely manner was also important. Regarding the operational issue, Councilmember Cohen stated that one of the reasons he supported the restructuring previously was because of a history of discrepancy between grading plans and planning approval. He noted this problem had been evident in the past and while Mr. Brown indicated it relates now to field inspection, in the past it was grading plans, and those were approved under Land Development. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to hear more about how the City will ensure this communication takes place, so that the communication breakdown is not just moved back to where it was. Mr. Brown explained that the reorganization of Community Development was to deal with the disconnect between the planning approvals and the building permit process and he believed this has been pretty effective. Now, particularly with Public Works moving offsite, he indicated that staff restructuring and the reliance on Fred to pick up that Public Works piece, Land Development, he used to do, had produced a disconnect with Public Works. In discussions with Mr. Preston, Mr. Brown stated they concluded it was critical to improve communication and time spent between both plan check staffs, together with greater supervision from Public Works of the individuals doing their plan checking with their field inspector. He indicated they discussed instituting a weekly session where the Public Works plan checker would spend time in Community Development, going over all the new projects, so that planners, Building Inspection and Public Works could all coordinate their responses. Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated Mr. Brown's comment that he talked to some representatives of the business community about the imposition of this fee. He inquired whether it was Mr. Brown's view that all of the proposed restructuring revolved around the creation of the new Public Works fee, the Land Development Engineer, i.e., that none of the remainder of this could be done without that. Or, could it be viewed that the City was trying to ensure it was adequately dealing with land development issues, in which case, should the building permit fee be increased by 10% for a bathroom remodel with no land development issues. Or, should the City be looking to burden the land development costs for those people subdividing or developing a previously undeveloped lot that requires grading permits and site inspections, etc. Noting that presently the proposal was to put the fee across to every user, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether this was an appropriate way to apportion this fee, or whether staff had considered other ways of looking at the issue. Responding, Mr. Brown stated he had conversations with Ken Nordhoff, Assistant City Manager, and he explained that staff would be returning to the (Master) Fee Study which breaks down staff time and cost for all the different functions. As pointed out by Mr. Nordhoff, Mr. Brown stated they would have to justify where the additional time would be. At this time, he stated that generically, it would be spread across the building permits; however, he was unsure whether this would be the end result. In terms of the communication aspect, Councilmember Miller referred to the Case Management model course in the Health & Human Services field where everyone is brought around on each project, and he wondered whether this could be worked into this situation. He noted the Fire Department especially, was having a real problem attempting to keep up with this. Mr. Brown explained that presently there is a Development Coordinating Committee for planning applications which works quite well; however, they did not have the equivalent for building, and staff was trying to move towards this. Councilmember Phillips believed staff was doing an incredible job on this. He considered Mr. Brown to be a highly qualified manager of his department and he thanked him for all he had done, this evening particularly. He accepted Mr. Brown's view, together with Mr. Gould's endorsement, that this is the better way to go and he would vote in favor, primarily based on his faith in Mr. Brown as department head. Mr. Brown stated he had made his commitment publicly to the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce and he would have to stand and deliver the results. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 16 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 17 Noting Joe Curley's position, Building Inspection Supervisor, would change substantially, Mayor Boro inquired how this would be picked up within the organization. Indicating his support for the item, Mayor Boro stated he realized the new Chief Building Official would do somewhat more oversight and supervision, and he requested that Mr. Brown at some point provide clarification as to the roles of the different individuals. In terms of the Senior Building Inspector position, Mr. Brown stated the intent was to try to pick up some additional inspection time by not devoting half-time inspectors, as is done presently, to Code Enforcement. He indicated that Code Enforcement Officers would be trained to also be certified as Building Inspectors, although very basic, so they could essentially carry out joint inspections on their own without having to involve an additional individual, which would be a lot more efficient. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the recommendation: Authorized proposed staff reorganization and directed staff to prepare a revised fee schedule to fund an additional position in the Public Works Department. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 14. None There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12004 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/04/2004 Page 17