HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 2004-10-19SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2004 AT 7:30 PM
Special Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, Assistant City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:00 PM
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item:
CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM
Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
Case Name: Poehlman, Kyla v. City of San Rafael, et al.
Marin County Superior Court Case #CV031987
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken.
7:34 PM
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as
follows:
ITEM
2. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of Wednesday,
September 15, 2004 (CC)
3. Resolution Recommending Amendments to the City of
San Rafael Bail Schedule for 2005 (CA) —
File 13-8 x 9-3-16 x 9-3-30 x 9-10-2
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Minutes approved as submitted.
RESOLUTION NO. 11647 —
RESOLUTION REGARDING
PROPOSED BAIL SCHEDULE FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE SAN RAFAEL
MUNICIPAL CODE
4. Confirmation of Appointment of One (1) Youth Member to Confirmed Carlos Oroza as a youth
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and Call for member of the Bicycle and
Applications to Fill a Second Youth Member Position (CM) — Pedestrian Advisory Committee and
File 9-2-55 called for applications to fill a second
youth member position.
5. Resolution Approving a Two-year Contract with First Five
Marin (Marin Children's and Families Commission) to Provide
Funding for the Health Advocate Position at Pickleweed
Children's Center in the Amount of $26,466.00 and
Authorizing the City Manager to Sign Contract Documents
(CS) — File 4-10-238 x 9-3-65
RESOLUTION NO. 11648 —
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
ENTERING INTO A TWO-YEAR
CONTRACT (JULY 1, 2004 THROUGH
JUNE 30, 2006) WITH FIRST FIVE
MARIN (MARIN CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES COMMISSION) TO
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A HEALTH
ADVOCATE POSITION AT
PICKLEWEED CHILDREN'S CENTER
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO SIGN CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$26,466.00
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 1
6. Resolution Authorizing Agreement Between the County of
Marin and the City of San Rafael Regarding the Marin
Literacy Program (Lib) — File 4-13-86 x 9-3-61
7. Resolution Appointing the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) Access Advisory Committee Members (MS) —
File 9-2-56 x 13-1-1 x 9-3-11
8. Resolution of Appreciation to W. T. (Will) Rigney, Director of
External Affairs, SBC, for Support of Camp Chance (PD) —
File 102 x 9-3-30
9. Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an Amendment to
the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Signature at
Redwood Village, LLC Regarding the Release of
Improvement Bonds for the Redwood Village Development
(PW) — File 5-1-347
10. Resolution Authorizing Temporary Street Closures for the
25th Annual Parade of Lights and 15th Annual Winter
Wonderland and Snow on Friday, November 26, 2004 and
Saturday, November 27, 2004 (RA) — File 11-19
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
SPECIAL PRESENTATION:
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 11649—
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MARIN
AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
REGARDING THE MARIN LITERACY
PROGRAM (From 7/1/04 — 6/30/05)
RESOLUTION NO. 11650 —
RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE ADA
ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS:
Mia Brown Pat Merrill
Debra Burns Barbara Mitchell
Shari Dehouwer Peter Walz
Herny LaRoche Craig Yates
Ewen McKechnie
RESOLUTION NO. 11651 —
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
W.T. (WILL) RIGNEY, DIRECTOR OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SBC, FOR
SUPPORT OF CAMP CHANCE
($10,000)
RESOLUTION NO. 11652—
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH SIGNATURE AT
REDWOOD VILLAGE, LLC,
REGARDING THE RELEASE OF
IMPROVEMENTS BONDS FOR THE
REDWOOD VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 11653 —
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CITY
STREETS FOR THE 25TH ANNUAL
PARADE OF LIGHTS AND WINTER
WONDERLAND ON NOVEMBER 26
AND NOVEMBER 27, 2004
Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
None
None
11. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO W. T. (WILL) RIGNEY, DIRECTOR OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SBC, FOR SUPPORT OF CAMP CHANCE (PD) — FILE 102 x 9-3-30
Mayor Boro invited Mr. Rigney, San Rafael Police Chief John Rohrbacher and Marin County Sheriff,
Robert Doyle to the podium.
Introducing Mr. Rigney, SBC, to the audience, Mayor Boro stated the Resolution was in appreciation to
Mr. Rigney and his company for supporting an effort on behalf of the City of San Rafael and County of
Marin entitled "Camp Chance." He explained that Camp Chance had been run for several years through
the San Rafael Police Department and had primarily been operating with students from Davidson Middle
School. Mayor Boro stated that former Police Chief Cronin, before he retired, thought it would be good
to expand the program so that children attending middle school in Terra Linda could also attend. He
went in search of funding, with good response, and also collaborated with the Marin County Sheriff,
who through his offices and efforts co-sponsored the Camp this year.
Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Rigney and SBC for their contribution, noting Mr. Rigney had a large replica of
the $10,000 check which perhaps he wished to share with the audience.
San Rafael Police Chief John Rohrbacher thanked SBC and Mr. Rigney. He stated that Camp Chance
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 3
was a unique opportunity to have a positive experience with the children in the summer. Based on
contributions from SBC and others, it was possible to raise sufficient funds for the camp to run for two
weeks this year. It was also made possible by joining forces with the Sheriff's Department. Chief
Rohrbacher reported that 45 campers took part this year which would not have been possible without
donations such as those from SBC and Mr. Rigney, for which he expressed thanks.
Marin County Sheriff Robert Doyle thanked the City Council for recognizing SBC. He stated he was
always jealous from afar of the Police Department and Camp Chance and, therefore, was honored when
then Police Chief Michael Cronin invited him to partner. Sheriff Doyle believed it to be a tremendous
opportunity. Public response and being in a position to run two weeks of the camp were great, and he
thanked SBC.
Mayor Boro again thanked Mr. Rigney, together with all those in the community who contributed to make
this camp a success.
PUBLIC HEARING:
12. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY
DISTRICT ON MEDWAY ROAD BETWEEN FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST AND CANAL STREET
(PW) — FILE 12-18-15 x 12-18
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened
Scott Schneider, Senior Civil Engineer, providing a brief overview of the Medway Canal project, stated
this evening specifically concerned the undergrounding. He reported that in February, 2002, a $10,000
grant was received from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to design street and
sidewalk improvements on Medway, between Francisco Boulevard East and Canal Street, and the City
matched this figure with $10,000 from its Gas Tax funds.
Based on the application prepared with those grant funds, Mr. Schneider reported that a $900,000 grant
was received from MTC as part of the Transportation for Livable Communities Program. The
Redevelopment Agency added a further $250,000 to the project, for a total of $1.15 million.
He stated that tonight's resolution would create an Underground Utility District and that project would be
completed prior to completing the streetscape project. Mr. Schneider explained that the undergrounding
portion of the project would include installing conduit in the sidewalk, pulling electric, telephone and
cable television wires and removing all utility poles in the underground district. The service connections
would then be trenched to each property up to 100 feet and each property owner would be responsible
for connecting the new wires to their existing meter or service connection box. He indicated that the
streetscape project, in conjunction with the utility undergrounding, would create an attractive and vibrant
entrance to the Canal neighborhood.
Mayor Boro recalled this subject was discussed in a workshop several months ago when the availability
of funds was addressed.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing
Councilmember Miller congratulated the Department of Public Works and Redevelopment Agency for
bringing this project forward. He stated it was a critical and most marvelous project for the Canal
neighborhood entryway, which defined the neighborhood and depicted the values and beauty within the
people there. He noted that together with the Pickleweed expansion, this would provide a wonderful
neighborhood, and both departments commanded a lot of congratulations.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 11654— RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN UNDERGROUND
UTILITY DISTRICT ON MEDWAY ROAD BETWEEN FRANCISCO
BOULEVARD EAST AND CANAL STREET
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 4
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
OLD BUSINESS:
13. DISCUSSION AND FINAL DIRECTION ON RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT SAN
RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 AND PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, THE PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS, THE DESIGN
GUIDELINES AND THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL,
APPLICANT. FILE NO.: GPA -3-002 (CD) — FILE 115 (2020)
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated he had placed before Councilmembers a packet of
five letters received since the compilation of this evening's packet regarding the St. Vincent's/Silveira
property, and he believed these had also been sent to the State HCD (Housing and Community
Development). He indicated that at the front of this packet was a memorandum from Linda Jackson,
Principal Planner, proposing three additional, very minor, non substantive modifications. Mr. Brown
stated that also before Council were two letters received this evening from Mr. & Mrs. Jensen regarding
Loch Lomond Marina.
Mr. Brown reported that the written staff report contained responses to 155 comments received during
the City Council's four public hearings on the Draft General Plan, and these responses were contained
in Exhibit #2. He indicated that the text of the staff report addressed a handful of the more significant
proposed revisions for Council's consideration and direction this evening. Since the preparation of the
staff report was a group effort, he, Linda Jackson and Nader Mansourian, City Traffic Engineer, would
walk Council through the most substantive of these.
Page 2 — Cal -Pox site — immediately east of Home Depot. Mr. Brown stated staff requested that Council
consider again the feedback provided on September 27, 2004. He indicated that the policy language
had been extensively debated by the Planning Commission and Steering Committee, with mixed results
in each case. Mr. Brown stated the question was whether the policy wording should indicate a
receptivity on the part of the City to consider a future application for a land use change to residential,
specifically for a senior housing development.
Mr. Brown reported that the staff report puts forth three arguments for retaining the light-industrial/office
land use designation without the proposed reference to residential:
The first related to land use compatibility and history and he explained there was a long history of
planning for this site, and the rationale for its designation for light -industrial for 30 years since 1974,
which is extensively outlined in the staff report. Mr. Brown stated that the Steering Committee
discussed at length the importance of retaining the light -industrial areas, since in Marin County, San
Rafael is the only city that really provides a substantial amount of industrial space. They considered
recommending residential throughout the light -industrial area of East San Rafael as a means of meeting
the City's housing requirements; however, decided against doing this because of the inherent conflict
that could result between residential and industrial uses, and the potential that this conflict could lead to
the relocation of light -industrial uses and, therefore, the net loss of land area available for such uses,
and also because the area does not provide services for residential uses at present. Mr. Brown stated
that the suggestion to allow residential use on this one property in East San Rafael would constitute spot
zoning.
Second, Mr. Brown stated there were concerns about the soils conditions since it is a former landfill site.
Lastly, he noted this was one of the few remaining sites for economic development in the City. He
indicated that San Rafael had resisted the temptation of zoning for the highest fiscal return, and most
cities do this by rezoning residential sites to commercial or industrial use. However, staff believes the
reverse — considering rezoning a light -industrial site for residential use - would likewise be imprudent.
He stated that there are low traffic generating uses, such as car dealerships, which would be more
suitable uses and more compatible with what exists in the master planned Shoreline Center.
Referring Council to Page 7 of the staff report — Policy NH -121 (Loch Lomond Marina) — page 114 Draft
General Plan — Ms. Jackson stated that just prior to this meeting she had the pleasure of seeing Co -
Chair Kate Colin, who served as the Co -Chair for the General Plan 2020 Steering Committee, and she
recalled the months of work the Steering Committee dedicated towards drafting this policy. Ms. Jackson
reported she informed Ms. Colin she believed that as it had evolved through the Planning Commission
and from tonight's meeting, the Steering Committee would be very pleased to see how it had been
refined,and the direction they were going.
Mr. Jackson stated it became clear at the Planning Commission/Design Review Board meeting and the
public hearing comments that this policy was not strong enough when addressing the importance of the
marina. She stated the direction of the site did not come through clearly enough in the policy statement,
and she, therefore, identified the three specific changes suggested by staff based on Council comments
and feedback at the public hearing:
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 5
Protect and Save the Marina — Ms. Jackson stated this was the primary use of the site. The City
wanted it to stay that way and to that end, the following revisions were made: A new first
sentence had been added to the policy which relates to fully retaining the marina facilities, the
activities and uses, and maintaining, protecting and enhancing the public's access to the marina
and waterfront. Dry boat storage had been added back in. Ms. Jackson recalled that the
Planning Commission removed this; however, as it was a local concern, the statement had been
reinserted.
Ms. Jackson stated the policy was now much more specific about the location and intent of
recreational uses, in that they should be waterfront oriented, not just somewhere on the site,
rather at the Marina, to accommodate the type of activities and uses people enjoy along a
waterfront. She noted that under the Site Design section, the recreational uses were to be
designed to be a community gathering place, and also designed along the waterfront to
differentiate the marina uses from the residential area, so that homes and residents would not
infringe or impact, and vice versa, the uses and activities taking place at the marina.
2. Regarding housing and the neighborhood, Ms. Jackson stated she heard the policy had evolved
into being too directive about the type of housing; therefore, the minimum number of units had
been deleted, with the recommendation that a statement could be added to the effect that a
majority of the units provided should be attached or small single-family, in order to achieve the
intent of the Planning Commission that this could be a site to help meet affordable and workforce
housing needs.
Ms. Jackson noted that the policy also states clearly that the housing types must be integrated
into one neighborhood. It should not be an area with pods of single-family, multi -family homes,
rather woven into a neighborhood with a mix of housing types.
3. Regarding the view corridor, Ms. Jackson stated this was now much more specific; it had been
revised to clarify that it is down the main entryway into the site with a view of the waterfront at the
end.
In summary, Ms. Jackson stated the policy now highlighted the importance of maintaining the marina
uses and activities on the site to Save the Loch Lomond Marina, and the value of preserving and
improving the public's access to the marina and waterfront.
Page 10 - Policy C -51D and Program C -5c — Mr. Brown stated this was the policy and program that
allows the Council some discretion to consider approving development projects that would violate the
City's traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards if there were sufficient offsetting public benefits. He
indicated that the example frequently used by the Steering Committee in their deliberations was the
analysis of the downtown cinema. A very preliminary traffic study at that time suggested that the LOS
standards might be violated for 1-2 hours on Friday evenings; therefore, this type of policy and program
would allow the Council and public to consider how the spin-off benefits of a cineplex downtown to the
downtown businesses and nightlife would compare to the traffic impacts that could result on a Friday
evening.
Mr. Brown reported that Council requested staff to try rewording the text to sound less legalese. Staff
attempted to do this by having the policy speak more to the intent of having the Council consider these
tradeoffs of traffic impacts versus public benefits, and inserted the wording about the required legal
findings in the program itself. Mr. Brown noted the findings were intended to mimic the CEQA findings
for an override to a significant, unmitigated impact, and this is why they were written that way.
Noting a typographical error on the top of Page 11 of the staff report, Mr. Brown stated the word reasible
should be changed to "feasible."
Page 11 — Flexibility and Design of Roadway Improvements — Ms. Jackson recalled that speakers from
Gerstle Park advocated for reconsideration of the proposed traffic improvements on C and D streets,
one-way streets and the proposed street signal light. In discussing this with City Traffic Engineer, Nader
Mansourian, Ms. Jackson stated it was realized that other improvements and design approaches could
promote alternative solutions; therefore, it was proposed that the policy would apply citywide, and this
was referenced in the new sentence added to Policy C-6 — Recognize that other feasible design
solutions may become available and be more effective in achieving the same goals as the
improvements listed in Exhibit 19, and allow for their implementation, consistent with the most recent
engineering standards.
LOS E for intersections on Irwin and Grand, between 2nd and Mission — Mr. Mansourian stated these
two major north/south arterials were recommended to have the same LOS as downtown (LOS E) for
three reasons:
1. Irwin and Grand are the discharge arterials to carry out the Downtown, Montecito area and East
San Rafael traffic to northbound Highway 101.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 6
2. The LOS calculations confirmed that the arterial segments between Second and Mission would
operate at LOS E and F during the peak hours.
3. The Second and Grand for PM peak and Mission and Grand for AM/PM peak are currently
operating at LOS E. Since the improvements at Second and Grand and others are 20 years
hence, he indicated it would be impossible to have a LOS D.
Mr. Mansourian stated that for Council's information, staff added some of the historical average daily
traffic counts for Irwin Street and Grand Avenue to depict the growth of traffic, or lack thereof, in the last
twenty years.
LOS at Third and Union Streets — Ms. Jackson stated that the proposed LOS for Third and Union in
General Plan 2020 is LOS D, the full range of LOS D, and this LOS would accommodate the planned
development in the neighborhoods and the traffic in the area going to the Montecito Shopping Center.
She indicated that this intersection was also the site of forthcoming improvements to address pedestrian
safety issues. Ms. Jackson noted that Program C-4 was originally drafted in anticipation of policies and
programs encouraging pedestrian use, bicycles and transit (anticipating the train) use, thereby
recognizing the need for improvements that would accommodate these other modes of circulation,
which could result in a slowing down of vehicles.
Ms. Jackson stated this intersection was the first one staff thought could be the one around the SMART
Rail Station downtown. She indicated that the program was revised with the Planning Commission to
note that when improvement is presented to the City Council for approval of funding, at that time, the
City Traffic Engineer would have a revised recommended LOS standard for that intersection, and this
would then be amended into the General Plan. Ms. Jackson noted that point had not yet been reached
with Third and Union; however, believed this would be the first intersection Council would see coming
forward.
Proposed traffic improvements at Mission and Grand and at Fifth and Grand, and resulting loss of on -
street parking spaces — Mr. Mansourian reported:
• Mission and Grand is currently operating at LOS E. He noted that the certified EIR
(Environmental Impact Report) for the Dominican University master plan identified this
intersection for signalization by the end of their expansion program;
• With regard to future volume, Mission and Grand was evaluated as to how it would operate with
the current 4 -way stop sign, and it was found to be at LOS F.
• Signalization would require left and right turn pockets requiring two lanes of traffic at the
intersection, which was the reason for requesting the no parking policy.
• Fifth and Grand falls within the system of the signalized intersection. Should Mission/Grand be
signalized, and with 4t"/Grand already signalized, it would be very difficult to get in and out of
Fifth and Grand. This was the reason staff recommended signalization at 5th /Grand and to have
the arterial system fully controlled by signals.
Page 12 — 1-10c. Mahon Creek — Mr. Brown stated this addressed comments received from Gerstle
Park residents concerning the flooding on Mahon Creek. He indicated the Public Works Director
recommended a new program that specifically addresses:
■ Creation of a Creek Management Plan for Mahon Creek;
■ Completion of the planned improvements; and
■ Consideration of other methods that could decrease storm water flows into Mahon Creek.
Mr. Brown stated these concerns had now been incorporated into the General Plan.
Page 12 — Bellam/Windward Way Park Site — Mr. Brown explained that this was another policy
extensively debated by the Steering Committee and Planning Commission. He indicated staff
recommends that wording from the Steering Committee be reinserted that would allow consideration of
some private development in exchange for funding of park improvements. As noted previously by City
Manager Gould, Mr. Brown stated it was very unlikely the City would have the funds to complete this
park within the time frame of this General Plan. While it was probably very unlikely a development
project would come forward that could afford the costs of building on this former landfill, and at the same
time fund the adjacent park improvements, staff still believed it worth having such language in the plan
that allowed for such a proposal to be considered by both the community and Council. Mr. Brown stated
staff, therefore, was suggesting this wording be reinserted.
Page 13 — Lincoln/San Rafael Hill Park — Regarding the suggestion from the Lincoln/San Rafael Hill
Homeowners Association that they need a neighborhood park and that Boyd Park is too far and
inaccessible to them to be their neighborhood park, Mr. Brown stated staff agreed that a neighborhood
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 7
park was desired and needed in this neighborhood, and recommended its inclusion in the Park Wish
List.
Page 14 — Traffic Mitigation Fee — Mr. Mansourian stated that traffic impacts are evaluated on AM and
PM peak trips and the proposed PSP policy in the General Plan also looks at both AM and PM peak
impacts. He indicated that staff recommends combining Mitigation Fees citywide, based on the
summation of AM and PM peak for all projects. Mr. Mansourian noted that some projects having large
AM peak trips and small PM peak trips impact the system and require some mitigation. In this way staff
can ensure adequate funding is collected to build the projects.
Ms. Jackson reported that discussion took place at the last public hearing concerning the cost of the
Traffic Mitigation Fee and possible exemptions, and staff would like to recommend two exemptions for
Council consideration:
■ Cultural and Theater facilities in downtown — Ms. Jackson noted this would exclude night clubs.
■ Affordable housing - deed restricted, below market rate units citywide.
Referring to Exhibit 2, Ms. Jackson stated staff suggests that in Program LU -1 a, which speaks to a five-
year update of the General Plan, along with everything listed, there be an evaluation of the Traffic
Mitigation Fees, the improvements listed and fees being collected.
Page 15 - Project Selection Process (PSP) — Ms. Jackson indicated this concerned Council's right to
choose policy, explaining that as developmental proposals are brought forward for consideration, this
clause would recognize that Council had the right to choose between competing projects and in its
determination, select the one that best responds to the priorities of the City.
Page 15 — PSP Rating Criteria — Mr. Brown reported that staff had taken a second and third look at the
PSP rating criteria as it related to affordable housing, in response to a concern that was expressed that
retail projects would almost automatically outscore housing developments, unless those housing
developments contained a level of affordability that may be financially infeasible. He stated staff agreed
that the proposed increases in the base inclusionary requirements, which in many cases were up to
20% affordable, was a steep increase, and, therefore, they recommended lowering the additional
percentages of affordability required to score well in the PSP ratings. Since the staff report was printed,
Mr. Brown noted that Ms. Jackson had suggested a slightly different mathematical formula that he
believed made more sense. He indicated the suggestion was that the acceptable range, to make each
a 3% range, would be: Acceptable up to 3%; Preferred 3% — 6% and Excellent greater than 6%.
Ms. Jackson recalled that back in September (9/28/04), Council received copy of an e-mail (addendum)
from Dominican/Black Canyon concerning a sentence they requested be added to their Vision
Statement. She indicated this was a comment the Planning Commission received and it was
responded to on Page 496 of the Response to Comments document (letter #66 received on the EIR
comments). Ms. Jackson stated that at that time, the Planning Commission did not recommend adding
the statement concerning preserving a sense of space between homes, noting there were not any
policies proposed to change existing setbacks.
Referring to Policy NH —2 — New Development in Residential Neighborhoods — Bullet #2 — "Incorporate
sensitive transitions in height and setbacks from adjacent properties to respect adjacent development
character and privacy" she indicated there was an implementing program for that entire policy containing
various design statements concerning updating the zoning ordinance to address these issues, and she
believed this comment from Dominican/Black Canyon would be addressed through policy NH -2.
Regarding the Ratings for Affordable Housing(Staff Report — Page 15) Councilmember Heller
requested clarification on the last two sentences on the page. Ms. Jackson explained this was a
duplication of a previous paragraph and should have been deleted.
Before discussing the remainder of the report — Exhibit 2 — Response to City Council Public Hearing
Comments and Staff Recommendations — Mayor Boro reported that when noticing people by e-mail, it
was stated that tonight's meeting was not a public hearing; however, should anyone wish to comment
on the information before Council, an attempt would be made to accommodate that. Therefore, he
invited anyone wishing to address Council on any of the items discussed or contained in the staff report,
to do so, noting comments should be confined to three minutes.
Jackie Schmidt, 1210 Grand Avenue, stated she represented the Montecito Area Residents Association.
She indicated they understood how long this plan had been worked on — she and some members of her
Board worked for months on it — and in general, they appreciated it and all the work done by everyone.
Ms. Schmidt stated her specific comment related to Grand Avenue, the signalization, parking and
proposed extra lanes. She indicated they totally supported City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian.
Having worked very closely with him in the past on many different issues, they found him responsive,
willing to talk and explain issues, and they looked forward to a continuation of this in the future.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 8
Referring to Page 11 of the staff report, Ms. Schmidt noted "The intersections of 2nd/Grand and
Mission/Grand are currently operating at LOS E; the timing of improvements (10-20 years) ....." and
inquired as to what improvements this related to. She noted that this area — Grand, Mission and Fifth —
is 100% residential, is zoned 100% residential and is full of nothing but historic houses, except for two
modern apartment buildings. She indicated there was a concern that with the loss of parking, more
lanes, etc., the character of the neighborhood would be affected/destroyed. Ms. Schmidt noted it was
also a bicycle route and the cyclists were concerned as to whether it would be impossible to ride
bicycles down Grand.
Reporting that various neighbors and board members had different suggestions about how things could
be done differently, Ms. Schmidt indicated they would like to have the opportunity of meeting with
perhaps members of the Planning Department and the City Traffic Engineer prior to any signalization or
other changes, so that all the neighbors could understand the issues and plans, as this would alleviate
some of the unhappiness and people wanting to sell their homes, etc.
Mayor Boro stated this would be done.
Lee Jordan, on behalf of Cal Pox Incorporated, stated they had reviewed the staff report and had some
strong disagreements. He indicated it listed three items, numbered 1, 2, and 3, outlining the issues
which staff believed mitigated against the allowance of residential use, even limited residential use, such
as senior housing, on this site. He indicated he would address them serially as they appeared in the
staff report:
1) Mr. Jordan stated staff reviewed in some extensive detail the history of the City's planning policy
as it applied to this property, and with that portion of the report, he had no argument concerning
its accuracy in relating what had occurred with respect to the property in the past. However, as
they looked at it, Mr. Jordan stated the purpose of the process in which the City was now
engaged — a review of the existing General Plan and City policies - was not an historical
exercise, rather the whole purpose was to determine what, if any, changes ought to be made to
existing planning policies under current conditions and current circumstances. He indicated this
was the very purpose of the review being undertaken, and, in fact, that was the very reason state
law mandates periodic reviews of General Plan polices.
Mr. Jordan noted, for example, that with respect to the Loch Lomond Marina site, there was no
recitation of the history; however, having gone back as far as he could follow it in the City's
records with respect to the City's policy to that site, historically, consistently, the planning use
(land use) for that property had been designated marina use and neighborhood/commercial.
Noting this was not what the City was examining (the past history), rather other legitimate
reasons that mitigate against the recommendation the Steering Committee made, and Cal Pox
was urging, to allow limited residential use on this property.
2) Mr. Jordan stated this consisted of the environmental issues, or what are deemed to be
environmental issues, and these are categorized in two ways:
■ First, staff refers to environmental concerns arising from the existence of commercial
activities on adjacent properties with a residential use, and specifically, references noise
created by backup warning signals of delivery trucks at the Home Depot site. Loud-
speaker systems utilized by the automobile dealerships located on the property were also
referred to.
Mr. Jordan reported having spent enumerable hours in the office of Cal Pox, which is
located immediately across the street from both of the dealerships, and had never once
heard any of the loud -speaker systems at that location. The site in question was much
further removed from those automobile dealerships than is the office of Cal Pox Inc. He
indicated he also had been out there when delivery trucks were delivering materials at
Home Depot and had heard the backup signals. He had gone out on the property this
Saturday when a delivery truck was present to see whether he could hear anything, and
reported that he could not hear that backup signal from the farthest portion of the site at
issue. Even going as close as to the suggested location of this project, it was barely
audible.
Indicating he then went to the Senior Assisted Living Project, Redwoods, in Mill Valley
and to the Windchime of Marin Senior Assisted Project on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard,
Kentfield, Mr. Jordan reported that the noise element immediately adjacent to those
projects was monumentally greater than the noise element existing on the Home Depot
property, or the existing automobile dealerships. Mr. Jordan stated that in his judgment,
staff was picking at nits in relation to the noise problems.
Mr. Jordan noted the Draft General Plan states that the biggest objectionable source of
noise in the City of San Rafael is automobile traffic, and he believed the automobile traffic
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 9
out there was very low in terms of speed and level of noise generated because the traffic
is going at such low speed.
Noting the staff report refers to the landfill condition and the methane, Mr. Jordan
believed he dealt with this at the last meeting. He stated there was no credible
engineering evidence available at all that supports the contention that these are
environmental problems. He noted that all the available engineering evidence at this
point, indicates otherwise. However, while he believed the environmental aspect was not
really staff's concern, Mr. Jordan stated that if staff was really concerned about that, then
the language contained in the recommendation from the Steering Committee adequately
addresses this, as it states that these residential uses should be allowed only if
"potentially hazardous soils conditions are in compliance with state and federal laws, and
that geoseismic conditions and commercial conflicts have been mitigated." Mr. Jordan
stated that the time to determine whether such concerns are justified is when a project
was presented so that it could be analyzed.
3) Mr. Jordan believed the real reason staff opposed this project was that raised by City
Manager Gould at the last meeting when he referred to the economic issue. He indicated he
could understand Mr. Gould's and the City's concern for that; however, suggested that the
position taken by staff placed Cal Pox between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Explaining,
Mr. Jordan stated staff's position was that the remainder of this site ought to be reserved for high
tax generating uses; however, the market indicates that high tax generating uses are
synonymous with high traffic generating uses, and the City's present traffic limitation policies do
not allow for the establishment of new, high traffic generating uses on this property.
Further explaining, Mr. Jordan reported that Cal Pox by itself and through several very
respectable real estate brokerage offices had been for a number of years trying to locate high tax
generating commercial uses for that site. Everyone they had taken to the City, or suggested to
the prospective tenants that they go to the City, had been informed they could not be
accommodated because of the existing traffic limitations.
Mr. Jordan noted he informed Council last time he believed that with the present position staff has
taken, the only thing they could really establish out there in the way of low traffic generating uses would
be non -tax generating uses, such as mini -storage, a warehouse, corporation yard, etc. He indicated
that the staff report this evening appeared to be optimistic with respect to being able to attract tax
generating uses to that site; however, the staff report of September 27, 2004, states: "In addition, traffic
modeling indicates that until significant traffic mitigations are in place, only very low traffic generating
uses such as mini -storage, are likely to be approved."
Mr. Jordan indicated that according to Mr. Mansourian, until some very major expensive structural
improvements in infrastructure, are completed, there is no likelihood of being able to generate additional
traffic capacity for the East San Rafael area. As a matter of equity, he submitted that the property owner
should at least be given the opportunity, without a final determination, to present to the City a project
that would make reasonable and, they believed, very attractive use of that site, and demonstrate to the
City they could alleviate and mitigate any of the environmental concerns that may exist.
Mike Nelson, representing San Pedro Cove Development, commenting on Page 9 - NH -121 — Loch
Lomond Marina - stated that the new language generally clears up some of the ambiguities in the first
version. He indicated the concerns of the neighborhood had always been basically that: 1) It is a Marina
first, and they wanted to maintain that; and 2) That it is compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Nelson
stated the Planning Commission believed that one of the ways to handle this was to establish an
acreage level for new housing and commercial and the balance for a marina. Noting nine acres was the
number they came up with, Mr. Nelson believed the original was ten acres and there were some major
concerns about day boat usage.
Mr. Nelson stated the new language appeared a lot more flexible, quoting: "Because of the limited area
for marine uses on the site, residential use is not allowed in the Marine Related District. In order to
accommodate the optimal site plan for the marina and housing, the land use district boundaries on the
site shall be considered approximate and may be adjusted through the master plan for the Planned
District zoning." Not being a planner, Mr. Nelson indicated he was not quite sure he understood that
language; however, it appeared to be stating that nine acres was too specific and it should be kept
flexible. He stated this made him a little nervous as he would prefer to see a set amount.
Jeanne Cohn stated that she had very recently been elected to the new Board of Directors for the Loch
Lomond Homeowners Association and she distributed copies of a letter to Council.
Ms. Cohn stated that on October 15, 2004, the residents of Loch Lomond elected a brand new Board of
Directors for the Homeowners Association and they had been given a mandate to oppose the proposed
development plans. She indicated that a new president would be introduced shortly with the hope that
this new leadership would be more aggressive in carrying out the people's desires.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Pagel 0
Noting they had been supportive of all Councilmembers in past elections, Ms. Cohn expressed the hope
Council would support their legitimate concerns. She stated they did not wish to find themselves in a
similar situation as the people of Redwood City whose City Council and Planner rejected their issues
with their marina development — that would be decided at the November election. She indicated they
wanted to think of the City Council as friends of the community, not foes.
Having just reviewed the omissions and additions of Section NH -121 of General Plan 2020, Ms. Cohn
stated that while it was a good thing to work with developers to result in a proper development, the
version before Council was tailored to meet the developers' desires rather than what is right for the
community. She encouraged Council to consider the following points:
NH -121a. Land Use — Dry boat berthing "for local residents" clearly goes along with the Loch Lomond
Marina's stated plans to omit as many dry storage users as possible in order to increase land area for
new construction. Ms. Cohn stated this was carefully worded so that they would not be required to have
as many spaces available. Their rent log shows a great many boaters are from out of the City, which is
why the words "local residents" had been added. She indicated that the monthly rent had also been
doubled (which is their right) in order to further their aim of reducing the spaces. Ms. Cohn stated it
should be kept in mind that these boats are launched from the marina free of charge. By getting rid of
them, public access to the Bay would have been restricted. She questioned why the marina owners
should be rewarded for underhanded methods, noting public access must not exclude other boaters
from surrounding areas.
Ms. Cohn noted "Access for fishing" had been crossed out because fishermen drive there, rather than
walk, and the wording would allow fewer parking spaces. Some fishing charters could require many
parking spaces, and when the fish are running, many fishermen along the banks need parking also.
Again, she stated the careful wording restricts public Bay access and recreation.
Indicating that "Attached housing" had been added, but although not required, Ms. Cohn stated it allows
the developer to squeeze in more units. She indicated there was no need to stipulate the words, rather
leave it open. She noted the developers and planner describe the new development as a Nantucket
Village, and she questioned whether the people there would permit multi -storied attached housing. Ms.
Cohn stated these types of devises were just more "hogwash" from the proponents of the developer.
NH -121 b. Site Design — Ms. Cohn noted that "Views of the marina" were included; however, the word
"Bay" had been omitted. Again, she stated the planners were working too hard to satisfy the wishes of
the developer, giving them a license to degrade the City. She noted that Commissioner Whipple, during
the final Planning Commission hearing on the issue, reminded the Commission and developer that a
desired view corridor would be through a wide part of the center of the marina. Ms. Cohn reported that
developer Thompson stood up right away and stated that if he were restricted to only placing housing on
the east and west parts of the land, as far as he was concerned, "there would be no project" and
Commissioner Whipple seemed to then go along, as though he had been coerced by someone to give
way to the developer. She indicated that the present plan, once again, had been edited to suit the
developer's wishes, noting there were other developers who could carry out the Planning Commission's
wishes. To consider a street intersection as the view corridor she believed was beyond
comprehension, yet the plan before Council had been tailored to this element via strong persuasion from
the developer, and with no meaningful protest from the Planning Commissioners. She indicated they
had expressed a desire for a reasonable view corridor and it was hoped that the City Council would
have more gumption than the Planning Commission on this important issue.
Ms. Cohn stated that "Pedestrian focused" as had been added was simply a way to escape sufficient
parking. She noted that most people who walk the marina lands arrived by car, not by foot, and one of
the finest use elements at the marina today was the ability to allow people to sit in their cars and take in
the maritime view. To continue this lovely pastime, she stated, would mean parking would have to be
allowed facing the water, as it is now; however, the developer seeks to remove that facility and create
an automobile thoroughfare just to crowd in more housing.
Ms. Cohn stated that the corrections, in too many cases, had been made for one reason, to hand over to
the developers and owners what they wanted, and she encouraged the City Council not to let this go on.
Roger Roberts, 223 Southern Heights Boulevard, speaking on behalf of Marin Conservation League,
stated that with respect to the Cal Pox site, they supported the staff position that residential uses on the
site not be allowed, noting they had made comments previously as to why they believed this to be a
wise decision and they continued to support staff on that particular conclusion.
Relative to Loch Lomond, Mr. Roberts stated he supposed this was potentially an EIR issue; however,
there was nothing in the plan that stated with respect to that site there would be protections built into the
site plan for the Bayfront and seasonal wetlands that exist there. He indicated it could be useful to add
to NH -121d comments to the effect that the site plan for the project would respect the Bayfront and
seasonal wetlands and protect them.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 11
Regarding the Circulation Element and proposed language, Mr. Roberts stated he was speaking on
behalf of the San Rafael Federation of Neighborhoods. They had been back and forth on the language
as to how to treat the exceptions for evaluation on project merits, and staff had exercised their pen in
coming up with language which he believed was generally satisfactory, except on Pages 10/11 "based
on substantial evidence that the specific economic, social, technological and /or other benefits of the
project to the community outweigh the project's impacts on circulation and that all feasible mitigation
measures have been required of the project" he suggested consideration be given to adding before the
word outweigh the word substantially, to read "community substantially outweighs the project's impacts
on circulation." Mr. Roberts stated his reason for suggesting this was to make it clear to all future City
Councils during the life of this Plan, that marginal benefits are not enough to override the City's Level of
Service standards.
Sara Jensen indicated she was informed this afternoon that she could not speak this evening, rather
was invited to provide twelve copies of her remarks. She distributed a letter to Council requesting they
read her very detailed comments and suggestions.
Ms. Jensen stated that throughout the process, many concerns had been expressed about the scale of
the Land Use change proposed for Loch Lomond Marina, concerns that placing that much housing there
would eventually damage the marina and certainly restrict its future growth, if not kill it outright. Yet, in
the staff report, she noted these concerns were not addressed and the community was still waiting and
hoping that this very fundamental design issue would be addressed.
Ms. Jensen stated that an enormous Land Use change was being proposed for Loch Lomond Marina
and one that appeared too big. Should the City be proposing to put a modest amount of housing there,
i.e., one-story, twenty or thirty houses, she did not believe the neighborhood would be concerned;
however, on learning of 135 houses or more, including multi -story houses, it was a real cause for
concern. It would not be compatible and would have damaging impacts on the community and the
marina.
Ms. Jensen stated that in much of the language in the new version of NH 121 the generalizations
sounded good; however, the details made the entire thing seem impossible. She noted this was a set
amount of land and it was not possible to have so many things going on in one place and have it
workable.
Giving an example, Ms. Jensen stated it speaks to having a view corridor. She stated that a view
corridor was very important, the Marina was originally built along with the Loch Lomond neighborhoods,
sloping gradually down and limited to one-story houses. There was a very strong bay connection
because the marina is there, leaving wide open lots of connection and should the land be built up by
placing multi -story housing on it, that connection would essentially be severed. Ms. Jensen stated this
was a serious quality of life issue and also a financial issue.
Ms. Jensen stated there was mention of a view corridor; however, the view corridor would be
"enhanced" by placing buildings within it, and it appeared to her impossible that a view corridor could
function as such with buildings in it. She indicated they did not want a view of the sides and walls of
buildings, rather a view of the Bay, boats, marina, water, etc.
Ms. Jensen expressed the hope that Council would read the remainder of her comments.
Elissa Giambastiani, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce and Marin Workforce Housing Trust, stated
that with regard to the Loch Lomond site, they supported the new wording that speaks to attached
housing or small single-family homes. She indicated that San Rafael did not need one more million
dollar house, which would be the case if a small number of houses were considered. She stated they
believed this language reflected Affordability by Design and this type of language and policy needed to
be considered in terms of market rate units.
Ms. Giambastiani expressed appreciation for the exemption of the affordable housing units from the
Traffic Mitigation Fees. Under the ratings for affordable housing, which she appreciated being lowered
to make housing projects more competitive with retail, she had a question on the clarification that
exemptions applied only up to 10 vehicle trips, i.e., should there be more than 10 affordable housing
units, would there still only be exemptions for 10 units?.
Ted Murray, newly elected member of the Loch Lomond Homeowners Board, stated that the Loch
Lomond neighborhood had frequently commented on the marina before the Planning Commission. The
version of NH -121 presented in General Plan 2020 was the result of input from the Planning
Commission, the developer and the community. He indicated that although this version did not go far
enough to protect the established neighborhoods adjacent to the marina, it did represent movement in
that direction. Mr. Murray stated he was disappointed, but not completely surprised, to see that Council
had overruled the suggestions of the Planning Commission. He explained that the marina needed to
remain functional, which meant retaining wording that protects marine related support facilities. He
indicated that a long time owner of the San Rafael Yacht Harbor recently told him that if there was not
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 12
marine related support for the boat owners, there would not be a functional marina
As was heard over and over, Mr. Murray stated that traffic was a huge concern to the residents of the
Point San Pedro community. The development needed to be low density and one-story. The gross
density cap of 135 was far too high; the Planning Commission Chairman was suggesting less than 60.
He stated that in reality, if negative impacts to established neighborhoods, to the marina and to traffic
circulation are to be avoided, even 60 was too high.
Louise Patterson, San Pedro Cove, stated Council had heard many of her neighbors speak on how
Policy NH -121 had been changed. She referred Council to Staff Report - Page 9 - b.4. which
specifically states "streets and alleyways" and this was exactly what the developer had proposed. She
requested that this be changed to "vehicular circulation."
Mayor Boro invited staff to comment on questions raised.
On the question from Ms. Schmidt regarding which improvements were in the ten — twenty year
timeframe, Mr. Mansourian stated two situations related to this issue: 1) Second/Grand widening,
which was very long range; and 2) Mission/Grand signalization, which would depend on the amount of
development at Dominican University. Mr. Mansourian pointed out that staff always works with the
neighborhoods, and it had always been a pleasure to work with MARA (Montecito Area Residents
Association) regarding all their issues, and when the time came for signalization or some improvements,
staff would again work with the neighborhood and come up with a conceptual design. He indicated this
was in Policy of 1-5 for General Plan 2020, which encourages public participation for conceptual design.
Regarding Mr. Jordan's comment that high-tech generating uses equaled high -traffic uses, Community
Development Director Bob Brown stated staff would not agree with that. In fact, after Home Depot, the
build -out to date of the Shoreline Center had been low traffic generating uses, which was the reason for
automobile dealerships there. He indicated the City had been working with the Bramantes to try to
locate users for the remainder of the site. Car dealers had been identified, even a large bulk retail
furniture outlet staff believed could potentially fit with the available traffic had been identified, and he
noted there would be some additional capacity created by the change from mid level of D to maximum
level of D on Bellam. Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Mansourian would insist it would not be a great deal;
however, there could be some additional capacity to accommodate a low traffic generating use. He
indicated staff believed both could be accommodated — low traffic generating, high tax generating.
Regarding Mr. Nelson's question on the acreage at Loch Lomond, Mr. Brown stated that 9 acres had
been mapped in the General Plan Land Use map. Although tiny, it was 9 acres when calculated on the
computer, and it was not proposed to change this. He explained that the 9 acres came from Planning
Commission's discussions; they felt more comfortable with a maximum of 135 units on the site,
although Mr. Brown wished to make clear to the public that what was indicated in the Housing Element
Appendix was that staff anticipated something more in the range of a maximum of 99 units was more
likely to be feasible than the maximum range within the General Plan.
Explaining the reason for the language change, Mr. Brown stated that with all the discussion concerning
creating view corridors and recreational space, staff was not absolutely certain whether the residential
footprints and the commercial development (neighborhoods serving commercial), all the streets that
serve them and some of the recreational space could fit within the 9 acres. He indicated that what staff
heard as being critical was the 135 units was an absolute maximum and they did not propose to change
this. Explaining the policy language, Mr. Brown anticipated that the land use boundaries would have to
shift because at this point in time there was not an approved Land Use plan or actual project for the
property. This would be done through a General Plan amendment; therefore, the boundaries were not
being locked in at this time.
Regarding Ms. Cohn's comparison with the Redwood City project, Mr. Brown pointed out that the
proposal in Redwood City to eliminate Pete's Harbor would replace it with very high-rise housing,
nothing even comparable to this project.
Regarding Ms. Cohn's comments regarding removal of the reference to fishing, Mr. Brown stated this
had been relocated and was now under Land Use , Page 8 - a. where it talks about water oriented
recreation along the marina. It goes on to describe what the uses are and does include fishing.
With reference to Ms. Cohn's question on people not having the ability to come and look at the view,
Mayor Boro inquired whether these opportunities would remain and whether the developer would
understand what the City was attempting to accomplish there, i.e., fishing, boat launching, etc., with
space for people to park their cars and have a view.
Responding affirmatively, Mr. Brown stated that when these are listed as land uses to be retained on the
site, the expectation was that staff was also planning for them to be parked. He indicated they were
trying to encourage improvements that would draw people to and be attractive to the immediate
neighborhood, i.e., biking and walking to the site; however, it should not be forgotten that most people
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 13
would arrive there by vehicle. Mr. Brown stated staff would analyze what the developer was proposing
in the EIR very critically with Mr. Mansourian's help.
On that point, Councilmember Heller stated that while she realized this was very general at this stage,
she was aware that a lot of people lived on their boats and she did not want them to be lost with
regarding to parking, etc.
Mr. Brown stated staff completely understood this, adding that this would be a very complicated mixed-
use parking analysis because of the number of uses. He indicated the City's consultants would evaluate
when the various uses peaked and the maximum need at any point in time.
Following up on the discussion on water related recreation, Councilmember Cohen noted Mr. Brown
indicated the language included all these uses and implied that they should be enhanced; however, it
appeared to him in this particular bullet that language had actually be taken out, and believed the
community's request was a lot stronger. He specifically referred to "For example, bird watching and
fishing opportunities should be enhanced. Access for fishing should be provided in a way that extends a
welcome to visitors" and believing this to be pretty clear language, he did not see why it could not
remain. Explaining, Councilmember Cohen stated this language made it clear that it did not relate solely
to fishing and would provide some challenge to a developer to think creatively about how to meet the
needs of the community as articulated over these hearings.
Ms. Jackson confirmed that the last two sentences would remain.
Mr. Brown referred to a comment by Ms. Cohn that with regard to views of the marina, "Bay" had been
eliminated. He explained that staff requested the Planning Commission and Design Review Board at
their joint meeting to help clarify the Planning Commission's policy as to whether or not they truly were
talking about a view corridor through the center of the site, or a view corridor through the entry road from
Point San Pedro Road; they indicated the latter, and staff attempted to incorporate that. Mr. Brown
noted a reference to Bay views in the last bullet on page 9 under b. Site Design 1. - "Buildings should
be carefully sited and designed to enhance or minimize impacts to views of the Bay, the Marin Islands,
wetlands and the marina." He indicated this really applied to development above Point San Pedro Road
because staff having gone out with the Planning Commission subcommittee looking at the current
views, noted it was very difficult to see the Bay from any point, rather what could be seen were the
marina and masts, and seeing past this was virtually impossible from Point San Pedro Road, the main
public thoroughfare from which people would view the site. He reiterated that the last bullet in b.1. was
intended to address the impacts from private vantage points also.
Referring to Page 9 b. — Site Design — 1. Mayor Boro quoted "... and to achieve an open, welcoming
and inviting entrance to the marina, this corridor may include street right-of-way, open space, parking
and buildings that are lower scale..." and inquired why there would be a building in the right-of-way. He
recalled a comment from a previous meeting to the effect that with a building there presently, the marina
is not visible until one passes the building, and he believed the intent was that the water would be visible
on entry, with no impediment to the view.
Mr. Brown reported the Design Review Board and Planning Commission indicated that should there be
buildings within this generalized corridor, they should be low scale; therefore, he believed it was a
question of how wide the corridor is. Roadway, setback areas and adjacent parking was one thing;
however, the DRB and Planning Commission stated that should there be buildings adjacent to that, they
should be lower scale and a step up so that the corridor is a width, and what came on either side would
be a slow increase in height. With regard to the concerns expressed about enhancing the view corridor,
Mr. Brown suggested that perhaps it would be best to discuss framing a view corridor. Presently, one
could see across the entire asphalt of the site and it was difficult to indicate that locating anything on the
site would enhance the view.
Entering from Lochinvar and driving toward the restaurant, Mayor Boro stated there was a huge building
blocking the marina and he understood this was the view corridor under discussion. While the entire
site should not be wide open, he suggested it should not immediately get into buildings in the view
corridor.
Ms. Jackson quoted from the staff report "The view to the waterfront (or of the waterfront) down the
entryway into the site from the Lochinvar intersection..." confirmed there was a building at the end
blocking the view; however, the DRB and Planning Commission noted at their joint meeting there was a
view down there and the marina could be seen if the building were not there. She indicated staff was
trying to capture this with this language.
Councilmember Cohen noted from the staff report, Page 9 — "...this corridor may include street right-of-
way, open space, parking and buildings that are lower scale or that incorporate larger setbacks or
stepbacks of upper floors" and indicated it was unclear to him how a view corridor should include
buildings. To get at what he understood to be staff's intent, Councilmember Cohen believed there
should be a period after "parking", inserting the language "Buildings adjacent to the view corridor should
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 14
be lower scale and incorporate larger setbacks or stepbacks of upper floors." In this way, not only would
there be a view corridor, rather there would be widening out from the structures to prevent a tunnel
effect of the view corridor. While not suggesting specifically exactly how many feet the view corridor
would be, should this be the public view corridor, it needed to be open.
Referring to Mr. Roberts' suggestion that there be stated protections for the seasonal wetlands and
bayfront, Mr. Brown stated these occur in other policies in the Conservation Element, He noted that in
Program NH -121 a., bottom of Page 9, BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) and
Army Corps' review would be necessary. The intent was that those agencies would also be involved in
the review and apply their standards also. Should Council desire, Mr. Brown stated that a sentence
could be added about protection of the environmental assets on the site.
Noting Mr. Roberts talked about Program C -5c, suggesting that the benefits to the community
substantially outweighed the impacts on circulation, Mr. Brown stated staff had no problem with that
language. They believed the bar to be attained would be fairly high.
Regarding Mr. Murray's issue concerning marine related services NH -121 a. — Land Use, Mr. Brown
stated the intent of the original language, and the reworded language also, was to express the retention
of those marine related facilities. Ms. Jackson indicated staff could be much more specific about what
the facilities and amenities are. As pointed out by Councilmember Heller, she noted there were
showers, restroom facilities, retail and a number of uses that go along with live-aboards and boaters,
and these were consolidated into "amenities and facilities." However, should Council wish to have more
specificity, this could be done.
Looking at the strikethrough language, Councilmember Cohen was not sure it clarified, rather touched
on the intent of the comment. He noted "support" had been removed; it now read: "Marina related
facilities" as opposed to "Marina and support facilities." Further on in the paragraph he noted that
"services" had been struck from "both retail and services" and he wondered whether in a General Plan
specificity had to be given to those types of support and service uses. He noted the remaining language
solely referenced the marina itself without these types of ancillary uses, and he would like to see more
reference to them. Councilmember Cohen stated it had been made clear that the City wanted this to be
a thriving marina.
Ms. Jackson stated that "retail" and "services" could be included and "support" could be used instead of
"related."
Mr. Brown noted Mr. Murray also mentioned that it was necessary to go to a low density for traffic
purposes, and even 60 units could be too high from a traffic standpoint. He explained this was a very
preliminary traffic analysis carried out for the General Plan level, and it indicated that 242 units on the
San Pedro Peninsula, which included expectations for this site that appeared to be higher than the
developer was interested in, plus other development, including second units, would increase traffic
through the Third and Union intersection by approximately four seconds. To pare that back to what the
developer is actually applying for for Loch Lomond Marina, that could be a one and a half to two
seconds maximum increase. Looking at the base of traffic that well over two thousand existing units are
generating compared to the addition of 70 or 80 units, Mr. Brown stated it was a very small percentage.
He recognized that with the truck traffic from the quarry, it was a significant irritant. Getting to the
freeway, which was impacted by larger areas than just the San Pedro Peninsula, was also of concern to
this neighborhood; however, just looking at this specific development, traveling down Point San Pedro,
staff did not find it to be a very substantial increase. However, Mr. Brown stated that once again, that
was the point of the EIR and the Traffic Study in the EIR, which would be done at a much more detailed
level when there is a very detailed proposal.
Regarding Ms. Patterson's comment concerning streets and alleyways, Mr. Brown stated he was not
sure of the purpose of the change. He stated that the Planning Commission and DRB were pretty
uniform in their direction that they liked the notion of incorporating alleyways so that the housing units
fronting onto the streets do not have garage doors, the garages being in the back and dealt with from
alleyways where garbage is collected, etc. He indicated it did not state they had to have alleyways,
rather "streets and alleyways should be ....." and staff believed the wording as is was fine.
Regarding Ms. Giambastiani's question concerning the PSP exemptions for ten trips, etc., referring to
page 15, Ms. Jackson stated that with regard to the exemptions listed, this clause did not apply to the
traffic mitigation fee exemptions for affordable housing. She recalled that in the PSP ordinance, projects
that generate ten or more AM or PM peak hour trips participate in the PSP program, and less are
exempt. She noted there are also other exempt projects, such as daycare facilities.
Mr. Brown stated a good example was the BMW dealership and their service bays where they added a
few service bays to be under the ten peak hour trip limit so they were not subject to the current PPP
requirement. He indicated they then came in the following year and wanted to add more service bays
and the combination of the two projects would have been over the ten peak hour trips. He stated that at
that point, staff would like to be in a position to indicate that the second expansion was now subject to
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 15
PSP to avoid these incremental additions that would constitute more than ten peak hour trips
Mayor Boro directed Council's attention to page 2 of the staff report to go through the major points
discussed to see whether a consensus could be reached on each one so that staff and the City Clerk
could keep track and record any changes.
Cal Pox —
Being aware of the issue, Mayor Boro stated there was a recommendation from staff, which was
contrary to some direction taken at the last meeting, to reconsider. He noted Mr. Jordan, Cal Pox
representative, had made his case and invited comment from Councilmembers.
Councilmember Miller stated he was struck by the concern about spot zoning. He believed residential
was not allowed for in the light/industrial throughout the City, and for him this was the pervasive
argument. He agreed with the economic aspect as being the highest and best use because it was
precisely within the light/industrial that could enhance the City and considerably help the overall City.
Councilmember Miller believed the use as an assisted living facility could adequately be taken care of
elsewhere in the City and therefore, he did not consider that a predominant issue over the economic
argument. He expressed satisfaction with the wording as proposed.
Councilmember Cohen stated there had been a lot of split votes on this issue and he personally, was
still divided 5:4. He indicated part of him agreed with Councilmember Miller's and staff's comment
concerning this beginning to look like spot zoning as there was no other residential there. In talking
about a land use change in Loch Lomond, he stated this did not mean looking at a land use change in
every area of the City, particularly this one (Cal Pox) where every other use around was automobile
oriented retail.
Believing there was an issue of fairness to the property owner, Councilmember Cohen stated it was not
right for the City to infer they could only have this type of use that would provide benefit to the City, while
not actually anticipating their being able to do that within the lifespan of this particular document. To go
with the staff recommendation, he believed it incumbent upon the City to work with the owners, look at
the traffic situation, look at what was possible, and really try to assist them in finding the types of uses
that would provide the economic return that fit within the traffic constraints the City had placed there for
good and legitimate reasons. Councilmember Cohen stated that to infer it is for economic development,
while in fact no development could take place, there would be no economic return to the City. He stated
that perhaps he was leaning back towards going with the staff recommendation while stressing that the
City needed to actively work with the property owner now to ascertain whether or not this was realistic,
not have them return in ten or twenty years when something may have been figured out, as he did not
believe this fair. Councilmember Cohen stated this was one of reasons he had previously been willing
to consider the residential use aspect. Should staff wish to make the argument that there are
possibilities there, he believed what they are would need to be proved.
Councilmember Heller stated that for her, placing this type of housing there was very problematic from
the outset. She felt that as it went forward the bar would have to be very high to reach what she
considered appropriate for the anticipated residents, for all of the reasons mentioned by staff. She
agreed with Councilmember Cohen that it would be necessary to find a use for the land; it is a beautiful
piece of land and should be developed as they saw fit. Councilmember Heller stated she had problems
with the fact that housing would be the only thing in the entire area for seniors. She did not consider this
the right place for it and, therefore, supported staffs recommendation.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was persuaded by elements of the staff report. He indicated that
initially just looking at the site he thought it quite attractive and could work pretty well; however, upon
further consideration, he believed there were merits to the recommendation by staff. He understood the
argument made by Councilmember Cohen with regard to the fairness or otherwise and agreed the City
should take steps to make it work for the owners. However, from his understanding, having such a
facility at that particular site would also more than likely result in City support through services, at a
significant cost. He believed revenues would not provide for police and fire and other emergency
services; therefore, while it should be fair to the owner, it should also be fair to the City, taking on the
additional burden of such a unique application.
On balance, Councilmember Phillips stated he concurred with the other Councilmembers that this was
not an appropriate use of that particular site, and he would lean towards staff's recommendation.
Mayor Boro concurred, indicating his belief that this was truly spot zoning. It was not a compatible use
and there were other options for the site. He noted the City had worked very hard with the property
owner, first with Home Depot, then BMW, Team Chevrolet, etc. Mayor Boro stated there were other
opportunities for the site that were low traffic, high tax generating, and while in the minds of the owners,
it was a bird in the hand versus the future, he believed it was necessary to look somewhat more long
term, and there was a consensus from the City Council that the recommendation was the correct way
to go.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 16
Loch Lomond —
Mayor Boro stated that unfortunately, for whatever reason, on the night of the hearing some of those
who spoke tonight left before Council gave staff direction.
He stated that in essence, to imply that what was here came about as a result of trying to deal with the
developer is not true at all. What staff tried to come forward with tonight was the fact that this Council
told the staff that night, and he had told them subsequently on more than one occasion, the intent was
to "Save that Marina" - to keep it for public access, and that was one of the first changes he wanted to
make in the text on NH -121 for Council to consider. Mayor Boro indicated that he would like "a
welcoming place for people" to read "a welcoming place for the public", noting it was a public marina
and should be used by the public, whomever they may be.
Indicating he supported the open access, Mayor Boro stated he supported the boat launching currently
there. Explaining the reason for getting into the local use concerning storage, he stated that when he
went to the neighborhood and talked to people out there, the concern was, in Loch Lomond, in
particular, people own boats and if they could not store them, they would be on the streets. The tradeoff
was how much storage could be on that site and how much space it took, so the intent was to have
some level to meet the needs of the immediate community for boat storage, not to accommodate the
entire Bay Area, as is currently being done. So somehow that would have to be worked out.
Having discussed the view corridor and the issue of the public being able to park there, Mayor Boro
stated his vision was that the public could go to that site as it is today and there would be separation.
There would be an inviting marina, accessible and usable for all the things talked about and that this
plan spoke to. He indicated there would be hiking, fishing, walking, viewing, launching, whatever the
case might be, and tonight's goal in the wording was to "Save Loch Lomond Marina", which he
supported. However, should saving the Loch Lomond Marina mean there would be no homes built
there, that was not the intention. Realizing the homes were an issue, Mayor Boro noted there was an
application, which may or may not come through. He indicated having told residents back in April that
the City had no intention whatsoever of destroying that neighborhood or any neighborhood, and that
residents' and community needs could be accommodated. Mayor Boro believed the wording indicated
that he, and he was sure the other members of the City Council concurred, wanted to have marina
access out there, and that was the whole intention.
Mayor Boro stated this was what Council discussed that night after, for whatever reason, people had
left. They gave very explicit instructions to frame changes that would assure the community, both in
Loch Lomond and throughout the area, that it is a public marina that people would have access to, no
matter what happened. When applications came forward, they would have to be dealt with; however, he
indicated there would be principles that would set the stage that the marina would be an operating
marina and in no way would any housing development detract from that. Mayor Boro stated that people
at the marina would not feel they were in someone's front or back yard, rather there would be
separation to ensure this would not happen, and the marina would function as a Marina.
Mayor Boro stated this was his intent, the Councilmembers could speak for themselves; however, he
believed they felt the same way. He believed the key issues noted - retaining the local service
commercial, boat launching, boat storage, view corridor, the whole concept of a marina that operates as
a marina, would be achieved with this wording, and through any process that came through. He
stated this was the commitment and what he had in mind, and he would let Council speak for
themselves.
Again, Mayor Boro stated this did not mean there would not be some level of housing there. This could
be debated and discussed; the City would be reasonable and hopefully the community would be
reasonable also; however, this was for another day. He indicated the City had housing issues and goals
that had to be met and the intention was to meet them incrementally throughout the City, and this site
would help meet them, again within reason.
Councilmember Heller stated she loved that site and is out there a lot, and through the last year talking
to the community, it has been terribly frustrating because they all were focused on an issue that was
frightening them to death, and as there was no plan, she believed she could not respond. She would
not be in a position to know what the problems were with a specific plan until it was presented, because
as mentioned before, this was just the broad parameters of what was expected to go in each little area
of the City in the next twenty years, without drawing the specifics. Councilmember Heller believed this
many times confused the public in different areas when there was a problem with what was going into
the General Plan.
As this was her first General Plan, Councilmember Heller stated she was pretty scared of it. She noted
she attended almost all of the Planning Commission meetings and any meeting she could get to to have
a head start, as it was pretty overwhelming to read what she termed the "San Rafael bestseller."
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 17
Councilmember Heller stated it needed to be stressed that the community would have its full say on the
plan, albeit there was no plan yet; therefore, until discussions begin on a plan the community needed to
understand that the City was talking very generally. She believed this had been the miscommunication
between the community, the City and planning area of the City.
Councilmember Phillips stated that during the campaign they talked with quite a few people in Loch
Lomond, on the street and in an organized fashion, and in listening to Mayor Boro, he was struck by his
comments and vision which matched his own. He believed from comments during that period, that most
people in the area considered this an opportunity to significantly improve the area. Although there is a
lot of feedback that could signify it is all negative and bad, he believed in many ways, it would
substantially enhance the area. Noting concerns about the traffic, development or over development,
Councilmember Phillips stated that in listening to Mayor Boro, he did not wish to cloud his statement by
trying to add to it, believing it was clearly stated. He stated that as Mayor Boro had done a nice job of
summarizing his (Councilmember Phillips') views, he wished to let that statement stand for him
Councilmember Miller stated he echoed Councilmember Phillips' remarks in terms of endorsing Mayor
Boro's statement and indicated he wished to proceed with this language, seeing it as providing the
palette and framework. He noted it was purposely done generally so that the community could work
together with the developer and within this framework something would grow out of it.
Because it is a General Plan, Councilmember Miller stated it was not a review of an application or
anything like that. He believed it fit the bill quite nicely because staff had responded to the community
as they had come forward, and he congratulated the community of Loch Lomond and the surrounding
area for coming forward. They had been at Planning Commission meetings, Design Review Board
meetings and now the final group. Councilmember Miller expressed the hope that this provided a
framework to work towards obtaining something that really did better the place. He stated that
development was a matter of betterment, not degradation; the marina could be bettered and the hope
was to make this a marvelous Marin Marina.
Regarding views of the Bay, Councilmember Cohen referred to Page 9 — NH -121 b.1. — "Views of the
Marina and waterfront." He stated that presumably, on seeing the waterfront one saw across the water.
Believing the implication was that it would not just be possible to see the marina, rather the water and
therefore, the Bay, at least with regard to the public view corridor, he inquired whether this was a
reasonable interpretation.
Mr. Brown stated that by this language staff was trying to express that what could be seen at Point San
Pedro/Lochinvar entering the site was the marina. It was difficult to see past the boats and there also
was a significant amount of covered boat storage, making it difficult to see the Marin Bay Islands, etc.
He stated the waterfront was intended to suggest the public way (the 100 feet controlled by BCDC) in
front of the marina itself. There would be a recreational space there and beyond that the marina, and
these would draw people.
Councilmember Cohen stated that as with Mayor Boro, he appreciated that some people chose to stay
tonight to listen to Council's comments and deliberations instead of making comments and leaving and
not getting a chance to hear what Council had to say. He believed Council made a real attempt in giving
its direction to staff to respond to a lot of the testimony provided both previously and tonight. Indicating
this was a long way from over and rather than stating "we've got to stop meeting like this", Council
would continue to meet this way until there was resolution. He stated he was certainly committed, and
believed the rest of the Council was committed to finding a resolution that would address the needs of
the larger community, to meet the City's obligation to plan for some share of the Bay Area housing,
which is a legal obligation imposed upon the City which the City cannot change, and the good public
policy reason to pursue a certain type of housing currently under -served in the community.
Councilmember Cohen stated he agreed with the speaker who stated, "We don't really need any more
million dollar homes here, we have got lots of those." He stated that a few places needed to be found
in limited numbers in ways that did not detract from the quality of life, to encourage more people to be
able to stay in the community they grew up in. He believed a way could be found to do that without
destroying Loch Lomond's quality of life or neighborhood.
Noting this was the challenge to be faced, Councilmember Cohen believed a lot of that got into the
details. When a project was presented, it could be discussed to see whether it worked or not, or could
be amended to work.
Putting a finer point on something Mayor Boro alluded to, Councilmember Cohen stated there were
several comments that this had been done to meet the wishes of the developer or the needs of the
developer. Clearly and for the public record, he stated he had never met with the developer of this
project. He had never spoken with the developer, except once perhaps socially a couple years back
when he was introduced to one of the partners in the development company; however, there was no
discussion concerning this project. Councilmember Cohen stated that the only comment he had heard
from the developer or their representative, had been in these Chambers in front of members of the
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 18
public. He stated that, frankly, he had had more private meetings with residents of the neighborhood
than anybody proposing or supporting development on this site. Therefore, should there be a notion
somehow that his actions or his colleagues' actions were driven by secret backroom meetings with
developers, Councilmember Cohen stated this simply was not the case. The Council was elected to
represent the community and they were doing that to the best of their ability.
Councilmember Cohen stated he believed staff was doing their best to be responsive to both larger
public policy directives given to them by Council, and to specific comments given them by Council at
previous edits, and tonight's edits, to try to make this document provide a framework to have the
proposed discussion about what development might look like on this site. He did not believe there was
any obligation to assure this current developer of massive profits or to guarantee them that the
development they wanted to build ultimately might get approval. Councilmember Cohen stated he
believed there would be changes here, which was inevitable. Given what had happened to real estate
in Marin County, he stated there frankly was no way that that property could remain in its current
condition unless the City were to buy and preserve it. He noted that one of the speakers on the last
occasion referred to it as a park; however, it was not, because the City did not own it. Should the City
own it, it could be called a park. The City did not have the resources to purchase the property and keep
it in its current state or enhance it solely for public use, and so real estate prices in the community are
going to drive some changes there.
Councilmember Cohen stated he believed a way could be found to work together to make those
changes ones that enhance the neighborhood and enhance the community as a goal, and he was
committed to trying to find a way to do that by working with all of the community, and he hoped the
community would take the same approach with the City.
Mayor Boro stated there was a consensus on the issue.
Mr. Brown stated that staff had recorded all the edits Council had made along the way.
San Rafael Rock Quarry —
Mayor Boro stated this basically was to reinsert some wording, and he confirmed Council approved.
Councilmember Cohen stated this reflected that there would be a revision and Council was referring to
whatever the approved plan was.
Circulation Element —
Councilmember Cohen stated he believed staff had responded to the comments made by Council. The
wording changes, with the clarification on the word "feasible" on Page 11, got to the intent. He agreed
and would take Mr. Brown up on his offer to have the word "substantially", as suggested by Mr. Roberts,
included. Council intended that the bar should be pretty high and he had no problem with ensuring the
language reflected that the bar needed to be pretty high, and this was a useful edit to include with what
staff had presented this evening.
Councilmember Heller stated she believed the Circulation Element was very good. It was difficult to
wade though for most people (she received tutoring from Mr. Mansourian). For the Neighborhoods, she
believed that whenever possible, it was necessary to include that the City would meet with and work
with them, and should parking in the future need to be removed, staff would be considering removing
the absolute minimum amount, and this should be stressed to the community, as it was a huge fear.
She believed the reasons for such removal should also be stressed, i.e., to install a left -turn lane,
improvements, etc., to keep the neighborhood and children a lot safer.
She thanked Mr. Mansourian for the clarity, for the public meetings he held and for going out of his way
with the public many times.
Councilmember Phillips expressed appreciation for the staff work done in this area and he was satisfied
with the Circulation Element.
Councilmember Miller concurred.
Mayor Boro stated he also was satisfied. He agreed 100% with Councilmember Heller's point and felt
assured that Mr. Mansourian would do this as changes were implemented. He recognized Mr.
Mansourian had a good rapport with this and most neighborhoods because he worked hard at it, and
wished to ensure the good work would continue.
Infrastructure — Mayor Boro stated there was Council consensus
Park and Recreation — Consensus
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 19
Conservation — Consensus
Traffic Mitigation Fees — Consensus. Mayor Boro thanked staff for the work they did between
meetings and for meeting with the housing advocates, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, and for
substantiating and defending the fees, while at the same time, making an exception for affordable
housing.
Zoning Ordinance — Mr. Brown stated the text changes would return to Council at the final meeting
which, at this point, staff believed would be November 1, 2004, for adoption.
Design Guidelines — Similar to above.
Prosect Selection Process — Similar to above.
Mayor Boro stated the remainder was a series of comments entered in the record and addressed.
Councilmember Heller complimented staff on their efforts.
Mayor Boro stated the recommendation was to direct staff to prepare the final City Council revisions to
the Draft San Rafael General Plan 2020, including Zoning Ordinance amendments and resolutions
adopting the Project Selection Process, Design Guidelines and Traffic Mitigation Fees.
Mr. Brown clarified that at this point in time staff anticipated being back to Council for final adoption on
November 1, 2004. Should there be a delay in receiving a letter from the State indicating the Housing
Element, if adopted as proposed, would meet with their review, staff would recommend a postponement.
Before voting, Mayor Boro stated he wished to thank all those remaining for their support and
participation. He especially thanked Ms. Jackson and Mr. Brown for the great work they had done, not
only before this Council over five meetings, but for all the work done with the Citizens Advisory
Committee and Planning Commission, the years, months, weeks and hours of work and ultimately,
doing such a great job of bringing the summary back over the past several weeks.
As summarized by Mayor Boro, Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to
direct staff to take the appropriate steps to bring the ordinance and resolutions back to Council for final
action at the next opportunity.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
1) Fire Department Consolidation: - File 9-3-31
Mayor Boro stated he was inviting Councilmember Cohen to work with him and Charles Daniels,
Chair, Fire Commission, as the team to meet with the Novato contingent to explore the issues of
consolidation.
2) Fred Vincenti, Deceased: - File 9-3-85
Mayor Boro invited all present to stand in honor of Fred Vincenti, Civil Engineer, Community
Development Department, who passed way on October 14, 2004, and whose funeral was held
today.
There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m. in memory of
Fred Vincenti.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
2004
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 10/19/04 Page 19