Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2005-10-17 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2005 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Barbara Heller, Vice-Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBER None CLOSED SESSION – CONFERENCE ROOM 201 None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:04 PM St. Vincent’s v. City of San Rafael: - File 3-2-108 (verbal) Gary Ford stated he was present this evening to appeal correspondence received from Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney. He explained that he had requested a complete public legal file of the St. Vincent’s v. City of San Rafael lawsuit; however, was denied that request and informed by Mr. Guinan that such documents could be obtained at the County Clerk’s office. Clarifying the reasons for his request, Mr. Ford stated that the lawsuit was an extremely complex matter, costing both the City and taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, as well as the possibility of facing a legal verdict that could reach into the millions of dollars. He indicated that this summer, the City Council spent considerable time educating the public about the financial challenges facing the City; therefore, he questioned whether the City Council agreed that this lawsuit was also a big challenge and whether the public should become educated about it and all the legal reasons. Mr. Ford stated he was not requesting any attorney/client privileged information, rather a copy of the Complaint, Demurrers and all other public information concerning the lawsuit, such information to be made available either at the office of the City Clerk or at the public library, so that any resident of San Rafael wishing to learn more about the lawsuit could read the file. He understood that most City employees, as well as outside counsel, could not discuss the lawsuit; therefore, the best resource for the community was to read the public files. Mr. Ford requested that the City Council instruct Mr. Guinan to compile such a legal file and provide it to the City Clerk so that all voters and residents of San Rafael could look at it. Commenting that he would like to believe San Rafael enjoyed open, honest and forthright government, Mr. Ford stated his request to the City Council was made in that manner. City Attorney Gary Ragghianti stated he was aware that Mr. Guinan responded to the request; however, should the City Council order staff to provide those documents, which are available to any member of the public at the County Clerk’s office, the City Attorney’s office would comply. Mayor Boro invited Mr. Ragghianti to discuss the issue with Mr. Guinan and get back to Mr. Ford. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Minutes approved as submitted. Monday, October 3, 2005 (CC) 2. Call For Applications To Fill Four (4) Vacancies Approved staff recommendation: a) Called for applications for on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory appointments to fill four, Committee, With Terms to Expire End of three-year terms on the November, 2008 (CC) – File 9-2-55 Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, with terms to expire end of SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 2 November, 2008; b) Set deadline for receipt of applications for Tuesday, November 8, 2005 at 12-Noon; c) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, November 21, 2005, commencing at 6:30 p.m. 3. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to RESOLUTION NO. 11840 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Execute an Agreement for Professional Planning CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN Services with Paul Jensen as Project Planner for AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL Modifications to Entitlements for the Remaining PLANNING SERVICES WITH PAUL A. Development of the San Rafael Corporate Center JENSEN FOR PROJECT (CD) – File 4-3-442 x (SRRA) R-140 x R-465 x MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATED R-405 x R-368 TO “SAN RAFAEL CORPORATE CENTER” (Agreement Term: October 18, 2005 through October 17, 2007 – amount not to exceed $72,050) (Subject to mutual consent of City Manager and Consultant, term of agreement may be extended for an additional period of 12 months.) 4. Resolution Proclaiming November 13-19, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 11841 - RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING as Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week NOVEMBER 13-19, 2005 AS HUNGER in San Rafael, California (CM) – File 233 AND HOMELESSNESS AWARENESS WEEK IN SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 5. Resolution of Appreciation to Family Service RESOLUTION NO. 11842 – RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO Agency of Marin for 60 Years of Counseling, FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY OF Education and Advocacy Services (CM) – MARIN FOR 60 YEARS OF File 102 COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES 6. Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an RESOLUTION NO. 11843 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Agreement Between the County of Marin and the MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO City of San Rafael Regarding the F.L.A.G.SHIP EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT Project (Term of Agreement: 7/1/05 – 6/30/06) BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MARIN (Lib.) – File 4-13-86 x 9-3-61 AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REGARDING THE SHIP F.L.A.G. PROJECT (From 7/1/05 – 6/30/06) 7. Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an RESOLUTION NO. 11844– RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Agreement Between the County of Marin and the MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO City of San Rafael Regarding the Marin Literacy EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT Program (Term of Agreement: 7/1/05 – 6/30/06) BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MARIN (Lib.) – File 4-13-86 x 9-3-61 AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REGARDING THE MARIN LITERACY PROGRAM (From 7/1/05 – 6/30/06) 8. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending Accepted Monthly Investment Report for month ending September 2005, as September 2005 (MS) – File 8-18 x 8-9 presented. 9. Resolution Authorizing Street Closures for the RESOLUTION NO. 11845 – thth RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE 26 Annual Parade of Lights and 16 Annual TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CITY Winter Wonderland and Snow on Friday, TH STREETS FOR THE 26 ANNUAL November 25, 2005 and Saturday, November 26, PARADE OF LIGHTS AND WINTER 2005 (RA) – File 11-19 TH WONDERLAND ON NOVEMBER 25 TH AND NOVEMBER 26 , 2005 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 10. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY OF MARIN FOR 60 YEARS OF COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES (CM) – FILE 102 For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Boro reported that the Family Service Agency of Marin would celebrate its 60th anniversary in the next several weeks and in recognition, the City of San Rafael had a Resolution of Appreciation. From the Resolution Mayor Boro quoted: “The Family Service Agency of Marin began in 1945 in the Marin City Shipyards to aid families of displaced workers brought from all over the country, and soon offered counseling and support to children, adults, and families in need; and In the 1970s, Family Service Agency developed the first multi-cultural mental health service in the county, and then partnered with the Latino community to create the Latino Outreach Program; and In the 1990s, Family Service Agency of Marin established Marin Support Services for Elders to help seniors live safely and independently, developed Dual Diagnosis Treatment for individuals struggling with mental illness and substance abuse, and the nationally recognized Touch Safety Program for schools to prevent child sexual abuse; and In 2000 to 2005, Family Service Agency of Marin established the Jeanette Prandi Children’s Center, Familias Fuertes, Latino Alcohol and Drug Prevention in the Canal, and established the ‘Family Matters’ advice column published bi-monthly in the Pacific Sun; and Family Service Agency of Marin currently serves over 7,000 clients a year.” As could be seen, Mayor Boro stated this was an agency dealing with many different parts of the community, offering many services. Expressing gratitude for the work the Agency had done, on behalf of the City Council and citizens of San Rafael, Mayor Boro congratulated Mike Elgie and Ruth Rosen, who accompanied him, and requested that they extend the City’s congratulations at their celebration in November. On behalf of the Family Service Agency of Marin, Mike Elgie thanked the City Council. He indicated that over the last few years in looking at what was happening and how they were serving the community, one of the things they discovered was “that unless you’re in the business or a client, you’re almost a stealth organization.” Mr. Elgie stated they were not too surprised at this because they deal with families in difficulties, all of which is purposely kept very confidential. He stated it was great, therefore, to have a public presentation such as this and he expressed thanks for the Resolution of Appreciation. PUBLIC HEARING: 11. 1203-1211 LINCOLN AVENUE (CORNER OF LINCOLN AVE. AND MISSION AVE.) – APPEAL OF AN APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 36-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM STRUCTURE WITH A HEIGHT BONUS; APN: 011- 184-08 AND 09; HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HR1) DISTRICT; 1203 LINCOLN AVENUE PARTNERS LP, OWNER; TWM ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT; TYMBER CAVASIAN, JAMES GONSMAN, ROGER ROBERTS, NINA LILIENTHAL-MURPHY, AND LYNN BRADESCU, APPELLANTS; FILE NOS.: ED04-102, UP05-032 AND TS05-001 (CD) (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2005) – FILE 10-7 x 10-6 x 10-5 Community Development Director Bob Brown reported that the project before Council this evening as approved by the Planning Commission is for 36 condominium units, six of which would be deed restricted and affordable to low and moderate income households. He noted that a height bonus was granted for the fifth story of the project which is set back 56 feet from the Mission Avenue frontage and 58 feet from Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Brown stated the intent of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission was that the fifth floor be set back so far as to only be visible traveling northbound on Lincoln. He indicated that the proposed parking exceeded both the City standards and the new state-mandated parking rates. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 4 Mr. Brown reported that the project went through 11 months of design review, which was unusual, and using a PowerPoint presentation he identified how the original design had changed during this period. He indicated that by the end of this process a letter of support was received from the Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association calling the project a “win- win” solution for the developer, the City and the neighborhood, and urging rapid approval. Mr. Brown stated that the Design Review Board was also complimentary of the project, indicating it was very well detailed and praising the articulation of the facades. He noted, however, two unresolved issues: the parking for service vehicles which was addressed by the Planning Commission in their approval in July, and the single vehicular access to the project from Lincoln, which resulted in the split Planning Commission vote. Noting the main thrust of the appeal was that the historic buildings at 1203 and 1211 Lincoln should be rehabilitated and rented as affordable units, and while he was unsure whether it would be addressed by the applicants this evening, Mr. Brown stated he was aware they had looked at the financial feasibility of doing this and found that the return was roughly half the cost of the purchase and rehabilitation of these quite dilapidated units. Mr. Brown stated there were numerous issues raised in the appeal and responded to in the staff report; however, one resulted in the staff recommendation to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, i.e., the impact on historic structures. City staff had relied upon a 1986 local inventory of historic buildings which lists over 300 structures, but protects only those classified as landmark buildings, and those are protected from demolition and modification. Mr. Brown stated there were approximately two dozen of these landmark buildings in San Rafael. He indicated that the former motel at 1203 Lincoln was rated as “good” in the inventory, which is the lowest possible ranking, and the house at 1211 Lincoln was not even on the inventory. Mr. Brown reported that changes in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recent court cases, including a Monterey County case in 2004, had changed the way the City needed to evaluate all buildings over 50 years old. He indicated that under CEQA, any building on a local inventory, no matter how rated, is considered an historic resource unless there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. The other criterion is that any building eligible to be listed on the California Register of Historic Structures is also deemed to be an historic resource. Aware that the building at 1203 Lincoln was on the local inventory, Mr. Brown stated staff required an historic resource evaluation in March. He reported the evaluation suggested that 1203 Lincoln met both criteria: it is on the local inventory, even though rated poorly, and it could qualify for the State Register as the first motel in San Rafael, albeit its use changed in the 1970s, and it was also modified for apartment use at that time. Mr. Brown stated the evaluation also found that the house at 1211 Lincoln could qualify for the State Register as an example of working-class housing from the turn of the century. Based on what he had seen from a number of historic evaluations, he suggested that the bar was not particularly high for potential listing on the State Register since every building appeared to be an example of some period or style, or some social status of the original occupants. Mr. Brown reported the consultant’s report suggested that a photo-documentation of the buildings and display of these as an exhibit would mitigate their loss. Staff, therefore, issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project; however, the 2004 Monterey County case rejected photo documentation as an appropriate mitigation and required preparation of an EIR. He indicated that it was only through an EIR that the City Council could evaluate the relative importance of these historic resources and compare with other City goals and objectives, such as housing requirements. Mr. Brown stated it was, therefore, the opinion of the City Attorney that an EIR was necessary should the project receive entitlements. He noted that the preparation of an EIR could also address a possible second vehicular entrance on Mission as an alternative, should the Council so direct. Mr. Brown stated that the Resolution before Council would grant the appeal and vacate the prior Planning Commission actions on this project. Staff suggested that the City Council retain jurisdiction over the project so that when the final EIR is prepared and ready for hearing, the entitlements would go directly to the City Council and not return to the Planning Commission, which is provided for in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Brown stated that if, however, any design changes were proposed, such as possibly an additional vehicular entrance, this change, plus the final landscape plan that is to include the service vehicle parking, would go before the Design Review Board who would make a recommendation to the City Council. As noted earlier, Mr. Brown stated there were many other issues raised in the appeal which were responded to in the staff report, and these responses were done prior to the City Attorney’s opinion regarding the need for an EIR. However, since the project would be returned to the City Council and the public had an opportunity to raise these various issues again at that time, he believed there was no need to focus on them this evening because the City Council would make no decision other than to forward the item back for preparation of an EIR. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 5 In looking at the Resolution, particularly items 3 and 4 on page 2, Mayor Boro stated this addressed the fact that the proposed mitigation measures were insufficient under current law, which Mr. Brown touched on. Indicating that item #4 stated “The Planning Commission approvals having been based upon an insufficient environmental document, such approvals are vacated pending certification of the EIR required hereunder, and the remaining issues raised by appellants in their appeal therefore, need not be decided”, he invited City Attorney Gary Ragghianti to explain what he meant by that wording and the status this evening with respect to the issue before the City Council. Mr. Ragghianti stated that when he took a look at the environmental document which served as the basis for the Planning Commission approvals, and the cases cited, particularly the Monterey case (he noted another case was decided prior to the Monterey case in Oakland), he concluded that that document was legally insufficient to support the approvals. Rather than a Mitigated Negative Declaration, it would be necessary, based on the record that the Planning Commission had before it, for an Environmental Impact Report to be prepared. Should Council agree with him, Mr. Ragghianti stated that the legal effect requiring this applicant to prepare an EIR was to vacate the approvals which the Planning Commission had already adopted because the environmental document associated with it was, and would be, (Council agreeing with him) insufficient legally to support that. He indicated that once that happened, the applicant would be required to return at a later and future date with an Environmental Impact Report for the project and Council would certify it in a final EIR, which, of course, would have comments by the public at the public hearing associated with it. Mr. Ragghianti stated staff’s recommendation was that when the project did return, Council would proceed, subsequent to certifying the EIR, to move to the merits of the project and make a determination with regard to those merits the same way they would with any other project presented to them. Therefore, Mr. Ragghianti stated that paragraph #4 in the Resolution articulated his legal conclusion that once Council agreed they believed the Mitigated Negative Declaration was insufficient for the reasons articulated and the applicant was required to prepare an EIR, the approvals before Council this evening would be vacated and would go away. He stated it would not be possible to proceed since they were not supported by an appropriate environmental document, in this case an EIR. Mr. Ragghianti stated staff requested that the City Council retain jurisdiction so that the applicant, when an EIR was prepared and certification and merits approval requested, would present these to the City Council rather than have to start back with the Planning Commission. He indicated that the City Council had the authority to do this and for that reason it was unnecessary, legally, in his judgment, to reach any of the other points raised in the appeal letter because they were moot. Once the EIR was required, should that be the consensus of the Council, the approvals would become null and void and the applicant would return with that document at a later date for further consideration by the City Council. In his judgment, Mr. Ragghianti stated it was unnecessary to consider any of the other appeal points and believing it important, he wished to add that those points, and any others the public wished to raise when the project returned to the City Council, be reserved until that date. He stated he was not indicating they could not make them, rather that it would serve no purpose in terms of advancing the ball this evening to discuss or debate them if Council agreed that an EIR was required. For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Boro stated that his understanding of Mr. Ragghianti’s remarks was that if the Council, subsequent to hearing from the applicant and appellants, decided to go forward and take Mr. Ragghianti’s recommendation, the many other issues also raised would disappear, i.e., there would be no pending approvals. Mr. Ragghianti confirmed that once an EIR was required, the approvals were vacated. He commented that he did not wish to leave the impression that other points made in the appeal were not valid. He indicated that staff did not think they were, as the staff report reflected this evening; however, this report was done before his opinion was issued. Mr. Ragghianti stated these points were simply reserved until the project returned with the EIR having been prepared. In conclusion, Mr. Ragghianti stated that no legal reason existed to discuss any point except the preparation of an EIR unless Council disagreed and proceeded with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. With respect to the preparation of an EIR, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether it was necessary to discuss what it would cover to give staff direction. He indicated that Mr. Ragghianti’s comments appeared to reflect that an EIR had to be done on the project, which he assumed would be a traditional EIR looking at a range of alternatives, including no project, etc. It would also evaluate all the issues raised by this project and those falling within the scope of SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 6 an EIR raised in the appeal, including issues of circulation, and it would not be limited only to the issue of the narrow point of the historic nature or not of these buildings. Concurring, Mr. Ragghianti pointed out that this project had undergone ten or eleven months of review and many redesigns, and while not overly extensive, certainly an extensive Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. He believed Mr. Brown would state, if asked, that there had been a great amount of discussion with regard to the impacts that purported to result from the project as currently proposed, including two issues mentioned as requiring an EIR – Historical Resource value of these two buildings, and traffic related problems; another access off Mission Avenue, and circulation, were examples mentioned - and these should certainly be included in the EIR. Mr. Brown stated that there had been 11 months of public input raising a number of issues that were environmentally related; therefore, it was staff’s intent to go through that record with a selected environmental consultant, together with consulting legal staff, to determine which issues needed to be covered in the EIR to have a legally sustainable document. Councilmember Heller stated she was of the understanding the City was just going to do a focused EIR simply on the historical significance. Mr. Brown stated that any and all issues having the potential of being significant would be looked at, which was the requirement for an EIR. Should any issues be determined to have already been mitigated by applicants changing their project or they were not of a sufficient severity to be considered significant, they need not be studied; therefore, the EIR would evaluate any potentially significant impact. Councilmember Phillips indicated he had two concerns, one of which it appeared, would be addressed in the EIR, i.e., access. The second related to those currently residing in the 6 units and what would happen to them. He inquired when this issue would be discussed and how much control the City had with regard to whether it was two or six months or other possible considerations. Responding, Mr. Brown stated that on November 7, 2005 a proposed ordinance, recommended by the Planning Commission, would be before the City Council which would provide for relocation benefits for all projects. Currently in play, the applicant indicated a willingness to comply with that ordinance even though it had not yet been adopted. Mr. Brown stated that the City Council would have an opportunity, citywide, to look at the provision for relocation assistance. With regard to this specific project and the EIR, Mr. Brown stated the specific questions in CEQA related to displacement of affordable housing and residents dealt with whether or not the significant displacement of residents would occur that essentially could not be accommodated elsewhere in the community. As noted in the staff report, he indicated that only five of these units were presently rented; as residents have moved out of the project, the applicant had decided not to re-rent those units; therefore, at this time only five households would require relocation. Mr. Brown stated staff would look at that issue with the consultants and attorneys to determine whether or not that number of households would constitute a significant impact. Should it not be addressed in the EIR as a significant impact, he stated the City Council would have the opportunity in the merits of the project to look at other City policies and whether they felt the project was sufficient in those areas. Councilmember Phillips confirmed the City Council would have two possible chances, i.e., on November 7, 2005 and also when the policy in general was presented. He also confirmed with Mr. Brown that there would be a specific opportunity either through the EIR or the merits review of the project to discuss this issue. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to summarize what he understood to be the proposed process going forward after this evening. He recognized a number of people in the audience who had been through public hearings about project approvals previously; however, he believed there was also a number who may not have been exposed to the process. He believed that prior to commencing the public hearing this evening it could be helpful if perhaps he could repeat his understanding of what would happen going forward after this evening. He indicated it might clarify in the minds of some in attendance this evening what was being proposed by the staff recommendation. Summarizing, Councilmember Cohen stated that if the City Council approved the staff recommendation and concurred with the City Attorney, this project would be sent out for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report that would examine the public record and look at all the potential environmental impacts raised by this proposal. He indicated that that document would result in the preparation of an initial Environmental Impact Report which would be circulated for comments by the public, by any interested parties. The environmental SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 7 consultant would then prepare a response to those comments which would be attached to the EIR and the City Council would consider that document at a public hearing, and take testimony about whether or not to certify that EIR as being sufficient to lay out all the potential environmental impacts. Councilmember Cohen stated that at that point, the City Council, essentially acting in the place of the Planning Commission, would have a hearing on the merits of the project. There would be a further public hearing affording people the opportunity of giving testimony about whether or not the project should be approved, whether it offered benefits to the community, or raised problems that outweighed its potential benefits. He indicated that the decision this evening, however, was whether or not to send the project back for an EIR and should this be in the affirmative, there would be subsequent opportunities to comment on the adequacy of the EIR and the comments. He explained that a public hearing would be held on the adequacy of the EIR and a further public hearing on the merits of the project itself after certification of the EIR. Mr. Brown concurred that this was a very concise and accurate summary of the process. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Mary McEachron, representing the applicant, stated that although this had been a long and difficult process, they appreciated the hard work invested by all, not just the planning staff, Design Review Board and Planning Commission, rather also the time and interest invested by concerned neighbors. She indicated they took seriously the request for additional environmental review and were willing to prepare an Environmental Impact Report; therefore, the applicant acquiesced to the recommendations of the planning staff. Nina Lilienthal-Murphy, President and Co-Founder, Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association, Appellant, introduced co-appellants present this evening, Roger Roberts and Tymber Cavasian and to speak on behalf of absent appellant Jim Gonsman, Patrick Murphy, Chair, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods. Ms. Murphy inquired whether the City Council would prefer her to confine her comments to the EIR or whether she should discuss the other issues. Responding, Mayor Boro stated staff had tried to set the stage through questions and the staff report that the real issue before the City Council this evening was whether or not to prepare the EIR. Should Council agree to this, the other issues were not applicable at this point; however, they could return subsequently. He indicated that discussing these issues this evening would not be productive as nothing could be done with them if the decision was to go forward with the EIR. Ms. Murphy stated: “We, the appellants, would recommend that all of you would grant the appeal and require an Environmental Impact Report that incorporates the study and focuses specifically on the Mission Avenue access, which is very, very important to all of us, not only in our neighborhood but in this City.” She indicated they also agreed with the City Attorney to not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and reiterated that they agreed the EIR should go forward. Roger Roberts, Appellant, stated that while he would not give his “spiel” he would provide some excerpts from it as he believed they were relevant to a request he would make at the end of his comments relative to the EIR. Mr. Roberts stated that the City of San Rafael in its General Plan 2020 celebrates the diversity of its citizenry and establishes a cornerstone policy to retain and protect its existing multi-family rental housing stock, the purpose of which was to support the diversity of the community. He indicated this was good and wise public policy because by doing so, it proclaimed the City’s desire to provide the housing needs of all citizens whatever their socio-economic status, yet the Planning Commission approved a five-story 36-unit condominium development project which completely ignored this worthy social goal and actually resulted in a reduction in relatively low cost rental housing. Mr. Roberts stated that the existing buildings on the site provide for 24 or 25 relatively low-cost workforce housing units and those units had provided reasonable cost housing for workforce for years. He noted these would be replaced with 36 one and two bedroom condominium units that would only include three low income and three moderate income units at below market rates, which resulted in a net loss to the community of at least eighteen relatively low-income housing units. Mr. Roberts noted one of their problems with the process to date was their perception that the City had not pressed the applicant to exhaust all possibilities for trying to retain more affordability associated with this project. He indicated they also had great concerns about condominium conversion. Interjecting, Mayor Boro stated the issue was whether or not to go ahead and require an EIR. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 8 He indicated that issues being raised by Mr. Roberts would be identified in the EIR process, they would not be discussed or decided this evening, rather they were on the record and would be considered. Mr. Roberts stated he was attempting to set the basis for a request he would make relative to inclusion in the EIR. Mayor Boro invited Mr. Roberts to do so. Mr. Roberts explained that they believed there were basic public policy housing issues raised associated with this project and as a result, to sum up without presenting all the arguments, they believed that while not normally part of an EIR, this EIR should also include analysis of the socio-economic impacts associated with the loss of moderate-income housing units that result from conversion of this property to condominium development. Tymber Cavasian, Vice-Chair, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, Appellant, stated that significant projects such as this one had many steps and components to the approvals process. She was aware that concurrent processing was done in San Rafael, and while it was efficient and sped things along, she believed it downplayed and confused important issues of land use, zoning, demolition and historic preservation. Therefore, she supported staff’s recommendation to look at an EIR as she believed some of these issues could come out better with that document. Ms. Cavasian stated her concern was that they did not know whether Council would take staff’s recommendations and they did have things they would like to voice; therefore, they were counting on the fact that Council was leaning in that direction. Should Council decide to ignore staff’s comments, they had further issues they would like to address. While it was a step in the right direction, Ms. Cavasian expressed the hope that staff’s comments were not based solely on a technicality which was rather narrow, but instead reflected a greater understanding of the many project issues which the community had identified. She indicated she gleaned from Council’s conversations the expectation was that the EIR would be broader in nature, a concept which they supported. Ms. Cavasian stated they believed the cumulative impacts would only emerge through the EIR, and the thresholds of impacts needed to be included so they could be aware of the traffic circulation and the other issues of affordable housing, etc. Ms. Cavasian stated they supported moving forward with an EIR and then correctly ascertain the impacts and feasibility, subsequently returning on the merits. Patrick Murphy, Chair, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, stated he wished to clarify one point. He indicated that the letter consistently referred to on June 9 from the Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association approving the project had certain caveats, i.e., that vehicle service parking be allocated, and the fact that the project was changed afterwards did leave some question as to the validity of that letter at this point in time. He stated that the letter was written under the auspices of Senate Bill 1818, a very confusing bill, by which most people today were still confused. Mr. Murphy stated that with a cloud over their heads, they were attempting to be flexible, and not being attorneys, they were trying to work with the process. Mr. Murphy stated that the EIR should include the historical preservation aspect, and the Mission Avenue access which had been consistently referred to all the way back to January and was something that needed to be addressed. Having lived in the area for 26 years, he noted this was the third busiest intersection in San Rafael, and circumventing the impact and creating an impact by going around the block to access a project was not a thoughtful means of resolution. Jackie Schmidt, representing the Montecito Area Residents Association, stated they supported the appellants and would like to support staff’s recommendation for an EIR, which they hoped would be sufficiently broad to include the traffic issues, as they were concerned about putting that much traffic on narrow residential streets. Chandra Murphy, President, Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, concurred with the Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association and the Montecito Residents Association. As a Board and an Association in Gerstle Park, they also approved of the EIR going forward and believed there were serious impacts with the project, i.e., density, traffic, etc., which needed to be looked at before proceeding. John Alden stated that he was one of the Planning Commissioners at the time this project first went before the Commission in April, 2005; however, he was no longer a Planning Commissioner when it was approved on a split vote. He indicated that one of the issues which struck him as unusual and which he would like to draw to Council’s attention with regard to their decision as to whether or not to conduct a full EIR was the traffic circulation issue, and he agreed with many of the comments made by the appellants. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 9 Mr. Alden stated that when he first saw the project at the Planning Commission it struck him that the plan that had been put together to basically circle the traffic around the block was a very unusual one. This, he indicated, concerned him because he believed it would have an unusual impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and in addition, it appeared to him this was a technique that, to the best of his knowledge, had not been used in San Rafael. Because this was such an unusual way to move the traffic around this particular project, and because that particular intersection had such a significant amount of traffic moving through it on a daily basis presently, and since that surrounding neighborhood had a significant amount of traffic to deal with over the last few years, he believed some special attention ought to be paid to that particular issue. Mr. Alden stated that as a Planning Commissioner, he found that one of the issues in the original Mitigated Negative Declaration that was lacking, in his opinion, was analysis of that particular traffic circulation issue, and he believed in and of itself this would be a sufficient reason to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and seek a full EIR. Mr. Alden stated that if he followed staff’s comments and their report correctly, it appeared to him they could be seeking some input from the City Council as to exactly how to go about addressing that issue and studying it further in the EIR. For the sake of good public policy and in order to allow the residents of that neighborhood a better opportunity to really fully understand what the traffic impact would be on the neighborhood, Mr. Alden strongly encouraged the City Council to give some direction to staff in that regard and request them to look very closely at the issue to ensure it was thoroughly studied. Kim Denn inquired whether the EIR would also take affordable housing into consideration. Mayor Boro explained that the EIR would evaluate the proposal before the City Council to ascertain whether it was consistent with the City’s affordable housing policy. He indicated that other questions regarding affordable housing were raised which could also be evaluated. Ms. Denn inquired whether Environmental Impact Reports linked together, noting another project on the corner of Mission and Irwin. Mayor Boro clarified that this was a separate project and did not link with any other. Hugo Landecker stated he disagreed with Councilmember Cohen’s synopsis of the City Attorney’s remarks, explaining that there also was the option for the City Council to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration this evening and then proceed, and to that end, he stated he would like to address the historical and architectural aspects of the project. Mr. Landecker stated that the San Rafael historical and architectural survey of 1986 listed 1203 Lincoln as being in good condition, having major environmental significance and with little or no desecration of the original design and moderate historical and cultural significance. The 2005 update evaluation for 1203 and 1211 Lincoln was very telling as to the current condition and relevance of the properties. He indicated it noted the significance of the motel as a gateway that signaled the transition between the nineteenth century downtown core and the more linear twentieth century automobile oriented development along Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Landecker stated it went on to state that although the El Camino Motor Court structure was modified to accommodate a new use in about 1979 to low-income housing, the survival of the El Camino in its original form was remarkable. The 2005 report recognized the use as efficiency apartments for low to middle income residents and stated that the City had cited numerous code violations and degradation of status. He pointed out that this in no way degraded 1203 Lincoln as an historical or architectural resource. Mr. Landecker stated that the 2005 evaluation continued to point out that the motel was listed in the California Office of Historic Preservation, Historic Properties Directory and was eligible for the National Historic Register of historic places in the California Register of Historical Resources. Likewise, the Victorian at 1211 Lincoln also came under the CEQA guidelines for historical status. As he was unsure of how the City Council would vote this evening, Mr. Landecker stated he needed to cover his bases. He explained that the concept of mitigating the demolition of historical property represented tokenism; he did not like tokenism and the Council should not either. He favored going ahead with the EIR and would like to see a mitigation measure for demolition of historic properties. Perhaps a $100,000 fee the developer would pay to the City, such fee to be used only for the purpose of updating the San Rafael historical architectural survey, and also for the purpose of developing an effective historical preservation ordinance. Mr. Landecker reminded the City Council that both these items were in General Plan 2020 and as a Council, they voted to cut the funding for both projects. He stated that historical and architectural preservation provides the City with the character and charm it has and it should be protected, not demolished. Mark Coleman stated he resides on Laurel Place and is the Laurel Place block representative. Having listened to this evening’s conversation and looked through the packet, he believed some SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 10 of this was being viewed from the 10,000 or 20,000-foot view. He commented that this was a real neighborhood with real people investing in their community and homes. Living on this street he reported having personally almost been involved in head-on collisions going up and down Laurel Place hill. This was the first real residential street en route to San Rafael Hill, currently with a huge amount of commercial traffic making it was very difficult to drive. Mr. Coleman stated the traffic issues needed to be of significant concern in the EIR because currently, it was very dangerous. The neighborhood itself had a lot of investment from people who had moved in and he was very concerned about a large increase in traffic. He reiterated that he wished to ensure that this was not looked at from the 20,000-foot view, rather that the City Council would “walk the walk” in the shoes of those who live in their neighborhood. Jeannie Cohn, President, Loch Lomond Homeowners Association, stated it appeared to her that there was a movement to have projects constructed with only one way in. She indicated that it really bothered her on this project that there were not two entrances, one on Lincoln and one on Mission. Ms. Cohn supported having an EIR prepared. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. To clarify the record regarding the inquiry from a speaker as to whether the impacts of other projects in the vicinity would be evaluated in this EIR, Mr. Brown stated they would. Mayor Boro clarified that the inquiry concerned whether or not the EIRs were linked, and Mr. Brown, concurring that they were not linked, stated that analyses would be done, for example, with traffic from other projects in the process. Noting there were two issues, Mayor Boro stated one was obviously the historical, and the other the issue of only one access. While he could not speak for the Council, he believed that in comments made the City Council was much in support of studying the issue of traffic and the ingress and egress from this project; therefore, he was assuming the sense of the Council would be to do that. Councilmember Cohen stated he would be supporting the staff recommendation to grant the appeal and require preparation of an EIR. To correct the public record, he stated that he and Mr. Landecker were not disagreeing, rather he was merely trying to clarify what would happen should Council accept the staff recommendation. Councilmember Cohen stated he believed Mr. Landecker’s points brought out something he (Councilmember Cohen) had been thinking of. He explained that when the historical study was done he was unsure that anyone was aware that simply having a property listed on that register as something that might be worth looking at limited one’s ability to use one’s private property. While this could be a good thing, he believed it was owed to the citizens of San Rafael to let them know that anyone who owned something that could be considered historical now had limits based on this court ruling on the reuse of their property. Given that, Councilmember Cohen stated he believed the suggestion of trying to adopt an historical preservation policy that would tighten the restrictions where appropriately they should be tightened, and loosen them where something was historical simply because it was old, could be a study worth undertaking. He was unsure whether in every case, simply because a structure had been in town for a long time it had historical merit and should remain unchanged forever. He reported having helped lead some of the historical house tours and believed it important to value a lot of the Victorians in San Rafael and not throw away the City’s history; however, he also believed there were some broader implications of tonight’s decision that should be considered as a community. Councilmember Cohen believed Mr. Landecker’s suggestion should be pursued, not just in the context of this EIR and project, but in a broader sense it could have more weight than was previously given to it. With respect to circulation, Councilmember Cohen believed the EIR needed to look at this issue, and although the issue on the merits was not in front of Council this evening, he would provide a sense of how he felt about it. He recalled that the City Council had a chance to review this project the day before the appeal was filed and since then, he had been thinking about the circulation issue. To reinforce his impressions, he indicated that this evening he drove through the area to remind himself what Mission and Lincoln looked like at 5:15 p.m., and subsequently, he drove Laurel to see what it felt like. Councilmember Cohen explained there was a real sight issue descending Laurel because with the bend in the road it was impossible to see. He found himself startled by a car ascending the hill, and neither car was traveling particularly fast; therefore, he would be interested to see what the EIR concluded. Councilmember Cohen stated it appeared to him that the current proposal offered two outcomes, neither one of which was particularly good. He indicated that people would either do as theoretically proposed and circle the block to avoid making an illegal left-hand turn, in which case a real burden would be placed on what was primarily a residential neighborhood just to make the project fit, and possibly creating a safety issue because of the sight issue, or more SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 11 likely, people would defy the sign and turn left, creating a safety hazard on Lincoln and probably worsen the congestion. Councilmember Cohen reiterated that he had some real concerns with the circulation as proposed for this project. Thinking about the trade off, Councilmember Cohen stated that currently, it looked like a net 11 units just looking at unit count. He inquired whether there was a methodology for looking at rental versus ownership housing, low-end rental versus condominiums, and whether this was something that could be covered in the EIR or wait for it to be raised during the merits. Mr. Brown stated that the issue concerning the loss of affordable housing narrowly defined in CEQA was to look at displacement; therefore, staff would talk to legal counsel as to whether or not this particular project rose to a significant impact in that area. He indicated that in the merits of the project the City Council would look at whether or not this met the General Plan policies. Mr. Brown stated the City did not have ordinances or even strong policies that specifically stated the City was to keep all rental housing that was rented at a certain rate. He indicated there were state law prohibitions against some of that in the Ellis Act, which had been discussed in the past, and there also were some practical issues about whether or not in doing so, properties that had no real redevelopment potential would continue to be maintained by property owners. For this particular project, he reported that the Fire Department had been summoned on a number of occasions recently to this building, Fire inspectors had gone through it and again, questioned why these units had not been condemned, noting the project was in poor repair. Mr. Brown stated that in some manner the City Council could get to that issue in terms of either the CEQA or merits review of the project. Mayor Boro recalled that a while back there was a requirement in the prior General Plan that as affordable units were displaced, comparable units would be built elsewhere or provided for on site. He believed the City had been informed it no longer had the ability to do that legally. City Attorney Ragghianti confirmed the City had been informed by him, after a lengthy examination and analysis of the Ellis Act and a very lengthy memo and case in San Francisco, that he believed squarely indicated, regrettably in his opinion, that the state of the law in California currently was that it was not possible to require someone in the rental business to stay in the rental business, nor condition his, her or its determination to go out of the rental business by paying fees or building other like housing elsewhere. He stated this was the law in California, albeit he did not agree with it. Councilmember Miller stated the people requested the EIR for historic and traffic reasons. He noted the consultant and City Attorney agreed with them and the City Attorney had informed the City Council this was how it should go. He reported having met with City Traffic Engineer, Nader Mansourian, who also agreed; therefore, it appeared to him that preparation of the EIR should proceed. Councilmember Heller stated that in going forward with the EIR, clarification should be made in the staff report regarding conversions from apartments to condominiums, as she believed there were misunderstandings. She also believed SB 1818 and the Ellis Act were very confusing and she would like to have these aspects clarified going forward. Councilmember Heller concurred with the other issues. Councilmember Phillips stated that in projects such as this and throughout the City, attempts had been made to carefully consider the consequences and he appreciated the input from those residents most directly affected. He believed there was consensus from a great number of people that moving forward with the staff recommendation would make sense regarding clarifying some of the issues to enable the City Council to make a more informed decision. He looked forward to receiving that report and further input from the public in order to make the correct decision. Noting Mr. Coleman’s comment regarding the view at 10,000 or 20,000 feet, Mayor Boro stated he agreed with that principle, believing it very important that as a new project came into being in a community, the City not only looked at the impact on the person proposing the project and what was fair to them, rather also those who had not yet arrived to ensure it worked for them. He indicated it was necessary also to be very sensitive to those currently residing in the area to ensure their needs were met. Mayor Boro stated that was a balance that needed to be struck and he believed this would be done through this process. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution to grant the appeal, require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and retain jurisdiction over the proposed project. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 12 RESOLUTION NO. 11846 – RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED04-102), USE PERMIT (UP05-032) AND VESTING TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP (TS05-001) TO DEMOLISH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 1203 AND 1211 LINCOLN AVENUE (APNS: 011-184-08 AND 09) IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 60,433 SQUARE-FOOT 36-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS REPORTS: 12. None. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:07 p.m. ____________________________ JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ DAY OF __________, 2005 ___________________________________ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/17/2005 Page 12