HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2006-08-07SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Pagel
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2006 AT 8:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:00 PM
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items.
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Gary O. Phillips, Vice -Mayor
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 - 7:00 PM — File 1-4-1a
a) Public Employment - Government Code Section 54957(b)(1)
Title: Chief of Police
b) Conference with Labor Negotiators — Government Code Section 54957.6
Negotiators: Ken Nordhoff, Nancy Mackle, Lydia Romero, Donna Williamson,
Richard Whitmore
Employee Organization(s): San Rafael Firefighters' Association
San Rafael Fire Chief Officers' Association
San Rafael Police Association
San Rafael Police Mid -Management Association
Association of Confidential Employees
Western Council of Engineers
SEIU Miscellaneous & Supervisory
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken on
items 1.a) or 1.1b).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
8:25 PM
Undeclared Wars: - File 9-1
Rachel Bell and John Jenkel read excerpts from a document urging Senator Barbara Boxer to assist in the
cessation of undeclared wars.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as
follows:
ITEM
RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of
Minutes approved as submitted.
Monday, July 17, 2006 (CC)
4. a) Adoption of Resolution re: Increase in
a) RESOLUTION NO. 12008 —
Paramedic Tax: (CA/CC) - File 9-4 x 9-3-31
1) CALLING A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR
1) Calling a Special Municipal Election for
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7,
Tuesday, November 7, 2006 for the
2006, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
Purpose of Proposing an Amendment to
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT
the Municipal Code of the City of San
TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF
Rafael, and Submitting the Same to the
THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL,
Electors of Said City and Ordering the
AND SUBMITTING THE SAME
Publication Thereof;
TO THE ELECTORS OF SAID
2) Requesting the Board of Supervisors to
CITY AND ORDERING THE
Consolidate with any other Election
PUBLICATION THEREOF;
Conducted on the Same Date;
AND
3) Requesting Election Services by the
2) REQUESTING THE BOARD OF
County Clerk; and
SUPERVISORS TO
4) Requesting the City Attorney to Prepare
CONSOLIDATE SAID
an Impartial Analysis of the Measure
ELECTION WITH ANY OTHER
ELECTION CONDUCTED ON
THE SAME DATE; AND
3) REQUESTING ELECTION
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 1
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 2
SERVICES BY THE COUNTY
CLERK; AND
4) DIRECTING THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF
THE MEASURE
4.
b) Acceptance of Impartial Analysis by the City
b) Accepted Impartial Analysis of the
Attorney of the Measure -.File 9-4 x 9-3-31
Measure by the City Attorney.
5.
Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for
Approved staff recommendation:
2006 League of California Cities Annual
Council authorized Councilmember
Conference on September 6-9, 2006 (CC) —
Heller as voting delegate and Lydia
File 9-11-1 x 9-1
Romero, Assistant to the City
Manager, as voting alternate, for the
League of California Cities Annual
Conference September 6 — 9, 2006, in
San Diego.
6.
Appointment of a Replacement Member of the
Approved staff recommendation:
Canal Neighborhood Stakeholder Committee
Blanca Portillo appointed to the
(P05-005) (CD) — File 9-3-85
Canal Neighborhood Stakeholder
Committee, replacing Carmen
Escobar.
7.
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to
RESOLUTION NO. 12009 —
Execute an Agreement for Professional Planning
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Services with Pacific Municipal Consultants
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
(PMC) for Interim Professional Planning Services
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL
During the Recruitments for Vacant Positions
PLANNING SERVICES WITH PACIFIC
within the Planning Division of the Community
MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS (PMC)
Development Department (CD) —
FOR INTERIM PROFESSIONAL
File 4-3-457 x 9-3-85
PLANNING STAFFING DURING
RECRUITMENTS FOR VACANT
PLANNING POSITIONS WITHIN THE
CURRENT PLANNING SECTION OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT (Agreement Term:
July 10, 2006 through December 10,
2006, in an amount not to exceed
$68,000)
8.
Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael
Approved staff recommendation:
(CM) — File 116 x 9-1
SB 148 (Scott) Alcoholic Beverages:
Licenses. SUPPORT
9.
Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 12010 —
to Execute an Agreement with the County of
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Marin for the Marin Literacy Program to Provide
MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN
Literacy Services in the Marin County Jail (Lib) —
AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF
File 4-13-86 x 9-3-61
MARIN FOR THE MARIN LITERACY
PROGRAM TO PROVIDE LITERACY
SERVICES IN THE MARIN COUNTY
JAIL, FOR THE PERIOD FROM JULY
1, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007,
AND AS MAY BE EXTENDED BY
MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF THE
PARTIES
10.
Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Agreement
Removed from agenda.
with Marin Operational Area to Provide
Emergency Management Services, Training and
Exercises, from 07/01/06 through 06/30/07 (MS)
— File 4-13-99 X 13-11 X 9-3-31
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 2
11. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 1842 - An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of San Rafael Setting the
Paramedic Tax Rate, Commencing with Fiscal
Year 2006-2007, at the Rates Allowed in
Ordinance No. 1793, for Residential and Non -
Residential Properties in the City of San Rafael;
and Further Confirming the Paramedic Tax
Rates, Commencing with Fiscal Year 2006-2007,
for Residential and Non -Residential Properties in
the City of San Rafael, the Marinwood
Community Services District, County Service
Area No. 13, and County Service Area No. 19
($61.00 for Residential and $.08 per Square -Foot for
Non -Residential Property) (MS) — File 9-12-1 x 9-3-31
12. Resolution Waiving Competitive Bidding and
Authorizing Execution of Purchase Order for
Marine Engines to Cummins West, Inc., for a
Sum Not to Exceed $71,679.00 (PD) —
File 4-2-338 x 9-3-30
13. Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding
the Contract for Terra Linda Recreation Center
Entry Paving Upgrade, Project No. 11087, to
Ghilotti Bros., Inc. in the Amount of $59,888.00
(Bid Opening Held on Tuesday, August 1, 2006)
(PW) — File 4-1-585 x 9-3-40
14. Resolution Waiving the Competitive Bidding
Requirement of Chapter 11.50 of the San Rafael
Municipal Code and Accepting an Informal Bid
from Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc. in the Amount of
$88,888 for the Emergency Repair of Scettrini
Fire Road (PW) — File 4-1-586 x 9-3-40
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 3
Approved final adoption of
Ordinance No. 1842.
RESOLUTION NO. 12011 -
RESOLUTION WAIVING
COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND
AUTHORIZING PURCHASE ORDER
FOR TWO MARINE ENGINES TO
CUMMINS WEST, INC., FOR A SUM
NOT TO EXCEED $71,679.00
RESOLUTION NO. 12012 —
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE
CONTRACT FOR TERRA LINDA
RECREATION CENTER ENTRY
PAVING UPGRADE, PROJECT NO.
11087, TO GHILOTTI BROS., INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $59,888.00
(lowest responsible bidder)
RESOLUTION NO. 12013 —
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE MAJOR
CONTRACTS BIDDING
REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER
11.50 OF THE SAN RAFAEL
MUNICIPAL CODE AND ACCEPTING
A BID FROM MAGGIORA &
GHILOTTI, INC. FOR THE REPAIR
OF SCETTRINI FIRE ROAD
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion, at the request of Mr. Tom
Davis and Mr. Keith Meloney:
3. RESOLUTION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE APPEAL OF MHC
OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC. FROM
THE ARBITRATION AWARD ON APPELLANTS' PETITION FOR INCREASE OF RENTS AT
CONTEMPO MARIN MOBILEHOME PARK, AND MODIFYING THE AWARD OF THE
ARBITRATOR (CA) — FILE 13-7-1 x 9-3-16
Mayor Boro reported that a thorough hearing was conducted on July 17, 2006. The Public
Hearing was closed and the item was before the City Council this evening for action. He invited
Mr. Davis to address Council and confine his remarks to approximately three minutes.
Attorney Tom Davis stated he had reviewed the staff report and resolution before the City
Council this evening and was concerned that the resolution could be used as a precedent for
future capital pass-throughs. During the discussion at the last City Council meeting, he
believed the City Council went very thoroughly into the specific facts before it, i.e., specific
invoices presented, and a lot of information was available to members of the City Council that
went into their determination. He requested that the fact that they were relying on those specific
facts in making their decision be incorporated into the resolution to be adopted.
Mr. Davis requested that language to the following effect be included:
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 4
"The determination made by the City Council is based on the record before it and on the
specific facts as found by the Council. The decision is not to be presumed to apply to other
facts and circumstances which may arise in the future."
Mr. Davis believed the effect of that would be to separate out the findings the City Council had
in this specific case from what could happen in the future, so that a future arbitrator did not feel
bound or constrained by the determination made by the City Council which was based on the
specific facts before them.
Mr. Davis requested that the resolution be limited so that in the future it would be clear and that
there not be a broad public precedent created.
Thanking Mr. Davis for sharing some of his thoughts after the conclusion of the Appeal Hearing,
Councilmember Phillips stated that having spoken with the City Attorney's Office for further
clarification, it was his understanding that the action being taken this evening with regard to the
resolution does, in fact, do as Mr. Davis suggested. It was based strictly on the facts and
circumstances of this particular case and does not in and of itself set precedents. Should there
be another hearing it would be stand alone on the issues presented at that point in time.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was reasonably comfortable that the resolution does, not only
what it conveys to those reading it (perhaps differently to Mr. Davis), but includes the thought
expressed by Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis stated that his comfort level would be greatly increased if that thought, which he and
Councilmember Phillips agreed on, were made explicit as part of the resolution as adopted. He
indicated that in five years from now this issue could again be considered, and noting that
perhaps neither Councilmember Phillips nor he would be involved in that consideration, he
would like the fact that it was specifically based on these facts spelled out so that was the
message carried forward into the future.
Keith Meloney, President, Contempo Marin Homeowners Association, stated that part of his
responsibility as president of the association was not only to work towards protecting the
welfare of residents where he could, but also to strive to keep them properly informed and help
them understand the issues at Contempo.
Indicating that this particular arbitration was most challenging for him, Mr. Meloney explained
that being a complex issue of law and not having the legal mind to fully understand the
ordinance, he struggled with finding the correct words to help them understand why it was
necessary for them to pay for sewer repairs (their view) and that there were no grounds to
contest the issue further. He stated that what most residents did understand this year was that
their rents had been increased six times. They had sustained multiple increases in trash, an
increase in sewer and another to be levied in October, an increase from a previous arbitration
finally settled after six years of litigation, the CPI increase and now this one, making a total of
seven. He indicated the concern was how long it would continue and how many more there
would be.
Mr. Meloney stated he indicated to the residents that the ordinance was designed not only to
protect the residents, rather the property owner also. Explaining that where he runs into a snag
in engaging in dialogue with many residents over the last months on this issue was "What was
to stop MHC from pouring money into the park and calling everything a Capital Expenditure?"
and "What controls are in place to protect the residents from the company passing -through
everything they do?"
Mr. Meloney stated he has struggled to convince the residents, and had chosen his words
carefully when communicating through meetings, newsletters and email notices, that in his
experience, this City Council had been a fair body of government, that this Council would not let
the company arbitrarily allow MHC to pass along every Capital Expenditure they pleased
without a fair and reasonable standard being applied, that this decision would not be allowed to
set a precedent for future decisions, that each matter would be considered on a case-by-case
basis and the City Council was aware they were a low-income community in fear of being priced
out of their homes.
Mayor Boro invited City Attorney Ragghianti to comment on Mr. Davis' request.
Mr. Ragghianti stated he would like to hear whether or not the owner of the park, whose
Counsel, Mr. Neil Sorensen was present, wished to comment on the request being made by Mr.
Davis.
Neil Sorensen, Attorney for appellant, Equity Lifestyle Properties and MHC Operating
Partnership, stated he did not believe a change in the resolution was necessary. Indicating that
the Rent Control Ordinance covers this matter, he explained it requires an arbitration hearing
each time the owner requests a rent increase, and a specific fact-finding process, which took
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 4
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 5
place before this matter was appealed to the City Council. The City Council then held an
Appeal Hearing on July 17, 2006, and made its decision. Mr. Sorensen believed the resolution
should be adopted in its current form as it accurately reflects what the City Council voted on.
Referring to page 2 of the draft resolution, Mr. Ragghianti invited Council's attention to the
language contained in the third and fourth WHEREAS clauses. He believed implicit, if not
explicit, in this language was exactly what Mr. Davis requested. He quoted:
"WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the record of proceedings before the arbitrator, and
has received and considered written and oral arguments from the parties to the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings based upon the evidence set forth in
the record of proceedings herein."
Mr. Ragghianti stated that from a legal perspective, it was unnecessary to do what Mr. Davis
requested.
Concurring with City Attorney Ragghianti, Councilmember Phillips stated in reading the
language, not as an attorney, rather perhaps as a future Councilmember, it appeared clear that
it did, in fact, provide the protection requested by Mr. Davis, and he was comfortable with the
wording as presented.
Councilmember Heller stated that in reading from the record, she did not believe the language
could be construed as having anything to do with future or previous proceedings.
City Attorney Ragghianti concurred.
Councilmember Phillips stated that this discussion would be recorded in the minutes and was
pretty clear as to Council's intent.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 12014 — RESOLUTION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART THE APPEAL OF MHC OPERATING LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP AND EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES,
INC. FROM THE ARBITRATION AWARD ON APPELLANTS'
PETITION FOR INCREASE OF RENTS AT CONTEMPO
MARIN MOBILEHOME PARK, AND MODIFYING THE
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
1
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
15. Public Hearing — Baypoint Lagoons Landscaping and Lighting District: (PW)
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 — FILE 6-48
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened
Senior Civil Engineer Scott Schneider reported that on June 19, 2006, the City Council adopted
a resolution to approve the Engineer's Annual Report, direct the filing of the Engineer's Report
and adopted a resolution of the Intention to Order Improvements. The City Council also set the
date of the Public Hearing for today, August 7, 2006.
Mr. Schneider stated that under the Landscaping and Lighting District Act of 1972, the City
Council was responsible to confirm the Assessment Diagram and the Assessment and levy the
assessment for work improvements for the 2006-2007 season for this Landscaping and Lighting
District. The work proposed for next year was similar to this year, and consisted of continuing
the cattail management and selective removal of cattails, removal of non-native plants and
replanting of native plants. He indicated that staff continues to meet on a bi-monthly basis with
the homeowners association and involve them in the environmental maintenance of the lagoon.
Mr. Schneider indicated that the assessment amount was unchanged from previous years and
could only be used for this purpose.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 6
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12015— RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007
- BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
DISTRICT (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting
Act of 1972)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
16. Public Hearing — 1203-1211 Lincoln Avenue (Corner of Lincoln Avenue and Mission Avenue): (CD)
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; FILE NOS.: ED04-102, UP05-032 AND TS05-
001 — FILE 10-7 x 10-6 x 10-5 x 4-3-447
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated this item was before Council for final
decision-making for the condominium project proposed at 1203-1211 Lincoln Avenue and he
wished to make it clear that the Council was not dealing with the item as an appeal this evening
Mr. Brown explained that last October, the City Council took action and granted the appeal;
therefore, tonight they were hearing the application fresh as with any other design review use
permit subdivision application, together with the Final Environmental Impact Report.
Indicating that in his PowerPoint presentation he would not be addressing the issues raised in
the appeal (these were covered in the written staff report), instead he would discuss how the
project had changed during the review process, address some design issues, summarize the
traffic impacts, discuss the issue regarding historic buildings, some over -arching General Plan
considerations, and finally, some of the legal constraints Council was operating under.
Mr. Brown reported that the application was filed almost two years ago and it went through five
Design Review Board (DRB) hearings, which was quite unusual. They finally received Design
Review Board approval on June 21, 2005 and during that time he kept encouraging the
applicant to continue to modify the project and to continue to work with the neighborhood. He
indicated that subsequent to the DRB approval, a letter of support was received from the
Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association just prior to the Planning Commission
hearing.
Indicating that the Planning Commission heard the project and approved it on July 26, 2005 on
a 3:2 vote, Mr. Brown explained that the two members who opposed the project did so because
it lacked a Mission Avenue entrance, and this had subsequently been addressed.
Mr. Brown reported that Mayor Boro invited the City Council to convene in a Study Session on
August 1, 2005, following the Planning Commission approval, so they could become familiar
with the project and decide whether they would choose to call it up for their consideration. The
following day (August 2, 2005) an appeal was received from five members of the public. On
October 17, 2005, the City Council granted the appeal and required that a draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for the project, due to impacts to the historic buildings on the
site. Subsequently, the City Council approved a contract with LSA Associates to prepare the
EIR and provided some input on the Alternatives to be analyzed. Mr. Brown indicated that the
Draft EIR was released on May 17, 2006 for a forty-five day review period which ended on June
30, 2006. He reported that during that time (June 5, 2006), the City Council held a public
hearing to accept oral comments also, and the Final EIR was released on July 28, 2006.
Mr. Brown indicated that the purposes of this evening's hearing were to accept public
comments, both on the EIR and on the merits of the project, to determine whether to certify the
Final EIR as adequate, to determine whether to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for demolition of the historic structures and to determine whether to approve the Use Permit,
Environmental and Design Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map applications.
Since Council saw the project in October, 2005, there had been a couple of changes, which Mr.
Brown explained:
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 6
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 7
1) The affordability of the six affordable housing units had improved. Previously, three low
and three moderate income units were being proposed; however, currently, this was four
low and two moderate income units;
2) An optional entrance ramp had been added to the underground garage from Mission
Avenue; and
3) A space for vehicle service parking had been added off the Lincoln Avenue driveway, at
the direction of the Planning Commission.
Noting there had been numerous changes to the project over the course of this application, Mr
Brown used a colored drawing to depict the project originally proposed at 37 units, 45 -feet tall
with 48 parking spaces. He explained this did not fair well with the Design Review Board who
did not believe this was a very residential appearing structure or that it really was a building of
sufficient quality to be in such a prominent location.
A further colored drawing depicted the final project and Mr. Brown explained that during that
timeframe, the first iteration reduced the project to 32 units, reduced it by a floor and re -skinned
the building in mission style, believing this to be more appropriate for the neighborhood. The
project was then modified to increase the setback from Lincoln to accommodate a future street
widening. Mr. Brown stated that subsequently, the Planning Commission requested that the
project be opened up at the corner, set back more from the corner and a public plaza added at
the corner, because of the visibility of the site. In exchange, they offered the applicant the
inclusion of a recessed 5t" floor, which would achieve an additional four units, bringing the total
back to 36 at this point. Mr. Brown stated that in addition, they moved the building back further
from Mission Avenue by at least ten feet and added more landscaping and street trees.
Mr. Brown reported that subsequently, the DRB requested that the projecting balconies be
reduced in height so that the building would step up more from Lincoln and Mission, reducing
the apparent height of the building from those streetscapes. Vehicle service parking was
added, together with the Mission Avenue entrance ramp.
Indicating that probably the biggest issue with the project was its compatibility with the
neighborhood, Mr. Brown noted that the site was the transition between downtown and the
Lincoln -San Rafael Hill neighborhood. A number of three, four and even five story buildings
were in the vicinity, with a number of buildings on Lincoln Avenue approximately as tall as this
building. He also noted that many of the properties on Lincoln Avenue further up, were at least
a story above the street grade, due to the elevation of the sites.
Mr. Brown noted that the project immediately to the west at 820 Mission Avenue was 45 feet tall
and taller than the proposed building because of its height and the elevation of the site. He
indicated that the setbacks for the project from both Lincoln and Mission Avenues exceed the
average setbacks on those two streets, and the project provides undergrounding parking, now
required for new Lincoln Avenue developments. Mr. Brown noted one of the problems with
some of the older developments on Lincoln Avenue was the fact that they had ground level
parking and many curb cuts and garage units facing the street, and these were no longer
permissible.
Mr. Brown displayed pictures of how the site appeared currently, and a rendering with the
addition of the project. He indicated that in the existing situation the buildings were immediately
on the sidewalk and this changed with the addition of setbacks for the proposed project. He
pointed out also the EIR found that San Rafael Hill was still visible above the project.
Regarding the quality of the design, Mr. Brown stated there was a guest opinion in the Marin
Independent Journal approximately one year ago suggesting that the project was of poor design
quality and compared it to the Lofts at Albert Park.
Indicating there was substantial detailing with the project, Mr. Brown identified on illustrations
the substantial three-dimensional trim surrounding the windows, numerous brackets adding to
the Spanish character underneath the roof elements, banding along the first floor to both
provide a base to the building and break up its height, varied rooflines and roof elements with
Spanish tile and the wide variety of windows, including French doors, transom windows and the
projecting balcony structures contained interesting arches. Comparing this with The Lofts at
Albert Park, Mr. Brown stated they were very different designs; this building was much simpler
in its architecture.
Mr. Brown stated the project also provides varied setbacks along Lincoln and Mission Avenues
and he referred to a diagram showing the outline of the building which touched portions of the
setback line along Lincoln; however, also recesses beyond it. Also, as mentioned, the Mission
elevation was pulled back.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 7
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 8
Referring to a very colorful drawing (Mission Avenue elevation), Mr. Brown stated it was
intended as an illustration to show the various roof elements which were somewhat difficult to
view in two-dimensional black and white plans. He noted the various roof elevations that
attempted to break up the building mass and step it up to its maximum height. A drawing of the
Lincoln Avenue elevation was also shown. Mr. Brown pointed out that in both drawings the
adjacent buildings were depicted. He identified the building at 820 Mission Avenue, which is
taller than the proposed building due to its size and the increasing elevation along Mission, and
the three-story building adjacent on Lincoln Avenue.
Quoting some of the comments on the project —
Mr. Brown explained that in the letter from the Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood
Association pursuant to the Design Review Board working its magic, they indicated the
design "is acceptable and supported by the Association, leaving the service vehicle
parking our only remaining concern" and this was subsequently added. The project "is a
win-win situation for the developer, the Lincoln/San Rafael Hill Neighborhood
Association and the City" and "We encourage an expedient and timely approval of this
project."
• The Design Review Board stated: "The project is very nicely designed."
• The Planning Commission stated: "The project has come remarkably far. The project
will be an asset to the community — a gateway building and the high degree of
articulation on the two street frontages helps the pedestrian scale of the building."
Summarizing some of the project impacts in terms of traffic in the EIR, Mr. Brown stated there
had been questions about the number of trips the project would generate. He explained that
the project would consist of 36 new condominium units; however, the number of trips assumed
to previously be generated by the 24 apartments and the rental of a single-family home would
be reduced, resulting in an estimated 40 additional daily trips. Mr. Brown stated that these trip
generation rates were based upon national standards from the International Traffic Engineers
Institute Handbook; however, City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian went beyond that and
actually counted traffic from San Rafael projects to convince himself that these standard figures
were accurate as applied to San Rafael. Indicating that these were averages, Mr. Brown stated
the number of trips could be a few less or more; however, they were generally in that ballpark.
He stated that these forty additional trips would be added to the 19,000 daily trips on Lincoln
Avenue, approximately 2/101h of a 1 % increase in the traffic on Lincoln Avenue.
Mr. Brown reported that the EIR studied seventeen intersections and the most significantly
impacted one was, not surprisingly, Lincoln/Mission, and during the peak commute periods, the
increase in delay would be approximately a half second due to the project.
Mr. Brown stated that the proposed addition of a Mission entrance would reduce the number of
trips previously discussed that would have to go on Nye and Laurel to return to the Lincoln
Avenue driveway if that was the only driveway. He indicated that the former project with the
Lincoln Avenue only driveway was assumed to generate thirty-five trips daily that would go on
Nye and Laurel and with the additional driveway, this was reduced to five trips. Adding five trips
to the existing traffic on Nye and Laurel resulted in less than a 1 % increase on those two
streets.
Mr. Brown indicated that the City's Traffic Engineer and the Consultant's Traffic Engineer both
looked at the design of the ramp and believed it did not cause sight distance problems and
should not cause any backup on Mission Avenue. He noted there was storage on the ramp
itself, before getting to the gate, for at least two vehicles.
Indicating concern was expressed during the EIR preparation about not just this project, rather
its relationship to other projects either in process or likely to occur in the Lincoln/Mission
Avenue area, Mr. Brown stated this was no great surprise. He explained that in General Plan
2020, a number of future growth scenarios were created and these were run through the
committee to select what they felt were the most realistic. The City Traffic Engineer also
modeled a number of these development scenarios. Mr. Brown stated that the ultimately
selected growth scenario for this area assumed a little over 204 units in the Lincoln area by the
year 2020. He indicated this covered a 16 -year period — from 2004 when adopted until 2020 —
approximately 13 new units a year in this area.
Mr. Brown stated that since the General Plan was adopted two years ago, one project was
being built, i.e., 24 units over two years, which was generally within the expected range. He
noted one project @ 16 units was recently approved; no proposal had been received for a
building permit; however, it could be built within a year. Mr. Brown stated staff was reviewing a
project at Mission and Irwin which would be an increase of five units; the project under
discussion would be an increase of eleven units, resulting in a further sixteen units. He noted
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 8
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 9
that again, these projects would probably be built within eighteen months to two years and
within the expected time frame.
Mr. Brown stated that General Plan 2020 also assumed there would be redevelopment of the
Villa and Colonial Motels which are now being discussed as possibilities from those property
owners.
Mr. Brown noted that all of this was expected in the General Plan process and the traffic
analysis for the General Plan did indicate that at some point, with this additional development,
Lincoln could require the removal of parking during the peak hours or the Level of Service
standards could cause development to be stopped in the area unless there were some
significant improvements. However, staff also stated at the time of adopting General Plan 2020
that they had no idea what the Gap Closure's effect would be on Lincoln Avenue. It could make
that stretch significantly better because of the through traffic that would be eliminated; however,
Mr. Brown noted that Mr. Mansourian maintains a very close watch over Lincoln and Mission
Avenues and would identify when the General Plan congestion thresholds were being neared.
Addressing the issue of Historic Buildings, Mr. Brown explained that the former EI Camino
Motor Court was build in 1936 — an illustration depicted the current condition of the building and
its courtyard - and he identified the building at 820 Mission visible in the drawing. He indicated
that the building was converted to apartments in 1976, some with permits and some without.
The building was ranked as "good" in the local historic building survey in 1986; however, San
Rafael's Municipal Code only protects twenty-four of the approximately 320 buildings on the
historic inventory and only those rated as landmarks. Falkirk Mansion is an example of a
Landmark Structure, whereas this building was only rated as "good" which was the second to
lowest rating. However, Mr. Brown stated that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
presumes that any building on a local survey, no matter how it is rated, is an historic resource
unless proven otherwise. Therefore, the EIR found that the building was eligible for listing on
the California Register of Historic Resources because it was an early example of a Motor Court
Motel.
Regarding the house at 1211 Lincoln Avenue and referring to an illustration of its current
condition, Mr. Brown reported it was built in 1907 and was not on the local inventory; however,
the EIR also found that it would be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic
Resources as a folk Victorian architecture. He explained this was architecture typical of small
homes built at the turn of the century for working class people.
Mr. Brown reported the EIR found that the demolition of these historic structures was a
significant unavoidable impact. He indicated, however, that CEQA provides that the City
Council has the ability to make a determination that the historic structures could be demolished
if a Statement of Overriding Considerations were adopted, in which Council would find that the
benefits of the project outweighed the loss of the historic buildings.
Indicating it had been suggested that the buildings could be rehabilitated and reused, preferably
for affordable housing, Mr. Brown stated this was evaluated. He explained that the units were
very tiny, in very poor conditions and had many code violations. Pictures depicted the interiors
of some of the units. He noted there was extensive termite and dry rot damage and extensive
water damage. In a further picture he identified a tree, one of many that had overgrown and
were now pushing in the foundation and exterior walls, creating structural damage.
Mr. Brown distributed to the City Council records of inspections carried out at this property, one
in 1983 by the County of Marin and one in 2002 by the City. He indicated he found these today
in a Planning file. Mr. Brown noted that the City's inspection in 2002 found 215 violations of
twenty units on the site, and when the former owner realized what would be involved in
restoring the property he simply determined that it was better to sell it.
Having requested the property owner to provide estimates of the rehabilitation costs, Mr. Brown
stated this was estimated at $1.8 million. Not just accepting this figure, staff had a local
architect and contractor familiar with rehabilitation and buildings in the area evaluate these
estimates, and they felt the estimates were 10% - 13% too low. Nonetheless, Stephanie
Lovette, Economic Development Coordinator, took those figures as provided by the applicant,
not inflated, rather the $1.8 million, and did not include any of the $3.5 million cost to purchase
the property, and just based on the renovation costs of $1.8 million and renting it for market
rate, she determined that the project would have a negative cash flow of $7,000 per month. If
the property were rented for affordable housing, that negative cash flow would be even higher.
Mr. Brown stated therefore, that staff concluded it was not financially feasible to rehabilitate and
reuse this property.
Mr. Brown reported that recently the Greenbelt Alliance rated San Rafael as ninth best in the
Bay Area for Smart Growth policies, and, in fact, General Plan 2020 was all about Smart
Growth. Discussing how Smart Growth principles would look at this site and project, Mr. Brown
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 9
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 10
explained that first, additional housing was the highest priority identified by residents in the
General Plan process. He noted the state also requires that San Rafael produce housing and
the City needed to plan for over 2,000 by 2007. Both the Lincoln and Mission corridors had
long been designated and expected to be developed with multi -family housing, given their
proximity to the downtown. He noted this site was only a fifth of a mile from the Transit Center
and possible train station, it was very proximate to the freeway and immediately adjacent to
downtown jobs and services; therefore, from a Smart Growth standpoint, it would be impossible
to find a much better infill site than this.
Regarding the legal constraints, Mr. Brown stated this was the first project proposed under the
new State Density Bonus law that went into effect on January 1, 2005. He noted that Novato
recently dealt with their first project and he quoted the Mayor of Novato as stating she was
really shocked and dismayed that the cities had lost so much discretionary power to the state
under this law. Mr. Brown explained that under the state law, the City had no ability to deny the
bonus units, to require project modifications or reduction in density that made the project
financially infeasible or to require any additional parking whatsoever. Further, should the City
Council take action and was subsequently sued by the developer and was found not to have
complied with the State Density Bonus Law, not only would the City pay for its litigation costs,
rather all of the litigation costs of the developer. He commented it was a very expensive law to
violate.
Regarding staff recommendations, Mr. Brown stated staff suggested the City Council conduct
the public hearing, certify the final EIR, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations
finding that the loss of the historic buildings was outweighed by the provision of market -rate and
affordable housing, together with other factors included in the findings, and approve the Use
Permit, Environmental and Design review Permit and Vesting Tentative Map with the Mission
Avenue entrance.
Mr. Brown noted that Council had received this evening a somewhat revised resolution
certifying the final EIR — Attachment 1. He indicated that the changes were underlined and
essentially expanded on the findings regarding the mitigation measures adopted as findings,
and also address the infeasibility of the No Project / No Development Alternative (the one that
would leave the units as they were today, which would constitute code violations under the
Municipal Code). Mr. Brown stated these just expand on the findings, as suggested by the
consulting attorney.
Mr. Brown identified consultants for the project in attendance this evening:
LSA Associates — Lynette Diaz, Charity Wagner and Amy Fisher.
Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley — Tiffany Wright, Attorney.
San Rafael Public Works — Nader Mansourian, City Traffic Engineer.
Gary Giacomini, attorney representing the applicant, indicating that he was not going to snatch
defeat from the jaws of victory, stated this was the most thorough, exhaustive staff report he
could remember and he supported it fully. Noting this project had gone through the typical
gauntlet required by San Rafael, he explained it had five DRB hearings and approvals, two
Planning Commission hearings and approvals and had been before the City Council six times,
resulting in five redesigns and some very significant changes over time.
Mr. Giacomini stated they believed it had great improvements and he urged the City Council to
adopt the staff recommendations. He indicated they were acquiescing in the 128 conditions
without requesting a word change and although this had been a typically arduous odyssey for
this plan, in his view, it again showed that the public process works. He commented that the
redesigns did not happen by accident, rather because good people stepped forward and
pointed out problems with some of the earlier designs and attempted solutions for the project.
As torturous as it was for his clients to endure, Mr. Giacomini stated the project was undeniably
better and a perfect fit as a very important gateway to San Rafael.
Mr. Giacomini indicated he does not become involved with applications he would not vote for,
which he believed had served him well. This was one he was enormously proud of; it would be
a very exciting and proud building at that gateway and would attend to many of the goals in the
General Plan. He complimented the staff, Commissions, etc., and thanked them for their work
in dramatically improving the project. He invited Mr. Joel Josehart, Project Manager, to briefly
discuss the project.
Joel Josehart, 1203 Lincoln Avenue Partners, reiterating the remarks of Mr. Giacomini, stated
that the process had really improved the project. Indicating it had been difficult for them, he
stated staff had done a great job of guiding them to the positive changes. He stated they were
proud of the project because it was a juncture for San Rafael in terms of being a gateway
project and also being one of the first projects out of the gate with the new state affordable
housing law. He again thanked staff for pointing out all the positive attributes of the project.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 10
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 11
Roger Roberts stated that this project incorporated and exemplified three major public policy
concerns with the City which was their reason for appealing the original project approval, noting
their appeal had been brought to the public hearing this evening.
Mr. Roberts identified three major public policy concerns:
• The proposed project's impacts on the neighborhood character;
• The proposed project raised important questions regarding the protection of historic
resources; and
• It involves a net loss of lower income level workforce housing.
Mr. Roberts stated they continued to believe that the approval of this project would result in a
building out of scale with the Lincoln Avenue neighborhood.
Mr. Roberts indicated they were not convinced that the loss of the existing historic resource
buildings was necessary or appropriate and that the suggested mitigation measures of
preparing drawings and a photo exhibit were not satisfactory as a responsive renovation effort.
He stated that, in fact, they believed it would make financial sense for the developer to proceed
with their renovation, thereby being able to offer the renovated units for sale as relatively
moderate income housing units and do so successfully. Mr. Roberts indicated that the
developer's own renovation scenario analysis projects a total cost, including land costs and
their carrying costs, of $7.5 million, or $301,419 per unit. In today's housing market he noted
this was relatively low cost housing.
Indicating that adding a comfortable profit margin would still keep the price of the 25 renovated
units much more affordable than the proposed project, Mr. Roberts stated that a quick analysis
of building the proposed project at $250 to $300 per square foot, which was more or less the
current cost, resulted in total project costs for the proposed project somewhere in the range of
$18.5 million to $21.5 million, which would mean the average per housing unit cost became
approximately $500,000 to $600,000 per unit. He indicated that Tymber Cavasian would have
more to discuss in this connection in her remarks this evening.
Regarding the loss of lower income level workforce housing which the existing buildings
provided to the City of San Rafael for many years, Mr. Roberts noted that this project was
exchanging 24 low-cost efficiency apartments for 6 deed -restricted affordable housing units and
questioning whether this was an acceptable trade, he stated they believed it was not. He stated
they did not challenge the right of this property owner or any other under the Ellis Act to
discontinue using an existing building for multi -family rentals; however, he pointed out that the
Ellis Act and case law permitted cities to control subsequent reuse and redevelopment of such
properties to meet public policy objectives not associated with requirements for maintaining a
property for rental use. Giving an example, Mr. Roberts stated that a city could properly require
that prior tenants receive priority purchase rights for subsequent housing built for sale.
Citing a recent Harvard study of affordable housing efforts across the country, Mr. Roberts
stated it found that this nation, particularly in major metropolitan areas, was losing low-cost, low-
income housing faster than was being replaced by deed -restricted, affordable housing units.
He indicated that this situation was unsustainable and cities must take action to preserve and
protect their total stock of housing available and accessible to lower income residents, and this
project graphically illustrated this problem.
Mr. Roberts stated that in the interests of a public policy calling for the retention of housing
serving lower-income residents and achieving a "no net loss" of such housing availability here,
he urged that the City work creatively with the developer to achieve this objective in this case.
He noted this was entirely consistent with the City's General Plan 2020 that states: "It is the
goal of San Rafael to have an adequate housing supply and mix that matches the needs of
people of all ages, income levels and special requirements; to protect and maintain existing
housing stock and to use various innovative housing approaches to increase the availability of
low and moderate income housing that meets the City's housing needs."
Mr. Roberts stated that this project does not meet those objectives and the City should take the
burden of trying to do a better job of meeting these three policy objectives.
Colin Russell, architect and long-time supporter of and advocate for affordable housing, stated
he had watched the project as it had gone through the process of approvals. and commiserated
with Mr. Josart as it went over some bumps; however, he believed it was exactly the type of
project this community needed. He indicated it allowed for young families and young single
career people to get a toehold in the outrageously inflated housing market. It would take those
people off the highway and into a transit oriented development, near transit and the services of
the City. It was designed well, subsequent to all the changes, was well proportioned and very
functional and the traffic concerns had been taken care of in every imaginable way possible.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 11
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 12
Mr. Russell stated it should be remembered that the State of California was growing at a rate of
700,000 people annually; therefore, there were two choices: pull up the drawbridges or plan
intelligently for it, and he believed this was an intelligent plan.
Mr. Russell reported that he had participated in the creation of General Plan 2020. He was on
the Task Force for the neighborhoods and homes and it (affordable housing) was stated as a
very pressing need, which had become worse. Noting he had two children in their twenties and
teens who without a project such as this would never hope to be able to afford a house in Marin
County. He believed the need for the housing far outweighed the historical value of this
substandard, decrepit and dangerous hotel building currently on the site; therefore, he urged
the City Council to help get the project moving.
Ian Sammis, Attorney, stated he had been a businessman in San Rafael since 1982; however,
resides in Novato. He had been a member of the Chamber of Commerce committee for
affordable housing and was a Senior / Elder Law attorney.
Indicating he had a background that favored affordable and workforce housing, Mr. Sammis
believed the project was great. Explaining that having driven past the area for the past twenty
years, he believed anything that would improve the site which had gradually gone way down hill
was to be applauded. Therefore, he believed the historic aspect should be minimized. With the
problems the units had given over the years, he believed the project should be approved to
improve the site.
Regarding the cost, Mr. Sammis noted that some of the units would cost $180,000, deed
restricted, which was affordable for people to become starter -housing people. Even with 24
rental units, this would not improve the situation of workforce people, such as teachers, police
and fire, who wanted to get a start and remain in the community rather than moving to Santa
Rosa and points north. He noted the retraining of Novato Fire and Police Departments was
incredible and San Rafael had a similar problem; therefore, this would provide a start and
benefit workforce housing. Mr. Sammis stated that even renovating the rental units at an
extreme cost and a consistent $7,000 per month loss to the operator, the individuals renting
would not be as before and would not be able to afford them even at reduced rents; therefore,
he urged the City Council to approve the project.
William Hubel inquired whether the developer was local.
Mr. Brown stated he believed the developer's business address was in San Francisco. This
was a venture of the Terry Brown Companies for this particular project.
Nina Lilienthal -Murphy, President and Co-founder of the Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood
Association noted having observed a squatter sleeping on the porch at 1211 Lincoln Avenue
this evening. Also, she indicated that the letter of support from the Lincoln -San Rafael Hill
Neighborhood Association referred to by Mr. Brown was retracted several times.
Ms. Murphy stated that in the last seven years as co-founder of the Lincoln -San Rafael Hill
Neighborhood Association and almost three years as President, they as an organization had
always tried to work in a partnership, not only with the City, but with developers and all entities
in the City. They worked to get jobs done to everyone's satisfaction and in the case of the
1203-1200 Lincoln Avenue proposal, the Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association had
only five basic concerns:
• Size and Visual Impact of the Project;
• Traffic Issues;
• Parking Provisions;
• Sidewalk street level design elements; and
• Affordable housing issues
Ms. Murphy stated that from their letter dated October 28, 2004, not one issue to date had been
addressed. She indicated that suggestions were made to the DRB (Design Review Board)
over and over. The DRB made suggestions and this was their reason for going before the DRB
five times, noting every time they returned, the developer ignored the changes. She noted that
one of the DRB members stated: "We tried and tried and offered you a ton of suggestions, you
have ignored them all. What are we to do?" and with that, she approved it and passed it on to
the Planning Commission, as did the remaining members. In the second meeting of the
Planning Commission there was direction to change it to "a five story building." She noted that
currently, two years later, the project was still out of scale.
Referring to the Attachment 3 — Exhibit 2A in the staff report and the PowerPoint image on the
screen, Ms. Murphy inquired whether anyone could decipher a dot as being a human and
questioned whether this was the scale anyone was interested in having in the City.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 12
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 13
Referring to Attachment 3 — Exhibit 1A — Ms. Murphy noted all the surrounding buildings were
three stories and within the 30 -foot range, whereas the proposed project was over 50 -feet.
Ms. Murphy stated that they at the Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association had never
in their history appealed or disapproved a project until now. She stated this proposal did not fit
into the character of San Rafael in any way, let alone into their neighborhood. She depicted it
as a box with a bunch of tinsel, having no design or neighborhood feeling or gateway to an
area. She noted the Corporate Center was a beautiful building in a great location. The
replacement of the Macy's building was a wonderful design with a great plaza, albeit a little tall;
however, a lovely building.
Regarding the Draft EIR and Final EIR, Ms. Murphy stated this was horrible. It appeared to be
an accumulation of staff reports, totally biased with no objective point whatsoever and was a
waste of time, money and energy. She stated it did not address traffic through the
neighborhood, noting that of all seventeen traffic studies, one was in Lincoln/Mission. It did not
study total underground parking at all, did not take into account future projects on Lincoln
Avenue, even though she itemized all of them. Noting Mr. Brown indicated there would be 204
units by 2020, she stated the City was half -way there with another half proposed — there were
approximately 170 units in process currently.
Regarding no concern for affordable housing, Ms. Murphy stated the newspaper recently
indicated that at Hamilton "affordable housing goes for between $100,000 and $400,000 for a
home." Indicating this was affordable, she stated that in this case the prices would start at
between $300,000 and $400,000 for a small condominium, and she believed that some of the
laws in CEQA were used to skirt the issues, not address them.
Ms. Murphy addressed various issues as follows:
Page 21 — Al -9 — The size and scale to be discussed at the City Council. She noted LSA did
not address the size or scale, rather left it up to the City Council, indicating it was not significant.
Page 22 — Al -14 — Ms. Murphy indicated she inquired whether if SMART were passed how it
would affect this project because of the location. LSA quoted the Final EIR on SMART which
came out in July 2006, even though their comments were due in June 2006.
Page 22 — Al -15 — Interruptions, possibly four per hour, every fifteen minutes, especially east
to west. More cars traveling north to south turning west onto Mission, going west, already a
backup to Second Street. She indicated that for almost three years they had requested
enforcement for those taking a left turn at peak hours; however, this had not been received.
Page 23 — Al -18 — "The Levels of Service are what the City had determined to be acceptable,
not a list of the current levels of service." Ms. Murphy questioned that if this were the case why
a Traffic Engineer was necessary. She noted he was skipped concerning the Elephant
Pharmacy, he would be skipped for Marin Square and now with this project. She commented
that traffic was not a concern to San Rafael which was a shame.
Page 23 — Al -20 — Pedestrian and Bicycle — "Everything will be o.k. because the Mission Street
garages would be gone and it would be safer now." Ms. Murphy stated that these garages had not
been used in almost twenty years on the existing project.
Page 24 — Al -28 — Train pass-bys and delays — "Not considered and not included in calculations."
Ms. Murphy questioned why not, especially if quoting SMART's final EIR.
Page 25 — Al -35 — To be listed in the National Register the building must be at least 50 years old.
Ms. Murphy stated that if it were built in 1936, it was 70 years old.
Regarding other traffic comments, she noted the response was "Traffic would not be significant."
Ms. Murphy stated that living and working in San Rafael she sees this on a daily basis, getting stuck
in the intersection daily, yet LSA only did a one -day traffic study — in the morning and evening peak
times. She questioned why this was not done in the noon hour which they requested.
Page 34 — B2-1 — Response to Hugo Landecker — LSA did not address the off-site parking. Ms.
Murphy stated that each one of them requested a study for the off-site parking; however, this would
not be done because there was none, rather a red zone surrounded the entire area; however, she
indicated there was no red zone.
Page 41 — 134-5 — Response to Roger Roberts — Demolition of the Motor Court — "Significant,
Unavoidable Impact." Ms. Murphy believed it was not unavoidable, rather it was an historical
building which needed to be considered.
Ms. Murphy questioned if the City was so worried about the 215 violations since 1976, why they
had not thrown up the red flag and forced the landlord to bring the place up to code, or whether
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 13
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 14
it was o.k. for Mexicans and Blacks to live in squalor. Indicating it was not, she stated
gentrification had no place in San Rafael. Regarding the disgusting condition of the building
currently, she noted the developer expected it to be demolished. She indicated having received
the termite and condition report just this evening and regretted not having received it earlier.
She stated it was a shame the building was not red tagged, especially with the Chamber of
Commerce across the street.
Page 45 — 135-7 — Ms. Murphy noted Tymber Cavasian also stated there was no Noon study
Page 45 — 135-9 — No left turns into the project — would fall into traffic enforcement — Ms. Murphy
stated there was none. She noted guest parking went from 9 spaces to 3 and questioned where
people would park. She commented that most people park on Laurel; therefore, there was no
parking for this project. She questioned whether three parking spaces were sufficient for 36
units. Noting Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian was present for a reason, she stated he
should be listened to because he was great at what he did. She requested that the City Council
explain this, not staff.
Noting there had been an article in the San Francisco Chronicle concerning Walnut Creek trying
to balance development and rekindle their past, Ms. Murphy stated there was no past to
preserve anymore.
Ms. Murphy stated that they at the Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association would like
the City Council to preserve this site and refurbish it, both buildings, as an historical piece of the
grand past, possibly turning it into a museum or allowing people to reside there again, or design
a new building incorporating the design of the Motor Court into the new design and build
condominiums. She requested, as they had done for the past four and a half years in doing
General Plan 2020, not to exceed three stories to maintain the character of the neighborhood.
She stated they would also like to view San Rafael Hill without having to stretch their necks.
Noting the City Council was pro development and business, Ms. Murphy stated that rarely do
the people of San Rafael truly get represented at times, and this was one of those times they
requested help and representation. She stated the EIR was biased and did not have an
objective view. Their original concerns they had in October 2004 to this day had not been
addressed, which was repulsive to them. She indicated they would like to hear Council's views
on the size and scale of the project, parking offsite, traffic and affordable housing and what
Council considered balance of development versus preservation, and encourage an historical
survey. Ms. Murphy stated there were almost no historical sites remaining and she regretted
Lionel Ashcroft was not in attendance this evening as he would be appalled. She believed the
buildings to be historically significant, whatever shape they were in currently.
Ms. Murphy stated that the Motor Court Hotel was built in 1936 at the same time the Golden
Gate Bridge was built. It was built for the automobile traffic coming from the Golden Gate
Bridge and was site specific. It was expanded when the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge was built
to also accommodate the automobile traffic. It had original cabinetry and fixtures, which were
still in very good condition and it was the only Motor Court left in Marin County, if not Sonoma.
Noting many of them, including herself, had voted for the Councilmembers in attendance, Ms.
Murphy inquired whether they would allow this to be their legacy and stated: "Let it be a
constant reminder every time we drive by this site that this is your legacy every single day."
Tymber Cavasian, stated that first she had two comments about why the project was
inappropriate for this site and findings could be made to deny the project and second, she had a
few remarks on the draft resolutions as proposed.
Ms. Cavasian stated she saw two hurdles which supported denial of the project application.
First was how historical significance and renovation potential of the buildings was addressed.
She noted the Final EIR was very clear as to the environmentally superior alternative, which
included leaving the buildings as part of San Rafael's cultural fabric. Ms. Cavasian stated that
the staff report leaned on the General Plan process as identifying the site for exactly this type of
redevelopment as a supporting argument; however, she believed this to be a mistake as just
one year ago acknowledgement of these buildings having historic importance came to light and
only very recently the EIR findings stated the impact of demolishing them was significant and
unavoidable. She stated there was no way to make the assumption that the results would be
the same in General Plan 2020 regarding site identification since there was new information
that only the City Council would have to consider.
Ms. Cavasian stated that since the arguments to allow demolition included financial infeasibility,
to dismiss successful renovation as an option she had two comments on the analysis:
In the Redevelopment Department analysis and attachment the line item named "Operating
Cost per Unit" was shown as $3,000 per month, per unit, or $72,000 per month. This one figure
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 14
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 15
was over -stated by 3,000%. A cost of approximately $100 per month per unit was acceptable
and in line with the developer's own estimates. She stated it causes concern that some of the
numbers needed to be reviewed more critically and she encouraged the City Council to require
this.
Ms. Cavasian stated there were questions in the Developer's Analysis pertaining to figures
shown as "carrying costs" — Page 2 of the Analysis. Since entitlement and permit and
professional fees were broken out separately as line items on Page 1, the amounts then shown
in "carrying costs" on Page 2 for both phases presumably were items such as interest and loan
costs, taxes, insurance, etc.; however, running some simple calculations on the entitlement
phase figure, $8,000, it appeared much larger than indicated and itemization should be
required. Ms. Cavasian stated it appeared as though costs tied to speculative process of the
proposed project and time already spent could be ending up in the renovation analysis, which
would not be correct.
Ms. Cavasian stated that the costs shown for entitlements on Page 1 also appeared high for
renovation projects, e.g., Total Architectural Costs $250,000, whereas 10% of construction
costs would be reasonable for this type of renovation and maybe even a little high considering
the renovation, and even then, that number would be $180,000.
Therefore, Ms. Cavasian stated verification that only renovation related costs were being
included was requested.
Ms. Cavasian stated that all the analysis lacked any exploration of different scenarios to prove
or disprove feasibility. She inquired as to various financing options or other outcomes, such as
renovate and sell, convert to condominiums or use as a motel. She commented that the City
Council's decision on this project made a definite statement about the City's regard or disregard
for historic resources. She noted that each time it is stated the inventory would not be updated
due to budget insufficiencies, each historic property is allowed to deteriorate because of not
being in the inventory. Every year that passes in which an ordinance is not created that works
towards preservation and maintenance and ultimately, each time historically significant
properties are allowed to be destroyed this results in a permanent loss for the community, goes
against stated General Plan goals and works towards deluding the effect of the few historic
landmarks remaining.
Regarding lot consolidation and whether or not these lots should be consolidated given the
particular characteristics and issues of these sites, Ms. Cavasian reported having submitted a
detailed letter to the City Council in October, 2005, to which she had not received a response.
She stated that certainly state merger substantive requirements did not apply as both sites were
improved with buildings of historical and cultural significance. She indicated it was true that the
General Plan encouraged lot consolidation to increase development potential; however, by no
means, as was seen by interpretation of other encouraged policies, did that make it automatic,
and when considering consolidation, development potential should be determined solely on the
constraints of the actual site. Ms. Cavasian stated that in this case, this was Lincoln and or
Mission Avenues only for both ingress and egress to the site. High densities and a much larger
building was being proposed than ever could be attained if all directions of travel had to be
limited to Lincoln and Mission Avenues only, and this was especially true if the lots were not
consolidated.
Ms. Cavasian stated she disagreed with staff's supporting statements regarding several
General Plan policy consistencies - pages 9 and 10 of attachment 5 of the staff report. She
noted she had already submitted these comments in writing.
Indicating that a completely different outcome regarding lot consolidation was justified in this
case, Ms. Cavasian explained that the lots should not be merged and/or should be conditioned
heavily by the City Council, which it appeared they had the discretion to do.
Regarding the proposed project in its current status, Ms. Cavasian stated that the draft
resolutions were not clear on whether the second entrance was included in the proposal under
review. Page 4 - Item O under Findings for the Use Permit cites an underground parking
garage and single access point along Lincoln Avenue. Item W under the same section cites
that the project with inclusion of a Mission Avenue entrance would add minimal traffic to Laurel
Place.... Ms. Cavasian stated that while the staff report and presentation included the second
entrance, the resolutions remained silent to this specific point, as well as to the variation in the
unit mix caused by adding the other entrance. She requested that the resolutions be revised
and clarified on these points.
Ms. Cavasian stated that the new neighborhood traffic impact numbers after adding a second
driveway were lower and perhaps low enough to skate by; however, it was still her contention
that none of that site's traffic should purposely be routed through the neighborhood to support
increased downtown development potential, which was expressly contrary to the General Plan
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 15
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 16
objectives to keep downtown activities downtown, and it was poor practice.
While opposed to the configuration, Ms. Cavasian stated that if the right turn only scheme came
to be, the left turn problem was not sufficiently mitigated by indicating that law enforcement, and
maybe later traffic committee consideration, would be an adequate solution. She stated that the
intent and execution of the law often provided a gap in anything getting done and police officers
were not available to sit and watch one particular site and be there when the offenses occurred,
and if not observed, nothing could be done. She indicated there were many instances of this
already happening, as far as enforcement issues from noise complaints to other traffic issues.
Noting there was a very high likelihood this would be an issue, Ms. Cavasian stated the City
Council had the opportunity to deal with it now and a physical barrier was the correct mitigation
to require. She noted several materials could be considered, including flexible pylons which
were not concrete and not permanently installed or damaged and she encouraged this to be
done.
Ms. Cavasian stated that the City Council alone must balance the benefits of the proposed
project to the permanent loss of historic buildings which could not be mitigated. The arguments
laid out in the staff report, in her opinion, failed to tip the scales that while the project outcomes
certainly were different, which she agreed with, in the areas of the General Plan they addressed
and goals they achieved, they were not objectively better, which in itself defined benefit, and
therefore, did not provide a successful argument to meet the criteria.
Hugo Landecker stated that the current deplorable condition of the Motor Court had him really
upset. Indicating that this really reflected on ownership, he stated that with the possibility of
development it was not being maintained, rather allowed to deteriorate into a slum. This
reflected on the City in so many ways, and Code Enforcement in the worst way.
Mr. Landecker stated that the property at 1211 Lincoln Avenue, not on the list of historically and
architecturally significant buildings in the City, certainly should be. He recalled having
addressed the City Council previously concerning this issue and requested that the list of
historically and architecturally significant buildings be updated.
Noting staff and several previous speakers had addressed financial feasibility, Mr. Landecker
urged the City Council not to consider financial feasibility in this project. Noting the developer
was looking at financial feasibility, he stated there was nothing in the zoning ordinance or any
other ordinance that he was aware of that addressed financial feasibility as being a requirement
to approve or disapprove a project.
Indicating there was an error in the EIR to the effect that he was quoted as stating how glad he
was that the Motor Court would be demolished, Mr. Landecker stated this was twisted around
and backwards. Reading his comments in the report he stated it was totally to the contrary of
what he stated in the EIR.
Mr. Landecker stated he also commented previously on parking and the impact on the
surrounding community. He stated it was well known that in any neighborhood in any part of
San Rafael, and probably in any community, parking was one of the sore spots with any
resident. Having commented for the EIR, he stated the EIR response was that it met
specifications. Mr. Landecker stated that so many places in San Rafael were built to standards
such as on this project and years later the impact they had on the community was appalling.
He would like to see a return to the zoning ordinance of a couple of years ago which corrected a
lot of these problems; however, the legislators in Sacramento stated "We realize you made
mistakes in the past, but now we are going to repeat them over and over and make them
worse." He believed that was what this project represented; it was worse than the parking
requirements of twenty years ago. It needed to be changed; however, he realized it was not the
City Council's job. Mr. Landecker stated he would like to see more guest parking; however, he
did not see how it could be added with the state requirements as they exist.
Assuming the City Council had read the appeal filed jointly by the Lincoln -San Rafael Hill
Neighborhood Association and the San Rafael Federation of Neighborhoods, Mr. Landecker
stated he supported that appeal, believed it was very well written and every point it contained
struck home.
Mr. Landecker urged the City Council not to adopt the resolution to adopt the Environmental
Impact Report and not to adopt the resolution concerning the loss of historic structures.
Jim Schmidt stated he would address solely the transportation impact of the proposed
development. He reported having spent a career of over 45 years devoted to transportation
planning, traffic analysis and transportation system impacts and found the report, in terms of
what the project would do from a transportation point of view, to be very imprecise and he
suspected, highly flawed.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 16
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 17
Giving some examples, Mr. Schmidt stated that if this site were in the Golden Gate Apartment
units near downtown, it would be a totally different environment and context than if it were an
apartment out on Miracle Mile. He saw no reflection of that at all in recognizing how many trips
would be made by the residents of the units. Noting it did not define what a trip was, he
explained there were non motorized trips, i.e., walking, bicycling, transit trips, auto driver trips,
auto passenger trips, etc. Indicating people did not understand what trips means, he stated
they did not recognize there was a Transit Center within two blocks, SMART, if approved, could
have a station nearby, the proximity to a university and to the downtown community, all of which
would change the character of the number of trips made by those residents.
Mr. Schmidt stated the outcome indicated there would be three trips in the evening and morning
peak hours and he defied staff to be able to predict the number of trips at that level of detail. He
questioned whether it was a Friday or Thursday Farmers' Markets, noting these were not dealt
with, nor was the effect on emergency vehicle response discussed. He noted Mission and
Lincoln Avenues were two major arterials which were both very important for access and
response times for emergency vehicles.
Regarding trip generation, Mr. Schmidt stated that in understanding travel making, it was
evident that trips were generated by occupants of residences; however, they were also
attracted there, i.e., visitors, commercial vehicles, service organizations, telephone, gas,
plumbers, trucks, etc., the composition of which was not discussed.
Evident by the size and price of the units, Mr. Schmidt stated most would have two employed
persons; therefore, to have eleven additional units and three additional trips in the morning or
afternoon peak hours was totally irreconcilable.
Believing the City was getting into a very serious problem with traffic impacts that had not been
really identified, Mr. Schmidt stated this size of facility could not possibly work with the single
access off Lincoln Avenue; therefore, as a minimum, there must be access and egress from
Mission and Lincoln Avenues. In studying travel patterns, he indicated it was found that most
travel to work to outside destinations from this area would be heading south and east which
meant on returning, many of those people would be traveling north and trying to get into that
property from the Lincoln access or possibly the Mission access, if provided. This, he indicated,
would result in a serious problem with going around the block and making a right turn off
Mission Avenue.
Mr. Schmidt urged the City Council to request staff and consultants to show them a traffic
simulation of how this would work from 7:00 a.m. — 9:00 a.m. and from 3:30/4:00 p.m. —
5:30/6:00 p.m. Noting it was not terribly expensive, he stated it would shed a lot of light on how
well this would work and answer questions such as, "What if it were Farmers' Market evening, a
roadway was blocked elsewhere, traffic was 10% higher or less than otherwise thought" and he
believed the operational integrity of those two arterials depended on this type of definitive
analysis.
Betty Pagett stated she had worked in San Rafael since 1981. Supporting the project, she
stated that old was not necessarily historic and she believed that cheap, tiny substandard
housing was not necessarily affordable housing. Therefore, in evaluating that particular
change, the movement was towards something much more exciting and acceptable as an entry
to San Rafael and also, better housing. She believed the figures on renovation and the
estimate that it would be infeasible were correct.
Ms. Pagett stated her non-profit was requested to look at this. They had required, restored and
made available thousands of units around California and Hawaii and this was not a site where
this could happen.
Indicating that all the infill attached homes studied, whether rental or ownership, in the Bay Area
had shown that the impacts were less than half of the impacts of a single-family home, Ms.
Pagett stated this was difficult for people who live in single-family homes and wanted to stop
this type of housing to realize; however, it was exactly the kind of housing that served empty
nesters who were part of the community and would have to leave, or those who work in San
Rafael.
Stating she chairs Habitat for Humanity for Marin County, Ms. Pagett reported that they only did
ownership homes, detached, a couple at a time. There had been no tradition of restoration of
existing buildings and they hoped that all of those who were interested in affordable housing
present this evening would support Habitat as it came forward with its first site in Marin next
month.
At the request of Mayor Boro, Ms. Pagett stated she worked for Ecumenical Association for
Housing with offices on East Francisco Boulevard, San Rafael.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 17
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 18
Patrick Murphy, past President and Co -Founder of Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood
Association, stated he wished to make it clear that this neighborhood association had never
been against housing of any type. They did not like the design of this particular endeavor and
stated it from the outset as they believed it was located in an abstract manner on the site. It
would have a visual impact on the corner and everyone in opposition to the project had stated
this. He indicated they supported the Guthrie project of sixteen units at the north end of Lincoln,
1515 Lincoln Mews — 24 town homes - and they intended to support the Colonial endeavor,
together with the Villa and several single-family residences being built in the hillsides.
Indicating that the design of this particular project was flawed from the outset, Mr. Murphy
stated the massive part of the building was placed at the corner which did not make much
sense to someone holding Degrees in Art and Design, as a lot of people in the community did.
Mr. Murphy stated he would like to bring to the City Manager's attention that the process of this
project had been despicable from day one. He reported that they were called together on
August 1 when the City Council was to have a presentation made by the developer. They were
called under the auspices of being able to air some of these concerns about the process;
however, they were not allowed to, which he did not like.
Indicating the traffic issue would not go away, Mr. Murphy stated the LOS (Level of Service) at
that corner was degrading almost as he spoke. He commented that those who indicated they
supported the project and drive by daily did not live in the neighborhood and he inquired how
Dominican/Black Canyon would feel about the project being where the church is. He indicated
he was aware of a lot of neighborhoods who were not happy by the representation in the
General Plan, and this came from the onset of the General Plan hearing, particularly because of
a letter he was involved with which attacked several people, and should not have; however, the
premise of that letter stated that the neighborhoods were not represented in that General Plan
process, which concerned them and still does. Noting some of the programs brought forth from
the General Plan were not funded, Mr. Murphy stated others were.
Mr. Murphy stated he had heard two Councilmembers exiting the Federation Meetings at the
San Rafael Corporate Center stating "Look at Albert Lofts, we dropped the ball on that one" and
he suggested picking up the ball with this one and running with it. He advised the City Council
to make a decision that would be their legacy because they would drive by daily, as he did. He
stated that the housing and site had merits and questioning who would be able to live there, he
hoped it could be filled; however, at the current rate of housing he was unsure.
Repeating that the process had been flawed from day one, Mr. Murphy stated this was
something as a neighborhood leader he was very concerned about. He requested a meeting
with the City Manager and the neighborhood leaders to discuss the issue in depth to avoid a
reoccurrence. He indicated that no one benefited from the amount of time spent by the Design
Review Board, Planning Commission, Developers and those volunteering as neighborhood
leaders and concerned citizens, and the process needed to be streamlined.
Indicating the bottom line was design, and agreeing it had come a long way from a box, Mr.
Murphy stated it still was a box with articulation. He believed the main issue that would affect
the Lincoln -San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association was traffic. This was a problem area as
one car, as happens in the mornings, could hold up thirty cars with the impact all the way down
to Second Street. He noted that at 4:00 p.m. there could be one meter maid at either end;
however, cars were still parked and it was not enforceable.
Mr. Murphy stated they talked to the developer concerning issues they believed would arise
again and again. Noting the DRB looked at these he stated some of these issues were not
complied with, yet DRB meetings were scheduled, with a lot of time wasted. Indicating that the
design could have been better, Mr. Murphy stated he hoped the City Council realized this and
that they could have some effect on the design of developments. Equating this project with
Albert Lofts, he expressed the hope that down the road there could be buildings with great
design, similar to that in Loch Lomond. He noted the Loch Lomond building was used a lot as
an example and the fact that one could not even tell it was there, denoted a good design.
Indicating they, the residents, wanted to be part of the process, Mr. Murphy stated they also
wanted well designed projects. They supported housing and projects and he encouraged the
City Council to do them well and have a legacy to be proud of.
Judith Allen, addressing the EIR, stated that when she went through it at City Hall she was
shocked in that every issue citizens brought up at these many meetings were cast aside and
listed as of very little importance, and some were listed significant but unavoidable. She
inquired why they were unavoidable and why the EIR had the right to indicate they were of very
little importance.
Ms. Allen stated she was surprised to hear this evening that there was some type of provision
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 18
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 19
added for service vehicles and she inquired as to how many spaces and their location.
Mr. Brown stated this was one space and accessed off the Lincoln Avenue driveway.
Ms. Allen repeated that many issues raised had not been addressed and she hoped a final
decision would be delayed pending evaluation of these issues.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Mayor Boro paused the City Council meeting briefly at 10:15 p.m.
Resuming at 10:25 p.m., Mayor Boro invited Community Development Director Bob Brown to
comment, make clarifications, etc.
Mr. Brown noted Ms. Cavasian was quoting some of the cost estimates from the applicant, such
as carrying costs and architectural fees, which were not used in the financial feasibility analysis.
Just the hard rehabilitation costs were evaluated, not the architectural processing, property
maintenance, etc.
Regarding lot consolidation, Mr. Brown stated lot merger was not encouraged in the General
Plan to increase development potential. It was encouraged, particularly on the Lincoln frontage,
to reduce the number of potential access points on Lincoln Avenue given the traffic situation,
and in this case, to get that driveway as far away from the Lincoln and Mission intersection as
possible, for safety.
Clarifying that there were now two entrances to the site, Mr. Brown explained there was an in
and out on Lincoln Avenue and an in -only on Mission Avenue.
Regarding parking, Councilmember Heller inquired whether this was the correct number for
state requirements and whether more could be added if that were the choice, i.e., could space
for four or five more parking places be requested or whether the City was constrained by the
state.
Responding, Mr. Brown explained that "yes", the number of spaces proposed met the State
Density Bonus Law and "no", the City Council had no ability to require more. He commented
that the developer could be requested to do anything; however, when it came to requiring them,
Council did not have that option.
Mayor Boro stated this project had been heard by the City Council on a number of occasions
and noting people found it frustrating, he indicated that he, too, found it somewhat frustrating.
He believed every step possible had been taken when the proposal was first heard in an
informal workshop and when the issue of the historical values arose with the appeal, an EIR
was ordered, which was prepared. He noted that at that time great concern was expressed
regarding a second entrance to the site, which had now been provided on Mission Avenue.
Mayor Boro stated that a lot of other issues appeared to keep returning and he did not know
what to reply when people stated it was feasible to economically develop those sites. He noted
Ms. Paggett, Ecumenical Association for Housing, stated they looked at this site and believed it
was not economically feasible to renovate the existing units, while others stated it was very
feasible. The City's consultants had indicated it was not feasible.
Mayor Boro stated the City was required, and he believed responsible, to provide housing
wherever possible in the community within reason and consistent with the General Plan. He
believed this site was consistent with the General Plan and the types of units to be placed there
would be good for the community and it was a key entrance to the City. While everyone had
their opinions on design, Mayor Boro did not believe that this, by any stretch of the imagination,
was a bad design, rather it would compliment the site. Noting there was a lot of good design in
the City, he agreed that like a lot of cities, there were some, given the chance, that would be
done all over again; however, by and large, the City of San Rafael had outstanding design and
was proud of what it had done.
Commenting that the current condition was an eyesore, passing it every day, Mayor Boro noted
it had gone down hill and needed to be dealt with. The proposed project had a good vision for
the site and when completed the City would be proud. People could live and hopefully work in
the downtown, it was accessible to transit and the potential SMART train, it was conducive to
walking to work in the downtown, it was Smart Growth, which cities were trying to achieve, and
he believed this site would meet that need. While he understood people still had issues and
concerns, Mayor Boro stated that having gone through the issue for approximately seventeen
months, with numerous hearings, etc., he believed it was time to move on.
Concurring, Councilmember Miller believed the project had gone as far as it could through the
process. It had been approved by the Design Review Board, and the Planning Commission,
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 19
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 20
and having gone through this proven process and been considered in terms of the best
interests of the community, he would not out guess them on the design. He believed it very
much met the tremendous need of housing, which the General Plan was very forceful about and
it fit into the entire concept of Smart Growth.
Knowing Ms. Pagett personally and having dealt with the Ecumenical Housing Association on a
number of occasions, Councilmember Miller stated he would accept their expertise any time.
Councilmember Miller believed the process worked, everyone had done their best and he
considered the value of this building outweighed the value of that particular site as an historic
site. He saw the value of the building being so great in fulfilling so many aspects of what was
desired in the community as the overriding conditions.
Indicating she intended to vote for the project, Councilmember Heller stated that in the ongoing
process and years of looking at it she had sat through many meetings and read tons of
literature and she disagreed with Mr. Murphy's statement that the process was despicable.
While she understood there were frustrations, she encouraged him to discuss with the City
Manager, perhaps at the monthly neighborhood meetings, the problems he believed existed
and discuss some of these on an ongoing basis. She believed there were always places where
the City could improve and perhaps learn to talk to each other when necessary. She indicated
she would like to follow up on this at some point.
Councilmember Phillips stated that he compared the existing site with what he envisioned and
tried to balance the two. He indicated it concerned him that many of the local residents had
significant concerns, which he tried to listen to and weigh, and he believed he understood most.
On balance, he believed the site was not re -habitable, not historically significant, significantly
run down, and when compared to something that would provide significant housing, would add
to the downtown, was close to transit centers and with minimal traffic degradation, he saw
something that far outweighed what currently exists; therefore, for him the balance tipped
towards the project and he intended to vote affirmatively.
1) Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12016— RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR A NEW 36 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM BUILDING AT 1203 AND 1211 LINCOLN
AVENUE (CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND MISSION
AVENUE) (APNs: 011-184-08 AND 09)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
2) Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12017 — RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(MMRP) FOR A NEW 36 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM BUILDING AT 1203 AND 1211 LINCOLN
AVENUE (APNs: 011-184-08 AND 09)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
3) Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
Community Development Director Bob Brown reported that Ms. Cavasian pointed out a
discrepancy in the resolution. Referring to page 4, first paragraph, he requested the
language "underground parking garage and a single access point along Lincoln" be
changed to read "two access points along Lincoln and Mission."
RESOLUTION NO. 12018 — RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED04-102), USE PERMIT
(UP05-032) FOR A HEIGHT BONUS AND A VESTING
TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP (TS05-001) TO
DEMOLISH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 20
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 21
LOCATED AT 1203 AND 1211 LINCOLN AVENUE IN
ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 36 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED
PARKING AND LANDSCAPING (APNs: 011-184-08 AND
09) (as amended)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
OLD BUSINESS:
17. DISCUSSION RE AMENDMENT TO MTA (MARIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY) JPA
AGREEMENT (CM) — FILE 4-13-101
City Manager Ken Nordhoff stated that the signing of the new Comcast Cable Franchise had
been discussed on a couple of occasions and how that event had triggered the transfer of
franchise fees away from the City's General Fund, directing them towards the MTA (Marin
Telecommunications Agency). He reported that at the time the agreement was structured the
reason for putting that mechanism in to move monies away from the local municipalities and
into the JPA (Joint Powers Authority) was strictly of an administrative nature and not having
been a party to it, he did not believe there had been a thoughtful discussion around the issue of
local control and local revenues.
As reported in the staff report, Mr. Nordhoff stated the City collects nearly $700,000 annually in
cable franchise fees which go into the General Fund and are used for a whole number of
municipal services.
Mr. Nordhoff stated that recently, the City of Larkspur had been discussing the same issue and
he had attached to the staff report a letter they had sent to the MTA Board requesting that an
amendment be considered to the current JPA agreement that would allow for what he termed
pre -Comcast signing flow of funds to continue, i.e., returning to the way business was
conducted for approximately the last ten years.
Mr. Nordhoff stated he would be glad to work with the City Attorney's office to draft a letter,
should that be the direction of the City Council, which would be forwarded to the MTA Chair and
Board.
Councilmember Miller explained this concerned whether the City could ethically and morally
forfeit its rights to the franchise fees due. Previously, the gross franchise fees went to the City
with the City reimbursing the MTA; however, with the new contract the fees go directly to the
MTA, who returns the net to the City, having extracted their budget.
Councilmember Miller stated the Larkspur letter was good and he suggested that San Rafael
use similar wording and present a letter as quickly as possible to the chair of the committee.
Should the City receive the gross and pay a fee, Councilmember Phillips clarified that the
amount the City would net would be greater than the gross going to the MTA who would remit to
the City after expenses.
Councilmember Miller stated that if the fees go directly to the MTA, they deduct their budget.
Councilmember Phillips stated that presumably the City's fees were paying for their operating
expenses.
Councilmember Miller cautioned that this could include the City paying for the operation of the
public access center, and he did not believe the City wished to use General Fund money for this
purpose. While he believed it important to operate a public access center, he felt there were
other means of funding available to them.
Councilmember Heller stated she would vote affirmatively; however, as she would be
representing Councilmember Miller at the next meeting, Wednesday, she inquired whether the
letter should be available for that meeting. Councilmember Miller stated this would be good as
Barbara Thornton, Chair, would be there to accept it, and it would also show solidarity with
Larkspur and the other cities and towns.
Concurring on sending the letter, Mayor Boro stated he would like to see every City Council
sign a letter collectively. Getting all ten cities to vote on this and all Mayors to sign a letter he
believed would be much more effective.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 21
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 22
Mr. Nordhoff noted the next City Managers' meeting was scheduled for August 24, 2006
Mr. Nordhoff reported that this discussion had taken place at a couple of these meetings and
some agencies saw the risk in greater disproportion to others, and he indicated he would be
glad to draft a letter.
Councilmember Heller suggested sending a copy to each Councilmember as she believed part
of the problem was it was necessary to have the City Managers take notice and talk individually
to their Councilmember representing their City/Town on this Agency.
Mr. Nordhoff stated he would be glad to send copies to all elected officials and managers, as
appropriate.
Mayor Boro stated it would be good to have all cities take action and he did not believe anyone
would take exception to the second to the last paragraph in Larkspur's letter which stated: "
....we consider our fiduciary responsibility to the residents to be among our highest priorities,
and the City Council is the sole authority for allocation of revenues to programs, operations and
activities of its choosing." Mayor Boro stated that should any city indicate they did not care
about that, he was missing something.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to direct City Manager Ken
Nordhoff to prepare a letter, for Mayor Boro's signature, to the Marin Telecommunications
Agency requesting that they adopt an amendment to the JPA to have revenues collected
submitted to individual agency members; this letter to be copied to the Marin County Board of
Supervisors, and Councilmembers and City Managers of the remaining 9 member agencies to
hopefully get them on board.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
18. None.
There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:50 p.m.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12006
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/07/2006 Page 22