HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2007-06-18SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2007 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
None
CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Vice -Mayor
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as
follows:
ITEM
Resolutions re: Election Matters - General Municipal
Election, November 6, 2007: (CC) -
File 9-4 x 9-1 x 9-3-14 x 9-3-16 x 9-2-1
a) Resolution Proposing a General Municipal
Election, Including the San Rafael Elementary
School District and the San Rafael High School
District General Election, to be Held on Tuesday,
November 6, 2007;
b) Resolution Requesting the Board of Supervisors to
Consolidate with any other Election Conducted on
the same Date; and
c) Resolution Requesting Election Services by the
County Clerk
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1) RESOLUTION NO. 12271-
1) PROPOSING A GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION,
INCLUDING THE SAN RAFAEL
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND THE SAN RAFAEL HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6,2007;
2) REQUESTING THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE
WITH ANY OTHER ELECTION
CONDUCTED ON THE SAME
DATE;
3) REQUESTING ELECTION
SERVICES BY THE COUNTY
CLERK
2) RESOLUTION NO. 12272 —
RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING POLICY
REGARDING
NUMBER OF WORDS IN
CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT OF
QUALIFICATIONS, AND PROVIDING
THAT THE COST OF PRINTING AND
HANDLING OF CANDIDATE'S
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
SHALL BE BORNE BY THE
CANDIDATE AND PAID FOR AT THE
TIME NOMINATION PAPERS ARE
FILED
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 1
2. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 1851 — "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of San Rafael Amending Chapter
3.34 of the San Rafael Municipal Code Establishing a
Fee and Service Charge Revenue / Cost Comparison
System, by Revising Section 3.34.040" (Fin) —
File 9-10-2 x 9-3-85 x 9-3-87
3. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 1852 — "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of San Rafael, Pursuant to the
Recently Enacted Health and Safety Code Section
33342.7, Adopting a Description of the Program for the
Acquisition of Real Property by Eminent Domain for
the Redevelopment Plan for the Central San Rafael
Redevelopment Project Area, and Approving Related
Actions" (RA) — File 140 x (SRRA) R-140 XIX
AYES COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 2
3) RESOLUTION NO. 12273 —
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE
BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
MARIN TO PERMIT THE COUNTY
CLERK TO CONSOLIDATE
PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES
RELATING TO THE SAN RAFAEL
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
Approved final adoption of Ordinance
No. 1851.
Approved final adoption of Ordinance
No. 1852.
Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
None
None
Mayor Boro (from items 2 and 3, due to absence
from meetinq of 6/4/07)
4. Public Hearing — CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE RE GENERAL PLAN REVISIONS
ADOPTING GREEN BUILDING REGULATIONS (CD) — FILE 13-1 x 10-6
Public Hearing opened and continued to regular Citv Council meeting of July 2, 2007.
5. Public Hearing — THE VILLAGE AT LOCH LOMOND MARINA - CONSIDERATION OF FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, USE
PERMIT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND
EXCEPTIONS TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR THE VILLAGE AT LOCH LOMOND MARINA
PROJECT (CD) — FILE 10-2 x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-6 x 10-7
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Explaining the procedure for the evening, Mayor Boro stated that as the Council Chambers was
handicapped with respect to visuals, for the first two presentations (PowerPoint), he and the City
Councilmembers would move to seats in the front row to watch, subsequently moving back to the
dais. Representatives from groups wishing to address the Council, beginning with Loch Lomond
Homeowners Association, would be invited to address the Council, to be followed by testimony from
the general public.
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated that staff would provide a relatively brief
presentation. He issued an assurance to those in attendance this evening who were present at the
Planning Commission meeting of April 24th, that the hour-long presentation would not be repeated;
however, for those who did not attend that meeting or may not have been following the issue
carefully, copies of the PowerPoint presentation from that meeting were available on the table in the
lobby and on the City's website. He noted it contained a good summary of the application,
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process, etc.
Mr. Brown explained that staff this evening would not be going into detail on issues such as traffic,
parking, wetlands, etc., as these items had been discussed at length at previous Planning
Commission sessions, and were summarized in the materials in Council packets. Issues to be
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 2
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 3
discussed this evening included:
• The City review process to date;
• How the project had changed as a result of that review process;
• Summary of community concerns, those staff believed had been addressed by the revisions
and those still outstanding;
• Since view impacts were still very much a relevant issue and the best way to demonstrate
those was through simulations, these, together with some new ones, would be shown;
• Planning Commission recommendations and how these had also resulted in changes to the
project.
Mr. Brown indicated that as the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association had requested the City
articulate its objectives for the redevelopment of this site, he would make a presentation on this
issue. Subsequent to the Applicant's presentation and the public hearing, staff was requesting that
the City Council identify those issues, or possible alternatives to the project, they would like to have
responses to over the next month; therefore, the meeting would be continued to July 16, 2007.
As an aside, since there was an occupancy limit in the Council Chambers, Mr. Brown requested that
those in attendance either be seated in the Chambers or in the lobby rather than standing in the isles
or the back of the room.
Mr. Brown introduced Paul Jensen, Contract Planner for the project, who would discuss the review
process and how the application had changed.
Giving some background, Mr. Jensen reported that in February, 2005, the planning applications were
filed for the project and through the course of the past two and a half years there had been twenty-
three public meetings, with the Park and Recreation Commission, Design Review Board and
Planning Commission. These included not only hearings with the Planning Commission, but seven
study sessions on specific topics, such as traffic and parking, and as a result of this process the
project had evolved.
Mr. Jensen stated that when the project was filed in 2005, the EIR process was begun, as a result of
which, many would recall the surfacing of the Mitigated Plan last fall, which eventually resulted in
some formal revisions to the project.
Summarizing the changes between what was originally filed and the project before Council this
evening, Mr. Jensen explained:
✓ Increased replacement grocery store proposal. The initial project proposed a 3,500 square -
foot market, essentially a convenience size market; however, the new proposal was for a full-
service market comparable in size to the existing Loch Lomond Market;
✓ Increase in neighborhood commercial space in a mixed-use building;
✓ Lowered height of the commercial building. In the original plan the two-story commercial
office building was as high as 45 feet, depicted in the visuals to be shown this evening;
✓ Elimination of cottage units on the west side of the project. With the exception of five
residential flats proposed in the mixed-use building, the majority of the residential units were
east of the project entrance;
✓ Elimination of wetland fill;
✓ Elimination of two housing units, which reduced the original unit count from 84 to 82 units;
✓ Elimination of parking spaces that were encroaching within the 50 -foot wetlands setback;
✓ Removal of private yards for certain lots that were encroaching within the wetlands setback;
✓ More substantial change along the Point San Pedro Road frontage. Initially ten one and two
story cottages were proposed; however, this was changed to 7 one-story cottages;
✓ Narrowing of the project entrance in order to accommodate three view and pedestrian
corridors east of the main entrance;
✓ Original project proposed a series of residential alleys which had been replaced with parking
courts;
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 4
✓ Increase in amount of parking for residential guest parking, retail, as well as vehicle and
trailer parking for day use at the marina - from 25 to 35 spaces;
✓ The current plan proposes to eliminate dry dock boat storage;
✓ Current plan also includes a "parking reserve." Mr. Jensen explained this was a landscape
area that was reserved for potential conversion to parking if needed, and this would be
monitored over a period of time.
Recreation Element Changes:
✓ Public access park initially envisioned for the project, which was located within the residential
area, was moved to the west and east jetties;
✓ Tot lot initially proposed on the west jetty now focused on passive recreation use, with the tot
lot proposed on the east jetty;
✓ Two public restrooms were recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission for park
users;
✓ Basketball court added, then removed because of potential concern over nuisance;
✓ Kayak dock launch and kayak rentals added to the plan;
✓ Parking to include dedicated parking areas for public use during daytime hours for the park
area;
✓ Marina Green widened from a consistent 25 -feet to a meandering width of up to 60 -feet.
Covering community concerns — those addressed through the process and those still outstanding,
Mr. Jensen reported:
Addressed:
o Loss of a full-service market;
o Loss of neighborhood commercial space;
o Height of the market building — initial two-story commercial office building was as tall as 44
feet;
o Design of the loading dock for the grocery store;
o Inadequate day use vehicle and trailer parking — this had been increased;
o Inadequate residential guest parking — has been increased;
o Dedicated parking for public recreation uses;
o Wetland fill.
Remaining:
■ Density — Traffic, Building mass, Neighborhood compatibility'
■ Building heights;
■ View impacts;
■ Adequacy of parking, particularly with regard to the marina and residential components;
■ Traffic safety;
■ Wetland setbacks.
View Impacts:
Mr. Jensen noted that there were a number of policies in the General Plan addressing views and
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 4
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 5
neighborhood compatibility. He explained that the General Plan policy adopted for Loch Lomond
Marina stated that "Buildings should be carefully sited and designed to enhance or minimize impacts
to views of the Bay, the Marin Islands, wetlands and the Marina."
Similarly, Neighborhood Policy 2 states: "Preserve, enhance and maintain the residential character of
neighborhoods to make them desirable places to live."
Community Design Policy 5 states: "Respect and enhance to the greatest extent possible, views of
the Bay and its islands, Bay wetlands .... Marinas, Mt. Tamalpais.... And hills and ridgelines from
public streets, parks and publicly accessible pathways."
Community Design Policy 6 states: Protect the visual identity of the hillsides and Bay by ....
Providing setbacks from the Bay and providing public access along the Bay edge."
Mr. Jensen indicated he specifically cited these policies because they were used in assessing the
project, not only in the EIR, but in terms of project merits.
With regard to simulations, prepared for the most part for the project EIR, Mr. Jensen stated staff had
prepared eight computer generated simulations for public views and five private view simulations
which had been incorporated into the project EIR. He noted that some reflected the original project
design and some the current design and in presenting the simulations, he explained the differences.
Mr. Jensen reported that an additional simulation was prepared at the request of the homeowners
association, which was not in the EIR, looking south from Locksley Lane. With regard to Beach
Drive, Mr. Jensen noted this simulation did not represent the latest drawings, as two homes were
eliminated, dropping the unit count from 84 to 82 under the current plan. He noted that the private
view at 124 Kinross Drive was not simulated in the EIR, rather had been provided by the project
sponsor.
Summarizing the Planning Commission's review and recommendations, Mr. Jensen reported that the
Planning Commission reviewed the final EIR on the project at two hearings. At a Public Hearing held
on April 24, 2007, testimony was taken from 35 speakers, the hearing was closed and continued to
May 8, 2007, at which time, following a lengthy discussion, they recommended certification of the
final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (the program that takes all the measures from the
EIR and sets out a road path on how they are to be implemented). Mr. Jensen stated the Planning
Commission also recommended approval of the four planning applications, which included a General
Plan amendment and Rezoning.
Indicating that the Planning Commission's recommendations included conditions for changes to the
Development Plan, to be presented by the project sponsor this evening, Mr. Jensen reported these
changes included:
Along the eastern border of the residential area that the project respect a 50 -foot
development free wetland setback. The original plan proposed a pedestrian path within that
setback. As a result, the project sponsors had shifted some units around to accommodate
compliance with this recommendation, which had resulted in the reduction of one additional
unit. The latest revisions before Council this evening reduced the unit count to 81 residential
units.
Public Plaza between the market and the marina front be widened from 25 -feet to 40 -feet,
which had been accommodated.
Reduce the roof ridges and peaks for 7 waterfront homes by 2 -feet.
# The Planning Commission considered and discussed at length the question of whether or not
to allow filling a small geographically isolated wetland, referred to as Wetland E, a 278
square -foot drainage ditch, and concluded that because of its low biological value and the fact
that it was isolated from the other larger wetlands, preserving it would not create much value
to the wetland and they supported its fill.
Location of boat maintenance parking had been shifted at the request of the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Their Design Review Board held a
meeting last week and recommended some shifting of parking to offer a public access
connection to adjacent open space, which was public open space on land that was part of
San Pedro Cove.
Relocation of a bird viewing platform that the BCDC Design Review Board recommended was
better located near the breakwater path entrance.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 6
Community Development Director Bob Brown reported that the Loch Lomond Association requested
that the City identify its objectives for the site, other than simply an increase in the housing stock,
which he had attempted to do, based strictly on the text of General Plan Policy NH -118, which was
the most detailed and explicit site-specific policy in the General Plan. He noted he had indicated how
he believed the project responded to these objectives; however, it was up to the City Council to
determine whether or not the project, as proposed, did so sufficiently.
Mr. Brown explained some of the City objectives for the project:
Increased public use of the waterfront. During preparation of General Plan 2020, the Citizens'
Steering Committee was very focused on the fact that there were limited opportunities along the
Point San Pedro Peninsula for public access along the waterfront. One of their high priorities for the
Loch Lomond Marina site was to create public gathering places and other amenities which would
draw the public to the site to take full advantage of its waterfront location. Therefore, because of this,
the project incorporates a Marina Green, Public Plaza - located between the market, yacht club and
Bobby's restaurant, Outdoor Dining — next to Bobby's restaurant and adjacent to the market, which
would have food facilities. The project incorporates a proposal for Woodland Market, together with
all types of amenities at the waterfront and the marina, including pedestrian paths, fishing stations,
passive recreation, such as picnicking, active child play facilities along the center or eastern spit, and
a kayak launch.
Maintainina and Improving the Marina. The intent was to keep the marina a vital operation, fulfilling
the needs of boaters (from power boaters to kayakers). The project had increased the number of
vehicle trailer spaces beyond the numbers the consultants originally believed would satisfy the
existing or future demand. The addition of three new restroom facilities, one specifically for boaters
which would include laundry and shower facilities, new harbor master office, boat repair facility,
renovated yacht club and the addition of a kayak launch dock and beach, including kayak rentals.
Improve Neighborhood Commercial Services. Promote the retention and improvement of
neighborhood commercial services, not just for the benefit of local residents, but also as a means of
reducing traffic in the congested commercial areas. The project responds to this by creating new
commercial buildings from the buildings currently there. The developer proposes to retain virtually all
of the existing tenants and has leases with them to occupy new space. A lease has been created
with the operators of Woodland Market to design a new facility for the project. A public plaza would
be created for the neighborhood to gather, and the marina green and child play facilities also provide
services to the neighborhood not currently available.
Improve Wetlands and Water Qualitv. Every opportunity possible is taken in San Rafael to enhance
habitat areas and this application responds to that by expanding and connecting the existing
seasonal wetlands. It also adds fencing and additional native planting to further protect the existing
wetlands from human intrusion and also domestic pets currently in the area, and it would add a bird
viewing station and interpretive signage. Noting that currently all of the drainage from the site, which
is pretty much paved, runs directly into the Bay, Mr. Brown stated that this project would incorporate
the newest technologies available to treat the project runoff through grassy swales and other types of
separators; therefore, all of the oils and metals, etc., would be filtered out of the water before it
reached Bay waters.
Increase Housina Stock and Diversitv of Housina. This is one of the principal goals of General Plan
2020, both because of responding to a state legal mandate for increased numbers of housing units
and because the City wished to retain a population with economic diversity, i.e., more housing
choices for local workers, children and the existing population as it ages. Mr. Brown noted the
project now provides 81 units instead of the 99 units originally assumed in the creation of the General
Plan. 17 of these would be permanently affordable units, with four different housing types, including
units affordable by design, i.e., units more affordable than typical single-family dwelling. He
explained that in Marin by no means were these reasonably priced; however, a townhouse would be
significantly less expensive than a free-standing single-family home. The majority of units in the
project were attached townhouse units; the applicant also had flats above the commercial space and
some smaller, in most cases, single -story, single-family homes, which had been referred to in past
public hearings as possible move -down housing.
Mr. Brown stated these were his suggestions in terms of how this project related to City objectives.
In terms of this evening's meeting, Mr. Brown stated the public hearing would be conducted and
hopefully, all public testimony taken. Should this be so, staff would request feedback from the City
Council in terms of questions they sought answers to or project alternatives to be explored. The item
would then be continued to the City Council meeting of July 16, at which time the final EIR, Mitigation
Monitoring Program, General Plan amendments, Plan Development District Regulations, and all
other entitlements, etc., would be available.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 6
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 7
As the San Pedro Cove Homeowners Association had some slides they wished to show, Mr. Brown
suggested they be moved to the beginning of the speaking groups.
Keith Bloom, Thompson Dorfman Partners, stated that on behalf of their entire development team,
they very much appreciated the opportunity to present the Village at Loch Lomond Marina project to
the City Council. Noting the project had been a work in progress for five years, he indicated they not
only had been working with City staff, but also with many members and organizations within the San
Rafael community.
Mr. Bloom reported that the process included hundreds of meetings with community groups,
neighborhood groups, such as the Loch Lomond, San Pedro Cove and Bayside Acres, immediately
surrounding the property, environmental groups, such as Marin Conservation League, as well as
other government agencies, such as BCDC. As mentioned by Mr. Jensen, Mr. Bloom stated there
had been 23 public hearings at the City and two at BCDC, including one on Monday evening last,
together with completion of a very exhaustive EIR.
Reporting that throughout the process their job as the developer had been to seek out and listen to
the community, Mr. Bloom stated they then needed to evaluate this input, which often times was
conflicting. Many different stakeholders had many different interests; therefore, it was somewhat of a
challenge to resolve some conflicts. Having done this they responded with modifications to their
plan, while at the same time maintaining consistency with the City's policies, specifically NH -118.
While challenging, Mr. Bloom stated that this inter -community process had been very successful in
providing them with timely information which was necessary to respond to community feedback and
to make numerous improvements to the project.
Relating to the commercial portion of the project, Mr. Bloom stated they had entered into a long-term
lease with the Woodland Market operators to provide a full-service grocery store. They had also
retained Bobby's Cafe, as well as many of the other existing commercial tenants. A large waterfront
plaza was also proposed which they believed would be the community gathering place for the entire
neighborhood. He indicated that the amount of ground floor commercial space had been doubled,
from approximately 12,000 square -feet to 23,000 square -feet.
Relating to the marina recreation and conservation areas, Mr. Bloom stated it was important to note
that of the 30 upland developable acres, 6 acres had been set aside for recreation, to include
amenities such as a very expansive 200 yard long marina green and boardwalk, two parks on spits,
kayak launch ramps, bird viewing area, fishing stations, together with an approximate 500 -yard long
walking trail along the entire breakwater. Mr. Bloom noted that construction and maintenance of
these recreational amenities would be paid for privately.
Indicating that five acres had been set aside as a conservation area, within which there were two
acres of seasonal wetlands which would be expanded by approximately 9,500 square -feet.
Regarding modifications to the residential portion of the project, Mr. Bloom reported that more
diverse housing product types, including flats above retail space, had been created, attached
townhomes as well as detached cottages and more traditional homes. As mentioned by Mr. Brown,
Mr. Bloom reported that approximately 50% of the homes were from 1,700 to 1,800 square -feet,
which they believed would be very attractive to move -down buyers and first time home buyers, as
well as homeowners who might have home offices. He noted that of the project's 81 units, 17, or
21 %, would be below market rate affordable to workforce families.
With regard to modifications made to deal with massing and building height relating to the residential
portion of the project, Mr. Bloom explained that from the original application in February 2004, the
number of homes had been decreased from 88 to the current 81 units. He noted that around the
perimeter of the residential area, on the north side of the site, the scale had been reduced from two
to one story, three homes on the east side had been eliminated to address both concerns about
visual impact and impact on the adjacent wetlands. On the south side, by expanding the marina
green, some of the homes fronting the waterfront had been pushed back, up to 35 -feet from their
original location, and ridgelines on many of those homes had been lowered.
Noting a concern about massing and the barracks like look of the two townhouse buildings on the
west side adjacent to the project's entry corridor, Mr. Bloom reported that their architects provided a
revised design for the townhomes that created a significant amount of articulation. The length of one
of the townhomes had also been reduced by eliminating one of the units. Site plan open space had
been modified by incorporating three view corridors to provide open space for not only the residents,
rather also the public.
Concluding, Mr. Bloom thanked the City Council for the opportunity to present the project and
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 7
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 8
introduced David Israel, BAR Architects.
Providing animated and PowerPoint presentations on the project, Mr. Israel explained that the site at
Loch Lomond was a great resource for the City and adjacent neighbors; however, despite this fact, it
also had several limitations. Identifying the total project area, commercial area, etc., he stated that
the somewhat underutilized dry boat storage provided for a visual barrier from Point San Pedro Road
to the water, as well as the entry building at the end of the Lochinvar entry point. He noted the also
somewhat underutilized east and west spits, which represented an opportunity for improvements, the
breakwater, providing potential for a great community amenity and recreational opportunity, was
falling into disrepair, the eastern spit was subject to occasional flooding at this point in time and the
opportunity to combine two disconnected wetlands into one more beneficial wetland.
Mr. Israel reported that the mitigated plan incorporates input from the Planning Commission, Design
Review Board, BCDC, Park and Recreation Commission and neighbors and he was excited about
the resultant plan. He indicated that City policy required extraordinary architecture and an
extraordinary project and this was more than just the building facades, rather it was the entire plan of
the facility.
Mr. Israel explained the general components of the project:
• Mixed use building with approximately 9,000 square -feet of retail on the ground floor and five
residential units above;
• New grocery store;
• Numerous revisions to the marina, day -use parking and boat launch facilities;
• Main entry view axes was a critical component of the project;
• All houses fronting Point San Pedro Road which were originally a combination of one and two
story homes were now one-story;
• Increased the marina green;
He indicated that one of the other components of critical importance to them in first looking at the
project was to park cars on the opposite side of the street going down to the marina to afford an
unobstructed view to the water. He noted they also had responded to issues of the setback.
Mr. Israel provided visual simulations of the property currently and the proposed solutions. He noted
that in addition to what had become a very permeable site, both physically and visually, the other
concept behind the plan was that it was very pedestrian oriented, i.e., all the homes would have
porches fronting on green space, thereby maximizing green space and minimizing the importance of
the automobile.
Explaining the animations, Mr. Israel stated these afforded the opportunity of looking at several of the
view points on site in their existing condition and the condition in the proposed configuration. He
believed the views demonstrated a dramatic improvement.
Mr. Israel stated they had spent a great deal of time on the architecture with the Design Review
Board, who had requested that working drawing level details be done at this preliminary stage to
assure them that the level of quality and the robust nature of the details would be maintained through
the process.
With regard to changes to the commercial area, Mr. Israel reported that retail parking had been
increased from 86 to 95 spaces. Residential guest parking had been increased from 35 to 59 and
the distribution of those parking spaces improved to provide better access. With regard to the front
porches, he noted that each townhouse had its own open space off of the green space. He
explained that should there be a requirement to provide a second egress, the green space in the
front yards would be dramatically altered. Mr. Israel indicated that each access provided an
opportunity for those visiting or departing the homes to get a connection back to the water,
reinforcing the notion that this project was all about the waterfront.
Mr. Israel reported that BCDC had requested an evaluation of the density of the foliage being
proposed to ensure no obstruction to the views was created. He noted that should there be a
requirement to put in an entry drive, the setbacks to the fronts of the townhouses would be
significantly impacted. Mr. Israel stated that an analysis of this suggested this was a bad idea:
• No indicated need;
• Level of Service (LOS) A at the intersection would remain;
• A total of four lanes in and out.
Another issue with this point of access was that it would provide a shortcut to those using the eastern
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 8
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 9
edges of the marina. It would take an area originally intended to be neighborhood serving and
introduce a further number of cars, presenting a safety concern. He indicated it would also reduce
the number of people driving by the retail stores and believed it critically important for long term
viability, that shopping areas had as much exposure as possible. It was fortunate to be able to locate
the market down near the water; however, as this violated most retail rules considerably, everything
possible needed to be done to keep it successful.
Noting a lot of discussion took place concerning the scale and character of the townhouses, Mr.
Israel reported that very positive feedback had been received on the way the scale and mass of
these buildings were articulated, noting these buildings represented the equivalent length of two of
the single-family homes, and while not dramatically large buildings, he believed they played an
important role in reinforcing the edges of the central axis so that it did not bleed out.
With regard to whether some homes should be one or two story, Mr. Israel believed it was not an
issue of stories, rather it was an issue of height, bulk and mass. He believed there were
opportunities to continue to break down the scale and mass of this ridgeline to further open up views
back to the hills and the project provided myriad opportunities to look back at the hills through the
view corridors that had been created and the 500 yards of boardwalk, as well as the other paths
through the project.
Noting a lot of concern about turning movements and access in the area of the marina, together with
concern about the Arnison boat, Mr. Israel reported that all of the turning radii had been reviewed
and could accommodate the Arnison boat, as well as all the deliveries necessary for this area. He
indicated that Mr. Arnison was a supporter of the configuration end of the project.
With regard to the entry point with two lanes in and two out, Mr. Israel reported that traffic analysis
estimated three cars maximum stacking at peak periods. Loading had been reconfigured to avoid
the backup that was part of the original plan; therefore, beeping of backing -up trucks would
discontinue, and it had been screened from view from those utilizing the market as well as the
adjacent neighbors.
Concerning the trees at the end of the plaza, while wishing to keep trees to a minimum, Mr. Israel
believed it important to identify this hub and landmark for the community; therefore, palm trees had
been selected as they provide the least visual obstruction. This axis was also straightened in
response to comments from the Planning Commission and BCDC to further enhance these views.
Mr. Israel noted that the mixed-use building had been further articulated and stepped back to reduce
its scale both along the east and north facades.
Mr. Israel reported that they had worked very closely with Woodland Market to ensure that this
created the character of place they needed to create the type of community center that would provide
a highly viable, vital and energized plaza area. With regard to the configuration of Bobby's Cafe and
the boat launch ramp, identifying the service and active plaza sides, he believed it very important that
both Bobby's and the yacht club helped activate the plaza and assure its success and vitality.
Regarding the nature and character of an art piece, Mr. Israel reported that this had not been
selected at all and input was anticipated from the community and the City. He noted the existing
facilities that would remain intact included the boat launch ramp and bait shop. The existing fuel tank
was being relocated and the end of the spit developed to create a tranquil place for people to
experience the Bay. Mr. Israel commented that landscaped protective fences would be provided in
the wetland observation area. Identifying the existing breakwater, he indicated that the proposed
character was very natural, the path would be widened from 5 -feet to 6 -feet at the request of BCDC
and it would be an all-weather surface accessible to people with mobility impairments.
Mike Nelson, President, San Pedro Cove Homeowners Association, reported that San Pedro Cove
was directly west of the development and because of its proximity they had a lot to gain and a lot to
lose, noting every home in San Pedro Cove faced directly at sea -level or looked down at the Cove.
With regard to why they support the development, Mr. Nelson stated they believed the current site
was an eyesore and drew down the values of the surrounding homes and the development, as
proposed, had the potential of actually adding a great deal of value to existing homes.
Using simulations, Mr. Nelson identified various aspects of the current Loch Lomond Marina and
surrounding area, which he believed needed improvement. Complimenting the existing grocery store
operator, he believed Woodland Market had the resources and experience to do a great job of
grocery merchandising. They saw a lot of potential for local service business in the area and the
western spit recreational area was a big improvement, together with the kayak, boating and running
path. Mr. Nelson stated that the architects on the project were top notch and their world class
reputation showed in the quality of their work. The pedestrian paths were great throughout the entire
project and the blue tarp on the marina facilities would be replaced. From day one they believed dry
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 9
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 10
use storage in that area made no sense, was not a good use of land, was ugly to look at and there
were a lot of other available places for this use in San Rafael.
Mr. Nelson stated that one of the most important issues was the willingness to work with the
neighbors on reasonable requests. While not a perfect plan, they believed it was a good
compromise from some really diverse groups. Inviting City Council cooperation as the detailed work
began, Mr. Nelson thanked them for their support.
The City Council returned to the dais.
Sara Jensen, Loch Lomond Homeowners Association, stated they were present after a very long
history of meetings, noting many of them had been working on this issue for five years, even prior to
adoption of General Plan 2020. Commenting that often the number of meetings was cited, Ms.
Jensen stated that it was somewhat disappointing, however, that the plan under discussion for
acceptance had not been the subject of all of those meetings. She indicated that the mitigated plan
was fairly new and some of the studies done for the original plan were not applicable to the mitigated
plan because of significant changes in the roads, width angle, placement of houses, etc. She
believed it would be desirable with such a different plan to have more studies done to clarify the
actual impact of this particular plan.
Ms. Jensen stated it was unfortunate that early in the process there was not a thorough and public
study with public participation of the constraints of the site, to have them clearly defined prior to any
planning being done, to avoid making adjustments on something a great time had already been
spent on. She believed the plan had gone ahead with too narrow a focus, i.e., not sufficient
emphasis on how the site plan fit into its larger context and neighborhood. She noted the natural
view corridors from the surrounding area were not defined before the view corridors were put in on
the site and believed problems could arise in that they may not actually be in the best location to
preserve the specifically protected views required by the General Plan. Ms. Jensen stated that at
this point all that could be done was to make very thorough photographic studies of all of the
mitigated plan.
As had been demonstrated, Ms. Jensen noted some concerns had been successfully addressed;
however, concerns still remained - The future of public access at the site and the widely recognized
phenomenon of rising water levels had not been brought into the plan. She noted the housing area
of this flood plain was being lifted above the flood plain area according to current standards, not
accounting for rising water levels; however, the situation was unknown for the public access areas.
Ms. Jensen believed the playground on the east spit on the low lying level was probably in the most
jeopardy from this and could be relocated to the mainland area or the naturally higher west spit to
keep it safer. Noting also the problem of BCDC required public access in combination with private
streets and private funding, she indicated there were several situations in the area where a similar
situation existed and public access had been denied; therefore, the City needed to ensure that this
could not and would not happen in the future at this site, which would require a great deal of attention
to fine details.
With regard to the real traffic problems versus the paper conclusion that no problems existed, Ms.
Jensen stated there basically was one way out, which was through an extremely congested area.
The LOS had been changed so on paper it all looked fine; however, those doing the driving were
aware that paper changes did nothing to get cars through a very congested area, hence the concern
about adding more traffic.
With regard to the removal of the second entry at the site, Ms. Jensen explained that almost all of the
traffic from the grocery store, and much of the traffic of those going out to enjoy the views from the
breakwater, used the unsignalized second entry and exit; therefore, their movement did not affect
traffic on Point San Pedro Road. She noted that when all the traffic was moved over to the single
signalized entrance/exit, the Stop on Point San Pedro Road would be triggered much more often;
therefore, they would like the City Council to consider the use of a second, non -signalized entry/exit.
Noting the General Plan went to great lengths to specify particular protected and valued views, Ms.
Jensen stated a lot of these views were involved at this site, and there was not yet any real analysis
to indicate they were being protected to the maximum extent possible. She believed a lot of study
would have to be done to establish whether those views were actually being protected and it could
be that a study might indicate the main view corridor angle should be changed slightly. She
suspected the end of the corridor needed to be widened to the east to best preserve views and that
the large townhouses needed to provide an edge to the view corridor would block views, and with
lower structures, as required in NH -118, views would be better protected; therefore, a lot more study
was needed.
With regard to the grocery store, Ms. Jensen stated the public worked very hard to convince both the
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 10
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 11
developers and the Planning Commission that full grocery service on this site was important, noting
that in the event of the inevitable catastrophe of the peninsula being shut off, it could be life saving.
Referring to language in the resolution which stated that if an operator was not found in six months,
and at market rates, that space could be used for something else, Ms. Jensen questioned why this
language was included and why the time period was so short. They were concerned that in the
future, there would be no grocery store. She indicated that another main consideration was the long
term viability of the marina and neighborhood serving commercial uses because of the extra financial
burden they would carry. Reporting that the site was being set up with a Mello -Roos to support
public recreation on the site, Ms. Jensen stated that the burden to pay for this was normally not a
business burden; however, this neighborhood/commercial site was saddled with this burden and they
were concerned that in the long run this extra financial burden could eliminate some of these
services and even weaken the marina. Ms. Jensen stated that the marina was supposed to be the
focal point of the development, yet it appeared to be diminishing and hidden behind new commercial
buildings with significant marina flavor being lost.
Ms. Jensen stated that the on-site parking situation had been improved. More parking was allowed
for guests; however, the parking study contained a basic and fundamental serious problem in that it
assumed there would be no new users at the site. Noting Mr. Brown indicated this evening an aim
was to draw people to the site, Ms. Jensen stated everyone believed these recreational offerings
would be a big improvement and draw people to the site; however, without parking for these people,
it was not really accessible to them. Also, with insufficient parking, parking would overflow into her
neighborhood, decreasing quality of life, injuring people's property values and endangering children.
Noting a plan existed for reserve parking, she stated that given the flawed assumption that was the
basis of the parking study, it may not be sufficient and was not in a very good location in the main
view corridor.
Noting the circulation also required cross traffic out to the eastern spit in the area of the children's
playground going across the marina green, Ms. Jensen stated that currently children are free to run
in that area with no cars; however, in this plan, traffic would be crossing. She indicated that for
safety reasons it would be better not to have traffic crossing, and parking on the spits put bad
substances very close to the water. She believed, therefore, that it would be better to delete traffic
and parking on the spits.
Commenting that compact parking spaces did not work well anywhere and driving a compact car
herself, she indicated that often at Montecito Shopping Center, she could not access a compact
space because of larger cars on either side; therefore, as people would bring their large recreational
vehicles to the marina, she suggested replacing compact spaces with full-sized spaces.
Referring to the slide presentation by the developers, Ms. Jensen noted that walking towards the
west in the public access area, the restaurant being added onto the yacht club and the bathing and
laundry facility for the live-aboards jutted right out into the public access area and visually cut off the
western part of the area. She indicated that this part of the site had some of the most interesting
marina aspects which were all being cut off. Additionally, she noted a problem on this end of the site
and explained that unlike early versions of the plan that showed a low chain-link fence and the
existing shrubbery separating the western edge of the site from the open space at San Pedro Cove,
there was a proposal for a tall solid wooden fence, 6 -feet high with lattice work on top. Ms. Jensen
stated this would tend to close off the marina, obstruct views of the Bay for the public and it did not
appear necessary for the privacy of people who live at the Cove, because Cove housing was not
right next to the marina site. She requested that this fence which diminished the public's quality of
experience at this site not be allowed.
Concurring with Mr. Nelson, Ms. Jensen stated that the details of the lighting and noise impacts
would be very important. Indicating that the lighting needed to be low, she noted that BCDC
discussed the need for dark night sky and not having lights reflecting off the water or going up into
the air, which she believed was bad for the people living nearby, as well as the wildlife.
Ms. Jensen stated that the noise impact from this new development had not been adequately
assessed in the EIR. A study of noise impact as noise would be bounced up the hill was requested;
however, it was not done. The current noise level was not established; therefore, it would not be
possible to measure increases in that noise. She suggested that for the sakes of those already living
up the hill in the area and the new people who would live on the site, that sound deadening paving be
considered across the entire frontage.
With regard to dealing with the problems that remained, Ms. Jensen stated that as pointed out by Mr.
Brown, the suggestion made most often was that it appeared as though the density was the cause of
most of the problems. She indicated that a fairly modest reduction in the footprint of the housing
area, a reduction in the number of units and square -footage and some reduction in height could go a
very long way to solving all of the problems and gaining stronger support from the public. Ms.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 11
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 12
Jensen stated that with less density the roads and structures could be carefully sited and would bring
the plan into greater compliance with General Plan 2020. She stated they depended on the City
Council to evaluate this very carefully, to seek solutions to their problems and to make this a
wonderful development.
Chris Petersen, President, Loch Lomond Homeowners Association, stated he would address the
points of view from the "Save the Marina Committee" of the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association.
Mr. Petersen reported that the "Save the Marina Committee" was formed when Loch Lomond
residents became concerned about the mass and scale of the proposed development at Loch
Lomond Marina. This site, with its stunning views and vistas of the yacht harbor, Bay, surrounding
hills and Mount Tamalpais, its myriad wildlife, and its calm and refreshing environment has
spectacular beauty. San Rafael was fortunate to have such a place in the City. On a practical level,
Mr. Petersen stated the site also provided a full-service grocery store and an amenity that could be
life-saving when the eventual disaster happened that closed off the peninsula for an extended period.
It also contained other neighborhood serving businesses and dental offices. It provides an important
regional boat launch and low cost housing for 52 live -aboard households. He noted it also served as
an important gathering place and recreational venue for an area not having access to a public park.
The site was not ideal for housing, being comprised of fill, being a flood plane, having experienced
leaks from underground gas tanks and heavy damage from a tsunami. Mr. Petersen stated that the
expense of overcoming these inherent problems made the site problematic for affordable by design
housing and it was not a prime location for workforce or infill housing since it was not near jobs and
had no close access to public transportation.
Despite these constraints, Mr. Petersen stated some space could be used for land-based housing;
however, for housing to be acceptable it must be done in such a manner that its presence did not
harm other existing and needed uses on the site and was not materially injurious to adjacent
neighborhoods.
Noting the project had been under discussion from prior to adoption of General Plan 2020, Mr.
Petersen stated this discussion had included some pretty silly aspects. He recalled City staff
recommending that Council adopt a version of NH -121, now NH -118, which stated that the view
corridor would be enhanced by the presence of two-story buildings within the view corridor; however,
this language was withdrawn subsequent to the public pointing out that the view corridors could not
function with building blocking the views. He noted the current plan advocated filling the end of the
main view corridor with a large piece of sculpture and palm trees and the developers also insisted
that the main view corridor needed to be framed by massive bulky buildings to provide a hard edge.
Mr. Petersen stated that the fact that the sculpture and palm trees, especially the tops of the palms
would block views from public streets and sidewalks to the north and from second story locations
within the site, was ignored. The fact that tall buildings along the view corridor were in conflict with
General Plan 2020 and blocked views from streets and sidewalks, as well as from private residences
in Loch Lomond was also ignored. Indicating the bottom line was that views being blocked were
specifically protected by the General Plan because they were highly valued by the public, he stated
they wanted to see the Bay, Marina and the island wildlife sanctuary, not sculpture, non-native trees
or huge buildings. The Bay, boats and boat masts were the stars of the show and needed to be
seen.
With regard to the need for housing units above businesses in the mixed-use building to enliven the
commercial area, Mr. Petersen noted it was puzzling how residences above dental offices and a dry
cleaner would result in an enlivenment, rather it appeared like an undesirable and potentially
dangerous mix.
Concerning recurring serious aspects which had not been addressed, Mr. Petersen noted the
following:
Traffic impact in the heavily congested area from the High School to the entrance to the freeway.
Changing an LOS designation for the Village at Loch Lomond proposal appeared fine; however, on
paper did nothing to improve the dangerous congestion, and adding more traffic only exacerbated
the problems;
Removing the unsignalized second entrance/egress on the site, forcing all traffic to use a single
signalized entrance/exit would increase interruption of traffic flow on Point San Pedro Road, which
would lead to increased noise and pollution from increased stopping and starting, especially by
quarry trucks. If a second entrance/exit with full turning capacity was not maintained, he believed it
essential to build a noise abatement, such as sound absorbing pavement on Point San Pedro Road,
along the length of the site;
Effective measures to prevent traffic from cutting through the lower Loch Lomond residential area
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 12
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 13
needed to be put in place;
Study of noise reflected into Loch Lomond and the surrounding area needed to be carried out. This
was not adequately addressed in the EIR;
Specific promises in General Plan 2020 to protect the use of the Bay, the Marina, Wildlife Sanctuary
Islands, bridge and undeveloped hillsides were not being honored. There was no thorough study of
the view impact from the public streets and sidewalks of Loch Lomond, even though this was
specifically requested numerous times, and even though a list of view points was submitted and an
offer made to assist with view impact checking.
Tall massive buildings lining the main view corridor were in violation of NH -120 and unnecessarily
blocked views from Loch Lomond.
The Bay end of the main view corridor needed to be opened up and widened towards the east in
order to preserve views from Loch Lomond.
Some of the two-story homes along the Bayfront needed to be lowered to one story in order to
protect views from the public access area of the open hillsides to the north.
A tall solid wood fence along the western edge of the site had been included at the crest of the
neighborhood to the west of the site. This fence would close off the western side of the marina and
interfere with public views of the Bay. This fence was not necessary to protect the privacy of housing
in San Pedro Cove since it was not directly adjacent to the site, being separated by its Bay water and
open space.
The landing dock for the grocery store which faces the west was already shielded by a tall solid wood
fence and plantings.
The public spent an enormous amount of time working to ensure that a full-service grocery store
remained on the site, presenting a petition with approximately 1,500 signatures and an independent
study critiquing the negative findings about the viability of full-service grocery; however, the
resolution controlling what happens at the site included a section that allows the space set aside for
the grocery store to be converted to other uses if vague requirements were not met and an operator
not found in the unreasonably short time of six months. The developers claimed an operator had
been located and the Planning Commission stipulated that there should be a full-service grocery
store on the site; therefore, they questioned the easy escape clause in the resolution. Loss of the
nearly 50 -year old full-service grocery store would create a serious conflict of General Plan 2020, but
more importantly, could cause suffering and death in the eventual closing off of the peninsula during
disaster conditions.
There was a question about the wisdom of having private streets at the bayside and forcing private
owners to finance public recreation. The long-term health and viability about the marina and the
neighborhood serving commercial uses was threatened by their having the unusual added expense
of having to fund publicly accessible recreation. Other businesses in San Rafael did not have this
burden and it did not seem suitable to require housing deemed workforce by design to finance public
recreation. At San Pedro Cove, the gated neighborhood to the west of the marina site, BCDC
required public access was being denied, and there was concern of a similar situation developing at
the marina site. The City had not done enough to ensure the marina site could not be gated or
heavily posted with signs telling the public it was for private property owners and their guests. What
was the City doing to ensure public access to the public access area would remain and what was the
City doing to ensure that the recreational amenities would be taken care of and what would prevent
the property owners at the site from voting to end the Mello -Roos assessments. Wouldn't the public
interest be better served by public streets and public park areas at a very special waterfront location?
The proposal for the Village at Loch Lomond Marina did not consider the widely accepted
phenomenon of rising water levels. What was being done to prevent the public access area from
being reduced by rising water levels or completely covered? The playgrounds on the low east spit
were especially threatened. Why were the playgrounds not moved to the mainland or, at least,
located on the higher western spit.
The onsite circulation and parking plans did not appear adequate. Circulation in the commercial area
was so tight that some of the designated parking spots for day use rigs might not be usable.
Deliveries to the grocery store by large trucks would be difficult. There would be conflicts between
large delivery vehicles, rigs and trailers, vehicles and shoppers. The residential area needed to allow
on -street and driveway parking so that spillover from this area would not degrade quality of life and
property values in Loch Lomond. It was not reasonable to assume that people would not use their
garages for storage and therefore, would need to park at least one of their cars in public parking
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 13
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 14
areas on the site. The parking study for the site was seriously flawed in that it assumed no new
users would be drawn to the site. With added recreational amenities and upgraded commercial
offerings, it was highly unlikely that there would not be new users. A small amount of reserved
parking was planned; however, it might not have sufficient spaces.
The plan was not compatible with the surrounding residential areas. The density was three times
that of Loch Lomond, the size of the units in relation to their plot size was jarringly different from the
adjacent housing areas. The plan included an increasing number of tall, massive, multi -family units,
while nicely detailed, were still bulky and blocked specifically protected views.
The proposal failed to meet the aim of NH -118 to provide affordable housing offerings. 20% below
market rate units would be required; however, the remainder of the houses, including the so-called
cottages, were basically larger, three-bedroom, two -bath homes, most with inadequate storage.
Mr. Petersen stated that even though many well -thought out letters had been submitted by the public,
serious problems with the proposal had not yet been addressed. Inadequacies in the EIR had been
pointed out but not yet responded to and conflicts with General Plan 2020 still remained. Meetings
had been filled with concerned residents many times; two petitions, each with approximately 1,500
signatures, had been submitted, requesting items such as low height on buildings, residential density
similar to that of the surrounding areas, conditions permitting long-term viability for the marina and
the neighborhood -serving commercial uses, retention of a full-service grocery on the site, etc.
Noting concern on the part of residents was high and had persisted throughout the long process, Mr.
Petersen stated they were depending on the City Council to make needed changes to improve the
plan. He stated it was a unique and beautiful spot and needed to be saved in a manner such that the
public could enjoy their rightful Bay access for many more generations. The housing element was
overwhelming the site. Its area was too large, square -footage and number of units too much for the
site, and it was squeezing out or weakening other needed uses.
Mr. Petersen reported that the Pacific Sun called the project "The Loch Lomond Monster" and he
requested that the monster be tamed.
Mayor Boro stated the City Council would now hear from representatives of groups who had
previously spoken to the Planning Commission and he requested speakers curtail their comments to
three to five minutes.
David Tattersol, Bayside Acres, requested the City Council consider making recommendations to
ensure that the development went as many of them hoped. He requested that the Master Use
Permit, and perhaps a deed restriction be placed on individual parcels, to ensure that the uses were
maintained, i.e., the market, yacht club, restaurant. He noted these uses were inherent in the
overview of input to NH -118 and to lose them would make a mockery of NH -118.
With regard to proposed improvements to the levies, he requested Council ensure that those
improvements, in particular, the replacement of the rip rap, much of which was asphalt and rebar,
etc., be removed all the way round the perimeter of the entire marina project.
In connection with the proposal to add a protective fence between the public areas and wetlands, Mr.
Tattersol requested that this only be extended around the immediate area of the wetlands on the
public side and not have any type of fence on the open water side, as this would inhibit the ducks.
In terms of actual use of the public areas, Mr. Tattersol reported that several years ago a Lighting
and Landscaping Plan was brought to the City as a result of some illegal lighting that had been put in
place; however, while approved, the plan was never implemented. Part of the plan approved by the
City included a proposal that the public areas, especially the spits, would be closed at night, This
would be facilitated by placing a gated entry only accessible to the boating tenants, and he requested
consideration of implementing this. He noted that too often, neighbors in Bayside Acres are woken
up in the middle of the night with parties, beer drinking and fireworks displays, and he believed this
was a security and safety issue that attention should be paid to.
Reiterating the comments concerning lighting, Mr. Tattersol believed the issue of exterior lighting
would arise with design review. Noting problems with neighbors not being listened to by the Design
Review Board or Planning Commission, Mr. Tattersol stated they would be focusing very seriously on
how exterior lighting was placed, which, if done incorrectly, could ruin the atmosphere of the marina.
Noting the plan called for the retention of certain trees around the north eastern section of the levies,
adjacent to Bayside Acres and the area extending out to the wetlands, Mr. Tattersol requested that
all of those trees and the very dense foliage be maintained. He stated it provided a natural buffer for
existing neighbors and would obscure the new development from many.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 14
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 15
With regard to the surcharge necessary to develop the site, Mr. Tattersol noted concerns with the
EIR process about the impact of the surcharge and the weight of the fill placed to surcharge the site.
He stated that that site and all waterland areas around it were all underlain by bay mud and they
were concerned that placing hundreds and thousands of tons of fill on bay mud, without any form of
protection or restraint, would squeeze bay mud out and potentially raise the level of the inlets
surrounding the marina.
Mr. Tattersol stated he would submit further comments in writing.
Bonnie Marmor stated that the Point San Pedro Road Coalition had endeavored for years to bring
the communities surrounding the project together to find points of common interest to bring to bear.
She reported that for the most part, the neighborhoods supported this eventual development and
believed they could work together on many of the shared concerns, such as the grocery store and
retention of the services enjoyed at the marina. She stated she was proud that so many people
worked so hard and diligently to bring the community together to inform the Design Review Board,
Planning Commission and City Council of the issues of importance to the communities all along the
corridor. She noted that from letters submitted from other areas in San Rafael, this issue went well
beyond their communities.
Reporting that feedback she receives was very much in line with points made this evening, Ms.
Marmor stated this included concern about the density, view, noise, traffic and the perceived
bottleneck that would be created by having only one entrance and exit.
Ms. Marmor urged the City Council to focus closely on these issues. She believed those who were
repeatedly raising them had studied the issues long and hard. The concerns were very legitimate
and there should be a way to do something to guarantee the life of the market and other community -
serving businesses.
On a personal note, Ms. Marmor stated she enjoys looking out her window and seeing the Arnison
boat and she would like to think that some day, the Marmor-Gates boat would be able to come in and
out of the marina. She and her husband looked forward to getting a boat, which, unfortunately, they
would have to drive across town to dry dock, adding to congestion on Point San Pedro Road.
Believing this to be shortsighted, she stated this issue needed to be evaluated.
Concurring with Mr. Tattersol on concerns about bay mud, Ms. Marmor stated that as difficult as it
was to project the effect of rising sea levels, there also should be concern about building homes on
fill and how this would affect the inlet at the marina. Noting the inlet had filled in over the years, she
believed there was a risk of losing the waterway. She believed the life and vitality of the marshes
and inlet needed to be evaluated holistically and this had not been adequately done.
Ms. Marmor stated that as so many issues were not adequately covered, she urged the City Council
not to rush into the project. Since the EIR did not review the mitigated plan, she believed extra time
should be spent to ensure that this current plan was a good one for the community.
Steve Patterson, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, stated that while this was the second
occasion on which they had publicly spoken about the project, they had been quite engaged in it for a
long period of time. He noted they had three different presentations at the Federation by Thompson
Dorfman who had very graciously spent time and patiently answered many questions, and
Federation representatives also visited their offices in Sausalito on several occasions. Mr. Patterson
thanked Keith Bloom for his graciousness and patience. He acknowledged Contract Planner Paul
Jensen, who had done a stunning job with the project, shepherding it through, and Bob Brown,
Community Development Director, who had been willing to do whatever it took to make the public
process work.
As an overview, Mr. Patterson stated the Federation was supportive of the project. He noted that
their Steering Committee was comprised of neighborhood leaders or presidents from Southern
Heights, Bret Harte, Gerstle Park, West End, Sun Valley, Lincoln -San Rafael Hill, Montecito and four
different neighborhood groups on the San Pedro Road corridor. While not always agreeing, he stated
there was unanimity on this project; however, there were some caveats:
Mr. Patterson explained that they were very concerned about the view issues and the elevation
issues as they related to those views. He noted the site would be raised significantly before a
foundation ever got poured. Finding the simulations presented this evening somewhat misleading,
he stated they made the site look as though it was an equal evaluation with the existing Loch
Lomond neighborhood on the other side of San Pedro Road, which it was not. He indicated that the
elevations presented were incredibly misleading from what they actually would look like when the site
was elevated as proposed and the buildings constructed.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 15
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 16
With all due respect to City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian and the infamous traffic model, Mr.
Patterson expressed concern about how the site would work. Imagining a Saturday morning with
people going to the site to boat, kayak, delivery trucks, residents doing errands, visitors to the site, he
stated that with a lot going on, a single access point was a questionable way to move people on and
off the site and he believed it important, given the amount of time devoted to studying the project, to
get it right and not look back stating "we kinda missed it." He believed these were the final details
that would make all the difference in the world.
Colin Russell, Chairman, Affordable Housing and Economic Development Committee, San Rafael
Chamber of Commerce, urged the City Council to give the project their unqualified support. He
explained that his committee at the Chamber had been involved pretty closely with the project for
over four years, and during that time, many improvements had been made to the site plan and level
of affordability and the plan had been as fully vetted as any he had seen in twenty years. Mr. Russell
believed the scale being proposed was very reasonable in view of the fact that in order to provide
these very critical amenities to the site — the marina green, boardwalk, walking trails, building the
project as a green development — sufficient density was necessary to support that. Not only was
21 % being provided as official affordable units, the size of the units was such that they were
affordable by design, which was critical. Mr. Russell believed that by building this project, San Rafael
would be creating a community for people wanting a toehold and get established in Marin County.
They would interact with each other, start families, and they might even become friends of those
already in the neighborhood and perhaps even those who oppose the project.
With regard to the architecture, Mr. Russell believed it was as good as could be obtained for a project
of this type. It was traditional, still fresh and the site plan was extremely well thought out. He agreed
that the idea of the second entry road would severely compromise the plan and detract from what
was currently a wonderfully pedestrian oriented development, and the major four lane road entry and
exist would be more than sufficient to handle this level of development.
Mr. Russell noted that originally the implementation of the market was to happen in approximately
2013; however, the situation had now changed and because of the arrangement with the new market
operators, this would happen in a couple of years; therefore, the community would get the benefit of
the affordable housing quite a bit earlier.
Mr. Russell questioned whether a mitigated plan needed to be reanalyzed by an EIR. He believed
the mitigations had been incorporated to address the concerns that the EIR brought to life and those
mitigations had done the job admirably; therefore, the problems identified had been solved and the
plan deserved approval.
Commenting that no project would be perfect, Mr. Russell stated that every project he had done was
a series of thousands of compromises. So many balancing requirements and criteria had to be
incorporated that no project would please everyone. He believed this to be excellent project, which
would be a true asset to the community, and he urged the City Council to unanimously approve it.
Elissa Giambastiani, League of Women Voters and Marin Workforce Housing Trust, stated that both
these organizations were supportive of this project.
Having lived in San Rafael for over 40 years, and been a resident of Glenwood 40 years ago, Ms.
Giambastiani stated that for the past 20 years, she had been an affordable housing advocate. She
had seen housing built throughout the City; however, it had been a long time since housing was built
in the east side, San Pedro peninsula, except for San Pedro Cove, and it appeared to her that
affordable housing needed to be shared by all communities in the City.
Ms. Giambastiani stated these two organizations were supportive of the project because 20% of the
units to be created would be affordable to low and moderate income families. Noting the live -aboard
units would be retained, she commented that there would be no starter castles. The affordability by
design included the cottages, townhomes and flats above the retail and the density, at 7.5 units per
acre, was considerably less than the recently completed Redwood Village in North San Rafael that
had 133 units. Ms. Giambastiani stated reducing density did not improve the traffic because the size
of the homes got bigger and as the size of homes increased, so did traffic, which studies had proved
time and time again.
Noting that every affordable home built was an opportunity for one more family to live in the
community in which they worked, Ms. Giambastiani urged the City Council to approve the project.
Roaer Roberts, Marin Conservation League, stated that from the outset of the project they were
concerned about preserving the wetlands, particularly the seasonal wetlands, which were rare, and
they were happy to note that the wetlands on the east side of the project would be preserved, with a
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 16
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 17
proper setback, the path originally proposed to be in the buffer zone and in the setback removed, and
the homes pushed back. They believed these to be important improvements in the project, just in
recent weeks.
Regarding concern about controlling traffic impact, Mr. Roberts stated this largely boiled down to
retaining a neighborhood -serving grocery store. The absence of a neighborhood -serving grocery
store at this site (he noted the much improved operator, Woodland Market) would entail shopping
taking place at Montecito, resulting in a considerable number of trips; therefore, they believed it
absolutely essential that the neighborhood -serving grocery store remain at the site and that it be
made very clear that use must remain on the site for the future, not with any alternative use.
With regard to preserving public access and the recreational values on the site, Mr. Roberts stated
this largely referred to day use, both those who walked and enjoyed the views and the day use of the
boat launching facility.
Mr. Roberts stated that this would be an attractive project. It would involve increased use and one of
the problems they experienced with the analysis in the EIR was that all of the traffic analysis relative
to the use of the site, as well as the parking demand on the site, was extrapolated from historic uses
with very little understanding or analysis of increased potential uses as a result of the attractiveness
of the site proposed and now being presented. He indicated that this would be characterized by
significant congestion down in the commercial area, boat launch area and yacht club area. They
were unsure that the proposed plan would properly address the potential congestion and increased
traffic that would be attracted to those public uses in that area. He indicated that this could deserve
further study and perhaps some site modifications.
Commenting on other issues, not in the staff report, that arose in the BCDC meeting of June 11,
2007, Mr. Roberts stated BCDC believed there should be a planting along the fence because the
drawing depicted simply a fence and no landscaping along the fence to protect the wetland, from the
parking and housing areas. He indicated they specifically suggested that this was an idea that
should be carried through into the project, and that planting would be on both sides of the fence.
Mr. Roberts stated BCDC commented on the lighting. The lighting of the boardwalk depicted poles
and BCDC specifically indicated they would prefer lower lighting standards that were not so visible
and actually focused the light down rather than out over the marina and the wetland area.
On the breakwater, besides increasing the height and width, Mr. Roberts stated BCDC was not
happy with the scale of the drawing showing a four -foot wide path, and they specifically suggested
that the path be wider and allow accommodation of people walking and passing, particularly, he
recalled wheelchair access requiring an 8 -foot wide path.
In this evening's presentation and in the presentation to BCDC, Mr. Roberts noted the presence of a
sculpture at the circle of the plaza at the end of the entry. BCDC believed a sculpture was
inappropriate, particularly that represented in drawings, which blocked views. Should there be a
design feature at that location, it should be low and not obstruct views.
Relative to the fishing sites, Mr. Roberts stated BCDC supported these and the need for a place to
clean the fish and deal with the associated waste, and as the drawings did not show toilet facilities in
that area, they believed there should be.
Pat Dillon, Loch Lomond Yacht Club, stated that from the yacht club's perspective, it was all about
the water. She indicated they dealt with boaters and owners on the land who had boats and used
the marina. When she arrived in 1991, the marina was in total disrepair, and had been refurbished;
however, unfortunately, the land side had not kept up.
Ms. Dillon stated that although there was not a perfect answer to the issue, she believed it was close.
While not appreciating the development when first proposed, she did so now. The yacht club had a
number of conversations with the developers, whom she personally believed had made a very
honest effort to address every issue put forward and she considered the current generation to be the
best answer available.
From the yacht club's perspective, Ms. Dillon stated it enhanced the water, which was their main
focus. She believed it would be a nice cornerstone for the development, with newly refurbished
facilities. The recreational area was everything they tried to emphasize with regard to a healthy,
family oriented lifestyle. Ms. Dillon indicated that the community being brought back with housing on
the site, brought back the community they had lost touch with as they had suffered from the change
in demographics.
Ms. Dillon encouraged the City Council to look at the development as a very close to final genesis
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 17
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 18
and accept it with very few changes.
Mayor Boro recessed the City Council meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Resuming at 10:40 p.m., Mayor Boro stated that over the past couple of weeks the City Council had
individually met with the homeowners association, developers and City staff for many hours to get up
to speed on the project. He assured those present that the City Council had read and heard about
the issues and questions raised and they would be acknowledged when it was Council's turn to
speak.
Mayor Boro invited those wishing to address the City Council to confine their comments to
approximately two minutes, not repeat issues already raised, if supporting the project, indicate the
reason and if opposing, indicate the reason for opposition. He invited speakers to line up in front of
the podium in sequences of 5.
George McBride, Loch Lomond Homeowners Association, urging Council support for the project,
explained that this was a wonderful, superb project. Having attended meetings for three years, he
indicated that Bob Brown and his staff wrote down the issues and responded to them by the next
meeting. He was happy about the diversity, which was needed in the neighborhood, and with the
Woodland Market.
Kvle Keilman, Santa Margarita, stated he would like to raise a concern which heretofore had not
been considered this evening. He noted the San Francisco Chronicle had a headline on June 15tH
2007 entitled "Water warning, the heat's on. Sonoma agency implements 15% cut. Other Bay Area
providers plead for conservation." Mr. Keilman stated that should there be a drought of the order of
the 1978/1979 years, this size of development would have to be reevaluated. The idea of building
this type of keystone project for a neighborhood, which he believed was going to be precedent
setting and ground breaking in some ways, other neighborhoods would come under different kinds of
pressure. He noted a discussion in Terra Linda about building some type of low-income, high density
project out at the mall parking lot.
Indicating this had become a symbol, Mr. Keilman requested that the City Council reject the project
completely. He stated that the letter submitted by Alexander J. Bennett, PhD, went into what was
really wrong with the project. He requested the City Council to look at the water crisis the City could
be looking at in the next three years. He believed water would not be available from the East Bay,
nor up north and Bay water would be very expensive.
Mr. Keilman noted that a public process that took almost three hours until the first individual speakers
were heard was deeply flawed.
Martha McNear, Peacock Gap, indicating that she was in favor of the project and that the City of San
Rafael was out of compliance with the California Housing Element, stated that more affordable
housing was needed in Loch Lomond, in her neighborhood and all over San Rafael. She noted that
the lack of affordable housing added to freeway traffic in that people drove from distances and she
pleaded with the City Council to do the right thing and provide homes for families.
Pat Jordan, attorney and member of the Board of Directors of the Loch Lomond Homeowners
Association, stated that during the time he litigated he frequently came across the saying "If you don't
like the facts, change the law, and if you don't like the law, change the facts" and there appeared to
be a little of each in this situation.
Expressing amazement that it had taken 23 meetings to get to this point, Mr. Jordan commented that
in negotiations he had seen all types of bargaining tactics and in this particular situation, apparently
there was an assumption that 23 meetings somehow tripped the ticket under NH -118; however, he
found no limitation on the amount of public input or the requirement that each of the elements of NH -
118 be met, yet the inference today was that 23 meetings were sufficient.
In arguing before arbitrators or arbitrating before judges, Mr. Jordan stated they are always mindful of
the fact that there were some rules and standards to be followed and "it was not a question of
'whether you got close, whether you tried or whether you were nice — it was question of whether you
meant it" and the overwhelming evidence he saw was "that this doesn't cut it."
Indicating that he was not opposed to development and that he would love the project to go forward
in a way that made sense for everyone; however, it did not. He stated that in negotiating labor
contracts he tried to avoid the disjunctive. The legislation the City Council was obligated to follow,
NH -118, was written in the conjunctive, meaning all of the requirements had to be met, and it was not
permissible to pick and chose.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 18
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 19
Paul S. Cohen, Executive Director, Legal Aid of Marin, stated that 40% of his employees commute
from outside of Marin, 80% of whom live outside of San Rafael, and they would very much like the
opportunity to be within the pool of people that might be considered for the affordable housing that
should be developed, and he was very much in favor of the project. He indicated that density was all
about the extreme cost of housing being leveraged over a large number of units; therefore, he would
be very much against reducing the size of the housing footprint in any way.
Paul Benson, Terra Linda, and member of Loch Lomond Yacht Club, stated he concurred with his
staff Commodore about the quality of the project, etc. Expressing concern about parking for the
yacht club, he suggested flip-flopping the parking between the new market and the commercial
building with the restaurant; therefore, parking for the market would be between the yacht club and
market and would afford more suitable parking for the handicapped, etc., and he would like to see
this addressed. Mr. Benson stated he would love to see 24 dedicated parking spots for the yacht
club.
Cliff Meneken, Terra Linda, commented that having sat in on the Planning Commission interviews
earlier, he noted the City Council spent a lot of time with intelligent questioning and he admired their
patience and wisdom in that process. He expressed appreciation to the City Council and Bob Brown
for their work with the historic Eichler enactments in Terra Linda for protecting their homes.
On behalf of the Terra Linda Architectural Preservation Committee, Mr. Meneken inquired as to who
and what people were in favor of this project. He explained that with the second -floor controversy in
Terra Linda, having surveyed the community, the vast majority was in favor and the scientific survey
conducted by Mr. Brown supported their findings. He noted it appeared that the vast majority of
those in the Loch Lomond community were against the project, despite all the rhetoric, and should
that not be the case, he suggested a further survey be done to ascertain what the people really
wanted. Mr. Meneken stated the question for Council was whether they would go with the will of the
majority.
Mr. Meneken stated that some of the concerns expressed in Terra Linda about neighborhood
compatibility and views were not met originally, which provoked the big second -floor crisis; however,
subsequently, the Planning Department became more sensitive to these concerns. In reading the
staff report he was unsure about the sensitivity of concerns in Loch Lomond as he did not believe the
compatibility issue had been met or the view corridors observed analytically.
Lastly, Mr. Meneken stated they had presented to the City Council for future consideration their
concern about a new ethical code. He stated that the attorney for the project, also the attorney for
the quarry, the St. Vincent development and casino interest in Marin County, a senior partner at the
largest developer firm in Marin County which had been pushing against environmental concerns and
NIMBY (Not in my back yard) type concerns, was waging a $35 million campaign on behalf of the
Marin Community Foundation, which he chairs, to lobby public officials. He requested that the City
Council not only do the right thing but observe as much fairness as possible in this process;
otherwise they would be swamped by high development interests with a lot of money and a
willingness to do things at any cost. He wished the Council well in this process.
Jeffrev Moss, Loch Lomond, suggested the City Council consider the project carefully and not go
forward with it. He stated it was too dense and was a charade to indicate it was affordable housing.
It had no green aspects and to keep the environment, it was necessary to place denser housing in
downtown. He noted the Fair -Isaac building was largely empty and there was empty commercial
space in the courthouse building on the ground floor. Mr. Moss stated it was better to keep the
denser housing in the downtown where people could use public transportation, and the plan should
not be approved.
Ted Murrav, Loch Lomond, stated that according to City Council statements, this was the most
studied project in the history of San Rafael. It had taken over five years and yet there were still
significant unresolved issues and widespread dissatisfaction in the community. He noted Council
emphasized that more housing supply was needed in San Rafael and the City needed to plan for
2,000 plus units of housing between 1999 and 2007. There was big pressure from the state and
these goals must be met; however, Dr. Murray stated that the City Council had been inconsistent. If
housing supply was so critical, he questioned why they gave up the rights to St. Vincent's/Silveira.
Dr. Murray stated that the current plans for over 200 units at St. Vincent's/Silveira could have
counted towards San Rafael's housing goals; consequently, other San Rafael neighborhoods would
have to make up the difference.
Noting another opportunity for housing, Gold Hill in Dominican, a residentially -zoned property, was
purchased and converted into open space in 2003, Dr. Murray stated this City Council voted to
approve this purchase and provided public funds to do so. He noted residents also contributed
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 19
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 20
funds. Indicating this was Mayor Boro's neighborhood, Dr. Murray stated that admittedly, there
would only have been room for a few homes; however, with 2,000 required, every one counted.
Complimenting David Israel, Dr. Murray stated he was incredibly patient, he had done a wonderful
job, he had tried very hard, the buildings would look very nice and he appreciated the use of the
highest quality materials.
Dr. Murray stated that after sixteen years under the stewardship of the Council, he believed it fair to
say that San Rafael did have a renaissance. The downtown was languishing in the early 1980s and
the City Council should be congratulated for their efforts; however, the pendulum of development and
the citizens' attitudes towards it, swung both ways. Dr. Murray stated that no doubt, this would be
the last major project for this particular Council to vote on before the fall elections. Noting one was
retiring, he stated there would be challengers for the three available seats. After 16 years, should
they wish to leave a positive legacy and not one of a City Council that had become ossified and out
of touch, a very positive gesture would be to decrease the number of housing units in this project.
James P. Skates, Loch Lomond Marina Live -aboard, stated he remodeled a home several years ago
on Main Drive, frequented the restaurant, marina and walked his dogs on the levy. Indicating that he
had been looking forward to completion of this project, he believed the developers and architects had
done a fantastic job in trying to meet the BCDC requirements. While fine tuning remained, he
believed the correct people and tools were available to do so and he supported the project.
Don Slack, Stinson Beach, stated that to him a marina was about boats and boating; however, he
had only heard about retail space, development housing, etc. With regard to parking, he noted that
currently there were four rows of parking between A and F docks, which would be reduced to one
row. He stated that on a nice weekend, most of those four rows were filled with cars for boaters, who
needed to drive close to their boat because of the equipment they carry, and parking half a mile away
would totally undermine the boating aspect of the marina.
Noting dry boat storage was a third of what the marina was all about, Mr. Slack stated this was being
totally thrown out. He suggested it could be reasonably reduced and cleaned up and fees could be
charged, as to him the whole idea of a marina was being ignored.
Mr. Slack requested that the City Council totally reconsider the plan. While he was in favor of
affordable housing, he believed affordable housing and waterfront housing was a contradiction in
terms.
Al Barr, Loch Lomond, stated four core issues affected his neighborhood:
1. Parking of trucks and trailers that could overflow into Loch Lomond;
2. Traffic noise reflected into Loch Lomond;
3. Public and private views;
4. Alleged need for a second entrance into the site.
With regard to parking, Mr. Barr stated that the initial plan called for 25 day use parking spaces. The
mitigated plan provided for 35 spaces, assuming that dry boat storage was moved off site. Noting
dry boat storage was a low intensity use, Mr. Barr stated that on a busy weekend day, out of 200
spaces, only a handful of boats were ever taken to the dry boat storage. Off site alternatives were
available for dry boat storage and providing more space for trucks and trailers would mean they
would not overflow into his neighborhood, a critical concern for some of his neighbors near the
marina.
On the question of reflected noise, Mr. Barr stated that traffic noise reflected into Loch Lomond would
not be as severe as initially feared because of wider setbacks between the cottages on Point San
Pedro Road. Nevertheless, there would be some and this problem must be addressed. He stated
this issue was associated with the noise reflected by the wall in front of San Pedro Cove and traffic
noise from this source was accentuated by the curve on Point San Pedro Road that concentrated
and reflected noise into his neighborhood. Mr. Barr stated that they were not consulted when the
original developer built the wall which was approved by the City over twenty years ago. Both sources
of noise, the marina development and the San Pedro Cove wall, must be mitigated by sound
reducing paving on both lanes of San Pedro Road from Bayview Drive to the western edge of San
Pedro Cove, just before San Pedro School.
On the question of public and private views, Mr. Barr noted a great deal had been stated about
views. As to public views, he indicated there were only two in Loch Lomond, the corner of Allensby
and Dunfries Terrace and the entrance to the marina at Loch Lomond Drive and Point San Pedro
Road. He stated that the latter view corridor would be greatly improved when the boat..... building is
removed and the road widened to four lanes. While Allensby and Dunfries would suffer a loss of
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 20
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 21
view of the marina, Mr. Barr stated this would be more than offset by the improved view for many
more people looking down Loch Lomond Drive to the Bay. With regard to private views, Mr. Barr
stated that homes at higher levels on Tweed Terrace and Loch Ness were not seriously affected and
homes in the flats and most higher up, did not have views of the marina currently. Mr. Barr stated
that the major impact on private views of the marina was from approximately 12 homes out of 266
homes in Loch Lomond. Views were also affected by trees on the marina site that would be removed
and by trees on the City easement along the west bound lanes of Point San Pedro Road, a space
that had not been maintained for years.
Mr. Barr stated that the applicant would help solve this problem in consultation with the Department
of Public Works to remove the Eucalyptus trees and top some of the pine trees at no cost to the City.
With cooperation from the homeowners association by contacting a few homeowners, a few pines
could be topped to improve views of the Bay Bridge and the Marin Islands at no cost to homeowners.
With regard to views of Loch Lomond and the hill above from the walkway in front of the Marina, Mr.
Barr agreed that a view of the hill looking north directly in front of the new homes would be impeded;
however, attention was not normally in this direction at this location. People would look at the marina
and Mount Tamalpais on one side and the new marina green on the other. Further east along the
walkway, the view of the hillside and Bayview Acres was unimpeded and he did not believe the view
issue from the walkway was very significant.
Mr. Barr noted that at a homeowners meeting four years ago and at a meeting on Measure `S' at
Glenwood School, Mayor Boro indicated that he would not vote to hurt their neighborhood. He stated
the City Council need not worry as this project would benefit the neighborhood and the City.
Anne Chenino, Gerstle Park, stated she had lived in Gerstle Park for 29 years and in the last three
years her family moved to San Pedro Cove. She reported the noise they experienced there was
deafening and very disappointing to them. Indicating she was shocked at the beauty of this marina,
Ms. Chenino stated that what some consider denigrating, to her was quite beautiful and tonight she
had learned that taste was relative.
While there could be some improvement, Ms. Chenino questioned what type. She indicated she was
vehemently opposed to the development because of density, water use, land use and she believed
affordable housing was being used as a "buzz word."
Indicating she wished she had been involved in this project five years ago, Ms. Chenino stated she
would have loved to have seen a poll taken of the residents and citizens of San Rafael inquiring
whether they wanted this. Noting those who wanted to make the money from the sale of the marina
needed to be compensated for their land, Ms. Chenino stated she would like to see residents taxed
to purchase the land to use possibly as a memorial to Elizabeth Terwilliger, with whom she was a
nature guide for many years.
Being an educator in San Rafael, Ms. Chenino stated she had taught children to respect and
appreciate land and to let this gem go in the community was a travesty.
Ms. Chenino stated that she would like to see done what was done to save Falkirk. When developers
wanted to purchase Falkirk and the Dollar family needed to sell it, the citizens of San Rafael, under
the leadership of a woman, came up with the idea of taxing its citizens to purchase the property and
its environment.
While some would consider five years too long, Ms. Chenino stated that perhaps the reason it had
gone on for five years was maybe this solution was not right.
Frank Batat, Loch Lomond, stating the world was full of unintentioned consequences, believed the
room was full of good intentions; however there were some traps. He indicated that David Tattersol
from Bayside Acres, an engineer, addressed the problem of the fill, which was a real problem. Mr.
Batat explained that the mud sitting underneath was like quicksand and when the Loma Prieta
Earthquake took place all the bottles and cans fell off the shelves in the store, whereas this did not
happen up in Loch Lomond on solid ground.
Having been a boater for over 30 years, Mr. Batat stated there were dredging problems in the
channel and it was difficult obtaining funds to resolve these.
Should the marina disappear because it became unusable, Mr. Batat stated the entire development
would go into disrepair. Placing tons of fill without having very positive engineering to keep that fill
from sliding into the marina and subsequently filling up the channel would result in a place where no
boats could go; therefore, it was necessary to ensure the engineering was such that it did not wreck
the marina.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 21
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 22
With regard to the change of grade, which was not depicted in the slides, Mr. Batat stated he did not
believe it was right to go forward without showing what the actual change of grade would look like
from Loch Lomond and from the road.
Mr. Batat stated that currently there was too much traffic in the area, with more to come. Eventual
development in the quarry had not been discussed and he urged the City Council to lock down now,
as part of this project, what development they would allow in the quarry. Noting San Pedro Road
was breaking up, Mr. Batat stated the trucks should be forced to have a weight limit or as a
mitigation, instead of trucks to utilize barges.
Andv Bachich, co-owner and operator of the new market, complimented the current market operator,
Vasu, who had been a gem to work with. While it was not an ideal spot, between Vasu allowing him
to step in for the next two years to get to know the neighbors, etc., the community pushing for a
market, the City supporting the market idea and the developers bending over backwards, the plusses
much outweighed the negatives.
Mr. Bachich stated the neighborhood and City needed to focus on the services needed at Loch
Lomond. Noting a few thousand feet remained, he believed this to be one of the most important
things because of the traffic issues. The market was getting approximately one-third, at the most, of
the shoppers and more shoppers and services would definitely help the traffic situation. He did not
believe the new subdivision would cause a traffic problem as there already was a traffic problem in
San Rafael, which could be helped if done correctly.
With regard to Saturday morning boaters, Mr. Bachich noted there are seldom deliveries on the
weekends thereby there would be no confusion with boaters and trucks, and he favored one
entrance.
Mr. Bachich noted that should a disaster hit, he would be the one with the food.
Brad Oldenbrook, boat owner, stated that through the years of watching the project, he believed the
issues remained consistent and as he validated everyone in attendance expressing their heartfelt
comments concerning how the project would affect both the neighborhoods and San Rafael, he
believed these concerns had been heard and as much as possible, incorporated into the
development. While the elected City Council could make conditions around the comments, he
believed some issues could not be tackled, such as views. He believed the only place to locate a
second entrance would be too close to the signal causing more accidents and increasing traffic. Mr.
Oldenbrook stated that when weighing the benefits of the project with its effects, it should be passed
with certain conditions.
Kathleen Peters, Villa Real, stated she had attended all of the meetings and had a grave concern
about the density, while favoring the 20% affordable housing. Making it less dense would create a
beautiful development; however, the current density would create a terrific conflict in terms of traffic.
Noting the entire community feared the onslaught of traffic, she stated that currently it takes her at
least twenty minutes to reach the freeway. Ms. Peters urged the City Council to make the project
less dense, which she believed the developers were capable of.
Tvmber Cavasian, Gerstle Park, stated she had submitted comments in writing to the City Council
which she hoped they would read before making a decision on the project.
Regarding General Plan inconsistencies, Ms. Cavasian stated one condition of approval she hoped
would be required was that signs reading "Private" could not be placed on roadways, entrances or
other areas and that entry gates would be expressly disallowed. Doing so would be consistent with
NH -118 which stresses accessibility and welcoming visitors to the site and guarantees that in
perpetuity the public access would really feel public and open.
Ms. Cavasian stated that the Land Use section in NH -118 on the marina site spoke to the
determination for residential components, which Paul Jensen addressed. She indicated it covered
the mix of housing types meeting design objectives and "To increase the affordability of market rate
units, a majority of the dwelling units on the property shall be attached housing and/or small single-
family homes." Ms. Cavasian stated the proposal definitely slipped past the simple majority mark for
attached housing; however, the size and mix directives of the General Plan were disregarded. She
stated there was nothing in the proposal that was a small single-family home and calling a home a
cottage did not make it so. The average square -footage of all the units was greatly above 1,800
square -feet for all practical purposes, although she noted a couple in the mixed-use building of 1,200
square -feet.
Ms. Cavasian stated this represented an absolute vast minority and did not meet the General Plan
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 22
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 23
guidelines. In addition, the footprint was pressing into other site uses which made for a less than
optimal site plan and simply by improving the mix of houses and getting that square -footage building
footprint down, everything could function somewhat better.
Noting the developer had some additional benefit by the planned unit district and the General Plan
recognized that a boundary change might happen, Ms. Cavasian urged the City Council to consider
what that boundary change should be and what uses were being sacrificed for a well-balanced site.
As the applicant continued to make modifications, Ms. Cavasian stated that the plan kept getting
better and better by their (residents) repeating the issues and she hoped to find the happy medium to
a good long-term project.
With the majority of the housing being large three-bedroom configurations, Ms. Cavasian stated that
size and variety of housing needed to be addressed for General Plan conformity.
Continuing with land use — the marina functions — Ms. Cavasian stated that some people covered
this well, as she did in her written comments also; however, more flexibility in space to reduce the
conflict with other uses would really be effective. She considered the big bottleneck not to be the
main entrance but the entrance to the west side — commercial — which was approximately 25 feet
wide with a lot of uses going in and out. That bottleneck with the turning markings on the plan did
have some potential conflicts that required evaluation.
Ms. Cavasian believed the marina flavor was being hidden behind very nice buildings and it would be
stellar if something could be done to make those features a little more visible. Providing adequate
space for the boat repair trailer and more boat parking and addressing boat storage still fell flat of the
site use on the Land Use part of the General Plan.
With regard to inside design, Ms. Cavasian stated that the tall buildings lining the corridor and the
visibility lacking to the western side of the marina site, as well as the restaurant and shower facility
increasing the mass of the yacht club building right at the shore line, all appeared at odds with the
site design section, part b. of NH -118, and needed more work.
Ms. Cavasian expressed the hope that the City Council would reconsider or think about dedication
versus the way this was being funded, as covered in NH -118 under Common Area Maintenance.
The variety of public uses was extraordinary at this site, far beyond what she believed private funding
should be requested for.
In conclusion, Ms. Cavasian stated she recognized there were good things about the project;
however, there were also things that did not mesh with the General Plan. She hoped Council would
not only read her comments, but really think about everything presented this evening.
Paul Clark stated that tonight was the final opportunity to bring reason to this process and save a
unique resource from the clutches of greed and avarice, masquerading as affordable housing. With
regard to the current housing and proposed housing element in Loch Lomond, Mr. Clark stated that
any housing development allowed at Loch Lomond marina would be a boon for this Southern
California developer who was quite adept at turning distressed, underdeveloped properties to gold
through manipulation of the planning process. There was no need to feel sorry for Oak Tree Capital
or their local incarnation, Thompson Dorfman, who were very big boys who entered this process with
eyes wide open and "we should not be afraid to insist that whatever is built at Loch Lomond marina
responds to our very local needs."
Mr. Clark considered it interesting to note that in Mayor Boro's opening remarks, both times he
referred to the project as "The Village at Loch Lomond" and did not include "marina" even though that
is what it had been called by the developer, and he believed there should be more emphasis on the
marina aspect. Mr. Clark stated he took offense at suggesting that facilitating Mr. Arniston's carbon
footprint had anything to do with the small boat marina at Loch Lomond. He added that this
development had been shepherded through by the Community Development Department and he
found it incredible that a so-called pedestrian oriented development required a car to get to and from
work. Noting the project had been compared to the Redwood Village development, Mr. Clark
questioned who could possibly compare a marina sitting on the Bay to a piece of vacant land
between railroad tracks, multi -family housing and fast food outlets.
Mr. Clark stated he wrote a letter to the Marin Independent Journal, which they chose not to publish,
as follows:
"The San Rafael Planning Commission held a workshop on Tuesday, May 9 to consider how the City
should interpret policy NH -118 as it relates to retaining sufficient dry dock boat storage at Loch
Lomond Marina to meet the needs of local residents and `does' the dry boat storage assessment
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 23
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 24
provide adequate data and information to determine marina storage needs. The staff's dry dock boat
storage surveyed other Marin businesses, dated April 20, 2006, neglected to mention Sausalito's
Clipper Yacht Harbor, which is the largest in the area with over 800 slips, including dry storage.
Clipper is particularly relevant because it is the only full-service marina in Marin County remotely
comparable to Loch Lomond Marina.
Having Marin's only other deep water launch, any competently performed survey should closely
analyze Clipper. The Contract Planner volunteered that this oversight was an honest mistake. I
question the City staff's competency to adequately advise the City on marina issues. The City
continues to ignore repeated public appeals to recognize that Loch Lomond Marina's irreplaceable
regional resource value will slowly be strangled if housing is allowed to consume land required to
support current and future marina services.
I urge the City to retain a respected independent small boat marina professional to guide them on the
requirements for maintaining the long term viability of Loch Lomond marina as a full-service facility.
Honest mistakes can lead to unintended consequences and the consequence I see right here came
down the pike not too long after. The Planning staff is now recommending that all the dry boat
storage be removed finding `that dry dock boat storage is not the highest and best use for the marina
site.' What would be, perhaps 30 -story high rises? I'm sure that we can all find better uses."
Jim Dixon, San Pedro Cove, stated he was a member of the original charette approximately five
years ago. He indicated that at the very beginning he was against the project, the density, traffic
increase, heights of the building, noise and lighting. At this point Mr. Dixon stated he believed that
Thompson Dorfman had done an incredible job of listening to the neighbors, noting San Pedro Cove
was probably the closest, and together with Bayside, were the most impacted. Indicating that they
had tremendous respect for what Thompson Dorfman had done and were doing to try to meet their
need, Mr. Dixon stated one of their concerns related to the spits in the recreational areas. He
reported that Parks and Recreation looked at this extensively and agreed that the central spit
(eastern spit) was the wider. The western spit, which was right next to the cove, was very narrow and
would be very dangerous for children and not conducive to children; therefore, they were glad Parks
and Recreation agreed that the central spit was the place for recreational activities.
With regard to the back of the market and the loading trucks, Mr. Dixon believed those in Bayside
Acres were very glad to see that was no longer there. On his side, Mr. Dixon stated they look directly
across at the back of the new development. Thompson Dorfman had worked very closely with them
and they very much appreciated the use of fencing, walling and trees to restrict their view. He noted
it was not impacting on anyone else's view.
With regard to Bobby's, Mr. Dixon noted the deck was facing to the east with a view of the Richmond
Bridge, Redrock, Marin Islands and the boats. The west service area would face in his direction and
they strongly believed that keeping the western exposure was to the benefit of all parties.
Mr. Dixon requested that the lighting be kept low and parking restricted to day use only. Indicating
that it was a wonderful project, he stated the majority in San Pedro Cove strongly supported it.
Pat Lopez, Harbor Master and General Manager at the Marina, stated he had followed the project
very closely and attended almost every meeting. In talking to many live-aboards and slip tenants, he
believed there was significant support for the proposed project. Relative to its existing condition, the
marina would be significantly upgraded and marina tenants would benefit in the following ways:
• The project enhanced the marina.
• Much needed breakwater repairs would be completed and would as a result, better protect
the marina's live-aboards, slip tenants, their boats and the marina, not to mention the fish
stations, bird -watching, walking and increased conditions out on the breakwater.
• Expanded boardwalk and new marina green fronting the marina would provide a much more
pleasant living and boating experience for live-aboards and slip tenants.
• The nearby high quality full-service grocery store would also provide a great amenity to
tenants, plus the restaurant and improved yacht club.
• New laundry and bathroom facilities for the live-aboards would be a significant upgrade from
the current facilities.
• Existing bait, boat maintenance, canvas, as well as the boat launch and field dock would be
retained and would continue to serve the needs of tenants as well as boaters and fishermen
from the public.
Overall, Mr. Lopez stated the proposed project would significantly enhance and make the Loch
Lomond Marina one of the premier marinas in the Bay Area.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 24
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 25
Noting marina usage was down, Mr. Lopez stated this project would only enhance it and bring vitality
and life back to the marina. He believed the development team had done an awesome job and he
urged the City Council to approve the plan.
Ken Gozliner, San Pedro Cove, stated comments were made this evening concerning BCDC and
how neighbors had or had not been working with them, and he wished to inform the City Council that
San Pedro Cove was currently working with BCDC to enhance everything that was being done to
make it a more friendly area for visitors. New signs would be erected, bicycle racks installed, etc.
Noting an open space area, currently owned by San Pedro Cove, on the eastern side of San Pedro
Cove, between the new marina and San Pedro Cove, Mr. Gozliner stated there had been discussion
concerning linking the pathways around the new marina area to that land. He indicated that San
Pedro Cove residents, although they would install a pathway that would lead to the water, were
against linking the two. He explained that they believed it would be dangerous. There would be a lot
more children in the marina area and linking the two paths would make it dangerous.
With regard to the fencing alluded to by Mr. Dixon, Mr. Gozliner stated there currently was fencing
and a lot of trees and shrubbery, some of which BCDC would like to see removed; however, the
developer and residents would very much like to put in a tree lined area to cover up the backs of the
buildings and the parking lot. He did not believe it would impact anyone's view, rather it would be an
improvement for those walking down the path and neighbors in San Pedro Cove.
Noting discussion regarding the two-story buildings on Point San Pedro Road, Mr. Gozliner stated
that there were trees across the street higher than the buildings would be; therefore, it appeared
difficult for him to understand how the buildings would impact views.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Heller inquired about the process for the meeting of July 16, 2007.
Mayor Boro explained that at the meeting of July 16, 2007, staff would present the results of this
evening's discussion, at which time the process would move forward or additional information
requested.
Councilmember Phillips stated that the majority of the issues raised this evening had already been
addressed; however, to ensure he had them covered in his final deliberation, he requested further
explanation on the following:
Lighting Opinions expressed to have the lighting aspect lower could have
merit.
Roofline Lowering the rooflines on the residences on the water line by
approximately 2 feet.
Parking near the Yacht Parking could be an issue for the yacht club in some of their
Club activities.
Grade Level How this might impact the views, etc.
Lease Term for the Grocery Lease terms of the grocery store a very important aspect.
Store
Planting along both sides of Appeared to have merit.
the fence.
Path Currently 4 feet with mention of 8 feet being the requirement.
Spaces for Parking Composition of parking space allocations.
Second Entrance Appeared to be of vital concern.
Councilmember Heller requested further explanation on the following:
Storage in Homes Sufficient closets. Cars allowed to park outside garages.
Live-Aboards Ensure live-aboards have their own private parking areas and
boaters needed parking while taking items on and off.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 25
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 26
Water availability
Fill Engineering question.
Home Sizes Why these particular sizes were selected.
Linking of Paths Was this a BCDC or developer decision, not a City decision.
Path 6 -foot wide sufficient for wheelchair accessibility.
Breakwater Provide two -minute presentation on how the breakwater would be
improved.
Path in buffer zone Could this be reinstated? For the past 45 years it had been there for
the betterment and education of the community and to take it away
because of improving a property was not favored.
Councilmember Miller requested further explanation on the following and indicated that the easiest
way for him to think it through and see and understand was by the use of comparables. He
understood that comparables were limited and had differences as well as similarities.
(Councilmember Miller believed material was presented at one of the Study Sessions in this
connection):
Density Comparables.
Circulation round the Comparables.
marina
Intersection and Comparables perhaps Lincoln Avenue and Second Street.
One-way entrance/exit
Views The view to the ridge was a very important aspect to residents.
Difference between the view of a single story as well as two-story.
Affordable housing The formula used for affordable housing.
Connecting pathway Ensure that the resolution strongly supports the safety and liability
involved.
Councilmember Cohen requested further explanation on the following:
Lighting Impact
How to ensure the ultimate design mitigates the lighting impacts.
Sound Reducing Pavement Noise studies and the cost versus the benefit in terms of mitigating
noise impacts.
Surcharge Surcharging was not a new technique. Research engineering
studies carried out.
Wetland E Current proposal calls for this to be filled — Mitigation should be
identified.
Nature of the fence along Neighbors indicated a wooden fence was proposed — Needs
the western edge of the clarification.
project
Elevation - Grade His understanding was that the project is at grade at Loch Lomond
and is filled as it slopes away to the water — to the south and east
corner, primarily. Clarification required so the public understands.
Six months for the market Explanation in terms of assuring the public the issue is taken
usage seriously and steps were being taken to retain control. In at least
one downtown commercial project the City retained the riqhts to
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 26
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 27
approve commercial usage and this should be explored. While a
good job was done in responding to a very strongly stated concern
by the community, it would not hurt to take further steps to assure
the community that it would continue to be monitored, holding the
developers to doing the best effort to make it work.
Green Building Reference in the April 24t' staff report indicating green building
Requirements techniques would be used. Clarification on whether or not the
project proposed to comply with the hopefully soon to be adopted
Green Building Ordinance by the City. Should this be the case it
needed to be stated clearly and be a condition. If not, a better
explanation of what was proposed in terms of green building than
just a reference that green building techniques would be used.
Views More work could be done on view studies. The issue of private views
was a thorny one which had been wrestled with on other projects
also. No satisfactory answer for those whose private view was
impacted because any building anywhere on the site would impact
someone at grade. He did not believe the suggestion to buy it and
keep it open was a viable solution.
A better job could be done at evaluating public views.
In the presentation this evening Councilmember Cohen noted a
couple of places where "we were looking at public views and saying,
that's the previous project" and in almost every case, the view would
have been improved if looking at the mitigated proposal. It did not
appear to be that much more work to revise those particular view
studies and lower particularly the commercial building, and be able
to demonstrate this was what the mitigated project would look like.
Park — Marina Green More discussion needed. In terms of funding, given the City's
financial situation there was not a lot of choice; however, there
should be a very clear explanation of how that works and a very
clear understanding of what the City's enforcement powers were
with respect to ensuring that a future homeowners association was
in fact, maintaining the property to City standards and what options
the City had for enforcement.
Closing the spits at night Explanation required at next meeting on the question of closing the
spits at night. If this is privately held but publicly accessible land, an
explanation of police powers was needed and whether or not the
San Rafael Police Department had the right to enforce the noise
ordinance or whether they had to be invited on. Further explanation
and discussion of not only the maintenance of the park but the City's
authority if this is private land.
View Impact In terms of the view impact, Councilmember Cohen was in
disagreement with the Design Review Board about the benefits of a
defined edge to the residential development. More information
required on the impacts of lowering the buildings. The excellent
architect for the project had some ideas about lowering them while
maintaining them as two-story and he would like to have an
understanding of the impact of this versus lowering them to one of
the smaller cottages, i.e., 19 -feet. This referred particularly to a
couple of the single-family units at the marina at the corner of the
view corridor.
Also, the impact of looking at the row of townhouses and more
thought given to stepping back that edge.
Mavor Boro requested further clarification on the following:
Grocery Store It was important to understand what had been agreed to.
Bobby's Comments were made on a 6 -month window, and a lease had been
Yacht Club signed. Definitive information required as to the status of these.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 27
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 28
Public Accesses Guarantee required that the public accesses would be made
permanent and how this would be enforced.
Affordable units How sustaining Mello -Roos and the impact on the affordable units
would work. It would not be possible to get a marina of this type with
public access without private support.
Regarding the comment that the site should be purchased, Mayor
Boro indicated he made that comment four years ago to the
neighborhood; however, there was no support for it.
There was an opportunity to make this a good public site with
appropriate maintenance. While the Mello -Roos district would do it,
the safeguards around it needed to be understood.
Second Access Emergency access area could be evaluated for second access.
Fill The engineering around the fill was important. How it would be
Dredging engineered and who would be responsible for it. Work in progress
with the Corps of Engineers to obtain a $4.5 million grant to dredge
the canal, hopefully in the next year.
Lighting Secondary issue to be dealt with at another time.
Palm Trees Concern from the community noted.
Monument
Density of this site Report requested on the density of this site compared to Peacock
compared to Peacock Gap Gap with the condominiums, the smaller units on Biscayne Drive,
and the issue of compatibility.
Boat Storage Mayor Boro indicated he was informed that at one point there were
approximately 170 spaces and less than a dozen people using the
site for boat storage were within the immediate two mile radius.
Was there a way to accommodate some level of boat storage,
restricted to people within a radius of the site?
Density Although the issue of density was discussed at length, nothing
specific proposed.
Was there any form of density reduction that would make sense and
improve the site that should be evaluated.
Two came to mind:
a) from the site itself looking up to the hills;
b) stepping back the double row of townhouses on
entering the development on the left.
Left Turns Issue should be addressed.
New Uses and sufficient Further exploration of sufficiency.
parking
Marina Green — safety Safety issue, etc., to be evaluated.
Rubberized Pavement The added cost and could this be mitigated through this project the
next time that stretch is paved.
Renderings The renderings (before and after) presented pertained to the first
version of the project, which was now improved and it would be
important to see these.
The difference in grade had been accounted for in tonight's
presentation; however, it was important that it be stated in writing.
BCDC Assumed BCDC would do their own enforcement and the project
would go back before BCDC once approved by the City.
Regarding access, Councilmember Cohen noted some concern among the neighbors in the Loch
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 28
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 29
Lomond neighborhood that particularly if there was not a way to accommodate the second driveway,
some people would choose to drive up into the neighborhood in order to avoid waiting to make the
left turn. He understood staff did not believe this would actually happen and that there was sufficient
capacity; however, he would like this to be recognized as a possibility and acknowledge that the City
was prepared, if necessary, to adopt traffic calming measures inside the Loch Lomond neighborhood
to turn people back to making the left turn onto Point San Pedro Road. While he was comfortable
with staff's analysis that this was unlikely to happen, he believed the neighbors needed to be assured
that if staff was wrong there was a plan to address the issue in the event an error was made in terms
of the impact of traffic exiting the development.
Mayor Boro confirmed that the public hearing was closed and the item would be continued to the
meeting of July 16, 2007.
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
6. None.
There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 12.25 a.m., Tuesday, June
19, 2007
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2007
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/18/2007 Page 29