HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2007-07-16SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. MONDAY. JULY 16. 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 — 7:00 PM
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item.
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Vice -Mayor
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 - 7:00 PM — File 1-4-1a
1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
Case Name: James MacDonald v. Citv of San Rafael
WCAB Case No.: SFO -0486809
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8:02 PM
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as
follows:
ITEM
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council
Meeting of Monday, June 18, 2007 (CC)
3. Second Reading and Final Adoption of
Ordinance No. 1853 — "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE
INCLUDING: 1)AMENDING CHAPTER 14.03
TO ADD DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO
GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AND 2)
ADDING SECTION 14.16.365 ESTABLISHING
GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW
DEVELOPMENT" (CD) — File 10-2 x 10-3 x 115
(2020) x 13-1
4. Second Readinq and Final Adoption of
Ordinance No. 1854 - "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE
ADDING CHAPTER 12.44 ENERGY
EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-
FAMILY DWELLINGS GREATER THAN 3,500
SQUARE FEET OF CONDITIONED FLOOR
AREA" (CD) —
File 10-2 x 10-3 x 115 (2020) x 13-1
5. Second Readinq and Final Adoption of Ordinance
No. 1855 — "AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN
RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADDING CHAPTER
12.45 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO THE REDUCTION OF AIR
POLLUTION BY REGULATING THE
INSTALLATION OF WOOD BURNING
APPLIANCES AND THE REPLACEMENT OF
NON -CERTIFIED WOOD BURNING
APPLIANCES" (CD) —
File 10-2 x 10-3 x 115 (2020) x 13-1
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Minutes approved as submitted.
Approved final adoption of Ordinance
No. 1853.
Approved final adoption of Ordinance
No. 1854.
Approve final adoption of Ordinance
No. 1855.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page t
6. Resolution Authorizing the Closure of Mission
Avenue between C and E Streets on Saturday,
August 11, 2007, from 4:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. to
Accommodate Pedestrian Traffic to the San
Rafael Food and Wine Festival at Falkirk Cultural
Center (CS) — File 11-19
7. Resolution Entering into a Lease Renewal
Agreement Between the City of San Rafael and
the Dixie School District and Authorizing the City
Manager to Sign Said Lease Agreement (CS) —
File 4-7-3
7.a) Resolution Approving the Contract CSCC-7143,
CCDF School -Age Resource Program, with the
California Department of Education which
Provides Additional Funds of $2,165.00 for
Quality Improvements in the School-age Child
Care Program and Authorizing the City Manager
to Sign Said Contract Documents (CS) —
File 4-10-238 x 9-3-65
8. Second Readinq and Final Adoption of
Ordinance No. 1856 — "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL ADDING CHAPTER 4.12 TO THE SAN
RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED
"WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE (WUI) —
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT STANDARDS"
(FD) — File 10-6 x 9-3-31
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 12307—
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF MISSION
AVENUE BETWEEN C STREET AND E
STREET FOR THE SAN RAFAEL FOOD
AND WINE FESTIVAL ON SATURDAY,
AUGUST 11, 2007 FROM 4:00 A.M. TO
10:00 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 12308 —
RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO A
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
DIXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO SIGN LEASE FOR LAND AND
FACILITY USE AT VALLECITO, MARY
SILVEIRA AND DIXIE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS
RESOLUTION NO. 12309 —
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT (CSCC-
7143) WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION FOR THE SCHOOL-AGE
CHILD CARE RESOURCE PROGRAM
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO SIGN CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,165.00
Approved final adoption of Ordinance
No. 1856.
8.a) Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of One New RESOLUTION NO. 12310 —
Type III Fire Engine from Mark -West Fire RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Apparatus and Two Ambulances from Leader PURCHASE OF ONE FIRE ENGINE
Industries (FD) — File 4-2-346 x 9-3-31 FROM MARK -WEST FIRE APPARATUS
AND TWO AMBULANCES FROM
LEADER INDUSTRIES
9. Monthly Investment Report for June, 2007 (Fin)
— File 8-18 x 8-9
10. Second Reading and Final Adoption of
Ordinance No. 1857— "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SETTING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATE,
COMMENCING WITH FISCAL YEAR 2007-
2008, AT THE RATES ALLOWED IN
ORDINANCE NO. 1846 FOR RESIDENTIAL
AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL; AND FURTHER
CONFIRMING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATES,
COMMENCING WITH FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL,
THE MARINWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT, COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 13
AND COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 19 ($75.00
FOR RESIDENTIAL AND $.0945 PER SQUARE
FOOT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)"
(Fin) — File 9-12-1 x 9-3-31 x 8-5
Accepted Monthly Investment Report
for month ending June, 2007, as
presented.
Approved final adoption of
Ordinance No. 1857.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 2
11. Resolution Authorizing Fourth Amendment to
License Agreement with PG&E for Use of
Parking Lot at 999 Third Street at Lindaro as a
Public Parking Lot (MS) — File 4-10-335 x 9-7-3
12. Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Two Parking
Revenue Machines through a Sole Source
Agreement from Ventek International Company
at a Cost of $33,618.89 (MS) —
File 4-2-347 x 9-3-87
13. Resolution Approving a Ten Thousand Dollar
Expenditure by the San Rafael Redevelopment
Agency to Marin Housing for the Renters Rebate
Program and Making Findings and Approvals
Pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law in
Connection with the Utilization of Agency Low
and Moderate Income Housing Funds Outside
the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project
Area (RA) —
File 229 x (SRRA) -173
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 3
Removed from aqenda at request of
staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 12311 —
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
PURCHASE OF TWO PARKING
REVENUE MACHINES THROUGH A
SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENT FROM
VENTEK INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
AT A COST OF $33,618.89
RESOLUTION NO. 12312 —
RESOLUTION APPROVING A TEN
THOUSAND DOLLAR EXPENDITURE
BY THE SAN RAFAEL
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO
MARIN HOUSING FOR THE
RENTERS REBATE PROGRAM AND
MAKING FINDINGS AND
APPROVALS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT
LAW IN CONNECTION WITH THE
UTILIZATION OF AGENCY LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME HOUSING
FUNDS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL SAN
RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
OLD BUSINESS:
14. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS AND AN ORDINANCE RE: GPA005-001, AZ04-02,
UP04-007, ED04-063, TM04-001, AND EX04-002, 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
Community Development Director Bob Brown reported that since the Public Hearing on June
18, 2007, staff had responded in writing to the 34 questions raised. Quoting Steve Patterson,
President, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, who at the Planning Commission hearing
on the project stated: "This is the most analyzed project in the City's history", Mr. Brown stated
he could not agree more with that sentiment.
Mr. Brown explained that at this point in the process several years' worth of issues and
questions had been analyzed. He did not believe any stones were left unturned, and what
remained were perceptions about that data.
Indicating that some did not believe the projections put forward by the City Traffic Engineer and
traffic consultants, Mr. Brown explained that Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian takes great
care in his forecasts and had a very fine record of accuracy. Mr. Mansourian took this project
and its analysis so seriously that he and his staff literally made hundreds of videotaped runs at
various times of day on Point San Pedro Road to ensure that his traffic model was indeed
accurate. As could be seen from the staff report, it was projected that there would typically be
no more than three cars stacking to exit the site during peak hours. Data had also been
provided showing other areas with single access points, such as that serving Glenwood, that
had far more daily traffic and operated just fine with a simple stop sign.
Mr. Brown reported there was a belief that parking would be inadequate, and concern that the
full-service market everyone wanted would be too successful. He explained that the project
included surplus parking beyond San Rafael's code requirements for both the residential and
commercial components. As indicated in the staff report, Mr. Brown stated that the commercial
area would provide a higher ratio of parking than either the existing Woodlands Market in
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 4
Kentfield or Whole Foods. He indicated that the marina parking would also exceed not only the
average daily demand, which on a busy weekend entailed about 12 boat launchings, but also
exceeded the anticipated demand for peak holiday weekends, even assuming use of the new
recreational facilities and 100% berth occupancy, which had never occurred at this marina.
Should all this extra parking be inadequate, there was an ability to convert some landscape
areas for additional parking.
Indicating there also were perceptions that the introduction of two-story buildings on this site
would conflict with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, Mr. Brown stated this was
definitely an issue in the eyes of the beholder. He noted that both San Pedro Cove and
Bayside Acres were adjacent waterfront developments with almost entirely two-story structures.
He also noted that a board was prepared (displayed on left of the dais in the Council Chambers)
identifying the upper portions of Peacock Gap, which contained a number of attached
townhome projects, and recent sales prices were included that suggested this was a very stable
and desirable housing market.
Before Contract Planner Paul Jensen would respond to three specific questions raised, referring
back to Steve Patterson, Mr. Brown stated that as heard as the last meeting, the Federation
studied this application very carefully and deliberately over the past few years and took the very
unusual position of supporting the project due to its excellent design and the responsiveness of
the applicants. He noted Mr. Patterson did raise two questions concerning the project entry
traffic and the accuracy of the visual simulations, both of which were answered in the staff
report.
Paul Jensen, Contract Planner, stated he had a brief PowerPoint presentation which included
visual simulations distributed in the latter part of last week. He indicated there was a list of
questions and requested information with responses in the staff report, organized by topic area.
Tonight's presentation would focus on three topic areas and issues in the report - additional
computer generated visual simulations, land use restrictions and leasing for the grocery store,
and modifications to the townhomes at the entrance. Mr. Jensen stated he would address two
of these, with the third addressed by the project architect.
Additional Visual Simulations - Mr. Jensen reported that by way of background, the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) assessed aesthetics and visual impacts by including
computer generated visual simulations from eight public vantage points. It also included
simulations from six private properties and the simulations presented in the FEIR were based
on the initial project design filed in February, 2005.
Mr. Jensen stated that for the FEIR, staff included 3 of the 8 public vantage points for
simulations in the Mitigated Plan, which was the basis of the plan before Council this evening.
Mr. Jensen displayed and discussed the simulations (public views) prepared and presented at
the meeting of June 18, 2007, based on the plan before Council this evening — Existing
Conditions and Mitigated Plan —
Existinq and Proposed Conditions:
• Looking east on Pt. San Pedro Road;
• Project entry at Lochinvar/Pt. San Pedro Road;
• Pt. San Pedro Road frontage.
Reporting that at the last meeting Council requested additional simulations to most mirror those
vantage points assessed for the initial project design, Mr. Jensen stated that four additional
simulations were generated based on the current project design — three public views and one
private. He noted that on -sight visual simulations were prepared from the marina boardwalk
which had been updated to include various building height options, and these would be
presented by the project architect. He reported that Vallier Design Group, who prepared the
simulations, and BAR, architects for the project, confirmed that the site filling proposed was
accounted for in the simulations:
Four vantage points used for the updated simulations:
• Dunfries Terrace at Allensby Lane;
• Beach Drive, Bayside Acres;
• Westbound Point San Pedro Road.
• Private View: - South from 32 Bonnie Banks (ground level); and
South from 32 Bonnie Banks (2nd Floor level).
Mr. Jensen reported that the townhome changes at the project entrance would be addressed by
the project architect. They had looked at stepping back the corners of three of the end units.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 4
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 5
With regard to the leasing status of the commercial building area, Mr. Jensen stated that a letter
of intent was executed with the principals of Bobby's Restaurant, Yacht Club, Dentist service
and yacht sales. A formal lease was executed with Woodlands Market for the grocery store,
and the terms of the leases ranged from five years for Bobby's Restaurant to ten years for the
grocery store, with extensions built into that particular lease up to thirty years (Grocery Store).
With regard to Land Use Restrictions, Mr. Jensen stated this was an issue that arose primarily
because there was a Draft Condition in the PD Ordinance for this project that basically gave the
property owner a time limit for securing a grocery store operator once the lease for Loch
Lomond Market terminated. He noted that the condition in the staff report was prepared long
before the lease agreement was executed; therefore, it was ripe for change.
Mr. Jensen reported that staff consulted with the City Attorney's office regarding the extent of
land use capabilities in crafting a condition on this particular condition, and were advised that it
would not be legal to restrict occupancy of the southern commercial building to a single use, in
this case, the grocery store, because the property owner could not be deprived of acceptable
alternative uses for the building in the event the grocery store became economically infeasible
or the lease terminated. Mr. Jensen stated that at the last meeting, Council requested other
options be evaluated and five were presented in the staff report:
1) Limit the Planned Development District to a Grocery Store use only;
2) Record a Deed Restriction limiting the building to a Grocery Store use only;
3) Basically as presented in the staff report but giving the property owner one year to find a
replacement grocery store operator for the new building;
4) Retaining the six-month provision as proposed but permitting it to sunset once a grocery
store operator was secured and the use was in operation; and
5) Require initial occupancy of the building with a full-service grocery store, and should the
lease terminate after the grocery store was occupied, the new grocery store operator
would be given six months to find a replacement operator, and should this not be
possible in that six-month period, they would have to return to the City and amend the
Master Use Permit for the project.
Mr. Jensen reported that currently, the Master Use Permit was crafted in such a way that the
northern mixed use building allowed a broad variety of neighborhood/commercial uses. This
would require the property owner to return and request an amendment to the permit. Given the
status of the lease, the fact that a lease was executed and the building was designed for a full-
service grocery store, Mr. Jensen stated this was the preferred option.
Mr. Jensen stated that City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian was present this evening to
answer questions concerning the primary access to the site, together with the secondary
access, two topics addressed in the staff report.
Tiffanv Wriqht, Attorney, noted several comments were received subsequent to publication of
the FEIR suggesting that additional environmental review was required because the project had
been changed. She explained that one of the primary purposes of the CEQA process was to
effectuate changes in projects that would mitigate the environmental impact, which was the
case in this project. With this mitigated project, some of the changes were primarily aimed at
mitigating the impact to visual resources, improving the view corridors and avoiding the
encroachments into the wetlands on site. Ms. Wright indicated that this was the process
contemplated by CEQA, the courts had reaffirmed the process several times over and the
Legislature and Resources Agency had been clear on when a DEIR would have to be revised
and re -circulated in response to changes in the project. She explained that basically, the
circumstances concerned whether the changes in the project would result in new significant
impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts,
neither of which existed in this instance. The FEIR analyzed the changes to the project,
compared the mitigated project to the proposed project, looked at the impacts of the mitigated
project under consideration and determined there were no new significant impacts; therefore,
staff recommended that the DEIR did not have to be re -circulated for public comment.
With respect to the grocery store, City Attorney Gary Ragghianti explained that his office issued
an opinion to staff in January, 2006, on whether or not the City could require that the developer
provide a space for a grocery store. The short answer to the question was "yes, maybe", due to
incomplete information. Since then, a lease was signed by the applicant, a FEIR was
completed, and the City Traffic Engineer issued a statement that the LOS (Level of Service) at
the subject site would remain the same after the project was developed. Concurring with Mr.
Jensen's remarks, Mr. Ragghianti stated the opinion remained the same as it did almost a year
and a half ago.
For clarification, Mayor Boro stated his understanding was that the owners of Woodland Market
were currently working at the market with the idea that once the Plan was approved by the City
Council and by BCDC, they would take over the operation of the existing market. Further, once
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 6
the approvals were received, the lease they already negotiated and signed would go into effect
for a ten-year period, with a 30 -year option to renew. Mr. Jensen confirmed this to be correct.
Keith Bloom, Thompson, Dorfman Partners, Applicant, thanked the City Council for allowing
them to present the project and the many people and organizations involved over the lengthy
five-year process.
Mr. Bloom concurred with Mayor Boro's comments regarding the grocery store.
David Israel, Architect, stated he would attempt to clarify some issues raised at the last meeting
and used PowerPoint slides to assist:
Item A) 1. — Second Entry — Acknowledging that neighbors currently had use of a second entry
to access and provide egress to the existing market, Mr. Israel stated, however, that the existing
market, currently located at the eastern end of the site, would be relocated to the western side,
which would change that condition in the future. He explained that the current configuration had
the primary entrance at the signalized intersection of Lochinvar, with a second emergency
vehicle access point further to the east, which provides a 20 -foot wide emergency access point,
bollarded off for Fire Department access. One-story cottages were located on either side of
that point of access — 20 -feet apart, three bedroom, one-story units.
Mr. Israel stated that to achieve a second entry at this point and meet the City Traffic Engineer's
guidelines for the entrance, it would be necessary to create two modified one-story units that
would now be two-bedroom units instead of three-bedroom, to allow for a 40 -foot access width
and provide adequate turning diameters. Therefore, it would be 40 -feet in width and 80 -feet in
length to affect those movements at the entrance. At that point, it would then be narrowed back
down to the existing 20 -foot two-way drive isle. While this was an achievable solution, Mr.
Israel believed there were several problematic issues and he did not recommend pursuing it,
and as mentioned by staff, a need was not displayed in the traffic analysis. In addition, they
believed there was an obvious conflict between cars backing out of garages into what would
now be another entry point, which represented a hazard. Also, traffic would be taken down the
back side, or parking court side, of the buildings. He indicated that this would be the one place
on the site with garages as street fronts as opposed to the pedestrian oriented porch forward
concept, which was a primary component of the original design, and they believed this to be
unsatisfactory. With bedrooms directly over the garages, traffic would be directly contiguous to
bedrooms and bedroom windows, which was also not a satisfactory solution, together with other
issues mentioned at the last meeting, including diverting traffic that otherwise would be going by
the retail, which was of serious concern to the Woodlands Market operators.
C) 1. — Views from the Boardwalk to the San Pedro Hills — Mr. Israel believed it important to
remember that the primary views were to Mt. Tamalpais, Bay, islands and bridges. He stated
that three pedestrian visual corridors and an entry corridor were created, providing view
corridors not currently existing.
Mr. Israel noted that all on-site power lines were underground.
Mr. Israel displayed the originally proposed version, as discussed at the last meeting - two-
story residential units, 24 -feet 7 -inches tall to the ridgeline — and noted a request to investigate
the impact of modifying these houses, particularly the four closest to the village center. He
explained that the issue of height was first raised at the Planning Commission meeting in the
course of which and in response to comments, the height of the existing two-story houses was
reduced by 2 -feet 1 -inch, from 24 -feet 7 -inches to 22 -feet 6 -inches, exposing additional hill. It
was noted also in that meeting that one of the issues creating blockage to the hills was the fact
that a ridgeline at the top of the houses ran perpendicular to the view direction towards the hill,
and they believed an opportunity existed to improve this condition.
Having been requested to investigate the benefit of using one-story houses, Mr. Israel stated
they used the smallest one-story houses on the project (19 -feet to the ridgeline) inputting them
into the same model. He reiterated the comment made by staff that all of the simulations had
been done with the proviso of the proposed fill and any raised floor; therefore, they were
accurately portrayed.
In evaluating this, Mr. Israel stated they believed that the one-story solution, while providing
some benefits and opportunities, also created some limitations:
With a single -story house, the fact that the floor plate was larger meant a broader roof to cover
it resulting in a bigger mass and less vertical articulation along the row of houses.
In his opinion, Mr. Israel believed the issue was not so much about the number of stories but
height and bulk. On a slide, he identified and explained the difference between the one-story
units and the originally proposed houses. He noted that one-story houses were not as energy
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 6
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 7
efficient and provided more impervious surface; therefore, environmentally, they were not as
satisfactory and consumed open space that could otherwise be used as part of the pedestrian
corridors or private open space.
Councilmember Cohen confirmed that the height of the modified two-story home at the top of
the ridgeline was back up to 24 -feet 7 -inches. Mr. Israel explained this had more to do with the
fact that in order to vacate the space currently under the other high ridge, it was slid to the other
side of the plan, and in order to keep from completely crushing the livingroom space, the
vertical height was needed to be able to get the eave line at a height that would permit the
bedroom to be placed over the top of the livingroom. He confirmed for Councilmember Cohen
that he had been unable so far to get the second story ridgeline down to 22 -feet 6 -inches.
Further discussion took place concerning ceiling height and eave line.
Understanding that the footprint of the model was less than the one-story would be,
Councilmember Phillips requested dimensions.
Mr. Israel stated that basically the one-story house was 1,500 square -feet all on one floor, whereas
the other house was 2,500 square -feet on two stories, with the area split fairly evenly. He also
explained the shaded areas on the slide.
Townhouses and the opportunity for setting back the upper floors to help reduce the bulk and mass
— noting this issue arose with both the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, Mr. Israel
explained that in response to those comments, dramatic modifications were made to these buildings
to help further articulate both the roof forms and the amount of in and out taking place. Bay windows
used to extend to the roof line; however, they were stepped back and the articulation could be seen
in the floor plan.
With regard to reducing the mass, Mr. Israel stated that initially, he looked at trying to set back the
entire top floor and from his perspective, it so chopped up the building that it was a non starter. He
looked at eliminating a bedroom on three of the ends of the building, excepting the end closest to the
water because that end had a really nice wrap-around porch creating a scaling element and
providing a wonderful view to the Bay. Indicating they did not have time to completely redo the
simulation, Mr. Israel stated they identified basically what the massing would look like if
superimposed onto the original modification. He commented that there was no beneficial impact
from a view standpoint and from his perspective, the cadence set up in the townhouses was an
integral part of why the building would read as individual units rather than a singular building. Mr.
Israel stated this gets lost when broken down, and while possible, it was not their preferred
solution.
Mr. Israel believed their recommendations addressed the concerns mentioned and helped
clarify the rationale behind the decisions made, and still maintained the creation of an
outstanding project.
As indicated at the outset, Mayor Boro stated that the public hearing was closed at the last
meeting; however, with the community interest in this project, he believed it important to hear
comments from the public. The matter before the City Council this evening was with respect to
the 34 or 35 items brought before the City Council at the last meeting and these were the issues
on which comments would be taken this evening.
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti reported that Mayor Boro requested him to place this language in
the agenda and affirm that on June 18, 2007, the public hearing was closed on this matter. The
intention was to solicit public comment on the responses of staff to the 34 or 35 questions
asked of staff by Councilmembers and to request that the public, when remarks were made, to
attempt to limit their comments to those subjects.
Mayor Boro invited speakers to limit their comments to three minutes.
Steve Bover, Chamber of Commerce, stated that the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce was a
non-profit membership business advocacy organization dedicated to improving the community
through a strong local economy and good public policy. He indicated he was present to convey
the Chamber's support for the Loch Lomond Marina development.
Looking back through the Chamber's records, Mr. Boyer stated they first addressed the City
Council regarding this project on September 27, 2004. They believed the project had come
together to its best potential in satisfying the many in the community that would be positively
impacted by its development. The Loch Lomond development offered a number of benefits to
the community:
• The addition of new affordable and workforce housing units. More than one-fifth of the
homes would be dedicated to low and moderate income families, and there might be no
other issue more pressing in this community than the lack of affordable housing, and this
project would address that need;
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 7
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 8
• The addition of a new shopping center which would add to the local economy and
generate more sales tax revenue for the City to continue to provide the great services
the residents of San Rafael enjoy;
• The project was a great example of green building techniques. Mr. Boyer stated that the
Chamber strongly encourages all businesses to be as environmentally sensitive as
possible and they commended the development team for generating a design that would
minimize the impact on the environment, including preservation of all existing wetlands.
• The project would be a benefit to the community as a whole as it created a new and
exciting place for recreation on the waterfront of the Bay.
Mr. Boyer stated he looked forward to the day when residents of San Rafael could visit the new
marina green and boardwalk; therefore, for all of these reasons, the San Rafael Chamber of
Commerce strongly supported the Loch Lomond Marina development project. On behalf of the
Chamber, Mr. Boyer respectfully urged the City Council to support the project.
Roaer Roberts, resident of San Rafael since 1981 and resident of Marin County since 1970,
pointed out an inconsistency in the staff report. Referring to the draft conditions relative to the
newly adopted Green Building Ordinance, he indicated it went into some detail as to what would
be required, yet the Resolution on page 4-21 — Section 10, did not read the same way, and he
suggested Section 10 of the Resolution should be expanded to have it conform to the staff
report.
With regard to the summary in the staff report relative to the proposed home sizes selected and
a summary of their distribution, Mr. Roberts noted that the smaller homes were 1,750 square -
feet, with most much larger than that. He noted that Planning Commissioner Maribeth Lang
brought up the question about whether or not this was a good mix and whether there should be
smaller units. He called attention to the City's Housing Element that referred to affordable
smaller "For Sale" housing units as an objective of the City, which was basically another term
for affordability by design. Mr. Roberts urged the City Council to re -look at the mix in the
housing development to see whether it was possible to include more smaller units in
substitution for some of the larger units presently in the mix.
Jean Starkweather, Marin Conservation League, referring to Attachment 4, pages 4-42 and
4-43, stated this addressed what was required of the property owners under 38 b) — Owners
Association responsibility for ongoing maintenance, shared areas, etc. She indicated that in
that mix of landscaping, utilities, etc., was open space in conservation areas, and seasonal
wetlands, which stated "the maintenance would be handled by the applicant for five years and
then turned over to the homeowners". It identified three things homeowners should do;
however, it did not refer back to 38 b) which discussed ongoing maintenance of open space in
conservation areas.
Ms. Starkweather noted that the City carried out the maintenance on other seasonal wetlands
and was coming to grips with the type of maintenance it needed, and she did not believe it to be
in the interest of the long-term health of the marsh area to have it under a homeowners group.
She believed it would be better to leave the actual maintenance of the conservation area, the
seasonal marsh, under the City's jurisdiction after the first five years.
Sandv Greenblat indicated he did not realize there was a limitation on comments from the
audience. He stated he avoided taking part in the hearings as he was involved in a committee
addressing the San Rafael General Plan 2020, which involved a lot of workshops, public input
concerning what was envisioned at Loch Lomond, North San Rafael community plan, and St.
Vincent's/Silveira. He also avoided the hearings as he had been involved in bringing the
principals of Woodlands Market to the site and it was hard for him to believe anyone could
argue with such a success. Mr. Greenblat stated he had been a neighbor of Loch Lomond for
some time, moving to East San Rafael in 1961. He was a boat owner and tenant in Loch
Lomond, he shopped there and visited the local restaurant ever since, lived just over the hill for
24 years and prior to that for 14 years, had lived just east of Loch Lomond.
Mr. Greenblat stated that the virtual total neglect of the site for more than a generation under
the former ownership, including the boat facilities, docks, clubhouse, was an abomination for
decades. Currently, there was a vastly improved series of docks, boat facilities, walkways and
the site was ready for the balance of the improvements. However, after six years of planning,
countless hearings and meetings, providing the community with a plan that would bring the site
from the dregs it had been to a project to be proud of, it was found not to be good enough, and
he questioned for whom it was not good enough.
Indicating that no project in the City, let alone the County, had undergone more scrutiny, Mr.
Greenblat stated he had worked with the City Council and staff on the Fair Isaac project which
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 8
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 9
became the Corporate Center, and this only took three and a half years. As a long time local
resident and proponent of "shop locally", as a long time active member of the community, as a
member of countless committees and task forces dealing with the general health and economic
base of the community for 25 years or more, Mr. Greenblat stated he supported the project in its
present configuration. He also supported, as the General Plan hearings would recall, there was
a premise that the City did something to help its aging citizens when they either decided or were
forced to sell their present homes and had no place to move down to. Those facing that would
take their talents and leave the community, absent a choice, and developments such as this
would provide some option at least to some. Mr. Greenblat stated: "Save Loch Lomond is right
— save it from the awful pit it was for 30 years and save it for a new locally owned market, save
it for the community meeting place it was designed to become, save it for the housing stock we
need." He did not see where other similar developments, not all with a market, that all had
witnessed in the community and county over the last 30 years, had weakened or destroyed the
community, and he requested that the City Council close the endless hearings, endless
financial penalties being assessed on the proponents of the development and render a decision
to proceed.
Craia Yates. President and First Vice -President, ISC, an organization for the disabled, stated
he believed this would be a quality, livable community. From all the plans he had looked at and
all the changes for accessibility, parking, parks, etc., no one could ask for a better site for
people in the disabled community and he urged the City Council to follow through and bring a
quality, livable community to the beautiful Bay at Loch Lomond.
Sue Lifschiz, Loch Lomond, stated that since its inception, the project had the most consistent
and vociferous objection from the affected neighborhood as any she could remember in the 44
years she had lived in San Rafael, and she believed that those who had lived in the City for that
long, would probably agree. She stated that one must wonder, therefore, why City officials had
chosen to ignore those objections and it further called into question the purpose of public
hearings. She indicated that had the public been heard, the project would not have reached the
current point, seeking final approval. Questioning whether the City Council would listen or
ignore them once again, Ms. Lifschiz stated they would be making a grave error if they
approved it in its present form. She believed it should be returned for revisions that would make
it comply with the spirit of the City's General Plan and be acceptable to the residents of the
neighborhoods it would impact.
Tvmber Cavasian, Gerstle Park, stated she would respond directly to twelve items per the staff
report "Response to Comments:"
Al — Site Access and Circulation — The second access would provide relief from the bottleneck,
give users of different types choices on how to navigate the site, especially during peak periods,
which would reduce conflicts, and due to housing configuration changes, it would help enhance
the size mix of the types of housing on the site. She requested that the City Council require the
second entrance.
4 BI — Parkina and Traffic — The response discussed methodology and outside consultant
conclusions; however, nowhere did it state that San Rafael's Traffic Engineer was going on
record stating the parking would work. Ms. Cavasian expressed the hope that Council would
encourage that the increased marina commercial use at peak levels be planned for as there
was no adequate way after the fact to provide any contingency on where that parking would end
up should there be a problem later. She was concerned that the site was congested and
perhaps the site plan needed adjustment to accommodate this to avoid overflow impacting
adjacent neighborhoods.
C5 — Stepping back the townhome facades along the voiect entry — A more complete elevation
depiction along the project entry would have helped assess this fairly; however, her belief was
that revising the townhome unit design relieved the project entry wall effect and was a good
idea and mixing up the unit sizes, which she believed met the General Plan goal better and
provided a better aesthetic.
D2 — Grocery Store Operation — Supported inserting the language to preserve a full-service
market to the degree possible.
D3 — Dry Boat Storage — Finding a way to incorporate the dry boat storage was a step in the
right direction and it should be required on site to some degree. Ms. Cavasian was concerned
that what was shown was a "down and dirty" way of getting some dry boat storage at the cost of
what was already minimally planned for truck and trailer parking, and she believed it needed
some more work. She also had a concern on whether the tandem storage of the dry boats
would actually function well for boat owners. She liked the idea of utilizing the dry boats a little
as a visible feature because it showed a marina was there, even a glimpse of them
demonstrated that marina activities and boats were beyond.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 9
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 10
FI — BCDC Requirements — Ms. Cavasian encouraged the City Council to remove the sculpture
from the plan. She suggested that perhaps a sculpture or classical boat could be located at the
entrance to the site.
FI f) — Where the fishing is encouraged by the BCDC — staff suggested it was undesirable, a
nuisance and dirty — Ms. Cavasian expressed the hope that a fish cleaning station would be
located as part of the fishing amenities.
FI g) — Relocating the boat repair maintenance building could be renegotiated along with the
layout of the dry boat storage and/or restroom/laundry facilities attached to the yacht club to
make that overall side work a little better. While not specifying it needed to be relocated, Ms.
Cavasian suggested the possibility in conjunction with the other features could achieve a better
site plan on the west.
F 3 — Connectina the open space — Ms. Cavasian stated that connecting open space was
essential whenever possible and she believed it would be a mistake to miss the opportunity of
connecting the Loch Lomond site with the San Pedro Cove open space site, and she hoped the
connection would be required, both on the water and San Pedro Road sides.
F I — Western Boundary Fence — The switch to vinyl clad link fencing was an improvement from
the solid wood lattice fence if shortened to the specification of a standard wetlands fencing,
approximately 4 -feet, which was used on the Starkweather trail and on the eastern bound side
of the site. The vegetation could be changed from vines to something native on either side of
the vinyl clad fencing so that it was not a solid mass. That visibility and awareness to the open
space would be preserved affording a sense of physical and visual connectiveness, which was
important to retain, otherwise, it appeared to close off the access.
Ms. Cavasian believed the Loch Lomond site already had a very good landscape plan;
however, if the San Pedro Cove residents in their open space, also included some additional
native plantings, their concerns of view problems of the parking lot, etc. could be resolved
without creating a solid boundary fence.
HI — Housing Sizes — Ms. Cavasian believed the housing mix was improving with the assurance
that the requirements to meet some of the other key concerns were in; however, it could and
should be better, and she supported Roger Roberts' comments. Some of the changes of the
two-story to one-story, decreasing the mass of the townhomes and requiring a second entrance
would help; however, the housing mix continued to be a concern.
H5 — Comparison of other residential projects — Ms. Cavasian did not believe this was an
apples and apples comparison, given the nature of the site, the waterfront and premier location.
She indicated she never had too much trouble with the density level if the site plan were shifted
to accommodate the variety of uses; however, since this had not happened, perhaps a
reduction in density would alleviate some of the side issues.
H8 — Addressina View Issues by lowering densitv — Item A — Framina the View — The visual
simulations of the existing plan showed that framing the view did not work. Not much of the
boat mass or water were visible, while large walls of buildings were visible, even though well
articulated, and a sculptural object with the palm trees at the end, which was where the eye
stopped, eclipsing the marine view. Ms. Cavasian supported not framing the view and seeing
those buildings tuned up a little to get a wider, more welcoming entry, drawing people more into
the site.
H8 b) — Bavfront homes and reducing the elevations - Ms. Cavasian stated that to her eye in
the visual, the 19 -foot one-story homes presented a better solution to preserving the protected
view of the San Pedro ridge behind, simply because of not having the 24'7", and she was
intrigued by Councilmember Cohen's question concerning getting 22'6", which would then
afford the undisturbed view of the ridgeline. She indicated this possibly could be a better
solution; however, as it stood with what they had to look at, she believed the 19 -foot was the
premier.
Joan Gozliner, San Pedro Cove, stated that as a neighbor, one of the concerns was for the
future of the landscaping and the roads. San Pedro Cove roads were private with a lot of
common area, which was expensive to maintain, and they were seeing pictures of beautiful
grassy areas, flowers and a road that would be used not just by the residents, as theirs was, but
by the general public. Believing the area would be bringing in a lot of property taxes, she
encouraged the City to consider the responsibility of maintaining the roads, boardwalk and
public playground areas, so that the area would thrive because she considered it too much of a
burden on and disadvantage to the homeowners and commercial.
Sara Jensen, Loch Lomond Homeowners Association, stated her Homeowners Association had
already submitted extensive written comments, a couple of which she would review. She
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 10
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 11
indicated that in the staff write-up, it was stated that Loch Lomond had never made suggestions
of changes needed on the site, and she emphasized that this was not the case, as they at least
twice had brought before Council maps showing the new development against a map of the
larger context. In looking at it that way she stated it was easy to identify view sheds from Loch
Lomond. Ms. Jensen stated they were still quite concerned that the General Plan requirements
to protect views had not been adequately followed in this project, and looking at the project
within its larger context, the view sheds, many from Loch Lomond, went down to the water in
the marina to the east of the existing Bobby's restaurant location. They were concerned that
that was the location where some of the biggest buildings were being placed and if these
buildings were moved elsewhere, to the inside of the site and the view corridor lined with lower
buildings, those views could be protected. As it was, it appeared likely they were going to be
very severely impacted. While studies had not been done to show this, looking at a map it
would seem to indicate this.
Ms. Jensen stated that what was and was not beautiful at the site was very personal; however,
given that it was a bayside location with public access requirements, one of the most important
things to do was to ensure that the public access area was as open and connected as possible.
She shared concerns others had voiced about the west side of the site, i.e., putting the
restaurant on to the yacht club and locating the bathrooms there, jutted out into the area closing
off the west. A six foot high fence, whether wood or wire, was still a six-foot high barrier;
therefore, fencing at this location should be kept low to maintain a connection between the Bay
inlet and open space at that side, not blocking it off and visitors not getting the feeling of being
closed in behind a high fence.
Louise Patterson, San Pedro Cove, indicated her concern was the details of the project,
specifically Exhibit B5 (chart) of the attachments — the Planned District Ordinance, which limited
the building heights, setbacks, lot coverage and all other development standards that would go
forward with the development in years to come. She noted that the ordinance, Area C, the
maximum height was 29 -feet 6 -inches for two-story residence structures and 22 -feet for one-
story, as depicted on the development plan. There was no reference as to what development
plan would be approved with this ordinance, by whom it would be developed, dated, etc., and
they as neighbors, did not know what the City Council could be taking action on this evening.
She requested that should the City Council intend to approve the project, perhaps they would
indicate their intent and direct staff to return with specific plans to be approved that could be
implemented in the future. Five or ten years down the road, should a new homeowner desire to
add a second story, the residents of the area should be aware of the limitations, and she did not
believe the ordinance in its current form contained those details. She requested that the City
Council take considerable time to evaluate Exhibit B concerning development standards, as this
could impact neighbors in the years ahead.
Ms. Patterson noted many alternatives were presented this evening in questions 1 — 35 that
provided several options; therefore, staff should be directed to bring back the exact plans to be
approved.
Albert Barr, Dunfries Terrace, stated that at the BCDC Design Review Board meeting
approximately six weeks ago, the chairman, a renowned San Francisco architect, indicated that
this was the most exciting project in the Bay Area at this time, with which he concurred. Mr.
Barr indicated that many people had raised issues and problems; however, no one had
emphasized the positive aspects of it. Included in all the new amenities was a rebuilt
breakwater; however, Mr. Yates in all modesty, did not mention the fact that that breakwater,
now used as a walkway and was dangerous, would be wheelchair accessible and would
provide an access for the first time to the breakwater, which was one of the most beautiful
sights in Marin County. For that reason alone, Mr. Barr strongly recommended that the City
Council approve the project.
Michael Nelson, President, San Pedro Cove Homeowners Association, stated he had been
requested to speak for all the people unable to attend. He reiterated how critical and important
it was to have some type of view protection as they were looking at the back end of the marina.
While not complaining, he requested that their views be protected somewhat and they saw no
reason to remove the existing fence. While the project was not perfect, Mr. Nelson stated it was
a good plan and one they wholeheartedly supported.
Mayor Boro suggested that each Councilmember provide their reaction and input to this
evening's comments and the staff report, subsequently Council would provide direction on the
35 points as presented.
Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated the hard work done and excellent information
provided by staff, the development team and neighbors so that Councilmembers could wrestle
with the 34 questions.
Focusing on key issues, Councilmember Cohen stated he tended to favor the second access.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 11
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 12
He appreciated the work done to finding a design that worked and he understood the architect's
comments about the impact on those immediate units. Repeatedly it had been stated by all the
experts analyzing the situation that the single access point would work sufficiently; however, the
question remained that despite their expertise and history of accuracy, they were wrong. He
believed this was what the neighbors were concerned about and it could be addressed by
adding the second entry point in a way that worked and did not destroy the integrity of the
project concept.
Believing progress was made on preserving the view shed from the water back towards the
ridge, Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated the work done and noting David Israel got
very close to a miraculous solution, he invited him to work to get down to 22 -feet 6 -inches on
the redesigned second story.
With regard to the verticality of the townhome units, specifically those along the entryway,
Councilmember Cohen noted the staff report addressed focusing the view and the neighbors
addressed opening the view up. The commercial building blocked the view on one side;
however, he questioned whether it would be possible to open up the eastern side, even if it
meant sacrificing the verticality of the townhome designs and buildings 1 and 2, or even
changing the design of those units. He favored seeing it opened up to the greatest extent
possible as this was the main view corridor. Recalling his comment at the last meeting,
Councilmember Cohen stated that perhaps he was not sufficiently clear as he was not just
addressing stepping back, or stepping back the corners. He would prefer to see one-story
buildings along that frontage as opposed to the wall effect. He personally believed some work
remained to be done on that entry corridor.
With regard to the impact of operation, Councilmember Cohen stated he was struck by pages 4
and 5 of the staff report which addressed the Harbor Master's data collection over a two-year
period concerning the volume of boat launching, or lack thereof. He reiterated he was stunned
to discover that the average was three day boat launches during the week and twelve on the
weekend, albeit spiking up on holidays.
Councilmember Cohen stated he was intrigued by the suggestion of trading some of those day
use boat trailer parking spaces for some dry boat storage in the corner. He would like to see
staff working with the applicant on language that stated "you can do this and we will get dry boat
storage." However, should it be found that people were parking their trucks and trailers in the
neighborhood across the street because of insufficient day use parking, the dry boat storage
might have to be relinquished. He believed dry boat storage would work, unless it created
parking impacts, and he would favor language to this effect.
With regard to the market, Councilmember Cohen supported the staff recommendation. He
would like it clarified that it had to return to the Planning Commission, and perhaps given the
community interest, returned to the City Council. He explained that should the owner of the
commercial building state that he had tried everything and could not locate a market operator —
Woodlands had pulled out having tried it for the lease term and no one was taking their place —
they had to make that case to be released.
Noting a lot of the conversation focused on what had not been done yet, Councilmember Cohen
congratulated everyone involved in finding a high quality operator and he urged the community
to recognize this.
With regard to Mr. Roberts' comment concerning the green building requirement,
Councilmember Cohen agreed that the language needed to be tightened up and more precise.
Regarding Mello -Roos and its impact, Councilmember Cohen stated his understanding was that
it was only if two-thirds of the property owners in the development voted out the Mello -Roos
district that the CC&Rs language would apply, and he requested clarification.
Mr. Brown confirmed it was as it related to the public recreational improvements. It did not
include the conservation area.
With regard to including it into the Mello -Roos District, Mr. Jensen stated the only question was
whether or not there was the ability to include maintenance of the conservation area, as it was
not publicly accessible. The Mello -Roos District was selected as the mechanism for that.
Agreeing with Mr. Jensen, Mr. Ragghianti believed there would be an issue with regard to
including the conservation area for the reasons expressed. He requested that staff check with
Bond Counsel.
Councilmember Cohen inquired whether there could be a requirement that the CC&Rs gave the
City some authority over how this maintenance was done, because if not, at a minimum, more
clarity was needed in the ordinances, resolutions and CC&Rs, specifically concerning how the
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 12
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 13
maintenance was to be done. He would prefer the City to have some authority about how this
was done, as it did not make sense to create a conservation area and five years later, be
somewhat loose about its maintenance.
With regard to the Mello -Roos District for Loch Lomond Unit #10, Mayor Boro inquired as to the
issue of public access.
Mr. Nordhoff believed there was a sinking fund in case something significant went wrong, and
while there was not any active ongoing maintenance at the site, a sinking fund was available in
the event of damage or infrastructure issues.
Mayor Boro stated his point was that the Mello -Roos District could not be applied to the
conservation area because it was not public access; however, there was no public access to
the drainage channels in Loch Lomond Unit #10.
Mr. Ragghianti stated his point was that he did not know the answer, and while not suggesting
Mayor Boro was wrong, he suggested checking on this.
Mayor Boro stated that should it not be possible to pursue this through the District, stronger
language should be found going forward.
Mr. Nordhoff stated there would be a further opportunity when the District was formed to look at
these types of issues, which would be a separate action, assuming the project went forward.
Councilmember Cohen stated if the District could not address the conservation area, it needed
to be done prior to final action being taken.
Councilmember Cohen stated that the revision of the fence satisfied his concerns.
Sharing Ms. Cavasian's comment concerning the sculpture, Councilmember Cohen stated the
view should be of the Bay and boats.
Favoring receipt of more information on the fish cleaning station, Councilmember Cohen
believed BCDC's recommendation made sense.
Councilmember Cohen stated he believed it really important to focus on the concerns of the
neighbors, particularly neighbors in Loch Lomond, that the City could address and mitigate, and
he was still concerned about the ability to mitigate bypass traffic. He was not satisfied with the
language in the staff report which indicated that this might not happen, which he believed to be
correct, particularly with concurrence to add a second access point; however, the neighbors in
Loch Lomond needed to be assured that the City would be prepared to address that impact
should it happen despite the best intent and belief. He noted the discussion on page 4 of the
staff report stated: "If bypass traffic through the neighborhood is occurring, the City Traffic
Engineer would look into evaluating immediate streets close to the project for traffic calming.
Traffic calming devices such as speed humps that must meet specific warrants and funding
approval by the City Council." Councilmember Cohen stated this did not afford him any
comfort, and a way needed to be figured out to do better.
With regard to the second access, Councilmember Miller agreed the view should be spread to
afford more of a view of the Bay and the sculpture tended to negate this. Indicating that he
looked at this from the viewpoint of the entire City, he stated that he developed this viewpoint
from the neighborhoods. He looked at this project as a tremendously advanced environmental
jewel. He believed it to be marvelous in terms of the wetlands and he liked the fact of a
community of a livable, diverse, mix of green buildings that obviously harnessed the energy and
reduced the footprint of a number of people. It was tremendous in terms of the marina because
it made a connection to the Bay that had been enhanced and beautified, and he concurred with
Mr. Barr's comments about the breakwater. Councilmember Miller believed it to be marvelous
project.
With regard to the second access, Councilmember Heller stated she was now leaning towards it
and the question in the developer's mind was whether it would cut off traffic to the market,
which she did not believe would happen.
On the question of parking, Councilmember Heller believed this would be interesting. She would
like to evaluate the number of compact spaces as she did not believe they worked in today's
world. She needed assistance visualizing F3 — Connecting the open spaces - and felt the fish
station would be an attractive nuisance.
Further on the question of parking, regarding Attachment 4 — Draft on Class 2 Bicycle Lane —
page 4-39, Councilmember Heller noted it stated that a Class 2 Bicycle Lane would be
implemented; however, it was her understanding from the Public Works Director, Class 3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 13
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 14
Bicycle lanes were planned all the way down San Pedro. She believed it would work as a Class
3 in this designation and favored putting a two-year hold on turning it into a Class 2 if needed, in
favor of evaluating parking to see whether the area needed it for visiting, etc. She was not
against changing it to a Class 2 should it not be needed for parking on the site.
Councilmember Heller was very pleased with home storage and was not concerned with a
sculpture.
Noting it had been a lot of hard work, Councilmember Heller stated that the neighbors had
enhanced the project for which she expressed thanks to all.
Expressing thanks, Councilmember Phillips stated that without the neighbors' active interest,
the project would be nowhere close to where it was now. Complimenting staff, he stated they
had done a remarkable job putting this together and answering the "million" questions posed.
With regard to Land Use — Option #5 — ensuring there was a market at the existing site —
Councilmember Phillips noted that should something go wrong concerning the economics,
some latitude was afforded; however, the six-month period provided some degree of assurance
that it would not suddenly overnight turn into an ice rink, etc., and he was in favor of this option.
Councilmember Phillips stated that at this point in time he favored the one-story at 19 -feet, as
viewed from the boardwalk, it added quite a bit and he noted the neighbors' support for this.
Concerning the second entry, Councilmember Phillips indicated he liked the idea as it provided
an additional egress. It had some merit and he liked the design.
Noting Mr. Nelson's position as representative of the San Pedro Homeowners Association,
Councilmember Phillips indicated he supported Mr. Nelson's thoughts.
With regard to the sculpture, while not a big deal, Councilmember Phillips believed it to be
somewhat out of context and a better job could be done.
Concerning Ms. Patterson's points, Councilmember Phillips stated he would appreciate staff's
comments on whether there were issues that needed to be addressed.
Noting Mr. Roberts' comments, Councilmember Phillips stated he respected his views and
should there be inconsistencies with regard to the resolution versus the report concerning the
level of green, the intent should be clarified.
Appreciating all the work done for the City by Mr. Yates, Councilmember Phillips stated he
made a good point with regard to those with disabilities, which needed to be respected.
Believing Al Barr's summary to be right on, and concluding at this point, Councilmember Phillips
believed the area would be much better than currently and a real addition to the City.
Councilmember Phillips expressed thanks to all for helping him formulate his thoughts.
Noting Sue Lifschiz's comments regarding the issues and contention concerning this project,
Mayor Boro stated that he and Ms. Lifschitz were around when Loch Lomond Unit #10 was
approved, which was one of the most contentious issues before the City Council. Residents in
Loch Lomond believed their homes would slide and be flooded, property values would be
depreciated, resulting in disaster; however, today, Loch Lomond Unit #10 was 29 homes, one of
which recently sold for $1.9 million and another for $1.6 million. There were three affordable
units in the site and those living in them had been there since the beginning. The Mello -Roos
District did work; their assessment had been as high as $2,200 per year and currently, because
of the large reserve, this was down to $528 per year. The Mello Roos -District and homes had
worked and the community in Loch Lomond had not been damaged as a result.
Referring to a chart on display, and noting it did not necessarily relate to the water per se,
Mayor Boro stated he wanted to make the point that in East San Rafael, Peacock Gap, off
Biscayne Drive, there was a multitude of homes ranging from $5 million to $500,000
condominiums, plus a highly used golf course, which will be expanded. Explaining why this
should be looked at, Mayor Boro stated this was a pretty nice neighborhood that had been able
to work with a different mix of uses without home values depreciating. Believing there had been
fear in people's minds, Mayor Boro recalled going to the Loch Lomond neighborhood four years
ago, standing for an hour and a half and taking questions, and that day, he promised the
neighbors, and reiterated this evening, that no one wanted to destroy Loch Lomond's character
or neighborhood. Rather, the intent was to find a reasonable way to develop the site and
enhance the community. The marina upgrades will be a big enhancement and something
desired by the community. He believed the City could not maintain it in the way it should, which
was the reason for pushing the Mello -Roos District, which would work and make it usable not
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 14
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 15
only for those residing there, but also, those wishing to visit. Mayor Boro stated it was designed
in a way that those residing there would understand that it was public land.
With regard to the second entrance, although he liked the idea, Mayor Boro stated he discussed
possibly preparing for it by setting the houses back and implementing it if needed, especially
having read the comment on the residents' concern about people using their neighborhood as a
shortcut. Should the road be in place, with parking on San Pedro Road, he questioned whether
this would encourage day users to park on the road and walk through the neighborhood to the
marina. Although this was not encouraged, he questioned whether this could happen anyway
because of the fire road.
Whether one or two stories, Mayor Boro believed the view from the boardwalk should be
opened up and he looked to David Israel to make it work with either one or two-story homes.
Seeing the renderings of the entrance on the left, he believed it still looked like a wall even
though notched back, and this did not seem right on entering. Noting the current view was a
boat storage building, he believed that in the future there would be a terrific view (absent the
sculpture), which he believed could be better, whether one-story or reconfigured.
Mayor Boro believed dry boat storage was important and could be accommodated.
Regarding density, Mayor Boro harkened back to the exhibit showing a mixed density in a very
successful neighborhood that worked. He believed the density would work in conjunction with
those in Loch Lomond and on either side of the two neighboring developments.
Mayor Boro stated that the questions raised at the last meeting would be addressed:
A) Site Access and Circulation:
1. Study and provide plans for a second access serving the residential area (east of
the project entrance). The parking court that is designed to provide emergency
vehicle access should be one of the access options. Explain the consequences,
advantages and disadvantages.
Councilmember Cohen Support.
Mayor Boro It should be built; however whether or not it should be opened
at the beginning was the issue.
Councilmember Miller Destroys the basic concept of a pedestrian oriented, livable
village of 76 units — Design to have ready if necessary.
Councilmember Heller Planning for two entrances but holding off on opening up.
Councilmember Phillips Support — more convenient for those living there.
2. Provide a better explanation on how the single, main project access is configured
(lane configuration) and what measures can be imposed to minimize traffic
diversions through the Loch Lomond neighborhood. What would be the benefit
of a dual -left turn and what would be necessary to provide this left turn
configuration? In the event diversions occur, what traffic calming measures can
be imposed on Loch Lomond streets? Would adjustment to the timing/phasing
of the intersection signal assist in reducing potential on-site and off-site
congestion.
Mayor Boro noted the staff report contained a good diagram and the only option
mentioned by Mr. Mansourian was that there could be two left turn lanes out of the
project; however, this would necessitate adding a STOP or condition exiting Loch
Lomond, which at this point he believed was not warranted.
Indicating there was a double left, Mr. Brown explained this would stop traffic exiting
Loch Lomond so that both lanes could turn left; however, it would increase delay from
the Loch Lomond neighborhood.
Mayor Boro confirmed that currently Loch Lomond could make a right turn on the stop
light with a left turn on green from the new development.
Councilmember Cohen This was the section discussed on page 4 of the staff report
regarding the potential for diversion into the Loch Lomond
neighborhood. While he was not suggesting redesigning the
intersection or two left turn lanes, he suggested some
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 15
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 16
language that would allow for addressing that diversion
should it occur after the project was built.
Councilmember Heller Agreed.
Councilmember Miller Agreed.
Councilmember Phillips Agreed.
Mayor Boro Agreed.
3. Provide a clear description on the vehicle circulation at the west side of the
project site where access and circulation is shared by the marina, commercial
and residential (flats) uses. Are the turning radii adequate and safe, particularly
the width of the driveway from the entry road?
Agreement with recommendation in the staff report that a four-way stop sign would be
installed to alleviate the problems.
4. Is there the potential for vehicles driving over/across the marina green to access
parking on the east jetty/spit? Is this a safety concern?
Agreement with recommendation in staff report.
B) Parkinq and Traffic:
Confirm that the parking and traffic studies prepared for the project account for
future success, resulting in more intensive use of the marina and commercial
area. Compare the parking provisions of the current Woodland Market and
associated uses, and Whole Foods parking need (also comparing Woodland
Market vs. Whole Foods sales per square foot). Identify existing, excess parking
provisions incorporated into the parking demand analysis (e.g., 100% marina
berth occupancy, park users, parking above code requirements and provisions
for a parking reserve).
City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian stated that the consultants and staff had
reviewed the numbers and concurred with all the parking studies and their conclusions.
Mayor Boro confirmed there were 612 spaces on the site.
2. How much of the on-site parking is allocated to compact -size spaces?
With regard to the 59 compact spaces, Mr. Mansourian stated that up to 30% was
allowed; however, he agreed with Councilmember Heller's comments re vehicle sizes.
Mr. Brown stated that any changes at this point would either be a reduction in total
parking spaces or landscaping.
3. Consideration should be given to assigning parking to specific marina uses
(liveaboards).
Addressed.
4. Where will parking be provided to Loch Lomond Yacht Club members and
guests? Will the club members and guests be required to walk a distance to
available parking?
Parking would be approximately 150 -feet to the north. Having visited the site
numerous times, Mayor Boro noted some were very close to the yacht club; however,
once past the Yacht Master's office, the distance was 150 -feet.
Councilmember Miller inquired as to enforcement. Mr. Brown believed there was
towing authority.
C) Aesthetics/Views and Visual Simulations:
Provide computer-generated visual simulations from marina boardwalk showing
the proposed two story homes, an option with two story building heights
lowered by two feet and an option with one-story building heights.
Mayor Boro believed the architect and applicant had the understanding of getting as
much as possible, hopefully shrinking the height down two -feet, or one story.
Councilmember Cohen inquired whether this would be returned to the City Council.
Mr. Brown stated that the Design Review Board would be looking at a lot of final details
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 16
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 17
so it could be referred to them. His understanding was Council was looking at the one-
story, two-story combination, with a desire to get the maximum ridgeline down to 22 -
feet 6 -inches.
Councilmember Cohen stated his concern was that the Design Review Board already
passed on this with a higher ridgeline not found acceptable by the City Council;
therefore, he inquired whether it would be one-story unless the architect could squeeze
the extra two -feet out of the second story units, and get the ridgeline down to 22 -feet 6 -
inches.
Councilmember Phillips indicated his default would be 19 -feet - one story, and he
would be fine with a 22 -feet 6 -inches modification.
Councilmember Cohen stated that the two-story design presented this evening was a
very creative solution, turning the gable end as opposed to the ridgeline would address
a lot of the concern.
2. In order to provide a comparison of the visual impacts with the initial project
design (February 2005), prepare computer-generated visual simulations from the
same vantage points for the current project design (Mitigated Plan).
No comments.
3. Confirm that the computer-generated visual simulations take into consideration
the site filling that is required to comply with flood control.
All in agreement.
4. Provide clarification on the finished grade levels (1-4 feet). Confirm that the
computer-generated visual simulations that have been prepared account for this
site filling.
Councilmember Cohen stated that for those members in the audience who had
remained, he wished to clarify statements made at the last meeting which were simply
incorrect and perpetuated misunderstanding. He explained there was a notion that the
entire site would get raised four feet, building the houses on top, and this was
inaccurate. He clarified that the lowest point out towards the water would have fill up to
a height of four feet; however, along Point San Pedro Road, the height of fill was less
than one foot from the existing grade. It was just basically flattening out the site and
would not have a visual impact.
5. Study and consider stepping back the facades of the town homes along the
project entrance.
Councilmember Miller The one-story building height still would block
everything; therefore, the advantages in the latest
version opened it up considerably, maintaining the
view. He was very satisfied with what was presented
this evening.
Councilmember Cohen The DRB and staff appeared to support the edge
created by the two-story row of townhouses did not
open the entry up to his liking. His comment regarding
the view impact of one-story or two-story buildings was
that a person standing on Point San Pedro Road's view
was looking out towards the water, which was blocked
by a one-story building.
The only way to not have the view blocked in that
context was not have anything there at all which was
not a viable solution unless the community was
prepared to purchase the property. He believed there
were places where the placement of one story versus
two-story buildings affected view impact and his sense
was that having the two-story commercial building on
the west, or right hand side of the entryway, and two
story townhomes on the left, or eastern side of the
entryway, created a walled corridor leading out to the
Bay, and he did not agree that would focus the vision
out towards the water and the boats. It would have a
better effect if opened up and one story and two-story
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 17
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 18
behind that.
His preference would be to see one-story buildings on
the left-hand or eastern side of the entryway.
Councilmember Heller Liked the reduction of the 175 square feet and driving in
and seeing the two buildings on each side. She agreed
with the buildings in the front by the boardwalk.
Councilmember Phillips If Councilmember Cohen's suggestion were adopted,
he was unclear as to what the impact would be on the
number of units.
Visualizing it enhanced by the representation, he
believed it was sufficiently broken up to not be a tunnel
per se — he was fine with the proposal.
Mayor Boro Not entirely comfortable as he believed it created a
tunnel; however, the majority were in favor, stepped
back as described.
D) Land Use Restrictions and Leasinq:
Provide additional information on the terms and conditions of the lease
agreements for the grocery store/market, Loch Lomond Yacht Club, Bobby's
Cafe and the other commercial tenants.
Mayor Boro stated that a ten-year lease with a 30 -year option had been signed.
Should the market fail for whatever reason, provisions were in place.
2. Revisit the recommendations that provide the property owner a 6 -month period
to seek a grocery store operator, with allowances for other replacement uses in
the event an operator is not secured. Consider other creative measures to
ensure that the grocery store will remain.
Councilmember Cohen noted staff recommended Option 5 on page 10 of the staff
Report — "Require initial occupancy of the building by a full-service grocery
store/market. If the lease terminates after initial occupancy, require that the property
owner obtain approval of a Master Use Permit allowing alternative replacement uses
by the Planning Commission." His suggestion was that this decision be made by the
City Council.
3. Where can dry dock boat storage be provided on the project site and how much
would be needed to accommodate storage tenants living within two miles of the
marina?
Agreeing, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether this could be done while reserving
the right to require that dry boat storage be removed and additional parking retained.
Responding affirmatively, Mr. Jensen stated a current Use Permit condition required a
monitoring program for the parking, to which dry dock boat storage use and demand
could be linked.
Councilmember Heller inquired whether this could be used for overflow parking on a
very busy day should the marina so choose.
Mr. Brown stated that if spaces were not being leased, it could be opened up for
parking. Mayor Boro confirmed that there were 25 additional reserved spaces.
E. Publicly -Accessible Park Issues:
Can the City require that the jetties/spits and breakwater be secured at night by
a locked gate? Who would be responsible for policing and enforcing these
areas, which would be publicly accessible?
Agreement with staff comments.
2. Provide a clearer explanation as to how the Mello -Roos Assessment District
(MRAD) will work to provide long-term funding and maintenance of the marina
green and publicly -accessible recreation areas. What guarantees are
incorporated into the MRAD to ensure that public access areas are permanently
maintained? How will public access be ensured in perpetuity? Who will be
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 18
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 19
responsible for policing and enforcing these areas, which would be encumbered
by a public access and use easement? Would the Owners Association have the
ability to change or eliminate the MRAD? What effect would the MRAD
assessment have on the owners of the affordable/below market -rate (BMR)
units?
Already explained. Mayor Boro stated that the only remaining issue concerned
reverting to CC&Rs and how to ensure the maintenance of the area in a desired
manner.
Mr. Brown stated that pending discussion with specific Bond Counsel, staff believed
the argument could be made to incorporate the conservation area in the Mello -Roos.
Should there be a problem with the immediately adjacent public access, when the
CC&Rs were returned for final adoption, an alternative could be incorporated; however,
with Council direction, staff would attempt to get the conservation area in the Mello -
Roos.
Councilmember Cohen inquired whether there was a way to require that the CC&Rs be
drafted to give the City some authority about how the maintenance was conducted.
Responding affirmatively, Mr. Brown explained that in Redwood Village, for example,
annual monitoring is carried out of their wetlands and seasonal grass replacement.
Noting a cost of $17,900 per month, Mr. Nordhoff stated that without the conservation
that figure would likely change.
F. Bav Conservation and Development commission (BCDC) Review and Issues:
Provide a list of the recommendations made by the BCDC Design Review Board.
Consensus on items a., b., c., d., e., g.
Item f. — Fish Cleaning Station — Councilmember Heller — No
Councilmember Miller — Yes
Councilmember Cohen — Yes
Councilmember Phillips — Yes
Mayor Boro — Yes
Mr. Brown confirmed there would be water at the fish cleaning station; however, no
sewer.
2. What is the proposed width of the breakwater path and what width is
recommended by the BCDC Design Review Board? How will the rip rap be
removed?
Path to be six feet.
3. Is the City obligated to require a public access connection to the adjacent San
Pedro Cove open space? Are there liability issues and safety concerns
associated with facilitating an access connection from the proposed project?
Mayor Boro confirmed his understanding was that the fence would be built in a open
way; however, the development was between the San Pedro Cove Homeowners
Association and BCDC.
4. Is exterior lighting adequately analyzed and is there appropriate mitigation to
ensure that lighting is not excessive? Are there any additional recommendations
that can be imposed to lower the height of the lighting standards, lower
illumination and require shielding, as recommended by the BCDB DRB?
Consensus.
5. Explain the details and recommendations for fencing along the western property
line, abutting the San Pedro Cove open space (Environmental and Design Review
condition 5.j.).
Agreement on vinyl -clad fencing to a 6 -foot height.
G. Environmental Issues:
What are the effects of the site filling and surcharge process on bay mud?
Could the weight of the fill potentially force horizontal movement of the bay mud,
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 19
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 20
which could fill in the slough/inlet?
Satisfactory explanation.
2. Can the pedestrian path along the levee that separates the seasonal wetlands
and the tideland be retained?
Path to be eliminated. Councilmember Heller in disagreement.
3. What is the mitigation for filling Wetland E (small drainage ditch)?
Agreement.
4. Confirm that MMWD has determined that there is available water to serve this
project.
Agreement.
H. Miscellaneous Topics and Issues:
How and why were the proposed home sizes selected?
Discussed earlier.
2. How much storage is provided in each residential unit to preclude use of the
parking garage for this function? Would resident parking be permitted along the
parking courts or be limited to the guest parking area and how would this parking
be enforced?
Informational.
3. Would the installation of rubberized asphalt along the project frontage of Point
San Pedro Road be a cost-effective measure for reducing sound/noise?
Mayor Boro stated this did not appear to make sense for such a short distance of road.
4. Provide examples of marina/commercial/residential projects with comparable
densities/intensities/size and circulation.
Informational.
5. Provide information on the similar medium -density residential projects in
Peacock Gap area for comparison purposes.
Discussed for comparison purposes.
6. What income levels would qualify for the affordable/below-market-rate (BMR)
units? Provide examples of employment salaries that would qualify for these
units.
Informational.
7. What green building requirements will be imposed for the project?
Change to be made to attachment 4.
8. Is there a level of density reduction (removal of units or reduction in building
heights) that would significantly address issues raised by the public, (e.g., such
as blockage of views of San Pedro Ridge from the marina green, opening of the
view corridor at the project entrance)?
Mayor Boro stated that reduction in size and height was discussed but no removal
Regarding the design of the townhomes along the entryway, referring to a drawing,
Councilmember Cohen suggested that instead of one story, whether it would be
possible to push the second -story gable end back by a few feet. Noting the townhomes
were currently three-bedroom units, they might have to be made two-bedroom.
Mr. Israel stated this would necessitate moving the master bedroom to the back.
Councilmember Cohen stated that with Mr. Israel's talent, he might be able to figure out
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 20
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 21
a way to lose the third bedroom.
Mr. Israel stated it would be possible to lose the third bedroom; however, the difference
was that by pushing the unit back it would not seem appropriate to have a deck that
large on the second story which is only serving one of the upstairs bedrooms. He
indicated that as the plans were currently laid out, the master bedroom would have to
flip to the back side of the unit, meaning its view shed would be out into the parking
court rather than out into the green space - not their preference.
Mr. Israel stated the second bedroom was not the issue, rather it was whether or not
the master bedroom could face the green space, which would be a challenge if the
house were pushed back that far. He disagreed as to its real benefit.
Mayor Boro noted that three Councilmembers had agreed with what was offered.
Noting Louise Patterson raised some issues, Councilmember Phillips stated he was unclear as
to whether or not he should be concerned about these.
Indicating that Ms. Patterson raised a very good point and noting that she works for the City of
Novato, Mr. Jensen reported that when they approve resolutions and ordinances, they
specifically reference the plans, date and who prepared them. He believed this to be a good
suggestion as there was a direct connection between what was in the resolution and the
approved plans on file with the City.
Councilmember Phillips inquired whether he needed to be concerned about this.
Mr. Jensen recommended Councilmember Phillips might wish to ensure this was included in
resolutions, i.e., citing the plans, who prepared them and the dates.
Noting a lot of questions were raised and changes made, Mayor Boro inquired whether these
had been captured by staff. Mr. Brown suggested that Mayor Boro pause the meeting to enable
staff to confer with the City Attorney to ensure they had all the specific conditions to be
changed.
Mayor Boro paused the City Council meeting at 10:30 p.m.
The City Council meeting resumed at 11:05 p.m.
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti stated the following process had been decided upon. Referring
the City Council to the last page of the staff report, he stated the recommended actions should
be taken one after the other and he would defer to Mr. Brown and Mr. Jensen for comment.
1. Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and approving
the MMRP.
Based on Council comments and direction, Mr. Jensen stated there were no changes or
edits to this draft resolution, except that the staff report included a recommendation to
include the visual simulations from the Mitigated Plan as part of the EIR errata (Exhibit A) to
the resolution.
2. Resolution approving an amendment to the San Rafael General Plan 2020.
Mr. Brown explained that this General Plan amendment included two components:
1) Shifting of the Land Use boundaries, which did not arise as a discussion item; and
2) Modifying the language which encouraged the provision of dry boat storage.
Now that the Council was discussing reinstating dry boat storage, at least until it might
prove necessary for day use parking, staff suggested removing all components of the
amendment that changed that text. Therefore, the only proposed amendment covered by
the resolution would be the Land Use map changes.
As to the dry dock boat use storage, Mr. Brown stated this would be dealt with in the
Planned Development District and the ED.
Mr. Jensen stated that this merely takes out the part of the General Plan amendment that
would delete the text in the General Plan for that policy and for dry dock boat storage. It
would remain as part of NH 118.
Councilmember Cohen questioned that if the day use parking proved insufficient and it was
necessary to eliminate the dry boat storage, whether the General Plan would have to be
amended.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 21
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 22
Indicating he did not believe so, Mr. Brown stated that language was for encouragement of
the provision of dry dock boat storage. The General Plan text change was recommended
to make things cleaner if there was going to be no dry boat storage and it was known.
3. Rezoning Ordinance.
Deferring to Mr. Jensen, Mr. Ragghianti stated there were four or five specific changes
articulated by the City Council that staff wished to repeat back to be certain this would be in
the condition to adopt.
Mr. Brown stated that firstly, a notation would be incorporated regarding the approved plans
as revised with this date and Mr. Jensen would be certain that those revised plans
incorporated all of the physical changes identified.
In terms of changes to the PD ordinance, directing Council to page B-3 — first partial
paragraph, the very last words to which were Planning Commission — Approval of the
Master Use amendment for the grocery store replacement - this would be replaced with
Citv Council.
Regarding B-5 — Development Standard Table — directing Council to the first column —
Building Height Limit — Section C — towards the end, the lower half stated: "Detached
residential units fronting the marina green and boardwalk shall not exceed 22 -feet 6 -inches
to the top of the (proposed) `highest roof peak -ridge'." He clarified that the words `main,
east, west oriented' should be replaced with `highest roof peak -ridge' and staff would return
to the other component if it were not possible, lowering it to 19 -feet. This would be part of
the ED resolution.
End of B-5 — Section b) — Compliance with the Green Building Program Regulations — Mr.
Brown stated that "compliance with the newly adopted Section 14.16.365 of the Municipal
Code" would be cited.
B-7 — Section b) — Property Maintenance and Enforcement — Mr. Brown stated that in
Section #1, middle of the paragraph: "Parking and parking lots," and the
conservation/wetland area in Area d) would be relocated to the end of the first sentence in
Section 2 below — the section covered by the Mello -Roos.
Page B-8 — Mr. Brown stated this related to parking monitoring and now the monitoring of
the traffic in Loch Lomond neighborhood and the second access. In the existing Section B
— Monitoring of marina and recreation use parking — a sentence would be incorporated
requiring that 16 dry dock boat parking spaces be installed with the initial development,
consistent with the Exhibit in the staff report, and a provision that those spaces could be
eliminated consistent with the sentence concerning the two-year project completion, to
evaluate the parking demand. Those sixteen dry dock boat storage spaces could be
eliminated as part of that analysis.
Mr. Brown stated that a new Section C entitled "Monitoring of Loch Lomond Neighborhood
Traffic and need for second project access" would be added. He explained that in concept,
basically the City would require that the project sponsor provide a $50,000 fund in terms of
a letter of credit or refundable deposit for installation of any traffic calming devices
determined necessary by the Traffic Engineer to mitigate bypass traffic resulting from the
project development. It was proposed that this fund be refunded with interest two years
after the project was fully occupied if it were not required for installation.
Mr. Brown stated a sentence would also be added to the effect that the developer would
provide again, by letter of credit or a refundable security deposit, an amount to be approved
by the City Engineer for installation of a second access and a modified median on Point
San Pedro Road if and when the City Traffic Engineer determined that the northbound
project exit required that if the queue length exceeded that predicted in the Final EIR. If the
projections in the FEIR for exiting the site were inadequate (if the on average 3 backed up
spaces for 95% of the peak hour was exceeded, then the Traffic Engineer would have the
ability to trigger the installation of the second access.)
Councilmember Cohen stated it appeared to him the discussion was that the second
access should be built, but bollarded, and he believed it would be better to do this as part of
the site development work.
Mr. Brown stated that the only consideration the City Council might wish to take into
account was that should it not be needed, that area would be forever paved. He believed
the intent was to essentially use the grass crete or something of a more landscaped look,
while still supporting a fire engine. Staff's suggestion that the interim improvement be the
grass crete to have a more green texture, and if needed, it could be paved.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 22
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 23
Mayor Boro stated this made sense from the point of view that it would not be needed;
however, should it be needed, it would be sized to go. While bollards made good sense,
he questioned how this would work if it were a fire access.
Mr. Brown confirmed that the Fire Department would have a key to open them.
Mr. Nordhoff believed the intent was that the roadway width and resizing of the corner
houses would occur, and it would function more as a greenway or pedestrian way and
emergency access, and only if needed, would trigger the actual formation of a road with
speed humps, etc.
Councilmember Heller agreed, noting it would still be there for emergencies.
Regarding funding, Mr. Brown stated that the City Engineer would determine the
appropriate amount by a letter of credit or security deposit filed with the City. The City
Traffic Engineer would make the determination as to whether or not the northbound traffic
exiting the project was exceeding the levels expected in the FEIR. He confirmed the time
period to be two years after full occupancy of the project.
Mr. Mansourian stated that the northbound left turn could be monitored. Should it exceed
the existing capacity, approximately ten vehicles, this would trigger the second access.
Mayor Boro did not believe two years was sufficient in this case and suggested four years.
Should the residents feel it would be more appropriate, as he did, to have this open to
provide circulation through the area, Councilmember Phillips inquired whether they had this
option, or whether it was simply a matter of queuing and the Traffic Engineer determining it
did not meet this particular standard.
Mayor Boro stated that the project was designed with this as a fire access road only;
therefore, it would be an option pursued by necessity.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would like it written in such a way that the City reserved
the right to impose that condition, as it could be that people living there considered there to
be too much conflict in the commercial area and they would like to have the second access
opened up. It also could be that a future Council could invoke this and wish to open it up;
therefore, that right should be reserved.
Mr. Brown stated that a provision could be added in the event it was determined necessary
by the Traffic Engineer, or if requested by the owners association.
Councilmember Cohen suggested also adding "should it be determined by the City Council"
anytime within that two or four year period.
Mayor Boro stated there had to be a reason, not merely that the City Council would
approve it.
Mr. Nordhoff believed the reasoning was rooted in the traffic engineering work that would
give the City Council a concurrence of why this would be done based on the findings.
Councilmember Phillips stated that the City Council tonight was concluding they could
visualize what would be most appropriate after the project was built out and he was not
sure he could do that, rather than considering the circulation, impact to neighbors, etc., on
completion. He believed some latitude needed to be provided on whether or not this was
opened, rather than using arbitrary numbers provided by the Traffic Engineer as to its need.
He viewed a second access as a convenience to those living in the area.
Mr. Brown stated this would be the purpose of having it subject to the discretion of the
Owners Association as the governing body.
Responding to Councilmember Heller's suggestion that perhaps an outside voice was
needed on that, Mr. Brown stated that firstly, the Traffic Engineer would have the authority,
and secondly, the Owners Association, which represented all of the owners of the property.
After discussion, summarizing, Mayor Boro stated the issue was what the trigger would be.
He noted two Councilmembers suggested that the Traffic Engineer should be in the driver's
seat; however, should the neighbors decide it was an asset (after a four year time limit) that
should be utilized, a request should be made to the City Council.
Councilmember Heller favored the City Council making the final decision.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 23
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 24
Agreeing that there should be some discretion for the City Council to make a decision,
based on evidence provided by the Traffic Engineer or testimony provided by the
community, Councilmember Cohen stated he favored some discretion in the hands of the
City Council. He noted that Mr. Mansourian and other consultant traffic engineers had
done some great work; however, there had been times in the past where decisions would
be made not just based on what worked from a purely traffic engineering standpoint, but
also based on what the community desired to have in terms of how the circulation system
worked. While it might not always be the most ideal from a traffic engineer's standpoint,
the community might see it as a better solution. In this situation it might not be a pure
traffic engineering decision, rather a future Council, having seen it in operation and listened
to the community, might consider that it would work better with a second entrance. He
believed the Council should have the discretion to direct that it be built within the defined
four year time period. Councilmember Cohen believed the City Council was elected to
make those decisions and they should be trusted to make a wise decision with findings to
back it up without having to be overly specific about what the findings would be.
Mr. Brown stated should the City Council retain discretion it could simply be based on a
report regarding traffic operations from the City Traffic Engineer and community input.
Mayor Boro stated he would not wish to see another community deciding it needed to be
done and the traffic did not support it; however, the affected community might not want it.
He respected the comment in the report that stated the people there wanted to have their
peace and quiet as others did in their neighborhoods.
Mr. Nordhoff stated it could be subject to the Project Owners' Association discretion in that
four year period submitting a letter to the City suggesting that this be triggered, and short of
that, nothing happened.
Councilmember Cohen stated the reason for this discussion was that those residing there
currently were not convinced that this was going to work as designed and the attempt was
to allow for a situation where this second access could be made viable later because it was
found they were correct.
Mayor Boro stated this was fine if it did not work; however, it could be working and the
other neighborhood could decide they wanted it anyway.
Councilmember Cohen's suggestion was to trust a future Council to exercise discretion and
sometimes that meant weighing competing interests; however, he did not see why it should
be restricted if it were there.
Councilmember Cohen suggested allowing the final determination of whether or not the
traffic demanded it to be made by the City Council, rather than a homeowners association
or Traffic Engineer.
Indicating he agreed, Mayor Boro noted Councilmember Phillips remarked that the
residents could want it regardless of whether the traffic demanded it.
Councilmember Phillips clarified that if the people in the area, through the Homeowners
Association representation, came to the City Council indicating they preferred to have
access, the City Council should have the right to open it regardless of what the Traffic
Engineer indicated. The City Council at that time could agree or disagree, but it should not
be driven solely by the Traffic Engineer.
Mr. Nordhoff suggested it be conditioned that it be required to return to a future City Council
within a four year period, to address the issue, do the traffic analysis, involve the
homeowners association and the City Council could make whatever determination they
chose. Staff would know that within a four year period of the project opening, they would
be required to agendize an item and a decision made.
Mayor Boro stated this could be sooner than four years.
Mayor Boro suggested giving it four years, and in that period of time should the traffic fail,
the Traffic Engineer would return the issue to the City Council for a determination. In the
meantime, over a four year period, should the homeowners association in the new
community decide they wanted it open for their convenience, they could initiate that request
to the City Council for a decision.
Indicating he was convinced by the testimony from the Loch Lomond Homeowners that
they wanted this, Councilmember Cohen stated Mayor Boro had casted it as though the
Traffic Engineer was the only one with the discretion to decide whether the neighbors
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 24
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 25
outside of the project felt there was an impact, and he believed the City Council should
make the final determination concerning whether or not the change should be made.
Councilmember Cohen clarified that the Traffic Engineer could decide whether there was
an impact, or the Marina Homeowners Association could request it; however, this left the
Loch Lomond neighborhood out of it.
Mayor Boro stated this was being done because there could be an impact; however, should
there be no impact it should not be done, unless those residing there decided they wanted
to open it up. The reason for opening it up would be to mitigate an impact and should there
be no impact, he questioned why the neighbors in Loch Lomond would request it, other
than to have it to feel better, which he did not believe fair to those living in the
neighborhood.
Councilmember Cohen clarified that they could feel there was an impact and the Traffic
Engineer might not agree, which has happened in the past, and he believed the City
Council should retain discretion.
Mayor Boro summarized the two suggestions:
• Build it with the idea in mind that it could be opened at some point. The
recommendation was that within four years a final decision would be made as to
whether or not it was opened. Should traffic improvements not work well, the Traffic
Engineer could have it opened up sooner, at Council's discretion.
• Within a four year period should there be movement in the Project Owners' Association
to open it up regardless of the traffic, the City Council would consider it.
There was consensus from all Councilmembers.
Regarding the four year period, Councilmember Phillips questioned what would happen in
the event that six years down the road the community changed and preferred to have it
open.
Mr. Brown stated the concern was holding the developers money for an extended period of
time and when it should be cut off and refunded. He stated staff needed to be clear
regarding what would trigger it. Mr. Nordhoff suggested that anyone at any time could
trigger this request.
Councilmember Cohen stated that anyone could write a letter suggesting they would like to
do it; however, the Mayor and/or Councilmembers would have the discretion to agendize it.
B-3 — Condition concerning the market — Mr. Brown noted he requested changing the
Planning Commission to City Council; however, he noted that the City Council required
Option 5 to be inserted.
Referring to page B-5 of Exhibit B, Section c) — Keith Bloom noted that the building heights
identified — 29 -feet 6 -inches for two story and 22 -feet for one story, and at the end of the
language, the 22 -feet 6 -inches referenced by Mr. Brown earlier, and pointed out that it was
noted at the very bottom of the paragraph that it was measured from finished grade. He
indicated that all of the plans submitted and under consideration showed the building
heights from finished floor, which was approximately two -feet different from finished grade.
Mr. Brown stated that everything measured by the City was always from finished grade
In light of this information, Mr. Brown recommended that the entire item be continued until the
August 6, 2007 meeting.
Regarding Item #4, commenting that it probably had no relevance at this stage, Mr. Ragghianti
stated staff had decided that should the first two resolutions be adopted and the ordinance
passed to print, item #4 would have been delayed and returned to the City Council at the time of
the second reading of the ordinance, simply because there were too many words to be crafted
at this late hour. In view of the current situation, this could now be disregarded.
Mr. Brown stated everything would be corrected by August 6, 2007.
Mayor Boro requested that an errata sheet be produced showing the changes to enable the City
Council to focus just on the changes.
Regarding the bicycle path and grade 2 versus 3, Mayor Boro noted the staff report discussed a
Class 2 bike path and he requested staff clarify the status of this - #34 — Page 4-39.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 25
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 26
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to continue the item to
August 6, 2007.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
None
None
15. Public Hearinq — (CD) - File 10-3 x 10-7 x 10-2
524 MISSION AVENUE — SAN RAFAEL CARRIAGE HOUSES (MISSION AVENUE
BETWEEN IRWIN STREET AND GREEN WAY)
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING,
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE
DEMOLITION OF 10 EXISTING DUPLEX UNITS AND CONSTRUCTION OF 15 NEW
TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM UNITS APN: 014-013-05, MEDIUM DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL
(MR2.5) ZONE, WESTBAY BUILDERS, OWNER/APPLICANT; CASE NUMBERS: ZC06-02;
ED06-24 AND TS06-01
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Given the late hour, Community Development Director Bob Brown stated staff was prepared
just to respond to questions should Council choose.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12313— RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR A NEW 15 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL
TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 524
MISSION AVENUE (BETWEEN IRWIN STREET AND
GREEN WAY) (APN: 014-013-05)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
2. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12314 — RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(MMRP) FOR A NEW 15 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL
TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 524
MISSION AVENUE (BETWEEN IRWIN STREET AND
GREEN WAY) (APN: 014-013-05)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
3. The title of the Ordinance was read:
Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
None
None
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP (ZC06-02) TO RECLASSIFY
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MR2.5)
DISTRICT TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MR2) DISTRICT AT 524 MISSION
AVENUE; APN: 014-013-05"
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the
reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter
Ordinance No. 1858 to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 26
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 27
4. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12315 — RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED06-24) AND A TENTATIVE
CONDOMINIUM MAP (TS06-01) TO DEMOLISH EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 524 MISSION
AVENUE (BETWEEN IRWIN STREET AND GREEN WAY)
IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 15 -UNIT
RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM
DEVELOPMENT WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND
LANDSCAPING (APNS: 014-013-05)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Boro and the City Council expressed thanks for the great project, which they believed
would be a great asset to the community.
16. Public Hearinq — BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT:
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 (PW) — FILE 6-48
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Senior Civil Engineer Scott Schneider reported that on July 2, 2007, the City Council adopted
resolutions to: 1) Approve the Engineer's annual Report; 2) Direct the Filing of the Engineer's
Annual Report; and 3) The Intention to Order Improvements. The City Council also set the date
for the public hearing for today. Under the Landscaping and Lighting District Act of 1972, the
City Council is responsible for confirming the Assessment Diagram and Assessment, and levy
the assessment for work improvements for 2007-2008 for this District. Mr. Schneider stated
that the work proposed was similar to this year, which was to continue the cattail management,
removal of non-native plants and replanting of native plants. Currently, the Assessment District
was saving money to improve the pump station to make it easier to regulate the water levels.
Mr. Schneider reported that staff continued to meet with the Homeowners Association on a
regular basis. The assessment was unchanged from previous years and could only be used for
this purpose.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12316 — RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
DISTRICT (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
17. Public Hearing — RE: PARKING ISSUES (MS) — FILE 11-8 x 9-3-87 X 9-10-2
a) CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 5.34 AND 5.60 OF THE
SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PARKING ON CITY STREETS AND IN
CITY PARKING FACILITIES
b) CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW SCHEDULE OF PARKING
PENALTIES AND LATE PAYMENT PENALTIES FOR NOTICES OF PARKING
VIOLATIONS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 12270
c) CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ON- STREET PARKING FEE
RATES FOR METERED PARKING SPACES LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN
PARKING ZONE
d) CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING OFF-STREET PARKING FEE
RATES AND CHARGES AND DESIGNATING THOSE OFF-STREET FACILITIES IN
WHICH SUCH RATES AND CHARGES WILL APPLY, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 11774
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 27
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 28
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Mayor Boro noted this item had been presented at a Study Session.
Noting the City Council had been briefed in detail on this issue, Parking Services Manager Mark
Miller confirmed that it included an ordinance update, two resolutions adjusting parking rates
and a resolution adding several parking penalties permitting enforcement of some new
provisions of the Municipal Code.
Agreeing with the removal of meters from Netherton, Councilmember Heller inquired as to the
time limit for parking there.
Mr. Miller stated that initially it would be a two-hour time limit with no meters and should other
plans develop for bike lanes, etc., this could change the use. With regard to parking on the
railroad tracks on Tamalpais, Mr. Miller stated this could be pursued; however, the issue was
getting cooperation from the property owner to pursue this.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
a) The title of the ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
REPEALING CHAPTER 5.60 (PARKING METERS) AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER
5.60 (PARKING REGULATIONS) OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE"
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the
reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter
Ordinance No. 1859 to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
a) Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12317— RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW SCHEDULE OF
PARKING PENALTIES AND LATE PAYMENT PENALTIES
FOR NOTICES OF PARKING VIOLATIONS, AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 12270
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
c) Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12318 — RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ON STREET PARKING
FEE RATES FOR METERED PARKING SPACES
LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN PARKING ZONE
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
d) Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12319 — RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING OFF-STREET PARKING
FEE RATES AND CHARGES AND DESIGNATING THOSE
OFF-STREET FACILITIES IN WHICH SUCH RATES AND
CHARGES WILL APPLY, AND RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO. 11774
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 28
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 29
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
NEW BUSINESS:
18. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL'S RESPONSE TO MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY
REPORT ENTITLED, "THE DISABILITY RETIREMENT PROCESS: PERCEPTION AND
REALITY" (CM) - FILE 269
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12320 — RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
RESPONSE TO THE 2006-2007 MARIN COUNTY GRAND
JURY REPORT ENTITLED "THE DISABILITY RETIREMENT
PROCESS: PERCEPTION AND REALITY"
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
19. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL'S RESPONSE TO MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY
REPORT ENTITLED, "THE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER: A DISTURBING LIST OF
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS" (CM) — FILE 269
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12321 — RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESPONSE TO
THE 2006-2007 MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT
ENTITLED "THE HEALTH & WELLNESS CENTER: A
DISTURBING LIST OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS"
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
20. None.
Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
None
None
There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:55 p.m.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2007
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 07/16/2007 Page 29