HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2007-08-06SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 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 items.
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
a) Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
Case Name: MHC Financinq, et al. v. Citv of San Rafael, et al.
U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. of CA, Case #C003785
b) Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
Case Name: MHC Financinq, et al. v. City of San Rafael, et al. (MHC II)
U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. of CA, Case #C043325
C) Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(3)(B)
Number of Potential Cases: One
City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:12 PM
None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as
follows:
ITEM
2. Approval of Minutes of Special City Council Meeting
of Wednesday, June 20, 2007 and Special
Closed/Open Session Meeting of July 23, 2007
(CC)
3. Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate to
the League of California Cities Annual
Conference on September 5-8, 2007 in
Sacramento (CC) —File 9-11-1 x 9-1
4. Second Readinq and Final Adoption of Ordinance
No. 1858 - "AN ORDINANCE 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" (CD) — File 10-3 x 10-7 x 10-2
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Minutes approved as submitted.
Approved staff recommendation to
designate Councilmember Heller as
Voting Delegate, and Assistant to the
City Manager, Terri Hardesty, Voting
Alternate, for the 2007 League of
California Cities Annual Conference on
September 5-8, 2007, in Sacramento.
Approved final adoption of Ordinance
No. 1858.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page t
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 2
5.
Resolution Authorizing Mayor and City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 12322 —
to Execute an Employment Agreement with new
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Fire Chief (CM) — File 4-10-355 x 9-3-31
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
(PARKING METERS) AND ENACTING A NEW
EXECUTE AN EMPLOYMENT
CHAPTER 5.60 (PARKING REGULATIONS) OF
AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRE CHIEF
6.
Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael
Approved staff recommendation:
(CM) — File 116 x 9-1
AB414 — Residential development in
11.
Resolution Approving Memorandum of
mixed use zones - OPPOSE
7.
Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an
RESOLUTION NO. 12323 —
Agreement with the Marin Community
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Foundation Accepting a $50,000 Grant to
MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN
Support the Arts Education Program, "Learning
AGREEMENT WITH THE MARIN
to Look" (CS) — File 9-3-84 x 226
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
ACCEPTING A $50,000 GRANT TO
SUPPORT THE ARTS EDUCATION
PROGRAM "LEARNING TO LOOK"
(Grant period: 12 months July 1, 2007
12.
Resolution Approving Subdivision Map Entitled
to June 30, 2008)
8.
Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Enter
RESOLUTION NO. 12324 —
Into an Agreement with Regional Government
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY
Services Joint Powers Authority for Human
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
Resources Services (MS) —
AGREEMENT WITH REGIONAL
File 4-3-473 x 9-3-86
GOVERNMENT SERVICES AUTHORITY
FOR HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES
9. Resolution Approving the Human Resources RESOLUTION NO. 12325 —
Long Range Strategy Plan (MS) — File 9-3-86 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
HUMAN RESOURCES LONG RANGE
STRATEGY PLAN
10.
Second Reading and Final Adoption of Ordinance
Approved final adoption of
No. 1859 - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
Ordinance No. 1859.
SAN RAFAEL REPEALING CHAPTER 5.60
(PARKING METERS) AND ENACTING A NEW
CHAPTER 5.60 (PARKING REGULATIONS) OF
THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE" (MS) —
File 11-8 x 9-3-87 x 9-10-2
11.
Resolution Approving Memorandum of
RESOLUTION NO. 12326 —
Understanding Among City of San Rafael, Marin
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
County Sheriff's Department, and YMCA of San
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Francisco (Marin Branch) for Camp Chance
FOR CAMP CHANCE 2007 AND
2007, and Authorizing Execution of MOU by the
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION BY THE
Chief of Police (PD) — File 9-3-30
CHIEF OF POLICE (Term of Agreement
shall commence on July 16, 2007 and
shall continue on an annual basis until
such time that the agreement is
modified or terminated.)
12.
Resolution Approving Subdivision Map Entitled
RESOLUTION NO. 12327 —
"Parcel Map, Lands of Guerrieri (DN 2005-
RESOLUTION APPROVING
0032912)," Previously Known as "Lands of
SUBDIVISION MAP ENTITLED
Waddy" on Approved Tentative Parcel Map
"PARCEL MAP — LANDS OF
(PW) — File 5-2-113
GUERRIERI, DN 2005-032912"
PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS "LANDS OF
WADDY" ON APPROVED TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP
13.
Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director
RESOLUTION NO. 12328—
to Amend the Current Professional Services
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND
Contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates to
AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS
Expand the Scope of Work for the Third Street
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AN
and Union Street Improvements Project in
AMENDMENT TO THE JUNE 16, 2003
Amount of $20,711.00 (PW) —
AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN
File 4-10-336 x 11-10 x 11-11
AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TO EXPAND
THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE
THIRD STREET AND UNION STREET
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FOR A
TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$97,711.00
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 2
14. Resolution Approving and Authorizing the Director
of Public Works to Execute an Agreement
(including an addendum) Between the City of San
Rafael and the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for the
Provision of Inmate Work Crews for the Purpose of
Performing Right -of -Way Maintenance and
Vegetation Management Services (PW) —
File 4-10-356 x 9-3-40 x 9-3-31
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 12329 —
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT (INCLUDING AN
ADDENDUM) BETWEEN THE CITY
OF SAN RAFAEL AND THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION (CDCR) FOR THE
PROVISION OF INMATE WORK
CREWS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PERFORMING RIGHT-OF-WAY
MAINTENANCE AND VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
OLD BUSINESS:
15. 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
(Continued from Citv Council meeting of July 16, 2007) (CD) — FILE 10-2 x 10-3 x 10-5 x
10-6 x 10-7
Mayor Boro explained that at the last meeting, the City Council went through the entire list of
thirty-six questions they raised at the prior meeting, received answers, and reached either
consensus or agreement based on a vote, as reflected in the staff report. He indicated that this
evening's discussion would continue from where it left off at the meeting of July 16, 2007, with
Paul Jensen, Contract Planner, clarifying the remaining seven items as outlined in the staff
report.
Mr. Jensen stated that initially he would discuss a consensus of comments by the City Council
from the last meeting, together with some of the direction provided:
• The Project should be designed to accommodate a future second access. Consideration
be given to monitoring the main access following build -out for a period of four years;
• Reduce the height of four waterfront homes by 2 -feet;
• Study revisions to the townhomes, which would be presented this evening;
• Support dry dock boat storage in the day use parking area;
• Incorporate the conservation area into the proposed Mello -Roos District;
• Support maintaining a Class III bicycle route along the property frontage — parking along
this frontage to be monitored as part of the parking monitoring program; and
• Eliminate the sculpture at the plaza roundabout and adding a fish cleaning station at the
entrance to the breakwater.
Commencing with the issue of the main project access, and monitoring, Mr. Jensen stated the
City Council requested that staff consult with the City Traffic Engineer to ascertain whether a
threshold or trigger could be developed for reviewing traffic over a four-year period for the
purpose of:
1) Determining whether or not the second access should be opened up during that period;
and
2) Determine whether or not traffic diversion was occurring through the Loch Lomond
neighborhood and whether there was need for traffic calming measures in the
neighborhood.
Mr. Jensen reported that staff consulted with the City Traffic Engineer, Nader Mansourian, and
as summarized in the staff report, Mr. Mansourian recommended the following program:
• The City Traffic Engineer would monitor the project for the first six months following
build -out and implement minor adjustments for safety and efficiency;
• At any time during the first four years following build -out, the City Traffic Engineer could
observe and report back to the City Council on any recommendations, which could
include connecting the second access or doing some traffic calming measures in the
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 4
Loch Lomond neighborhood;
The City Traffic Engineer would return at year four with an updated traffic study; and
At any time during the first four years, the project Owners' Association would have the
ability to request the City Council to connect the second access.
Mr. Jensen outlined what was intended to be covered in the updated traffic study at year four:
1) Assess intersection operation, queuing and stacking;
2) Assess internal site circulation and the internal intersection of the marina and
commercial area to observe any potential diversions through the Loch Lomond
neighborhood and to present recommendations which could include opening up the
second access.
Regarding clarification on building heights, which was a major reason for the continuance of this
item, Mr. Jensen explained that the building height numbers shown on the simulations and
elevations displayed at the last meeting reflected a measurement from finished floor, a
difference of 2 -feet above finished grade. He explained that this detail was specific to the
single-family homes and cottages because these structures were built on a raised foundation,
the others being built on slab.
Mr. Jensen reported that the building height numbers had been corrected on the exhibits
presented. The difference is one of a numerical correction in the building height numbers only;
it did not impact any of the elevations or simulations presented because everything Council had
seen, including a drawing displayed by Mr. Jensen, copy of which was attached to the staff
report, did not change from what the City Council, Design Review Board or Planning
Commission had seen.
With regard to design revisions to the townhomes at the project entrance, Mr. Jensen noted the
City Council had requested that these be studied to reduce building mass, bulk, and to broaden
views towards the marina and Bay. He reported that the project architect had revised the two
townhome buildings at the project entrance through some stepping back of the upper floors and
eliminating bay windows at the ground level. He indicated there were some additional step -
backs that occurred as a result. Mr. Jensen noted that the view corridor was slightly increased
at several locations to account for some minor changes in the setback; however, overall, the
view corridor width was from 95 — 100 feet at its narrowest point to 140 feet near the waterfront.
Mr. Jensen reported that the design revisions to be presented by the project architect further
reinforced General Plan Policy NH 118, which stated: "Buildings adjacent to the main view
corridor should be lower scale or incorporate larger setbacks or step -backs to the upper floors."
Therefore, this policy statement did anticipate two-story buildings along the entry, prompting the
step -backs of the upper floors proposed.
Regarding the question raised at the last meeting concerning the maintenance of the
conservation area, Mr. Jensen reported that having consulted with the City Attorney's office,
staff believed the Mello -Roos District could cover the maintenance of this area. Wetlands
Research Associates provided an estimate on annual and monthly cost for maintaining the
wetland area. This was fairly nominal at $300 per month, and was primarily landscape
maintenance, as mostly everything within the wetland area occurred naturally. The estimate
was for one additional dollar per month taxed to the residents within the development. Mr.
Jensen stated that by including BMR (Below Market Rate) units in this tax, the overall cost per
household was $51. Excluding the BMR units from this tax would mean the market rate units
would pay $64 per month.
With regard to the $51 versus $64, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether this was just the
rate for adding the conservation area, or whether the conservation area just added one dollar.
Mr. Jensen explained that the conservation area just added a dollar. The $51 was the cost
estimate for maintaining the park and recreation areas, etc. As outlined in the staff report, there
was no specific recommendation on whether or not the BMR units would be included.
Regarding the discussion of the second access, Councilmember Cohen stated for the record
that he was in favor of opening it up initially. Further to debate, he was still concerned about the
language concerning how it would be opened up at a subsequent point. He was satisfied with
the language under the Master Use Permit — page 4-19 of attachment 4 — which stated: "During
the first four years following project build -out, the City Traffic Engineer would observe the
operation and conditions of the main access. At any time during this first four years of review,
information on observations and recommendations from the City Traffic Engineer can be
brought forward to the City Council for review and consideration", because as he read it, a
Councilmember could request that a report be presented by the City Traffic Engineer. This
satisfied his concern that the City Council at least had the option to request a discussion at any
time during that four years.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 4
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 5
Mr. Jensen agreed this was a correct interpretation.
Referring to Exhibit B — B-8 PD (Planned Development) District Ordinance (Attachment 3) —
Language establishing the monitoring program for neighborhood traffic and the need for the
second project access - Councilmember Cohen noted a key difference. He explained that on
the Master Use Permit there were five conditions:
1) 6 -month review;
2) Four year review;
3) City Traffic Engineer observing traffic calming issues in the Loch Lomond neighborhood
itself;
4) Owners Association could request the access be opened; and
5) Any time during the four years a report could be brought forward.
Councilmember Cohen stated that the language concerning "at any time during the four years"
did not appear in the attachment to the Planned District Ordinance. He believed that that
language, or something similar - "at any time during the four years" — should be included.
Agreeing that this language should be included, Mr. Jensen pointed out that the preceding
paragraph contained the language: "The Master Use Permit required to implement this
ordinance shall set forth the following monitoring measures and requirements..." It, therefore,
did refer to the Master Use Permit.
Understanding this, Councilmember Cohen stated that having four out of five requirements, in
the absence of a good reason for not doing so, he did not understand why the fifth was not
included.
Mr. Jensen again concurred that the language should be included.
Regarding the access driveway, Councilmember Cohen indicated that the design of the
driveway was not entirely clear to him in that he did not understand the difference between the
commercial driveway and the standard intersection design referred to in the staff reports, which
was being chosen and why.
City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian explained that standard driveways had curb cuts,
whereas larger commercial areas had curb returns, and in a residential area such as this, staff
believed it better to have this type of driveway. Indicating that the function would be the same,
he explained that the curb return would be calmer for larger vehicles.
Councilmember Cohen referred Mr. Mansourian to Attachment 5 — Traffic Engineer's Report —
and Attachment 5a — Graphic of Second Access to Point San Pedro Road @ Leith Lane.
Mr. Mansourian clarified this was the old design and the recommended design would not have
the radius of the curb.
Councilmember Cohen stated that in every other respect it was to be assumed that this entry
might well open and everything was being done to prepare for that. He inquired whether Mr.
Mansourian was concerned that by making it more like a commercial drive, slowing traffic to
make that turn, which this would do, would have an impact on Point San Pedro Road.
Mr. Mansourian explained that there would be an 8 -foot shoulder on the side affording
deceleration area for vehicles moving to the right. He would not recommend that a right -turn
lane be marked because the volume would not be sufficiently high.
Confirming he also favored the second access, which apparently was not the direction of the
City Council, Councilmember Phillips stated he was interested in the process in which that
might be the result should the residents so desire. While this might not be a function of traffic
counts and formulas, rather personal preference or convenience by the residents (he did not
understand why it was limited to four years), he inquired whether there were constraints on their
argument with regard to that preference. Assuming the traffic did not support that argument, he
inquired whether it was still possible for them to present that argument to the City Council.
Mr. Mansourian stated that it would be the residents' choice to have a more convenient access.
For instance, should families with younger children needing to go to Glenwood School find this
to be an easier access, staff would recommend that it be opened up. He believed the issue
concerned having a second access opened, with which the residents did not agree.
Councilmember Phillips noted that 8D in essence stated that within four years the residents
could bring the issue before the City Council.
In terms of responding to questions regarding the townhomes, Mr. Jensen stated the project
sponsor would present drawings.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 6
David Israel, architect, explained that the City Council was provided with revised drawings of an
alternative they considered after the last meeting. He recalled there was consensus on the
direction to step down the corners of the units. There also was a request that another
alternative — step back the entire upper floor — be considered. Noting these simulations were
straightforward, Mr. Israel stated he would be happy to answer questions if necessary.
Mr. Israel stated three options were available: the originally proposed building, stepped back
corners for three of the ten units, and stepping back the top floor of all ten units.
Noting three drawings were included in the packet, Mayor Boro requested clarification:
Using simulations, Mr. Israel explained:
1) The originally proposed five -unit townhouse building with the upper floor, projecting bay
windows at the ground floor, and the upper floor essentially in alignment with the lower
floor;
2) The alternative presented at the last meeting, which did not have a full simulation
available at that time — was to take the corner units of three of the ten townhomes and
step them back; and
3) There had been a request by Councilmember Cohen to consider a third alternative
which involved removing the bay windows and stepping back the upper floor of all of the
upper floor units by approximately 3 '/2 feet. He believed this to be an alternative
meriting Council consideration, as from his perspective, it created a more unified exterior
design.
Councilmember Cohen clarified that three corner units had the second floor stepped back;
however, the last unit, the one closest to the Bay, did not. Compared to the original proposal,
he also confirmed that looking to the front of the buildings on the first floor, the entry corridor
had widened by 6 -feet, because the Bay window was pushed back, and the upper floor entry
corridor had widened by 9'/z feet because the second floor was stepped back by an additional
3'/2 feet. Councilmember Cohen expressed appreciation for the work that had been done on
this.
Mr. Israel reported that subsequent to completion of this review, staff requested that
consideration be given to whether or not there was an opportunity to relocate the two
townhouse buildings along the entry drive to within the site and flip the four cottages to the
location of the townhouses. He explained that the width at the narrow entry point was 90 -feet,
increasing to approximately 140 -feet at the wide point. In terms of view improvement, in
response to comments from the public, Mr. Israel stated that what used to be a 44 -foot tall two-
story market building was changed down to a 26 -foot, one-story building, also opening up the
middle of that corridor.
Mr. Israel reported that they evaluated taking the five -unit currently existing building on the entry
corridor to ascertain whether in fact they could replace it with the four cottages. He explained
that the ground floor layout of the townhouse buildings, with the garage to be accommodated on
the back and the kitchen and living -room on the ground floor, required these units to be 17 -feet
deeper, front to back, than the cottages they would replace. Noting the impact could be seen
on two of the three view corridors, Mr. Israel stated this resulted in an infeasible condition in
both locations where these view corridors were a very integral part of the plan, and strongly
supported by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and some members of the City
Council. It was also a critically important component to BCDC and their approval of this project.
Having reviewed this with BCDC, Mr. Israel reported they indicated it would require a complete
site redesign, which was totally unacceptable to them, and he believed it was not a viable
alternative.
Indicating that consideration was given to replacing them with a four -unit building would improve
that condition, Mr. Israel noted that in some ways it actually made it slightly worse, because it
pulled the projecting portion of the building a little up into the middle.
Mr. Israel stated they then looked at what would occur should they replace the two townhouses,
rather than relocate them, with four single-family homes, and the obvious impact was that six
units total would be lost, including one BMR unit. Having looked at different ways to shift the
axes, he believed there was insufficient space. He noted the site narrowed as it got closer to
the water with the dimensions getting tighter at the water end of the view axes; therefore,
attempting to locate townhouses in this area made the plan no longer function.
Expressing thanks to Mr. Israel, Councilmember Phillips noted that all members of the City
Council had been approached by concerned members of the community who suggested that
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 6
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 7
this might be a reasonable approach to accommodate height trade-offs; therefore, this
appeared to answer his question on feasibility. He questioned whether Mr. Israel had shared
this with members of the community.
Responding in the negative, Mr. Israel explained that it had just been completed today.
Commenting that he was very intrigued by the proposal when it was made to him,
Councilmember Cohen stated he believed one design concept favored an edge that defined the
retail portion and the view corridor, and what he found intriguing was not so much about the
view, rather how the project presented.
Councilmember Cohen stated he had a strong preference for his version of the townhouses -
the third, with the second floor stepping back - which he believed was consistent with the
General Plan and opened up the corridor a little more and in an appropriate way.
Mr. Israel indicated this also was his preferred alternative.
Having reviewed the records and the General Plan, Councilmember Heller stated she was
pleased and happy with the view on entering the project site. She indicated she was hanging
her decision on General Plan NH 118, which stated that "A view corridor should be lower or
incorporate larger setbacks, or setbacks of upper floors" and she believed Councilmember
Cohen's suggestion to step it back a few feet would accomplish this.
Concurring, Councilmember Miller stated that NH 118 described this as the principal view. This
alignment, making it the principal view, called for the two stories, and the setback did exactly
what was requested in NH 118, fitting perfectly within the concepts and desires of the General
Plan.
As a personal preference, Councilmember Miller favored the elimination of three palm trees.
Mayor Boro stated that when this was discussed in the first meeting, his concern related to a
tunnel effect; however, the third recommendation alleviated this concern.
Councilmember Cohen recalled a conversation at the last meeting (that became confused with
the difference between measuring from finished floor versus finished grade) about whether it
was possible to squeeze two more feet down out of the ridgeline of those four houses. He
noted this had been achieved and expressed thanks to Mr. Israel.
Councilmember Cohen stated he wished to clarify some points for the record, and for those
members of the public who had hung in on this project to this point:
With regard to the market and the language concerning the lease, Councilmember Cohen
referred to the staff report pages 4 and 5: "Incorporate a condition requiring City Council
approval of a Master Use Permit amendment for replacement uses of the grocery store/market
building, in the event the store is unsuccessful and the lease terminates (referred to as Option 5
in July 16, 2007 City Council Report)."
Mr. Jensen stated this was included in Attachment 3 — Planned Development Ordinance —
Exhibit B-2 and B-3 - "...may be allowed subject to the approval of a Master Use Permit
amendment by the City Council."
Referring to the language "Upon termination of the Loch Lomond Market lease.." Mayor Boro
inquired whether the first lease was for ten years.
Councilmember Cohen clarified that the termination of the Loch Lomond market lease referred
to the existing lease, quoting: "...a full-service replacement grocery store shall be constructed
and open for occupancy in Area B" — the new market anticipated to be opened. "In the event
the new replacement grocery store/market is unsuccessful and the lease terminates, the
property owner shall make a good faith effort to secure a market operator..." and the Council
may approve a replacement use.
Mayor Boro confirmed this to be in the first ten years of the new lease for the new market. Mr.
Jensen confirmed that the current lease was for ten years.
Councilmember Cohen stated that regardless, a change of use away from a full-service
grocery, whether within the first ten years or in twenty years, would require an amendment from
the City Council.
With regard to the Mello -Roos district, Councilmember Cohen confirmed that applying the fees
for the Mello -Roos district to the market rate units only moved their Mello -Roos payment from
$51 per month to $64 per month, which he favored. He clarified that with the legal authority to
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 7
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 8
do so, he favored exempting the BMR units from the Mello -Roos fee and taking the market rate
units fee, which would be quite pricey, from $51 to $64 per month.
Councilmember Heller confirmed that the Mello -Roos also included the marina, liveaboards,
etc. Mr. Jensen clarified that the District covered the entire property; therefore, all the property
owners or tenants within the District would pay their share. He stated that a portion would go to
the marina property owner which would be apportioned out to the marina berth renters.
Mr. Jensen stated the $64 per month was solely for the Mello -Roos, with a separate Owners'
Association due for maintenance of their own facilities within the residential area.
Councilmember Cohen confirmed that exempting the BMR units just moved the numbers within
the residential portion of the property. He noted the commercial areas and marina were paying
a portion of the BMR fees, and these numbers did not change regardless of the BMR units.
The burden was being shifted from the BMR units to the market rate units within the residential
portion of the project.
Mr. Nordhoff noted that Attachment 6 defined both scenarios providing an understanding of
what the marina, commercial area and residential units would pay, whether they included or
excluded the BMR units.
Mayor Boro noted those moving into the BMR units would have an advantage on price; those in
the market rate units, in essence through their purchase, were subsidizing this, which was the
intent; however, he believed residents having access and use should have a sense of
ownership and he considered the fee reasonable. He would be in favor of some type of cap
should it become prohibitive; however, he did not think it unreasonable to ask those residing
there, regardless of the type of ownership, to contribute.
Concurring, Councilmember Phillips believed it created ownership and a sense of pride in
maintaining that portion of the marina.
Councilmember Miller indicated he would prefer the BMRs not be included in the Mello -Roos
Assessment District.
Councilmember Heller stated she would support excluding the BMRs from the Mello -Roos
Assessment District.
Noting seven items were explained this evening, Mayor Boro stated three changes were made:
1) Application of the Mello -Roos fees.
2) Adding language to ensure the Master Use Permit Conditions matched the PD District.
3) Townhouse Design — setting the units back 6 -feet and 9'/2 -feet for the first and second
floors respectively.
Mr. Jensen noted that the Draft Conditions and the PD District identified this option as
Townhouse Units C and D, with the step -backs shown; therefore, it was unnecessary to add
anything to any of the resolutions to address this detail. He clarified this had already been
considered in the way these had been drafted for this meeting.
Councilmember Cohen confirmed that this was presented with the staff report for this evening's
meeting.
Mayor Boro confirmed Council agreement with items 1 through 8 on pages 2 through 6 of this
evening's staff report.
1) Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12330 — RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE VILLAGE AT LOCH
LOMOND MARINA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (FEIR) AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
FOR THE VILLAGE AT LOCH LOMOND MARINA
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 110 LOCH LOMOND
DRIVE AND POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD (APNs 016-070-
020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 009-141-050, 070, 080 AND 009-
142-070)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 8
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 9
2) Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12331 — RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 TO AMEND THE
LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
ADJUSTING THE MARINE -RELATED, NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL AND CONSERVATION LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS ADOPTED FOR THE 29.7 ACRE
UPLAND PORTION OF THE LOCH LOMOND MARINA
SITE - APNs 016-070-020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 009-141-
050, 070, 080 AND 009-142-070 (GPA 05-001)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
3) The title of the ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO
RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT —
WETLAND OVERLAY (PD/WO) DISTRICT AND WATER (W) DISTRICT TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT — WETLAND OVERLAY (PD/WO) DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE AT LOCH LOMOND
MARINA, A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT OF A 131+ ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 110
LOCH LOMOND DRIVE AT POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD (APNs 016-070-020, 030, 040,
050, 060; 009-141-050, 070, 080; AND 009-142-070) (ZC 04-002)"
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to dispense with the
reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter
Ordinance No. 1860, to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
4) Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution, including the related memorandum.
RESOLUTION NO. 12332 — RESOLUTION APPROVING A MASTER USE PERMIT
(UP 04-007), ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW
PERMIT (ED 04-063) AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
(TM 04-001) FOR THE VILLAGE AT LOCH LOMOND
MARINA DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 110 LOCH
LOMOND DRIVE AND POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD (APNs
016-070-020, 030, 040, 050, 060; 009-141-050; 009-142-
070) (as amended)
Mr. Jensen noted that a memo was distributed to the City Council this evening with edits to
four conditions relevant to this resolution, which he outlined as follows:
• One of the conditions addressed the conversion of the Class III to Class II bicycle lane at
some point in the future. He indicated that this would be done by the City, not the
Owners Association.
• Clean-up items on language regarding the eastern spit, and the fact that the heights of
the grades were relevant to the landscape area, location of the tot lot, and the recreation
paths.
• Condition 38M which added provisions to the CC&R requirements acknowledging the
traffic and monitoring conditions set forth in the conditional use permit, to apprise future
owners association that it was an ongoing effort.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Boro thanked staff, particularly, Bob Brown (unable to attend this evening) and Paul
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 9
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 10
Jensen, and the neighbors who worked on the project over the many months, noting it had
improved in the process. Mayor Boro believed that by voting for it tonight, all agreed the project
would serve the community well and was something to be proud of.
Mayor Boro paused the City Council meeting briefly.
The City Council Meeting resumed at 9:20 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING:
16. Appeal Hearinq — 171 Southern Heiqhts Boulevard, San Rafael: (CD) — File 10-7 x 10-2
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION OF JUNE 12, 2007 UPHOLDING
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO AN EXISTING 2 -
STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE: ADD A 116 SQ. FT. ENTRY INCLUDING A NEW
STAIRCASE ON GROUND (STREET) LEVEL, ADD A 200 SQ. FT. REAR DECK, COMBINE
TWO BEDROOMS INTO ONE BEDROOM: ENLARGE LIVING AREA, REMOVE EXISTING
KITCHEN AND CONVERT A GAME ROOM INTO KITCHEN ON MAIN (LOWER) LEVEL;
AND ADD A NEW 650 SQ. FT. 2 -BEDROOM (BASEMENT) FLOOR UNDER THE MAIN
FLOOR. APN: 012-232-30, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R7.5) DISTRICT; MS. ALEZZ
LAIELEN, APPELLANT: MR. PETER KASTEN AND MS. JULIANNE ROGERS, OWNERS
AND APPLICANTS, FILE NO.: AP07-001 (CD)
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Project Planner Sarjit Dhaliwal stated this was an appeal of the Planning Commission's action
denying an appeal and upholding the action of the Zoning Administrator, conditionally approving
a request for an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow changes to an existing
single-family residence located at 171 Southern Heights Boulevard, San Rafael. He noted the
appellant had indicated that the main issue concerned the design of the proposed 116 square -
foot entryway addition next to the garage at the street level.
Mr. Dhaliwal explained that the appeal filed raised the following issues:
1) The notice of the Zoning Administrator public hearing described the project incorrectly;
2) The proposed project was inconsistent with the rest of the residences in the
neighborhood;
3) The proposed project would block views of a neighboring hillside from the street and the
appellant's residence at 196 Southern Heights Boulevard;
4) The proposed addition would visually clutter and crowd the small front yard of the
subject property and did not provide a clear, well-defined entry from the street to the
building;
5) The proposed addition was not consistent with the existing residence and would devalue
the subject property and other properties in the neighborhood; and
6) The proposed addition would change the existing character of the area.
Reporting that the staff report contained a detailed analysis of the appeal issues, Mr. Dhaliwal
stated that the proposed project was originally approved by the Zoning Administrator. Upon
appeal, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed and recommended approval of the project
design with one minor change: To extend the proposed porch forward to cover the entry landing
and to extend the porch columns to the ground.
Mr. Dhaliwal stated that the Planning Commission denied the appeal based on the fact that:
1) The Design Review Board reviewed the project and recommended approval with one
minor change;
2) The proposed project was processed in accordance with the applicable City policies and
ordinances;
3) The proposed project design was appropriate and consistent with the mixed character of
the neighborhood and, therefore, would not result in devaluing the property;
4) The proposed addition was not sufficiently significant to block any views from the street;
5) The City ordinances and policies do not address views from private properties;
6) The proposed project was a minor addition that would not clutter the front yard;
7) The original entrance and new elements below the entryway would not be visible from
the street; and
8) The proposed addition did, in fact, provide a well-defined entry from the street.
Mr. Dhaliwal stated staff noted that additional letters were submitted by the appellant
subsequent to filing the appeal. He indicated that these letters did not raise any new appeal
points, rather supplemented the already raised appeal issues or asked questions.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 10
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 11
Indicating that staff believed the appeal did not have any basis, Mr. Dhaliwal recommended that
the appeal be denied, upholding the Planning Commission's action upholding the Zoning
Administrator's conditional approval of the Environmental and Design Review permit.
Alezz Laielen, 196 Southern Heights Boulevard, Appellant, stated the issue had more to do with
the visual effect rather than the views. She did not agree with the project planner's evaluation
of the exterior changes to 171 Southern Heights Boulevard, and the fact that the City had only
an appeal process for citizens to air complaints was difficult. She would like to see something
other than a public forum such as this.
Ms. Laielen stated that quality architectural design, neighborhood compatibility, prevailing
design, negative visual impact, established existing patterns, relationships of style of addition
and roof to main residence strengthening the overall visual and functional quality of what makes
a neighborhood unique were apparently considered so subjective as to not count. She
questioned whether these were stated to lull people into thinking that the City had guidelines
only to find out down the line it did not.
Addressing the owner and applicant, Ms. Laielen inquired whether he recalled her suggestion
that he put smaller sized tires on his truck so it would fit in the garage, and his response was
that it would "look funny." She stated this indicated to her that he had a sense of proportion and
balance that he could apply to the exterior changes he wished to make to his residence if he
focused on it. Ms. Laielen stated that the tire change on his truck would have been temporary
and he could have prevented a robbery; however, the exterior changes he wished to make to
171 Southern Heights Boulevard would look far more offensive, design wise, than smaller tires
on his truck, and they would be permanent. She questioned whether a competent architect with
a sense of design would draw up plans for a new hillside home that had the entrance on a roof,
attached to a garage, next to a peaked roof, intersected by a brick chimney with a roofed deck
protruding out over a door and part of the window of the residence below that was screened
from view by boards nailed between the supporting posts next to the entrance of the yard.
Additionally, Ms. Laielen stated the owner was planning to change the roof in a way that it
would no longer go with the style of the roof of the residence below.
Ms. Laielen stated she realized the reason the member of the Design Review Board suggested
adding a roof over the deck was because he believed the design was bad and was trying to
offset it. She questioned whether this DRB member would ever design a house for his clients
with an exterior such as the changes proposed for 171 Southern Heights Boulevard.
Ms. Laielen noted one of her main complaints, other than the disharmonious design, was that
171 would have two entrances in the front making it look like a duplex, which was a structure
that lowered the property values in a single-family dwelling neighborhood. She questioned
whether there was a way to enter the garage from the residence below without having an
exterior entrance on the roof. She suggested constructing the deck and enclosing it so it would
become the roof of a new street below level entrance accessed by going down the steps into
the front yard. The new entry door would face the garden and help the front yard, and the
boards would not have to be nailed between the supporting posts because there would be a
solid wall. Ms. Laielen also suggested having a "green" roof — a building completely covered
with vegetation and soil or a growing medium planted over waterproofing. She noted a "green"
roof was being put on the science building in Golden Gate Park.
For his own sake, Ms. Laielen stated the owner should want to do the best for 171 Southern
Heights Boulevard as well as the neighborhood, by creating a unique, balanced structure that
complimented the other homes on the street.
Peter Kasten, Applicant, 171 Southern Heights Boulevard, addressing the entry, stated his two
main reasons were to give the house street presence and a sense of entry, which it did not
currently have, and safe entry from the garage into the house for his wife and children.
Noting the process had taken a year from his original application, and cost him $5,000, Mr.
Kasten stated he wanted the house to have beauty for the residents of Southern Heights, and
function for his family. Indicating that no other neighbors opposed the project, he stated that he
had met many of Ms. Laielen's other requests to make the property look as nice as possible.
He expressed the hope that the City Council would deny the appeal.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Mayor Boro requested comment from staff on the issue of two entrances and how the second
one appeared and played out.
Although not totally apparent on the plans, Principal Planner Raffi Boloyan stated that at the
property, the only level of the building seen was the garage, the remainder of the structure was
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 11
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 12
set below the building; therefore, from the street, the appearance would be of one entrance. In
terms of whether it looked like a duplex, he stated that generally, if the two entrances were not
visible from one vantage point, it would not look like a duplex.
Councilmember Heller stated she had looked at the property. Noting it was a beautiful
neighborhood, she appreciated the fact that Ms. Laielen wished to continue to live in a beautiful
neighborhood and help the other neighbors have something to be proud of. Having thought it
over, she could not agree with Ms. Laielen's points and she would move to deny the appeal.
Councilmember Cohen stated he was familiar with the neighborhood and while there could well
be differences in taste on the design issues, he believed the project had been reviewed very
thoroughly. It was not a matter of not listening (appellant's comment), rather sometimes, it was
a matter of not agreeing with the points raised. Having listened and read the information
carefully, Councilmember Cohen stated he was not persuaded to uphold the appeal and
overturn the decision, rather he would support a motion to deny the appeal.
Having viewed the project from front and back, Councilmember Miller agreed with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Noting this project had gone through an extensive process, Mayor Boro stated that the Design
Review Board had made recommendations, as did the Planning Commission, and he respected
their opinions. While he realized a lot of different issues were raised, the City Council was
addressing the entry structure as the issue before them.
Councilmember Phillips concurred with the recommendation to uphold the Planning
Commission's action.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12333 — RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF ALEZZ LAIELEN
AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION AFFIRMING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
DECISION TO APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED06-108) TO ALLOW
ADDITION OF A 116 SQUARE -FOOT ENTRY INCLUDING
A NEW STAIRCASE ON GROUND (UPPER) LEVEL, A 650
SQUARE -FOOT 2 -BEDROOM FLOOR IN THE EXISTING
UNDER FLOOR SPACE, AND A 200 SQUARE -FOOT
ELEVATED REAR DECK; AND TO ALLOW INTERIOR
RECONFIGURATION TO COMBINE TWO EXISTING
BEDROOMS INTO ONE BEDROOM AND ADDITIONAL
REMODEL ON MAIN (LOWER) LEVEL OF AN EXISTING 2 -
STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 171 SOUTHERN
HEIGHTS BLVD. (APN: 012-232-30)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
17. a) Marin Transit: - File 9-1 x 143
Councilmember Heller announced that Marin Transit was now the new transit service. A launch
was done with busses featuring the new logo, which included some Golden Gate Transit
busses, some weeks ago, and encouraging ridership, she distributed a flyer which included a
detailed map of the routes.
Councilmember Heller noted a new program to commence entitled "Help a Senior" which would
be beneficial to senior homes and senior groups, etc. This would provide a big buddy to assist
in negotiating the transit system. She believed this would be an excellent service for the
community.
b) Association of Bav Area Governments (ABAG): - File 111
Having attended a meeting of the ABAG Executive Committee, Councilmember Cohen reported
that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the upcoming cycle was finally adopted. He
observed that in this round, the large cities - San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose — ended up
taking a very significant percentage of the regional housing allocation, which he believed
appropriate. He noted the agreement meant that those communities would receive more
resources in terms of infrastructure investment, including transportation, than some of the more
outlying communities.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 12
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 13
Councilmember Cohen stated he introduced the debate that at some point the state needed to
take some responsibility for planning for future growth, and he encouraged a continuation of this
debate, including mentioning it to local elected representatives in Sacramento.
c) Pickleweed Communitv Center and Librarv: - File 267
Mayor Boro stated recognition had been received from the League of California Cities regarding
the Pickleweed Community Center and Library project and he believed there would be a
presentation soon. City Manager Ken Nordhoff reported that Group 4, the project architects,
were assisting in putting a booth together at the League Conference in September, details of
which he would make available.
There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:45 p.m. in memory of
retired San Rafael Police Chief Robert Krolak, who passed away on July 27, 2007, and Dr. Richard D. Wolfe,
former Park and Recreation Commissioner, who passed away on August 2, 2007.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2007
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/06/2007 Page 13