Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2007-11-05SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Pagel IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 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 None CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 - 7:00 PM None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Vice -Mayor Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None 8:09 PM Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 1 and Special and Regular Meetings of October 15, 2007 (CC) 2. Resolution Recommending Amendments to the City of San Rafael Bail Schedule 2008 (CA) — File 13-8 x 9-3-16 x 9-3-30 x 9-10-2 3. Appointment of Sue Beittel to Fill the Unexpired Term on the Marin Commission on Aging, Term to Expire end of June, 2009 (CC) — File 199 4. Ordinance Amending Title 12 of the Municipal Code of the City of San Rafael, Adopting the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, with Amendments, and the International Building Code, 2006 Edition, with Amendments, and Adopting the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, the California Plumbers Code, 2007 Edition, and the California Mechanical Code, 2007 Edition, with Amendments, and Adopting the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition, and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code, 1997 Edition (and Setting Public Hearing for November 19, 2007) (CD) — File 1-6-1 x 1-6-2 x 1-6-3 x 1-6-5 x 1-6-6 x 1-6-7 RECOMMENDED ACTION Minutes approved as submitted. RESOLUTION NO. 12372 — RESOLUTION REGARDING PROPOSED 2008 BAIL SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE Sue Beittel appointed to fill the unexpired term on the Marin Commission on Aging, with term to expire end of June, 2009. Passed Ordinance No. 1863 to print — "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, ADOPTING THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, WITH AMENDMENTS; THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2007 EDITION, WITH AMENDMENTS; THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, 2007 EDITION, WITH AMENDMENTS; THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, 2007 EDITION, WITH AMENDMENTS; THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1997 EDITION, WITH AMENDMENTS; AND THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, 1997 EDITION, WITH AMENDMENTS" and Set Public Hearing for November 19, 2007. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page t 5. Ordinance Amending Title 4 of the Municipal Code of the City of San Rafael, Adopting the California Fire Code, 2007 Edition, with Amendments, and the International Fire Code, 2006 Edition, with Amendments, and Adopting Portions of the 2000 Uniform Fire Code, with Amendments (and Settinq Public Hearing for November 19, 2007) (CD) — File 1-6-4 6. Resolution Authorizing a Rental Agreement Between the City of San Rafael and Language in Action, LLC, for Use of Space in Falkirk Cultural Center (CS) — File 4-10-357 x 2-1-49 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-84 7. Resolution Approving Use of State COPS Program Supplemental Services Funds in the Amount of $100,000 for Community Oriented Policing (PD) — File 9-3-30 8. Second Readinq and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 1862: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DELETING FROM THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 11.04 ENTITLED "SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, CURBS AND GUTTERS", CHAPTER 11.06 ENTITLED "USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY", AND CHAPTER 11.08 ENTITLED "EXCAVATIONS IN STREETS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES", AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 11.04 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "ENCROACHMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY" (PW) — File 2-11 x 9-3-40 9. Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Execute an Amendment to the March 1, 2004 Professional Services Agreement with Amphion, Inc. to Expand the Scope of Work for the Medway/Canal Enhancement Project (#10705) by an Amount not to Exceed $40,000 (PW) — File 4-3-379 x (SRRA) R-459 AYES: NOES: ABSENT APPEAL HEARING: SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 2 Passed Ordinance No. 1864 to print — "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, ADOPTING THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2007 EDITION, WITH AMENDMENTS, AND ADOPTING PORTIONS OF THE 2000 UNIFORM FIRE CODE, WITH AMENDMENTS" and Set Public Hearinq for November 19, 2007. RESOLUTION NO. 12373 — RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A RENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND LANGUAGE IN ACTION, LLC, FOR OFFICE SUITE AT FALKIRK CULTURAL CENTER RESOLUTION NO. 12374 — RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF STATE COPS PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES FUNDS DURING 2007/2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING Second reading and final adoption of Ordinance No. 1862 continued to City Council Meeting of November 19, 2007, at the request of staff (Summary of Ordinance to be republished showing the final adoption date.) Removed from agenda at request of staff. COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None 10. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL (AP07-002) OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2007, TO DENY AN APPEAL AND UPHOLD AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN PERMIT APPROVAL OF A ROOF MODIFICATION TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AND PITCH OF A SINGLE -STORY RESIDENTIAL ROOF FROM A 10'10" FLAT ROOF TO A 14'11" HIP AND GABLE ROOF AT 820 PINE LANE, SAN RAFAEL; SANDY MIXSELL, APPELLANT, ROCHELLE AIRES, APPLICANT/OWNER; (CD) — FILE 10-7 x 9-3-85 Referring to information presented to the City Council in 2004 on adoption of the Eichler Alliance Overlay, Community Development Director Bob Brown emphasized some specific points. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 3 The graph displayed demonstrated that while a great percentage of the Eichler and Alliance owners clearly favored a ban on second -story construction, there was much more mixed reaction on the issue of how to regulate roof modifications. The graph indicated that approximately one-quarter of the owners favored a building permit instead of regulation. Half indicated there should be some level of design review for roof modifications and approximately one-third stated they should not be allowed. Mr. Brown explained that the survey defining roof modifications specified raising roofs and creating pitch roofs that could hide duct work, provide storage space and improved drainage. Mr. Brown reported that the basis for Council's approval of the Overlay District was first and foremost to preclude second stories because 99.5% of the existing Eichler and Alliance homes were single -story and second stories were very much out of design character in the neighborhood. He indicated Council also decided there should be a staff level design review for roof modifications to preclude changes that would detract from the design character of these neighborhoods, and specifically indicated they were not approving those regulations to foster private view preservation or for historic preservation purposes. Mr. Brown presented slides shown at that time to convince the City Council that very inappropriate roof modifications could have a deleterious effect on the design of a home and its surroundings. These were the types of situations staff attempted to preclude. Mr. Brown explained that when the ordinance was adopted there was not much guidance as to the extent of roof modifications to be allowed. Rather, the intent was to create some design guidelines as part of a larger, more comprehensive update to the City's existing design guidelines; however, it had not been possible to fund this in the past couple of budgets because of other priorities. From discussions with Greg Knell, President, Santa Margarita Homeowners Association, Mr. Brown reported that Mr. Knell suggested he could get architects to volunteer their time to a community process to generate better design criteria for how best people could modify their Eichler roofs. He believed, however, from tonight's appeal, there was a sense of a very split opinion in the community as to how best this could be accomplished. Mr. Brown reported that the owner of 820 Pine Lane hired a reputable architectural firm to create an Eichleresque design. Over the process of a year and a half they had made a number of revisions based upon staff and public requests; however, there were still very divergent opinions on what was appropriate; therefore, arriving at a consensus of what was appropriate in terms of modifying Eichler and Alliance homes would be difficult and any guidance from the City Council from a policy standpoint would be beneficial. Associate Planner Kraig Tambornini explained the appeal concerned a roof modification that changed a flat roofed Eichler home to a pitch, hip and gable roof. Providing background, Mr. Tambornini stated that the modification was originally reviewed and approved by staff subsequent to making recommendations on revisions they believed necessary to achieve the limited criteria established by the Eichler and Alliance Home Overlay District. The approval having been appealed to the Planning Commission, it was referred to the Design Review Board (DRB) for input. The DRB recommended additional modifications, primarily that the roof pitch be reduced slightly and the rear roof section be modified to a hip roof. With that change, the Planning Commission approved the design in September, 2007; however, it was then appealed to the City Council. Mr. Tambornini noted there had been lots of comment and controversy regarding this item with those supporting the appeal favoring more restrictive standards on Eichler design elements. Mr. Tambornini reported that staff had re-evaluated the findings for approval of the project and believed the Eichler and Alliance homes district standards and the Environmental Design Review permit requirements remained satisfied and the project remained consistent with the General Plan policies, in particular the neighborhoods and views policies pertinent to this project. The project remained in conformance with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and was in compliance with the design criteria that applied a review of such cases by maintaining a consistent streetscape, and a design in harmony with the neighborhood, which achieves the intent of the Eichler and Alliance Home Overlay District to maintain the predominant single - story, unique design character of homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Tambornini stated staff recommended denying the appeal and upholding the approval. Sandv Mixsell, Appellant, indicating she wished to protect the neighborhood's quality of life, stated she did not believe this was an appropriate design. Believing the problem to be the absence of guidelines, she stated that 17 -feet maximum was not a good guideline. She noted the DRB vote was unanimous, with only three members present, and Mr. Stewart Summers (DRB) remarked that nine out of ten Eichler owners did not support this type of change. Two members specifically approved it because they were informed by staff that it was not a SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 4 precedent setter and the City was working towards setting criteria. Ms. Mixsell commented that she got a strong feeling from the DRB members that they did not really want to pass the project, but had their hands tied. Ms. Mixsell reported that during the Planning Commission appeal, Commissioner Mills stated that she "did not get a real sense that it was a good plan." She indicated that two Commissioners voted 'No', two voted `Yes' in order to follow the rules or not second-guess the DRB, and one voted `Yes' based on the precedent set at 661 Las Ovejas; however, she believed that Las Ovejas was not a good house to use as a precedent. Very similar in design, she noted the peaked roof Eichlers were 11 -feet tall and the design under review was 4'/z feet taller; however, the Las Ovejas location was up against open space and no one was affected. Noting this was an exception, she stated that an exception should not become a precedent, and she commented that three years was a long time to be working on guidelines. Indicating her concern was not to set a precedent, Ms. Mixsell stated staff agreed that approval of the 820 Pine Lane project set a precedent and could be relied upon when evaluating similar roof modifications. Based on the review criteria application in this case, under the EA District, staff believed the modification approved at 881 Las Ovejas was an appropriate precedent; however, she disagreed. She believed a pitched roof was not necessary to prevent leaks. Agreeing that homeowners should have the ability to modify their roofs, Ms. Mixsell stated, however, that this should not be four to five feet, and most people did not want this height. Noting the real problem with 820 Pine Lane was the back, she stated no Eichler had a 100% pitched roof, and this was specifically to afford the open feeling to the environment. Ms. Mixsell requested that good guidelines be provided to allow for good decisions. Rochelle Aires stated she had lived at 820 Pine Lane for 35 years and planned to live there for many more years. Defending her right to modify the roof of her Eichler home, she reported that she had revised the roof design four times at considerable expense in response to the appellant's concerns. She was in compliance with the zoning regulations, Design Review guidelines, and Eichler & Alliance Overlay District; however, the appeals kept coming. Ms. Aires made the following points: 1. Other alternatives were available to this proposed roof modification and she did not make her decision lightly. She replaced her leaky, flat roof three times, always by reputable roofers, and each time the cost of a new roof had either doubled or tripled. With the necessity to replace her roof for the fourth time, she realized something different had to be done. Reporting that she had done a great deal of research looking at many different types of roofing materials, Ms. Aires noted that all required ongoing maintenance for a flat roof with sizeable cost and relatively short-term warranties. Her iron pipe radiant heating system failed two years ago, leaving her without heat and she still had no heat. Having researched many heating systems to ensure she was missing nothing, she believed she had not. The alternative solutions of running ducting in closets, through hallways, through or on top of the roof would require her retaining her problematic flat roof design. While she believed flat roof solutions could be preferable to some, Ms. Aires indicated it was not for her. 2. With regard to the statement that the roof modification was completely out of character and undermines the architectural integrity of the entire neighborhood, Ms. Aires' response was that there were six homes on Pine Lane with roof modifications prior to hers. 3. Referring to the statement that this modification would infringe on the privacy of the house behind, Ms. Aires confirmed that she was not increasing the size of her living space. No new windows or doors were being added as a result of the proposed modification and nothing about the backyard or fence line would be changed. 4. With regard to a loss of property value to the surrounding homes, Ms. Aires suggested that ultimately, the very process that required her to appear before the City Council to defend her rights would drive down property values. Noting this case was not just about the appearance of the exterior roof design, Ms. Aires stated it concerned the practical reality of repairing and maintaining the failing infrastructure of a 50 - year old flat roof home and just as important, it was also about her right as a private homeowner to implement a solution that worked for her needs while remaining within the specified guidelines of the City. She stated that the proposed roof modification was cost-effective, low SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 5 maintenance, with a 40 or 50 -year warranty, while maintaining the Eichler characteristics. It provided a place for her heating, plumbing and wiring with easy access, and a roof that would not require ongoing maintenance and costly repairs as she entered her retirement years. In making their decision, Ms. Aires respectfully requested the City Council not to be distracted by arguments of historic preservation, view preservation or the National Historic Registry that could be brought up by the appellants, as these were not relevant to the proposal under review. Larry Paul, architect representing Rochelle Aires, owner, clarified that he was not present as a member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Paul explained that there were both flat roof and gable Eichlers amongst a variety of styles, with the gables having about four different sub types. Eichler neighborhoods were composed generally of a number of types. The style was not consistent other than that they were single - story, usually with flat or gabled roofs, with distinctive Eichler floor to ceiling glass and high front windows, all of which had been duplicated in the redesign of this project, while raising the roof a little to allow for the required heating, ventilation and air condition systems, together with new wiring and plumbing. This would allow for a 40-50 year guarantee from the composition shingles. Mr. Paul stated that they had worked with the neighbors and staff to adjust the design to have minimal impacts and keep as much with the Eichler aesthetic as possible. The design was increasing the current 10' 10" height to 14' 11' maximum, and 2 feet were being added to the rear current flat roof. Mr. Paul noted the fact that only two roof modifications had been applied for in the last four years was an indication that not a lot was happening; however, eventually more people would need to maintain their roofs and heating systems, and this project afforded good guidelines aesthetically and sensitively. Noting Mr. Paul's remarks that the originally designed Eichler in certain cases had gabled roofs, Councilmember Phillips inquired whether this design was consistent with one of the four designs he had described. Responding affirmatively, Mr. Paul explained it was basically consistent with the gabled roofs prevalent on Pine Lane. He noted it was a little taller than the original Eichlers. Brvan Totter, resident to the back of the property under discussion, agreed with Mr. Paul that there were several different styles of symmetrical, asymmetrical and sloping roofs of the original Eichler homes. Noting this was only from the front elevation, he stated that zero percent of the Eichlers designed had a sloping roof in the back. In addition to the overall height of the roof which was of concern to those opposed to the project, he indicated that it did not meet the unique design characteristics and was not consistent with the other Eichlers. He did not believe the unique design characteristic was only from one angle, rather the roof at the back half of the house had been heightened to almost 13 -feet. Less that it blocked his view, Mr. Totter stated he was more concerned with the obstruction it placed in the back of his home. Believing there were other alternatives, Mr. Totter stated it appeared to come down to the number of warranty years. He noted there was nothing in the code specifying the unique design characteristics should be met unless there was a cost prohibition and it was impossible to obtain a 40 or 50 -year warranty, nor did it indicate it just had to be from one angle. Mike McClain, speaking in support of the appeal, stated he and his family had lived at 720 Penny Royal Lane since 1985; he was a neighbor and friend of the appellant and a building contractor with experience working on several neighborhood houses, as well as a significant addition and remodel to his own home. He noted the concerns voiced by neighbors were to preserve the neighborhood's special architectural features and it was important to note that the low profile roofs, in combination with glass walls, continued to allow these homes the open vistas of the surrounding hills, together with plenty of natural light, as was originally intended. Noting this issue would set a precedent, Mr. McClain stated the City Council had the choice of taking a stand on guarding the unique architectural designs cherished by the neighbors present, or signing off on cascading wholesale changes to the nature of the neighborhood. He encouraged the City Council to look closely at the many beautiful remodel projects that had preserved the Eichler design while adding modern, energy efficient elements to the function of the home. Allowing a hodgepodge of roof alterations and designs out of character with the attractive Eichler look was not correct. Mr. McClain noted several rationales were mentioned by the owner and architect necessitating a hip roof with composition singles; however, he believed the alternative design within the Eichler parameters worked because he used it on his house. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 6 Art Duffv, member, Terra Linda Architectural Review Committee, distributed a paper, and disagreeing with Mr. Brown's comments that it would be difficult to get consensus on this roof, stated that at the time of working on the Eichler second -story ban, the community was invited to give their opinion and until then no one really was aware of the extent of the feelings in the community for the ban. He believed a similar result would hold true on this roof modification. Mr. Duffy recalled the history of this particular project, which he believed the City Council should be aware of. He noted that over the years people had spoken out because they were interested in how projects such as this would impact the neighborhood, and to avoid arguments and meetings such as tonight's, the community should be called together in a general meeting to arrive at a consensus. John Yates, Pine Lane, stated he enthusiastically supported Ms. Aires application for a roof modification, and he quoted from a letter he had written: "My wife and I live next door at 810 Pine Lane, and have lived there since 1959. We had to have our radiant heating and water lines replaced due to the settling of the concrete slab. All pipes were reinstalled across the flat roof. We were then faced with replacing the roof, which was complicated by the insulation of the water lines. The solution to our problem was a pitched roof which we installed in 1992. The result is now a minimum of roof maintenance and an increase in house value. Shelly Aires is now faced with a failing heat system, similar to ours, and replacing water lines and updating the electrical system. She applied for roof modification to install a roof to the height of 14 -feet 11 -inches and her plans were passed by both the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, but only after a period of nearly two years of reviews, appeals, modification of plans, etc. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation circulated about the size and structure of the roof and those signing petitions were left to understand they were voting against two-story structures, which had been described as monstrous and unsightly. The City has now incorporated the modification plans in their current announcement and people in the area can finally see the extent of the modification and its very positive impact on the neighborhood. I took this document, and I hate to go around and pester people but I did. I went to sixteen houses on Del Ganado. Three were not home, one did not wish to sign because of being a renter, and all others signed with enthusiasm once they saw the actual plans, which they had never seen before. This business of the second -story constantly mentioned was totally incorrect. I have sat in all the review meetings, appeals from the self-appointed local advocate review organization, neighborhood associations meetings, Planning Commission meetings and architectural review boards. This process had to end so Ms. Aires can finally have a roof. I recommend that the City Council vote to approve unanimously the roof modifications which have been approved and passed by the City Architectural Review Board and the City Planning Commission." Kvle Keilman, speaking in favor of the appellant, stated he lived in an Eichler. Troubled by some aspects of the previous speaker's comments, he indicated that having done some leafleting on Del Ganado today, he did not speak with anyone in favor of the project. Recalling the comments on the history of this ongoing situation, he noted the time when the City Council in its wisdom, decided to enact a moratorium, and he requested that they again consider a moratorium on any further roof modifications until permanent standards that meet neighborhood approval could be established. Mr. Keilman stated he was troubled by the fact that the architect on the project was a member of the Planning Commission, as he found this questionable and a possible conflict of interest. Concluding, Mr. Keilman saluted retiring Councilmembers Cohen and Phillips, thanking them for their service, and he wished the best to Mayor Boro, Mayoral candidate in tomorrow's election (November 6, 2007). He acknowledged retiring City Clerk, Jeanne Leoncini, thanking her for her assistance with the troublesome paperwork of four years ago. He expressed thanks and wished good fortune to the current City Council. Dennis Hasler, 835 Pine Lane, stated that rather than being a fixed, locked -in design, Eichler was an evolving design that over time changed for the better. He believed this modification would fit the neighborhood; it had the approval of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission and he was in favor of it. Jud Allen, Pine Lane, believed it unfair that Ms. Aires had to go through so much to improve her home. The design blended in and being a true lover of Eichler's he did not see any reason why the City Council could not vote in support of the project. Charles Dean, Terra Linda, stated that San Rafael's Planning organization and process had a SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 7 very important function — it had great responsibility. He noted the Design Review Board must include at least two architects or building designers, one of whom must be a landscape architect and another with background or experience in urban design, all of whom must be licensed. Quoting from San Rafael's website, he stated: "The Planning Commission consists of citizen volunteers appointed by the City Council to make decisions, or advise the City Council on land use and property development issues." Noting the Planning Commission's authority to make decisions within the scope of this activity was defined by Code, Mr. Dean stated that the stewards of San Rafael acted wisely and with purpose when they decided that Commissioners be appointed, thus insulating them from the influence of whims. The worthiness of the candidates for the position of Commissioner was evaluated by the City Council and presumably, only the worthy were appointed. When the Planning Commission makes a decision within its authority, he respectfully suggested that the only appeals the City Council should consider were those that claimed illegality, denial of due process, unethical behavior or other serious charges relative to the process. Mr. Dean stated the Planning Commission made a decision on the project at 820 Pine Lane. Within the scope of the process the homeowner followed the rules, the Design Review Board gave a favorable recommendation and the appeal was heard and rejected. The appropriate and competent office heard and weighed the relevant facts and in doing their duty, the City Council's appointed agents made their decision, which he hoped would be affirmed this evening. Cliff Meneken, Terra Linda Architectural Review Committee, noted the scope of the City Council's review was broad and had no limit, and any suggestion to the contrary should not be entertained. He noted the project was tainted because Mr. Paul, the architect for the project, was on the Planning Commission and argued this case before the Design Review Board. His associate argued the case before the Planning Commission. Regarding the merits of this case, Mr. Meneken stated they had submitted a list of some of the arguments in support and against the project. To set the record straight, he stated they (Terra Linda Architectural Review Board) were set up in the aftermath of the second floor zoning overlay that they helped promote. They worked with Mr. Brown and there was encouragement to have an Architectural Review Committee to provide some guidance to the Planning Department and set some criteria for them. Comprised of 15 members, he indicated they had attempted to mediate many disputes because they did not wish to give more work to the City, and they had been successful in avoiding a lot of controversies. He indicated they had worked with Ms. Aires for a couple of years, unsuccessfully, to try to work out alternatives. Mr. Meneken stated that the basic criteria submitted to Mr. Brown some years ago was to the effect that should there be substantial impact on the views of the open space which were protected by the City regulations, should there be substantial impact on the roof lines and the architectural integrity or privacy, they believed a roof addition should not be allowed. On the question of substantial impact, Mr. Meneken suggested that a four to five-foot roof addition was almost a half floor and would completely block out the views of the hills, noting the City zoning regulations were very clear on the fact that the public hills and ridgelines surrounding the Eichler community were to be enhanced and protected by any action carried out. He indicated that this would effectively block out a substantial proportion of the view of the hills. Mr. Meneken stated that other regulations not dealt with by the City or the applicant dealt with compatibility. He explained that according to the regulations the City was mandated to follow, should something be incompatible with the predominant style and scale of the neighborhood, the City Council could not support it, at least based on the regulations. He suggested that increasing a roof by 4 — 5 feet was not compatible with the scale of the neighborhood, and of the 1,182 homes in that area, 19 or 20 at most had second floors or large roof modifications. Mr. Meneken recalled that when the Eichler & Alliance Overlay District was enacted the City Council stated they wanted to preserve the unique style and character of these special homes. He indicated that the large majority of the community did not want a large roof addition, which was not Eichleresque in any way. Noting differing views on what was right, he stated it was important for all to do what was right for the neighborhood, rather than one person's particular need. Mr. Meneken noted that building a 4 — 5 foot huge roof such as this would cost a lot more than a flat roof with additions. Blanka, Del Ganado, displayed a picture of her remodeled Eichler, and indicated that she supported the project. Diane Elliott, Pine Lane, believed the proposed roof was not too large and she and all on Pine SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 8 Lane supported the modification. Jack Wilkinson, Pine Lane, submitted 24(additional) petitions in support of the roof modification Noting a raised roof was more expensive than a flat roof, he stated it was interesting that the maintenance was significantly lower over time. He urged the City Council to uphold the decisions of the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and staff to deny the appeal. He stated the homes were built in 1955 when energy was inexpensive and this modification would reduce the energy costs of operating the home. Dan Shiver, Barbery Lane Eichler home, stated his home was featured on HGTV and to state these homes were not unique was untrue. He did not favor the roof modification and requested that the City Council vote to retain the integrity of the neighborhood. Bill Mixsell, complimenting Ms. Aires on her wonderful home, requested that the City Council uphold the appeal and reject the roof modification. Councilmember Miller stated that something all had in common was the great appreciation for and love of the community, the homes built in that community, and especially the Eichler homes. He had lived in Terra Linda for six years, owning an Eichler in Lucas Valley, and walking Pine Lane again today brought back great memories for him. Councilmember Miller explained that his job this evening was to determine what the community had said through the General Plan and through the ordinance, and ascertain whether the roof height fit within those guidelines. In reviewing the Planning Commission's decision he believed this was exactly what they based their decision on: that the roof was built and raised within the General Plan and ordinance guidelines. He accepted the Planning Commission's and staff's recommendation and supported rejection of the appeal. Councilmember Miller believed guidelines (which had been promised but for which funds were unavailable) were necessary to provide options to honor the Eichler homes in the future, together with honoring people's desire to maintain and improve them. Concurring, Councilmember Cohen stated that in listening to the testimony there were two separate issues: • The appeal of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission's approval of an application to modify a roof that appeared to be consistent with the adopted guidelines and the rules established when it was agreed to ban second stories; and • What the design standard should be for Eichler homes. Councilmember Cohen stated that unfortunately, the City did not appear to be a lot closer to resolving that difference of opinion than when the entire discussion took place regarding whether or not second stories were appropriate. He was comfortable with the decision to ban second stories because of the unique nature of Eichlers, the backyards and openness, which supported making a different standard for the remodel of those homes than made anywhere else in the City. Noting the argument many had made that Eichlers were unique and no roof modifications should be allowed, Councilmember Cohen stated that decision was not made when second stories were banned, i.e., flat roofs only were not mandates. This current application was consistent with the rules as adopted. While hard pressed to find this a crisis because of just two applications in four years, Councilmember Cohen stated the argument, therefore, that it was precedent setting and hoards of people were just waiting to go through this process, was not a compelling one. He concurred with Councilmember Miller in favoring the establishment of appropriate design standards that hopefully achieved consensus. Councilmember Cohen believed that this evening's appeal requested overturning a decision approving an application that was consistent with the rules as laid out to date, and he could not find it in the record or rules to overturn the recommendation of staff, the Design Review Board or the Planning Commission; therefore, he would vote to deny the appeal. Concurring on the fact that there were two issues, Councilmember Heller commented that this area was beautiful and a great neighborhood to walk. She agreed that guidelines needed to be generated and also on the fact that two applications in four years was not a landslide. She agreed with the Design Review Board and Planning Commission that it was consistent with the current rules and regulations, and would vote to deny the appeal. Having resided in the area since 1972, Councilmember Phillips believed that because of the age of the homes and the need for modifications, he suspected more applications would be forthcoming. Therefore, it made sense to have some guidelines to clearly establish for the community what was acceptable and what was not. He believed the current process was cumbersome at the least and it was unfortunate, no matter what side of the fence, that it had SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 9 taken so long and consumed so much effort and staff time. In drawing his conclusions, in addition to listening to comments, he had looked at the ridgelines and did not believe the additional 4' 1" would significantly impair the view. He noted Mr. Paul had suggested that while this particular roof design was not absolutely one hundred percent consistent with Eichler, it was reasonably close; therefore, it was not a significant variance from what he could see in other examples of Eichler homes. Indicating he had a lot of respect for those serving on the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, who had considered the General Plan and the guidelines established as they might be applied in this particular case, perhaps not perfect. He indicated he listens and pays attention to these groups which was a persuasive factor; therefore, he would vote in favor of denying the appeal. Mayor Boro noted the staff report (page 2) discussed San Rafael Zoning Code development standards and criteria, the first of which addressed height: "The maximum height shall be seventeen feet (17') as measured from grade to the peak of the roof." He stated that although some might argue about the number, this was an existing guideline. It was adopted when the Overlay was approved and apparently, no one raised any concern at the time. Mr. Brown confirmed this was also his recollection. Mayor Boro agreed this was within these rules and regulations and he found it difficult to argue that point back and forth because the applicant was following the basic guidelines already in place. He also supported bringing a little more definition to these standards with not just what looked good, but also what it would mean using, for example, design A versus B and C when modifying rooflines to include air conditioning, heat, etc., so that people understood the restraints. Noting a lot of effort was put into this process, Mayor Boro stated that although it was time consuming, it demonstrated that those living in Eichler homes truly loved them, which was the reason for the Overlay District. The questions now were roof height and specificity on design and he believed the process going forward would be open to all points of view. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 12375 — RESOLUTION DENYING APPEAL NO. AP07-002 AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY AN APPEAL AND UPHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT APPROVAL OF A ROOF MODIFICATION AT 820 PINE LANE, WITHIN THE R5 -EA DISTRICT (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — EICHLER AND ALLIANCE HOMES OVERLAY) (APN: 178-014-19) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: NEW BUSINESS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro None None 11. CONSIDERATION OF RE-INITIATION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SAFETY INSPECTION PROGRAM (CD) — FILE 9-3-31 x 9-3-32 x 9-3-85 Community Development Director Bob Brown stated the proposal was to reactivate the proactive Fire Safety Inspection Program for all non-residential buildings. He explained this program used to be performed by the engine companies on a time available basis and was funded by a $36 per year charge per business, applied to business licenses. The program was suspended a year ago when Fire Prevention was transferred to Community Development and as a result no fee was collected for the past year. Mr. Brown reported that Fire Chief Daly and Fire Marshal Thomas Ahrens conferred and both strongly recommended re-initiation of the program. Mr. Brown stated that recently staff had begun carrying out fire inspections for new businesses when applying for new business licenses and were surprised at some of the things observed, particularly in terms of altered fire exiting, fire sprinkler systems that might not be fully functional, etc., that were definitely health and safety issues, both for the occupants of the buildings and firefighters. Mr. Brown reported that staff proposed to run the inspection program through Community SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 10 Development and would like to hire one additional Fire Inspector. In addition, a current half- time position among the Fire Inspectors in the Building Division would be contributed; therefore, on their time available basis, they would fill in with these types of inspections. He indicated that staff would like to get through at least the initial inspection of all buildings within two years which would necessitate also hiring a half-time Fire Inspector for that two year period, after which it would go away. In addition, it was proposed to make a three-quarter time Administrative Assistant position full-time. By reapplying the annual $36 fee in business licenses, Mr. Brown stated that the program could be funded for eight months approximately; therefore, staff proposed to return to Council in the Fall having re-evaluated the cost of the program, at which time an increase in fees could be recommended. Mr. Brown reported that he had shared this information with the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Improvement District. There had been no complaints from them as he believed they understood the benefits of the program. Fire Chief Christopher Gray stated that as in any case, probably the best emergency was the one that did not occur and was a method of both loss prevention and control. Historically done by the Fire Department, this was the third phase of a reorganization and at this time he supported the efforts suggested. It would provide for consistent systematic inspections by the same inspection staff. Indicating that maintenance of buildings was important, Chief Gray explained that under the current terms when a building was initially occupied an associated inspection occurs; however, this changed over the years, as did the building, its function, use and reliability of systems, and maintenance in general varied from place to place. He believed the method of systematic inspection would go a long way to ultimately helping preserve the community. Noting San Rafael had an aging building population, Chief Gray indicated some represented serious safety hazards based on their use in various commercial, industrial and retail applications. He stated that this effort would be coordinated with the Fire Department's involvement in pre -planning, which he supported. Chief Gray stated it was excellent insurance and ensured a good complement of skills was being applied on a preventative rather than reactive end. Thomas Ahrens, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official added that since taking over the Fire Prevention duties staff had an opportunity to appraise the situation and he had a lot of concern with situations that surfaced as a result. Believing it to be the tip of the iceberg, he agreed with Fire Chief Gray that it was an important program that should be re-initiated. Referring to the chart on page 3 of the staff report, Mayor Boro confirmed that in the first year the $36 fee would cover the positions, etc. listed. Mr. Ahrens confirmed that the billing would go out in November and was due in February, 2008. Mayor Boro noted that the projection for next year was an increase of approximately $16; however, in turn this would cover the total cost of the program, with no net add to the General Fund. Mr. Nordhoff confirmed the intention was that the program be fully self-funded through Business License fees and would not require any general tax subsidies. He confirmed for Councilmember Heller that the base Business License fee was approximately $60, increasing substantially depending on gross sales, real property owner, etc. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to direct staff to initiate implementation of Phase III of the Fire Department Reorganization, including: 1) Reinstatement of the Non-residential Building Safety Inspection Program and collection of the existing Business License fees; 2) Creation of one additional non -safety Fire Inspector position in the Community Development Department, an increase of an Administrative Assistant I position from 0.75 FTE to full time, and funds for a half-time Contract Fire Inspector and other operational expenses totaling $49,500; 3) Amendment of the Community Development Department budget for Fiscal year 2007-2008 to accomplish said changes. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 11 COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 12. a) Association of Bav Area Governments (ABAG) Fall General Assemblv: - File 119 x 9-1 (verbal) Councilmember Heller reported that on October 26, 2007 she attended the Fall General Assembly of ABAG, hosted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Councilmember Cohen and Principal Planner Linda Jackson also attended. Councilmember Heller reported that each agency was developing a new long-term regional transportation plan, to be known as the "Transportation 2035 Plan: Change in Motion." She indicated that this plan would try to link transportation, land use and climate protection in the nine -county San Francisco Bay Area. She indicated she would provide the two new Councilmembers with information packets at their first Council meeting. b) ERAF: - File 9-1 x 8-5 (verball Mayor Boro reported that the anticipated $933,000 ERAF funds would be placed into Reserves. City Manager Nordhoff confirmed that the monies would go into Reserves and would be an item of discussion at the mid -year budget review in January, 2008. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:00 p.m. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2007 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/05/2007 Page 11