HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2008-06-02SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2008 AT 8:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor
San Rafael City Council Greg Brockbank, Councilmember
Damon Connolly, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, City Manager
Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney
Esther C. Beirne, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 6:00 PM
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item.
CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 - 6:00 PM
Conference with Labor Negotiators — Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
Negotiators: Jim Schutz, Leslie Loomis, Cindy Mosser, Nancy Mackle, Ken Nordhoff, Chris Gray
Employee Organization(s):
San Rafael Fire Chief Officers' Association
San Rafael Firefighters' Association
City Attorney Robert Epstein announced that no reportable action was taken.
With regard to materials added to the agenda packet, in particular with regard to Agenda Item 13, Mr.
Epstein noted there was a suggestion that the Closed Session somehow included reference to the 33 San
Pablo Avenue application and appeal. He explained that the City Council agenda is posted on the City's
website on the Thursday prior to the Monday night Council meeting and is readily available for public
review there and at the other locations at which it is posted, and on the agenda, the subject of any Closed
Session item is clearly set forth. He wanted to clarify for anyone who could be confused that there was no
Closed Session on any subject other than that noted, and certainly no Closed Session on the 33 San Pablo
Avenue item.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
8:00 PM
Enerqv: - File 9-1
Distributing information, Dwavne Hunn, representing the Kerner Partnership, discussed the possibility of
enacting an energy fast track or permit reduction process, zero waste options and fuel cells, and he invited the
City Council to consider endorsing the World Service Corps.
Mayor Boro invited City Manager Nordhoff to review the documentation submitted and respond to Mr. Hunn.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as
follows..
ITEM
Call for Applications for Appointment to Fill One
Unexpired Four -Year Term on the Design Review Board
to the End of June, 2009, Due to Resignation of Board
Member Ann Crew, and One Alternate Position (CC) —
File 9-2-39
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approved staff recommendation:
1) Called for applications to fill one
unexpired 4 -year term on the
Design Review Board, to expire at
the end of June, 2009, and the
appointment of one alternate
member;
2) Set the deadline for receipt of
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
Resolution Waiving the Competitive Bidding
Requirement of Chapter 2.55.070 of the San Rafael
Municipal Code and Authorizing the Community
Development Director to Execute a Sole Source Contract
with Coordinated Resources, Inc. for Purchase of Office
Furniture (CD) — File 4-2-301 x 9-3-85
Resolution Authorizing Lease Agreement for Structural
Fire Protective Clothing (FD) —
File 9-3-31 x 4-2-303 x 4-10-329
Resolution Accepting Proposal from Harris & Associates
for Design and Preparation of Plans and Specifications
for the 2008 ADA Curb Ramp Project and Authorizing the
Public Works Director to Execute the Agreement in an
Amount Not to Exceed $77,221.00 (PW) —
File 4-3-487 x 13-1-1
Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Community
Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and Home
Program Cooperation Agreement with the County of
Marin (RA) — File 4-13-38 x 147
Resolution Approving a $70,000 Expenditure by the
Redevelopment Agency to Marin Housing for the
Administration of the Below Market Rate Ownership
Program and Making Findings and Approvals Pursuant
to the California Redevelopment Law in Connection with
the Utilization of Agency Low and Moderate Income
Housing Funds Outside the Central San Rafael
Redevelopment Project Area (RA) —
File 229 x (SRRA) 173 x (SRRA) 103
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 2
applications for Tuesday, June 24,
2008 at 12:00 Noon in the City
Clerk's Office, City Hall, Room 209;
and
3) Set the date for interviews of
applicants at a Special City Council
meeting to be held on Monday, July
7, 2008, commencing at 6:30 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO.12495 —
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE
BIDDING REQUIREMENT OF SECTION
2.55.070(D) OF THE SAN RAFAEL
MUNICIPAL CODE AND AUTHORIZING THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
TO EXECUTE A SOLE SOURCE
CONTRACT WITH COORDINATED
RESOURCES, INCORPORATED, FOR THE
PURCHASE OF NEW FURNITURE IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000
RESOLUTION NO. 12496 —
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LEASE
AGREEMENT FOR STRUCTURAL FIRE
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
RESOLUTION NO. 12497 —
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL
FROM HARRIS & ASSOCIATES FOR
DESIGN AND PREPARATION OF PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2008 ADA
CURB RAMP PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $77,221.00
RESOLUTION NO. 12498 —
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION
OF A THREE-YEAR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM AND HOME PROGRAM
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE
COUNTY OF MARIN
RESOLUTION NO. 12499 —
RESOLUTION APPROVING A $70,000
EXPENDITURE BY THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
TO MARIN HOUSING FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE BELOW
MARKET RATE OWNERSHIP PROGRAM
AND MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVALS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
REDEVELOPMENT LAW IN CONNECTION
WITH THE UTILIZATION OF AGENCY LOW
AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING
FUNDS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL SAN
RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 3
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of Mayor Boro:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 5, 2008 (CC)
Mayor Boro stated that as he was reviewing the Draft Minutes he noticed three instances of where he
misspoke on a subject. Having checked with the City Clerk, he indicated that although she reported what he
stated, it was not what he meant; therefore, he would like to clarify these three instances for the record as an
addendum to the minutes of May 5, 2008. He commented that while the minutes were not being changed he
wished to clarify what he should have stated:
Page 22 — Paragraph 2 - "Mayor Boro stated that after a brief break he would invite staff to answer some of
the issues raised. The City Attorney would discuss the adequacy of the EIR..." As there was no EIR on this
project, the item should have read: "The City Attorney would address the need for an EIR", which he did at the
meeting.
Page 24 - Paragraph 2 — "Mayor Boro stated he understood the law and the fact the City Attorney indicated
that the EIR was adequate." Again, as there was no EIR on this project, this should have read: "The City
Attorney indicated that the Categorical Exemption was appropriate."
Page 27 — Paragraph 3 - "...and the EIR was adequate" should have read "The Categorical Exemption was
appropriate."
Mayor Boro reiterated that these were not amendments to the minutes, rather clarification for the record as to
what he meant.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded to approve the minutes with clarifications.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING FOR THE CAL PARK TUNNEL PATHWAY (CM) — FILE 4-13-123
Mayor Boro noted from the staff report that the hours of operation initially would be something like 5:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m. His understanding of the mechanics was that each morning at 5:00 someone from the County
Parks Department would open up the tunnel at one end, driving through to open it at the other end. At night,
someone from that department would close it at one end, drive through to ensure no one was inside, lock it up
and return the following morning. Noting some interest in having the tunnel open twenty-four hours daily,
Mayor Boro stated that based on conversations he had with the City of Larkspur, their public safety people and
San Rafael's public safety people, with the history of the tunnel (it burned down a number of years ago
because of people living there and starting fires), it was not feasible to keep it open twenty-four hours daily
without security.
Mayor Boro noted that the Golden Gate Bridge District allowed people to cross by bicycle twenty-four hours
daily; however, when they approach a gate questions are exchanged with a guard on camera. When the
bicyclist reaches the other end of the bridge, on pressing a button the gate opens; however, there is no
provision or ability to do this at the tunnel. Commenting that this was something to keep in mind, he noted that
after approximately 6 — 8 months the cities and County would review the situation.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12500 — RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE CAL PARK TUNNEL
PATHWAY
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 4
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS:
10. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING 2008-09 DOWNTOWN FARMERS' MARKET FESTIVAL
OPERATING HOURS (RA) — FILE 11-19
Events Coordinator Brian Auger stated this was a follow-up report from the agenda item approved by the City
Council on March 27, 2008 with regard to new operating hours for the Farmers' Market. Further to the report
on May 5`h that the traffic impact was not anything to be concerned with, staff collected information from the
police, merchants, vendors and attendees, and overall, the comments had been very positive for the time
change. Noting a few people favored the previous hours, he indicated that for the most part, the time change
had accomplished its goal. Mr. Auger stated staff recommended that this continue to be evaluated for the
entire season, issuing a report in November after a full season of operation.
Indicating that some Thursdays she attends a LAFCO meeting at City Hall at 7:00 p.m., Councilmember Heller
stated that this past Thursday the traffic was gridlocked. She suggested that this be monitored to ascertain
whether it was a once only occurrence or whether it could be a problem that needed to be solved.
Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to accept the report.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
11. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL'S RESPONSE TO THE MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED
"MARIN ON FIRE! NOT IF, BUT WHEN" (FD) — FILE 269 x 9-3-31
Fire Chief Chris Gray noted that an "Attachment C" , the first update of the facts and figures related to
implementation of the Vegetation Management Program, had been added to this evening's packet item.
Chief Gray reported that the Marin County Civil Grand Jury had issued essentially eleven findings and three
recommendations. In reviewing the report he was pleased to see it largely was an affirmation of the City
Council's efforts of last year, and the timing could not be better with the current fire season. There had been
excellent compliance with the Vegetation Management Ordinance, which was being experienced community
wide, even though there was a three-year implementation plan to complete a review of all of the
neighborhoods. Chief Gray stated that staff agreed with most of the findings and recommendations, and while
exception was taken to some, they largely substantiated the work in progress or to be completed shortly.
Councilmember Connolly moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12501 — RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL TO EXECUTE THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL'S
RESPONSE TO THE 2007-2008 MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY
REPORT ENTITLED "MARIN ON FIRE! NOT IF, BUT WHEN"
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
12. FY 2006-2007 ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT REPORT. THE GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT REPORT, THE
SINGLE AUDIT REPORT, AND THE MEMORANDUM ON INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE (FIN) —
FILE 8-9 x 8-1 x 9-3-21
Finance Director Cindy Mosser reported that as required by the local code and state law, the City must
complete an annual audit of its financial activities. She would present the Financial Audit, Single Audit Report
on Compliance with Proposition 111, also the Gann Limit Report, and the Memorandum on Internal Control.
Indicating that this was the first year Maze & Associates conducted the audit, Ms. Mosser reported that they
noted several changes to the City's reporting, including classification changes and a debt restatement, together
with a couple of differences in the procedures. Ms. Mosser corrected the date of the Gann Report on the staff
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 5
report to read June 30, 2007, explaining that the previous auditors reported on the budget year whereas the
current auditors report on the audit year. She stated that last year the City Council acted on the Gann report.
The same results were received and staff would like the City Council to act on the report again.
With regard to an additional procedural difference, Ms. Mosser explained that Auditor, Cory Biggs, would like to
present the Memorandum of Internal Control Structure to the City Council (the Management Report).
Cory Biggs, Partner, Maze & Associates and the Engagement Partner on the City's Audit, stated that included
in the documents before the City Council this evening were the audit reports, which were in essence an opinion
as to the fairness of the data included in the financial reports. The scope of work requested by the City
constituted an audit under generally accepted accounting principles, meaning the auditors carry out a variety of
tests on the data and procedures. While 100% of the transactions are not tested, tests are performed on a
variety of different types of transactions, such as receipts, disbursements, payroll, investments, loans, debts,
etc. A variety of compliances with certain laws and regulations are also tested, such as Government Code,
both in regard to debt and investments, federal regulation with regard to federal awards, state regulations with
regard to transit, etc.
Noting some challenges in the first year, Mr. Biggs stated the field work was done by the end of December,
2007, a little late. The last piece of data needed to release the report was received a couple of weeks ago, i.e.,
Management's Discussion and Analysis. He noted that in the old days they could assist in preparing these;
however, this was no longer permitted under audit standards. Mr. Biggs stated that their opinions were "clean" -
the highest form the City could receive.
Indicating that the Memorandum of Internal Control was also included in the packet, Mr. Biggs explained this
was the document where he would present issues to the City Council he believed were significant. Those of
concern were items called "material weaknesses", which basically meant an absence or breakdown of controls
such that a material error could occur and go without detection by staff. While there were no material
weaknesses based on the work performed, he stated there were, however, some items called "significant
deficiencies." Cautioning the City Council not to take this title too far, he stated it was the standard term and
meant there were items that should be addressed by staff; however, it was nothing to lose sleep over.
Reporting that the definition was very technical, Mr. Biggs stated there were two items constituting "significant
deficiencies" —
1) Parking citation processing occurring by a vendor - Normally in auditing they audit the controls over a
variety of transaction cycles, including revenues; however, because this vendor, which was essentially
another city, processes such a large volume of transactions which are outside the scope of their
normal audit, Mr. Biggs suggested to staff to request a "Sas 70" audit, which was in essence a
transaction review and audit by an independent CPA, the results of which would be communicated to
the City to ascertain whether controls were pertinent, relevant and operating effectively. This would
provide some comfort that the transactions operated by that vendor were reliable and complete.
2) Staff Training — The City had somewhat limited staffing in terms of the Finance Department. When staff
had time to respond to requests, reliable and well researched answers were received; however, timing
was still an issue in terms of turning the audit around and producing the reports in a timely fashion.
Mr. Biggs believed staff training would go a long way towards improving that timeliness; however, he
reiterated that assuming staff had time, very good responses were being received.
Indicating there were a couple of other comments in their letter, Mr. Biggs stated these did not constitute a
significant deficiency.
Councilmember Heller noted the Management Response was that the Sas report would be available for Fiscal
Year 2007-2008. Mr. Biggs confirmed staff indicated they were requesting this from the processor and it
should not be on next year's list.
Ms. Mosser stated she had contacted Data Ticket who indicated they would obtain a Sas report.
Regarding the Memorandum on Internal Control Structures, Mayor Boro noted several items regarding the
status on prior year recommendations and it appeared as though progress was being made. Concurring, Mr.
Biggs stated that those items would remain on the list until they had either been implemented or became
irrelevant. Staff would continue to report back to the City Council as to the progress, or in some cases, no
progress to report.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 6
Regarding the new list provided, Mayor Boro inquired whether there was anything that would be added for next
year, or whether they were all pretty much contained. Mr. Biggs stated he would not know the answer to this
until this year's work was complete. While there could be other items, Mr. Biggs indicated they had spent a
large amount of time going through and getting a good understanding of what staff was doing in terms of
process and procedure. Assuming staff maintained what they were doing, he would not anticipate significant
issues arising.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to accept the reports.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPEAL HEARING:
13 Continuation of Appeal Hearing — RE: 33 SAN PABLO AVENUE: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED07-045) AND
TENTATIVE MAP (TS07-001) TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 4 -STORY. 33.000 SQ. FT.
OFFICE BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4 -STORY. 82 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT OVER THREE LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING WITH 138 PARKING
SPACES. INCLUDING A ONE UNIT DENSITY BONUS AND ONE CONCESSION FOR USE OF STATE
PARKING RATES. ON AN 81.495 SQ. FT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 SAN PABLO AVENUE (CD) —
FILE (Public Hearing was closed on Mav 5. 2008 — matter for Citv Council deliberation and action. —
File 10-2 (2) 33 San Pablo Avenue x 273
Explaining the process for this evening, Mayor Boro confirmed that the Appeal Hearing was closed at the last
meeting and would not be reopened. The answers being provided by the applicant and staff this evening
would be discussed by the City Council. Should there be questions on clarity, or comments on the answers or
recommendations, three minutes would allowed to each speaker to present these. Mayor Boro confirmed that
the public could speak to anything raised this evening.
Principal Planner Raffi Boloyan confirmed that this item was continued from the May 5`h Appeal Hearing. The
City Council requested further information on some items from the applicant and staff, the first of which was a
request for a video photo simulation of the project. Mr. Boloyan reported that the applicant had prepared two
video photo simulations from two different views: 1) from southbound Highway 101 looking at the project site;
and 2) from westbound North San Pedro Road, from the intersection with Civic Center Drive heading towards
the freeway. In addition, three still shot photo simulations were prepared by the applicant showing the existing
and proposed views from three vantage points on San Pablo Avenue.
Mr. Boloyan reported that the project plans presented on May 5`h included four different still shot photo
simulations of both the existing and proposed project from four vantage points, and these were included in the
project plans on sheets 12a, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
Mr. Boloyan stated that the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines include design
policies that were evaluated by the Planning Commission along with all the other applicable land use policies,
and these were used in formulating the Planning Commission's decision on this project.
With regard to the request for staff to conduct a meeting between the applicant and appellants to discuss the
project in further detail, Mr. Boloyan reported that this meeting took place on May 29, 2008, at which the
applicant presented the draft version of their photo simulation which had been in development since the last
meeting to those present. The meeting began with the applicant's presentation on the need for the 82 units in
this project and why they continued to propose that number of units. It also included a summary of the result of
discussions and a tentative agreement reached by the applicant with the County staff to add additional
landscaping on the County parking lot property located at the backside of this site. The tentative agreement
with the County allows this project, if approved, to add six to eight additional trees on the County lot on the
slope for further screening. These trees would be in addition to the 32 trees currently proposed along the rear
of the building, and were a mixture of Redwood and Birch species on the approved landscaping plan.
With regard to discussion from the appellants concerning a potential crosswalk and stop sign at the corner of
Laurel Glen Terrace and San Pablo Avenue, Mr. Boloyan reported that this issue was evaluated in further
detail by Traffic Engineer, Nader Mansourian, and the current uncontrolled intersection, with this project or
even in baseline conditions without the project, does not meet the required warrants to install a stop sign or
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 7
crosswalk. However, Mr. Mansourian and the City's Traffic Coordinating Committee would be happy to
reevaluate if and when the project is built and conditions changed.
Mr. Boloyan reported that the applicant also presented the plans on the proposed sidewalk improvements,
offered as part of the project, to both staff and the appellants. The applicant offered to install some offsite
sidewalk improvements to fill in the gaps existing in the current sidewalk system. Since these are offsite
improvements and not typically required of projects, staff included the applicant's offer as a condition of
approval to make them requirements. Mr. Boloyan reported that the preliminary plans show how the street
would be widened in that segment where sidewalk improvements were proposed to accommodate the new
sidewalk. When preparing the report staff was not in possession of the plans from the applicant; therefore, the
discussion was based on assumptions of how they would add the sidewalk. This assumption was that the new
sidewalk would be installed without any widening to the existing street and based on this assumption, the staff
report indicated there could be a loss of up to 14 on -street parking spaces if the sidewalk improvements were
installed. However, having looked at the preliminary improvement plans received on Thursday last, Mr.
Boloyan stated the plan called for widening the street to the City's current public right-of-way width, filling in the
gap of what the City controls as public right-of-way within this segment of the sidewalk project; therefore, the
sidewalk improvement project would result in additional sidewalk on both sides of the street for that segment
and an additional three on -street parking spaces.
Mr. Boloyan displayed and discussed the Preliminary Sidewalk Improvement Plan.
Mr. Boloyan stated the proposed plan was to take the existing street width and extend it all the way to the edge
of the public right-of-way line. In doing so, a new 5 -foot sidewalk would be created along the three residential
properties on the north side of San Pablo Avenue, a 12 -foot vehicle travel lane the other direction and eight 8 -
foot wide parallel parking spaces on the south side of the street along the public open space. The conceptual
plan had been reviewed by the Public Works Department and was found to be appropriate and reasonable.
Mr. Boloyan reported that during the meeting with the appellants and applicant, the appellants had requested
that the new sidewalk improvements be installed prior to demolition or prior to building permit issuance for the
project so that those improvements would be usable by the neighbors during construction. He explained that
as the conditions of approval are written the sidewalk improvements would be required prior to occupancy of
the structures, once the project is finished, which is typically how these types of conditions are required since
damage could occur during construction; therefore, they are usually left as the final piece. Mr. Boloyan
identified this as #119 in the Conditions of Approval, and should it be deemed appropriate by the City Council,
the timing could be changed to be required prior to issuance of demolition or building permits.
Aside from this project, Mr. Boloyan reported that the City's Traffic Coordinating Committee received a request
from neighbors on San Pablo Avenue about the safety concerns on the curve heading up San Pablo Avenue
by the market, gas station towards Meadow Oaks. The Committee looked into this and would be red zoning
that portion of the street to create adequate street width to address an existing condition with the narrowness
on that curve. This would happen in the near future and would be aside from the project under consideration.
With regard to other issues raised during the public comment portion of the appeal hearing, Mr. Boloyan stated
the staff report included responses from staff. One issue related to traffic and the backup existing in Santa
Venetia, heading westbound on North San Pedro Road, and the other related to CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act) and the appropriateness of the Categorical Exemption finding. He indicated that
City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Mansourian, would discuss the traffic issues and Mr. Brown,
Community Development Director, would discuss the CEQA items.
Mr. Mansourian reported that on May 20, 2008 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. staff observed
the operations of westbound North San Pedro Road in front of the Jewish Community Center (JCC) and
Gallinas school to better understand the situation with regard to the morning backups. In summary, staff's
observation was that the traffic was free flowing until approximately 8:15 a.m. At approximately 8:20 a.m. staff
observed a high volume of cars traveling eastbound approaching both the JCC and the school, making left-
hand turns, etc., in addition to the normal commute, and nearing the crossing -guard crosswalks, all of which
backed up traffic until approximately 8:45 a.m. Mr. Mansourian stated that this backup was due to heavy
volume concentrated over a very short duration, single lane approach, interruptions of the flow, Civic Center
signal light, etc. It was also noticed that after Golf Avenue where the City limit begins, with two westbound
through lanes, traffic moved very easily.
Mr. Mansourian stated that staff also gathered some volumes of traffic on San Pablo Avenue to ensure that the
current 4,200 vehicles daily was in accordance with the land use, and having compared it to the models
database, it was found to be reasonable. Speed surveys were conducted on San Pablo Avenue in conjunction
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 8
with the Police Department, which confirmed the sample radar surveys. In addition, some turning movement
counts were compared with previous data — Attachment III to Mr. Mansourian's Memorandum dated May 22,
2008. In November, 2007 Mr. Mansourian reported having spent time working with the County's Traffic
Operations Engineer, and they adjusted the signal timing to optimize it further. He pointed out that while he
would favor adding more time to the westbound direction, the balance at the intersection had to be maintained
for all movements, especially eastbound North San Pedro where cars exit the freeway.
Responding to some of the issues raised by those calling for the preparation of an EIR, Mr. Brown described
the background for the infill exemption that was added to CEQA a few years ago by the State Legislature. He
explained this was done to foster and remove some of the procedural impediments that CEQA causes for infill
development, as opposed to encouraging green field development outside of urbanized counties, such as
Sonoma, Napa, etc. The legislature realized that the demand for new development would be satisfied
somewhere, and their larger scale view was that it would be preferable that that occur in currently developed
urbanized and suburbanized areas, as opposed to vacant development in rural or agricultural areas. This was
their reason for establishing the infill exemption.
Describing how staff evaluated the project for the applicability of the Infill Exemption, Mr. Brown explained that
staff went through CEQA 's initial study checklist to determine whether there was any potential for significant
environmental impacts. While the adoption of a Categorical Exemption does not require that an initial study be
published, nonetheless, staff went through that exercise and there was substantial evidence in the project file
to document the staff determinations of no significant impact in these various areas that would result from the
conversion of the office to residential use. He did not believe that either of the attorneys who submitted letters
to the City Council actually went through the City's files to review those materials; however, they were public
record.
In response to some of the issues raised, Mr. Brown stated that the first dealt with the project's conformance
with the General Plan policies, and although there was very little substantiation in the record of how the project
failed to meet the General Plan policies, the policies that had been cited publicly were the subjective policies
dealing with design compatibility, and in this case, design compatibility in a rather diverse mix of land uses and
building styles and sizes. Therefore, in the case of these design policies, compatibility was very much in the
eyes of the beholder, and ultimately, it was the City Council's determination in this case that mattered.
With regard to the issue raised concerning piecemealing, Mr. Brown stated this usually refers to a project that
requires several permits along the way, but the City Council was only analyzing the environmental impacts of a
few of those permits, not the totality of the project. What had been cited was the fact that staff addressed the
proposed new residential development, but not the effects of demolishing the existing office building. In reality,
he pointed out that the documentation in the project files regarding the Categorical Exemption did address
demolition impacts. It noted that no pile driving was proposed, and the types of demolition activities that would
occur, and it identified the requirements for complying with the standard conditions of approval, which include
complying with the City's Noise Ordinance and the preparation of a construction management plan. In the
case of a demolition permit, the City does not require an environmental review; therefore, it was not even the
type of permit subject to CEQA typically, unless it was an historic building being demolished.
With regard to the baseline for the traffic analysis, including vehicular trips in the traffic model for the office
building, Mr. Brown reported this issue had been addressed on numerous occasions. He explained that the
City retained the vehicular trips in its traffic model for the vacant office building so that that Mr. Mansourian
could accurately assess traffic impacts from other development proposals in the area, or from traffic
operational changes that could occur. In analyzing this project, the office trips were replaced by residential
trips. Mr. Brown indicated the analysis points out that residential uses generate fewer overall trips than the
office building, should it be reoccupied; however, the bottom line determination was whether or not the new
residential use replacing the theoretical office trips would result in an exceedance of the Level of Service (LOS)
standards at the San Pablo and North San Pedro intersection. San Rafael's General Plan establishes LOS D
as the significant threshold and taking the existing traffic levels, adding just the residential project, staff's result
overall was LOS B at this intersection in the morning and C in the evening. Based on these criteria, staff would
not determine that this was a significant impact.
Mr. Brown reported that the Traffic Engineer, Police and Fire staff also looked at the safety implications,
evaluating the historic traffic data, volume of traffic, both existing and projected, operational observations in the
field, and found no likelihood that the addition of the project would cause significant safety impacts.
Mr. Brown stated that most of the public requests for an EIR were based on the appearance of the building.
However, CEQA was not a vehicle to address aesthetics and architectural compatibility. The design -related
questions in the CEQA initial study address whether a building would have an adverse impact on a scenic
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 9
vista, which staff defines as impacting views of the ridgelines, Mount Tamalpais or the Civic Center from a
public vantage point, or whether it damages an historic building. Mr. Brown believed that the visual simulations
to be presented this evening and what had been seen previously, demonstrated that this building would not
block views of the San Pedro Open Space ridgeline, or views of the Civic Center from public viewpoints. Also,
from the visual simulation, he believed Council would conclude that the proposed project and Civic Center
were not seen in the same view shed. Mr. Brown noted the applicant would point out that the Civic Center
Design Guidelines adopted by Marin County concluded that redevelopment of their office buildings at 10 and
20 North San Pedro would not impact views to and from the Civic Center or change its historic character.
Indicating that CEQA would not be the avenue being sought by the neighbors to address the visual impacts of
this project, Mr. Brown noted this was the purpose of the design review process, which was a very
discretionary process. While the City Council had input from the DRB and Planning Commission, ultimately
they would have to reach their own conclusions regarding the appropriateness of the project design; however,
an EIR would not be of assistance in making that determination.
Referring to the Options Section of the staff report, - Page 5 — Option #1 - Mr. Boloyan noted this stated that
the Council could deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval with one modification to a
condition of approval; however, this Option should have stated that the City Council could deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission's approval. He noted that the portion concerning the one modification to a
condition of approval was a typographical error, for which he apologized.
Regarding the question on unit size and how the size of these proposed units compared to other condominium
projects, and whether they were excessive in size, Mr. Boloyan reported that during the Planning Commission
and Design Review Board's review of the project, the unit sizes were reduced from approximately 1,300
square -feet for two-bedroom units and 950 square -feet for one -bedroom units, to the currently proposed 1,200
square -feet for two -bedrooms and 900 square -feet one bedroom. He indicated this was done during the
development review process as a means to reduce the mass and bulk of the structure. In looking at the sizes
of the proposed one and two-bedroom units, Mr. Boloyan stated staff noted they were not excessive or large
units and when compared to other condominium projects, they were average size.
Regarding correspondence, Mr. Boloyan reported that all correspondence since the May 5th Appeal Hearing,
including the staff report with all attachments, written correspondence since the preparation of the staff report,
information received this evening, including any and all public comment, was part of the record on which the
Council was basing its decision on the appeal and this project. Mr. Boloyan noted that some new letters were
received since the distribution of the staff report — a letter and email from residents were placed on the dais for
the City Council this evening, together with two letters from attorneys representing the appellants and the
Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association. Copies of all of these letters were provided to the City Council, as
well as the public, with the materials located in the lobby.
City Attorney Robert Epstein stated he did not have much to add to Mr. Brown's extensive discussions
regarding issues concerning the Categorical Exemption and CEQA, which was the subject of the letters from
Ms. Zoia and Mr. Graf. He had reviewed both letters from Ms. Zoia and that from Mr. Graf and was familiar
with the law cited therein, and having carefully considered the arguments made, he had nothing further to add
or change regarding his comments on the application of the Categorical Exemption he made at the May 5th City
Council Meeting, which was expanded upon and thoroughly addressed this evening by Mr. Brown.
With regard to the Options in the staff report, Councilmember Heller confirmed the language should end after
the words "deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval."
Jeff Hutchinson, Project Manager representing applicant Monahan Pacific Corporation, stated he was present
to present responses to questions raised and clarifications requested at the Appeal Hearing of May 5, 2008.
Mr. Hutchinson reported that the project had been reviewed many times by the Design Review Board and
Planning Commission and the first slides he would present were a reiteration of the visual simulations they
were requested to provide as part of the design review process. He identified the Civic Center district with the
project in the center and provided and explained visual still photo simulations of the four views as background
and context.
With regard to the additional information being provided, Mr. Hutchinson presented three slides and explained
the images of the proposed building taken from San Pablo Avenue.
Victor Gonzales, Monahan Pacific Corporation, stated that to make the video simulation as realistic and
accurate as possible they shot a regular DVD of both San Pablo Avenue and Southbound Highway 101 and
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 10
subsequently, created the video simulation; therefore, Council would see the existing conditions and the
conditions as they were put into the video simulation. Mr. Gonzales presented and explained the video
simulations of the project from various vantage points.
Mr. Hutchinson presented a slide of an excerpt from the Facilities Plan commissioned by Marin County which
identified five development sites in and around the Civic Center. Referring to the Facilities Plan and Nos. 10
and 20 North San Pedro Road, he noted it indicated:
• This site had the least impact on the Civic Center campus;
• It has no impact on views both to and from the Civic Center building; and
• It preserves the historic Civic Center building planning.
Understanding the County could build a three or four story building on that site, Mr. Hutchinson presented
illustrations on how this could look from the public view.
Mayor Boro invited Mr. Hutchinson to describe the number and size of the trees on the two locations
Mr. Gonzales stated they met with the County Parks Division and discussed eight or so trees on the existing
slope. They favored Valley Oaks, which could be put in at the earliest part of construction and could grow
throughout the construction period. A number of details had to be worked out with the County in terms of
taking responsibility for those trees and the County would retain the right to remove the trees at any time. He
believed the trees would remain for a good while and add to the screening they were already doing.
With regard to the number of trees being planned by the developer, Mr. Gonzales stated there were roughly 32
trees on their side of the property line and a further eight or ten off the property.
Mayor Boro inquired as to the size of the trees.
Mr. Gonzales stated that initially they proposed a 15 -gallon; however, the important issue was the size of the
hole, and a 15 -gallon would be a 24 -inch in a year. He indicated they were open to suggestions on this issue.
With regard to the screening viewpoint southbound on Highway 101, he confirmed that the trees noted would
cover both exposures.
With regard to bike racks, Councilmember Brockbank indicated he learned that the developer had declined to
put these in.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that there was nothing in their record where they had been asked to or declined to
provide bike racks. They had a secure parking garage with plenty of storage space for individuals as well as
common area storage; therefore, there would be ample room to provide parking and secure storage for bikes
Mary Feller, Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association, apologized for submitting the letter from the lawyer so
late, and she gave a handout/chart to the City Clerk for distribution to the City Council. Focusing on the LOS
westbound in the morning she stated that as could be seen from the chart, this was 387 cars, which was a
maximum queue of eighteen cars. This was depicted in a photograph she had taken from the Civic Center
intersection looking east. She noted the queues extended .6 to .8 miles, which amounted to either 158 to 211
vehicles, in the morning and the afternoon between 3:00 and 3:45 was something similar. Noting the
intersection was supposed to be LOS C in the morning westbound, she believed it was probably more like LOS
F, and the City Traffic Model was not accounting for the true queue. She questioned, therefore, what the real
LOS of this intersection was in the a.m.
Regarding discussion in the May 22nd Memorandum from City Traffic Engineer, Nader Mansourian, to Mr.
Boloyan, that attributed the problem to eastbound traffic turning left into Venetia Valley School and also
children in the crosswalks, Ms. Feller stated that in looking at the photograph she had submitted, no cars were
turning left and there was no one in the crosswalk. She indicated they were concerned about the City Traffic
Model not taking into account the real data at this point.
With regard to the City's claim of no increase in volume, Ms. Feller stated she did not know how to answer this
but to state that since 1995, there had been 60 to 100 single-family homes built in the neighborhood, together
with expansion of the JCC and Venetia Valley School. She stated that they would like to look a little more
closely at the traffic volumes and how the City actually reached this conclusion.
With regard to community involvement, Ms. Feller stated that at the time they were approached by Monahan
Pacific, they felt it was mostly a done deal. They were told that the traffic models would be based on historic
use of the old office building, etc.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 11
Mark Wallace, commenting on the new information presented this evening, stated that as a general
observation, his impression of the process so far was that the Categorical CEQA Exemption appeared to be
used by the Planning Commission as an excuse to not really have a complete plan at any given point, and to
not allow a reasonable period of time for public review of a complete plan. Also, to appear to entertain any
number of last minute changes even after public comment was closed he assumed to be o.k. Indicating he did
not believe this to be the intent of CEQA law, Mr. Wallace believed exemptions in CEQA were not supposed to
be a mechanism to preclude public review of this information; therefore, regardless of whether it was called a
Categorical Exemption, Negative Declaration of EIR, there had to be at some point a complete plan that was
not being changed as it was being discussed, to comment on, and definitely, the flavor of this meeting was that
discussions were not at that point.
Mr. Wallace noted that the plans for the changes in sidewalks and parking were dated May 29`h, and it took the
public a while to absorb this information; therefore, he believed a period of public comment was needed. On
completion of responding to all the objections, he believed a further period of public comment was needed on
the results.
Agreeing with Ms. Feller's comments, Mr. Wallace stated that for the past many years every morning he
experienced something much more in line with what was described in the photograph, and with regard to the
observations made by Mr. Mansourian from one day, he believed there was a lot more he did not see. He
believed the public needed more time to review the issue.
Referring to a point made by an attorney for the appellants regarding the concept of a fair argument standard
that applied to this type of process where the City Planning staff and City Attorney could not argue down the
public point by point and then close the process, Mr. Wallace stated this was not a well conducted public
process and was the reason for public comment periods, EIRs, etc. Looking at the setup of the room, it was
the City Council, City Attorney and developer versus the public, as they were basically arguing down every
point the public tried to make, which was not the way government or a proceeding such as this was supposed
to work. He requested that the City Council take this into account and consider the arguments the public was
trying to make and what they were up against.
With regard to the simulations, Mr. Wallace stated that the existing office building was designed to be
inconspicuous and he believed what he had just seen did not match the hillside color -wise, etc. Noting full-size
trees were depicted in the simulations, he stated it would take decades to get to that point, if ever, because
growing trees in hillsides in Marin was tricky. The comments concerning the possible office building the County
might construct Mr. Wallace believed to be irrelevant.
Stacev DeGooyer, Appellant, requested the City Council to uphold their appeal of 33 San Pablo Avenue.
While they realized the need for housing, this massive condominium complex had been bulldozed through the
process without proper consideration of the environmental impacts and ignoring the context of their modest, yet
significant neighborhood.
Ms. DeGooyer stated that up to this point the project had been railroaded through the process with a lack of
transparency. No information was provided regarding demolition and while this could be in the file, they were
just a group of neighbors volunteering and committed to responsible development in their area. They kept
getting new information they had to try to process, while staff did this for a living, and she indicated that staff
could have encouraged them to look in the file about CEQA so that they were not stabbing in the dark trying to
make this a win - win situation.
Noting the story poles were in position for less than 24 hours, Ms. DeGooyer stated that the developer tried to
skip over the recommendations of the Design Review Board months ago and push his way forward to the
Planning Commission. There was no scale model and photographs could be very deceptive. The sidewalk
enhancements had always been offered; however, there was a legal nexus of feasibility, etc., and there was no
guarantee that a child would not be hit by some heavy construction equipment because the street was not
even safe currently.
As illustrated by the photo simulations, Ms. DeGooyer stated this site was not really infill. It was not
surrounded by infrastructure that allowed people to get to the bus easily, nor surrounded by a store that people
could walk to because of the lack of sidewalk. She indicated that every time they receive information they
believed made sense, the City came back and indicated they would not use the historical use argument, rather
the baseline argument. She stated that even a mitigated environmental report would help.
Noting the building was built in 1971, Ms. DeGooyer inquired whether it contained asbestos and on demolition,
the impacts on air quality. She indicated that they kept getting new information and were trying to keep up with
it to try to have a safe and healthy neighborhood for their children.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 12
Ms. DeGooyer stated that at a minimum the community had the right to peer review the traffic information
proposed by the City Engineer. They attempted to get traffic consultants to evaluate it; however, there was
insufficient time and now there were further parking and road changes, etc. She stated that telling them this
evening that they could look through the file and that they were using CEQA to address aesthetic measures
was a complete insult.
Ms. DeGooyer stated that this project was too big for their neighborhood and their request was just to have it
reduced so that it blended in, that the school could absorb the new students and bicyclists could use the street,
etc. Requesting that her comments be considered, Ms. DeGooyer stated that her letter dated May 30th was not
included in the packet.
Mayor Boro confirmed that the letter had been received and would be part of the record.
Steve Patterson, Chair, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, stated that while the Federation would not
discuss or comment on the size or number of units of the project, they cared passionately about the design. As
most were aware, he was a member of the nineteen -member Steering Committee for the San Rafael General
Plan that lasted four years. He sat through many discussions and slide shows where they were shown what
amounted to superior infill development and the implications of these slide shows was that when it occurred, it
would carry with it superior design. While that had not always been the case, he believed this represented a
potential missed opportunity. Mr. Patterson stated that this project sits across the street from probably the
most stunning piece of architecture, if not in Marin, maybe in all of Northern California — the Frank Lloyd Wright
Civic Center — which was a stunning example and historical landmark. However, this project, in his opinion
and those of others who had studied it closely, was not an inspiring piece of architecture that complemented
what resided directly across the street.
Mr. Patterson stated that the General Plan discusses the issue of context, and developing new projects and
acknowledging what is around them, and it was almost as though that issue had not been fully thought through
in relationship to what was across the street. He was not stating that this project needed to look similar to a
Frank Lloyd Wright building, rather it should balance out what was across the street by being a really fine piece
of architecture that people felt good about.
Noting the City Council wanted housing, Mr. Patterson stated that the neighborhoods and neighbors with whom
he has talked extensively throughout the process, many of whom had not been through a tough project like
this, wanted to walk away with something they also felt good about. And they wanted to be in a neighborhood
they still felt inspired by, proud of and felt good about living there. Hearing comments about view scapes and
the size of trees made him nervous, because these did not deal with the real essence of what was happening,
which was a project that was not inspiring from a design standpoint. San Rafael's residents deserved better
and the City Council as their elected representatives were in a position to do something about that, particularly
for the neighbors who had hung in through all the DRB, Planning Commission and now several City Council
meetings, and he hoped the City Council would give this strong consideration in their decision-making this
evening.
John Mosher, noted the story poles were removed in a matter of hours rather than the statutory, three, five or
ten day period. These were supposed to give the community notice of the dimensions of a proposed building
and a developer should not be able to skirt these rules by citing safety or security concerns, by indicating
children would play on them or that it was a bad neighborhood, because builders in rougher neighborhoods
would all want a pass. If they were so tall that they would topple, he questioned what this stated about the
size. He suggested re -erecting the poles this week so that the City Council could see why they were removed
in such a hurry.
Noting the video simulations were from a car on the freeway and from a car on North San Pedro Boulevard,
Mr. Mosher inquired about the walking or driving view from San Pablo Avenue, Civic Center Drive or from
within the Civic Center. He favored seeing a fly through that included, rather than excluded, the Civic Center.
Mr. Mosher reported that the Civic Center was nominated as a United Nations World Heritage Landmark and
there were requirements regarding a contestant's surroundings. He inquired whether the developer had taken
these criteria into consideration, as he would not like to see a disqualification because the building was
approved subsequent to knowing about the criteria.
Colin Russell, Chair, Advocates for Housing and Economic Development, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce,
invited all those in the audience in favor of the project to stand. He reported that his committee had followed
this project very closely for the past year and a half with great interest. They believed this site was about as
classic an infill site as there was in San Rafael, being surrounded by transportation services, jobs and all the
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 13
things needed for a successful, infill, affordable housing site. Noting it was a difficult site, he stated it had
tough access, was cross sloping; however, he believed the architects had done a very good job. They had
gone through many iterations of design and had been thoroughly vetted by both the Design Review Board and
Planning Commission for the past year and a half, and they had come up with a very crisp building, and with 80
plus units, it would be seen no matter what was done. The developer had addressed all of the major design
concerns brought up and had done a commendable job.
Mr. Russell believed the density of the project was appropriate. It met all the zoning requirements and
everything possible had been done to minimize the height and bulk, and he believed the developer deserved
the City Council's approval this evening. It was a project that needed to be approved if San Rafael wanted to
make any meaningful dent in the crucial, critical need for affordable housing.
Andrew Junius, Attorney representing the project sponsor, stated he wanted to respond for the record to some
of the issues raised this evening. Also to follow up on the letter he provided on Friday last and to respond to
some of the legal issues raised in the correspondence received from other attorneys.
Referring to an issue raised by Mr. Brown at the beginning of the meeting, infill development and the public
policies behind both the density bonus and the Class 32 Exemption that were really the heart of this project,
Mr. Junius stated that these laws were critically important and were very green. Noting this was a green
project, he stated it takes advantage of existing infrastructure, reduces pressure to build on the edge of urban
boundaries, which would increase sprawl, put jobs and housing closer together, reduces commute distances,
reduces commuting altogether, allows for public transportation and creates more opportunities for residents to
have shorter or no car trips. Mr. Junius stated the bottom line was that green development and these types of
infill projects reduced greenhouse gas emissions, saved energy and created more sustainable communities,
and sustainability was at the heart of some of the most advanced planning laws currently, and was the basis
for the public policy behind Class 32. Indicating these were the types of projects required, he stated that by
definition they were more environmentally friendly than almost any other type of project. Noting the ideas were
not new, he stated that Smart Growth had been discussed for quite a while; however, Smart Growth is
implemented locally. The state could pass laws, but the City Councils throughout California had to address
these projects on a city by city basis, on a project by project basis and every neighborhood had a part to play.
Mr. Junius stated that the Class 32 Exemption was adopted in 1998. It was litigated in 2002 — Communities for
a Better Environment upheld the exemption over some serious challenges. It was a broad exemption but
clearly set a state policy that developments in urban areas, that otherwise met the five criteria staff had done a
great job in outlining, were less impactful than projects that promoted sprawl and were on the edges of urban
boundaries. He stated that this project fully complied with the Class 32 and staff had done a great job.
With regard to testimony from people speaking to what they believed were facts and substantial evidence for
the record, Mr. Junius stated that unfortunately, there were not very many facts that went against what staff
had reported and analyzed, and what was in the file. Expressions of subjective concerns, personal beliefs,
speculation, arguments, and complaints and fears about development were concerns, but not substantial
evidence, and not the kind of evidence to base a CEQA decision on. He added that a decision could not be
based on comments about traffic by non -traffic engineers. The City Traffic Engineer had gone over the
analysis repeatedly and provided very competent discussion, and there was nothing in the record that would
contradict those conclusions.
Mr. Junius stated the project commenced with 97 units and was now reduced to 82 units and he believed the
density bonus law would still permit 97 units; however, they strongly believed that the density bonus law
allowed them to get 81 units.
Sean Cunningham, San Pablo Avenue, stated that according to the plans from Monahan Pacific, the roughly
300 -foot section of roadway had only 12 parking spots. He did not believe San Pablo Avenue represented a
typical street in Marin, with parking on both sides Rather this was a narrow street with an already shortage of
parking, and the fact that there was insufficient parking on the property meant that those cars would have to
park on the street. He noted the developer indicated they were adding three spots; however, Mr. Boloyan
mentioned that because of the bend in the lower part of the street, some sections would be red zoned and
eliminate some parking; therefore, there would be no additional parking. Noting insufficient parking to facilitate
off-street parking, Mr. Cunningham stated that unless they had it on the property, he would like to see the
developer reduce the size of the project.
Linda Levv, Santa Venetia, stated that when Mayor Boro read from the agenda "To allow for the demolition of
an existing 4 -story, 33,000 Square -Foot office building and construction of a new 82 -unit residential
condominium project..." she realized that she had never heard how many units were in the office building and
how many square -feet the new building was.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 14
Regarding traffic, Ms. Levy noted Mr. Mansourian indicated he would love to add more time at the light for the
westbound traffic but needed to maintain balance. In locating a further 82 units on San Pablo Avenue that
would use the same stop light, she believed he would need to balance it to afford more time to San Pablo
Avenue traffic entering North San Pedro Road, thereby giving less time to North San Pedro Road.
With regard to the simulations, Ms. Levy did not consider that they showed the buildings as they would appear
and they were concerned as to what they would look like from the Civic Center. Seen from so far away did not
show decks, etc., which was the back of the building.
Art Duffv, Terra Linda Architectural Review Committee, stated that this evening's comments reinforced those of
May 5`h as to how residents and people of Marin felt about this project. Referring to a situation where there
was a request to build 1,200 — 1,500 houses at St. Vincents/Silviera, he noted Terra Linda residents surveyed
the entire County to find out how people felt. The results and concerns were presented to the Marin County
Board of Supervisors, who reduced the amount of houses to the lowest figure they could at that time.
Mr. Duffy stated he had attended a number of Planning Department meetings and there appeared to be
insufficient emphasis placed on the people of Marin and how they felt. He requested more consideration be
given by the Planning Department to representing people in Marin County than applicants. He believed also
that the City Council's job was to protect and listen to the people of Marin County.
Cliff Meneken, San Rafael, stated that this morning he submitted an email to the City Attorney and confirmed
copies has been received by the Mayor and City Council. With regard to the discretionary authority of the City,
he indicated that according to Bob Brown and some Councilmembers, the City Attorney had indicated the City
Council had basically no discretion and any project like this they had to approve. Speaking as an attorney he
believed it to be an erroneous interpretation of the law that the City's zoning regulations were paramount and
could not be superseded by the type of regulations that purportedly suggested the City Council had no
discretion in this matter and if that was the legal framework the City Council was provided, it should be re-
thought before making a final decision in this matter.
Regarding the question of CEQA and the City's zoning regulations and compatibility, Mr. Meneken reported
that two areas had been explored:
1) The views of the hillside and Civic Center for which Mayor Boro rightly pushed for further review. The
problem with the review however, was that it was done by the applicant not by the Planning
Department. He noted that when the Planning Department conducted a study on the second floor
addition in the Eichler community in Terra Linda, staff informed them when they would be there. The
City Planning Department took the photographs and people from both sides were present. The study
in question was done by the applicant and he questioned its validity.
2) With regard to the issue of compatibility, Mr. Meneken stated that the City did no compatibility
study. In the second floor issue there was a question of whether a second floor was compatible in
style and scale with the existing Eichler single -story homes. This situation included single -story homes
and second floor condominium type developments, and a four-story proposed project, which they
argued was not compatible with the existing buildings; however, there was no real study that
addressed what was there, why it was compatible or not. He indicated that the only compatible project
was the existing building; therefore, he believed the City would abuse its discretion if it approved this
project with a very questionable variance from the CEQA guidelines and in the absence of a full review
of the City's zoning regulations.
Tad Inouve, President, Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association, stated he was discouraged at not being
informed when the appellants got the update letter on May 22"d. They had not heard about it until later;
therefore, it was difficult to comment. He indicated they would like to have had their own traffic evaluation and
traffic study, albeit they did not have sufficient time. Noting the daily gridlock, he could not see how locating 82
units on a dead-end street would not affect traffic, and he hoped the City Council would take this into
consideration.
Russ Greenfield, having attended the last meeting where the impact on close neighbors was discussed, stated
he believed the City Council's comment was that they agreed there would be a negative impact, yet they had
no discretion. Having listened to the comment on how green the project was and the point concerning an email
that denied bike parking, the response was that there would be plenty of room to park bikes in the garage down
below; however, it was already stated the parking was inadequate for this building. He questioned the
justification on how green the project was when there were still a lot of unknowns which needed to be looked
at.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 15
Mary Lou Kinq urged the City Council to listen to the neighbors of the proposed building. Their concerns and
grievances at the size and impact on them and Santa Venetia were valid. The proposed building was at the
entrance off Highway 101 to the Frank Lloyd Wright Civic Center, the internationally acclaimed historic
landmark. She indicated that the 1992, Marin Civic Center Open Space measure which was passed had some
interesting comments, which she believed were applicable at this time. Quoting she stated: "The hills and
valleys near the Civic Center building are an essential part of this landmark and should be preserved and
maintained as open space. Several years ago, the County approved and constructed a garage maintenance
facility which was an eyesore and seriously detracted from the aesthetic quality of the Civic Center." Ms. King
stated that 33 San Pablo Avenue stood to be such an eyesore and detraction from the aesthetic quality of the
Civic Center. She noted a very real eyesore and detraction already in the Sutter building and, while not
actually on the Frank Lloyd campus grounds, it was in the hills and valleys near the Civic Center building.
Walking into the lagoon park from the Jury Parking Lot and looking north at the Veterans' Auditorium, it was
possible to see the lovely graceful domed symphony hall literally squatted on by the big brown block of the
Sutter building, completely killing Frank Lloyd Wright's idea of the hills providing a backdrop.
Ms. King stated that to uphold Frank Lloyd Wright's vision, surely 33 San Pablo Avenue should not happen as
planned.
Chet Davis stated he was a businessman as well as a homeowner at San Pablo Avenue. He understood the
developer had a right to earn a living; however, the interesting reality was that those most passionate about
this project appeared to be those living in the neighborhood. He believed he spoke for his neighbors in stating
that they were not staunch members of the NIMBY club, they were not against construction, housing or
affordable housing, rather they simply were concerned and against the project because of its massive
magnitude. Mr. Davis inquired as to how many present this evening in favor of the project actually lived on San
Pablo Avenue.
Mr. Davis appreciated the fact that several people were proving anecdotal information which was not
something that could be held to the letter of the law; however, he believed quality of life was one of the reasons
he had chosen, and continued to chose, to live in the City of San Rafael. Regardless of the outcome of the
project, he believed it important that everyone noted the neighborhood did feel strongly disenfranchised
throughout the process, not because perhaps the vote would turn against their wishes, but they had not truly
felt included through the entire process. If this truly was a branch of government, by the people, of the people
and for the people, he hoped that those impacted by decisions such as this had their opinions respectfully
weighed in on the entire project.
Mr. Davis respectfully encouraged the City Council to uphold the appeal, cease further construction or
demolition until the time that a more substantial review of the project could be completed.
Jennv Greqqv, Tarrant Court, stated that she had worked with her neighbors in putting together the PowerPoint
presentation for May 5`h. She indicated that the footprint of the current building was approximately 8,000
square -feet and that of the proposed building was 32,000 square -feet. The current building was 32,000
square -feet and the proposed 120,000 square -feet.
Ms. Greggy stated that from her perspective of hiking up the mountain and seeing the lush, green landscape,
looking down and seeing the 33 San Pablo Avenue building and the Civic Center, a gorgeous representation of
modern architecture, she realized she and the entire neighborhood were sitting ducks. In looking at the
beautiful landscape she saw the sprinkling of houses, hers being one, and thinking there was nothing they
could do. She noted that on the edge of the City line some of the properties under discussion were in Marin
County, which probably worked to the developer's advantage in that it was a mixed use area from a City and
County line perspective.
Noting this was a gigantic proposition, Ms. Greggy stated that if the developer had presented a proposal like
Meadow Oaks there would not even have been a discussion and it would not have been an iterative process.
With regard to the urban consideration of this neighborhood, Ms. Greggy stated she saw more deer in her
street than cars, together with raccoons. She stated it was hard to believe that this one street that had only
one entrance and exit would be deemed an urban area. Expressing concern with what had been going on, she
felt it had been a fast moving process, and although iterative, she believed there had been a lot of discussion
that had not taken their point into consideration. She hoped the City Council would take this into consideration.
Dirck Brinkerhoff, noting change was very disturbing, stated that there were rules in the zoning and state laws
to guide in making that change. This project follows all of those rules and in fact, was less dense and high than
state law would allow it to be. The developers from the get go did not ask for everything and there had been
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 16
give and take. Things were given; however, every time something was given it could not be reviewed another
time. The project provided housing, was in conformity with the General Plan and he hoped the City Council
would deny the appeal.
Commenting on one of the possible changes - widening the road and putting in the sidewalk before the
development — Mr. Brinkerhoff believed Mr. Boloyan gave a good reason for not doing that because the
equipment could destroy it as soon as it was in. Another reason was that developers usually did not get project
financing until the project was started, and paying for these types of public improvements could be tough.
Mr. Brown noted the following questions addressed to Mr. Mansourian:
1) What was the real LOS at the North San Pedro Road/San Pablo Avenue intersection?
2) Would the addition of this project reduce the time available for westbound traffic in the morning?
3) Were Mr. Mansourian's conclusions based upon just reviewing the operations in this area on one day?
Mr. Mansourian stated that the LOS analysis results published was the LOS for the intersection for the entire
60 -minute period for all approaches. The queue length westbound was 367 feet or approximately 18 vehicles
per lane for the two westbound lanes, ending at Golf. He agreed, and the observations were confirmed by the
residents who spoke, that there was a backup to beyond the schools and the JCC, and had reported on how
the operations were obstructed there. He stated that the intersection LOS did not go beyond the two lanes and
staff did not have the data in the County jurisdiction.
Having looked at the volume since 1995, Mr. Mansourian reported that the volumes had increased from 800
vehicles per hour for the westbound direction to 1,000 in 2000, and approximately 950 currently; therefore,
there had been some volume increase, but steady.
Indicating that staff had been observing these operations not just for one day, Mr. Mansourian stated that for
this project staff had been out there several times. They had video taped the situation and observed cars
making left turns into schools together with pedestrians crossing. He noted impacts on approaches from
events such as the 4`h of July and Farmers' Market Thursdays, some of the worse case scenarios, and he
believed there was heavy activity in the early afternoons when school let out; however, the City's policy for p.m.
peak was 4 — 6 p.m.
With regard to LOS, Mr. Mansourian reported that he took a count on a Thursday in late May and with the
assumption of a dirt lot adding 82 units, the LOS remained the same. He explained that the north/south
direction has a long walking distance — approximately 35 — 38 seconds of "Don't Walk." The additional volume
of cars can be serviced during that time and is already included in the LOS analysis. Therefore, the baseline
and most recent unorthodox calculations conducted both confirmed this.
Mr. Mansourian indicated that a peer review was done of the consultant who prepared the report for the
applicant, which was expanded to include all these details.
Mayor Boro stated the concern was that with the added homes, the time going north to south would have to be
extended, i.e., getting out of San Pablo Avenue onto North San Pedro and going to the Civic Center. Noting
the current 35 seconds for walkers and the amount of traffic coming out, he confirmed this would not be
changed or fine tuned any further, i.e., there would be no impact on delay at that intersection added as a result
of this activity.
Mr. Mansourian explained that one of the first tests conducted related to his concern about whether to add a
left -turn arrow for the northbound and southbound directions. Adding a left -turn arrow would change the
intersection LOS and operation; however, it was ascertained that the current available timing would service the
additional volume.
With regard to revisions to the Categorical Exemption and project plans without public review, Mr. Brown stated
the examples cited were the changes that would include the sidewalk and widening of the street. He explained
that this did not change the Categorical Exemption. It was a proposed change in one of the conditions of the
project approval, but the applicant proposed, based on a request from the neighborhood, to provide the
sidewalk but not lose on -street parking. He believed the only other change occurring in the project proposal,
requested by the City Council, were the additions of trees on the County property. Other than that there had
been no changes to the project plans or the Categorical Exemption since the Planning Commission saw the
project.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 17
With regard to the size of the trees in the visual simulation, Mr. Brown reported that staff's direction to the
applicant and his consultant, which was reflected in the simulation, was that the trees should be shown at
approximately five years of growth. Staff directed the applicant's consultants to essentially screen through the
trees so they were not solid masses in front of the building, camouflaging it, instead, for this depiction, because
people wanted to see the building, the trees were screened very faintly, so they did not really appear as
significant in terms of screening as they would be in reality.
Regarding the potential for asbestos and its effect with demolition of the office building, Mr. Brown reported that
before the City could issue a demolition permit the applicant must receive a permit from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD), specifically looking at demolition. The BAAQMD requires that the
building be tested for asbestos and if found, there is a laundry list of requirements about how that building
could be taken down. Mr. Brown stated this was most recently experienced with the Lincoln/Mission project
with the old motel. That building was within about 20 -feet of the adjacent condominiums and those people
were very concerned about the air quality impacts. Mr. Brown stated he was in contact with them subsequent
to the BAAQMD issued its demolition permit and the buildings came down, and he did not hear any complaints
from the residents.
On the question of the story poles, Mr. Brown stated these were not statutory requirements, and explained that
story poles were a visual tool to help people envision the size of the project. They are typically required for
larger buildings and were done in this case; however, they were not very stable and were removed. Instead,
the visual simulations were required, both the photographs showing the appearance of the building with the
existing site and tonight the video. Mr. Brown stated these were actually more refined tools and were much
better at helping individuals visualize the size of the project. Staff viewed this as an enhancement to the story
poles and not an easier or less imaginative solution.
Noting a question on the UNESCO criteria for designating the Civic Center as a world heritage site, Mr. Brown
stated he was not familiar with those. Staff looked at the U.S. Secretary of the Interior standards for buildings
on the national register of historic places, and given the distance from the site and the surroundings, staff did
not feel it would conflict with the Secretary of the Interior standards, and obviously, the County came to the
same conclusion in their study.
Concerning the square -footage of the office building versus the residential project, Mr. Brown believed Ms.
Greggy answered this. He agreed it was an apples and oranges comparison. The City limits the square -
footage of office buildings because of the traffic generation, noting they were very high traffic generators.
Therefore, to reduce the traffic impacts, the size of the building is reduced. On residential, it is based on
density, which is unit count. He confirmed with Mr. Boloyan that the difference was approximately 32,000
square -feet for the existing office building and 120,000 square -feet for the residential.
Regarding the ability of the City Council to trump state law with the City's zoning regulations, Mr. Brown stated
the City Attorney could best respond to this.
Mr. Epstein stated that some confusion remained perhaps in part because opinions had been attributed to the
office of the City Attorney, which neither he nor his staff had stated. This focused upon the application of the
City's Zoning Ordinance and design criteria to a project of this nature. He clarified that the Zoning Ordinance
and the City's design criteria applied to this project and it was the City Council's province, as the highest body
of the City, to apply those design criteria in making their decision on this application. Mr. Epstein stated there
was a relationship between the local Zoning Ordinance and design criteria and the state density bonus law;
however, it had not been implicated in this matter because no waiver from the local architectural standards and
design criteria had been requested by the applicant.
On Mr. Meneken's question regarding whether a design compatibility study was done by staff, Mr. Brown
reported that the Planning Commission staff report, included in this evening's packet, contained a lengthy
description of staff's perception about compliance with the General Plan design policies, and this same
information was included in the findings in the Resolution.
With regard to the question on the green building, Mr. Brown stated that as mentioned earlier, on the macro
level, infill development is certainly more green, higher density development is more green than lower density
single-family development in rural areas, etc., but this project would also have to comply with the City's
adopted Green Building Ordinance which requires that it go through a lengthy checklist and identify the items
to be incorporated, and it must meet a certain point total on the Green Points Rating Scale. This would be
done as part of the project construction.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 18
Mayor Boro noted the comment that this was like a moving target; things came up, were answered and there
was no time to study it. He believed that at the last meeting the issue of sidewalks and accessibility all the way
from the top of the project to the bottom of the street came forth as something of great importance to the
neighbors. Mayor Boro stated that a preliminary plan had been received which had not been approved. His
questions were:
• In going forward with the project, Condition #119 spoke to the sidewalk improvements being installed
before a building permit was issued and he inquired as to the timing, i.e., was there merit in having this
done sooner so as the project was progressing, people could walk up and down the street?; and
• "How do we get our arms around the final design of this before issuing a building permit or any work
starts. There is a plan tonight, so how do we assure ourselves and the public that we will drive this to
the end and make sure we have a plan that makes sense?"
Mr. Boloyan explained that as currently written, Condition #119 states that the improvement plan had to be
reviewed prior to building permit issuance to ensure that the sidewalk improvements were done in accordance
with City requirements. Condition #119 stated that those improvements had to be installed before the building
was occupied and he believed Mayor Boro was alluding to whether this could be moved up and done earlier,
the benefit and downside. Mr. Boloyan stated that from the City perspective, the benefit would be that there
would be a sidewalk during construction on the south side of the street to allow pedestrians to walk and bypass
the construction in a safe manner. The down side was that it could be damaged during construction and have
to be rebuilt or redone prior to final occupancy. Mr. Boloyan stated that it was fairly standard for those
requirements to be done before building occupancy, as currently written; however, in this case, at least having
the south side done before building permit issuance would be a good solution to getting people around the
construction site in a safe manner.
Mayor Boro inquired as to the widening of the street.
Mr. Boloyan stated this would go hand in hand with the sidewalk improvements, as street widening would be
necessary to do this.
In terms of the public process, Mr. Boloyan reported that typically improvement plans are handled by the City
Engineer and by the Public Works Department. There are certain standards, lane widths and Marin County
sidewalk standard that had to be applied.
Mr. Mansourian stated staff would have to ensure that the hillside design would meet the standards. He
believed it possible to widen the south side roadway first.
Regarding implementation of the project design, Mr. Brown stated that if this evening the City Council was
satisfied with the site plan and building elevations, the last step would be that the DRB, before issuance of a
building permit, would see the project details again. While the DRB felt that the level of detailing of the project
and the material choices generally looked good, some of the project materials proposed were green and
typically newer materials that the DRB was not extremely familiar with, and their greatest concern was the
durability of these materials, not wanting them to deteriorate or require more frequent painting. Therefore, they
wanted to see samples of those materials before issuing any building permits, and this would be a last step.
Mayor Boro confirmed that this would be a public meeting and those interested in the project would be notified.
Coming from the position of the role of government, Councilmember Miller stated this was to align individual,
institutional and organizational interests to the common good. In the case of 33 San Pablo Avenue, the
common good was found in the City's General Plan, ordinances, policies and state law. The General Plan
permits 81 units and SB 1818 State Density Bonus Law allows 98 units.
Noting the developer proposes 82 units, Councilmember Miller stated this was one more than the General
Plan, and sixteen less than state law. Implied in the number of units in both state law and the General Plan
was a mass sufficient to include them.
Councilmember Miller believed the staff was correct that the project was consistent with the General Plan and
compliant with the Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines. He also believed that the State Density Bonus
Law not only brought housing and jobs together by encouraging below market rate units, but this law is also a
tool to fight global warming by eliminating the distant commutes.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 19
To him, Councilmember Miller stated this was an allowable and indeed an encouraged large structure. A step
down, articulated design, viewed up against a hill away from the Civic Center, screened with over 40 trees and
situated within a mix of single-family homes, apartment complexes, office buildings and retail and commercial
establishments, made this project suitable to the context.
Councilmember Miller stated he had the greatest confidence in the experience of the traffic engineer and his
staff in traffic modeling and methodology, and operational and impact analysis that has always been confirmed
in the real world data. Residential use of the building had fewer trips in peak hours than office use. From the
pictures, especially, he saw the problem at the San Pedro Road/Civic Center intersection stem not from the
project but further up North San Pedro Road at the Venetia Valley School and Jewish Community Center. This
portion of the road leading up to the intersection was in the County's jurisdiction. The traffic problem was
generally experienced Monday through Friday in the morning between 8:00 and 9:00 o'clock.
Having assiduously studied the reports and materials presented, and respectfully and attentively listening to
and reading all the public comments, Councilmember Miller stated he found this project compliant with the
City's General Plan, ordinances and policies and the laws of the State of California. To be true to himself and
do what he considered the right thing in furthering the common good, he would vote to deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission's approval.
Addressing Stacey DeGooyer, appellant, Councilmember Heller stated she thought her presentation on May
5, 2008 was fantastic, noting it was frightening to stand at the podium and address the City Council, and she
and her neighbors did a great job. She believed part of the problem was the fact that the appellants came to
the situation so late. The process had been going through the City for eighteen months to two years from one
committee to the next. While the project had been changed here and there, the appellants at the last moment
were attempting to take it back to the very beginning, and legally this could not be done.
Councilmember Heller stated she was comfortable with the issues discussed this evening — views, density,
CEQA, traffic, stop signs, etc. She believed she would have to remain with the current density as state law left
very little discretion on that. She believed traffic was one of the biggest problems and of course, for Santa
Venetia residents, it was a very bad problem.
As she attends the JCC one to two mornings weekly at the time in question, Councilmember Heller stated she
knew exactly how the traffic stacked up; however, it was all single file, and if the County would allow no parking
on that one side for the morning hour, then two lanes would be available, which would completely cut the
queue in half. She urged the appellants to discuss this with the County. Noting there were two schools on
each side, she believed that with their neighborhood associations, residents should be talking to these
facilities to ascertain whether they could adjust their hours sufficiently to ease things slightly for those ten
months of the year.
Councilmember Heller stated she spent time evaluating the traffic situation and looking at the videos with the
Traffic Engineer last week, and suggested residents contact Mr. Mansourian to look at the videos, etc.
Regarding the street sign at Laurel Glen, Councilmember Heller stated that in looking at the area today, she
did not believe it would help because it would be ignored. She was satisfied with the City's explanation with
regard to CEQA and was happy with the project. She believed everyone would be pleased in the future and
she would vote to deny the appeal.
Councilmember Brockbank believed the project was compliant with the General Plan, no Variances were
requested, the Categorical Exemption was appropriate, no EIR was required, and this limited the vast majority
of the City Council's discretion. He believed the applicant played by the rules and deserved to have the project
approved; however, this did not mean he would not strongly consider changing the rules. He was not referring
to state law or even regional housing requirements, rather local City rules for the approval process because in
all the information he reads, nothing is more painful than comments such as " I did not hear about this until it
was too late — it seemed like a done deal when I came to it — I wish I had heard about it earlier." While not
claiming to be an expert or intimately familiar with these rules, Councilmember Brockbank stated he wished
there was a way to reduce those problems and he would like to explore in the future the possibility of
expanding noticing to a wider area. Noting Santa Venetia was several miles away, he inquired whether they
could be notified much earlier; at least they could notify their homeowners association about a project that
could affect an intersection they had a deep interest in.
Councilmember Brockbank stated it would be good to have some type of community meetings, even at City
Hall, where City experts could inform the neighbors early on. Noting key neighbors in the audience who came
to the project as late as December, February or March, he believed they would have liked to have learned
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 20
about this a year ago. He believed it was a communication problem and expressed the wish that there was a
way the City could have notified them earlier, so that they were not doing the kind of painful guessing, reaching
and grasping that was so palpably painful. He sympathized with Stacey DeGooyer whom he believed wished
she could have learned all about this a year ago. Councilmember Brockbank stated that ideally, in a few years
there would be a few hundred Planning Academy graduates; therefore, in every neighborhood there would be
people who understood the process better.
With regard to design, Councilmember Brockbank recalled indicating last month that he did not think he should
insert his design philosophy and he still believed this. He was not an architect and the place for that was the
DRB, although he did respect Colin's (who is an architect) points. He stated that he too loved the Civic Center.
It was an inspiring design and it was somewhat depressing to drive down the freeway, seeing the Civic Center
and two seconds later what looked like a lot of little boxes, and he did not know whether there was a solution to
that. He agreed it would be nice to have inspiring design and he did not know whether this could be done with
82 units; however, the time to do that would be early in the process where neighbors could express their
opinions at the DRB not when it came to the City Council for approval.
While he did not pretend to be a lawyer for the City, Councilmember Brockbank stated the legal opinion the
City Council needed to pay attention to most was that of the City Attorney. It was the City Attorney's job to be
very conservative, and sometimes this was very frustrating to him; however, he could not believe the City
Attorney would let the City Council wildly and recklessly get themselves in legal trouble; therefore, he was quite
comfortable with Mr. Epstein's legal opinion.
With regard to traffic, Councilmember Brockbank stated he really wanted to reduce traffic, but not at the
expense of stopping improvements that really needed to be made. He believed that traffic improvements
would be made, i.e. people could use bicycles and public transit more, etc. With the recent increases in gas
prices and a 7 — 14% increase in ferry transit, he noted people were beginning to and would continue to use
public transit more. Of the 82 units, Councilmember Brockbank inquired as to how many would be filled with
people working at home, were retired, used public transit, walked or bicycled to nearly places, noting all the
units would not be filled with two cars driving and adding to the traffic. He believed that perhaps traffic could be
reduced should some of these residents be from Sonoma, etc., because they could not afford a place to live,
and by providing a place to live, traffic could be reduced.
For the reasons he mentioned in great detail, mostly last month, Councilmember Brockbank stated he would
vote to deny the appeal.
Councilmember Connolly stated that he too made extensive remarks last time and would briefly summarize
those, together with adding a couple of overarching observations, again, perhaps as a newer member of the
City Council involved in this type of process.
Councilmember Connolly stated it was a real positive that the City Council was discussing replacing a vacant
office building with housing, including affordable housing, two real needs of the community. He stated that
whatever ideas were discussed throughout this process, whether from the applicant or the community, anyway
it was sliced, there would be significant new development of housing at this site. However, the real issue with
this specific proposal was the concern with the mass and scale of the project, and he believed that legitimate
concerns had been expressed about the potential significant adverse impacts on the surrounding community of
this project as proposed.
Councilmember Connolly stated that this project certainly would represent infill in the sense that it replaces an
existing building; however, he did not believe there was any dispute either that this was not classic urban infill.
As mentioned last time, when he looks at this area, it is a neighborhood, and while there were different uses, it
was a neighborhood really on the cusp, on the tipping point where it could very easily become not a
neighborhood, and he believed the City ran the risk with this scale of project of achieving that adverse result.
Noting this project was not mixed use, Councilmember Connolly stated it was three to four times the footprint of
the existing building — additional evidence of that was presented this evening. The only retail nearby was a
small grocery store at the end of a narrow street, and last time he checked, the only available public transit was
a bus stop across a major thoroughfare near the Civic Center. While SMART could operate at some point,
currently, that was speculation. This was not an urban site with existing public transit readily available to all
these new residents.
Indicating there was a dispute about the maximum number of units allowed, Councilmember Connolly stated
that under one interpretation of the General Plan, the maximum number allowed would be 61, which was his
understanding of about what the community had been asking for. Under another interpretation, the maximum
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 21
number is 81, which is the basis of this plan — the maximum allowable under that interpretation. Taking the
latter interpretation with the maximum number of 81, Councilmember Connolly stated there still was not any
requirement that the applicant had to ask for, or that the City Council had to approve, the absolute maximum
number of units allowed at this site. Similarly, there was no requirement that the applicant ask for and the City
Council approve the absolute minimum number of required affordable units for this site, which was in fact, also
what happened here. He indicated he would like to have seen more affordable units included. Alternatively, as
he had requested last time, which would have been very helpful to his decision, the argument that it simply
would have been infeasible or too costly to reduce the number of total units or increase the number of
affordable units.
Councilmember Connolly stated he checked the minutes of the May 5th meeting to ensure that he in fact, raised
that issue and requested those studies, which it appeared did exist, and to clarify the record, he still had not
seen those studies.
Councilmember Connolly stated he wished to make two overarching points which applied to some of the points
discussed for this project, but could have broader application. He disagreed with the suggestion or position
that the City Council somehow lacked discretion to evaluate large development projects. In fact, he would
argue that there were very few situations in which an elected body could not exercise discretion over matters
within its purview. Indeed, evaluating large scale developments to determine compliance with City policies and
impacts on the community was precisely the type of circumstance where elected bodies exercised judgment
and discretion routinely. Councilmember Connolly stated he believed that the City Council's view on the scope
of their ability to review these projects with discretion would create an important precedent going forward.
Councilmember Connolly stated that throughout the proceedings the City Council heard what he believed to be
legitimate concerns about the process and how the process could have been better. There certainly was
nothing preventing an applicant from coming forward with an existing project that met the technicalities of
applicable law; however his sense was, and this was being seen more and more in local communities and
beyond, that there was a better ethos brewing among successful developers interested in sustained
relationships within a community. This was coming forward, working with community members, interested
stakeholders and staff from the beginning in a meaningful way, exchanging ideas, being up front with give and
take by all concerned. While it was a more time consuming process and in many ways more vexing process, if
that were possible from the existing, it also provided a path to more ultimately efficient and successful projects
for the community. Councilmember Connolly stated this was more a comment for another day on how he
would like to see things done in the future in an ideal world. He did not believe the process was adequate in
this case for input and for all the reasons stated this evening and before, Councilmember Connolly stated he
would vote to uphold the appeal.
Mayor Boro stated that at the last meeting he was concerned about the impact on the community as to what
the building would look like driving past. The work was done by an independent third party, a party the City
had used in the past. It did show that there was an impact on North San Pedro Road and nothing could be
done with that except how it was designed and built. He believed the size of the trees was important because
he did not wish to see 2 -foot trees taking twenty years to screen, versus 7 or 10 -foot trees planted at the
beginning so that in five years there would be an impact.
Noting the traffic was very interesting, Mayor Boro stated that no one was denying something, yet blame was
trying to be assessed to this development for an existing problem. He indicated that the morning after the
meeting of May 5th, 2008, he attended a breakfast meeting at the Embassy Suites Hotel, and on going through
that intersection he was very surprised that at approximately 7:45 a.m. he observed approximately five cars
making a left turn into the Civic Center, one car exiting San Pablo Avenue, and a line of cars on North San
Pedro Road approaching that intersection.
Mayor Boro noted someone acknowledged that for whatever reason, and he was not challenging the County, a
lot of development had been allowed out there, i.e., homes added, schools expanded, JCC expanded. Prior to
this project the City suggested that no parking be put in getting closer to the intersection. The City could not
control this; however, residents could. He believed residents could sit down with representatives from the
school and JCC to ascertain what they could do to assist, and again, work with the County to come up with
some plan, i.e., change hours, etc.
Having seen the traffic video from the Traffic Engineer, Mayor Boro noted from it that a car stopped, someone
got out to go into the school grounds; however, the car then took a right turn and went into the school, which he
did not understand. Noting there was traffic there, he stated that this project would not make that traffic worse.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 22
Having met with residents recently, Mayor Boro stated he pointed out that one could not expect residents of all
82 homes to simultaneously leave at 8:00 a.m., therefore, he believed there was sufficient capacity.
With regard to the sidewalk and road improvement, Mayor Boro stated he looked to staff to insert language and
a condition into the resolution with respect to the sidewalks and road improvements, that they are done sooner
rather than later. He did not buy the argument that if done, they could be destroyed, rather should the
contractor destroy anything they were liable and he believed the developer would ensure the new sidewalks
were not destroyed by someone driving a truck. He believed it important to widen the road and install the
sidewalk as soon as possible.
Taking exception with two points made by Councilmember Connolly, Mayor Boro stated that with regard to
discretion, the City Council had limited approval in the project. Like it or not, the state had done this to all the
cities because of the fact that these kinds of projects were not being built because people did not want change
Noting the project consisted of 82 units, he stated that people wanted 60; however, if it were 60, people would
request 40, that was just how things worked.
Mayor Boro stated that when Councilmember Brockbank spoke about coming to the meetings and the
allegation that the City did not communicate, he believed the City did communicate and had sent out notices.
Mayor Boro commented that he had requested the City Manager to work with the Planning staff to include in
the record all mailing lists of those noticed for each hearing that took place.
Mr. Nordhoff reported that a number of noticings took place to the neighborhood, as well as neighborhood
associations over the course of a series of meetings.
Mayor Boro stated it would be helpful to have an attachment in the staff report to indicate this.
Noting some people came to the process late, Mayor Boro stated that while it was unusual to have an appeal
of this type the City Council would listen and try to see how questions and concerns could be answered;
however, they also had to adhere to the rules the City was governed by.
Mayor Boro stated that the staff had done an excellent job on this project. He did not disagree that there was
always room for improvement on how the City communicates and that it could do better. He was glad to hear
someone indicate they were at the meetings, and while perhaps they were not happy with the results, which
he could understand, that was not to indicate the City did not have the meetings.
Mayor Boro requested clarification on language for Condition #119 with respect to the sidewalk, street, timing,
and how the work would be overseen.
In terms of Condition #119 and the sidewalk improvements, Mr. Boloyan stated that that condition could be
moved to earlier in the document.
Mayor Boro stated that when the demolition started the road had to be widened and at some point everyone
had to give a little to get the job done. He believed it important that as soon as any major construction activity
commenced, the road improvement and sidewalks should be done. Mr. Boloyan confirmed that this would be
prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit.
Concurring, Councilmember Brockbank believed the earlier discussion related to just doing one side.
Mayor Boro stated staff would work with the developer as closely as possible and it was important to make that
street safe for the residents. He confirmed that one side of the street could be done initially.
Councilmember Heller confirmed that one side would be sufficient initially.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution with the noted
revisions.
RESOLUTION NO. 12502 — RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING DENYING AN
APPEAL (AP08-002) AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED07-045) AND TENTATIVE MAP (TS07-
001), TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 4 -STORY,
33,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4 -
STORY, 82 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT OVER
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 23
THREE LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING WITH 138 PARKING
SPACES, INCLUDING A 1 -UNIT DENSITY BONUS AND ONE
CONCESSION FOR USE OF STATE PARKING RATES, ON AN 81,495
SQ. FT. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 SAN PABLO AVE. (APN'S 179-
291-59 & -60)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Connolly
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
14. War in Iraa: - File 9-1
Councilmember Brockbank distributed copies of an article entitled "Has your town declared peace yet?" and he
requested a copy of a letter received by Mayor Boro from Congresswoman Woolsey. Indicating he would
gladly send him a copy, Mayor Boro stated he was surprised at Councilmember Brockbank asking for it,
especially since he indicated several months ago that he was no longer interested in the war; rather he wanted
to concern himself with healthcare. Councilmember Brockbank confirmed what he stated was that he could not
resist passing an article about the increasing number of cities that had passed resolutions, in case anyone
changed their mind. Reiterating that he would send Councilmember Brockbank a copy of the letter written to
him, Mayor Boro stated that the gentleman from Graton had brought up the issue on two occasions and there
was no sense that this Council wanted to debate that issue, in his opinion. He did not bring the issue forward
and did not intend to unless three Councilmembers wanted to. Councilmember Brockbank stated he was not
asking Mayor Boro to change his mind; rather it was for information.
Studv Session Reaardina Healthcare: - File 7-1-51 x 9-1
Regarding a study session on healthcare, Mayor Boro indicated to Councilmember Brockbank that staff was
working on this issue.
Citv Council Sub -Committees: - File 9-1
Mayor Boro invited Councilmembers to join him on sub -committees to review applications and make
appointments to the following committees:
Tree Advisory Committee - Mayor Boro and Councilmember Brockbank.
Canalfront - Mayor Boro and Councilmember Miller.
Downtown ad hoc Sub -Committee — Mayor Boro and Councilmember Heller.
Mayor Boro again expressed thanks to the City Council, Rob Epstein, City Attorney, Ken Nordhoff, City
Manager, Bob Brown, Community Development Director, Nader Mansourian, City Traffic Engineer, Raffi
Boloyan, Principal Planner and staff for all their work and patience.
There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:55 p.m.
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2008
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008
SRCC Minutes (Regular 06/02/2008 Page 24
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/02/2008