Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2009-01-20SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2009 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: Present: Barbara Heller, Vice -Mayor San Rafael City Council Greg Brockbank, Councilmember Damon Connolly, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Absent: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, City Manager Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Esther C. Beirne, City Clerk OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:00 PM None. CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM Plastics: - File 9-1 Stuart Moodv, San Rafael, stated he works with Young Imaginations, an arts education agency based in San Rafael. He also works with the San Rafael Clean Education Committee and directs Green Sangha's "Rethinking Plastics" Campaign. Mr. Moody stated that in the view of the industry, plastics provide cheap, hygienic, lightweight and convenient materials for the growing economy; however, plastics were turning out to be anything but convenient. In 2005, the U.S. produced 54,000,000 tons of plastics and in that year, American households sent half that amount to the landfill or incinerators. Plastic waste was accumulating not only in landfills but in parks, waterways, and streets and according to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, 51.5% of the litter in Bay Area streams was plastic. Because plastic never biodegrades the trash load keeps growing. Mr. Moody reported that in the North Pacific an estimated 100,000 marine mammals die yearly of ingestion or entanglement in plastic debris, and annually, 1 million seabirds die this way. He noted that a trawl this summer by a research vessel found 46:1. He stated that when plastic particles break into smaller pieces they do not disappear, rather their essential constituents remain intact resisting metabolism by any creature and sailors on the vessel "Junk" this summer caught fish with particles visible in their flesh. These chemicals were making their way up through the food chain, and invisibly into the environment. Mr. Moody pointed out that a study of a Singapore market found BPA (Bisphenol A), another plastic chemical, in every sample of seafood. These chemicals had been correlated with increased risk of modern disorders such as asthma, cancer, diabetes, obesity and reproductive failure. Noting recycling could not mitigate these impacts, Mr. Moody stated that when plastics are reprocessed they really only down cycle and the deeper problems are not addressed, i.e., non -biodegradability, toxicity, and the wastefulness embedded in a single -use society. Indicating that many were aware of these issues, he stated that in the last two years numerous cities and agencies had begun the process of reducing their plastic footprint through green purchasing, resolutions and conservation. He urged the City of San Rafael to join the growing body of municipalities, such as San Francisco, Fairfax, San Anselmo, Manhattan Beach, Los Angeles and Cotati by putting the issue of plastics on an Agenda, beginning with a Council workshop presented by Green Sangha. Mr. Moody regretted that Patty Garbarino, who supported this movement, could not attend this evening. Mr. Moody provided the Council with copies of articles supporting the materials and a brochure from the Farmers' Market endorsing getting plastics on the Agenda. Tamara Hull, Santa Venetia, indicated she wished to address the different effects of pollution from plastics i.e., garbage, landfill, water stream and pollution in human bodies. She believed that if all were tested, levels of BPA and other plastic chemicals would be found. Having read a lot of different studies, she noted a lot were inconclusive on the effects and it was found that BPA was a hormone and endocrine disruptor. It was considered a synthetic estrogen SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 2 when discovered in the 1930s; therefore, her concern was that plastics had taken over lives. She requested City Council support in reducing the amount of plastics they had control over and to schedule a "Re -thinking Plastics" workshop to be presented by Green Sangha. Ms. Hull noted that when most plastics were heated in any manner, whether by sun or microwave, chemicals leaked out and into food and water. Also, the liner in canned food was an epoxy resin that was made from BPA. Sue Spofford, San Rafael, stated that plastics had been an issue on the agenda of Sustainable San Rafael and she was present to weigh in on this issue in support of Green Sangha's education efforts. She noted that a couple of years ago, Sustainable San Rafael went to the Farmers' Market and along with plastics exhibits, they did some education in support of the Farmers' Market's efforts to discontinue the use of plastic bags and Styrofoam packaging. Having devised a petition, she stated that with little effort they obtained at least a dozen pages of signatures stating: "I support Sustainable San Rafael's goal of zero waste and urge the City Council of San Rafael to ban throw -away plastic bags and Styrofoam food packaging from our local retail establishments and Farmers' Markets." Indicating that litter was the reason for banning plastics, Ms. Spofford noted that 90% of the litter picked up was little tiny pieces of plastic breaking down. This included Styrofoam, plastic bottles and packaging from food. City Manager Ken Nordhoff noted that the Green Ribbon Committee and Green Teams were working on a Climate Change Action Plan, which he believed included the issue of plastics. He reported that a Community Meeting would take place tomorrow, Wednesday, January 21st at 6:30 p.m., at Pickleweed Park Community Center, where Community Development Director Bob Brown, Linda Jackson, Principal Planner, and staff would share, along with the Green Ribbon Committee members, the work undertaken to date. He encouraged the public to attend this meeting to assist in refining the plan. Alta California 2009 Culture Capital of America: - File 9-1 Riccardo Gaudino, Golden State Historian for the Golden State History Transportation -Ag Education Fund, presented flags to Councilmembers in honor of the fact that San Rafael was being recognized as a contributor to Alta California 2009 Culture Capital of America. He explained that the award was given to his organization because they understood what was needed to present a comprehensive history of California. He noted that in classrooms, students did not understand that the movement of goods and people was a result of transportation systems. The challenge was to increase knowledge in communities and their service was to that goal. Mr. Gaudino also presented the City with a flag for the "We Love California Month of February" and Vice -Mayor Heller with a pin. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows. ITEM Approval of Minutes of Special City Council Meeting of November 24, 2008, and Regular City Council Meeting of December 1, 2008 (CC) Call for Applications to Fill Two, 2 -Year Student Terms on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Through the End of February 2011, Due to the Expiration of Terms of Ellen Obletz and Jacob Coleman, Alternate (CC) - File 9-2-55 RECOMMENDED ACTION Minutes approved as submitted. Approved staff recommendation: a) Called for applications to fill two, 2 - year student terms on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee to expire the end of February 2011; b) Set deadline for receipt of applications for Tuesday, February 10, 2009, at 12 - Noon in the City Clerk's office, Room 209, City Hall; and c) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee meeting to be held during the week of February 16, 2009. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 3 3. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an RESOLUTION NO. 12641 Agreement for Professional Services with Lisa Newman RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY (DBA Newman Planning Associates or NPA) for MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT Assistance Needed to Prepare an Environmental Impact FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH Report (EIR) for the Redevelopment of Four Parcels LISA NEWMAN (DBA NEWMAN PLANNING Located at 809 B Street and at 1212 and 1214 Second ASSOCIATES OR NPA) FOR ASSISTANCE Street (CD) — File 4-3-418 NEEDED TO PREPARE AN Contract Amount by $14,728 to a Total of $51,408 (PW) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) — File 4-3-480 x 9-3-40 FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF FOUR PARCELS LOCATED AT 809 B STREET AND AT 1212 AND 1214 SECOND STREET (Term of Agreement: from January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2010, for an amount not to exceed $39,365.00) 4. Resolution Authorizing Entering Into a Contract RESOLUTION NO. 12642 Amendment (CPRE -8193 Amendment 01) in the RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTERING Amount of $1,505.00 with the Department of Education INTO A CONTRACT AMENDMENT (CPRE - for State Preschool Services and Authorizing the City 8193 AMENDMENT 01) IN THE AMOUNT Manager to Sign Contract Documents in the Amount of OF $1,505.00 WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF $179,275.00 (CS) - File 4-10-238 x 9-3-65 EDUCATION FOR STATE PRESCHOOL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $179,275.00 5. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign RESOLUTION NO. 12643 Contract Documents (CIMS -8310) with the California RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY Department of Education for Instructional Materials for MANAGER TO SIGN CONTRACT Fiscal Year 2008-2009 in the Amount of $1061.00 (CS) DOCUMENTS (CIMS -8310) WITH THE —File 4-10-238 x 9-3-65 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1061.00 6. Monthly Investment Report for December, 2008 (Fin) — Accepted Monthly Investment Report for File 8-18 x 8-9 December, 2008 as presented Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the RESOLUTION NO. 12644 Agreement with Regional Government Services RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY Authority for Business Services in the Police MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE Department (MS) — File 4-3-473 x 9-3-30 AGREEMENT WITH REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AUTHORITY FOR BUSINESS SERVICES IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT Resolution Authorizing the Interim Director of Public RESOLUTION NO. 12645 Works to Amend the Professional Services Agreement RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM with Alta Planning + Design for `Canal Street Pedestrian DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO Access and Safety Improvements' Project Under the AMEND THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Federal Lifeline Transportation Program to Increase the AGREEMENT WITH ALTA PLANNING + Scope of Work for Additional Pedestrian Access and DESIGN FOR `CANAL STREET Safety Features and to Increase the Not -to -Exceed PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND SAFETY Contract Amount by $14,728 to a Total of $51,408 (PW) IMPROVEMENTS' PROJECT UNDER THE — File 4-3-480 x 9-3-40 FEDERAL LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM TO INCREASE THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND SAFETY FEATURES AND TO INCREASE THE NOT -TO -EXCEED SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 4 CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $14,728 TO A TOTAL OF $51,408 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Miller & Vice -Mayor Heller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro PUBLIC HEARING: 9. Public Hearing - 200 OAK VIEW AVENUE — REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND EXCEPTION TO THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT'S PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ALLOW THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO EXCEED 30 FEET AND THE DOWN SLOPE WALLS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM STEPBACK WALL HEIGHT OF 20 FEET FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE UNDER CONSTRUCTION: APN: 010-360-02; SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1A-H) DISTRICT; PATSY DICKENS, OWNER/APPLICANT; CASE NUMBERS: ED08-51, EX08-014 (CD) — FILE 10-2 (4) 200 Oak View Drive Vice -Mayor Heller declared the Public Hearing opened Associate Planner Sarjit Dhaliwal reported that the project was an amendment of an approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception for an under construction single-family residence located at 200 Oak View Avenue. He indicated that the original Environmental and Design Review permit and Exception were approved by the City Council in 2003. Mr. Dhaliwal explained that a five -lot subdivision, known as Project S, was approved in 1984; the subject property being Parcel 2 of the Project S Subdivision. Although approval of the subdivision was prior to the approval of Hillside Design Guidelines and adoption of Hillside Overlay District in 1990, the subdivision was designed to minimize grading and retain natural radius. An Environmental and Design Review Permit is required for development on each of the lots in the subdivision and so far, four lots in the subdivision had been developed under the pre -Hillside development standards. Mr. Dhaliwal stated that an Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception were approved by the City Council for a single-family residence on this lot in 2003. The approval allowed the residence to be located within 100 vertical feet of the ridgeline and to exceed the maximum allowed stepback wall height of 20 feet. Although the project did not comply with Hillside standards, the Exception was granted based on the project's compatibility with development on the surrounding lots, which were approved prior to the adoption of the Hillside Guidelines. A building permit was issued for the foundation of this residence in 2003. After completion of the foundation a building permit was issued for the residence in 2007, and in 2008, it was discovered that the building exceeded the allowed height and the construction ceased. Mr. Dhaliwal noted the height increase was due to discrepancies in the original topographic map due to the required debris removal and grading required for construction of the house. Using a PowerPoint slide he identified the grade shown by the dotted line — the natural grade existing at the time of approval, and the fine line depicted the finished grade at the time of approval. The thick line depicted the currently existing grade. Mr. Dhaliwal explained that the top of the house was not any higher in elevation height than the approved elevation. A small portion of the top of the residence was visible only from a few downslope points. The off- site visibility of the residence had not increased due to the height difference, and floors and roof elevations were as originally approved. Only the height of some of the pier foundations had increased since the site at the back of the house sloped more steeply than originally shown. Displaying a picture of the story poles erected in 2003, Mr. Dhaliwal noted the top of the house was not any higher than the story poles since the roof was built at the approved elevation, and in a way, the bottom of the story poles had grown taller. Mr. Dhaliwal stated the proposed Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception amendments would bring the project into compliance. The project had been reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, both of which concluded that the structure as built was not more visible from off-site than originally approved. He stated staff recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution approving SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 5 amendment of approved Environmental and Design Review Permit and Exception to the Hillside Overlay District's property development standards. Mr. Dhaliwal noted the project applicant was present in the audience. Councilmember Miller inquired whether the support granite poles were in the same place as they were on the design, or what was claimed on the map. Mr. Dhaliwal confirmed that they were in the same location. Anne Laird -Blanton, Architect and Representative for the Dickens Family, thanked each of the Councilmembers for their interest in trying to understand the issues related to the project and for the time spent in meetings with everyone involved. She also thanked staff for their conscientious response to the many letters and calls received over the months. They had done an excellent job in trying to focus the issues and clarify the process as it differed in San Rafael from the County. She regretted that the Los Ranchitos Improvement Association did not invite them to make a presentation because they might have been able to clear up some of their concerns. While many issues had been raised about the building, Ms. Laird -Blanton noted that most should have been raised during the original approval process and this hearing was not to revisit that approval. The only issues being addressed this evening were: 1) was the project consistent with the original 2003 approvals; and 2) did the project create any new visual impacts beyond what was originally approved. She indicated it was their contention that the entirety of the DRB, Planning Commission and City Council findings, previously made in 2003, were still applicable to this project, and so far, the DRB and Planning Commission had almost unanimously agreed with that position. Ms. Laird -Blanton stated that this house was the last one in a five -residence subdivision, and its design was reviewed in that context. It was found to meet the stated objectives of the Hillside Design Guidelines in that it minimized grading, retained more of the project site in its natural state, minimized visual impacts, and protected significant trees and other natural resources, which resulted in a superior project compatible with and sensitive to nearby structures. She noted there were no changes to the design of the building from what was originally approved and it still fulfilled these objectives. Neither the mass of the house or its location on the site had changed. As had been pointed out in the staff report and at previous hearings, Ms. Laird -Blanton noted the only discrepancy was the under -story height of the piers. They were taller by as little as 15 inches in some places and by as much as 7'/2 feet at one particular pier, because the ground was actually lower than the original documentation had shown. However, the building was built using a mean C -level Datum Point, a far more accurate construction method than measuring heights above grade. Datum Points were shot with transit and were extremely accurate. These points were noted throughout the entire approved drawing set while the 30 - foot height was only indicated at one location on the original drawings. The Datum Points were verified by a new survey and the floors and roof were actually 5 '/2 inches lower than the elevation Datum Points on the original approved drawings. To ask the question another way, Ms. Laird -Blanton stated the issue was whether the extra height at the base of the building adversely affected the project. She believed the answer was no. The portion of the lower wall that turned out to be taller than approved could not be seen from downhill lots and public streets. The fact that there was less soil below the building did not make the house project any further out of the trees than it would have with more dirt below it. The taller, under floor space was still heavily screened by dense trees and vegetation. No views were being impacted and the house was very much in keeping with the other houses of the original subdivision. In conclusion, Ms. Laird -Blanton stated staff was seeking a simple remedy to the grade discrepancy, which was to amend the original approval to include the new maximum height. By amending the approved application, it would be made very clear that even with heights as great as 42 -feet 6 -inches, there were still no findings of adverse impacts and the project should be allowed to be completed. She hoped the City Council would approve the Resolution as submitted by staff. Gerry Kramer, San Rafael, stated that in looking at the 121 -page report on this project he could not SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 6 understand how something from 2003 to to -day could get this large. When the story poles were first erected, he could see them from his front bedroom, kitchen and family room, and upon closer examination, he found them to be 30 feet. At that point, he believed there was no problem and had not kept track on what was going on until the last three to four months. Mr. Kramer stated it was beyond him how a story pole could be erected at 30 -feet, which in 2008 became 53 - feet, according to the drawing. He indicated the problem with this was that the windows looked directly into his house and when the sun came up in the morning and hit the windows the reflection came down on his house. He did not understand how it could have been allowed to become that tall. Indicating that to him it did not appear as though anyone had a chance of complaining about the project, Mr. Kramer stated that something went wrong between 2003 and 2008. He noted the Planning Commission voted for it, with the exception of one person who stated there was something wrong. He agreed there was something wrong and hoped the City Council would listen to the facts and consider what could be done to reduce the height to the original request. Lorene Jackson, San Rafael, submitted larger scale drawings of those included in this evening's packet showing the 30 -foot maximum height. She indicated that from a quick walk -around in the neighborhood yesterday, she collected 20 signatures opposing the project, which she also submitted. Ms. Jackson stated that she was present this evening because the applicants for the amendment were exercising their right to seek an administrative remedy for violating the law. It had been extremely frustrating for her personally and professionally to see how far the City had bent over backwards to support this illegal construction. She believed that by approving this project as is would set a dangerous precedent for the height of homes in the City and send a green light to architects and builders that they could get away with illegal construction in San Rafael. Ms. Jackson hoped the City Council would see through the requested amendment and work with the neighbors to soften the impacts of this enormously big and tall home perched on the hillside. Ms. Jackson requested those in attendance to support the project this evening to consider how they would feel if someone built a 50 -foot tall house overlooking their home. She did not particularly enjoy looking out her office, bedroom or bathroom to see this tall house looming over her. She expressed the hope that the City Council would respectfully disregard the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board, which Brent Dickens served on when the project was initially approved. In the deliberations of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board Mr. Dickens was given the benefit of the doubt that this was an honest mistake; however, at the end of the Planning Commission meeting, it became clear that this was a mistake that was noticed at least as far back as when the story poles were erected. Agreeing that Brent Dickens was a creative architect, Ms. Jackson commented that this was not a license to break the law. While there were some elegant design features about the house, it was made clear in written comments that there were many things wrong with the design, each of which was exacerbated by the excess height of the building. Focusing on the main issues of elevation and height, which appeared to have been used interchangeably, although very different, Ms. Jackson addressed the so-called "approved elevation" that the staff and applicant keep referring to. She inquired whether this was the elevation at the top of each story pole, the point in space 12 -feet above the story poles, which would represent the top of the highest clear story, the elevation 24- feet above the lowest story pole, which was on the misstated slope, or would it be where the house was today. Ms. Jackson stated it would be none of the above because there was no elevation approved in the project. In the plans and resolution approving this project she noted there were no approved elevations and no city in Marin County approved top of elevation for buildings. The only reason the house was approved above the treetops and to some mythical elevation was because the City granted Mr. Dickens the maximum allowed height based on a bogus site survey. Ms. Jackson stated the maximum building -- the size of a structure — was measured by the height, and since height was central to this amendment, it was extremely frustrating again, that staff was not calling out the overall height of the house. The City approved a 30 -foot house and a 12 -foot clear story as an architectural feature, and again she was unaware of any other jurisdiction in the County that would not include that clear story within the 30 -foot maximum. She commented that this was a huge freebie for Mr. Dickens, especially since the clear story was about 350 square -feet that should have been included in the overall size of the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 7 house, which would have bumped the house over the 6,500 square -foot limit. She indicated the City code states: "The overall size of a house includes any loft space or area capable of being finished into a usable space." As approved, the City allowed an 11 -foot x 22 -foot clear story with enough ceiling height that could be converted into a room or loft. Ms. Jackson stated that in fact, the City approved a house that was 42 -feet tall, which was very generous; however, because Mr. Dickens stated the ground was 12 -feet higher than it really was, the applicants were now requesting a further 12 -feet for the under -story. She added that somehow, they discounted that the under -story was an acceptable place to add height. Noting the house was now 52 -feet in height, Ms. Jackson stated that the City would not have approved a house 52 -feet tall in 2003 and should not approve it now carte blanche. Ms. Jackson explained that the affected neighbors were offering a very generous compromise to lowering the house to the approved height. They were not requesting that the height be cut down to the approved 42 - feet, rather their request was to take down the clear story to compensate for the additional illegal height in the under -story. She reported that the clear story was so high it would never be hidden by the trees and disappear into the landscape as initially claimed. Removing the clear story would reduce the height of the house, yet retain the massive 6,500 square -feet on the hill. It would retain the complete integrity of the living area but not reduce property values. It would maintain the panoramic view and improve the energy efficiency of the house, for which future homeowners would be thankful. Additionally, they were requesting that the project be conditioned so that all of the trees on the northerly downhill side could not be topped or thinned. Then and only then would the house start to blend into the hillside, as those who approved the project believed. This restriction would be recorded on the deed of the property and would be a requirement for all subsequent owners. Ms. Jackson noted the house was approved largely because of the way the other houses tucked into the hillside; however, it was evident driving up Oak View Drive or Circle Drive that the house was far more prominent than any other house in the subdivision. Cautioning against relying too much on the screening of the trees, Ms. Jackson stated that while they believed the improved screening and reducing the clear story needed to go hand in hand, trees were a dangerous screener. The Fire Department could require the clearing of trees from the house, noting oaks were vulnerable to sudden death, and as had been seen in Sausalito and other areas in the County, trees had been poisoned to preserve views In closing, Ms. Jackson stated that the City Council's decision this evening would send a message, which she hoped would be that the City of San Rafael takes its Hillside Design Guidelines seriously, that height limits would be adhered to and illegal construction would not be rewarded. Ms. Jackson thanked those in opposition for attending on a busy inauguration night. Paul Herrmann, San Rafael, responding to the alteration Ms. Jackson inquired about, explained that clear story windows were integral to the pattern of the house, and without which the inside of the house would be very dark. He stated that the height of the house was no higher than it was approved to be, and the overreaction of the people in the audience had become ridiculous. He commented that he disliked attending these meetings because of the innuendo that Brent Dickens was trying to get away with something, which was untrue. All this meant was that dirt had slipped away from one of the piers and now the lower part of the pier to the upper part was higher than it was before. Yoshi Tome, San Rafael, stated he enjoyed living in Los Ranchitos, nature and the oak trees, and hiking to the top of the ridge from where he enjoyed the view of the very famous Frank Lloyd Wright Civic Center. He commented that when the Civic Center was built in 1960, there was a lot of controversy; however, in looking at it his only wish was that it be colored gold, which was the original design. Having walked onto Mr. Dickens' property by mistake, Mr. Tome stated he was drawn into why he built the houses. The homes were set into the trees, which was exactly what Frank Lloyd Wright did. He believed Mr. Dickens was a brilliant architect and designer; he had much respect for nature, did not intrude on neighbors nor try to build a massive building. He tried working with nature and the surroundings, instead of erecting an ugly square building on top of the ridge. Mr. Tome believed the house would not devalue his property or interfere with his home. Mr. Tome stated he noticed from the staff report that the Los Ranchitos president opposed the project. He had not received any notice of meetings or opposition, etc., and with such a controversial issue he believed SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 8 the Homeowners Association should have communicated with property owners in a democratic way, either by email, phone or an invitation to all to discuss the issue. As this was not done, the President's opinion was personal and not Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association's opinion. Joined by his wife Catherine in the audience, Richard MacDonald, San Rafael, stated they lived less than 300 yards from the project in question. He reported that they were in attendance in the Council Chambers when the original review was approved, and they were in full approval of what had been constructed. In fact, they were the original property owners on Oak View Drive, not Avenue, when Brent Dickens purchased the acreage surrounding them. They watched carefully as Project S, was born and the development of the five homes began on over seven acres. Mr. MacDonald stated Mr. Dickens was true to his original intention and plans. He treaded very lightly on the land, with small building envelopes, and lots of open space. He built his homes on or around the Oak and Bay trees -- the first home was built around a tree and the dead tree was still inside that home. All of the trees were still growing, and in fact, two of the homes, including the house under discussion, were built on piers, which allowed the natural vegetation to grow underneath the houses. He noted that Project S and this house were built as approved. Referring to Exhibit 4-4, Mr. MacDonald noted that this was not the first time the house was referred to as "built on top of the ridgeline." He indicated that this was untrue as it was not a ridgeline, rather a hillside home that would slowly be covered by the extensive vegetation that Mr. Dickens left and added almost monthly, from the time ground was broken. Mr. MacDonald stated the Design Review Board and Planning Commission approved the modifications in question, and he hoped the Council would follow their expert lead. Reporting that his house also faced north, he stated they needed every drop of light they could get, especially in the winter. As far as he was concerned, large windows, when the structure allowed it, were a necessity and not a decoration. Mr. MacDonald believed this began as a misconception on the part of some Los Ranchitos neighbors, that Mr. Dickens was cutting off a throughway to the hillside above. Since the path actually crossed Mr. MacDonald's land, they had negotiated an easement. Mr. Dickens inquired whether he could dump some dirt he needed to remove to complete the foundation work on the house in question, and he, Mr. MacDonald, agreed, seeing no problem. However, apparently, some original correspondence indicated that Mr. Dickens intended to cut off the path that had been opened for years. Mr. MacDonald reported that no one had ever denied access to any hiker, biker, or bystander who came up the driveway, crossed his land, crossed Mr. Dickens' land, went up Ridgeway above and then to the hinterland. Mr. MacDonald indicated he believed the City Council had to approve the modification, as it was simply the right thing to do. Matt Guthrie. San Rafael, stated he had been assisting the Dickens Family in the application. He noted two exceptions were being requested: 1) An Exception to the 20 -foot height limit of the down slope wall of the project. This Exception was previously approved and was proposed to be amended because the constructed down slope exceeded that height; and 2) There was an Exception to the 30 -foot maximum building height for a residence in the hillside district. That exception was not previously required but it was clear in the approved drawings that in fact, the building would exceed 30 feet in height along the rear elevation. The City in approving the building design in 2003 previously made findings to allow the house to be located within 100 vertical feet of the ridgeline and to exceed the 20 -foot down slope wall height limit. Mr. Guthrie noted the findings made at the time were in part that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse visual impact, that the location of the house would be consistent with the original subdivision approval, that the house would blend into the hillside, and the project would be demonstratively superior, with greater sensitivity to the natural setting and compatibility with nearby structures. Mr. Guthrie pointed out these were quotes from the findings made at that time. Mr. Guthrie stated the entirety of the DRB, Planning Commission and City Council findings previously made were still applicable to the current required exceptions, and were favorably recommended to the City Council by staff, DRB and Planning Commission. Indicating that the meaningful threshold for those findings was the location and actual height of the building, SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 9 Mr. Guthrie noted the location was unchanged. The actual height of the building, the elevation of the roofline, was actually slightly lower than approved. The increased height of the rear wall was due to normal construction considerations on hillside lots. He indicated that the mapping of the topography was compromised by the difficultly in surveying a steep site covered with trees, loose soil, and debris. An un- quantified amount of that loose soil, years of leaf drop and dumping, had to be removed as required by the project soils engineer to provide stable foundation construction. He noted that construction requirements, equipment access, shoring and scaffolding required some additional slope removal. With regard to what had changed, referring to a chart. Mr. Guthrie stated that the height of the roof deck was the same as that approved. He identified where the plans indicated the finished grade would be, the existing grade, and where the wall hit the grade. He stated that the difference between the approved plan and the existing situation was that the piers were longer, 5 feet in one place, 3 feet in another, 1 foot 8 inches in another, and 7 feet 9 inches in another place. Regardless of the increase in pier height, and regardless of where the line of the dirt was where those piers intersected the grade, when standing back dirt could be seen. Mr. Guthrie identified a particular point where the piers had to be connected by a grade beam because of the loose soil and it was necessary to dig down to get to real compact original grade. This loose soil had to be re -compacted in accordance with the soil engineer requirements, and most likely, used in another area. By bringing that soil to another area, the differences would probably be a foot to four feet as far as seeing the piers. He reported the building structure itself did not change in terms of what could be seen as solid mass. Mr. Guthrie stated that the resulting building height was still in accord with previous findings that found this design to be compatible with nearby structures and that other homes in the subdivision ranged in height from 36-43 feet. All other considerations of the original approval -- grading, sensitivity to the natural hillside setting, the natural state -- being equal and unchanged, demonstrated that the design carried out the objectives of the Hillside Guidelines and the General Plan, an architecture that was exemplary and a testament to the designer. Addressing the comments and measures that had been submitted, in particular with regard to the removal of the clear story, Mr. Guthrie stated that it was a significant architectural feature of the house, providing for natural lighting of the interior and an integral part of the design solution for the site that was endorsed by the DRB and Planning Commission previously and now. The claim that the clear story was visually massive and blocked out the view of the ridge was not factually supported. ■ The project was determined by CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) to be categorically exempt - a class of project that had no significant impact; ■ The San Rafael General Plan assesses development adjacent to significant ridges in accordance with the Hillside Guidelines; ■ The suggestion that the small clear story, located below the ridge, somehow blocked the view of a 4,000 -foot ridge, covered with houses, was not supported by any factual finding; ■ the suggestion that the minuscule bulk of the small clear story stood out in the context of the bulk of the hundreds of homes that were on the slope and ridge was not supported by any factual finding; ■ The suggestion that the clear story resulted in a loss of privacy belies the fact no one could see through the clear story, as there was no floor. The ceiling height was less than required in the Building Code; it sloped down from approximately 6 -feet to nothing. There was no bulk to it in terms of floor area. Noting there was mention in a letter to the City Council of loss of privacy to one particular home , Mr. Guthrie stated that that particular home was 830 -feet distant from the Dickens' residence, while many others were much closer. It would be akin to saying that those using the parking structure at Third and C Streets were intruding into this meeting, while those in the library were not. Without any facts, Mr. Guthrie stated there was no nexus by which a condition to require an expensive renovation, the dismantling of an existing approved roof, structure, interior framing, electrical wiring, windows, fire sprinkler system and then the reconstruction of the entire system, could be justified. Given the stated facts and concerns it would probably be more appropriate and effective for the one resident who was concerned about her privacy, simply to replace the tree that was removed on her property, which was in the direct sightline between that home and the Dickens' residence. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 10 Mr. Guthrie believed that staff condition no. 4 relating to maintenance of existing vegetation was appropriate and that certainly other suggested vegetation maintenance requirements were onerous and would be unequally applied to this property alone, while other properties had the freedom to amend their yard as they saw fit. Linda Jacobson Peterson, Realtor and Los Ranchitos resident, stated there was a separate issue, i.e., asking for forgiveness after changing and creating a problem instead of first getting City approval. If she were to dig her swimming pool deeper, build a 9 -foot fence or make a mistake on her plans, she inquired whether she could return to the City later and ask for forgiveness too. Her point was that changing plans afterwards and then asking for forgiveness should be considered deeply. Larry Loder, Civil Engineer and San Rafael resident, stated he understood Mr. Guthrie's remarks concerning variants in elevation and drilling of piles. Being at the same elevation he had seen this house since it had been under construction; however, he had been unaware there were three other houses built by Mr. Dickens. He did so well. The houses were almost invisible and he had no problem with them. He was aware this controversy had been going on for some time and noted that the Los Ranchitos people on his street could not believe there was so much discord over the building. It was visible to all and no one had any concern at all. Looking at it again today in light of the ridge and all the houses that were prominent across that ridge, Mr. Loder noted this house was nothing compared to the visual impact that other houses presented. He urged the City Council to allow this to go ahead as it existed and they would find that there were very few people concerned enough to make anybody change anything. Jack Wilkinson, Terra Linda, stated he had known Brent Dickens for a number of years, meeting him when he listed one of his houses. He was aware of the great attention to detail that Mr. Dickens paid to materials, etc., such that the grain of wood on cabinets would match. As this was shortly after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and given the house was on the side of a hill, Mr. Wilkinson wanted to know what fears a possible buyer might have that this house would fall down the hill. Never having met Mr. Dickens, he called and inquired how the house was anchored and why it would remain, and he subsequently got to know Mr. Dickens and how he built houses. His father being an architect, Mr. Wilkinson stated he had some familiarity with architectural features and benefits, and one of the things he noticed about Mr. Dickens, which he knew from this father, was that architecture was a combination of disciplines -- engineering and art. He believed Mr. Dickens miraculously brought those things together, as did other people like Julia Morgan and Bernard Maybeck. If you owned one of these people's homes you would be significantly proud, as were those who owned homes designed and built by Mr. Dickens because of the great attention to detail that he provided and the integrity that each one of these structures had. He noted Mr. Dickens also paid attention to nature and the surrounding shrubbery. Mr. Wilkinson commented that when he was building 175 Oak View, Mr. Dickens found a Volkswagen size rock sitting right where the kitchen was going to be. He retained the rock and cut a groove in it making it part of the kitchen and glass. Mr. Wilkinson believed all were aware of the history surrounding the Frank Lloyd Wright Civic Center and the fights about having it built. When Frank Lloyd Wright first looked at the site, he questioned how the building could be made to blend in with the hills. Mr. Wilkinson believed it blended miraculously, and everyone in the County now was proud to have such a building. He believed people would be proud to have buildings designed and built by Brent Dickens whose name would ring with Frank Lloyd Wright, Bernard Maybeck and Julia Morgan. He urged the City Council to approve the project which had already been approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission and recommended by staff. Bill Minehan, Builder, Developer and Licensed General Contractor, stated he had built new homes and different sized projects in his 30 -years of being in business. He had built in San Rafael many times and was aware what the City required with ordinances and codes, which he always followed. He kept a copy of the Hillside Guidelines in his files, noting the maximum height of 30 feet. The Hillside Ordinance required a step into the hillside so that it did not look straight up. He noted Mr. Dickens was granted a straight building up - 30 feet straight up off the ground, which was unheard of. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 11 Mr. Minehan stated the City's planner went to the project and in measuring the building determined that it was not 30 feet, as had been approved and drawn, instead it was 42 '/2 feet. The planner found the design did not meet the rules that licensed contractors and architects were supposed to follow. He noted the representative stated they only added 12 % feet to the bottom, and In Mr. Minehan's opinion that raised everything up. He noted new construction was built off existing grade. Mr. Minihan stated that in Planning Commission meetings questions were raised regarding how to determine whether it was existing grade. Mr. Minehan believed that perhaps 12 '/2 feet were removed from a very steep grade, which was difficult to prove; however, one night he figured out. (He noted a lady on the Planning Commission was aware something was wrong). He believed the dirt had been brought up and around existing trees. Referring to a diagram, Mr. Minehan pointed to the lines of the existing grade and the planner's line of the existing grade — a difference of 12 '/2 feet. He noted neighbors complaints of a massive building were because it had been raised up 12 '/2 feet, and by adding the clear story, it was now up to 53 feet. Mr. Minehan noted that the ordinance for a hotel in San Rafael was 54 -feet maximum. Agreeing that the entire building could not be torn down, Mr. Minehan suggested taking the top off which would bring it down a little. To those complaining of no light because it faced north, he suggested putting a flat skylight on the top. Mr. Minehan believed it unfair to have a builder do this and ask for forgiveness, which happened in San Rafael and Marin County; albeit the County had stopped it. He believed Mr. Dickens was aware of what he was doing when he erected the story poles 30 feet in the air. Suzie Tome, San Rafael, requested that the photograph shown earlier depicting the house on the hillside be displayed. She saw the house every day, watched it from the very beginning and followed the planning process, and according to everything, she had heard and seen, the house had been built as expected. Ms. Tome indicated that the reason for showing the photograph again was to point out that the house in the middle of the photograph was actually surrounded by other houses that Brent Dickens built using the same materials, and one would be hard pressed to pick them out in the hillside, even on a clear day. She fully expected that the house would continue to disappear as the metal continued to rust and the wood continued to age. With regard to the letter from the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association opposing the project, Ms. Tome stated she was a member of the Association and did not have any knowledge of a vote being taken to oppose or support the project. She ran a non-profit association with by-laws that had 85 members, and according to those bylaws, notification of every Board Meeting had to be published, together with the agenda, to afford people the opportunity to weigh-in on anything that the Board was going to act on. Not knowing the rules by which the Association operated, Ms. Tome stated it should be noted that she and those in attendance this evening in support of the project were not given any notice or any opportunity to weigh-in; therefore, that letter did not represent their points of view. Ms. Tome respectfully requested that the City Council count noses rather than something that purported to be a representation of a large number of people. There being no further comment from the audience, Vice -Mayor Heller closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Bob Brown reiterated that the approved plans for the project did contain the height for the floor levels and roof above sea level. As heard tonight, that had been resurveyed and the house was actually built at that elevation above sea level. He also reiterated that the story poles erected years ago and which were visible to the neighbors, were set by a surveyor, again, not based upon a height from grade but on an elevation of the roofline above sea level. He indicated that those story poles were accurately set and the house was built a few inches lower than those story poles. From the standpoint of staff, they believed the home had been built as approved except for the grade difference, and the visual impacts were no different than what was anticipated when the house was approved by the DRB, Planning Commissions, and City Council. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 12 Subsequent to reading the staff report and viewing the house, Councilmember Miller stated he was impressed by Commissioner Lang's approach. She basically stated that the house was built at the same height -- floors etc., at the same height -- and defined that the problem lay in the sub -flooring and the various degrees of the piers. She believed the amendment, because it did not change the approved house, would be the best solution, and that was Councilmember Miller's belief also. Councilmember Connolly thanked all sides for discussing their perspectives on the issue, even before the meeting, which helped him understand what was happening, and then for taking the time to come out this evening to express their views. Having had the chance to look at the issue from all sides, combined with the good staff report, he had thoroughly weighed the issues, and believed that, given all the circumstances and evidence that existed in the record, he had seen enough to support the Planning Commission's recommendation to grant the amendment for the project. That having been said, Councilmember Connolly believed the one issue that essentially became the crux of the particular dispute, and one he would certainly like to explore ways to avoid in the future, was that of the height limit. He considered that in this particular situation somehow the grade really got misconstrued. He did not know whether there was a way to avoid that on the front end, whether it could be checked at a certain point in the project, or to explore a means of more uniformly evaluating what a grade should be, so that a height limit did have meaning and neighbors and applicants had a more defined playing field. He invited Mr. Brown to either comment or come back with ideas. Mr. Brown reported that the City had a very good track record in approving hillside homes over the past 12 years since the guidelines were established, and this was the first problem that had been encountered with the height. It was a problem that ideally would have been caught earlier in the construction process where it could have been addressed without a significant problematic solution. Having checked with independent surveyors, Mr. Brown stated that in future situations where building heights were fairly convoluted, i.e., 33 San Pablo Avenue, and other hillside homes where visibility was a key issue, staff suggested imposing a condition for verification of the foundation heights, together with the floor elevations, at two points in the construction, so problems would be caught early. Mr. Brown noted the added cost would be approximately $6,000-$7,000, which on a significant new building construction probably was not excessive. He believed this would be the best way to ensure not getting to a point of actually dropping a tape off a completed building. Therefore, testing those by an independent surveyor at the point of the foundation would be the time to do it. Councilmember Brockbank stated he liked the two questions framed initially by the applicant: 1) Was this consistent with the 2003 approval. He was not sure whether there was a legal definition of consistent that he was not aware of; however, it appeared to him that it was consistent from a variety of perspectives; and 2) Whether there was any additional visual impact beyond that envisioned by the 2003 approval, and it appeared as though there was not. From those two perspectives, he stated it seemed as though one should conclude that the amendment was appropriate. Councilmember Brockbank noted that Ms. Jackson used the words "illegal construction" on a few occasions, and other speakers used the word "forgiveness" as though someone was acknowledging doing something wrong, yet he did not see any compelling evidence that Mr. Dickens was aware of a problem until this was raised. He had heard there was an erroneous topographical survey, and it seemed reasonable to have relied on that. There was also some removal of debris, which, again, did not necessarily mean something nefarious was taking place. Other issues included excessive glass, or the clear story being too high, or inappropriately not being counted in the height level, and understanding the rules varied on this, he indicated he was extremely reluctant to use his judgment now to overturn a judgment made in 2003. Councilmember Brockbank stated that, if approval was being requested for the first time, he was unsure how he could come down. He would probably ask a lot more questions and educate himself further about what was appropriate or not. Instead, he was being requested to determine whether this was different now from what was approved in 2003 and, since it was based on the height above sea level, he did not find that it was. Councilmember Brockbank stated that he found a lot of speculation about what Brent Dickens might have known and speculation that the story poles were too low, contrary to what the Planning Director stated. With regard to the issue of tree screening, Councilmember Brockbank noted Ms. Jackson wanted more SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 13 stringent requirements, yet he found the recommended requirements by the Planning Commission to make a report from a certified arborist anytime a tree died or was ill and needed to be taken out and replaced reasonable. He noted Ms. Jackson requested a condition or covenant or restriction that ran with the deed and inquired whether the restrictions being suggested would be permanent on subsequent owners. Responding affirmatively, Mr. Brown stated the main difference was that Ms. Jackson's proposal was to limit any tree trimming. Staff had concerns with that because typically, by the time enforcement could be initiated, it would be after the fact, which would not do anyone much good. He believed the condition about tree removal to be reasonable and the City had never imposed a condition about tree trimming on any private property that he was aware of. Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 12646 - RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED08-051) AND EXCEPTION (EX08-014) TO HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ALLOW THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO EXCEED 30 FEET AND THE DOWNSLOPE WALLS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM STEPBACK WALL HEIGHT OF 20 FEET FOR AN UNDER -CONSTRUCTION SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 200 OAK VIEW AVENUE (APN: 010-360-02) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Miller & Vice -Mayor Heller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro 10. Public Hearina - CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.34 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING A FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE / COST COMPARISON SYSTEM AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (FIN) — FILE 9-10-2 x 9-3-85 Finance Director Cindy Mosser reported that this ordinance would amend Chapter 3.34 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, which establishes a fee and charge for service. The Resolution would establish a Master Fee Schedule for services provided by various City departments. Ms. Mosser explained that in late 1996, the City Council commissioned a study to identify the full cost of services provided to the community. In 1997, the City Council approved an ordinance establishing percentages for cost recovery for over 150 municipal services. Since that time, there had been several updates - 1999, 2003 and 2007. Ms. Mosser reported that staff determines the cost of all municipal services by reviewing the allocation of staff time, personnel costs, operating expenses and overhead charges. Numerous staff hours were spent with City departments in determining the staff time involved in each service. Table 1 in Exhibits A -K represented the City's services. Ms. Mosser stated that in going through the update process, the Community Development Department and other staff members met with many members of the community. In November and December 2008, staff met with the Chamber of Commerce, Business Improvement District, Board of Realtors and Marin Builders Association. This communication provided great feedback for the City's fee process; she had attached correspondences from the Marin Association of Realtors and Marin Builders Association to the staff report. In addition, a letter from the Chamber of Commerce was received today (January 20, 2009). She noted the common theme was the economy and the impact of the proposed fees on businesses and the community. Ms. Mosser reported staff had estimated that the changes in the proposed fees would increase total revenues between $450,000 - $600,000 per year in a full year. Staff proposed that the implementation of the development -related fee increases be delayed until the new Fiscal Year, starting July 1, 2009. This delay in planning and building fees would forego an estimated $100,000-$138,000 for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. Ms. Mosser discussed several key changes as noted on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 14 Buildina Services - Revenues from the building permit fees did not cover building services for 2007-2008. The proposed 2007 increases were scaled down by 50% to allow a phase-in in any of the increases. The current increase was needed to maintain the higher level of inspection services implemented over the last few years, including over-the-counter plan check fees and a.m. and p.m. inspections. A survey taken of the proposed building and plan check fees showed that the fees were in the middle ranges of comparable cities. Plannina Services - Many of the proposed billable and fixed fees for Planning Services increased due to the thorough examination by Community Development staff. A survey of comparable sized cities showed the proposed fees to be in the middle of the pack. These billable fees tended to vary depending upon the complexity of the project; therefore, the initial deposits for the application types with billable fees had increased. These were increased to reduce requests for additional funds. The City would still recover the full cost based on work performed Ms. Mosser stated there was little change to the proposed ordinance and if there were limitations to the recovery cost, like State laws, they were noted in the footnotes in the Ordinance. Ms. Mosser stated that this report was generated with assistance from all departments, and especially with the help of Andrew Thompson, Revenue Supervisor, Bob Brown, Community Development Director, Raffi Boloyan, Principal Planner, Paul Jensen, Planning Manager and Thomas Ahrens, Chief Building Official/Fire Marshal for their contributions. Vice -Mayor Heller declared the public hearing opened Mike DiGiorgio, Chair, Government Affairs Committee, Marin Association of Realtors, stated that the implementation of the fees in July was welcome news; however, they were a little worried, not only about the planning fees but the permit fees also. He thanked Bob Brown for making a presentation to the Realtors Association explaining the fees; however, he was somewhat taken aback about Mr. Brown's comment that adding $7,000 to a building fee was small. Noting fees were high, he indicated that currently the 1500 members of the Realtors Association were concerned about the economy and what was happening; however, they did applaud the fact that inspection fees for resale were going down. With regard to the economy, Mr. DiGiorgio stated there was no indication of how long the situation would last. Everyone was aware that the building and real estate markets were down currently and raising fees was not the proper thing to do and ought to be put off until at least some sign of recovery in the economy was evident. They did not want anything to happen to dampen the possibility of real estate sales now, being as bad as they were. Also, he indicated it was a little ironic to them that the City Council who made a point of doing an amnesty for permits to try to get people to build legally were now raising fees that could cause people to avoid getting a permit, something the City just tried to cure. They also noted the letters from the Chamber of Commerce and Builders Association expressed the same problems with the ordinance. Mr. DiGiorgio requested that the City also change its policy and do this more frequently than every eleven years so that it would not be such a shock. While he was aware the City was not making money currently and had budget problems, the public was hurting, and he invited the City to consider working with both the Realtors and Builders Associations should something arise with regard to making ends meet in this area. Another reason for opposing fees was that they believed there should be a moratorium on fees until the economy demonstrated some movement on the upside. Casev Mazzoni, Legislative Analyst, Marin Builders Association, stated that for 50 years the Marin Builders Association had represented the Marin Building and Construction Industry. A thousand member strong, they worked responsibly with the community for the enhancement of the building industry and environment. In light of the current economic crisis, which had a disastrous impact on the construction industry, the Marin Builders Association urged the City to postpone the proposed fee schedule increase for 18-24 months, or at the very least, apply the fee increase incrementally over a two-year period. Ms. Mazzoni noted the Marin Builders Association was receiving calls daily from members who were leaving because they were closing their businesses or were unable to pay their membership dues. In addition, as experts in the construction industry, they were concerned that the proposed fee increase would create a situation in which residents would simply not obtain the permits they needed, which in turn would result in safety issues for them and the surrounding community. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 15 Lastly, Ms. Mazzoni urged the City Council to establish a long-term policy on the review and adjustment of construction fees that was predictable and incremental. In doing so, members would be able to better plan and prepare for fee increases. She indicated that the Marin Builders Association stood ready to partner with the City and other interested parties to bring about thoughtful solutions to this issue. As there was no further comment from the audience, Vice -Mayor Heller closed the public hearing. Clarifying an issue raised, Mr. Nordhoff stated that Section 8 in the Resolution addressed development - related fees, which included both the planning and planning application fees, as well as building and plan - checking permits — the fees associated with these would not take effect until July 1, 2009. Councilmember Brockbank stated he was most sympathetic to the idea of doing this more regularly, i.e., every five years as had been suggested, rather than every 11 years, so the City was not as far behind, and he inquired whether cost or staff time was the reason. Ms. Mosser stated that it took a lot of staff time to analyze every single service. There had been adjustments for personnel costs, and numerous hours were spent with the Planning Department, together with numerous meetings taking place. Mr. Nordhoff stated he did not want anyone to leave thinking the City had not looked at these issues for eleven years. Staff had not looked at them as thoroughly or exhaustively, and arguably, since first initiated, a General Plan had been adopted and a number of new programs and requirements were put in place. Mr. Nordhoff stated he would endeavor to work with staff to figure out some way to do this more frequently, although, unless some policies were to change, he would not really anticipate seeing these kinds of increases again in the future, or unless the City was taking on a lot of new work in some way that required rates to be raised significantly. Councilmember Brockbank stated that if it were staff time it might just be a few dozen hours, which could be doable. He suggested a goal could be four to six years; if four was a slow year perhaps it could be done in that year, and if not, the pressure went up to doing it in the fifth or sixth year. More importantly, he believed that Department Directors would be able to have an idea of when they were falling behind the market rate - the figures were 44% of cost recovery currently — which ideally should be raised up to 100% but at least 80%. He inquired whether adjustments could be made annually if it became apparent the City was getting below the market rate of other cities. Responding affirmatively, Mr. Brown stated that in fact, the City's Building Official realized a couple of years ago that the City was significantly below; therefore, the increase he proposed at that time was halved to try to phase it in. With regard to the remainder of the request to delay this a year or two, Councilmember Brockbank stated he was not terribly sympathetic to that because there was never a good time to raise fees. In good times you "don't kill the goose that's laying the golden egg" while in bad times, of course, the City needed the money more; however, he did not want the impression to be that the City was doing this because of needing the money or was trying to gouge the public. Should that be true, the City would not be lowering fees in as many cases. He believed it was clearly a matter of fairness and trying to make the fees right -sized, and any unfairness that people perceived as such a huge jump could be more appropriately looked at as getting a break up until now. Councilmember Miller stated he saw two issues of need -- money and the current economy. The City had a dramatic need now. The budget for this year needed to be revised to the tune of $1.5 million. Next year, this would probably be $3 million; therefore, big problems were being faced and the City was obliged to conduct good business. When it cost money to provide those services, income had to be returned from those services. He had spoken with an architect today who had cut 60% of his staff, which really emphasized how things were going. He agreed with postponing some fees until July; however, the City had to recover costs. Councilmember Miller concurred with Mr. DiGiorgio's first suggestion of cooperating with the Realtors, Builders Association and the Chamber of Commerce and considered that perhaps those conversations could be increased. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 15 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 16 Councilmember Connolly stated he concurred with the comments of his colleagues and wanted to reemphasize the input of the public was very important. He had not heard anything along the lines that the fees were disproportionate to the services being rendered, which was a very significant issue. The City was very sympathetic to the plight of business currently; however, it was also necessary to support the services the City provides. He was willing to support the proposal and echoing the comments of his colleagues, suggested taking a more periodic look at fees going forward. Vice -Mayor Heller pointed out that it was the City's adopted policy for many years that services should be borne by applicants and not by the General Fund or the rest of the community; therefore, when building something the applicant should pay the charges for getting permits, etc., not a neighbor who would not be building anything. That was a policy the City had since she has been a Councilmember and she thought it a fair one. She agreed with evaluating this in closer time segments than eleven years. a) The title of the ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING CHAPTER 3.34 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPARISON SYSTEM, BY REVISING SECTION 3.34.040" Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Brockbank seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1873 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Miller & Vice -Mayor Heller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro b) Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 12647 - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS AND FOR LICENSING AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 12414 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Miller & Vice -Mayor Heller NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: 11. Library Celebration: - File 9-3-61 City Manager Ken Nordhoff announced that Sunday, January 25, 2009, was the 100th Anniversary Celebration of San Rafael's Downtown Library. Festivities commence at 1:00 p.m., with the main event at 3:00 p.m. Carriage rides would be part of the activities and he invited all to attend. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: (includinq AB 1234 Reports on Meetinqs and Conferences Attended at Citv Expense) 12. MCCMC (Marin Countv Council of Mavors and Councilmembers) Leqislative Meetinqs: - File 113 Vice -Mayor Heller reported that she and Councilmember Brockbank attend the monthly MCCMC (Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers) Legislative Meetings monthly, the first of which had just taken place, and she expressed the hope that in the next six months or so a budget would be in place. San Quentin Death Row Expansion: - File 9-1 Vice -Mayor Heller reported that Assemblymember Huffman was interested in support for his bi-partisan effort to halt California's Death Row Expansion. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 16 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 17 Workshops: - File 9-1 Noting many workshops were being scheduled, Vice -Mayor Heller stated that water was one of the big issues under discussion this year. The League of Women Voters was scheduling a workshop in Oakland on January 31, 2009. She had information if anyone was interested in attending. Constitutional Convention: - File 9-1 Vice -Mayor Heller also noted that in the next year there would be quite a lot of discussion regarding a Constitutional Convention. The Bay Area Council was holding a meeting in Sacramento on February 24, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. — 2:00 p.m. on this issue. Leading the Wav to Smart Growth — Lessons from Silicone Vallev: - File 9-1 Vice -Mayor Heller noted that Carl Guardino was holding a lecture, `Leading the Way to Smart Growth: Lessons from Silicone Valley' on February 25, 2009, at the Alumni House in Berkeley — lecture 3:00 — 4:00 p.m. — reception 4:00 — 5:00 p.m. There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. in honor of new President Barak Obama. ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12009 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 1/20/2009 Page 17