HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2009-03-02SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2009 AT 8:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, City Manager
Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney
Esther C. Beirne, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 3:00 PM
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items.
CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 3:00 PM
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Barbara Heller, Vice -Mayor
Greg Brockbank, Councilmember
Damon Connolly, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Absent: None
a) Conference with Labor Negotiators— Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
Negotiators: Jim Schutz, Leslie Loomis, Cindy Mosser, Rob Epstein,
Ken Nordhoff
Employee Organization(s):
San Rafael Fire Chief Officers' Assn.
San Rafael Firefighters' Assn.
San Rafael Police Mid -Management Assn.
San Rafael Police Association
Western Council of Engineers
Assn. of Confidential Employees
SEIU Miscellaneous & Supervisory
SEIU Child Care Unit
Unrepresented Management
Unrepresented Mid -Management
Elected City Clerk and Elected Part -Time City Attorney
b) Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 1309 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, California
City Negotiators: Nancy Mackle, Rob Epstein
Negotiating Parties: City of San Rafael, Walker Vaning
Under Negotiation: Terms and Price
City Attorney Robert Epstein announced that no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:03 PM
None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Brockbank seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows.
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Resolution Approving the 2009 Agreement with the Orca RESOLUTION NO. 12661
Swim Club for the Use of the Terra Linda Community RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Pool (CS) — File 4-10-172 x 9-3-65 EXECUTION OF THE 2009 AGREEMENT
WITH ORCA SWIM CLUB FOR USE OF THE
TERRA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER AND
POOL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 1
Resolution Approving the Deletion of the Printing Press
Operator Position, the Revision of the Network Support
Technician Job Class Specification and the Addition of a
Third Network Support Technician Position in the
Information Technology Division (MS) —
File 9-3-87 x 7-4 x 7-5
4. Resolution Approving the Addition of a New Job
Classification for Assistant Public Works Director and
Deletion of a Job Classification for Principal Civil
Engineer (PW) — File 9-3-40 x 7-4 x 7-5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 12662
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DELETION
OF THE PRINTING PRESS OPERATOR
POSITION, THE REVISION OF THE
NETWORK SUPPORT TECHNICIAN JOB
CLASS SPECIFICATION, AND THE
ADDITION OF A THIRD NETWORK
SUPPORT TECHNICIAN POSITION IN THE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
RESOLUTION NO. 12663
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ADDITION
OF A NEW JOB CLASSIFICATION FOR
ASSISTANT PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
AND DELETION OF A JOB
CLASSIFICATION FOR PRINCIPAL CIVIL
ENGINEER POSITION
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPEAL HEARING:
5. Appeal Hearinq — 1050 CRESTA WAY (INCLUDES 1010-1065 CRESTA WAY: 122-150 CRESTA DRIVE:
1-6 CRESTA CIRCLE) — HIGHLANDS OF MARIN AND CREST MARIN APARTMENTS — APPEAL OF
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR
EXTERIOR RENOVATION OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS, CARPORTS, A RECREATION BUILDING AND
REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING TENNIS COURT WITH A NEW 2,785 SQ. FT. LEASING OFFICE
BUILDING: APN: 155-251-20,21,24,25, AND 155-280-01 THROUGH 16 AND 18: PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) 1547 AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MR2.5) DISTRICT, NORTHBAY
PROPERTIES II, LP. PROPERTY OWNER: JILL D. WILLIAMS. ARCHITECT, APPLICANT: DAVID
THERIEN. DENNY MCGINNIS AND EUGENE DOUGHERTY. APPELLANTS: CASE NUMBER: AP08-004
(CD) — FILE 10-7 x 10-2 x 273
Mayor Boro declared the Appeal Hearing opened.
Associate Planner Sargit Dhaliwal explained that this was an appeal of Planning Commission approval for an
Environmental and Design Review Permit for Highlands of Marin Apartment Complex. The application was filed in
2008, and proposes the replacement of exterior wall surfaces, replacement of an existing tennis court with a new
leasing office, landscaping improvements and complete interior renovation of Highlands of Marin II units.
Mr. Dhaliwal stated that Highlands of Marin consists of two apartment complexes located on Cresta Drive, north of
Smith Ranch Road. The two complexes are currently known as Highlands of Marin I and Highlands of Marin 11.
The former Cresta Marin complex, now known as Highlands of Marin 11 complex, is located on the western six
acres of the property. This complex, built in the 1960's — 1970's is the older of the two complexes and contains
eleven buildings that are one — three stories high, containing 104 units. He indicated that this complex does not
contain any rent regulated units.
Mr. Dhaliwal explained that the Highlands of Marin I complex, located on the eastern eight acres of the property,
was built in 1990 and consists of twenty buildings, which are two — three stories high, containing 220 units.
Currently, there are 44 rent regulated units in this complex, of which 33 are covered by the City's Below Market
Rate (BMR) element. 11 of the rent regulated units are the result of the complex having been financed through
California Tax credits.
Providing background, Mr. Dhaliwal reported that the project was reviewed favorably by the Design Review Board
in May, 2008, following which the Zoning Administrator approved the project on May 27, 2008. The Zoning
Administrator approval included a relocation assistance requirement for displaced low-income tenants.
Subsequent to the project's being approved, the property owners sent vacation notices to tenants on May 30,
2008. On June 3, 2008, two residents of the Highlands of Marin II complex appealed the Zoning Administrator's
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 2
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 3
approval of the project to the Planning Commission.
With regard to points of initial appeal to the Planning Commission, Mr. Dhaliwal explained there were two types of
issues - design -related issues and non -design related.
Design Related issues —
• Insufficient detail on conversion of leasing office space to a recreational area;
• Centralizing mailboxes would create congestion in the new mail boxes area;
• New leasing office would result in confusion and traffic hazards.
Non -Design Related issues —
• Vacation notices were incomplete and not consistent with the City ordinance for relocation assistance;
• Insufficient City notice of extensive interior renovation of some of the units requiring vacation.
Mr. Dhaliwal reported that the project had evolved over the past eight -nine months. The vacation notices sent to
residences were rescinded in June, 2008. New noticing would be required consistent with the City's ordinance for
relocation assistance. The Design Review Permit conditions relating to the BMR unit element and obligations were
deleted per the City Attorney's advice. The City Attorney determined that there was no nexus to link the BMR unit
requirements and obligations to the Design Review Permit.
Mr. Dhaliwal stated that the applicant had prepared and submitted a Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan and
a Resident Communication Plan and had implemented a resident outreach program. The Logistics Plan confirmed
the timing and sequence of construction and sections of the project where unit renovation would require resident
vacation.
Using PowerPoint, Mr. Dhaliwal explained the background for the Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan, noting
that the red line depicted on the site plan represented the construction sequencing for exterior renovation of the
Highlands of Marin I complex. The blue line indicated the sequencing for interior and exterior renovation of the
Highlands of Marin II complex. He indicated the proposal was to renovate two buildings simultaneously.
Mr. Dhaliwal reported that the Planning Commission reviewed the appeal on June 13, 2009 and concluded that
design related issues of the appeal had been adequately addressed and resolved. The issue of the roundabout
was addressed by requiring a separate amendment to the Environmental and Design Review Permit. The
Planning Commission also determined that the proposed location of the new leasing office was appropriate and
would not result in traffic hazards.
With regard to non -design related issues, Mr. Dhaliwal reported that the Planning Commission also determined that
these issues had been addressed and resolved. He noted Condition #15a. — Resident Communication Plan —
required submittal of a final plan prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The Plan was required to include
intended rent ranges for renovated apartments, temporary on-site relocation and available apartments in the area.
For this evening's hearing, the owner had submitted a range of the intended rents for the renovated units.
Mr. Dhaliwal reported that the appeal to the City Council raised no issues that had not previously been raised or
addressed. The appeal's primary concern was about the displacement of current residents and their inability to
afford the new rents of renovated apartments. The appeal also continues to express concern that design related
issues were not addressed and that the relocation assistance condition was not satisfactory, as it should apply not
only to low-income tenants, but to all tenants.
Mr. Dhaliwal reported that the appellant submitted a letter to the City Council, which did not raise any new issues;
however, staff wished to add that the issue of temporary relocation mentioned in the letter had been addressed by
the owner's submittal of a Construction Phasing and Logistics Plan in conjunction with a Resident Communication
Plan, which include temporary relocation measures for existing tenants.
Mr. Dhaliwal reported that for the Environmental and Design review Permits, the City's discretion is limited to
exterior renovation and improvements only, not to the interior renovation of units. Vacation of units and resident
displacement were basically a landlord/tenant issues, except for the property owner's requirement to comply with
the City's relocation assistance ordinance. He explained that the City of San Rafael was the only jurisdiction in
Marin County that had adopted a Relocation Assistance Ordinance, which provides assistance to displaced low-
income tenants.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 4
Mr. Dhaliwal concluded by noting that staff recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the
Planning Commission's action affirming the Zoning Administrator's approval of the project.
With regard to the question raised concerning the escrow account for relocation assistance, Paul Jensen, Planning
Manager, explained that the way this condition was crafted through Planning Commission review was that an
escrow account is required to be established so that money is in place to pay out to those displaced and who
qualify for relocation assistance. The escrow account is required to be set up with a dollar amount of $100,000 and
as money is drawn from that account, an accounting is submitted to the City on a monthly basis. He indicated that
at no time is the escrow account to go below $20,000, which would be monitored by staff in reviewing the monthly
reports.
Councilmember Connolly requested that staff elaborate as to the entire enforcement mechanism for the City's
relocation assistance ordinance, its implementation, etc.
Mr. Jensen explained that this was probably one of the first projects with such a complicated relocation assistance
challenge. The ordinance merely requires that the property owner provide a list of tenants that qualify — basically
an affidavit from the tenant that they qualify as low-income, proof that they qualify and that the property owner will
pay the relocation assistance funds. He indicated that what was set up went a little beyond what the code
specifies, i.e., the account needed to be set up before a building permit was issued. The City requires a monthly
report on who received payment and when the notices went out to tenants, affording a tracking mechanism at the
City level, and oversight by staff.
City Attorney Rob Epstein reported that Section 14.16.279(e) provides for revocation should there be a failure to
comply with any provision of the relocation ordinance.
With regard to the affordable housing issue, Councilmember Connolly indicated it was his understanding that some
below market rate units would no longer exist. The City mandated component would remain; however, there was a
determination that below market rate units were outside the purview of the issues presented, and he invited staff to
elaborate.
Mr. Jensen explained that when the application was initially filed, the property owner, a new property owner, at that
time had indicated they were unaware of some of the BMR (Below Market Rate) agreements. Therefore, in
working with the City's housing specialist it was determined that it would be appropriate for the City to impose a
condition, as part of permit approval, to reaffirm the BMR agreement that had been entered into in 1990. He
indicated this requirement was just intended to reaffirm the BMR units required for the Highlands of Marin I, the
newer complex (a total of 33 units). Mr. Jensen reported that through the course of staff's review of this project in
working with the applicant after the appeal was filed, it was determined that this was not really necessary and the
City Attorney's office indicated that negotiations with the property owner on this issue were more appropriately
handled as a separate matter.
Mr. Epstein explained that in terms of why the design permit could not be conditioned upon the reaffirmation of the
BMR units, or any other matter in connection with BMR units, was that it lacked a constitutionally required nexus in
order to impose it as a project condition. It had nothing to do with design. The BMR agreement entered into in
1987 and recorded was binding against this property owner.
Mr. Jensen added that the present BMR agreement — the 33 units covered by the City property owner BMR
agreement, runs through year 2030.
Noting Condition 15 related to the Communication Plan, Councilmember Connolly stated his understanding was
that this was required by the Planning Commission. Staff mentioned the fact that the owner had submitted a plan
and he inquired whether this had been evaluated vis-a-vis what the Planning Commission had requested and
whether it was adequate. He was aware that the residents in this area had some concerns about this and
questioned what, if anything, had been done to address those.
Responding, Mr. Jensen reported that staff did evaluate the draft plan when it was initially submitted some months
ago. The Planning Commission took the draft plan, added to it and requested that it be finalized, adding the
additional items, including the information on the schedule of intended rent ranges and other items included in
Condition 15. He explained that this Condition takes the draft plan and includes additional conditions or changes
so that it would become final at some point prior to issuance of a building permit. He noted that currently there was
no final plan.
Mr. Jensen reported that the property owner had submitted one very important piece of what would go into the final
plan — the range of projected rents for the units — and this was included as the final attachment to this evening's
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 4
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 5
staff report. He indicated it afforded an idea of the projected rents compared to some other complexes in the area
Concerning the Relocation Assistance provision, Councilmember Brockbank noted Mr. Jensen's comment that this
was one of the first projects presenting a challenge. He guessed that in prior uses the number of tenants had been
small compared to a large number on this occasion and suggested that perhaps when the ordinance was written, it
did not necessarily envision such a large number. Commenting that when read by the City Council, staff and the
project applicant it all made perfect sense; however, having heard from a number of tenants, he suggested that
they read and reread it and it did not make sense. While not criticizing any action by the City or applicant, and
admiring the applicant's Resident Communication Plan, he was still hearing that some of the tenants "were not
getting it." He suggested, therefore, that many more tenants needed to have this explained to them by perhaps
going to their doors a second or third time, not just leaving literature, rather having the situation spelled out as well
as providing the information in writing. Noting the property owners had a fulltime relocation assistant on staff,
Councilmember Brockbank indicated however, that he had heard from the tenants too many times that the timing,
sequencing, payment, etc., was not clear to them.
Mr. Jensen stated that there were provisions in the ordinance that needed to be revisited. He explained that the
ordinance was not necessarily written for every combination of conditions to be faced, rather it was written for a
project that would involve demolition of an existing building and essentially starting from scratch.
Concurring with Mr. Jensen and indicating that the ordinance was adopted three years ago, Mr. Brown stated it
was put in place anticipating that when a residential building was occupied, demolished and replaced by a new
project, all the tenants would be evicted at one time and prior to their being evicted they would be given relocation
assistance. It did not contemplate this type of sequential displacement where some residents would be forced to
leave, while others could be relocated within the complex, etc. Noting the situation was far more complex than
originally envisioned, Mr. Brown stated that the Planning Commission had added some requirements. He
anticipated revisiting the ordinance in the not too distant future to ascertain whether additional weight could be
added, particularly as it involved situations such as this. He commented it was also intended not to involve a great
deal of City staff time to implement the program.
With regard to the relocation assistance, Councilmember Heller inquired whether this was for all of the apartments
that needed to vacate, or simply the 33 BMR units.
Mr. Brown clarified that it was for any resident who was displaced, i.e., who had to move out of the complex and
had an income that qualified as low-income.
Councilmember Brockbank recalled having heard that during the Zoning Administrator's hearing, apparently no one
was present to speak and he was informed that one of the reasons for this could have been that nowhere in the
public notice for the Zoning Administrator's hearing was it indicated there would be relocation. While the notice
stated there would be exterior and interior renovations it did not state that people would be relocated. Should this
be correct, he questioned whether the failure to identify the relocation, which was an important part of the project,
and failure to afford the tenants an opportunity to speak at that particular level, had any significance.
Mr. Dhaliwal explained that this was a very basic notice for the sake of brevity. The idea was to invite the
recipients to contact Planning staff should there be questions. He reported that at least one person was in
attendance who had questions such as what would happen to him, whether he could live there, relocate, cost of
rent, etc. He clarified that relocation was not mentioned in the notice.
Councilmember Brockbank inquired whether this invalidated the Zoning Administrator's hearing.
Mr. Jensen explained that it did not, primarily because the design review was linked to the exterior renovation of
the buildings and the vacation was a bi-product of the renovation of the complex as a whole. He stated that it
would have been cleaner to have included the vacation of the units in the noticing
Councilmember Brockbank noted staff mentioned that the Planning Commission had inserted some additional
conditions regarding the Relocation Assistance Program and he inquired whether it would be possible for the City
Council, if appropriate, to insert additional Relocation Assistance programs.
Mr. Dhaliwal responded affirmatively.
Mayor Boro inquired whether there was an ability to quantify how many people would be displaced and qualified as
low income that could be eligible for the relocation assistance.
Mr. Dhaliwal stated that this was unknown at this time.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 6
Addressing Mr. Brown's comment regarding revisiting the ordinance for clarity, Mayor Boro inquired whether there
was anything staff should be doing in the middle of the current process to clarify the situation so that questions
could be answered for those undertaking this journey.
Mr. Brown stated he believed the addition by the Planning Commission of Condition 15 required that there be a
plan that people could understand as to when renovations would occur and how people would be notified when
their units would come up for renovation. This was the intent of the expansion of Condition 15.
Responding to Mayor Boro's question that this would be the basis of what would be included in a future ordinance,
Mr. Brown stated that at this point he could not indicate exactly how the ordinance would be amended; however,
staff would be reviewing the conditions of this project to assist in determining what changes would be appropriate.
David Therien, appellant and tenant of Highlands of Marin II for seven years, thanked the City Council and staff,
who had been very helpful in this very confusing and complex process. He also acknowledged the residents and
concerned citizens from the community in attendance, together with the representatives and agents of UDR,
owners.
Understanding and respecting that the owners had the right to upgrade their property, Mr. Therien acknowledged
that the property did need upgrading; however, they were concerned that the discretionary permit required the
vacating of a substantial number of residents, through no fault of their own, and the current difficult times made that
hardship more significant. The existing tenants appreciated the City's relocation assistance, noting staff had done
a great job attempting to flush out the details and make it work for everyone; however, they believed this to be
inadequate assistance for the hardships imposed — moving expense, different neighborhood and the other
intangible costs tenants would eventually bear.
Mr. Therien reported that receiving eviction notices was a total shock to most people; therefore, they got together
to discuss what could be done. They pursued an appeal to the Planning Commission, which polarized the owners
and tenants — Mr. Therien apologized for his participation; albeit he believed they did not do anything inappropriate
or wrong. However, to remain in that position and keep fighting as long as they had had not aided more
communication and potential for reconciliation and mutual resolution. He opened to those in attendance the
potential for that still to happen. He indicated they had made contact with the owners recently to invite discussion
of that matter and ascertain whether some mutual ground could be identified.
Indicating that he had submitted a list of issues to the City Council, for the benefit of those in attendance Mr.
Therien stated he would address these:
1) Whether a temporary moratorium could be called on any part of the project that displaced residents, under
present market conditions;
2) Should this not be possible, for the tenants who had the ability to re -qualify for a unit on the property there
was potentially a temporary relocation period until their unit was renovated, or they moved into a
renovated unit. The terms of that temporary tenancy had not been articulated. Those details were lacking
which had left people in flux and unable to make informed choices.
3) Because of the construction phasing plan that hopefully would be communicated to the tenants with actual
dates, Mr. Therien inquired whether tenants who were aware they would be displaced could be allowed an
opportunity to secure housing in advance of their sixty-day notice and still be eligible for the relocation
assistance.
4) Tenants wondered whether there was anything else that could be in the privy of the City Council to
preserve the affordable housing. The Highlands of Marin II property was de facto affordable housing and
for that to be lost was substantial. As carrying out this project at Highlands of Marin II would require the
displacement of all existing tenants, Mr. Therien inquired whether this triggered potentially the opportunity
to call this a new development, in which case rent restrictions under the City's affordable housing provision
should apply.
5) Mr. Therien was interested in hearing Mr. Mansourian's (Traffic Engineer) comments on the proposed
roundabout at the top of the property. While it appeared to make sense, to him it was dangerous.
6) Condition 15 - already addressed this evening.
7) Tenants requested the City to look carefully at all the conditions on this project to ensure compliance. As
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 6
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 7
all the permits required for this process lead to confusion, Mr. Therien inquired whether there was a way
tenants could understand and be aware of what permitting was required at what phase.
Mr. Therien expressed thanks for the patience and understanding afforded him. He indicated that they were
informed by the Planning Department early on that the Planning Commission's purview was limited; therefore,
entering into that hearing they attempted to limit their address. They understood that the City Council had a much
broader scope and other issues could be raised; however, he apologized for any redundancy.
Gene Dougherty, Highlands of Marin II and co -appellant, expressed thanks to all for the attention to this matter. He
also thanked David Therien for his work on this issue. Mr. Therien appealed this project originally because he did
not like something he saw in it, and this appeal gave others a chance to prepare for a very challenging life change
— losing their homes.
Mr. Dougherty stated the issue did not concern the roundabout or the color of the buildings, rather it concerned the
fact that a few hundred people would be displaced, and he suggested that in Highlands of Marin II, there would not
be a single person who could afford the changes proposed by UDR -- current rents of $1,289 rising to $2,055. He
noted Highlands of Marin II is affordable housing and does not currently house residents who could afford $2,000,
$2,400 or $3,000 monthly as was proposed. Mr. Dougherty stated that that rent was a further $100 - $150 more
per month than stated because prior to UDR taking over, sewer, water, hot water and garbage were included, and
since taking over, these charges were in addition to the rent.
Agreeing that UDR had the right to do this, Mr. Dougherty requested however, that the City Council consider the
human impact, and whether there was a way to request this company to do a little better job for the people they
were displacing. Tenants would have to find alternative housing which was no small impact. Noting the economy
was in disastrous shape he believed that people requested to leave this building would in fact, lose their jobs
because of being unable to find alternative housing in the area that allowed them to keep their current job, or
because of commute, etc.
Mr. Dougherty invited the City Council to consider the following:
• A moratorium while the economy got back on its feet so that people were not thrust out into the cold, or
• Consider allowing people who qualify for relocation assistance to apply for it now, and receive it at the
time they received their notice to vacate.
He requested that the City Council impose a few conditions to make the situation more livable and manageable for
those losing their homes: Allow tenants to receive their relocation assistance even if they left before receiving their
eviction notice and consider an extra month's rent for long term residents and those not qualifying for low-income.
Gary Polodna, Peak West Development, LLC, Development Manager for the proposed project, stated that using
PowerPoint he would provide a quick overview of their proposed renovation of Highlands of Marin.
Mr. Polodna explained that Highlands of Marin consisted of two properties, one of which, Hiahlands of Marin 1.
which was built in 1990, was acquired in 1998 by UDR and managed by them since then. It consisted of 220
apartments, and included a community building with a leasing office, fitness center and swimming pool.
With regard to their reasons for wanting to renovate Highlands of Marin I, Mr. Polodna explained that the exterior
needed to be replaced. The panelized wood shingles were beyond their useful life, there were problems with the
wood trim and dry rot and the balcony construction was in disrepair and needed to be renovated. The windows
and doors at Highlands of Marin I, although serviceable, were not really energy efficient in any way, shape or form
and in approximately half of the property, the apartment units were per their original 1990 condition. Therefore, the
owners intended to install new kitchens and bathrooms in that half of the property. He reported that the existing
Fitness Center was inadequate for the combined properties.
Highlands of Marin 11 — Mr. Polodna reported that this property was constructed in several phases between 1968
and 1974; therefore, parts of it were forty years old. UDR purchased the property in late October, 2007 and had
been managing it since then. The amenities at this part of the property consisted of a swimming pool and tennis
court.
With regard to the deficiencies at Highlands of Marin II, Mr. Polodna explained that:
• Existing roofs were leaking and needed to be replaced;
• Windows and sliding glass doors, original to the property, also leak and not energy efficient;
• Building trim rotting out;
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 7
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 8
• Balcony framing failing;
• Stucco in poor condition;
• Plumbing systems with serious problems — leaking, sewer backups, failing plumbing fixtures plus the fact
that the property was not built with a series of shut -offs.
• Original heating systems failing and inefficient;
• Appliances old and worn out;
• Interior finishes worn and dated;
• Swimming pool leaking and pump and filter equipment had failed;
• Garbage and recycling facilities inadequate and unsightly; and
• Carports in poor condition — beyond repair and must be replaced.
Explaining their plan for the property, Mr. Polodna stated they intended to integrate the two properties into one
community and neighborhood. Four related color schemes would be used to give the property the feeling of a
village. There would be a common landscape and signage theme and subject to further review by the City, it was
planned to have a new site entry with a rotary intersection. The Highlands of Marin II pool would be renovated,
adding a new dressing cabana and it was intended to construct a centralized leasing and business office at the
entrance to the property. He explained that the current leasing and business offices were contained in the
Highlands of Marin I community building and freeing up that space would allow for the construction of a fitness
center of an appropriate size to serve a community of 324 apartment units. A media room and tenant lounge were
also proposed.
Highlands of Marin / renovations — In terms of the interiors, Mr. Polodna reported they intended to install central
heating and cooling systems in all of the units. In half of the units, those not renovated, they intended to install new
kitchens and baths, new light fixtures, new interior finishes and window coverings. In terms of the exteriors, the
intention was to have new exterior wall finishes, replace windows and doors, reconstruct decks and balconies and
add some small exterior storage units for residents.
Highlands of Marin // renovations — Work required:
• Install new central heating and cooling systems;
• Repair and upgrade plumbing systems;
• Upgrade electrical systems;
• Install new kitchens and baths;
• Install washers and dryers;
• New light fixtures, finishes and window coverings.
Putting a whole new exterior envelope on the buildings:
New roofs;
New exterior wall finishes;
New windows and doors;
New entry stairs;
Replace carports; and
Upgrade site lighting.
Mr. Polodna stated that UDR had what they referred to as their Green Strategy that applied to their renovations,
which included:
• Native plant materials and minimal turf areas, to reduce irrigation;
• Recycled and reclaimed water for irrigation and using an irrigation system with precipitation sensors;
• Recycling as much of the demolition materials as possible;
• Installing energy-efficient doors and windows;
• New siding would be non-combustible fiber -cement, produced regionally from recycled materials;
• Additional attic insulations;
• Floor materials with a high recycled content;
• Low VOC paints;
• Energy Star appliances;
• Low water consumption plumbing fixtures;
• High efficiency heating and air conditioning systems; and
• Energy-efficient light fixtures.
Mr. Polodna displayed and explained the Site and Project Phasing Plan. He reported that it was planned to do the
work in four over -lapping phases:
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 8
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 9
Phase I — Work on the common area facilities —
• Building the new leasing office;
• Renovating the community building;
• Renovating the Highlands of Marin II swimming pool; and
• No tenant displacement involved.
Phase 11 — Highlands of Marin I Exteriors —
• This work could and would be done while tenants remained in their apartments.
Phase III — Highlands of Marin I Interiors —
• Half of the units already had new kitchens and baths — cosmetic upgrades only needed;
• Because this work was not linked to that of the exteriors or other apartment units around it, there
is considerable flexibility; therefore, that work would be carried out over the course of a year,
working around lease expirations and move -outs.
Phase IV — Highlands of Marin II Exteriors and Interiors —
• This affects the 104 apartments in the Highlands of Marin II part of the property. The buildings
would be vacated one at a time over a period of ten months and there would not be more than
two buildings down at any one time. The buildings needed to be vacated because of 1) the
extensive amount of work required; and 2) there is asbestos in some of the interior materials,
hence this work could not be carried out with people in the buildings.
Mr. Polodna stated that tenants who signed a lease for a renovated apartment would receive a credit equal to one
month of free rent to cover their moving expenses. It was hoped that the majority of tenants could move from their
existing apartments directly to a new apartment; however, Mr. Polodna was confident that they would have
sufficient vacancies for those residents needing temporary relocation - moving them into an existing apartment and
then to a renovated apartment on completion of the work.
Pam Leeper, UDR District Manager overseeing this community, stated that priority would be given to existing
residents who wished to stay on in a renovated unit. All tenants would be required to re -qualify or qualify and sign
a new lease for the renovated unit. It was planned to hold vacant units to accommodate temporary relocation of
Highlands of Marin II residents who signed a new lease for a renovated unit. She indicated that residents who
leased a renovated unit would be credited the equivalent of one month's rent to cover moving costs.
Ms. Leeper reported that residents who qualified as low-income, as defined by San Rafael Ordinance, Section
14.16.729, would receive the equivalent of two months existing rent as relocation assistance. A full-time tenant
coordinator would be working on site and would provide a list of Marin County apartment availability and referrals
to Marin Housing to all relocating tenants. In addition, Ms. Leeper stated that this associate would be full-time and
working on site. This person's entire job would be to meet with every resident, walk them specifically through the
process, answer questions about letters or anything else with regard to transferring or relocating off the community,
should that be their choice. She issued a reminder that just a few buildings at a time would be involved; therefore,
he or she would be available to answer questions and walk through the steps with the tenants. She indicated they
were meeting with residents and would continue to do so throughout this process.
Ms. Leeper reported that the North Marin submarket for apartment rentals contains approximately 8,500 apartment
units. Approximately 250 units are expected to be available at any given time in the North Marin Submarket at an
average market rent of $1,470 during the course of 2009. There are at least ten properties containing 1,000 units
within a three and a half mile radius of the Highlands of Marin that charge rents comparable to the current rents at
Phase II of Highlands of Marin. As of December 31, 2008, these properties were on average 3.6% vacant and a
recent survey of the three to ten properties noted above indicated that 24 vacant units were available at that time.
Ms. Leeper clarified that Phase 11 Highlands of Marin was not an affordable housing project. The rents in Phase 11
were comparable to similar properties throughout Marin County. They rent these apartments at market rent and
the current rents for Phase II ranged from $1,400 to $1,800 and as clearly stated, the average market rent in North
Marin was $1,470.
With regard to the acquisition of Highlands of Marin 11, Ms. Leeper explained that 58% of the current residents — 60
apartments — lived at the property prior to the acquisition by UDR. Since UDR acquired the property in October of
2007, 42% of those 104 units were new residents. All of these new residents were completely aware of the
renovation process, they were aware they would have to move at a specific timeframe and moved in with the full
understanding that renovations would take place and they would have to either relocate to a different home or
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 9
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 10
move off the property. She indicated that UDR did not require a vast majority of the residents to re -qualify and sign
new leases on acquiring the property, and most residents were on month-to-month leases. UDR did not raise rents
for the vast majority of the pre-acquisition tenants after acquiring the property because the renovations in
Highlands of Marin II were planned to commence in August, 2008. These residents were paying monthly rents that
were $300 - $500 below the current market rate.
Assuming that the renovation in Phase II would start in June of 2009, Ms. Leeper stated that all pre-acquisition
Phase II residents would have the benefit of below market rents for an additional ten months due to the delay of the
project, which was an average savings of anywhere between $3,700 and $5,000. She indicated that the apartment
buildings in Phase II would be renovated over a ten-month period. Pre-acquisition Phase II residents would remain
on their existing leases at below market rents until the construction reached their building.
Mayor Boro noted Mr. Therien commented that he had been talking with someone on the property manager side
and there was some potential for reconciliation and he inquired whether Ms. Leeper had any information on this.
Ms. Leeper stated that Mr. Therien had requested a meeting and they would continue to meet with the residents
and update them on the process.
Meaan Clarke, resident, stated that from what she had heard so far, the devil was in the details. While it was one
thing to state "below market rent", the condition of the apartments was not comparable to any type of apartment
that was kept up to date in any way. She explained that there were issues with refrigerators, appliances not
working, heat not working properly, garbage left strewn around, etc., and attempts to have the landlord deal with
the owner were to no avail. While the rates were below market, the conditions were extremely below market.
Timothv Dow, former resident of Highlands of Marin II, stated he was one of the 42% of those who moved having
received an eviction notice in June, 2008. At that time he spoke with the Community Director at UDR and was
advised that he could certainly stay at the property; however, his rent would increase 45% and UDR would not
provide him with any type of relocation assistance. He later learned of Mr. Therien's appeal and joined the
Highlands of Marin Residents Association, at which time he and Mr. Therien co-authored a letter which included a
proposal to UDR to resolve the issues.
Summarizing, Mr. Dow stated the proposal was to put tenants into three groups:
Group A — residents would receive reasonable compensation from UDR for moving costs;
Group B — these residents would be relocated at UDR's expense — each tenant's current rent
would remain the same until such time as renovations were completed. Once renovations of the
new unit had been completed, UDR would, at their expense, relocate the tenant back to their
prior residence. At that time UDR could adjust the rent by a reasonable amount; and
Group C — residents would be relocated at UDR's expense to a comparable unit at Highlands of
Marin. Each tenant's current rent would remain the same for a reasonable period of time, and
subsequently would be subject to adjustment.
As noted this evening, Mr. Dow stated the proposal by UDR was for one month's free rent for those tenants who
would stay at the property after completion of the renovations. He stated that unfortunately, the research the
Association had carried out brought to light that the relocation costs at this property would be far more than one
month's rent. Many tenants would be unable to pack and needed a full relocation service. Mr. Dow commented
that when he moved recently he paid close to $1,000 to move from San Rafael to Novato and this was doing his
own packing, etc. He noted that the residents who opted to stay at Highlands of Marin would actually move twice
and this would be much more expensive than one month's rent. Mr. Dow stated that UDR's counter proposal
provided no relief for those who had moved in fear of eviction or those who desired to relocate permanently to
another Highlands of Marin unit.
Agreeing that the property needed upgrading, Mr. Dow stated that, as noted by Councilmember Brockbank, the
City of San Rafael's relocation ordinance was not written with the current state of the nation in mind, and it would
be to the benefit of the residents to revisit that now.
Mr. Dow noted that the proposal for the renovations appeared to be a multi-million dollar renovation project and he
ventured to state that adding a few thousand dollars on to that for relocation costs would not be too far outside the
realm of thought.
Dave Currie, local resident and advocate for affordable housing, commented on what appeared to be the de facto
nature of this affordable housing and what appeared to be an inevitable conflict, and noted that the issue before the
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 10
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 11
City Council this evening was a complex and challenging one. It touched on equity, the nature of government,
planning and the future of San Rafael. He indicated the goal was not to have any policies that prevented landlords
or owners from maintaining their land, rather good properties were needed in San Rafael. However, what had
happened with Highlands of Marin was the reverse in that they had not maintained the properties. This did not
apply just to UDR, as they purchased the properties in this condition. UDR had taken steps such as closing down
the pool and tennis courts because they had chosen not to fix them pending renovation, and there had been a lot
of delays in terms of maintenance. The fact that it was easier in some cases just to gentrify this and upgrade by an
increase of 60% or 70% in rent than to take care of the buildings and retain people was a problem.
Mr. Currie commented that the City Council was very progressive and he was happy that San Rafael had an
assistance program for those evicted. In going through the policies, especially the Housing Element, he believed
there were ways for improvement. He would like to see the issue of inclusionary units for major renovations such
as this addressed and it would be good to evaluate policies that helped preserve in good shape affordable housing.
He noted there were a lot of large apartment buildings that might not be in great shape currently and, while no one
was stating this should not be incentivized, it was a matter of equity and what happened to current residents. He
believed the City wished to continue diversity in the community and maintain a thriving downtown and workforce,
and this was an opportunity to work on that.
Mr. Currie stated that tenants had time and again made requests and suggestions and he hoped they had made
appropriate initiatives with UDR and, should there be a way to work something out over the next month or so, they
should be given an opportunity to work together on policies that met the needs of both sides. Tenants would know
what to expect in terms of evictions and renovations and could make plans.
Indicating that San Rafael was a fully developed city with not a lot of upgrades or empty parcels, Mr. Currie stated
however, that a lot of these renovations would be coming up, and he believed it important to look at this as a
statement of the nature of the community.
John Bakas, Highlands of Marin II resident since 1994, believed the entire renovation to be a beautiful project;
however, it was being started at the wrong time. This was a time of recession bordering on depression and the fact
that perhaps 300 or 400 people within about a year would be standing on the street went against the grain of
anything the government was trying to do for homeowners who would like to remain in their units. As renters, he
believed they should not be treated that much differently from homeowners. As a senior, he found it difficult to find
a place and believed a moratorium should be put in place to allow tenants time to find somewhere to live.
Paul Cohen, Legal Aid of Marin, stated that in this economy, 40% of their work concerned homelessness
prevention. One small piece of that work was tenant organizing and he could not be prouder of the Highlands of
Marin Residents Association for getting together, compiling their case and making their issues. He hoped UDR
would come to the table; however, his experience of fifteen years as a housing attorney was they needed to be
brought to the table.
Focusing on Highlands of Marin I, Mr. Cohen stated it had been suggested that there was no nexus; however, it
was no coincidence that the proposal to prepay the bond to remove eleven below market rate units happened at
the same time they were going for their permit for the renovation of this project. He indicated what it really meant
was that eleven people would lose not only their homes, but most likely their community, because being on fixed
income they would be unable to go into any of the units described by UDR in their presentation.
Mr. Cohen stated that of the 44 below market rate units, there were only 26, because 15 were actually above
market rate, and those were the moderate units that were so-called below market. Using UDR's own numbers and
the six month notice that was given to the tenants of the below market rate units, their rents would rise to $2,234
for just a one bedroom and $2, 501 for a two-bedroom. Under no numbers presented this evening was this below
market rate. Mr. Cohen questioned whether there was a way to bring UDR back to the table to look at the
agreement with an ending date of 2030 and suggest retaining the eleven to be lost and adding four to keep the
number of 33 the same.
Commenting that the first person he had contact with regarding this project was not Mr. Therien, Mr. Cohen stated
it was a telephone call from an eighty year old person on fixed income at Highlands of Marin I who indicated they
were afraid they would lose their home and had nowhere to go. He suggested that bringing UDR to the table was
critical.
Shervl Auaust, Highlands of Marin I resident of eighteen years, stated she had a good experience living there. She
indicated she was not approached by Susan Barnes when they went door to door; however, she did have contact
with one of the UDR representatives and all along she had been assured she would just be relocated to another
apartment. She had not heard anything until just recently about re -qualifying and the minimum income necessary
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 11
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 12
was $53,500 — her income was $12,000
Ms. August stated she missed getting the full picture, noting that some of the paperwork she received indicated the
rent would increase on March 1 and that it would remain the same until November, 2009. She stated she had no
logistic plan to get herself ready for this because she did not have the full information and felt overwhelmed and
scared. She wanted to cooperate and needed to know how to plan and what to expect.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the appeal hearing.
With regard to the discretion of the Planning Commission and the City Council and the different issues between the
two bodies, Mayor Boro invited City Attorney Epstein to comment.
Mr. Epstein stated that the City Council's discretion in this matter was identical to that of the Planning Commission.
It was a de novo review and he was unclear as to where that inference was drawn from; however, he issued an
assurance that the City Council was applying the same law as the Planning Commission.
Expanding on Mr. Epstein's comments, Mr. Jensen reported that staff had a meeting with the appellant and Mr.
Currie several months ago when the issue was raised about possible moratoriums and the ability to impose more
stringent standards on this project. Staff indicated that the City Council had the authority to make changes to
ordinances and to interpret policies; however, the City Council in reviewing this project must review it in the context
of the current ordinance provisions. He believed there could have been some misunderstanding in staff's
comments; however, this was basically what was indicated.
With regard to the imposition of a temporary moratorium, Mr. Brown stated his understanding was that should the
City Council impose a moratorium, it could not be on a project by project basis, rather it would have to be citywide.
It could be focused on a certain type or class of project, e.g., projects that might trigger relocation assistance;
however, it could not be singled out to apply to a single property.
With regard to the suggestion that the tenants be allowed the 60 -day vacation notice with the payment of relocation
assistance prior to that, Mr. Brown stated this was not consistent with the provisions of the City's relocation
ordinance. The property owner could discuss this with the residents and provide this earlier than the City's
requirement; however, this was a matter for the property owner.
Regarding the suggestion that the City reconstitute its below market rate provisions to apply them in the case of a
substantial renovation - Mr. Therien suggested they be applied to the renovation as a new development — Mr.
Brown stated this was not the intent of the affordable housing ordinance. It applied to the creation of new units and
did not apply to renovations or expansions of existing housing.
Concerning the question relating to the City Traffic Engineer's review of the circulation, Mr. Brown stated Mr.
Mansourian was in attendance and could answer questions.
Regarding the enforcement of some of the provisions, for example, asbestos and removal, Mr. Brown stated this
was handled through a permit from the Air Quality Management District. They coordinate with the Building Division
in the issuance of building permits and monitor that.
With regard to the question concerning mandating that the applicant had sufficient financial resources to complete
the project, Mr. Brown stated this was not something that is required in the issuance of any building permit, from a
single-family property owner to a large property owner, in terms of assurance that they had financial resources.
In terms of ensuring compliance with the conditions, Mr. Brown stated this is done on a department -by- department
basis. In this case, there are conditions from Planning, Building Inspection and Public Works, and when an
application is received for a building permit, each of those divisions would review the conditions and ensure they
were shown on the plans and complied with, and staff verifies during the process that they are complied with also.
On the question regarding the application of certain affordable housing fees that had not been paid, Mr. Brown
stated he believed this was an issue the City Attorney had some discussions with the City's housing specialist on.
Mr. Brown reported that Mr. Jensen had discussions with the appellants concerning the expansion of the Logistics
Plan.
With regard to the affordable housing fees, Mr. Epstein stated there was some discussion at the Planning
Commission meeting with Ms. Lovette regarding review fees and a determination was made that there was no fee
owing or unpaid. To the extent that there was confusion in that regard, it had been clarified.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 12
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 13
With regard to the construction logistics and phasing program, together with the resident relocation plan, Mr.
Jensen reported that when staff worked with the property owners early on, it was realized that there were certain
things that could be requested and certain others they could not because it was necessary to stay within the limits
of the relocation assistance ordinance. Staff could not request additional months of notice or anything above
issues such as temporary relocation. These were brought back to staff by the applicant and were reviewed in the
context of the ordinance.
In terms of the suggestions that residents be given additional time to negotiate, Mr. Brown pointed out that this
approval was originally granted ten months ago and there had been quite an amount of time for additional
discussion and refinement of some of the applicant's proposals during that time frame.
Regarding Condition #15 that was apparently modified extensively by the Planning Commission, Mayor Boro noted
staff indicated that it contained clarifications together with items that probably would be included, should the
ordinance be reconsidered going forward, and he inquired whether this was a correct assessment.
Mr. Brown deferred to Mr. Jensen, who had been involved in the details of this Condition.
Mayor Boro invited Mr. Jensen to point out the highlights of what happened that were not in the report, i.e., what
additions were made by the Planning Commission that were reflected in the resolution.
Mr. Jensen stated this was primarily Condition 15a. which acknowledges the draft Resident Communication Plan
(RCP). Referring to page 20 of the resolution, he reported that the Planning Commission requested and added
that the Plan be expanded to include a schedule of the intended rent ranges for apartment units to be vacated —
the projected rents once renovated. They also requested that staff include information regarding on-site temporary
relocation options to tenants. Mr. Jensen stated that the Planning Commission also clarified under Condition 15b.
the escrow account. He explained that staff had placed the $100,000 requirement in the initial Condition and the
Planning Commission wanted to ensure this was monitored property. They recommended that the requirement be
expanded to include the need to submit monthly reports to the City, and also to ensure that a minimum amount of
money was in the escrow account at all times to ensure payment to tenants.
Mr. Jensen reported that the Planning Commission also made some changes to other elements of Condition 15
dealing with when and how vacation notices were mailed. The Planning Commission added an extra couple of
days to noticing to account for U.S. Mail delays and made some minor changes to that Condition.
Mayor Boro commented that information appeared to be unavailable on how many people would be displaced and
could move and qualify as low-income. He would like to have this quantified so that people were aware of exactly
what their status was, and he invited staff to give some consideration to this issue.
Councilmember Connolly thanked both sides for their great presentations, noting he also had an opportunity to
personally visit the site. He met with residents and representatives of the owner and developer and appreciated
the extra efforts made by all to allow him to understand the issues. He also expressed thanks for the comments
this evening, which were very helpful and, as was reflected, he believed there were some unknowns. He thanked
staff for an excellent job.
Indicating that this was a very tough issue, Councilmember Connolly stated that on one hand he applauded the
owner for stepping in to renovate these buildings. He explained that renovate in this case did not mean cosmetic,
rather there were substantial issues such as faulty plumbing, heating, electrical systems, completely new exteriors,
common facilities, etc. This was a major renovation that appeared to be overdue. He applauded the efforts to
meet sustainable building goals, which was valued in San Rafael.
Councilmember Connolly stated that residents were also very much valued and noted the significant human impact
this project would have on people — he referred specifically to the long-term residents. He noted that approximately
45% of those living in the facilities currently were new and had been on notice. At the same time, some residents
had been residing there for as long as fifteen or twenty years and had lived in sub -standard conditions. He
believed it had been in effect, de facto, affordable housing with some of the conditions he had witnessed first hand.
Noting many of those residents would be displaced, Councilmember Connolly believed this was due in large part to
the fact that rents would apparently be increasing significantly to meet the upgraded conditions and market rates,
except for those units that would continue to be below market rate under San Rafael's requirements. His
understanding also was that legally the City Council could not address issues in a broader scope on below market
rate units in the context of this appeal.
Believing it very unfortunate that this was happening in these economic times, Councilmember Connolly stated he
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 13
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 14
was interested in hearing and confirming that negotiations relating to Condition 15 were potentially still open. He
indicated that perhaps that was a way some of these unknowns could be addressed, while continuing to evaluate
how the City Council could play a constructive role within the confines of what could be done under the law. He
stated that ideally he would have a broader wish list. Some of the items apparently could not be imposed by the
City, e.g., he believed the tenants' proposal of allowing people to apply for relocation assistance before the formal
sixty-day notice period, given that this would be a phased construction process, was reasonable if they otherwise
qualified before the sixty days notice. Even though this was not something the City could mandate, he suggested
that perhaps it could be included in the process.
Councilmember Connolly noted that one item which did not arise but which was of value to the residents,
particularly long-term residents, was the right of return to their specific unit, should they otherwise qualify to
maintain residence in the complex. While he did not believe this fell within the City Council's purview of getting to
that level of landlord/tenant relations, he believed it would be a very reasonable outcome as part of continued
constructive dialogue between the parties.
Furthermore, Councilmember Connolly agreed that this had underscored the need to evaluate, update and solidify
the City's Relocation Ordinance to ensure it was as strong as possible. From what he had heard this evening he
was satisfied that mechanisms were in place for the City to monitor compliance and that there would be
repercussions if anyone failed to comply with the ordinance.
Councilmember Miller wholeheartedly endorsed the expressions of thanks and the laying out of the situation
provided by Councilmember Connolly because it hit at the heart of the conflict that arises when people are doing
the good work of upgrading, etc. On the other hand, the most negative impact possible was on the tenants, and
this now lay in the realm of tenant/owner/developer relationships. The City Council was restricted to the same
issues the Planning Commission considered and had to ensure there was compliance with the General Plan and
ordinances of the City.
Councilmember Miller reported that he had met with the owners and developers, had visited the properties by
himself, and yesterday, he had the occasion of meeting with seven or eight tenants. He stated he had been greatly
touched by Ms. August's comments and the human situation and to be unable to cure that was very frustrating.
Believing the Planning Commission got it right, Councilmember Miller stated that was the reason for Condition 15a.
because it afforded an opportunity for both sides to meet again. Listening to both sides, he believed this was only
the beginning of communications because of the heartfelt situation for all concerned. He requested that the parties
get together to try to see how this could be worked in the best way possible to fit this Condition. He thanked the
Planning Commission for providing this means and giving those involved the opportunity of getting together again
to make the best of the situation.
Councilmember Heller concurred with the statements of Councilmembers Connolly and Miller and she also had an
opportunity of visiting the property. Her two areas of interest centered around the relocation assistance and below
market rate housing, and she inquired whether it would be possible to retain the Section 8 tenants. In looking at
the recreation facilities, she considered that a fine job had been done with the plans. She suggested that retaining
the tennis courts would be a good recreational facility for the tenants, and noted that with some 3 -bedroom units
children would need some small tot lots.
Councilmember Heller stated she was unhappy with the fact that the City could not go further. She thanked the
developer for bringing the project to the City Council and for their cooperation on what they planned to do. It would
be a lovely place; however, this was a difficult point to get through.
Councilmember Brockbank expressed thanks to the applicants and especially the tenants for the incredible amount
of time involved, noting it was one of the most traumatic experiences to have to go through. He had read a lot and
also visited the properties; however, the time and struggle the City Council spent was just a fraction of a percent of
what tenants were spending in going through this move. He commented that when people move, 99% of the time
it was a choice and he wondered how this trauma could be eased.
Councilmember Brockbank indicated he found a lot of the comments not terribly relevant, such as traffic issues. A
lot of suggestions were interesting and in future he would like staff to discuss basic philosophical concepts of how
the City reconciles the difference between the General Plan philosophy that states "we would like property owners
to upgrade their properties" , yet "we also want affordable housing" as those two appeared clearly in conflict in this
situation.
Similarly, Councilmember Brockbank stated that, while he understood the affordable housing requirement applied
only to new development, one or two of the tenants inquired that if every single tenant was getting relocated, or
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 14
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 15
almost all, why this was not a new development. With all new tenants in a new development he would like to hear
some time in the future why the affordable housing requirement was not triggered.
Indicating the real issue was what could be done to make things easier for the tenants, Councilmember Brockbank
noted one suggestion referred to lengthening the sixty-day window to include the time leading up to their known
eviction. It appeared to him that it would do no harm to the applicants to provide the 60 -day notice early should the
tenants find an appropriate place to live. He reported that someone suggested last night getting their security
deposit early and noted that the owner's odds of needing this deposit to cover cleaning or damage would be
extremely slim because of the renovations that would take place. Even issuing this on the day the tenant moved
out would be a help in getting into a new place.
Councilmember Brockbank stated that when he learned of the two months relocation assistance he considered that
it would be sufficient; however, subsequently, he realized that for some this was not enough. While not wishing to
create an additional burden on the applicant or staff, he would like to see a way to include additional consideration
for tenants for whom it was a hardship to move — low income tenants. He was not inclined to continue this item
because it would be unfair to the applicants and tenants and inquired whether there was a way to approve the item
this evening and require that there be a subsequent agreement on loosened tenant assistance provisions to be
negotiated and returned to the City Council for approval, without delaying the applicant's schedule.
Responding negatively, Mr. Epstein stated that there was no basis in law for the type of condition Councilmember
Brockbank wished to impose, full of merit though it might be. In this environmental design permit he could not
imagine a means by which the City could impose that type of condition. He was also concerned with the
vagueness, given the way this had been described as he was unsure what it was supposed to look like when
returned.
Agreeing that he was a little vague, Councilmember Brockbank believed he was requesting a future modification of
the ordinance because everyone now knew a lot more than previously. Negotiation with the applicant to generate
new tenant relocation provisions, which would be more appropriate to those who needed it, could make the
ordinance better; however, he believed Mr. Epstein indicated that this could not be conditionally approved.
Mr. Epstein explained that the item could be continued, requesting parties to negotiate. In terms of taking what
was learned from that process to inform consideration of a future ordinance amendment he indicated he remained
unclear as to how that would affect the matter before the City Council this evening. It sounded as though
Councilmember Brockbank had two different objectives: 1) To deal with this evening's matter and 2) to collect
information in connection with consideration of an amendment of the ordinance.
Mayor Boro stated that, as pointed out by City Attorney Epstein, the City Council's discretion was somewhat limited
in what they could and could not do. However, the City Council could agree to carry the item over for 30 days,
noting he posed the question earlier regarding what thoughts staff might have to address some of the issues.
Mayor Boro quoted from Condition 15a. — "The property owner shall implement a Resident Communication Plan
(RCP). A draft RCP has been prepared by the property owner and is on file with the Community Development
Department..... Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit for any renovation that requires the vacation of
residents, the RCP shall be implemented by the property owner's delivery to the tenants the following information:"
Having visited the property and meeting with the property owners, Mayor Boro reported that he saw why the work
needed to be done and considered their plans great. On the other hand, people were present this evening
indicating that there was a lot of doubt in their minds and they were not quite sure of their status. Mayor Boro
stated he would like a real effort made in the next thirty days to sit down with the tenants. Noting 325 units were
involved in this complex, he commented that perhaps some were aware of everything and did not have a problem;
however, there obviously were some people in attendance who did have a problem. While not trying to erect a
roadblock he stated he did not wish to return in thirty days and become involved in the argument of "well they
talked to us and we don't agree" which was not the intent. Rather he wished to ensure that everything was aired.
Mayor Boro requested that the property owners, at their own discretion, consider the request for early delivery of
the 60 -day money. The City's ordinance does not call for this and this would be something the property owners
would have to agree to do on their own should they so choose.
Mayor Boro stated he was more concerned about the fact that the Planning Commission did a good job and
requested that a Communications Plan be developed; however, he did not believe the communication had
happened to the extent it should. He believed the sense of the City Council was that the project would be
approved; however, everyone was groping for some fairness to both sides. He believed sufficient points had been
made this evening that the property owner and tenants be encouraged in the next four weeks to sit down and go
over these issues, work with staff and report back to them. A discussion could then take place on what happened
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 15
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 16
and the current status provided. He was not requesting that anything be resolved at this point unless there was a
willingness to do so. He was not interested in hearing about the timing and the problems with the timing — the
hearing could have taken place a month from now; therefore, the timing would not sway him one way or the other.
He was more interested in sharing the concerns of the residents and getting their questions answered.
Susan Barnes, UDR, noted Mayor Boro mentioned earlier that he had some concerns about unknown information
and she wished to shed some light on why this was so. She explained that the issue under consideration was
displacement of Highlands of Marin II, the older complex. As was stated earlier, when UDR took over the
apartment complex the previous landowner had the tenants on month-to-month leases and did not have income
information in the files for those tenants. She noted they only had information on 42% of the new tenants and had
kept the other tenants on their month-to-month lease at their original rate. In terms of who would remain on the
property she stated that with apartments people come and go. The construction process would be twelve months
in duration and from the beginning to the end of it they would not be aware of who was interested in staying or
going. This is the reason the Communication Plan called out for specific issues:
They intended to carry out a pre -construction communication with the entire community when they were
aware the project was approved. They could then sit down with their construction timeline and inform
each tenant when construction would commence at their building, and provide them with options. She
indicated that they could not devise details until they knew the project was starting. Desiring to retain as
many tenants as possible, Ms. Barnes stated it did require them to communicate with tenants as soon as
the relevant information was available, i.e., when it would reach their building and their options, and they
had a fulltime person on staff who would work with each resident to go through that process.
Mayor Boro stated that staff had no way in the current Condition to monitor that this had been done. He believed
the owners were currently aware of the building schedule, regardless of final approval, and it appeared that at least
some of the mystery of what would happen to tenants should be clarified sooner rather than later.
Ms. Barnes stated that they had in the Resident Communication Plan provided people with the construction
schedule; however, they did not have a start date because of delays.
Mayor Boro suggested they should assume the project would commence after April 6th and let the residents know
in the next month what that meant.
Ms. Barnes stated that was the type of plan they would put in place as soon as the project was approved.
Mayor Boro stated he believed they already had that plan. He stated that the heart of this issue appeared to be the
unknown and fear. While some things could not be resolved and no one was disagreeing with the rights the
owners had to do what they were doing, nor did anyone not support what they were doing, some people were very
fragile and concerned. He suggested reaching out to people and doing their best over the next thirty days to
explain how and when these people would be implicated and, should their income need to be known, he believed
the tenants would share this.
Mayor Boro stated he believed the Resident Communication Plan was great; however, there was nothing to
indicate that it would happen.
Mr. Epstein stated that there was a privacy issue at stake under the ordinance that tenants would not be required
to divulge their financial information unless and until they decided to apply for the relocation assistance subsequent
to the notice to relocate. Therefore, this would be voluntary on behalf of the tenants.
Mayor Boro inquired whether staff could suggest in the next thirty days that those tenants who wished to make that
known could do so, so that a determination could be made.
Mr. Epstein responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Brockbank clarified that there should not be an issue of inappropriate revealing of financial
information if his understanding was correct that all they had to do to qualify for the relocation assistance was sign
a one sentence statement to the effect: "I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I meet the low income tenant
requirements." He appreciated Mayor Boro's suggestion to continue the matter for thirty days and allow both sides
to see whether they could arrive at a more equitable agreement, and he urged both sides not to gamble with
returning in a month with no agreement. He urged them to compromise.
Mayor Boro stated he was not trying to force anyone to do something they did not wish to do, nor was he expecting
that a lot of change would come about. He did expect that at least those in attendance this evening who indicated
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 16
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 17
they did not know what their fate was would have had the opportunity to find out
In reading Condition 15a. Mayor Boro realized there was a plan; however, it was vague. With a twelve-month
project it appeared to him that the owners could meet with interested residents one on one to advise them of their
situation. Other than that, he believed the City Council was satisfied with the project. He noted this was a huge
change in these difficult times and the City Council wanted to be sensitive to residents. He also respected the
property owner's rights, and commended them for doing what they wanted to do, as seeing the project, especially
unit #2, there was no question that it needed work. Mayor Boro believed the end result was good; however, in the
interim 30 days he hoped they could show some goodwill and at least diminish the fear in people's minds.
Councilmember Connolly added that the City Council had heard some reasonable ideas that would be the basis for
good discussion between the parties.
Councilmember Connolly moved and Councilmember Brockbank seconded, to continue this item to the City
Council meeting of April 6, 2009, with the understanding that communication would take place between the two
parties. Staff would be aware of events and return with a report to the City Council on that date.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS;
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING ESTABLISHED CITY COUNCIL FIVE-YEAR AREAS OF
EMPHASIS/PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006-2011 (CM) — FILE 9-1- (a)
City Manager Ken Nordhoff stated that back in 2006, as had been the practice for a number of years, the City
Council was setting some longer term outlooks of what it hoped to accomplish through staff on behalf of the
community. The City Council put together a series of Areas of Emphasis and Priorities, as listed on Exhibit
'A'— updated in April, 2007, which predated the last two-year development process. He reported that the
next two-year development process was initiated last Thursday with staff and they would be taking advantage
of a model used last year, shown on Exhibits 'B' and 'C', where they would be updating some specific
projects or tasks in the various rooms of the house.
Mr. Nordhoff stated he had taken the liberty of the City Council's work of the last couple of years and
morphed it into what was shown on Exhibit 'D'. Rather than a long list, as depicted on Exhibit 'A', he had
tried to tighten up some of the language, intentionally keeping the Areas of Emphasis and Priorities very
open-ended and far-reaching, so that staff could write some specific objectives over the next two years, and
be able to report out at six-month intervals, as had been done for many years.
Mr. Nordhoff indicated he was specifically looking for any feedback, noting Exhibit 'D" would be returned to
the City Council for formal action. He stated it would be helpful to staff to know the Areas of Emphasis and
Priorities the City Council wished them to focus on for the 2009-2011 period.
Councilmember Connolly noted that Climate Change was not mentioned.
Mr. Nordhoff clarified that it was included under "Improved Economic Vitality and Sustainability" — Implement
General Plan 2020 Short Term Programs, including CCAP (Climate Change Action Plan).
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to accept the report.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
7. None.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 17
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 18
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: (Including AB 1234 Reports on Meetings and Conferences Attended at City Expense)
8. Marin Communitv Foundation Grant: - File 267 x 9-1
Mayor Boro reported that late last year the City was successful in receiving a grant from the Marin Community
Foundation to restart the funding effort to sustain and improve the programs at Pickleweed Community Center.
The consultant who worked on the project from the beginning had been engaged and the first meeting took
place last week between Carlene McCart, David Donery, Ken Nordhoff, Councilmember Miller, Mayor Boro
and Elliot Levin, consultant. Five people from the community were invited to discuss what the City might do to
brand the Pickleweed Community Center in the community, make known what happens there, discuss its
accomplishments and its short and long term needs. These attendees ranged from Fletcher Lamkin, Vice -
President, Institutional Advancement at Dominican University to Linda Tavazzi, who raised funds for the Marin
Community Clinic. Mayor Boro stated he would keep the City Council posted going forward. The goal was at
some time in the near future to start a campaign for enhancing the existing programs and also ascertain
whether some type of long term endowment could be created for the building to maintain and sustain it as its
use now had risen to approximately 200,000 visits annually. He commented that it serves a great need in the
community, not only to Canal residents, rather residents throughout Marin County.
State Constitution Convention Summit - File 9-1
Councilmember Brockbank reported that he and Vice -Mayor Heller attended in Sacramento last Tuesday a
meeting of the State Constitutional Convention Summit where several hundred people met to consider
rewriting the State Condition. Subsequently, Brad Breithaupt of the Marin Independent Journal indicated he
might welcome an Op -Ed piece, which he (Councilmember Brockbank) had drafted. He noted it was not
expressing an opinion, rather just laying out the issues.
Meeting on AB 32 and SB 375 — North Bav Division, League of California Cities: - File 9-1 x 9-11-1
Councilmember Brockbank reported having attended a meeting last week on AB 32 and SB 375 of the North
Bay Division of the League of California Cities. He believed this could do more to shape future City planning
that anything else that had been done and he would like to hear more on San Rafael at a specific level.
There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:19 p.m.
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12009
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 03/02/2009 Page 18