HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2009-10-19SRCC Minutes (Regular) 10/19/2009 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. MONDAY. OCTOBER 19. 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 CHAMBERS — 7:00 PM
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item.
CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Barbara Heller, Vice -Mayor
Greg Brockbank, Councilmember
Damon Connolly, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Absent: None
Conference with Labor Negotiators— Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
Negotiators: Jim Schutz, Leslie Loomis, Cindy Mosser, Rob Epstein,
Ken Nordhoff
Employee Organization: SElU Child Care Unit
City Attorney, Robert Epstein announced that no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:17 PM
Independent Expenditures: - File 9-1
Gary Ford, Candidate for City Council 2009, read the following prepared statement regarding independent expenditures
into the record:
"Thank you Mayor and Councilmembers — and special thanks to the citizens who attend meetings and take the time to
participate in our government and elections.
Two years ago, voters got a mud bath during the 2007 election ... now we are in a new election cycle and it looks like we're
going to be treated by the same tricks this year.
Now mud baths may be a great place for your complexion — but they are not good for the city. Dirty, negative campaigns
by secret groups and special interests are not going to help us solve real problems, nor give the public trust in public
officials.
I'm not complaining about the mud thrown at me recently — frankly the clumsy and inaccurate attacks are likely to backfire.
I am, however, concerned that a secret group — one that has not filed the necessary paperwork with the city, the county or
the state as required by law in order to hide the names of donors and contributors — brazenly flaunts the law.
I am concerned that special interest PACs — many of which have financial interests in the decisions made by the city —
openly pour money into the campaigns of people who will be voting on their San Rafael City contracts.
Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Council less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be
available for inspection in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, 1400 Fifth Avenue, and placed with other agenda -related materials on the
table in front of the Council Chamber prior to the meeting.
American Sign Language interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3198 (TDD) or (415) 485-
3064 (voice) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request.
Public transportation is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Paratransit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at
(415) 454-0964.
To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested
to refrain from wearing scented products.
CC 10-19-09
And 1 am concerned that dishonest campaign attacks derail honest debate — and elected officials stand quietly by while
special interests are put above public interests.
But I'm not here to just decry dirty campaigns — I am here to urge the city council to take real action to restore the public
trust.
Cities throughout California have passed sunshine laws and campaign ethics rules. San Jose, San Diego and San
Francisco have all passed rules to limit special interest influence. Sacramento, Fresno and Long Beach have all passed
laws to require honest disclosure of campaign contributions. And more than 20 cities have implemented rules and
cooperated with District Attorneys and the state's political corruption unit to fight political money laundering and punish
political donors who ignore state campaign disclosure laws.
I urge the Council to immediately ask the Marin District Attorney to investigate `Committee for Responsible Campaigning'
for failure to disclose donors. I'm asking the Council to direct the city attorney to file a complaint with the Fair Political
Practices Commission to investigate the donors for failing to disclose information required by law. And I'm asking the city
to adopt a model campaign ethics ordinance to clean up campaigns and restore public faith in our city elections. "
In closing, Mr. Ford noted that in less than two years Councilmembers Connolly and Brockbank and Mayor Boro may or
may not choose to run for office again. Questioning whether the same type of environment would exist, further
disillusioning the public, he urged the City Council to take action.
City Attorney Robert Epstein reported that several months ago the City Council held a study session in which a proposed
ordinance was discussed and considered. Since then his office had been spending considerable time reviewing it and
working on what they believed to be some improvements to the proposed ordinance; however, the work done did not
allow staff to present the ordinance to the City Council for consideration before this election cycle. It was staff's intention
when the work is completed after the election to present the proposed ordinance to the City Council affording them an
opportunity at that time to consider whether to adopt a campaign expenditure ordinance concerning independent
expenditure committees.
Use Permit Appeals: - File 9-1
Regarding the resolution for a fee waiver request on this evening's agenda, Sharlene Moss, President, West End
Neighborhood Association, requested that subsequent to its adoption the City Council should also consider waiving
potential future appeal fees subsequent to Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permits for the five
churches.
Mr. Nordhoff stated this would be a separate action independent of this evening's action.
Trash at East San Rafael Businesses: - File 9-1
Andree Jansheski expressed concern over the amount of refuse and debris generated by Smart and Final, Mancini's
Mattresses and Office Depot and submitted photographs depicting this. As part of "Make a Difference Day" on October
24th, Ms. Jansheski stated she would pick up the trash on the Sims Street side of Smart and Final.
Graffiti: - File 9-1
Expressing dissatisfaction with the San Rafael Code Enforcement Division, Dick Sadler stated he reported a graffiti
problem at 835 Fifth Avenue on June 14th, 2003; however, the graffiti remained six years later. He indicated he would like
to receive confirmation of a definite date on which this graffiti would be removed.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
ALL MATTERS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE TO BE
APPROVED BY ONE MOTION, UNLESS SEPARATE ACTION IS
REQUIRED ON A PARTICULAR ITEM:
Approval of Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of
October 5, 2009 (CC)
2. 1) Resolution Clarifying the Purpose, Qualifications and
Terms of Service of the Members of the ADA Access
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING ACTION:
Approved as submitted.
RESOLUTION NO. 12851
RESOLUTION CLARIFYING THE PURPOSE,
CC 10-19-09
Advisory Committee (PW) — File 9-2-56 x 13-1-1
2) Call For Applications to Fill Four, 2 -Year Terms on the
San Rafael ADA Access Advisory Committee Through
the End of October, 2011, due to the Expiration of
Terms of Members: Shari Dehouwer, Robert Gallimore,
Ewen Mckechnie and Craig Yates, and one Unexpired
Term to the End of October 2010, due to a Vacancy
Created by the Resignation of Emily Dutch (CC)
Call for Applications to Fill One Two -Year Term on the
Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District Board to
the end of December 2011 (CC) — File 9-2-9
QUALIFICATIONS AND TERMS OF THE ADA
ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Approved staff recommendation:
a) Called for applications to fill four, two-
year terms on the ADA Access Advisory
Committee, to expire the end of October,
2011; and one unexpired term to the end
of October, 2010;
b) Set deadline for receipt of applications
for Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 12:00
noon in the City Clerk's Office, City Hall,
Room 209; and
c) Set date for interviews of applicants at a
Special City Council meeting to be held
on Monday, November 16, 2009,
commencing at 6:00 p.m.
Approved staff recommendation:
a) Called for applications to fill one two-
year term on the Marin/Sonoma
Mosquito & Vector Control District
Board. Term: January 1, 2010 to
December 31, 2011;
b) Set deadline for receipt of applications
on Tuesday, November 19, 2009 at 5:00
p.m. in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209,
City Hall; and
c) Set date of interviews of applicants at a
Special City Council meeting to be held
on Monday, November 16, 2009.
4. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending September, 2009 Accepted report.
(Fin) — File 8-18 x 8-9
Resolution Approving the Form of and Authorizing the
Execution and Delivery of a Purchase and Sale Agreement and
Related Documents with Respect to the Sale of the Seller's
Proposition 1A Receivable from the State; and Directing and
Authorizing Certain Other Action in Connection Therewith (Fin)
— File 8-13-13 x 8-5 x 9-3-11
Resolution Approving Use of and Acceptance of Federal
Justice Assistance Grant Funds in the Amount of $26,565 to
Purchase a New Swat Trailer (PD) — File 9-3-30
Resolution Approving a Loan to Marin Housing in an
Amount not to Exceed Two Hundred and Thirty Five
Thousand Dollars ($235,000) for the Purchase of a Below
Market Rate Unit and Making Findings and Approvals
Pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law in
Connection with the Utilization of Agency Low and Moderate
Income Housing Funds Outside the Central San Rafael
Redevelopment Project Area (APN 179-451-02) (RA) —
File 229 x (SRRA) R-173 x (SRRA) R-103
RESOLUTION NO. 12852
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FORM OF
AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF A PURCHASE AND SALE
AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF THE
SELLER'S PROPOSITION 1A RECEIVABLE
FROM THE STATE; AND DIRECTING AND
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
RESOLUTION NO. 12853
RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF AND
ACCEPTANCE OF FEDERAL JUSTICE
ASSISTANCE GRANT FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $26,565 TO PURCHASE A NEW
SWAT TRAILER
RESOLUTION NO. 12854
RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOAN TO
MARIN HOUSING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($235,000) FOR THE
PURCHASE OF A BELOW MARKET RATE
UNIT AND MAKING FINDINGS AND
APPROVALS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW IN
CC 10-19-09
Resolution Approving an Expenditure in the Amount of
$80,000 by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San
Rafael for an Agreement with Marin Housing for
Administration and Enforcement of the City's Below Market
Rate Ownership Program; Making Findings and Approvals
Pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law in
Connection with the Utilization of Agency Low and Moderate
Income Housing Funds Outside the Central San Rafael
Redevelopment Project Area; and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute an Agreement for Such Services with
Marin Housing. (RA) —
File 229 x (SRRA) R-173 x (SRRA) R-103
Resolution Authorizing the Temporary Closure of City
Streets for the 30th Annual Parade of Lights and Winter
Wonderland on November 27th and November 28th, 2009
(RA) File 11-19
CONNECTION WITH THE UTILIZATION OF
AGENCY LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING FUNDS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL
SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA (A.P.N. 179-451-02)
RESOLUTION NO. 12855
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN
EXPENDITURE IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000
BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR AN
AGREEMENT WITH MARIN HOUSING FOR
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
THE CITY'S BELOW MARKET RATE
OWNERSHIP PROGRAM; MAKING FINDINGS
AND APPROVALS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW IN
CONNECTION WITH THE UTILIZATION OF
AGENCY LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING FUNDS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL
SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
FOR SUCH SERVICES WITH MARIN
HOUSING
RESOLUTION NO. 12856
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CITY STREETS
FOR THE 30TH ANNUAL PARADE OF LIGHTS
AND WINTER WONDERLAND ON
NOVEMBER 27TH AND NOVEMBER 28TH
2009
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS:
10. RESOLUTION WAIVING PAYMENT OF FEES FOR UP TO FIVE USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS REQUESTING
APPROVAL FOR TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS AT VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH
(809 B STREET), SAN RAFAEL FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH (9 ROSS VALLEY DRIVE), FIRST
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (1510 FIFTH AVENUE), CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (620 DEL GANADO)
AND UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CHURCH OF MARIN (240 CHANNING WAY) (CD) — FILE 9-10-2 X 10-2
Referencing the October 5, 2009 City Council meeting, City Manager, Ken Nordhoff, stated that one of the requests
of the applicants was for the City Council and staff to meet with the churches to discuss the use permit application
process and timelines. He reported that the meeting had been held the morning of Friday, October 16, 2009 and
included Mayor Boro, Councilmember Connolly, Community Development Director, Bob Brown, Associate Planner,
Caron Parker and himself, along with representatives from each of the five churches listed in the staff report
together with Steve Boyer, representing Saint Vincent de Paul's dining hall. Reporting that several topics had been
covered during the meeting, he noted that additional time was used to explain the permitting process, requirements,
timelines, etc. Staff worked with Paul Jensen to evaluate permits which had been issued in the early 1990s and
how those permits could be applicable to those issued today. He stated that at the conclusion of the meeting the
following could occur fairly quickly:
1) Ensure completed applications were in place from each of the five churches
2) As part of the conditional use permit process, the churches would be required to conduct neighborhood
meetings, which Mr. Nordhoff suggested should be scheduled in the first two weeks of November
3) Necessary building and fire inspections for the assembly occupancies; staff suggested each church could
make appointments for the inspections while the permitting process was moving forward
CC 10-19-09
4) Regarding the offer made by the Marin Community Foundation to assist with the permitting process, a letter
would need to be sent from the churches to the Marin Community Foundation.
Indicating the dialogue at the meeting was constructive, Mr. Nordhoff stated it was clear what needed to be done,
noting a permitting process had been in the zoning ordinance since 1992. Staff would ensure the community was
notified and be able to comment on the permits which would require approval from the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Brockbank thanked Mr. Nordhoff for taking the initiative to apply to the Marin Community
Foundation for grants; however it was clear from press reports that some of the representatives from the churches
were upset about this, as they believed the City was applying in their name and/or without their permission. He
requested clarification that it would not be a large amount of work on the part of the churches to submit a letter
indicating they would like to take advantage of the $4,000 offer. Additionally, he inquired whether this would reduce
the amount the churches might otherwise receive from the Marin Community Foundation.
Responding, Mr. Nordhoff stated that he could not speak on behalf of the Marin Community Foundation. He was
not aware and had not been told whether the grant would count against the churches in any way should they make
subsequent applications for other purposes. The request needed to come from the churches and he had confirmed
with Dr. Peters after the meeting on Friday morning that this could simply be done in a letter signed by all the
participating churches up to and including five and could be processed administratively within a week to ten days.
Mr. Nordhoff stated the intention never was to have the grant come to the City; rather it would assist the
participating churches.
Bob Brown, Community Development Director, stated that the resolution reflected the direction staff received from
the Council at the meeting of October 5, 2009, with the exception that there were now five applicants for the waiver,
including the Unitarian Universalist Church of Marin. He noted the resolution was a one-time fee waiver exception
from Resolution No. 11025 and would establish a waiver of all fees beyond $4,000 per application.
Councilmember Heller inquired whether there would be more background from the churches as to exactly what
they planned to do.
Mr. Brown stated that the applications would be shared with the Council once they were submitted and would
elaborate on the programs each church intended to operate. He added that at the October 16, 2009 meeting, the
five churches had been provided with a series of questions or points that staff believed needed to be answered in
terms of their applications.
Councilmember Brockbank believed the motion at the previous Council meeting was to amend the ordinance
because there was a question of the appropriateness of an exception.
Mr. Epstein clarified that it was a resolution, not an ordinance.
Mr. Brown clarified, as Mr. Epstein pointed out at the previous Council meeting, that the Council would have
complete authority to do this. Staff would bring back the fee waiver resolution to the City Council later in the year or
early in 2010 after they had discussed with the City Council a response in the housing element update to SB2, a
state law requiring certain areas of town be designated for permanent homeless shelters, in order to have a more
thorough discussion regarding homeless shelters in general.
Understanding this was a one-time exception and that a permanent homeless shelter was planned for a year from
now, Councilmember Brockbank commented that he did not know how written in stone one-time only was. He
believed funding for homeless shelters was primarily the responsibility of the County of Marin, noting the County
had been funded by the federal government. He suggested that when homeless shelters are funded that budget
should include fees for a Conditional Use Permit so that San Rafael was not requested to fund something for which
the City was not funded.
Mr. Brown confirmed that the fee waiver would be a one-time exception to the resolution. It was indicated to the
five church applicants at the Friday meeting that their applications for use permits could be for one year or multiple
years and the Planning Commission could theoretically grant a multi-year request, albeit subject to annual reviews,
and modifying the terms and conditions of the permit if needed.
Huqo Landecker, Gerstle Park resident, believed that those who proposed the resolution seemed to think the fees
charged would be a major source of income for the City; however, in reality these fees would be used only to cover
the actual cost the City paid for processing the applications. Considering recent cut-backs in City services, Mr.
Landecker felt that the resolution was ill-timed and against public interest and should it be approved, he believed
CC 10-19-09
the City Council was putting itself in a position of being prejudiced. In the eyes of the public, approving the
resolution made the City Council appear to be in favor of any forthcoming application. Mr. Landecker believed the
City Council would be considered a prejudiced reviewing body for any resulting appeals of Planning Commission
decisions and he was not aware of a resolution that would waive appeal fees, as addressed by Sharlene Moss
earlier this evening. He suggested amending the resolution to include waiving any appeal fees that would be
rendered on the public, which he felt the public would see as "leveling the playing field" and recommended denial of
the resolution.
Roqer Roberts believed this to be a very laudable exercise. Marin County had a serious homeless problem and the
County itself had its own funding cut, which was part of the reason the churches were stepping up to the problem.
He supported this as a one-time, one-year exception and would not support a multi-year exception.
Steven Bover, Saint Vincent de Paul Society, expressed appreciation for the City Council's leadership and staff's
time in meeting with the various congregations, including himself, to work out ways to try to take care of homeless
people in the City of San Rafael this winter. Addressing Councilmember Heller's concerns, Mr. Boyer explained
that the entire program which would involve congregations in many different jurisdictions would run for seven days
a week and include men and women; however, San Rafael would only house 20 women and would operate five
nights. He further thanked Mr. Brown and Mr. Nordhoff for their help at last Friday's meeting and anticipated
working closely with them in the near future.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12857 — RESOLUTION WAIVING PAYMENT OF FEES FOR UP TO FIVE USE PERMIT
APPLICATIONS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR TEMPORARY HOMELESS
SHELTERS AT VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH (809 B STREET),
SAN RAFAEL FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH (9 ROSS VALLEY DRIVE),
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (620 DEL GANADO) AND UNITARIAN
UNIVERSALIST CHURCH OF MARIN (240 CHANNING WAY)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Addressing comments requesting waiving of appeal fees, Mr. Epstein believed the idea was not ripe for
consideration unless and until an appeal had been filed. He felt it could be considered as encouraging appeals if
the Council were prospectively to waive appeal fees and he discouraged the idea. He stated that should someone
filing an appeal believe waiver of the appeal fee was warranted, the request could be made at that time.
Concurring with Mr. Epstein, Mayor Boro stated this was his reason for suggesting that the City Council not take
any action tonight on this issue, rather should the City Council choose, staff could present a staff report at a later
date outlining Mr. Epstein's comments for consideration.
11. REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT CITY STAFF AND CONSULTANTS' "PREFERRED DESIGN
ALTERNATIVES" AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN OF BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES FOR THE FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST NON -MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
PILOT PROGRAM (NTPP) PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 11114) (PW) — FILE 4-13-120 X 9-3-40
Leslie Blomquist, Associate Civil Engineer, stated that over the past year she had been working with Public Works
and Redevelopment Agency staff as well as several consultants, including Jacobs Engineering and Parisi
Associates, and together they had collaborated with the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
and other organizations, such as Marin County Bicycle Coalition, to develop the "Preferred Design Alternative."
She indicated that staff requested Council's acceptance of the "Preferred Design Alternatives" and authorization to
proceed with the final design. She noted that since the last City Council meeting on this issue, two public outreach
meetings had taken place with stakeholders and business and property owners to discuss the design alternative.
Ms. Blomquist explained that the design of the project had to be completed by the end of the year, as required by
the County of Marin. It was a design -only project and funding for construction had yet to be obtained.
Having explained Phase I of the project to the Council several months ago, David Parisi, Parisi Associates, stated
that this evening they would provide an update to the Council on Phase II. Using PowerPoint, he noted Phase I,
which was currently out to bid, comprised of Francisco Boulevard East between Bellam and Vivian, with Phase II
between Vivian and Grand Avenue. Using PowerPoint, he explained that Phase II included East Francisco
Boulevard between Vivian and Grand Avenue. He stated that the goal of the project was to provide safe,
CC 10-19-09
convenient non -motorized facilities, mainly for pedestrians and bicyclists, while minimizing conflicts such as
driveways, intersections, etc. to provide a consistent, functional and high-quality street cross section and sidewalk
for users which would also meet cost and schedule limitations.
Mr. Parisi stated that the project as defined was to widen the existing sidewalk, from 4' to 8' which would meet the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines and provide fewer obstructions along the route, while also
providing more trees in the area, improved lighting and retaining all of the on -street parking spaces. Showing
photos of the area, he specified the need for retaining two northbound lanes on East Francisco Boulevard for traffic
flow purposes, mainly the right-hand turn lane. Mr. Parisi reported that an opportunity was found to narrow some of
the traffic lanes and widen the sidewalks.
Referring to aerial photographs he explained the intention was to get the sidewalk to the back or right-of-way. He
noted that in many cases, private property owners had been able to take advantage of some of the City property,
some of which would now need to be reclaimed in order to achieve an 8 -foot wide sidewalk.
Mentioning that the three -lane section of East Francisco Boulevard would be narrowed to widen the sidewalk to 8 -
feet, Mr. Parisi noted that in some cases the sidewalk's effective width was just between 2 and 3 -feet because of
fire hydrants and streetlights. In essence, the project would be able to provide a 5 -6 -foot wide effective width with
the inclusion of street trees along the route. Continuing north to Hoag and Harbor Streets, he explained that there
would be minor refinements regarding lane widths. Towards the curve in East Francisco Boulevard, Mr. Parisi
stated it would be necessary to carry out some retaining wall work in order to maintain the parking used for the
display of automobiles for sale, in which case a low retaining wall would need to be built, as well as retaining some
of the landscaping in the area.
Mr. Parisi stated that the next steps would be moving to final design of the project and submitting the plans to
Caltrans to obtain their approval and acceptance, after which funding would need to be found for the construction.
Regarding the curve near the bridge on East Francisco Boulevard, Councilmember Heller inquired as to the width
of the sidewalk, noting the danger of the proximity to traffic.
Mr. Parisi responded that it would be 8 -feet wide to the bridge.
Regarding the primary uses for the sidewalk, Councilmember Heller inquired whether the sidewalk would be multi-
purpose to include both bicycles and pedestrians.
Mr. Parisi stated that there were many more pedestrians in the area than bicycles. He clarified that it would not be
a certified bicycle route; however, the City's ordinance already allows for bicyclists to use sidewalks and believed
that having a wider sidewalk in the area with safer driveway crossings would be beneficial.
Concurring, Councilmember Heller felt that everyone should be using the wider sidewalk for safety reasons.
With regard to on -street parking, Councilmember Brockbank referenced a letter sent by Geri Di Pietro and inquired
whether any on -street parking would be eliminated.
Mr. Parisi clarified that the same amount of on -street parking would be retained, although it might have to be moved
a bit within the same blocks.
Regarding Ms. Di Pietro's concern of designated parking spots solely for her business, Councilmember Brockbank
inquired as to whether that had been taken into consideration.
Mr. Parisi stated that it had not been taken into consideration and confirmed that if there was no reduction in
parking spaces and the spaces were not moved too dramatically, Ms. Di Pietro would be no worse off.
Adding that it would be a similar situation as Phase I, Nader Mansourian, Assistant Public Works Director, stated
that this particular business had a 90 degree parking that would be backing up to the new bike path and
unfortunately it would eliminate the parking on that side. Efforts would be made to preserve on -street parking;
however, the letter addressed a 90 degree parking next to their business.
Mr. Parisi clarified that Ms. Di Pietro's letter was referring to on-site parking, not on -street parking, and emphasized
that all of the on -street parking would be retained, with perhaps some slight deviations, depending on the location.
Showing a photograph of the site of the business near Medway with six on-site private parking spaces, Mr. Parisi
stated that widening of the sidewalk, as Mr. Mansourian had noted, could possibly eliminate those six on-site
CC 10-19-09
parking spaces, due to safety concerns; however, they had looked at ways to provide up to three on -street parking
spaces in front of the specified site.
Mr. Mansourian added that half of the 90 degree parking spaces at the site were in the public right-of-way and half
were private.
Mr. Parisi commented that the public right-of-way was to the right of the back of the sidewalk, so the cars currently
had to park within the public realm.
Mayor Boro recalled that the Phase I — from Bellam Boulevard to Vivian Street — was already funded.
Concurring, Mr. Parisi confirmed that it was out to bid currently as part of the 101/580 project.
Roper Roberts believed it would be helpful if the contractor could provide some idea about what the cost was likely
to be, together with the source of funding. He urged the Council to request that information as part of Mr. Parisi's
report. Relevant to the project itself, Mr. Roberts believed that the narrowing of the lanes on the frontage road
would require design exception from Caltrans and he recommended that the report explain how to address
Caltrans' rule-making relative to design exceptions so that the information could be made public and transparent.
Should the lanes be narrowed, Mr. Roberts believed the speed needed to be reduced as part of the design.
David Hoff, Director of Planning, Marin County Bicycle Coalition, thanked staff and consultants for their work on the
project, noting that the Marin County Bicycle Coalition was one of the stakeholder groups. He commended the
presentation and hard work put into the project and expressed appreciation for Mr. Parisi and the staff members,
adding that he looked forward to assisting in the effort to obtain some of the project's funding, as the Marin County
Bicycle Coalition had already brought $150 million into Marin County to pay for these sorts of projects.
Sarah Sonnet, member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, thanked staff and the consultants who
had worked on the project design. Believing it was a very important stretch of road used by both pedestrians and
bicyclists, Ms. Sonnet felt it would be a good idea to lower the speed limit for safety reasons.
Regarding the on -street parking, Stephen Leonardi, stated that the two businesses he owned on the proposed site
had on -street parking and he had been assured that it would be retained. In response to Mr. Parisi's comments
about on -street parking being shifted, Mr. Leonardi felt it detrimental to his businesses if the on -street parking in
front of his property were to be moved down the street. Stating that the property had been in his family for 78
years, he commented that his property's on-site parking was lost several years ago, due to Caltrans widening the
freeway. He reported that his grandfather had been assured that the street parking in front of the business would
not be lost, yet 20 years later he believed the spaces would be lost, devaluing his property.
Responding to Mr. Leonardi's comments, Mr. Mansourian agreed that the parking would be shifted minimally, but
believed that no on -street parking would be lost. Mr. Leonardi would have the same number of parking spaces,
albeit not exactly where they were currently located, but close to the front of the business.
Mr. Parisi clarified that shifting the parking spaces meant it would only require a few feet of movement in many
cases and confirmed that Mr. Leonardi would have the same number of parking spaces in front of his site, though
they could be shifted in some direction 5-10' to allow for the re -striping necessary for the project.
Mayor Boro suggested that, should the motion go forward, Mr. Parisi meet with Mr. Leonardi to show him
specifically how he would be affected.
Councilmember Connolly moved and Councilmember Brockbank seconded, to accept the "preferred design
alternatives" and authorize staff to proceed with final design.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
12. TARGET STORE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) (CD) — FILE 4-3-471 X 10-2
Paul Jensen, Planning Manager, introduced Kristie Wheeler, Project Manager, RBF Consulting, authors of the
Environmental Impact Report for the project. He explained that the purpose of the hearing was for the City Council
8 CC 10-19-09
to consider a recommendation to certify the FEIR (Final Environmental Impact Report) for the project. He clarified
that it was not a public hearing on the project merits or the consideration of the planning applications for the project.
By way of background, Mr. Jensen stated that the Target store project assessed in the EIR is a 137,000 square -
foot retail facility proposed at the Shoreline Center, which would include surface parking, landscaping and retention
of the existing BMW dealership's storage lot located near the entrance to the property. Noting that the property
was parcel #6, he indicated it was one of the last parcels of the Shoreline Center and was located east of Home
Depot and south of the Canalways Property. The site layout that had been filed with the City proposed the large
structure to be sited fairly deep into the property with the surface parking closer to the terminus of the public road
right-of-way, adjacent to the BMW dealership storage yard.
Regarding the status of the project, Mr. Jensen noted that the planning applications had been filed in 2007. PSP
(Project Selection Process) approvals had been granted twice for the project and were still valid. The Design
Review Board had reviewed the project over several meetings and ultimately recommended approval of the design
with some changes. In early 2009, Target had requested the project be placed on hold due to the current
depressed economy; however, the property owner requested that the City move forward with completing the FEIR
primarily because the process and document preparation were close to 90% complete.
Providing details on the process, Mr. Jensen explained that a notice of preparation had been published in August,
2007, which initiated the EIR process. The DEIR (Draft Environmental Impact Report) had been completed in
September, 2008 and subsequent to the 45 -day public review period in September and October, 2008, the
Planning Commission held a hearing on the DEIR in October, 2008. Responses to comments in the DEIR had
been prepared and assembled in the FEIR which was before Council this evening. Mr. Jensen stated that the
Planning Commission reviewed the FEIR on September 29, 2009 and recommended certification to the City
Council.
Kristie Wheeler, Project Manager with RBF Consulting — the authors of the EIR — stated that the Draft EIR and Final
EIR studied a broad range of environmental topics. 42 potential impacts were identified in the DEIR, four of which
were considered significant and unavoidable, 16 were potentially significant but could be mitigated to a level of less
than significant with measures recommended in the EIR, 22 were considered less than significant and there were
15 environmental topics where there would be no impact.
Regarding the significant and unavoidable impacts, Ms. Wheeler noted they were in the area of transportation and
traffic, specifically the intersection of Bellam Boulevard and Kerner Boulevard would operate at an unacceptable
level of service. Because of that impact there were two land -use and planning significant and unavoidable impacts,
based on policies in the General Plan relating to traffic, and an air quality significant and unavoidable impact for the
same reason.
Ms. Wheeler explained that the potentially significant but mitigable impacts were in the areas of air quality, biologic
resources, geology and soils, hydrology, noise and transportation/traffic impacts, which she noted could be
mitigated. Noting three alternative studies in the DEIR, as required by CEQA (California Environmental Quality
Act): No Project — No Build alternative, as well as two alternatives that studied projects that would potentially result
in fewer impacts — hotel and restaurant and an auto dealership. Although the impacts with the alternatives were
comparable to that of Target, RBF Consulting did identify an environmentally superior alternative, which was the
auto dealership development.
Ms. Wheeler reported that during the public review period on the draft EIR, the City received 15 comment letters
from public agencies and interested parties. In addition, oral comments were received during the Planning
Commission's hearing on the DEIR in October, 2008. The focus of the comments was primarily on traffic,
greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous materials, biologic resources and urban decay. She added that in the
October 28, 2008 hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to respond to all the comments received.
Stating that the response to the comments was part of the FEIR, Ms. Wheeler noted that the document was
comprised of the DEIR as well as the appendices, a list of persons, organizations and agencies that commented on
the DEIR, copies of the comments, written responses, revisions to the DEIR that addressed those comments, and
some additional appendices.
Noting the comments covered a broad range, Ms. Wheeler reported some commonalities, particularly in the area of
air quality addressing greenhouse gas emissions. Regarding biologic resources, concerns were expressed about
wildlife corridors existing throughout the site currently, special status species and wetland buffers. In preparing
responses to those comments, she stated that Wetland Research Associates (WRA) had assisted RBF in both
drafting the EIR as well as responding to those comments.
CC 10-19-09
Regarding hazards and hazardous materials, Ms. Wheeler noted the concerns related to the effectiveness of
mitigation proposed in the EIR, the potential for vapor intrusion from contaminated groundwater, existing leachate
collection and the effects of pile driving through the landfill cap. She noted that CSS Environmental had been quite
involved in monitoring the landfill and had assisted RBF in preparing responses to the comments.
Addressing concerns of hydrology and water quality, Ms. Wheeler stated that concern was expressed with the
capacity of the City -owned pond adjacent to the Canalways site. There were some questions about the relationship
between the City -owned drainage pond to the MMWD (Marin Municipal Water District) pond, as well as questions
regarding on-site retention, given that there was an existing undersized storm drain pipe in Shoreline Parkway.
She stated that Oberkamper and Associates assisted in preparing responses to those comments and appendices
to the FEIR included their report
With regard to transportation and traffic, Ms. Wheeler stated that the main area of concern was the need to
signalize Main Street and Francisco Boulevard at the 1-80 Westbound off -ramp, as well as the cumulative traffic
analysis without planned major traffic improvements. She indicated that Mr. Mansourian and Aecom Consultants
had prepared master responses which Mr. Mansourian would be able to address.
Regarding the definition of "urban decay," Ms. Wheeler stated that the analysis which was prepared for the DEIR
questioned the validity given the current economic crisis. ERA assisted RBF in preparing the Urban Decay
Analysis.
Ms. Wheeler stated that the Response to Comments FEIR did identify revisions to the text of the DEIR, presented
in section 12 of the FEIR. She explained that the text changes did not add any significant new information to the
DEIR, rather provided clarification or made minor modifications to the information presented in the DEIR. More
importantly, she reported that the comments and responses did not raise any new significant impacts that had not
been previously studied in the DEIR, nor did they identify any new alternatives.
Noting revisions and new mitigation measures were presented in the FEIR, Ms. Wheeler stated that they were
presented to expand mitigation where it was necessary to further reduce impacts or to address a comment.
Ms. Wheeler reported that the FEIR was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 29, 2009. Two
comment letters were submitted along with verbal comments from three members of the public, to which the
consulting team, including RBF and their sub -consultants, had responded, and the Planning Commission voted 5:1
to recommend certification of the FEIR. She indicated that there were some suggested revisions to further
strengthen the mitigation measures, and these were presented this evening in an errata as an attachment to the
resolution.
Mr. Jensen stated that it was a little unusual for San Rafael to sever an environmental document from planning
applications and actions on planning applications. He indicated that this was becoming more common, primarily
due to the depressed economy a lot of projects were being placed on hold and many agencies were finishing up
environmental documents on those projects and getting them certified. He stated staff concluded that the FEIR's
independent action would not prejudice review or bias action on a project when or if presented in the future. This
evening's action would not grant an entitlement of use or approve a development for this site; rather the City
Council would merely be acknowledging the EIR as an information document for review of and use for the Target
project or any other project that might surface on this project in the future. When this project was reactivated, or a
new project proposed on this site, if Council chose to certify the FEIR this evening, it would be revisited when the
new project surfaced. It could be necessary for an addendum to be prepared, revise the document or prepare a
supplemental EIR in the future.
Regarding the findings necessary under CEQA, Mr. Jensen stated for example that should the City Council be
considering approval of the project this evening, they would have to make some very significant findings of fact
going through each one of the mitigation measures and impact statements and making findings of overriding
consideration for approval or denial of the project. Those findings would weigh the impacts of the project,
particularly in this case, a project that resulted in some significant impacts for which there was no mitigation, such
as the Kerner/Bellam intersection, with the benefits of the project, which could be tax generation. He explained that
the City Council was not being asked to consider those types of findings; rather, in certifying an EIR solely on its
own, Council would be requested to look at the document and make the findings that it had been prepared
consistent with the CEQA guidelines, the City's local and environment guidelines and that independent judgment
was used in reaching a conclusion of adequacy.
Mr. Jensen reported that a letter was received today from Hexagon Transportation Consultants. This traffic
engineering firm was hired by Bayview Business Park Owners Association, located immediately south of the
10 CC 10-19-09
Shoreline Center. They commented on the DEIR, reviewed the FEIR and raised three issues: adequacy of trip
generation information which was used in the EIR, along with two other comments regarding mitigation. The letter
was shared with Mr. Mansourian, and he was prepared to respond when or if appropriate.
Councilmember Connolly inquired whether the City would be called on in the future to evaluate specific findings.
Mr. Jensen responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Heller requested more details regarding "urban decay." With regard to the MMWD pond and the
City -owned drainage pond, she inquired whether this usually was a dry pond.
Mr. Jensen pointed out on the aerial map the difference in locations and identified the City -owned drainage pond as
being surrounded by Canalways and stated that it remained wet nearly year-round. He added that the MMWD
pond was located south of the site and clarified that it was a City -owned pond which was linked with MMWD land.
The Bayview Business Park pond was located further south.
James Edison, Economics Research Associates, explained that the practice of conducting an urban decay study in
connection with an EIR stemmed from a number of court cases involving Super Wal -Marts. Basically, an EIR was
about physical impacts and the court case found that one of the possible physical impacts of a large shopping mall
development would be the creation of blight in a downtown, i.e., empty storefronts or abandoned stores. He
clarified that the Urban Decay Study was not meant to ensure that no business would go out of business, rather to
ensure that there would be no urban blight in an existing downtown where there was suburban or quasi -suburban,
or outside the city center large store such as this. Mr. Edison reported that the study they conducted looked at the
aggregate demand for goods based on census data and incomes. It was compared to the current retail stock, as
well as this additional one, and examined whether things would balance out. Target would sell some of the same
items currently sold downtown and it could well be that some stores would go out of business; however, the
question remained as to whether Target would create demand for other goods or whether there could be a demand
for types of goods not offered by Target. There did not have to be a guarantee of meeting some particular
standard, rather basically not to have empty storefronts. Adding Target to the retail mix of San Rafael would initially
produce a small hit; however, by 2014, everything would balance out.
Councilmember Brockbank stated that he got the impression from the staff report that Mr. Edison's distinction on
Wal -Marts was that the court cases indicated urban decay could constitute sufficient grounds to deny a project, on
the ground that it was a significant and unavoidable impact; however, the court cases only used Wal-Mart
examples. He questioned whether this meant that should a Target come in, the City could not use those cases
citing Wal -Marts as grounds for denying something like a Target because it was not a Wal-Mart.
Mr. Edison stated that in the profession this was somewhat of an open question. He explained that just because a
court case was only about Wal-Mart did not mean this was the only time someone would win. In his opinion, an
analogous impact was caused by any "big box" retailer — Wal-Mart was the large target as it was the most obvious
example having the largest stores with the widest range of goods; therefore, they attracted a lot of attention. He
had advised staff that an Urban Decay Study would not be necessary based on the face -value of the court cases;
however, in reading the logic of the court cases, there was an argument for yes. Mr. Edison noted that the court
cases did not define a standard for an actual urban decay study.
Councilmember Brockbank stated he understood the general purpose of approving the EIR. Being under the traffic
level he believed would not be too serious; however, should it be over the traffic level, he questioned whether a
new EIR would be required.
Mr. Jensen reported that very probably a new traffic study would be required which would be similar to a new EIR
as there would be a public review period with comments and responses, and it would be necessary to recertify the
supplement to that document. In the event of less traffic, Mr. Jensen explained that currently the Kerner-Bellam
Boulevard intersection operates at unacceptable levels, so any traffic added to that intersection would require an
override even it the project were smaller.
Councilmember Brockbank clarified that currently the traffic level at Bellam and Kerner Boulevards was less than
acceptable and by approving something such as Target with its projected trips it would continue to be less than
acceptable.
Returning to Councilmember Brockbank's previous question as to whether urban decay could form a basis for
denial, Mr. Epstein clarified that that issue, distinct from the traffic issue, was one that the EIR concluded was not a
significant impact and therefore, it was different than traffic which would require an override. Should the City
11 CC 10-19-09
Council determine that the benefits of the project did not outweigh the significant environmental impact that was
presented by the traffic conditions at the Kerner & Bellam, it could deny on that basis. Noting Councilmember
Brockbank's remark "maybe yes, maybe no," Mr. Epstein stated his answer would be "no" and he wished to ensure
that it was distinct from traffic in Councilmember Brockbank's mind.
Regarding comments and responses to comments, Councilmember Brockbank inquired whether there ever were
comments to the City's responses to comments and whether the City again responded.
Explaining that that was a common occurrence, Mr. Jensen stated that the same situation had occurred during the
Loch Lomond Marina project. The FEIR was published and there were a lot of written comments on the response
to response to comments. In that particular case, staff chose to respond to additional comments submitted on the
"Responses to Comments" and incorporate these in the FEIR, as a lot of comments were submitted. In this case, a
little of this had been done at the Planning Commission hearing as two letters were received that were comments
on the FEIR to which the consultant team responded verbally. He indicated there always was a problem with
closure if the situation was not stopped.
Having read an article in the North Bay Business Journal regarding the Sonoma Mountain Village Project, which
included a Community Impact Report, Councilmember Brockbank inquired whether such a report was considered
and under what circumstances San Rafael might consider a Community Impact Report.
Stating he was unfamiliar with what had occurred in Sonoma County, Mr. Jensen indicated that early on the
question of a Community Impact Report had been considered; however, the City chose to move forward with the
Urban Decay analysis.
Mr. Brown added that this type of report dealt more with social issues not mandated by CEQA, who focused more
on the physical environment. It was not a required element of CEQA; some agencies chose to do this to consider
other policies beyond environmental, but that was not the case with the Target project.
Councilmember Connolly confirmed that a Community Impact Report was not foreclosed with this evening's action.
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Diane Henderson, Planner for Cal -Pox — the property owner, stated they were excited to complete this step in the
process. She commended staff for a very thorough staff report. They concurred with the findings of that report and
with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Council certify the EIR.
Speaking on behalf of the Marin Conservation League, Roper Roberts expressed disappointment with the
responses made to their letters in the FEIR. He inquired whether it was possible for staff or the consultant to inform
them of exactly what was in the leachate material regularly coming out of the landfill on the north side of the site.
He noted the EIR indicated that there were no volatiles in the groundwater and therefore, the site would be safe,
Remedies had been taken to handle the leachate so that it would meet the Marin Sanitary District standards;
however, for some reason no one was willing to tell them exactly what was in the leachate. He believed the public
should know and the report should indicate this. Even if it were not volatile, it was not known what the non -volatiles
were. It would be useful for them to know that and he requested that staff consider doing this.
Recognizing that there were specific impacts that could not be remedied, Mr. Roberts expressed concern with what
would happen over time with the current analysis and he inquired as to the time period to require additional
analysis. It was not clear to him how this would be handled with respect to time. With regard to use, he urged
clarification on what uses would not be contained within the report. He assumed this would only include retail uses
that could be brought forward without having to do supplemental or additional environmental impacts. Should it be
a use other than that contained in the report he believed there should be additional supplemental environmental
impact analysis. He requested clarification from the City Attorney as to how that would be handled also.
Stuart Moodv raised concern with having another "big box" store in the City, believing it would not fit with the City's
image. The possibility that Fourth Street businesses could be affected and he hated to think of anyone being
driven out of business by a big box store. He understood that Target had two stores in the East Bay, one of which
was closed which did not bode well to him. With the concept of landfill not being fully understood, he believed the
City should know what it was doing prior to commencing building on that site. Regarding the traffic level already
being unacceptable, Mr. Moody stated that he would not wish to approve a report that indicated traffic levels were
unacceptable. Despite being in support of building businesses in the City, he was not in favor of big box stores.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing
12 CC 10-19-09
Indicating Terry Carter from CSS Environmental was in attendance, Mr. Jensen stated that he could respond to the
issue of leachate.
With regard to Mr. Roberts' comment about what would happen over time and how long an EIR was good for, Mr.
Jensen stated this would depend on changes and circumstances over time. It depended on when a project
resurfaced, e.g. with regard to San Rafael Corporate Center, the City approved an addendum to the EIR
approximately three years after it was approved for a change in scope of the project. Should the Target project not
resurface for another year, there could be different traffic information to revisit. Summarizing, Mr. Jensen explained
that there was no real sunset on an EIR except for a "Master Environmental Impact Report" which, under CEQA
guidelines was for a large area and had a validity of five years.
Regarding changing the use of the EIR, Mr. Jensen specified that any project that had different uses would be
reassessed in conjunction with the document and any changes would have to be analyzed. He added that
whatever came back for this site would need to be re -reviewed.
Responding to Mr. Roberts' comments, Mr. Epstein cited public resources code section 21166 concerning when a
subsequent environmental document would be required:
"After certification, no subsequent environmental document shall be required unless one or more of the following
three criteria are met:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the environmental
document due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; or
2. Substantial changes occur in the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken which will
require major revisions to the environmental document due to new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or
3. Specified new information of substantial importance to the project becomes available"
Mr. Epstein stated this was the legal standard against which a project would be measured, and as pointed out by
Mr. Jensen, when submitted it would be evaluated and applied against that standard.
Regarding the issue of traffic, Mr. Jensen stated that the EIR would not approve traffic, rather it was an information
document which presented the impacts of the project and whether or not those impacts could be mitigated, and
was for the City Council, as decision -makers, to use in determining how or if they wished to approve a project
ultimately.
Addressing the issue of leachate, Terry Carter, Environmental Engineer with Cal -Pox, stated that this was a dump.
Leachate was captured and transferred to the sanitary sewer. Regarding the content of the leachate, Mr. Carter
stated this had been totally under the limits of the sanitary sewer; however, he was unsure whether this was
satisfactory to the question that had been raised. He proposed meeting with Mr. Roberts to go over in more detail
what the leachate contained, as he captures leachate and discharges it out to the sanitary sewer. He suggested
the question was perhaps whether they posed a much greater risk than that under the discharge limits of the
sanitary sewer and he would be happy to go into more detail on this. Mr. Carter stated they had not had any
breaches of discharge limits to the sanitary sewer from the leachate.
As to the definition of leachate, Councilmember Heller inquired whether "leachate" referred to liquid draining out of
the dump.
Mr. Carter responded affirmatively.
Mr. Brown commented that the dump closure and any leachate were all monitored by the Marin County
Environmental Health Department.
Councilmember Miller stated that #5 under findings was the basis of his thinking on this issue and he quoted: "The
City is merely certifying the FEIR, recognizing it as an informational document for future project assessment and at
this time it would not prejudice or bias future review or actions on the site development." This document indicates
that the facts contained in the documents were facts and should be considered and he would vote to support it.
13 CC 10-19-09
Councilmember Connolly concurred.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12858 — RESOLUTION CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR)
(SCH #2007082125) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 137,424-SQ.FT. TARGET
STORE AT 125 SHORELINE PARKWAY (APN: 009-320-45) GPA07-004; ZC07-
002; UP07-018; ED07-038
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
13. AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (SRMC) TITLE 15 — SUBDIVISIONS — TO ADD
SECTION 14.01.155 (SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE) ESTABLISHING AN AUTOMATIC TWO-YEAR TIME
EXTENSION TO CURRENTLY APPROVED AND VALID SUBDIVISION MAPS AND RELATED PLANNING AND
LAND USE APPROVALS; FILE NO. P09-013 (CD) — FILE 10-2 x 10-3 x 10-5 X 5-1
Mr. Jensen reported that approximately a year ago, the state authorized an automatic one-year time extension for
all valid subdivisions. He explained that the City's process was to link these together with other land use and
planning applications. The City Council amended the subdivision ordinance last year to blanket those approvals to
match the automatic extensions of the subdivisions granted by the State. This year, the state had granted an
extension for two years; therefore, staff was requesting the City Council to amend the code to ensure that the land
use and planning approvals granted the same benefit of extension. Mr. Jensen stated that this was favorably
reviewed by the Planning Commission; however, at that time staff suggested additional language in the draft
ordinance which would allow the City to require or impose interim property maintenance measures on sites -
Mission and Lincoln Avenues site was an example. Mr. Jensen believed that this would have been a good tool or
leverage to require the property owners to do property maintenance as a condition for receiving a time extension.
He reported that two of the Planning Commissioners did not support the recommendation, believing that it could
impose an additional financial burden on the property owners. He explained that Planning Commission voting was
structured so that there had to be four affirmative votes on a resolution to amend an ordinance; therefore, the
motion to include this language failed and the Planning Commission ultimately recommended approval of the
amendment without this language. With all due respect to the Planning Commission, he stated staff requested that
the City Council consider inclusion of this property maintenance language. Referring to Exhibit B of the staff report,
which listed the projects that would benefit from the extension, Mr. Jensen reported that the projects had all
received the extension last year by the same amendment.
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and there being no comment from the audience, closed the public
hearing.
Mayor Boro suggested adopting the recommendation of the planning staff. While it could be a burden on the
property owners, they were receiving a big benefit by continuing these approvals; therefore, it was a small price to
pay. Some of the projects were significant and it made sense from a City point of view that these be maintained in
good repair, including fewer weeds, and he recommended that this be included as part of the ordinance.
Concurring, Councilmember Miller believed this was very essential to the ordinance. He noted the example of
Lincoln Avenue, how long it took and how many complaints were received. He believed property owners had
responsibilities as well as rights and one of these responsibilities was maintaining the property in a condition that
was applicable to the common good.
The title of the ordinance was read:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 15 — SUBDIVISIONS BY ADDING
SECTION 15.01.155 TO ADDRESS AUTOMATIC EXTENSIONS PROVIDED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO
APPROVED SUBDIVISION MAPS AND RELATED PLANNING AND LAND USE APPROVALS
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Connolly seconded, to dispense with the reading of the
ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1878 to print by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
14 CC 10-19-09
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
14. None.
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: (including AB 1234 Reports on Meetings and Conferences Attended at City Expense)
15. None.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:01 p.m.
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2009
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
15 CC 10-19-09