HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-05-03SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
I
IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 3, 1993, AT 7:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION
1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a
No Closed Session was held.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 3, 1993, AT 8:00 PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember
Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember
Joan Thayer, Councilmember
Absent:
Others Present: Suzanne Golt, Assistant City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
RE: REQUEST TO REMOVE SRCC AGENDA ITEM #10 FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION - File
10-5 x 10-6 x 13-6
George J. Silvestri, Jr., Attorney for the Save Downtown San Rafael Committee, requested
Item #10 on the Consent Calendar be pulled off and continued to the next meeting, because
he had been asked about the legality of this issue without enough time to respond and this
Committee would be meeting Friday, May 7, 1993. He also stated their concern with regard
to the Resolution for this item accurately reflecting what had actually been done. He
stated the CEQA determination was left out and the Resolution purported to include, as a
finding, that there are no City funds involved in facilitating this project, but did not
mention public funds. (City Council took no action.)
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the recommended
action on the following Consent Calendar items:
2
3.
4
N
ITEM
Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 5,
1993 (CC)
Report on Bid Opening and Authorization to Purchase
Two Used Vehicles (Gen.Svcs.) - File 4-2-271 x
Resolution of Findings Granting Variance From
Uniform Building Code Section 504 - 445 Francisco
Blvd. (PW) - File 1-6-1 x 9-3-32
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approved as submitted.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8881 -
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A
9-3-65 x 9-3-30
1992 DODGE DYNASTY
(USED) FROM MARIN DODGE (for
Recreation Dept.) (in the
amount of $11,314.87) AND A
1993 FORD TAURUS (NEW) (for
Police Dept.) FROM HANSEL
FORD (in the amount of
$13,639.00)
ADOPTED RESOLUTION N0. 8882 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL (IN ITS CAPACITY AS
THE BOARD OF APPEALS) GRANT-
ING CONDITIONED APPROVAL OF
AN APPEAL FROM SECTION 504 OF
THE BUILDING CODE AT 445
FRANCISCO BOULEVARD (Re:
Building Crossing Property
Line) (Infiniti) (George
Dexter)
Approval of Extension of Time for Subdivision ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8883 -
Improvements "Subdivision of Lands of Laurel EXTENDING TIME FOR THE
Properties" (PW) - File 5-1-316 COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT WORK
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
"SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF
LAUREL PROPERTIES" (EXTENDED
TO AND INCLUDING 5/18/94)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
3
7. Approval of Parcel Map - Lands of Moorhouse and
Nicolaus - Between Linden Lane and Newhall Drive;
AP #15-051-41 (PW) - File 5-1-319
8. Approval of Agreement with County of Marin for
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8884 -
APPROVING PARCEL MAP OF
SUBDIVISION ENTITLED "LANDS
OF MOORHOUSE AND NICOLAUS"(on
Linden Lane and Newhall
Drive, just east of Grand
Avenue) AP #15-051-41
a. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.
Exchange of ISTEA
Funding for the Merrydale
8885 RESOLUTION OF
INTENT Overcrossing (PW)
- File 4-13-87 x 4-8-23 x 11-
15 REGARDING THE USE OF
ISTEA FUNDS BY THE CITY OF
SAN RAFAEL FOR THE MERRYDALE
OVERCROSSING/HIGHWAY 101
PROJECT ((1,112,500 from
ISTEA Funds)
b. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.
8886 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE MARIN COUNTY
REDEVELOP-MENT AGENCY FOR THE
EXCHANGE OF ISTEA FUNDS (for
City "Traffic Mitigation
Fee", Merrydale Overcrossing
Project) ($1,112,500 From
ISTEA Funds)
9. Resolution Authorizing Below Market Rate (Item carried over to next
Housing Agreement Between the City of San Rafael, meeting of May 17, 1993, per
Housing Authority of the County of Marin and request of City staff.)
Robert B. Ham, Inc. for Loch Lomond Unit 10 (Pl) -
File 5-1-297 x 229
10. Resolution Denying Appeal of the Planning
Commission Decision of March 23, 1993, Re:
Approval of ED93-15 & UP93-16 - Use Permit and
Environmental and Design Review Permit for a
Temporary Office Trailer to Provide Day Services
for the Homeless; 14 Ritter Street; Richard C.
Bottarini, Owner; Dr. Gideon Sorokin, Appellant;
Rob Simon, Human Concern Center, Applicant and
Rep.; AP #11-272-13 (Pl) - File 10-5 x 10-7
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8887 -
DENYING THE APPEAL BY DR.
GIDEON SOROKIN OF THE PLAN-
NING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF ED93-15 &
UP93-16, WITH MODIFICATIONS
TO CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS,
TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER
TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE
HOMELESS AT 14 RITTER STREET
12. Approval of Street Closure for Classic Car Parade, Approved staff recommendation
Saturday, May 22, 1993 (RA) - File 11-19 to approve partial closure of
Fourth Street, Court Street
and "A" Street to accommodate
the Car parade, car display
and Block Party Street Dance.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: Cohen
S.REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR STREET RESURFACING - 1993 (PW) - File
4-1-459
Councilmember Thayer stated the City will be spending $627,000+ this year because of the
Ghilotti bid with regard to the street resurfacing program and this amount of funds
will only cover six and one-half miles of City streets. She asked how many miles of
streets there were in the City and at what frequency are they repaved or resurfaced?
Public Works Director Bernardi responded to the second question first by stating
there was a return time period of approximately 45 years on the City streets, with
verification from the Hughes-Heiss consultant's report. He noted they should be
paving 10 to 15 miles of streets per year in order to get a reasonable return on the
City streets. He noted they were not able to do this any sooner with the funds
currently available.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
4
Councilmember Thayer stated she was receiving many complaints about this from citizens of
the City and was concerned that on a 45 year cycle that many streets will deteriorate
very badly and will need to be totally repaved. Mr. Bernardi responded that was the
danger in having that type of recycling on some of the City streets. He noted that
the other part of this question was that the City's pavement management
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
km
system has the crews paving the streets that have much more vehicular traffic so the
residential streets and the cul-de-sacs generally are always on the bottom of the
list because there is not much traffic. He stated those are the streets they would
be looking at for eventual reconstruction if staff does not resurface them more
frequently.
Mayor Boro followed up on this by stating there was roughly 150 miles of streets. Mr.
Bernardi responded affirmatively. Mayor Boro then stated staff should pave these
approximately every 15 years, which meant they should be paving approximately 10
miles per year. Mr. Bernardi responded affirmatively, noting that this year staff
has more funds because some funds were carried over from last year, which increased
the funding this year, but generally they had approximately $450,000 to $500,000 in
Gas Tax Funds each year to resurface the City's streets. Mayor Boro clarified that
in essence staff should be paving approximately 15 miles per year, but they are only
paving six and one-half. Mr. Bernardi responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Thayer asked if there were any funds available from the current State Budget
in Sacramento, specifically Gas Tax funds? Mr. Bernardi responded the State was
looking at this issue very closely. Mrs. Thayer asked if instead of a 45 year cycle,
could the City move to a 50 or 60 year cycle? Mr. Bernardi responded affirmatively,
even with the Proposition 101 funds the City has that are helping to supplement the
existing Gas Tax funding.
After further discussion, Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded,
to adopt the Resolution awarding the contract for street resurfacing - 1993.
RESOLUTION NO. 8888 -RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR STREET RESURFACING - 1993
TO GHILOTTI BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC. (lowest responsible
bidder) (in the amount of $627,286.11) (Project #006-
40696278000)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
11.PURCHASE OF SATELLITE ANTENNA AND VIDEODISC SYSTEMS FOR POLICE TRAINING (PD) - File 4-
2-273 x 9-3-30
Councilmember Breiner requested feedback with regard to the location of the satellite
antenna and videodisc equipment which are to be installed on the roof of City Hall.
Her concern was that it not be seen from the street or the back parking lot. Police
Chief Krolak explained this was a disc approximately 10 feet in diameter made of see-
through mesh material and indicated they talked with the Planning Department who
stated there was no need for permits to install this antenna. He stated they would
be working with the Public Works Department when they install this antenna and disc.
Mrs. Breiner stated she was concerned about the appearance of this antenna from
Fifth Avenue and/or Mission Street and suggested they work with the members of the
Design Review Board when installing this antenna to make it the least offensive
location possible. Public Works Director Bernardi stated there was a five foot
parapet on the roof which will obstruct the view angles so that no one from either
street can see it.
Councilmember Breiner requested that a member from the Design Review Board be included in
locating the proper area of the roof where the satellite and antennae will be
installed in the least visible location and still be able to get the best reception
possible for the Police Department.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution
for purchase of satellite antennae and videodisc systems for police training.
RESOLUTION NO. 8889 -AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO PURCHASE A VIDEODISC AND
SATELLITE ANTENNA SYSTEM FOR POLICE TRAINING (Cost to be
reimbursed by P.O.S.T. [California Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training])
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
13.PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW GENERAL PLAN EVALUATION; AND ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MISCELLANEOUS 1993 SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA93-1) (Pl) - File 115 x
10-6
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened.
Principal Planner Hasser gave an explanation, stating most of the amendments were
considered "clean-up" amendments and were fairly self-explanatory. She stated she
had a correction to Item 4b, Page 7 (and Page 2 of the Resolution, Item 4a) which
should refer to a change in land use policy 9 (LU -9), rather than land use policy 13
(LU -13).
Mayor Boro stated Council would start with questions for clarity first and then have
public input, and last, general questions from the Council.
Councilmember Breiner asked with regard to Page 4 of the staff report, No. 7, "Add policy
language to permit use of certain trip reserves to underdeveloped non- residential
parcels; and clarify that certain trip reserves may also be used for high tax
generating projects, and clarify policy C-4 trip allocations" and stated she had read
the Planning Commission minutes, but she still was not sure she understood this. She
indicated she wanted to feel more comfortable in what the Planning Commission was
doing about this.
Mrs. Hasser responded that currently the General Plan has a trip reserve specifically set
aside for non-specified "underdeveloped parcels" or partially developed parcels in
East San Rafael, yet the bonus trip policy, C-6, does not state that these trips,
which were set aside in reserve for those parcels, could be used. She further noted
that in Northgate they had a "general reserve" currently, and yet when Supercuts
requested trips to build out to their full FAR (Floor Area Ratio), staff could not
use that general reserve for them because there was no policy language that stated
that underdeveloped parcels could use those trips. Supercuts was not a high priority
use, so on the advice of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission recommended that
language in Policy C-6 be amended to correspond to the trip reserve categories in the
Appendix B to state that they could use those trips for underdeveloped parcels.
Councilmember Breiner stated one of her concerns was equity for the total under -developed
parcels and asked if these would be distributed on a "first come, first served"
basis, or would they be split up in order for everyone to obtain a proportional
number available to them, whether one parcel develops at year two and another expands
at year two or year ten, or will the owners of the parcel waiting too far down the
line then be told, even though it is underdeveloped and not at its full FAR, that
everyone that came first used up the reserve? Mrs. Hasser responded this would be on
a "first come, first served" basis, the same way they allocated out the high priority
trip reserves. She stated they are used to the extent that those reserves are
available and when the reserves are used up and there are no trips left, that option
is no longer available.
Mayor Boro asked if the site itself would have a certain amount of trips. Mrs. Hasser
responded affirmatively and stated a partially developed site would have historic
trips that have been used on that site and they would still be able to use them.
Mayor Boro then stated that even an underdeveloped parcel would carry so many trips
with it, too, and was it just the bonus trips Mrs. Hasser was referring to? Mrs.
Hasser responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Breiner asked if there was any traffic monitoring being done with regard to
traffic generation in this area and stated her concern was that if any of their
assumptions in traffic generation were wrong, they might not want to be looking at
those trips as actually being reserved; however, they might simply be there for them
to realize they have gone beyond Service Level "D" and we do not want any further
development on any of the parcels included in this project. She asked if this was
discussed. Mrs. Hasser responded negatively, but she thought this was a fairly
significant policy change that the Council may want to consider at some other time.
Mrs. Hasser explained staff has stated that those trip reserves can be used to help
guarantee acceptable traffic operating conditions and, in fact, one of the actions
Council was being asked to take tonight was to eliminate two of those trip reserves
to guarantee acceptable traffic operating conditions, because in Northgate when they
did a circulation element update they found that there had been a slight change and
there was a need to eliminate those reserves.
Councilmember Thayer asked for clarification with regard to floor area ratios and density
limits which were usually not spoken of in the same breath because she considered
density in terms of residential and floor area ratio in terms of commercial
properties. She stated her concern was in looking at the historical trips combined
with the reserve trips, whether the number of trips that would ordinarily be
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
6
7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
allocated to a certain floor area ratio would be expanded because of the reserves
that were given to it. She asked in other words, would this increase the allowable
trips to any one parcel? Mrs. Hasser responded it would permit a site to develop up
to a particular floor area ratio, but it would not permit them to go beyond that
floor area ratio. Mrs. Hasser stated there were some properties now that are under-
developed in terms of floor area ratio that do not have specific additional trips
assigned to them, which is what this reserve is intended to help; however, they still
would not be able to develop beyond the floor area ratio limits.
Councilmember Shippey stated with regard to a statement on Page 12, the 1991 Northgate
Circulation Model, that all the intersections in that North San Rafael area function
within adopted LOS standards except Smith Ranch/Redwood Highway. He asked with
regard to, "at build out it is planned to function below LOS 'D'", if this included
the St. Vincent's/Silveira maximum build out scenario? Mrs. Hasser responded
affirmatively and stated it includes everything in the General Plan; that was where
the build out numbers came from.
Mayor Boro asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to address the Council on
this item. There was no response and Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Thayer asked if they had taken into account the proposed expansion at San
Quentin? Mrs. Hasser responded there were additional build out trips that came from
outside traffic zones and she was not sure this included San Quentin or not, but
staff was doing a revised and updated traffic model for East San Rafael and Downtown
in which they would look at this issue. Mrs. Thayer stated her concern with regard
to the expansion of San Quentin because if that uses up applicable trips in the area,
what would happen to the City's Planned Priority Process with regard to development
that comes forward in the future? She noted it was almost like the State had pre-
empted the City's traffic trips, and was wondering if, legally, we could have a
Planned Priority Process for those intersections which would be impacted. Mrs.
Hasser responded that right now the City had already approved the projects that would
use up all that short-term remaining capacity until the needed roadway improvements
are constructed at the Bellam interchange. Mrs. Hasser noted that it was unknown if
the San Quentin expansion would happen in the short term and would, or would not,
affect the Planned Priority Process.
Mayor Boro stated this was one of the issues they had written about to the State in their
first request on the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) and the Council had also sent
out a second letter to the State, approved by the Council two weeks ago, again asking
for answers to these questions, along with the Board of Supervisors. He noted that
until they heard from the State there was not much the Council could do. Mrs. Thayer
stated she felt it could negatively affect the Planned Priority Process because it
would preclude certain people from the reasonable expectation that they could develop
their land. Mrs. Hasser stated this was in the short term until those improvements
are constructed and after this occurred, presumably there would be adequate capacity
for all development including San Quentin and other projects in San Rafael.
Councilmember Breiner asked would this happen even if they were to increase the size 1000
at San Quentin? She stated she felt the impact on the community, unless there was a
projection that was right on target, would be that they could find themselves with a
real problem. Mrs. Thayer stated there would be a tremendous expansion of the staff
at San Quentin, along with an expansion due to the numbers of prisoners who will be
seeing outside visitors, etc., which would create a definite traffic impact.
Councilmember Shippey stated his concern was that they did not have the traffic model
updated and in place, so their comments to the State were not based on that. Mrs.
Hasser stated they could ask the State to provide that information because they have
done their own traffic analysis from which staff had asked them to identify those
types of impacts on the City.
Mayor Boro stated the concerns were valid and the Council has gone on record as to what
their concerns were and they would have to wait to see what happens with the San
Quentin expansion to see if it will have the impact that Mrs. Thayer spoke of. Mrs.
Breiner stated that if later on staff finds out that the impact is different enough
to make some changes, it could come back to Council quickly because she saw one
possibility that would seem more fair, in some respects, having a proportional
allotment. She stated then if they had to cut back it could be done equally.
Councilmember Shippey stated he was concerned that the State's projected increase in
traffic may not agree with the City's, and would like to see the City's model before
accepting the State's information.
Mayor Boro stated that once they had further information, possibly the plan they approve
tonight would be underway and they could apply it to this project. He noted that he
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
7
Rl
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
felt San Quentin did not have very much local political support for this expansion,
so this might not happen. He noted when the City has that information then they
could go ahead with what they needed to do.
Mayor Boro asked, with regard to Page 13, dealing with the "Amnesty Program for illegal
units. . .", for background information on this issue. He asked if it was basically
stating to work up a work program to explore this possibility? Mrs. Hasser responded
affirmatively and stated it was to have the Code Enforcement Section develop an
Amnesty Program for consideration by the Council. She stated the Planning Commission
recommended the program as a way to focus or prioritize strict abatement efforts on
some more recent, "first generation" illegal units where the original owner who put
in the illegal unit was still in control of that unit. She stated they could develop
an approach that was stricter with those owners than with second or third generation
older illegal units. She stated the primary intent was to have high fines to stop
new illegal units and to prioritize the more recent ones as possibly easier to abate
or make them easier to abate.
Councilmember Breiner stated she was very opposed to an amnesty program for illegal units
on several levels and noted that in San Francisco their Planning Commission turned it
down. She stated she hoped San Rafael would do that, too; however, she felt they did
need some further discussion about how the City could do Code Enforcement. She
stated she was interested to hear from City Attorney Ragghianti with regard to
Paragraph 3 in this section.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated he did not think that the statement made in that paragraph
was legally correct and noted he spoke briefly to Mrs. Hasser about this earlier this
afternoon. He noted he did not believe the City would be estopped from abating an
illegal unit, but by virtue of the fact that an RBR failed to note its illegality and
someone bought the house thinking they could use it, this was clearly not sufficient
to have estopped the City if they were to abate it, in his opinion.
Mrs. Breiner noted she felt the neighborhoods would be very upset to think that there
could be a wide -spread amnesty program and thought it would encourage further illegal
units in the future which she did not want to see. She stated she agreed that there
were many of the units that were not up to code and have not received their permits,
etc., but sometimes they fade in and fade out, and if there was to be a wide -spread
amnesty program it would mean that from here on out the Assessor's record and all the
legal documents would show that that would be a permanent property right and all
those units could never be abated which she felt was not right.
Councilmember Thayer stated she agreed with Mrs. Breiner and felt the City has an adequate
procedure which is in place which mandates that people who do have older units that
are not legal and are allowed to legalize them under certain conditions, but it was
in the form of a public hearing. She felt this would be an adequate procedure and
noted that many of the illegal units in this City are in areas like Bret Harte,
Gerstle Park, Terra Linda, areas that may have inadequate parking for extra tenants
in front of their houses. She stated the Council has had a few of these people come
before them trying to legalize units in that situation and felt that this program
would encourage more of this in the future, so she was against having an Amnesty
Program at all.
Councilmember Shippey stated he was against this program too, and noted a concern he had
with regard to the inequity that certain owners who violated the ordinances earlier
would be given an unfair advantage relative to later owners who could not participate
in this program.
Mayor Boro recommended the Council consider, instead of an "amnesty program", adopting a
program to evaluate how illegal second units can be more effectively brought into
conformance. Mrs. Hasser responded this was the primary intent of this program to
try to improve the enforcement and abatement of illegal units.
Councilmember Breiner noted that Mrs. Hasser's explanation made more sense to her and
stated she agreed with that and felt there were different possibilities in this area
where a new buyer is not penalized or have a phase out period if someone attempts to
legalize a unit and it does not get approved, but there is not immediate action
and/or fines. She stated there is a need for a program that has fines built into it
to make up for the costs involved in the Code Enforcement time.
Mrs. Breiner then referred to Page 22 where the discussion of, "moderate income ownership
units have been developed under a City inclusionary program with deed restrictions of
30-40 years", and stated that many of the moderate and/or affordable units have a
life span, in terms of a rental life span, and she could see a problem coming up with
some of these units where the time is running out. She stated she was glad to see
the moderate income units are not at risk of losing their moderate income status
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
because the deed restriction on a unit of those ownership units is renewed each time
the unit is sold and with the fast turnover of these units, they do not convert to
market rate status.
Councilmember Thayer stated with regard to the new designation from "Hillside Residential"
to "Estate Residential" category, on Page 6, which dealt with Peacock Gap, one of the
problems she had with this was did this in any way increase densities in any area?
She noted in Peacock Gap, with regard to the two large lot subdivisions spoken of on
Page 6, it specifically stated that this would still preclude further subdivisions
and those lots were not proposed for any change; however, that statement was not
carried through with regard to the others in Loch Lomond. She asked if the same
would apply? Mrs. Hasser responded, in terms of existing density and sub -division
potential, it stays the same and the only thing that changes is that the hillside
overlay zone would be deleted from those flat and gently sloping lots. Mrs. Thayer
clarified by stating that essentially it would be under a 25% slope that this new
designation would apply; however, all slopes over 250, without exception, will be
subject to the Hillside Residential zoning.
Councilmember Shippey asked with regard to a comment on Page 5, a couple of portions of
this General Plan Amendment were not included; for example, the issue of the revision
of the City's In -Lieu Housing Fees - when were these issues coming back to Council
and would they be in the form of another set of General Plan Amendments? Mrs. Hasser
stated they were hoping to have the In -Lieu Fees resolved at the same time as the St.
Isabella's General Plan Amendment, which has been recently submitted, comes forward
to the Council. However, she did not know the exact time frame for this, but
expected this to happen within the next six months.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution
with the change on Page 3, Item 9, striking "Amnesty Program" and change the wording
to "Code Enforcement Program" being the title and then develop an improved program to
approve and abate illegal dwelling units, and the second change, on Page 2, Item
4(a), "LU -13" to "LU -9".
RESOLUTION NO. 8890 -CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING THE
MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA93-1) (with change
on Page 3, Item #9, strike "Amnesty Program" and have the
wording "to develop enforcement of abatement and improvement
of illegal dwelling units", and Page 2, Item #4[a], change
"LU -13" to "LU -9")
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
14.PROPOSED FINANCING REVISIONS ON BOYD COURT PROJECT (RA) - File 5-1-322 x 229
Assistant Executive Director Ours gave a brief summary of this report, stating this
project, as approved by the City Council, contemplated a land lease structure whereby
the homeowners would lease a proportionate share of land through a lease payment
included in the monthly homeowners association payment. He stated the land lease
structure has been abandoned in favor of a condominium structure whereby the land is
included in the purchase price of the unit. Mr. Ours then noted the original prices
were: 1) 2 units affordable to Low Income households at or below 700 of median for
sale at or near $86,320; 2) 6 units affordable to Moderate Income households at or
below 900 of median for sale at or near $120,600; four by virtue of $60,000 ($15,000
per unit) from the Housing Fund; and, 3) 17 units affordable to Moderate Income
households at or below 1100 of median for sale at or near $135,645. He stated the
questions seemed to be centered around the "Silent Second" concept which was a new
concept introduced to the Council.
Mr. Ours explained this concept by taking a "Silent Second", with no money in the pockets
of the developer, the note is due and payable to the Redevelopment Agency and this
creates a partnership between the Redevelopment Agency and the moderate income
purchaser where the two entities share equally in the amount they put in and the
Redevelopment Agency's money, when the unit is sold, comes back to the Agency plus
the appreciation (500, for example) of the appreciated sale price. At that time the
Agency would be able to qualify a new buyer and apply the appreciated money, plus the
$15,000, to the unit and maintain its affordability.
He stated this "Silent Second" method allowed the Agency more control and a firmer hand in
maintaining affordability than the normal BMR unit agreement. The fact is that if
there was a BMR unit that was going for resale and there were no purchasers for it,
the resale conditions would disappear after 90 days. He stated in the past the
Agency has had to step in, particularly with the Housing Authority, and loan them
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
9
10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
money so they could buy the unit and then resell it, maintaining the affordability of
the units.
He noted this procedure had been done twice already where the Agency had to loan money for
the purchases. He stated in this particular case, the Agency would continue to keep
that appreciation and that would then go with the unit and give the Agency more
control and affordability, because no matter how a unit appreciates, they would be
partners in that appreciation. He stated if the Agency's $15,000 "Silent Second" was
a higher percentage of the down payment, they participate more in the appreciation.
He noted what the Agency was attempting to do in this case was to get a "Fanny Mae" loan
for the property which would allow a 40 or 5% down payment so that the Agency's share
of the down payment would be higher and the appreciation percentage would be higher
in the resale.
Mr. Ours stated the question came up the last time this item was discussed, as to what
would happen if someone came into a large amount of money and wanted to pay the note
off? He stated that in any long term agreement, the note would ultimately be paid
off, but the Agency's "Silent Second" was due in event of a sale, not due upon pay-
off of the note, so it would still be there until the property was resold. He stated
if the owners became suddenly wealthy, they could not qualify back into the
affordable units. He noted the buyers could pay-off the original mortgage amount,
but would not be able to pay-off the $15,000 note due to the Redevelopment Agency,
which would be paid at an actual sale, and at that time, whatever the sale price
would be, the Agency would be participants in that amount of appreciation.
Mayor Boro asked for clarification with regard to the unit going back to the Agency to
control after the participation in the appreciation. Mr. Ours responded that the
Agency would go back through the screening process to find another qualified income
level buyer for this unit.
Councilmember Thayer asked what would happen if the value of the property dropped? Mr.
Ours responded it would then be more affordable. She then asked what would happen
with regard to the "Silent Second"? Mr. Ours responded that money would still be due
to the Agency upon the sale, so that if the price goes down the unit would be more
affordable and the Agency would then own a bigger percentage of the base price.
Councilmember Breiner asked, hypothetically, with regard to the comment on Page 2, in the
bottom paragraph, "there is no restriction on the resale price", in terms of the
market playing, who determines if the resale price of these units is too high and
should the Housing Authority have to pay an inflated price? Mr. Ours responded that
whatever the owner is asking for the unit and it does not sell, the price is usually
dropped. Mrs. Breiner clarified her question by stating if the unit did not sell
within 90 days, then could it go to market? Mr. Ours responded that was under the
normal BMR agreement and that price would be determined by the Housing Authority.
Mayor Boro asked if that would not happen with this approach? Mr. Ours responded
affirmatively. Mayor Boro asked if that was the insurance Mr. Ours referred to that
all 17 units, plus the other 8, will remain affordable with the "Silent Second"
approach. Mr. Ours responded affirmatively.
Mayor Boro stated on the bottom of Page 2, there was no restriction on the resale price,
but the affordability of the unit is maintained by the Agency; so, in essence, the
owner cannot sell it for an amount that would exceed the affordability of the unit
for the next purchaser. Mr. Ours responded affirmatively, but noted what makes this
happen is the "Silent Second" and the appreciation.
Councilmember Breiner asked for the locations where this procedure was working. Mr. Ours
responded that Novato Ecumenical Housing has had this type of program working for a
number of years and has been quite successful. He stated it has not been attempted
here in San Rafael, but it seemed to be a very interesting tool to control the
affordability in a little different process. Mrs. Breiner asked if this was exactly
the same formula as the one used in Novato? Mr. Ours responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to accept the report and
direct staff to prepare a revised Below Market Agreement conditioned upon City
Attorney approval.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
15.CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
None.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
11
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1993
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/93 Page
11