Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-10-18SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1993, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 93-19(a) - #7 No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1993, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Boro noted that Item 9 will be removed from the Consent Calendar and taken up after the special presentation, since a local businessman, Warren Robinson, wishes to make a presentation. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: 8. Request to Unfreeze Permit Clerk Position (P1) - Approved staff recommendation. File 7-4 x 9-3-17 10. Resolution Extending Term of and Amending Joint Powers Agreement with Marin County Free Library for Joint Adult Literacy Program (Lib) - File 4-13-86 x 9-3-61 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 9039 - AUTHOR- IZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH MARIN COUNTY FREE LIBRARY FOR OPERATION OF A JOINT ADULT LITERACY PROGRAM AMENDED TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT AND TO REFLECT NEW FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE PROGRAM (October 1993/September 1994) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. August 2, 1993 (CC) 3. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract - RESOLUTION NO. 9037 - RESOLUTION Oleander Park Improvements, Project No.OF AWARD OF CONTRACT, OLEANDER PARK 211-6611-8270 (PW) - File 4-1-462 IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 211-6611- 8270 (To Skyline Construction, Lowest Responsible Bidder, $87,499) 5. Resolution Authorizing Conveyance of Seven (7) RESOLUTION NO 9038 - AUTHORIZING Open Space Parcels to the Marin County Open EXECUTION OF GRANT DEED FOR CONVEY - Space District (PW) - File 2-14 x 4-13-84 x ANCE OF SEVEN (7) OPEN SPACE PARCELS 13-14-1 TO THE MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT (AP#165-010-12, 73, 74, 82, 88 and 91 and 164-280-49) 7. Resolution Approving a Below Market Rate (BMR) Continued to 11/1/93 at request of Agreement Re: Loch Lomond #10 (P1) - File 229 staff. x 5-1-297 8. Request to Unfreeze Permit Clerk Position (P1) - Approved staff recommendation. File 7-4 x 9-3-17 10. Resolution Extending Term of and Amending Joint Powers Agreement with Marin County Free Library for Joint Adult Literacy Program (Lib) - File 4-13-86 x 9-3-61 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 9039 - AUTHOR- IZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH MARIN COUNTY FREE LIBRARY FOR OPERATION OF A JOINT ADULT LITERACY PROGRAM AMENDED TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT AND TO REFLECT NEW FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE PROGRAM (October 1993/September 1994) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 2 11. Resolution Assigning Authority for Scene RESOLUTION NO. 9040 - ASSIGNING Management of Hazardous Substance Spills AUTHORITY FOR SCENE MANAGEMENT Within the City of San Rafael, Other than on OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SPILLS Freeways, to the City of San Rafael Fire WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, Department (FD) - File 9-3-31 x 4-2-184 x OTHER THAN ON FREEWAYS, TO THE 4-10-167 x 13-2 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FIRE DEPARTMENT. 12. Resolution Approving Extension of Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 9041 - AUTHORIZING with Comco for Workers' Compensation Adminis- AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH tration Services (CM) - File 7-1-31 COMCO MANAGEMENT, INC. (11/1/93 Thru 10/31/94, $72,000 Payable in Monthly Installments of $6,000) (No Change From Last Year.) 13. Resolution of Appreciation to Ecumenical RESOLUTION NO. 9042 - IN APPRECIA- Association for Housing on their 25th Anniver- TION TO ECUMENICAL ASSOCIATION FOR sary (CM) - File 102 X 13-16 HOUSING ON THEIR 25TH ANNIVERSARY 14. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) - Approved staff recommendation. File 9-1 (Action under Item 18a) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 4.RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTRACTS FOR MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING (PW) - File 4-13-80 Councilmember Thayer stated she knows there are some properties on which we have to obtain eminent domain. She asked how is it progressing, especially with the cemetery. Public Works Director Bernardi replied that has been completed. He stated about four or five meetings ago the Council adopted a final action for acquisition of that right-of-way. As a result of that action, he signed the right-of-way certification forms which CalTrans requires to authorize the construction of the project. We are now at the point of completing the specifications and will be calling for bids about the last week in December. He explained that what is before the Council tonight is to extend the agreements we have with these four properties for the temporary construction use of the properties. He explained we are extending the rights that we have which were to expire January 1, 1994, for an additional two years. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 9043 - AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO RIGHT OF WAY CON- TRACTS - MERRYDALE ROAD OVERCROSSING PROJECT (W/Civic Center Partners; Marin Association of Realtors, Great Western Bank, and Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 6.RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS IN IMPROVEMENT FUND - PEACOCK GAP IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PW) - FILE 6-37 Councilmember Breiner stated she was curious to know what kinds of things can be funded with this surplus. Mr. Bernardi stated it would be to repair any of the public improvements which were constructed under the Assessment District. This would be street resurfacing, repairing some facilities at Peacock Park such as resurfacing the tennis courts and repairing fences. He stated it is not for normal day-to-day maintenance, such as paying for someone to mow the lawns, but any capital improvement repairs which the District might have. Councilmember Breiner stated she was glad to hear that the Park will be taken care of. Councilmember Thayer stated she had been concerned about maintenance and has no other questions. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt the Resolu- tion declaring surplus in Peacock Gap Improvement District. RESOLUTION NO. 9044 - DECLARING SURPLUS (PEACOCK GAP IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT) (in the amount of $139,728.49) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATION 15.PRESENTATION OF THE 1993 U.S. MAYOR'S END HUNGER AWARDS (CM) - FILE 109 x 13-1 Mayor Boro made presentations to Mark Barrett, Stan Bloom, Robert Nichols, Pamela Selby and Cora Saenz (accepting the award for Manuel Saenz), and read their accom- plishments. He announced that the award for Elizabeth Fenzl will be mailed to her. Mayor Boro thanked the recipients, on behalf of the City of San Rafael, for their efforts toward ending hunger. Next item removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion at this time. 9.APPROVAL OF STREET CLOSURE FOR FOURTEENTH ANNUAL PARADE OF LIGHTS ON NOVEMBER 26, 1993 AND SNOW PLAY EVENT FROM NOVEMBER 25 THRU 28, 1993 (RA) - FILE 11-19 Mayor Boro asked Assistant Executive Director (Redevelopment) Ours to describe this year's event and how it differs from last year's. Mr. Ours reported that this year's event has been tailored in response to what the merchants did not like last year, which was closing of Fourth Street for the whole day. He noted that the Parade of Lights starts at 6:30 p.m. This year he is requesting closure of A Street and Julia Street between Fourth Street and Fifth Avenue from 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 26, to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 27, for the snow play area. He is also requesting closure of Fourth Street between Lootens and A Street and the southern portion of Court Street for a special Holiday Farmers' Market and Tree Lighting event on November 26 from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Lastly, he is requesting closure of Fourth Street between A and E Streets, for the Parade of Lights, from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. He noted that from 9,000 to 10,000 people show up for the parade and snow event. There will be a small Farmers' Market selling Christmas foods and gifts. He added that the Board of the Business Improvement District (BID) voted for this. It was their idea. Mayor Boro recalled that last year we closed Fourth Street all day Friday and Saturday and confirmed that will not happen this year. Mr. Warren Robinson, a local businessman, stated that if they close down Fourth and A Streets down to Lootens, they will be closing the heart of San Rafael. He pointed out that the day after Thanksgiving is supposed to be the largest shopping day of the year in the United States. To close down Fourth Street at 4:00 p.m., the vendors will be coming early around 2:00 p.m., and they will take all the parking which is available to City shoppers. He stated the type of people who come down for the Parade of Lights are much different than those who come down for the Farmers' Market. He stated he was on the Board that set the original Parade of Lights and was presi- dent of the Merchants' Association for many years. He added this is his 32nd year in business on Fourth Street. He recommended that if Fourth Street is to be closed down, it be done at 5:30 p.m. By the time they get down from the Parade of Lights, there will be plenty of time to set up. He stated he would prefer it not be closed down at all, but closing at 5:30 p.m. would be a help. Ms. Nita Lochte, executive coordinator for the BID, stated she personally took a poll of all the BID merchants about the situation last year and although they did not like the street closure, they did like the Parade of Lights and the events, from a public relations standpoint, but the all -day closing was the problem. Councilmember Shippey asked what kind of hardship would it be if the closing is set back 1-1/2 hours, and would that make a difference. Mr. Ours stated he does not know, but it will be difficult for the vendors to set up. Councilmember Breiner asked, with the regular Farmer's Market, what time the street is closed. Mr. Ours responded that it starts at 6:00 p.m., and the street is closed at 5:00 p.m. Mrs. Breiner stated than an hour seems to work. Councilmember Thayer asked about the previous years, with regard to the Christmas tree lighting, what time have we closed down the area, aside from the all -day event? Mr. Ours replied there have been various times over the years that the area in front of the Courthouse Square was closed. It has varied from year-to-year, but mostly around 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. City Manager Nicolai recommended the Council have staff work this out, and they will see how tight they can get. Mayor Boro agreed, and Councilmember Breiner recommended the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 4 vendors park in the parking garage to make it easier for the public. Mr. Ours stated they can tell the vendors not to park in the public parking spaces until it is time for them to set up. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to authorize staff to work out the timing with the Downtown merchants and revise the proposal in front of the Council tonight. Mr. Robinson stated that for those who do not know where he is located in San Rafael, he is on the corner of Fourth and A. He is not concerned about closing down A Street, which happens to be a main artery in and out. He stated that 5:30 p.m. would be no problem for the vendors. He stated he is losing all the traffic off A Street, and has to put up with the mess from the hay, water and mud when people walk into his store. Mayor Boro stated staff has the understanding that we would like to move the closing to 5:30 p.m. and certainly do not want to jeopardize the event which is so well attended. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 16.PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REPEALING CHAPTER 8.14 OF TITLE 8 IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND REENACTING CHAPTER 8.14 OF TITLE 8 PROHIBITING TOBACCO SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT AND REGULATING THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS (CA) - File 13-4 x 9-3-16 x 13-1 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Mayor Boro informed the audience that we will first start with an overview from the City Attorney about the Ordinance being proposed, and Elizabeth Emerson from the County of Marin will address the Council, followed by Elissa Giambastiani from the Chamber of Commerce. Following that will be questions from the Council, and then public comment. City Attorney Ragghianti explained that the Ordinance before the Council prohibits smoking in all enclosed public places within the City of San Rafael. He noted there is a lengthy listing of public places on pages 6 and 7 of the Ordinance. It also prohibits the outdoor areas immediately adjacent to any entrance or exit of any building within which smoking is prohibited, so it would be impossible to smoke there under this Ordinance as well. He stated that in addition, smoking in any enclosed place of employment is prohibited by this Ordinance. In addition, a smoking policy consistent with this prohibition is required to be adopted by each employer having such enclosed space, within 90 days following the effective date of this Ordinance. He added there are smoking optional areas, and they are described and listed on pages 8 and 9, Section 8.14.060. The Ordinance also details requirements concerning posting of "No Smoking" signs, and also regulates the sale of tobacco products. It does not permit sale of tobacco products to individuals under the age of 18 years, and pro- hibits self-service merchandising vending machines selling cigarettes. Also, to the extent that it exists, the Ordinance provides that they must be removed within 30 days following the effective date of the Ordinance. He noted that Section 8.14.090 deals with Enforcement, and the one which follows (8.14.100) deals with Violations and Penalties. Mr. Ragghianti noted that Mayor Boro had mentioned the letter to him from Elizabeth Emerson, which is attached to the staff report, in connection with cocktail lounges and the manner in which the enclosure and ventilation of such lounges is handled in other jurisdictions besides the City of San Rafael. He added that, finally, there is a matrix which was prepared which shows the Council and members of the public all of the other ordinances which are proposed or already enforced by other cities within the County of Marin. He noted that some had a one-year period of time in which owners of businesses are permitted to ventilate their enclosed cocktail lounges or bars in restaurants. He pointed out that our Ordinance does not have that provision in it at this time. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Ragghianti, is it safe to say that with that exception the Ordinance which is being proposed for the City pretty well parallels the County's Ordinance, and reviewing the matrix does it closely fit the other Ordinances? Mr. Ragghianti replied that it does. Councilmember Shippey noted that the County Ordinance will go into effect the first of the year in 1994, and asked when this Ordinance would go into effect if we adopt it tonight? Mr. Ragghianti replied it would be in effect 30 days after its effective SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 5 date, if it is proposed tonight to be passed to print. Councilmember Shippey then inquired about outdoor dining areas. He stated he noticed in the matrix a couple of agencies have limited smoking, prohibited in part in out- door dining areas, which he feels is an important area of concern. He stated it was not clear to him whether the outdoor areas prohibition pointed out on page 8 includes all outdoor dining areas or not, or if there is any other provision in the Ordinance for outdoor dining areas. Mr. Ragghianti replied he does not believe the Ordinance prohibits smoking in outdoor areas, but he would have to check it closely. He noted that the Ordinance was written by Assistant City Attorney Walker. Mayor Boro stated that, on the assumption that we are following the matrix, he thinks that the County does allow smoking in the outdoor areas. He noted that a couple of cities, Belvedere and Tiburon, have limitations. Mr. Ragghianti responded that the Mayor is correct. In the matrix it says that the County Ordinance exempts it. Mr. Ragghianti agreed. Councilmember Breiner inquired, what was the difference between our Ordinance and the County's, and what is the rationale behind it? Mr. Ragghianti explained there are several Ordinances which permit businesses one year within which to enclose and/or ventilate cocktail lounges located within dining establishments. That is the princi- pal difference. Mayor Boro stated they have had some meetings with businesses and that has been discussed. Mr. Ragghianti added that if you look at the matrix, Belvedere, Tiburon, the County and Larkspur, all have the one-year period in their Ordinances. Ms. Elizabeth Emerson, a planner with the County Health Department who, in that capacity, serves in the Tobacco Education Program, stated she will discuss the experiences of other cities so far, and how the County will participate in the implementation and publicity about this Ordinance. She noted that when she looked at the Council packet, she noticed quite a bit of material discrediting the EPA. She stated they get an average of six inches of studies in the offices at the Health Department each week from very credible national health research institutes and international research facilities, and do not have room to file it anymore. She noted it has been coming in since the first Surgeon General's report on second hand smoke in 1986. Ms. Emerson noted that the model Ordinance has been passed in Novato, Larkspur, Tiburon, Belvedere, Mill Valley, and, most recently, the County. She explained that for the past few years the County Health Department has received a number of com- plaints from the public. The Health Officer gets them and refers them to her. The public assumes that her office takes care of all indoor or outdoor air pollution or water pollution. She stated she has received many complaints about smoking in work places in San Rafael. It appears that the people most exposed to second hand smoke are those in the hospitality industry. She stated she tries to encourage them to seek employment elsewhere, in smoke-free restaurants or communities, but they seem to want to keep their current job. She stated she usually sends them materials on how to make the workplace voluntarily smoke-free, and a couple of them called her and said they had lost their jobs when they tried to implement this. Ms. Emerson explained that to deal with the complaints they decided to use their State grant from Proposition 99 funds to help the cities implement their smoke-free Ordinances, and they have allocated approximately $4,000 for the City of San Rafael to help with their educational kits which will be sent to each of the businesses in the City. She stated she has found that signs are the key. She noted that smoking Ordinances tend to be self -enforcing, as long as the public can reference a sign in the Ordinance. Her office has the signs printed, and there is a choice of two styles, the heart or the international "No Smoking" logo, which tourists understand. They also print a pamphlet which explains all aspects of the Ordinance, and where people can get help. This can suffice as the employees' written policy, so businesses will not have to write their own policies. They are to be circulated, and sent out with a letter from the City Manager. She stated this is what they have done for the cities so far, and will do for the remaining cities. She noted there are also indoor signs for the restaurants. Ms. Emerson explained that if there is a complaint about smoking, the City Manager or Code Enforcement Officer can handle it, or they can refer it to her office. She noted that her office handles the first level by providing the education. They make a site visit, and spend quite a bit of time with a business helping them to understand the Ordinance and how they can make their place smoke-free and how their employees receive survival kits. It is a very compassionate approach, because they realize that it takes four or five years for some people to overcome the addiction. They also have a special campaign to help the heavy, hard-core smokers in case they cannot quit. She stated they have very good compliance within the cities. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 6 Ms. Emerson reported that for other cities they have run ads for smoke-free restau- rants and cocktail lounges. Last year they published the Smoke -Free Dining Guide. This year they are changing it, to the Marin County Entertainment and Dining Guide, for the benefit of people who want to have entertainment, dancing and be able to have a drink. She stated that they will particularly highlight the smoke-free cocktail lounges. She stated they found there are over 20 of them, and they called to have ads in the Guide. Of the 20, only one had experienced a drop in business, but the others had either no change or an increase. The publication is put out by the Marin County Chamber of Commerce. In closing, Ms. Emerson pointed out that the Environmental Health Division of the County Health Department, the people who do the restaurant inspection checks, will add a question to their questionnaire, and will check for compliance in that way. Mayor Boro called on Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce to report on the work she has been doing in sharing the model ordinances with the restaurant and bar owners in San Rafael. Ms. Giambastiani reported that they knew, when the first Ordinance passed in the County, that it would not be long before all of the cities would be looking at adopt- ing similar ordinances. She stated the first meeting they had was about a year ago, and had about 7 or 8 restaurant owners who came, and they talked about the possibil- ity of this Ordinance being passed. Last summer the Chamber hosted a meeting and invited all of the restaurant, hotel and bar owners in the City, of which there are 225. Again, there was not a huge level of turnout from the restaurant owners, but all of those who were there were very supportive of the Ordinance. They decided they would put out the call one more time, and had a third meeting just for Chamber mem- bers. They were most concerned about those restaurants which have bars and cocktail lounges, because they will be impacted. She reported that all of the restaurant owners they talked to were in favor of becoming smoke-free. None of them were bothered by that. The problem was, what do when the bar is in the middle of the restaurant. She noted San Rafael Joe's is an example, and also Salute and La Petite Auberge. Ms. Giambastiani referred to page 7 of the Ordinance, subparagraph 7, noting it does say, "Restaurants, provided: Cocktail lounge areas within restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages shall be exempted. Within one year of the operative date of this Section, such areas shall meet the standards of "Cocktail Lounge" as defined herein". She stated she is not sure if this means what she thinks it does, but she feels it is imperative that restaurant owners are given a year to make the improvements to their cocktail lounges. She noted that in some cases there will be minor modifications, but in some there will be major modifications. For example, Salute' will have to put in a new entrance and an entire wall, and San Rafael Joe's will have to put in a wall. Ms. Giambastiani noted that in a couple of the Ordinances it talks about the cocktail lounges being enclosed on three sides instead of four sides, and she did not find that in this Ordinance. She noted that Ms. Emerson has been very gracious in meeting with any of the restaurant and bar owners which Ms. Giambastiani felt might be having some problems, and that has helped a lot. She suggested that this not be implemented within 30 days, since the County is implementing theirs on January 1, 1994 and it might make it a lot easier for people if they became effective at the same time. It would also allow the County Department of Health some time to work with the restau- rant owners. Mayor Boro asked for a show of hands of people wishing to speak. There were approxi- mately six people. He stated there is another hearing scheduled for this evening, and he would like to limit comments to two or three minutes, and the Council will take them under consideration. Margaret Malone, co-owner of Millie's Restaurant on Fourth Street, going into their eleventh year. She stated they were the very first non-smoking restaurant in the entire Bay Area, and they do have a bar. Not only have they found that it has not injured their business, but it has improved it. She reported that next door to them is an establishment called Copa's, and the young people smoke on the sidewalk, and the smoke comes into her restaurant, causing complaints from her customers. She stated she is very much in favor of not having vending machines. The establishment next door has vending machines, and she has seen children as young as twelve going in and getting cigarettes. Also, some of the cigarettes are highly scented. She stated her main concerns are smoking on the sidewalk, and the vending machines. Mayor Boro asked for anyone opposed to the Ordinance to come forward. Terry Anderson of Novato, who has a carpentry business, stated that since Novato's SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 7 Ordinance went into effect, he has not spent $1 in a restaurant which is non-smoking. He added that San Rafael has very different types of residents, with diverse tastes. He noted he had asked Ms. Emerson how many complaints she had received and she said she did not keep track; but possibly twelve a week and yet everyone in the County is made to go along with this. He stated that some restaurant owners have become smoke- free and that is their right, but he does not see how you can take 150 of the community and make the rest follow. He noted there is more risk driving across town than from smoking. He quoted from an article by Dr. Sam Glanz, a researcher, on the relative risks of other materials as opposed to tobacco, and stated that the smallest risk associated with carcinogenics is tobacco smoke. Mayor Boro asked for someone in favor of the Ordinance to speak next. Dawn Scott, a Terra Linda High School student, stated you cannot stop the youth from getting cigarettes, but you can make it harder for them. As conditions are now, it is very simple for under -age students to get their cigarettes. Carol Schultz, a San Rafael resident for three years, stated that this reminds her of what she has read about prohibition. It is an example of the tyranny of the majority. This should be something that is not regulated by the governing body, but it should be with the owner of the restaurant. She stated she has enjoyed a cigarette with a cup of coffee after dinner for years. There are serious issues in San Rafael, and she feels sad that this seems to be the most important issue. Ellie Bass stated she is upset that San Rafael would think of itself in the same terms as Mill Valley, Tiburon and Novato. She asked, what do we have to prove? We have wonderful restaurants coming here all the time. She stated this is taking away our freedom, and why not let us have dinner and a cigarette with friends? She stated they do not want to have to go to Petaluma or Santa Rosa, but they will if they have to. She stated that the EPA report is wrong, because it is politically correct, and she feels the Council has already made up their minds regarding the Ordinance. She stated she pays her taxes and would like to be able to go out in our town and enjoy an evening with her friends. Catherine Entrianos stated she has never smoked but has developed allergies and suffers from lack of oxygen and headaches. She added she pays taxes, too. She stated she chose certain health conditions, and it is the freedom to have good air which she wants. Susan Barnes of the American Heart Association encouraged the Council to pass the Ordinance. She noted that the Heart Association has four risk factors for heart disease, and smoking is one of them. The cost to our society for health care for smoking is in the billions, and we need to protect our citizens. She applauds the Council for considering this Ordinance and urges them to vote Yes. There being no further public input, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Council for discussion. Mayor Boro first referred to those institutions with bars and cocktail lounges, and whether or not they would have a year to convert, and it sounds as if they would in most of the County. Mr. Ragghianti stated that is correct. Mrs. Giambastiani was correct that on page 7, in paragraph 7, it does make that statement. It makes reference, in turn, to the definition of cocktail lounge, which is contained on page 3. He pointed out that the definition is lengthy, but in the pertinent part, it provides that a cocktail lounge has to have a separate ventilation system and be enclosed. It does not say enclosed on three sides, or completely enclosed, but simply says enclosed. The next sentence following vests in the Enforcement Officer some dis- cretion with regard to what the enclosure would be. With reference to smoking outside of premises in which smoke is prohibited, it is also covered in the Ordinance, and prohibited as well. On page 8, paragraph B (top of page), there is a specific prohi- bition which would prohibit smoking on the sidewalk in front of an establishment in which smoking is prohibited. Also, private citizens may enforce this Ordinance by legal action. Mayor Boro asked consideration of the effective date of the Ordinance to coincide with the County, on January 1, 1994, as recommended in the previous discussion. He stated that from his point of view it is very significant that, although there are some people here tonight who have opposed the Ordinance, we have noticed over 200 restaurants and bars in the City and provided forums for them to meet. Apparently we have met their needs because they are not here tonight opposing this, and he feels that is very positive. He believes that experience in other communities has shown that this has worked, and has not been detrimental to the businesses which are vital to our City. He asked for comments from the Council, and a motion. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 8 Councilmember Cohen stated he would like a point of clarification on the issue of enclosures. He called attention to page 4 of the Ordinance, item 6 under Definitions. It defines enclosed as "...surrounded by ceiling, floor, and solid walls which, except for doors, passageways and/or windows, extend from floor to ceiling on all sides". He stated he thinks this Ordinance calls for enclosures to be on all sides and not on three sides. Mayor Boro stated he thinks Novato is the only one whose Ordinance talks about three sides. Councilmember Cohen noted it does allow for some discretion, and he feels it is adequate the way it is written. Councilmember Cohen stated that the speaker tonight who opposed this Ordinance said the same thing as people who called and left messages for him at his home this evening on the issue of equal rights or freedom to choose. He stated it seems to him this is not an issue of freedom or civil rights, or personal rights, it is an issue of public health. It is clear to him where the decision lies on that basis. He strongly supports the Ordinance and urges that they pass it now. Councilmember Shippey stated he wants to concur that smoking is not a constitutional freedom, and one reason it is not is that it imposes risks on people who are not smoking. He stated it is like driving. It is a privilege which has been granted in the past, and people have come to accept it in some cases as a freedom; but it is not in fact a freedom. He noted there have been comments, some of them anonymous, accusing EPA of doing higher science; however, with all of the research by scientists over the past number of years, they all point in the same direction. He stated he has no problem in concurring with the statement that this is a matter of public health, but this is not a matter of limiting freedom in any sense of the imagination. Councilmember Thayer inquired about where the bar area is not severable from a portion of the dining area. Is the one-year leeway giving that type of establishment enough time to close it off? Mr. Ragghianti responded that it is. Mrs. Thayer reported she had a call regarding the bowling alley, which does have a bar area, but also at present allows people to bowl and smoke. Would this be applicable to them also? Mr. Ragghianti replied that it would. Mayor Boro added that we have a couple of establishments which come to mind. New George's is one, which is primarily a bar. They serve food, but it is incidental to the operation of their business. He stated that this Ordinance would provide that they would not be impacted by this. The definition we received from the County was that it is incidental if less than 20% of their business comes from the sale of food. He added that the owner of New George's attended one of the workshops and seemed satisfied with that. Councilmember Thayer asked about sports bars, such as the Flatiron? Mayor Boro stated they would be affected and will have to do some reconfiguration. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REPEALING CHAPTER 8.14 OF TITLE 8 IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND REENACTING CHAPTER 8.14 OF TITLE 8 PROHIBITING TOBACCO SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT AND REGULATING THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS" Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1653 to print, including the effective date of January 1, 1994, with the conversion of the cocktail lounges being given a year from that date, by the following vote to wit: Councilmember Breiner inquired about the outside dining areas. Mayor Boro stated it would be allowed. Councilmember Shippey pointed out that on page 8 of the Ordinance, as mentioned by Mr. Ragghianti, it would be prohibited immediately adjacent to any entrance. He stated he thinks most of them are, in fact, adjacent to an entrance. Councilmember Breiner stated that should be clarified. Mr. Ragghianti stated it depends on the area. He noted the woman representing Millie's regarding the smoking on the sidewalk. He stated the day after this Ordinance becomes effective, anyone smoking next door on the sidewalk would violate that Section. However, if you have tables outside a restaurant, there is a question regarding whether that would violate the Ordinance. He stated staff would have to be consulted on that. Councilmember Breiner stated that when she read this, it struck her that perhaps what was intended was that those tables immediately adjacent to the entrance or exit would be the ones that would be prohibited from smoking, because that is the area from which the smoke could drift into the enclosed area. She stated maybe we could discuss that and have it clear for the record what we are intending before this goes forward. She added people should not be put in an awkward position if there is concern about it. She stated her proposal would be that we would acknowledge the fact that those tables SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 9 right next to an entrance or an exit, where the smoke could drift in, should not have smoking at them, but the other tables in the outdoor area where there is circulation, there should not be a problem. Councilmember Thayer suggested they could position tables away from entrances and that should take care of the problem. She noted there are several restaurants in San Rafael with outdoor dining areas, and would this apply to them? Mayor Boro stated that in the reference to outdoor dining area in the Ordinance as proposed, they would be able to smoke outdoors, but he would suggest they not be allowed to smoke adjacent to the entrance. Mr. Ragghianti stated that is what the Ordinance intends to state at the top of page 8. Councilmember Thayer stated that, as a smoker, she thinks this is probably a very good Ordinance. It is reasonable enough, yet it allows some leeway, and yet it does what people desire, and that is preclude smoking within enclosed areas. She added this is a public health hazard and, like all smokers, she would love to quit. She stated she does not think there is a smoker on this earth who does not want to quit. She stated this is an excellent Ordinance, and she does empathize with the lady who said something about the politically correct thing. She stated it does seem to be the thing today, and whether it is frustration over the economic situation today, but it seems people are reaching out to control something in their environment. She noted this can work both for the good and for the bad, and she hopes we do not overdo it in the future. She agrees that this is a public health issue, and that is why she strongly encourages it. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 17.PUBLIC HEARING - GPA 93-2, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY GENERAL PLAN POLICY PROVISIONS TO ALLOW DENSITY BONUSES FOR AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECTS IN LOW DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS; ZONE CHANGE FROM THE PD DISTRICT TO THE PD DISTRICT WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USE PERMIT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, SUBDIVISION INTO TWO LOTS, AND TRIP PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING 62 AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING UNITS ON 2.67 ACRES (ST. ISABELLA'S), 1 TRINITY WAY; AP 175-181-26; ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO, OWNER; JANE M. GRAF, c/o CATHOLIC CHARITIES, REPRESENTATIVE (P1) File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 x 10-2 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. He explained for the benefit of the audience the procedure to be followed. He stated we will first start with the General Plan Amendment, and see if we are satisfied, and have testimony and comments on the General Plan Amendment issue itself. Following that, the Council will consider the rest of the proposal. He asked for a staff report. Planning Director Pendoley stated he will give a brief history by way of background of the project, and then explain the Negative Declaration which covers all of the applications before the Council, and conclude by briefly covering important points in the General Plan Amendment. Regarding the history, Mr. Pendoley stated this application originally came to the City in September of 1991 when Catholic Charities applied to construct a 62 unit affordable housing project for low and very low income seniors on the St. Isabella's property. The application was processed and reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) and finally, in January, 1992, the Planning Commission by unanimous resolution recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration and approved the use permit, environmental and design permit and the small subdivision permit. The issue subse- quently went to the City Council, both the hearing on the rezoning and the Negative Declaration, as well as a hearing on an appeal which had been filed by Mr. Alan Titus and his wife, Meg Goldman. In March of 1992, the Council took action to adopt the Negative Declaration and the rezoning and to deny the appeal. Subsequently, in April, Mr. Titus sued, filing a petition for Writ of Mandate in Superior Court and, ulti- mately, in October 1992, the Court granted the petition on two grounds. One, a deficiency in the noticing; and second, that the City had misinterpreted four of its General Plan policies, which are H-37, H-20, LU -10 and RES -3. Those policies pertain to the granting of density bonuses and, essentially, the Court found that the language of the General Plan did not permit granting of density bonus for an area designated for low density residential development. Subsequently, as the Court directed, the City Council rescinded its previous approval. Mr. Pendoley reported that Catholic Charities has filed an application for a General Plan Amendment, for the purpose of remedying the misinterpretation that the City made in its approval in 1992. He stated that what the proposed amendments would do is to say that density bonuses in certain limited circumstances may be given in low density residential areas, and it provides what staff hopes is clear and specific guidelines SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 10 for granting the bonuses. Mr. Pendoley then discussed the Negative Declaration. He explained that an Initial Study was prepared and it recommended, and the Planning Commission concurred, that a Negative Declaration could be adopted. The Negative Declaration says that the pro- ject will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Several issues in particular were studied: Geology, Noise, Light & Glare, and Traffic. In each of those cases the Initial Study ultimately found that there was not going to be a significant adverse impact in any of those subject areas, but nevertheless a variety of mitiga- tion measures were proposed and recommended for adoption, either as amendments to the project description or as part of the conditions of approval. On the issue of noise, there could be an impact during the construction period, and therefore the construc- tion hours will be limited. The impacts in the other areas discussed were mitigated. Mr. Pendoley explained that the Negative Declaration was written to cover the General Plan Amendment. Essentially what has been done, is that policies H-20, LU -10 and RES -3 have been amended to say that a density bonus may be given in certain very limited circumstances in low density residential areas. There are four conditions. First, the project must be for senior housing. Second, the senior housing must be affordable for 40 years to very low, low and/or moderate income people. Third, 400 of the units must be affordable to very low and low income persons. Fourth, the site must be flat, it must be at least 1/2 acre, and it must be within 1500 feet of services such as shopping and transit. He gave the reasons for these criteria, stating it is important that our ultimate planned housing not exceed that which was anticipated in the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for our General Plan. There is also concern for the quality of the projects themselves. Staff would recommend that good housing for the elderly should be reasonably accessible to people who walk to services. Also, if you are going to give a density bonus, there ought to be economies of scale, and it is important to have a 1/2 acre site. Also, you want to be sure that the public interest is well served and generously served, and that is the reason for the requirement that 40% of the units be available to very low and low income people, and that the affordability criteria be in place for at least 40 years. Mr. Pendoley stated that staff is recommending that the General Plan Amendment only allow the density bonus for one property. He stated that in coming to that conclu- sion, staff studied all of the vacant properties in San Rafael and have identified them within the recent past during the rezoning process. They identified 13 in particular which had a potential to meet these criteria, and each of them was found not to be amenable to this Amendment for various reasons. Some of them were over the 1500 ft. criteria for accessibility to services, others were not flat, and others simply were not vacant; and even though they were institutional facilities, they were less than 1/2 acre. He stated that, for that reason, because this Amendment would apply to only one property, St. Isabella's, at this time, staff feels that the Negative Declaration is more than adequate to cover this General Plan Amendment. He added it is important to remember that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require us to speculate on the application policies. It simply requires staff to analyze those impacts which can be determined and measured. Councilmember Thayer inquired regarding the density bonuses, noting that eight trip allocations are applicable to that particular site if you look at the appendix. She asked, how did we come upon four additional trips? That would be 50% above, and she asked about the criteria used, and is there any kind of set rule? Mr. Pendoley responded that the Planning Commission and City Council have flexibility, according to the General Plan. He stated that while we have a variety of policies which provide for bonuses, there is not an ultimate ceiling, except for the ceiling of available traffic capacity. He noted that the Council has approved bonuses for a number of projects, and the sizes of the bonuses have varied. Usually the condider- ation has been, how is the project functioning, is it designed well, what are its traffic impacts over and above capacity, is access appropriate, etc. The size of the bonus has been judged on that basis rather than a formula based on percentages. He stated that in this case there are only a limited number of trips available in the Northgate traffic circulation area. Councilmember Thayer asked if this is the first time we have been asked to consider a density bonus for housing in a residential area? Mr. Pendoley replied it is the first time in a single family residential area. Mayor Boro stated he has a concern about a comment on page 5 of the staff report, next to last paragraph. It states, "While the St. Isabella's site is currently the only vacant site which meets the development criteria, there is a possibility that future redevelopment and combining of parcels may make more sites consistent with this amended policy". He stated he is aware that the opponents are talking about this as "spot zoning", but he sees we have a big unknown we have opened up on other sites and, not arguing whether this site should be afforded this kind of bonus, it seems to him after talking to the City Attorney, that we could be a lot more site specific than we are, from a legal point of view. For that reason, he is interested to know SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 11 why staff has taken this approach which, in the long term, could have further ramifications we do not know about now. He stated that at the point when we revise the General Plan, he would like to know what those ramifications might be. It seems to be opening up a lot of potential issues. Mr. Pendoley stated they discussed a variety of options with Catholic Charities when they came in with the proposed General Plan Amendment, planner -to -planner and attorney -to - attorney, and then all of us together. He stated the City Attorney made it clear to the City staff that it is legally possible to write a General Plan Amendment for St. Isabella's property that is extremely specific and limited only to that property. However, he thought it was not a particularly good practice. From a planning point of view, that is a departure from the Council's practice in the General Plan. He noted that the General Plan has certain criteria which is quite specific, such as the number of 1500, and others permissive and open to interpreta- tion. Thus, there is not a formula on the size of a bonus, per se. Staff would recommend that it is more consistent with the pattern of land use policies to give yourself some discretion as this language does. He added that while it is certainly possible that a site could be redeveloped to conform to this language, it would be difficult in the extreme. Mr. Pendoley described the steps which would have to take place in order to create 1/2 acre, and also the affordability issue. He explained it would be very difficult for a non-profit to undertake such a project, and a for-profit developer would not be interested because it would be difficult to make a profit in such a situation. It would be extremely unlikely, but not impossible, that other sites would be redeveloped and be eligible for the bonus. Mayor Boro noted that the General Plan includes a potential heliport site and is very specific about where it would be, and also the hotel and its height with respect to the number of stories. He stated we have done some specific planning in the General Plan for specific sites so we would not open it up to the rest of the City. Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. There are some very specific provisions in the General Plan. Most of them reflect applications which were in process, which was the case with the hotel and the heliport, and the General Plan also recognized the pre- existing conditions. Councilmember Thayer inquired about why staff is recommending eliminating policy H-37. She stated it has a lot of good values, including saving the neighborhood scale, and considering a project in connection with parking, and she thinks this would set a precedent for other types of projects whether or not this particular project is limited by some constraints that will be built into the General Plan. She noted that the EIR also speaks to the preservation of neighborhood scale. Mr. Pendoley responded that the Council could leave portions of the language there if they choose to; however, staff thinks that is better stated in RES -1 which says that projects shall be harmoniously integrated into residential neighborhoods and shall consider the pattern of intensity, density and design, which staff feels is a much more explicit statement than simply scale. He noted that when this project was last considered by the Planning Commission and Council a year or so ago there was a good deal of discussion about what the scale means and some people thought the language was a little broad. Staff feels that RES -1 gives you something more specific against which you can analyze and justify or deny. Councilmember Thayer noted that RES -3 states that scale of developed portion of single family neighborhoods will be maintained. She stated that is a value that should be considered, because this creates some confusion as to our desire to main- tain the integrity of single family residential neighborhoods. Mayor Boro stated that is the thrust of the GPA (General Plan Amendment) to keep that in there and modify it to accommodate this particular use on this site. Mrs. Thayer stated she thinks we are eliminating quite a bit of the language from the General Plan. Mayor Boro stated as he understands it, the opening sentence will remain. He referred to page 6 of the staff report. Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. Mayor Boro stated as he understands it, in three of the four portions of the Plan, staff is leaving the wording intact and modifying it to meet the affordability and the location and so on, with the exception of H-37, which is eliminated. Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. He showed H-37 on the overhead, and noted that most of the provisions have been inserted into the other policies, outlining the applicable policies. He stated staff feels that neighborhood scale is covered better in RES -1, and there are a variety of policies in the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance which address parking needs. He stated it is for that reason he would suggest that while that language for scale is not there, it is better defined in RES -1. Councilmember Breiner stated that on page 7, the second sentence in H-37 states, "Density bonuses above General Plan densities may be considered for senior projects with trip allocations for the site in Northgate and East San Rafael, considering project parking needs and neighborhood scale". She asked are we essentially eliminating the trip allocations for Northgate and East San Rafael? Mr. Pendoley replied that SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 12 language is already in the General Plan in policy C-4 and C-6. Projects in both of those locations are required to be consistent with trip allocations. Mrs. Breiner observed that the scale could be covered in the rewording of RES -3, and Mr. Pendoley agreed. Councilmember Cohen stated he understands the concern about H-37, and we could per- haps keep the second sentence, and refer to the more specific and finely honed policy described in the General Plan Amendment. He stated he does not think we would want to leave it the way it is, because it is not as specific as the proposed amendment. It seems to him we might consider tying this language in, which is more finely targeted. He stated he shares the Mayor's concern about unintended consequences from the broad approach to this issue. He stated he would like to know more about the methodology of determining the 1500 feet, how it measured and where from, where it is measured to, and where are those standards adopted? Mr. Pendoley responded that staff could make an adjustment with regard to neighborhood scale and also the parking needs, in these policies. He added that on the methodology for measuring the 1500 foot distance, it was discussed in the staff report to the Planning Commission, and in that report they stated that the methodology staff would recommend would be to measure from corner to corner - from the closest corner of the parcel which contains Safeway to the closest corner of the parcel that would contain the proposed senior housing project. In the measurements, the right-of-way must be followed. Mrs. Thayer stated she has problems with the 1500 feet, because it is a non sequitur when you look at the rest of the plan. It is not required of senior housing in high or medium residential areas. It just seems to be one more mechanism by which the City can accommodate this particular project in a residential neighborhood, and that is what it looks like to her. She asked is there a reason why this requirement would apply to senior housing in a low residential neighborhood, but not in a medium or higher area? Mr. Pendoley stated it is, in fact, a limiting factor in order to avoid having to confront a situation where we could be potentially giving a bonus in excess of the General Plan, so it is done deliberately pretty much along the lines of what was suggested. He stated that the medium and high density areas are generally served with close -in services, and that is where the transit is, and in most cases, they are within 1500 feet of most services. Councilmember Breiner stated it occurs to her that having that proximity does bolster the ability to have a bonus, in that it would cut down on the amount of traffic generation very directly. Councilmember Thayer stated there was an allegation in one of the letters with regard to spot zoning, and she does not think the City can have it both ways. You cannot say this is not spot zoning because it applies to other projects, or could apply potentially to other areas, and then at the same time say this is the only project that would meet these criteria, and one of the reasons is that we have this 1500 feet. She stated that does not apply to many parcels at all. Mayor Boro stated he feels just the opposite. He feels it could apply to other parcels and ultimately situations could lead to the fact where it would come about. His concern is the unknown out there. He stated this whole purpose of the exercise of redoing the General Plan is to attempt to accommodate the project. He stated that is what the applicant is here for. This is the mechanism they have used to try to accommodate that. Councilmember Shippey stated that is a concern of his, and whether it is called zoning or a GPA, we should address whether we are specifically accommodating one project or whether we are trying to set policy for bonuses for future senior housing. He stated we should set a policy, because that is what a GPA should be about. Mr. Shippey inquired about the trip bonuses, and noted that the fact that this is senior housing has some effect on projected traffic. Mr. Pendoley agreed that it does. He then reviewed the trip generation rates, which are lower for senior housing. He noted that many people in their seventies move into a senior housing project with cars and do not use them and ultimately give up their car. He noted that staff would recommend to the Council that this GPA is policy on senior housing and relates to the criteria under which bonuses would be granted. It would be only under special circumstances that you would want to do this. Tay Via, attorney for the applicant, addressed the issue of spot zoning. She stated that every single element of the General Plan Amendment was based on a policy decision. On the issue of the 1500 feet, there is no standard criteria for walking distance to services, but they did look at past experience with other projects to determine accessibility. They also looked at the General Plan EIR to make sure they were not potentially including projects which were in close proximity to each other. She stated other policies in the General Plan related to consistencies with neighborhoods. On the issue of the 1/2 acre, that is not exclusive to Catholic Charities in any way, but it was put in to address any concerns about single family SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 13 homes which would be encouraged to be demolished and density bonuses requested. With regard to spot zoning, there is no precedent for the fact that it would apply in the concept of a General Plan Amendment. She stated the City has a significant amount of discretion in the General Plan, so long as they can provide sufficient policy basis for doing so. She stated that the allegation that there might be spot zoning is not an issue in this case. Alan Titus stated there are a few points in the GPA he would like to bring up. He stated the Council has been talking about where the density bonus will be allowed and where a project can be placed. He stated he has suggested previously that another issue to deal with is how much of a density bonus to allow. He believes that there is a very significant law in California which says you cannot be open ended on this. You cannot adopt a policy which says we can apply a density bonus. In fact, the General Plan has to set limitations. When you adopt a General Plan regarding a residential area, you specify the various density areas and you define them. All residential areas in the City are defined, and that is what is allowed there. Similarly, in the nonresidential areas, you talk about Floor Area Ratios (FAR's) and you define standards. He stated this is required by law. You cannot just say, we will have to allow a density bonus, or it nullifies the meaning of the law. He noted that San Francisco has adopted a law which says you are allowed a 100% density bonus maximum. Obviously, that satisfies the statute. Mr. Titus noted other cities in California have done that also. Mr. Titus addressed policy H-37, and noted that at previous meetings last year, several Councilmembers stated that when they adopted H-37, it was intended to apply in low density areas. He questioned, when the Council read the policy they were thinking about trip allocations and not bonus trips. He stated the Ordinances and General Plan which existed at that time also support that interpretation. He noted that policy C-4 provided that Appendix B of the General Plan would provide for trip allocations for sites. He stated that trip allocations do not allow for bonus trips, so when this project was allowed a density bonus under H-37, the Council intended that there would be 8 trips x 5 because senior projects are allowed five times as much density as other projects, and there would be 40 units allowed. He stated that coincidentally, when this project was first proposed to the neighbors, and to the County in an application for their grant funding, this project was described as a 40 unit project. He stated he feels the proponent knew at the time that policy H-37 limited this to 40 units. Mr. Titus stated he does not know whether EIR comments are being considered, but he does not think that the Initial Study addressed the impacts of the changes in the General Plan which are considered here. He suggested that there needs to be a better study done for this. Jeffrey Kirchmann stated that as of about 2:00 p.m. on Friday afternoon when he last visited the Civic Center, no notice of tonight's hearing was posted at the County Clerk's Office. He stated it was only because he looked at every page in every stack which was posted did he manage to fine the notice which was posted on July 20th, which was literally hidden, stapled behind another notice concerning some other project on Francisco Boulevard, which gave notice of the then -scheduled August 24th Planning Commission hearing. He stated it happens that Planning Commission hearing was continued and not held until September 14th, and he does not feel that the notices posted with the County Clerk serve the need that CEQA requires for enabling interested members of the public have notice of the agency's intention to adopt a Negative Declaration. Regarding the GPA itself, Mr. Kirchmann stated the staff report states the proposed GPA is beneficial because it advances affordable housing goals, which we all agree with. However, discussing the impact of the amendment, it tells us that the appli- cation is limited to just this one site, and they are providing 61 units of affordable housing, and any possible application on other sites is entirely specu- lative. He agrees with the Councilmember who stated the City cannot have it both ways. If the policy is intended to provide affordable housing, we need to adopt a policy that describes the quantum of housing we are looking at, and recognize that if indeed we are, that amendment will be growth -inducing. He stated it seems to him that the Nova Albion School site met the criteria, but the staff said they do not believe it meets the criteria because it is not within 1500 feet of services and transit. He stated the way he measured along Nova Albion, it was within 1500 feet; but today he personally surveyed it with his meter, from Nova Albion School to Sears, and it is 1480 feet. Also, at Northgate Drive and Nova Albion, there is a Golden Gate Transit bus stop. He stated it is 11.45 acres and allocated 45 trips. At .2 trips per unit, that would be 225 units without any bonus trips. He stated that assuming that St. Isabella's project goes forward and uses four bonus trips, there would be ten bonus trips left in the reserve for affordable housing, and that would be another 50 units, so 275 units of affordable senior housing could be constructed under this General SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 14 Plan Amendment at the Nova Albion School site. Mr. Kirchmann stated that would be more housing units than are identified in the General Plan. He noted another site, which is at the corner of Loch Lomond and Pt. San Pedro, near Bruno's Market. He stated he thinks that is zoned neighborhood commercial right now, but there is a pharmacy and Golden Gate Transit stops there. He stated that once these conditions are in place, you cannot take them back without making a finding, and he is not sure how the City could correct the mistakes. Mayor Boro pointed out that the decision to be made is on the General Plan Amendment. He asked if anyone in the audience has anything new to add. Mr. James McKenna, a Terra Linda resident for 34 years, and who has served on the commission on Aging and on many legislative committees in that field, stated he is speaking as a citizen who has lived here and seen some of the problems in aging. He stated he does not think the General Plan in 1959 saw some of these things at that time, and could not predict that there would be a 60% increase in aging in California. He noted that the 1500 feet would be quite a chore for him to walk, and he and his wife have not been able to drive for three years. He stated you cannot be too technical in making adjustments within the area. He noted this is a piece of land, and Catholic Charities is willing to help a segment of the population we were not thinking about a few years ago. He stated this should not be clouded; if you are going to provide services for people when they are 80 years old, a 40 -year provision would not be enough. He added that the number of units would have to be in the vicinity of 62, otherwise it will go broke and present a real problem. Mayor Boro stated we need to decide if we want to revise the General Plan. It is important to focus on the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Ragghianti stated he agrees with staff, that we do not have a legal problem on it being a site specific on this project. He noted that GPAs are supposed to be general. The issue of having this create a problem in the future is not something which should drive this procedure from a legal perspective, but just from a policy perspective. But from a legal perspective it is not something he considers to be a real problem. He does not believe that this issue involves spot zoning. He stated there is no zoning involved in the exercise right now. The Legislative Act is not Zoning Act, and there is no spot as the cases have defined it. He believes it ought to be approached from the perspective that a general policy is being proposed for the Council's consideration in connection with an amendment to the General Plan. In other words, the policy being proposed by the applicant proposes that density bonuses be permitted within residential areas for these types of projects. Finally, it is clear that the applicant is proposing this General Plan Amendment to assist in getting their project approved, and that is not unusual. He stated there is nothing wrong with a General Plan Amendment which benefits a particular property owner. It happens every day, in every city and county in the State, so there is nothing unusual about it. Mayor Boro stated he does not have a problem with attempting to modify the Plan to accommodate this project, but the problem he has, we have already had two sites brought up that one of the opponents is addressing, and staff has made some analysis which the Council has not seen. He stated we are going into this issue of the unknown, and the future, and it would seem to him that if there are going to be other sites which would be subject to this type of impact, we really need to know about that now rather than find out about it later, and that is his concern. Councilmember Breiner stated she shares Mayor Boro's concern, and there are several things on which she would like more answers. The issue of the noticing which Mr. Kirchmann brought up, and is there a weakness there. Also, would we be on stronger ground to have, in connection with the GPA, a firmer basis or ratio in terms of bonus units. She stated that might be very important as we go forward on this. Another issue we might address is "neighborhood scale", and we might want to say that there are height limits to building. She noted this particular project is two stories only, but originally it was three, and there may be more safeguards necessary. Mr. Pendoley stated there are already standards in the General Plan on height limits, and this project and others are subject to that. With regard to noticing, that concern was brought to staff earlier, and they checked it with the attorneys and were informed that the notices met the requirements of the law. Mr. Pendoley reported they did look at the Nova Albion site, and staff would recommend that it would be consistent with the proposed language to deny a bonus for that school property because it is more than 1500 feet from the parcel where grocery services are provided. He stated that the 1479 feet to Sears does not qualify for the kind of services this Amendment talks about. Finally, the site in the vicinity of Loch Lomond is a 4+ acre parcel, which is designated in the General Plan for Neighborhood Commercial and Marine. Neither of those designations is subject to the bonus that is SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 15 recommended by the language that is before the Council tonight; in other words, they are not designated single family residential, which is what the bonus is about and what the language speaks to. It is different altogether. Councilmember Shippey stated we should establish a policy, and if there is an unknown, we should have safeguards. We should limit the density bonuses to something that makes sense and is reasonable. We ought to have a limit. Councilmember Thayer stated she does not think there is any disagreement on the Council that they all support affordable housing for seniors. She stated the Council has voted unanimously for the project the last time, but the project before us tonight is a bit different, and has to do with policy considerations. She stated she would like to see controls on density bonuses and not just for residential areas but for medium and high density areas. She would also like to see that 1/2 acre lot changed. She stated that is not a very big lot, and the density in Terra Linda is four to five homes per acre. She stated when we are giving a density bonus she would like to see a larger lot required. She would also like to look at policy H-37. She thinks it has some excellent standards in there to consider. There are parking elements and neighborhood scale, and she would like to see those two elements preserved. Councilmember Thayer stated that with regard to the 1500 feet from stores, she does not know if it really makes sense, and whether there should be any limit that way at all. She stated she sees how staff came up with that, because it was one more way of assuring that this type of project would not be prevalent throughout the City. She stated she has sympathy for some of the people who have come forward, not just because of the setbacks on Elena Court, but also because of the traffic concerns in that area. Mayor Boro noted that at this time we must deal with the General Plan Amendment. Councilmember Cohen stated he has concerns about the GPA as proposed, and thinks it is important we not lose sight that it is consistent with adopted City policy toward affordable senior housing, and if you read the language in the proposed amendment, it simply fleshes out the language of H-37. He noted a couple of elements of H-37 which have dropped off, and he understands the Planning Director's point that they are referred to in other places, but he does not see any harm in being redundant and stating them in the Housing Element as well. He stated the heart of the policy decision the Council is being asked to make here tonight is whether or not that kind of bonus is appropriate in a low density residential area. He believes that it is, and it is a question of how we adopt the policy so we do not, as Mayor Boro sugges- ted, have some unintended consequences. He stated it may be fine tuned a little to satisfy the Council on it, but he does not think we should get so involved in that as to lose sight of the fundamental point of refining a policy which has been consistent all the way through, and that is support for affordable senior housing. Mr. Cohen stated there will not be a long line of applicants for similar housing, because the money is just not there. They are difficult to put together. He stated it makes more sense to approach this as a policy decision, and we should concentrate on that. H-37 talks about a specific area of the City. He would rule out the areas about which Mr. Kirchmann spoke. He stated he would like to hear from the Planning Director and revisit the limitations on the density bonuses and trip allocations. Mr. Pendoley explained there are two parts of our City - Northgate and East San Rafael in our traffic model, having a limited number of bonus trips in Appendix B. He explained how the process works. Mr. Pendoley noted that the City Attorney says this is not spot zoning and is legal. The parking is already discussed in the General Plan and is redundant many times, and also the provisions of RES -1. Mr. Pendoley explained that it gets more complex when you think about a formula for applying the bonuses, and how big should they get. He stated that the most success- ful policies in writing a Plan are the incentives. Density bonuses will help you get what you want, and they are why this is one of the most successful jurisdictions in the Bay Area. You are providing an incentive for affordable housing, and you have left yourself lots of flexibility to do that. He stated that what some of the concerned neighbors have said is true - this is a 600% density bonus when compared to single family. It is not unusually high density at 23 units to the acre. It is a lower density than many other affordable housing projects in this community. It is a lower density than some of our market rate projects. He stated the Council might find themselves really stretching as they develop the formula, and if you start to apply it to your policies, you might lose some benefit which this community has realized from the flexibility. He stated that if the Council is going to ask staff to do some SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 16 more work on this, it would help to have specific direction. Mayor Boro stated he will give some direction. He does not believe a policy has to be Citywide. We started with a project on this site when it came before us, and we set the policy by approving that project. We are now back with the applicant saying they want a General Plan Amendment to accommodate that. We thought we could and were told by the Court that we could not. He stated he would like to focus the discussion on the site, rather than opening it up Citywide. If we have a policy that we want to put affordable housing on St. Isabella's site, we ought to deal with that, and if we have to do something with the General Plan to make that happen the staff should bring back what we have to do and we will decide. He stated he is very concerned when we start making this a very general change. As the City Attorney said, every day in California general plans are amended for a project. We can amend our General Plan four times a year, and we have amended it for specific projects. He stated he would like something very specific to this site, to accomplish the policy we enunciated when we supported this in the past. Then, if the Council agrees, he would like some rationale on how staff arrived with a half acre for the site, and how they arrived at 1500 feet from the site. We should also look at the potential sites that are there, so we know, and the people in those other areas know, what may or may not be happening in the future. He stated we cannot just do this in order to accommodate this project, and then have potential problems, and wake up to them in the future. Councilmember Breiner stated she wonders if some of the concerns may be addressed with a little revision to some of these reworded phrases. She gave RES -3 as an example. She referred to the bottom of page 6, and the recommended wording. She recommended, if we were to say, in the underlined portion "...However, density bonuses may be granted in low density districts in Northgate and East San Rafael in the following limited circumstances..." and after "pharmacies", add a comma and "with consideration for project parking needs and neighborhood scale". She asked would that narrow the focus sufficiently, and bring in some of the concerns in terms of what was being deleted from policy H-37, to eliminate some of the sites mentioned. Mr. Pendoley stated that would certainly work. Councilmember Shippey stated he is not entirely against specificity, and asked why we are specific for Northgate and East San Rafael. Mayor Boro explained that they are the only two areas with the traffic allocations. Mayor Boro noted we are looking for focus and for a couple of options. Councilmember Cohen stated we seem to have a couple of points, whether we should take a policy approach and refine the proposed language. He wondered if it would be appropriate to ask staff to work with whether we should go after being more site specific. Mr. Pendoley replied we can do that. He stated he is not sure how it will work in terms of CEQA. He stated what they may need to do is draft a couple of alternatives for the Council and come back for discussion and have the Council choose one. He pointed out we may have to do a CEQA review after that. It can extend the process a bit, but he feels that what the Council wants is language they can be really comfortable with. He stated they would need 30 days to work on such a project. Councilmember Cohen remarked that as the staff works on the General Plan, revising the amendments presented this evening, he would like to see some more discussion in the staff report about the rationale and methodology for the 1500 feet, and the rationale for the 1/2 acre, so it does not appear arbitrary. Mayor Boro agreed. Councilmember Thayer stated that whether we go to a broader policy, or be site specific, she imagines staff will give a critique of the pros and cons. She stated when we talk about a project that is going to be broader than this, she would like to see if we are considering a higher density in residential neighborhoods and perhaps different rules for setbacks and those types of things. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to move to refer this back to staff for additional work on the proposed General Plan Amendment, consistent with Council's discussion tonight and presentation of a potential General Plan Amendment that would be more specific to St. Isabella's project, and to bring this back in 30 days. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None City Clerk Leoncini asked Mayor Boro if he will be requesting another notice or continuing the item? Mayor Boro stated they are continuing the item for 30 days, and the City Attorney will take care of the required noticing. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/18/93 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page 17 18a.REQUEST FROM CITY OF MILL VALLEY TO CONSIDER PROPOSITION 172 AND MARIN COUNTY MEASURE A (CM) - File 9-1 Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to support both Proposition 172 and Measure A as a Council. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ADD ITEM; 18b. PROPOSED MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY - File 13-2 Councilmember Thayer reported on a meeting held on October 15, 1993, regarding the Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste JPA. After discussion, the Council agreed that the JPA needs to be revised and the Household Hazardous Waste contract should not be awarded. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1993 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/93 Page 17