Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1994-05-16SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 16, 1994, AT 7:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember David J. Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: None Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - CITY COUNCIL Mayor Boro announced in Open Session that the City Council would be going into Closed Session to discuss the following Closed Session items: 1. CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE ROOM 201 a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(a)) ■ Case name: maple, et al. v. City of San Rafael, et al. Marin County Superior Court Case No. 148065. b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c): ■ Berger v. City of Morgan Hill, California Supreme Court Case No. H011759. (Request for City of San Rafael participation as Amicus party). C. Conference with Labor Negotiator, Austris Rungis Employee Organizations: ■ San Rafael Police Association ■ San Rafael Firefighter's Association ■ M.A.P.E. ■ Police Mid -Management Association The City Council then met in Closed Session in Conference Room 201 to discuss the above- mentioned items. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 16, 1994, AT 8:00 PM - OPEN SESSION RE: CLOSED SESSION ITEMS la.City Attorney Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken concerning the lawsuit mentioned above. lb.Berger v. City of Morgan Hill City Attorney Ragghianti announced that City Council had voted unanimously to parti-cipate as Amicus party. lc.The Council will reconvene at the end of the meeting to discuss labor negotiations. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE GUN SHOP ON MIRACLE MILE - File 13-1 x 10-2 Harry Winters, President of the West End Neighborhood Association, reported a gun shop is opening on Miracle Mile and he is concerned that notices were not sent to area residents. He stated that notices are sent when a pizza parlor or similar businesses requiring a use permit open, and he does not understand the difference between those businesses requiring a use permit and those requiring just a business license. Mr. Winters stated that when their Association meets, they may be requesting Council to add a use permit requirement for those types of businesses that cause problems or perceived problems. Planning Director Pendoley agreed that the Zoning Ordinance has no special provision for handgun or weapon sales. The Zoning Ordinance regulates retail use when the object is to deal with characteristic nuisances such as fast food, pizza delivery and other high traffic uses. The purpose is to make sure street frontage can handle the traffic. Weapon SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 2 sales have not been identified as that type of use. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that there are weapon sales in other outlets in San Rafael, and they have never had any complaints. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 2, 1994 (CC) 4. Monthly Investment Report (Fin) - File 8-18 x 8-9 5. Resolution Granting Authority to Sign City Checks and Invest City Funds (Fin) - File 8-13 x 8-14 x 9-3-14 x 9-3-20 ACTION Approved as submitted. Accepted report. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9143 - GRANT- ING AUTHORITY TO SIGN CITY CHECKS AND INVEST CITY FUNDS. (Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer authorized to sign checks; Treasurer authorized to invest City funds.) 6. Call for Applications Re Appointment of City's Approved staff recommendation: Representative on the Marin Commission on a) Calling for applications; set Aging Due to Expiration of Three Year Term of deadline for applications 6/7/94 at Richard R. Rector, end of June, 1994 (CC) - 1200 Noon in City Clerk's Office; File 199 b) Set interviews for Special Council Meeting at 6:30 PM, 6/20/94. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 3.BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT: (PW) - File 5-1-292 x 9-3-40 a. RESOLUTION DIRECTING FILING OF ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT b. ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT - TO BE FILED C. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER IMPROVEMENTS Councilmember Thayer asked how many homeowners are affected by this. Assistant Public Works Director Lloyd Strom answered that the assessment list shows there are 124, but a majority of those are lots that have not yet been sold and are still owned by the developer. He indicated there are approximately 50 different owners. Mr. Strom noted this also includes Phase 2 of Baypoint and explained that when they file their final map, another 140 lots will be added. Councilmember Thayer asked what the average cost per lot would be. Mr. Strom answered it is approximately $160. Ms. Thayer asked if the cost will change as the lots are sold or will the assessment remain the same no matter how many of the lots are sold? Mr. Strom stated it should remain essentially the same; any changes would be as a result of the amount of work being assessed under the District which will come back each year. He explained that selling additional lots is not going to reduce this or affect it. Ms. Thayer asked if those homeowners who are affected have been notified. Mr. Strom noted that the action taken tonight will satisfy the requirements under this District, and it will come to the Council three times: 1) Tonight after approving the resolutions notices will be sent to affected property owners; 2) There will be two public hearings; 3) A final assessment. Mr. Strom stated that under the law for these lighting and landscaping districts, they come back on a yearly basis, and we are required to have a public hearing and notice if there is an increase in the assessment. Councilmember Zappetini asked if the $19,460 for Parcel 0 is for unimproved land. Mr. Strom answered that Parcel 0 is Baypoint Lagoons Unit 2, noting the tentative map has been approved by the Planning Commission. Once the final map is filed, the wetland area behind the levy will be dedicated as a habitat preserve, and there will be no future assessments on that portion, and all the assessments will go to the individual lots. Mr. Zappetini asked if that was a yearly, ongoing assessment, and for how many years will it last? Mr. Strom clarified that it will be for as long as the District is in operation, and the purpose of the District was to provide funding for the long- term maintenance of the lagoon and habitat. Councilmember Heller asked who decides on an increase. Mr. Strom stated that at this SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 3 time, the only action being taken is the monitoring of the lagoon in the wetland area, and it is based on a proposal we get each year from WESTCO in terms of the costs they estimate it will take to do the monitoring. This was originally set up as a monitoring program, the first phase being three years which has been done, and this District was formed. A monitoring committee was also set up which includes the Public Works Department, Planning, some of the regulatory agencies, a representative from Marin Conservation League and Marin Audobon, and meets twice a year. Mayor Boro asked if there is full disclosure by the seller of the obligations as far as the lighting and landscaping district when a person buys a unit. Mr. Strom answered that it was required by law to do that. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt a Resolution directing filing of the Engineer's Annual Report; to file the Engineer's Annual Report; and to adopt a Resolution of intention to order improvements. RESOLUTION NO. 9144 - DIRECTING FILING OF ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT, BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT - FILED RESOLUTION NO. 9145 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER IMPROVEMENTS, BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT (Public hearings to be held on Tuesday, July 5, 1994 and Monday, July 18, 1994 at 8:00 PM in the Council Chambers, City Hall) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVISING DOWNTOWN POLICIES TO IMPLEMENT "OUR VISION OF DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL." AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 14 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) TO IMPLEMENT "OUR VISION" BY REVISING STANDARDS FOR RESTAURANTS AND OFFICES IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, PROVIDING FOR BANNERS FOR DOWNTOWN EVENTS, ENCOURAGING RETAIL USES IN PARKING GARAGES AND ALLOWING TANDEM PARKING; MISCELLANEOUS OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE INCLUDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING STANDARDS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE ZONING MAP; CITYWIDE; GPA94-1/ZC93-1 (P1) - File 115 x 10-2 x 10-3 x 9-2-46 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Planning Director Robert Pendoley explained that this is a four-part package; 1) the General Plan Amendment which would promote the Downtown Vision; 2) zoning amendments which would also further the Vision; 3) follow-up work to the original Ordinance adopted in 1992 regarding RV parking in residential areas; 4) clean-up amendments based on the experience of 20 months using the new Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Pendoley began with the zoning items that relate to downtown. The General Plan Amendment changes would delete a policy which prohibits restaurants on corners downtown, and would add a new policy which would recognize the Vision and put people on notice that it is the City Council's intent to implement the Vision with a series of follow-up General Plan Amendments. He noted that all of the language has been reviewed by the Downtown Advisor Group and the Downtown Vision Committee, both of whom have recommended approval. Mr. Pendoley stated that item 2 consists of zoning changes for downtown which would encourage commercial uses at the street level and parking structures, would reduce restrictions on restaurants on Fourth Street, would reduce the restrictions that would limit the number of banks and offices on Fourth Street, would allow across -the - street banners advertising public events for non-profit organizations, and add an exception to allow for tandem parking and residential redevelopment projects down- town. Mr. Pendoley stated that parking for residential projects downtown has been a major inhibiter for the development of housing in that area of town. Mr. Pendoley stated that another set of amendments has to do with the parking of RV's in residential areas. The proposed amendments are merely clarifications which will make it easier for the Code Enforcement Officer to enforce today's standards. Mr. Pendoley recalled that the Council in 1992 asked Planning to work with a group of neighbors and RV owners who were concerned about the RV parking standards. Everyone who spoke at that hearing was asked to meet with staff, and they met to work out the language before Council tonight. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 4 Mr. Pendoley stated that item 4 contains a series of clarification and cross-referencing amendments which are proposed. The most important of those are changes to Chapter 12 which would help implement the Hillside Design Guidelines, as well as Chapters 22 and 23 which would further streamline the permit process by sending more directly to the Zoning Administrator which would save time and money. Mayor Boro clarified that what is being proposed, especially in regard to the RV parking issue, is nothing new, but a clarification of the existing ordinance. Mr. Pendoley stated three standards have been added: 1) RV's must be parked in an orderly manner, generally perpendicular to the street; 2) no part of the RV can extend over the public sidewalk or street right-of-way; 3) the parking space must be surfaced - concrete, gravel, etc. to avoid contamination. Mr. Pendoley explained that the basic object of these clarifications is to make it obvious that this ordinance does not permit a person to park parallel to the street in their front yard. There is a provision for exception for people who have large circular driveways. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that intent is being clarified rather than the actual standard, and it is no more restrictive or generous than what was considered in 1992. Councilmember Thayer stated that during the downtown visioning process, there was a feeling that banks led to dead space. She asked why there is a turnabout now. Mr. Pendoley stated banks had been classified in the same category as offices. They did not want offices on street frontage because most types of offices tend to not generate a lot of pedestrian traffic. The Downtown Vision Committee felt that banks have a lot of pedestrian activity. Ms. Thayer asked if there is a limitation on how much space a bank can take up. Associate Planner Linda Jackson stated the percentage limitation was being deleted on offices and banks, noting what would be permitted is the customer service square footage along the street front. The blank wall of a bank would not be permitted, but the entryway and the ATM machine would be considered active enough to be a desirable part of Fourth Street. Ms. Thayer referred to the suggestion that residential development on Lincoln Avenue on lots greater than 150 feet in width and 20,000 square feet in size, could be granted a 25 percent density bonus and a 48 foot height limit for development with an exceptional design providing for a varied front elevation and underground parking. Ms. Thayer stated she is concerned because of the congestion on Lincoln Avenue and asked if any studies have been done to take this into consideration. Mr. Pendoley stated if Council has a concern regarding this portion, it could be directed back for consideration to the Downtown Advisor Group who is updating the General Plan. Ms. Thayer asked regarding the RV issue, what the purpose is of the front yard setback between the existing driveway and the side property line when the distance between the two is no greater than 12 feet at any point. Mr. Pendoley answered that the basic object is to get it to look like a part of the front driveway. Councilmember Zappetini asked if any consideration was given to the burden the RV amendment will place on people in conflict with the amendment. He noted there are few places in San Rafael to store RV's, and if they were stored out of town, we would not get the tax revenues. Mr. Pendoley explained the attempt was to strike a balance and there is no answer that will satisfy everybody 100 percent. Mr. Zappetini stated it seems to him the impact will vary a lot from neighborhood to neighborhood. Mr. Pendoley agreed that areas with more retired residents have more at stake, as well areas with small lots. However, he stated he believed the most success would be achieved if the standard is applied uniformly in all residential districts, although he agreed the impact would be more restrictive in some areas. Councilmember Cohen pointed out that the language on the Lincoln Avenue issue has not changed, it is the same as existing language. He suggested that it be determined if there is an increase in traffic hazards there reflected by more accidents and how many parcels meet the standards for a density bonus. Steve Kingland, 585 Whitewood Drive, stated he has a truck and camper that is 23 feet long, and he uses it daily to go to and from work. He stated it would be a burden if he cannot park this, his only vehicle, in front of his house. He asked where retired folks are going to get the money to store their RV's away from their homes. Mr. Kingland stated that RV's are one of the best medical relief places following an earthquake or other disaster. They can be filled with water and other supplies, and, therefore, should be kept close to the house. He stated if he has to park his camper outside the County, he will move and not spend any more money in San Rafael. Councilmember Cohen asked Mr. Kingland where he currently parks his camper. Mr. Kingland answered that he parks either on the street or in the driveway, but it is moved every day. Mr. Cohen pointed out that he does not have a problem because he can park on SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 5 the street for up to 72 hours at a time. Harry Wright, 117 Trellis Drive, owner of a 28 -foot fifth wheel, asked if the 12 foot setback from the side yard is from the house itself or the overhang?. He explained he recently spent $2,500 putting in a driveway and a 3 -foot retaining wall and cordoned off the area so the RV would not be seen from the side yards. Mr. Pendoley stated a person can park in the side yard providing the unit is partially or fully screened as viewed from off-site. He asked Mr. Wright if he had a solid fence. Mr. Wright replied he does not have a solid fence, but there is an 9-1/2 foot hedge between his house and his neighbor's. There is an 8 -foot section of his RV that sticks out into the front yard. Mr. Wright stated he asked eight of his neighbors prior to buying the RV if any of them had a problem with him parking one there, and none did. Mr. Pendoley stated that he believes Mr. Wright is in compliance according to his description. He further explained that the 12 -foot setback relates to parking in the front yard, not the side yard. Mr. Cohen quoted from the current Ordinance regarding RV parking which is not being changed..."in rear yards, interior side yards or other areas providing the unit is partially or fully screened as viewed from off-street by a solid fence that conforms to the permitted height limits, OR vegetation, OR structures OR topography." Pat Stocking, Bret Harte resident since 1969, stated he likes living in his neighbor -hood and does not want to move. He noted he has had a boat on his lawn for several years and has never had any complaints. His driveway is 18 feet, and the boat will not fit. Mayor Boro reiterated that nothing new was being added to this Ordinance that would affect Mr. Stocking; his boat is already out of compliance. However, it is enforced only if someone complains. Councilmember Zappetini stated Mr. Stocking is parking parallel to the house and asked if that is not changing under the revised ordinance. Mr. Pendoley explained that a person cannot park parallel but must park in the driveway or according to the 12 foot standard at the side of the house, and that is what is being enforced. Councilmember Cohen stated that the existing ordinance indicates a person can only park in a driveway or the side yard setback. Mr. Stocking asked if that meant people cannot park cars in their front yards as so many do? Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. Roger Smith, 300 Fawn Drive, San Anselmo, Co -Chair of the Downtown Advisor Group, stated the Committee has been working very hard on the changes being presented tonight and urged the Council to pass the changes as presented. Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing closed. Mayor Boro discussed the issue of banners and suggested they be allowed only on Fourth Street. He also would like to see some standards on the banners as far as who had the right to put them up, who will take them down, how long they can be up, etc. He agreed that the intent of the banners is positive and will promote activity down- town. Councilmember Cohen suggested the banners also be allowed on Second and Third Streets if the intent is to publicize non-profit activities. Councilmember Zappetini questioned having any limits on where banners should be allowed, for example, if the Terra Linda Recreation Center wants to advertise an upcoming activity, they should be allowed to. Mr. Pendoley explained that as written, banners are not restricted in any zoning district. Councilmember Zappetini stated he felt it should not be restricted to downtown, and Councilmember Thayer agreed. Councilmember Cohen proposed that the Zoning Ordinance be adopted as proposed but asked staff to bring back a report regarding standards and acceptable locations. Mr. Pendoley suggested the language be changed to read that banners are allowed at locations designated by Council and subject to procedures or standards set by Council. Then, in addition to the Ordinance amendment, a resolution could be adopted specifying the locations and the standards so that if it needs to be amended again later, it could be done by resolution rather than by amending the ordinance. City Attorney Ragghianti agreed with that process. Councilmember Zappetini asked if a survey was done as to how many RV's will be impacted as far as those parked parallel vs. those parked perpendicular. Mr. Pendoley stated a SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 6 survey was not done. Associate Planner Jackson added that a windshield survey was done last summer, but it was not scientific. They found fewer than 50 examples of RV parking, both good and bad. Mr. Zappetini cited neighborhood examples and was concerned that many people would be adversely affected. Mayor Boro emphasized again that tonight's action is not to create new problems but to clarify an existing situation. Councilmember Cohen stated he felt the people working on this ordinance have done a very good job in striking a balance. Regarding the RV parking issue, Councilmember Heller stated that although neighbor -hoods are different, what we are trying to do is strike a fair standard for the entire City. Regarding the banners, Ms. Heller preferred it be wider than just Fourth Street. Councilmember Cohen stated there are many aspects of this proposed ordinance change, and he expressed appreciation for all the work the Downtown Advisor Group has done, noting we should take pride in the fact that another step is being taken towards implementing our Vision for Downtown San Rafael. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt a resolution approving the General Plan Amendment. RESOLUTION NO. 9146 - ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS REVISING DOWNTOWN POLICY DT -8 TO IMPLEMENT OUR VISION OF DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL (GP94-1) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The title of the Ordinance was read: Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING CHAPTERS 14.02, 14.03, 14.04, 14.05, 14.06, 14.08, 14.09, 14.10, 14.11, 14.12, 14.14, 14.16, 14.17, 14.18, 14.19, 14.22, 14.23, 14.24 AND 14.25 OF TITLE 14, ZONING, OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT OUR VISION OF DOWNTOWN SAN RAFAEL AND MISCELLANEOUS CODE CLARIFICATIONS AND MAP CORRECTIONS" Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1663 to print, with the change recommended by the Planning Director regarding banners that standards for location and implementation be set by resolution. Mayor Boro commended the Downtown Advisor Group for the work they have done. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Thayer asked for feedback on what can be done regarding Lincoln Avenue housing. 8.PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.04, "FOOD STUFFS" AND CHAPTER 10.40, "COIN-OPERATED AMUSEMENT DEVICES" (P1) - File 115 x 10-2 X 13-6 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Robert Pendoley stated these two amendments are companion pieces to the previous issue. He explained that allowing the display of food for sale on sidewalks is consistent with the Vision. Chapter 9.04, "Food Stuffs", and 10.40, "Coin - Operated Amusement Devices" have been incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance that was adopted in 1992, making this part of the Municipal Code superfluous. There being no one wishing to address the Council, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REPEALING CHAPTERS 9.04, "FOODSTUFFS" AND 10.40, "COIN-OPERATED AMUSEMENT DEVICES", FROM THE MUNICIPAL CODE" Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to dispense with the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 7 reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance 1664 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9.PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO INCREASE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FEES (Pl) - File 9-10-2 x 10-2 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley stated Planning Department application fees were last considered by the Council in 1991. In 1992, Hillside Standards were adopted which set new requirements for the review of family homes on slopes of 25 percent or more and established actual standards for that review. That increased the number of Design Review permits that had to be done and changed the character of some Design Review work. After that, a new Zoning Ordinance was adopted which changed the whole permit structure. It reduced the number of certain permits, especially use permits and increased the number of other permits, especially Design Review permits, and created whole new categories of permits, most importantly those which can be reviewed at the staff level. Also, the cost of doing business has gone up; therefore, it is logical to examine fees at this time. Mr. Pendoley stated they have assumed a straight -forward review process. For example, they have assumed that if a Design Review permit was applied for that had to go to the Planning Commission, it would be reviewed in two trips to the Design Review Board and would be reviewed and presumably approved by the Planning Commission in one trip. If a larger project required more trips, an hourly fee would be charged. Mr. Pendoley explained that in the past, Council has been concerned that the fees not exceed fees charged by other agencies in Marin County. Mr. Pendoley referred to a letter received from the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, which asked what would be the impact to downtown projects and are the fees discouraging remodeling? Mr. Pendoley compared downtown permit activity with permit activity city-wide. The majority of the permits processed by the Planning Department are Design Review permits, although the pattern was quite different prior to 1992. In 1993, 150 applications were considered for Design Review. Exactly half of those were approved at the staff level, and the charge was $200. Nineteen percent of the permits were considered at the Zoning Administrator level without going to the Design Review Board. That means that over two-thirds of the applications did not require a trip to the Design Review Board. Under the proposed fee structure, the fee for those would have been $415 or less. Fifteen percent were considered by the Zoning Administrator but had to go to the Design Review Board. Fourteen percent went to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. The pattern downtown, with its total of 26 permits, was 61 percent approved by staff, 11 percent went to the Zoning Administra- tor without going through the Design Review Board, totaling 72 percent approved without going to the Design Review Board. Fifteen percent went to the Design Review Board and 8 percent to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. That 8 percent was comprised of two applications - 1 H Street and a recent application to construct 29 units at the intersection of Fourth and Lincoln, both of which are multi-million dollar projects. The total fee under the proposed fee structure for those two applications would have been $2,040. Another question asked by the Chamber of Commerce is what is our general direction? Mr. Pendoley stated they have tracked Design Review permits from 1992 to the present, and they have found a number of trends. First, as a result of policy changes, there is an increasing number of permits. We went from 107 in 1990, to 128 in 1991, 130 in 1992 and 150 in 1993. There was also a commensurate drop in other permits, especi- ally use permits. The total number of permits processed has remained about the same. Another trend is the level at which permits get processed. In 1990, only 17 percent could be processed by staff, today 50 percent of Design Review is done by staff. Cases going to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission have remained about the same, although the number of permits went up 50 percent. There has been an up and down fluctuation regarding the number going to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pendoley explained that all this indicates an effort by the Council, Commission and staff to streamline the permit process to get more projects approved at the staff level or the Zoning Administrator, rather than having to go to the Design Review Board. Another issue raised by the Chamber of Commerce had to do with the impact on afford -able housing. Mr. Pendoley explained that the policy set out in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance refunds fees for affordable housing. Another question had to do with why such a high fee for signs. Mr. Pendoley stated that the majority of signs SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 8 that come in do comply with the zoning ordinance and are approved over the counter. In the past, the Planning Commission or City Council was able to approve a sign pro- gram on a use permit basis, which allows for approval of a sign not consistent with the zoning ordinance. That requires individual Design Review, which is very much like a review for new construction, but generally with fewer issues, therefore the fee would be less. Councilmember Cohen referred to Table 1, page 2 of the staff report, Planning Depart-ment Rates, and asked if vacation/sick leave actually costs 25 percent of payroll. Mr. Pendoley stated this is based on the accrual rate set in the salary resolution. Mr. Cohen also pointed out a typo on the adjustment amount for vacation/ sick leave for Permit Clerk. Principal Planner Sheila Delimont indicated that break entitle-ments are also factored in. Mr. Cohen asked about the department overhead and city overhead figures. Mr. Pendoley explained that the City has a standard overhead rate which all departments must use in budgeting. The department overhead rate includes such things as the cost of paper, administrative time, supervision time, lease purchase on Xerox, printing, all support services. Councilmember Heller asked who bears the cost of an appeal. Mr. Pendoley gave as an example a variance that is approved at the zoning administrator level. That variance would cost the business or homeowner $415. If an appeal is filed, the appellant would pay $100. That would be the end of the fees. The general fund would then bear the cost of the appeal, the $100 covers the cost to prepare the notice. Councilmember Zappetini asked how much did it cost to run the Planning Department compared to how much was brought in from fees. Mr. Pendoley stated our total fee recovery for this year will be about 32 percent. This proposal would raise it to approximately 40 percent. The total budgeted cost for the department this year is approximately $600,000. Mr. Pendoley explained that permitting represents only slightly more than one-third of the activity of the department, therefore, you would not expect to have a full recovery fee program for a Planning Department. Mr. Zappetini asked why on the original fee comparison chart, the Design Review fee was eliminated for Mill Valley and now it shows $1,000 - $1,200. Mr. Pendoley explained that the Design Review Board in Mill Valley was eliminated, and two additional members were added to the Planning Commission who were from the Design Review Board. They still require Design Review applications, but they are processed at the Planning Commission. Mr. Zappetini asked how Mr. Pendoley arrived at the proposed figures. Mr. Pendoley stated that the primary consideration was to have people document time spent on permits, then some of that was adjusted for experience. He is also recom-mending that a portion of the increased fee be used to pay for a software program called Permits which tracks hours, as well as a filing system which will keep a complete record of every permit and every condition. Each department would have access to the file, such as the Fire Department, Engineering, Building Department, Finance, etc. Mr. Zappetini asked how the percentage of increase could be justified. Mr. Pendoley explained that the biggest impact was in Design Review, and when the fee structure was adopted in 1991, they did not assess it as closely as they should have. Mr. Zappetini recalled that the Hughes-Heiss Report recommended doing away with or streamlining the Design Review Process. Mr. Pendoley agreed and said that many of those changes have been met. He explained that the Report suggested they do more permits at the staff level, which they have done, and also that one level of review could be eliminated if the Design Review Board was given permit authority. The reason for that suggestion was because almost without exception the recommendations of the Design Review Board are adopted by the Planning Commission. However, that recommendation was not well received by either the Design Review Board or the Chamber of Commerce. Councilmember Thayer asked if there are any governmental entities that are 100 percent funded. Mr. Pendoley said the highest he has heard of is Marin County Planning which is at 70 percent. Councilmember Cohen asked what is the level of review for a use permit for a second dwelling unit. Mr. Pendoley answered the Planning Commission and explained that second dwelling units are often contested and require a very detailed staff report and close work with the applicant. Chris Craiker, architect stated he is not against the fee increases, but believes there should be a better range, and a break should be given to the small businessman. He made the following suggestions: - a two-tier fee based on how long the project takes; - a preliminary project review process in order to see if a project is possible before spending a lot of time and money on it; higher subdivision fees; SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 8 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 - General Plan Amendments, re -zoning, annexation development agreements fees should be based on the size of the project, should be hourly without a cap; - Certificate of Compliance fees should be raised, rather than going down because of the complexity, - appeals are too low because it encourages people to appeal; - fees should be cumulative Patty Dailey, San Rafael merchant and Member of the Downtown Vision Group, submitted a letter explaining a recent conference at the California League of Cities Meeting. One of the items discussed was for cities to cut red tape, and lowering fees builds cities back up. She stated the Vision Committee has been working hard to encourage new business and present business owners to fix up their property. By increasing fees, it will discourage people from doing that. She pointed out that Mayor Boro and Elissa Giambastiani, Director of the Chamber of Commerce have been visiting local businesses to determine how to keep businesses in San Rafael, and raising the fees would not encourage anyone from coming in, let alone staying around. Mayor Boro stated that when he and Ms. Giambastiani have visited a business, to date they have not been told a company is leaving because of the fees charged by the City. Bob Holmes, Director of Governmental Relations of the Marin Association of Realtors, stated he does not agree that the fees should be higher. He urged the Council not adopt the Resolution as presented but instead to send it back for a more realistic appraisal. He pointed out that the economy has been and still is in a recession, and it will not come out with fee increases like these. He felt the statement in the staff report was totally inappropriate..."We have also seen an increase in public participation in the permit process. Neighborhood Associations now participate in Design Review Board Meetings. More people respond to public notices..." He stated it sounds as though the City is now going to charge for public participation and will make an applicant think twice about bringing anything forward. He also stated that even though the public hearing was noticed he believes that the majority of people have no clue this is happening tonight. He also suggested the Design Review Board be eliminated with two seats from the DRB added to the Planning Commission, with the seats designated for an architect or landscape architect. Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated that there was not enough notice given to her to notify members that this issue was being proposed. She stated one of the main reasons she is upset about this proposal is because the heart of the Downtown Vision is to encourage property owners to improve and beautify their property and to bring in new retailers. This proposal, however, is at odds with that. She stated the impact of these fees will be on the small business owners and homeowners, and that is not an enticement to encourage someone to improve their property. She asked if a project takes less time than the estimated fee, does the developer or homeowner get a refund. One of the most glaring items is the cost of taking something to the Planning Commission via the Design Review Board, which is a 210 percent increase. Ms. Giambastiani noted most businesses have not raised their prices at all within the past three years because of the recession, and certainly not 200 percent. If a business cannot raise prices, it has to lower how it is conducting business to become more efficient. She stated no one has ever questioned the amount or the quality of work the staff does, but asked if it is all necessary. Rather than comparing our rates with other cities, we should try to maintain our competitive edge. If we are trying to entice people to come into the downtown, it will not be accomplished by increasing fees. In terms of affordable housing, the fees can be waived, but if a developer wants to build a couple of units downtown which does not qualify for affordable housing, all of the fees are tacked on, so fees become greater and the project less affordable to begin with. Other ramifications are that some people may decide to do nothing, or an underground improvement program may develop where people decide to renovate without permits, creating a greater need for code enforcement. Ms. Giambastiani summed up that the fee increases are much too great and are detrimental to the revitalization of the downtown, and she recommended they not be adopted by Council tonight. Councilmember Zappetini asked if Ms. Giambastiani thought a by -hour charge would be feasible. She stated it might be feasible; the increases proposed are just too enormous. She also noted the Downtown Vision Committee is working so hard to try to revitalize the downtown, and everything the City does should be in that spirit. City Manager Nicolai stated she had asked all department heads to review their fees along with the concept of budget preparation. She noted the comparison to other jurisdictions was done because it is a question the Council always asks. She hoped that we do get complete buy -in from all of the stakeholders implementing the Downtown Vision, because not all of this relates to just the things we can do to create incen- tives; also at issue is rent charged by property owners which is often a bone of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 10 contention by perspective businesses. She stated that sometimes these fees are a "drop in the bucket" compared to some of the roles that some of the stakeholders could play as well. Mayor Boro stated that when making visits to local businesses, any referral to money as a reason for leaving has either been land costs or rental costs. He agreed with Ms. Giambastiani that the City has to do what it can to attract people, but it has to be a partnership with property owners. City fees cannot be a reason to get people here or the reason to have people move, but a function of doing business here. Herb Nienstedt, Marin Builders' Exchange, emphasized his concern regarding the business license fees and the relationship to unlicensed contractors. He noted it is important from the construction industry standpoint that this fee be vigorously enforced. He stated there are a lot of people from other communities coming in and doing the jobs at less than local businesses can offer because they circumvent the legitimate fees charged by the community. He stated the Builders' Exchange is not in favor of the increased fees. He also suggested that as the Police and Fire Departments go about their routine patrols to note any construction activity going on, indicate the addresses on a piece of paper and turn it into the Building Inspection Department so they can check to see if the proper licenses have been paid. He felt there is a lot of building activity going on on the weekends that is not going through the appropriate departments. Councilmember Cohen stated in some jurisdictions, when a building permit is applied for, all the subcontractors must be listed and they are checked for business licenses. Mario Ghilotti, San Rafael contractor, stated it is not fair to the local contractors to not check business licenses of subcontractors, and the City is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars by not collecting this money. Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Ghilotti is proposing that as a part of the permit process the contractor would list himself and all subcontractors, and before the work commenced, they would all have to have a business license. Mr. Ghilotti agreed, and emphasized that the City then needs to check each one to make sure they are licensed. He stated if the general contractor brings in somebody not on the list or without a license, both the general contractor and subcontractor should then be fined. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Pendoley stated, to answer Ms. Giambastiani's question, we do grant refunds. Also, if there is an "easy case", they will charge less. They also require a deposit on large cases so they can charge hourly, then refund anything not used. To address the issue of citizen participation, Mr. Pendoley stated indepth reports are necessary in order to document consistency with the General Plan. He stated he is most concerned about the impact on small business, noting more and more of those permits can be done at the staff level or at the Zoning Administrator level. He stated that a two-tiered design review has been suggested, which is also the recommendation of the Design Review Board and the Chamber of Commerce. Councilmember Cohen asked if Public Works is also going to be imposing fee increases. Assistant Public Works Director Strom stated there is no plan at this time. Mr. Cohen asked what percentage of the Planning Department budget is currently being spent on costs. Mr. Pendoley stated that roughly 60 percent is on current planning, and the remainder is on policy issues and long-range planning and code enforcement. Mr. Cohen noted there is approximately a 50 percent cost recovery of the current planning budget, and 40 percent on the department's overall budget. He felt it was not reasonable to charge current applicants for the cost of long-term planning, noting that is a community burden. Ms. Nicolai stated the Hughes-Heiss Report recommended elements of long-range planning should be supported by current planning fees. Mr. Pendoley stated that Hughes-Heiss recommended that about 60 percent cost recovery on current planning. Mr. Cohen stated he did not agree with Mr. Craiker regarding a fee of $1000 for appeals because it would then be so prohibitive that the rights of people would be denied. He felt, however, at some point the community needs to bear some of the burden because of the high standards we have set. Mr. Cohen stated he was not prepared to act on this tonight as presented because the design review process and Design Review Board need further consideration. He also had concerns regarding charging on an hourly basis and requested further study. He stated that raising fees seems to run counter to what the Downtown Vision is trying to do, and perhaps we should consider fee waivers or fee reductions in the downtown area where we are trying to encourage activity. The impact on housing should also be considered. Mr. Cohen suggested this issue be sent back to staff to address some of the questions that have been raised and hopefully find a solution that meets with broader support. Also, Mr. Cohen SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 11 stated we need to pursue the issue of contractor and subcontractor business licenses. Finance Director Coleman stated that we do make an effort to ensure contractors and subcontractors have a business license, noting we issue approximately 600 licenses to contractors each year. He stated at $40 per business license, it would take a lot to generate much revenue for the City. Councilmember Zappetini stated he is bothered by the fee comparison with other juris- dictions because San Rafael is unique, and the way that they do things and the way we do things is completely different. He stated if we are truly trying to bring business into the city, this will keep new business out of town and stop existing businesses from adding to their business. He felt many of the proposed fees are much too high, and stated he cannot support this recommendation as written. Councilmember Heller stated even if we accepted the proposed fee schedule, we would not realize as much money as we expect because building is very stagnant now, and we are very close to build -out. She asked that the Planning Department look at the File Management Fee which would be about $16,000 a year because computerization is absolutely necessary. She also felt the design review fees should be lower than proposed. Councilmember Thayer stated the staff report and the explanations were excellent. She recognized that there have not been any real increases in the past three years, and the Hughes-Heiss Report suggested we make up some of the lost revenue in fees, however, she feels a good argument has been made that we want to encourage new construction and renovation downtown. Building starts are up after a long recession, and she would not want to do anything to discourage that. She felt that some fee increase is in order, however, and asked that this issue go back to staff. Mayor Boro stated the discussion should begin with policy; what is the current level of planning rate, what is the long-term planning rate, how much of that do we want to recover, then what are we going to need to accomplish that as far as fees are concerned and how are we going to do it in a fair and equitable way. He also stated he thinks it is important that we look at other jurisdictions to see what fees they are charging and noted we should have a system in place to track time. He stated he feels people are very optimistic about downtown, and he does not think raising fees will discourage people from doing things. Councilmember Cohen stated that the economic projections as far as the construction industry and real estate markets are concerned, are going to be very gradual for the next year or two. To load up fees this year at the beginning of that slow climb might not be good timing. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to refer this item back to staff for further study. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Cohen requested a report from Finance Director of the process we use to track business licenses, especially for subcontractors. NEW BUSINESS CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 10. None. ADD ITEM: REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CATV -JPA (JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY) (CM) - File 9-7-4 Because Councilmember Zappetini cannot serve on the CATV -JPA, City Manager Nicolai requested an item be added to the agenda. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to add this item to the agenda on the grounds that the subject arose after the agenda for this meeting was posted. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to appoint Mayor Boro to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 12 serve on this committee, with Councilmember Heller as alternate. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the meeting at 10:55 PM and announced that the City Council was returning to Closed Session to discuss item 1c. After Closed Session discussion, the Council reconvened in Open Session, and City Attorney Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken. The meeting was adjourned at 11:34 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1994 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/16/94 Page 12