HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1995-05-15REVISED SRCC Minutes 5/15/95 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 15,1995, AT 8:00 PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember
David J. Zappetini, Councilmember
Absent: None
Others Present: Suzanne Golt, Assistant City Manager
Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session Item:
CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 201
1.Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code
Section 54957.6)
Negotiator: Suzanne Golt
Employee Organization: San Rafael Firefighters' Association
OPEN SESSION - 8:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mayor Boro reported that in Closed Session to discuss labor negotiations, no reportable action was taken.
CULTURAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION - File 9-2-24
Mayor Boro then announced that this evening the City Council had interviewed six candidates for the Cultural Affairs Commission,
and had reappointed Wilma Gibbons and Erwin Williams, and appointed Cynthia Pepper and Jonathan Toste to four-year terms.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following
Consent Calendar items:
ITEM
RECOMMENDED ACTION
2.Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 17, 1995 and
Special Meeting of May 1, 1995 (CC)
Approved as submitted.
3.Authorization to Call for Applications to Fill Two 4 -Year Terms
on the Planning Commission Due to Expiration of
Terms of Cyr N. Miller and Suzanne M. Scott as of End
of June, 1995 (CC)
- File 9-2-6
4.Authorization to Call for Applications to Fill One 4 -Year Term
on the Design Review Board Due to Expiration of Term
of Makoto Takashina as of End of June, 1995 (CC) -
File 9-2-39
5.Monthly Investment Report (Fin)
- File 8-18 x 8-9
Approved staff recommendation: a) Called for applications
w/deadline for receipt Tues., 6/6/95 @ 12:00 Noon in City
Clerk's Office, Room 209, City Hall; b) Set Spec. Meeting for
Monday, 6/19/95 at 6:00 PM in Conf. Rm. 201, to interview
applicants (incumbents and new applicants)
Approved staff recommendation: a) Called for applications; b)
Set deadline for receipt Tues., 6/6/95 at 12:00 Noon; c) Set
Special Meeting for Mon. 6/17/95 at 6:00 PM in Conference
Room 201, to interview applicants.
Accepted Report.
6.Resolution of Appreciation for Willie Lagleva, General ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9355 - RESOLUTION OF
Services Aide I Employee of the Quarter Ending March APPRECIATION FOR WILLIE LAGLEVA, EMPLOYEE OF
31, 1995 (CM) - File 102 x 7-4 THE QUARTER (1/1/95-3/31/95)
SRCC Minutes 5/15/95 Page 1
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5/15/95 Page 2
7.Resolution of Appreciation for George Walton, Member, ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9356 - RESOLUTION OF
Board of Library Trustees (Lib) - File 102 x 9-2-3 APPRECIATION FOR GEORGE WALTON, MEMBER,
x 9-3-61 BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES
9.Authorization to Call for Bids -Street
Approved staff recommendation.
Resurfacing Project -1995 (PW)
OF CONTRACT FOR THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FIRE
- File 4-1-475
STATION NO.6 - 650 DEL GANADO ROAD,
11.Resolution Extending Subdivision Agreement - San Pedro
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9357 - EXTENDING TIME
Cove Unit 2 (PW) - File 5-1-246
FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT WORK -
13.Resolution Extending Subdivision Agreement -
SAN PEDRO COVE UNIT 2 SUBDIVISION (18 Mon.
Resubdivision of Lands of Laurel Properties (PW)
extension to/incl. 12/18/1996)
12.Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract for
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9358 - AWARD
Construction of Fire Station No. 6, 650 Del Ganado Road
OF CONTRACT FOR THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FIRE
(PW)
STATION NO.6 - 650 DEL GANADO ROAD,
- File 4-1-473
SAN RAFAEL, CA.(To Bursch & Radu Construction, lowest
a Single Story Addition to a Single Family Residence
responsible bidder, amount of $801,174)
13.Resolution Extending Subdivision Agreement -
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9359 - EXTENDING TIME
Resubdivision of Lands of Laurel Properties (PW)
FOR COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT WORK -
- File 5-1-316
"SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF LAUREL PROPERTIES"
- File 10-5 x 10-7
(FAIRHILLS DRIVE AT IDLEWOOD PLACE - A
4 LOT SUBDIVISION) (EXTENDED TO AND INCLUDING
MAY 18,1996)
15.Approval of Resolution of Appreciation for Nancy ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9360 - RESOLUTION OF
Novack, Police Intern Counselor, Youth Services Unit APPRECIATION FOR NANCY NOVACK, POLICE INTERN
(PD) COUNSELOR, YOUTH SERVICES UNIT
- File 102 x 9-3-30
16.Resolution Denying the Appeal of the Planning
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9361 - DENYING THE
Commission's Decision Upholding Zoning
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION
Administrator's Approval of an Environmental and
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
Design Review Permit for a Second Story Addition to
APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN
a Single Story Addition to a Single Family Residence
REVIEW PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO
and a Setback Exception/Design Review Permit for a
A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A SETBACK
One -Car Garage (ED94-105 and UP94-61) at 26
EXCEPTION/DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A ONE -CAR
Wildwood Way (PI)
GARAGE ED94-105 AND UP94-61) AT 26 WILDWOOD
- File 10-5 x 10-7
WAY; JOHN & MARIE STICKLE, APPELLANTS; ALBERT
BIANCHI, REPRESENTATIVE; GEORGE AND MICHELE
HUFF, OWNERS; COLLEEN MURPHY,
REPRESENTATIVE; AP 10-121-05 (W/3 Revised
Conditions)
17.Legislature Affecting San Rafael (CM)
Approved staff recommendation: SUPPORTED SB949
- File 9-1
(Watson) Medi -Cal: Program Funding Allocations
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Councilmember Phillips, from the Minutes of
April 17, 1995 only, due to absence from meeting.
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion:
8.APPROVAL OF PARKING LOT CLOSURE AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOOTENS AND THIRD ON SUNDAY, JUNE 25,
1995 FOR A SKATEBOARD EVENT (RA) - File 11-19x 104
Councilmember Zappetini stated he had a question about the insurance, since he did not see anything in the staff report about the
limits, and if there are any are they adequate enough to protect the City? Katie Korzun, Senior Planner, Redevelopment
Agency, explained that the insurance would be the standard rider on the insurance policies which we have for all of our other
events. She added that the City Attorney will review the issue of the limits; the rider has not yet been written. It will be a
rider either for MIYO (Marin Interfaith Youth Outreach) or San Rafael Rotary, or one of the other sponsoring organizations, so
SRCC Minutes 5/15/95 Page 2
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 3
it will meet our requirements.
Councilmember Zappetini inquired if we have coverage for a person on his way to and from the event? Assistant City Manager
Suzanne Golt stated that to her knowledge we do not have that coverage, but they will look into it. She noted the same
principle could apply to any event. On the question of whether we cover the participants to and from, to her knowledge we
do not, but staff will check it to be sure.
Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the closure of the parking lot.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
10.RESOLUTION OF INTENTION RE: UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY OF "A" STREET FROM THIRD
TO THE BEGINNING OF THE FUTURE ANDERSEN DRIVE EXTENSION, AND SECOND AND THIRD STREETS
BOUNDED BY,"E" STREET ON THE WEST AND BROOKS STREET ON THE EAST (PW) - File 6-51
Councilmember Zappetini stated that he will abstain from the vote on this item, since he is disqualified due to conflict of interest.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution as recommended by staff:
RESOLUTION NO. 9362 - RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER PUBLIC NECESSITY,
HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE REQUIRES THE FORMATION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT IN THE
VICINITY OF "A" STREET, SECOND AND THIRD STREETS (And setting a Public Hearing for June 19,1995)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Councilmember Zappetini (due to conflict of interest).
145URTHER REPORT ON SORRENTO WAY (PW/PD) - File 2-12
Councilmember Heller noted that a letter has been received from "Sorrento Way Neighbors", and wondered if staff has looked into
the issues mentioned in the letter, including the lighting, the placement of the poles, and the pruning of the trees.
Public Works Director David Bernardi responded that staff has no problem with the requests and, in fact, staff had planned to do
most of what they have requested.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution as recommended by staff.
Under question, Councilmember Zappetini inquired if, since part of the recommendation requires expenditure of funds, does it
increase the amount of expenditure? Mr. Bernardi replied that it does not.
RESOLUTION NO. 9363 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF $2,885.00 FROM UNAPPROPRIATED
RESERVES TO UPGRADE STREET LIGHTING ON SORRENTO WAY
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
18.PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO: - File 102
a.WILLIE LAGLEVA, GENERAL SERVICES AIDE I, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING
MARCH 31,1995
Mayor Boro presented the Resolution of Appreciation to Mr. Lagleva and thanked him on behalf of the City of San Rafael for his
exemplary performance of his duties.
b.GEORGE WALTON, MEMBER, BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 3
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 4
Mayor Boro presented the Resolution of Appreciation to Mr. Walton for his ten years service on the Library Board of Trustees and
his work on the Downtown Vision Committee.
19.PUBLIC HEARING - BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APPEAL OF BUILDING OFFICIAL'S ENFORCEMENT OF STATE
MANDATED DISABLED ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS AT 1050 NORTHGATE DRIVE; AP 178-240-20, G. A. HECKSCHER,
REPRESENTATIVE (PI) - File 13-1-1
Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and asked for a report from staff.
Public Works Director Bernardi briefed the Council, explaining that they are sifting as the Board of Appeals tonight to consider a
proposal made by D.R. Bryan & Company, the asset management firm for the building located at 1050 Northgate Drive. He
stated that typically when a building permit is received by the Public Works Department for tenant improvements it triggers the
requirement for handicapped accessibility improvements. Because there are small spaces within that large building which
would be improved, only a very small incremental part of accessibility is being accomplished.
D.R. Bryan & Company is proposing that they spend more than their 20%, subject to them being allowed to "bank" that 20% on
other small tenant improvements which would be under $25,000 as State regulations allow. They are proposing to install a
new front door which will meet the current ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. That cost will be about
$16,000, and that will allow about $80,000 of work to take place within the confines of the building itself. Mr. Bernardi added
that the Public Works Department staff will keep track of those costs. This proposal has been reviewed by the City's
consultant, Kim Blackseth, and he concurs with it heartily. Staff is recommending that after hearing testimony the Council,
sifting as the Board of Appeals, grant the appeal and instruct staff to prepare an appropriate Resolution.
There being no public input, the Public Hearing was closed.
Councilmember Phillips noted that staff had mentioned that the City would keep track of the costs, and asked how time-consuming
that would be. Mr. Bernardi explained that when a building permit is applied for, there is an evaluation of work and, in the
course of processing that permit application, it is a matter of checking the files to see what other work has been done. It is not
very time consuming. Also, we do it for other buildings as well, because we are mandated to do it.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to grant the appeal and direct staff to prepare an
appropriate Resolution to be brought back to the next meeting.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
20.PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW
PERMIT (ED94-88) FOR THIRTEEN TOWNHOUSE UNITS 1120 MISSION AVENUE, AP 11-172-26; JOSEPH
CARAMUCCI, APPELLANT; WESTAMERICA BANK PROPERTIES, OWNERS; ROBERT BLUMENFELD AND MARK
LEVIN, REPRESENTATIVES (PI) - File 10-7
Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing.
Planning Director Pendoley explained to the Council that this is an appeal from an approval by the Planning Commission for a
design review permit for a 13 -unit townhouse project on Mission Avenue, on what is presently a parking lot for WestAmerica
Bank. It is directly across the street from the back of St. Raphael's Church. He explained that this action was taken by the
Planning Commission on March 14, 1995, when they were considering the recommendation from the Design Review Board
(DRB) to deny the project. In the course of their hearing the Planning Commission determined that the project was consistent
with the General Plan, and approved it.
Mr. Pendoley explained that in his report he will give a brief description of the project, describe what staff believes was the principal
issue in contention, and then very briefly summarize a portion of staffs response to the points under appeal. There will also
be site photographs.
Mr. Pendoley described the proposal, stating it would consist of 13 units approximately 1,050 sq. ft. each, with 500 sq. ft. tandem
parking garages. The units would be in three buildings, with two of the buildings being in the front, facing on Mission Avenue,
and the larger building toward the back of the property, with approximately a 25 ft. separation between them. Between the
buildings there will be access for automobiles and pedestrians. It is a courtyard which would be used to access parking
garages. The setback from the street is approximately 9 ft. from behind the sidewalk on Mission. The rear building is set
back about 7 ft. from the rear property line. Between the two front buildings there is a pedestrian access -way which would be
accessible from Mission Avenue to improve pedestrian access to the building. Mr. Pendoley added that the three buildings
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 4
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 5
are all wood frame construction with a maximum height of 27 ft. from existing grade, as measured by the Uniform Building
Code (UBC). Actually, the height from the sidewalk adjacent to Mission Avenue would vary from 36 to 38 ft. from the sidewalk
to the tops of the buildings.
Mr. Pendoley explained that the principal issue which was addressed by the DRB, and was also considered by the Planning
Commission, was the scale. He noted that in the staff report they had attempted to summarize the DRB's findings by
explaining what the elements of scale include. In this case the principal issue is massing, which has to do with the overall size
of the building. Mr. Pendoley noted that the perception of massing can be affected by the way a building sits on the property.
Mr. Pendoley noted that the DRB had concerns about a number of other details of the design. They had reservations about
tandem parking, concerns about the amount of private open space, and the basic style of the building. He pointed out that
each of those issues are discussed in the staff report, and elaborated on in detail in the minutes of the DRB.
Mr. Pendoley stated that in this case staff did not make a recommendation to the Planning Commission, but rather explained to
them that consistency with General Plan requirements for scale was a matter of degree and that the Planning Commission has
great discretion in that regard. Staff also explained that the Commission can consider other advantages or negatives of the
project, and their consistency with the General Plan. Staff suggested to the Commission that in this case there was probably a
balancing issue which needed to be decided: Did the housing benefits of this project, which are substantial, providing entry
level market rate ownership housing and somewhat larger than rental apartment units which could be built downtown, do these
benefits outweigh or fairly balance with the issues of scale?
Mr. Pendoley reported that the Planning Commission, after considering all of the testimony, found that by a vote of 4-0 with 2
members absent and 1 seat vacant, that the project was consistent with the General Plan. They did, however, in their
approval, ask for a number of changes to the project's design in order to mitigate impacts of scale. They were particularly
concerned about pedestrian scale. He noted that the mitigation measures are explained in the staff report. The Commission
asked that the retaining wall on Mission Avenue be stepped back to reduce the apparent height as viewed by the pedestrian.
They also asked for increase in the size of the center stairway, which would have the visual affect of appearing to further
separate the buildings. Mr. Pendoley added that the Commission, in making its decision, also considered the Vision for
Downtown. He noted that the staff report analyzed all of the principles in the Vision which could affect this property. Most of
them relate closely to the General Plan.
With regard to the appeal, Mr. Pendoley stated it could be broken down into six major areas. He stated he would highlight a
couple of the points to which staff responded, since they will probably be relevant in the course of this hearing. First, the
appeal stated there was inadequate visual analysis, and that story poles were not placed on the site with adequate public
notice. He stated that is true. Staff had the story poles placed for one day for analysis by staff. We took photographs, and
they will be shown shortly. He noted the City does not have a policy requiring story poles, but hearing bodies and the DRB
frequently ask for them. The appeal stated that the project would obstruct views of the Mission buildings, Mt. Tamalpais and
the surrounding hillsides, and other relevant points, for both the first and second stories of the units immediately behind on
Laurel Place. Based on engineering and architectural data which was presented, it appears to be adequate, and have
recommended accordingly to the Planning Commission. The appeal speaks to lack of open space due to minimal setbacks,
and in the staff report it is pointed out the fact that the rear property line exceeds the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Pendoley noted that the second major area of the appeal has to do with compliance or noncompliance with the Condominium
Ordinance standards. He explained it is true that a number of exceptions to the Condominium Ordinance have been
proposed. However, these exceptions have been granted on other projects in the Downtown area, and particularly for smaller
projects where staff has recommended, and the Council and Commission have agreed, do not have the scale which is
appropriate to meet those standards. The third major area of the appeal letter has to do with consistency with the General
Plan. Staff has provided an extensive analysis and explained the findings of the Planning Commission. Mr. Pendoley stated
that the fourth major area had to do with traffic analysis. The appellant has stated that the traffic analysis is flawed. However,
this analysis was prepared by a registered traffic engineer and reviewed by the City's traffic engineer. Mr. Pendoley noted that
the appellant has not prepared data, so he is unable to make a response. He noted that a series of issues was brought up
relating to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), and staff has responded to them in the staff report. There were also a
number of procedural detail questions, to which staff has responded.
Mr. Pendoley reported that last Wednesday he received a supplementary letter from the appellant's consultant. The points were
substantially the same as in the original letter, except that they were made very concisely. One point which might be
discussed had to do with the concern that the application may be incomplete. He explained that it has been the City's practice
over the past few years, particularly in the case of condominiums, to simply process an application for design review with an
analysis of relevant condominium issues. Then, if the design review permit passes, the applicant is invited to submit the other
supporting applications. It is a way to streamline the process for both the public side of the equation, and the private applicant.
Mr. Pendoley then showed some slides which were taken when the story poles were in place. The slides showed views from all
sides of the site, from the corners and from the street; also from the properties to the rear of the site.
Major Boro asked how high the story poles were, and Mr. Pendoley replied they were 36 to 38 ft.
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 5
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 6
In closing, Mr. Pendoley stated that the Planning Commission had carefully considered the comments of the DRB, and added that
staff would recommend that the Planning Commission acted well within their discretion in recommending approval, and staff
feels they had the information before them to support their findings. Staff is recommending that the Council deny the appeal.
Councilmember Zappetini noted that during the presentation Mr. Pendoley had said the height of the buildings was 27 ft., and later
said that the story poles were 38 ft. He noted that the elevations the Council has show 31 ft. Mr. Pendoley explained the
height he spoke of was as it is measured by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). That method considers the slope of the
property and if there is a gable roof they will split that slope. He stated that what is more relevant is that the maximum height of
the building is measured from the sidewalk on Mission Avenue, which is 36 to 38 ft. At its lowest, you take 7 ft. off that and you
have 31 ft. Councilmember Zappetini noted that on the west elevation of the courtyard on this plan, on the interior of the
courtyard it shows the low point to be 31 ft. Associate Planner Louise Patterson explained that the east elevation was
dropped 7 ft., on the front building, and the gable is continued all the way across the building. Councilmember Zappetini noted
that shows 31 ft. now, and Ms. Patterson stated that is correct, and it is at the rear. Councilmember Zappetini asked for an
explanation of the 27 ft. Ms. Patterson explained the method of measuring with the UBC method, which is completely different
than measuring from the ground.
Mayor Boro asked for a presentation from the appellant.
Ms. Anne Moore, planning consultant, stated she has been assisting Mr. Caramucci since he filed his appeal. She noted that in
the material she submitted there are many concerns about the proposed project. She stated that Mr. Caramucci is not
opposed to development of the site, nor is he opposed to affordable residential development there. His concerns, like those of
the DRB members, derive from the particular design offered by the project proponents. She stated that both she and Mr.
Caramucci have been active in promoting affordable housing in the Bay Area. Her concerns are about consistency with the
General Plan and with Our Vision for Downtown, and about the multiple variances from the Zoning Ordinance and exceptions
to the Condominium Ordinance, all of which derive from the project's design; not its land use, nor its affordability. She stated
she understands the project is not to include the condominium/subdivision applications, but it is unusual for the companion
variances required under the Zoning Ordinance to not be part of the environmental review process. Ms. Moore stated that the
wide ranging support for this project, she believes, has more to do with its concept, rather than the design particulars with
which she is so concerned. She noted that the support letter from the Marin Conservation League specifically states that they
will not comment on the adequacy of the design.
Ms. Moore pointed out that the north side of Mission Avenue is an important transitional area from the urban downtown core and
the medium to low density San Rafael Hill portion of the Lincoln neighborhood. She noted that during the four times the DRB
discussed, and essentially rejected, this project, they always came back to the central question about this project - is it
appropriately designed in relation to the surrounding area? She noted that in General Plan RES -1, it refers to "harmoniously
integrated into existing neighborhoods in terms of density, intensity and design". She noted that with the DRB the real issue
was massing. Regarding the Fifth/Mission Vision concept, the original staff report to the Planning Commission stated that the
project may not be in scale with the existing neighborhood. She stated that Mr. Caramucci's family, and many of the
neighbors, agree. They are also concerned about the circulation and parking deficiencies, and the related lack of common
and private usable outdoor open area. She noted that tandem parking is difficult at all times, but particularly so in tight,
enclosed quarters such as these garages. These garages would not meet the spacial dimensions of the Zoning Ordinance
and would require variances. She stated there is not adequate parking in this neighborhood currently, and she questioned the
justification for inadequate guest parking, and for placing what guest parking is proposed in what should be landscaped side
yard.
Ms. Moore stated that the neighbors, the Council, and the Planning Commission have not been able to view the story poles for the
entire proposed project; not just the few poles installed for staffs benefit in December, but showing all corners of the three
buildings, and the heights on the roofs. She stated she has not been able to really coordinate with the applicant regarding that
information, and she is unsure of the projects's relationship to the buildings on Laurel Place, behind this site, including the
house owned by Mr. Caramucci. She stated they do not believe that three story buildings on top of 4 feet of fill, with minimal
setbacks from the street, is what the City truly envisioned for Mission Avenue in the General Plan or in Our Vision for
Downtown. She noted that Boyd Court is only two stories high on the Mission Avenue frontage, and that is on the other side
of Mission.
In closing, Ms. Moore stated that this design does not meet the City's usual high standard for quality design, or for consistency with
the General Plan or Our Vision for Downtown, which is not yet adopted policy. If the project is not rejected outright, she asked
that the City at least install story poles to assist all parties involved in evaluating the project's massing and relationship to
surrounding properties, and to assist in, at least, redesigning this massive project.
Mayor Boro asked the applicants to make a presentation.
Mr. Mark Levin, one of the project proponents, stated that this is a project which his partner, Bob Blumenfeld, and he have worked
on together for the last year and a half, and they wish to build it to become part of this community. He stated they both share
with the belief of many others in this community that the people who work in the community should also have the right to live in
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 6
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 7
that same community. He noted that unfortunately in San Rafael, and in Marin County, that has increasingly not been the
case. He stated their vision for this site was to create quality, market rate, entry level housing, close to downtown, for people
who work within this community. He stated it was not an easy challenge. He pointed out that 14 years ago a project was
proposed at 820 Mission and the City took them through three redesigns. Since that time, another for -sale, market rate,
townhouse project has not been proposed for downtown San Rafael. He stated they felt very fortunate to be able to retain
Donald MacDonald as the architect, who nationally has championed the cause of housing for many years and has had
extensive experience and received many awards, in creating this type of townhouse project. He noted this project was
approved unanimously by the Planning Commission, and they wish to build it. They accepted all of the conditions. They
strongly believe this project is right for Mission Avenue and right for Downtown, and right for San Rafael in the larger
community. He noted it is an in -fill project, two blocks from the center of downtown, close to public transportation and is in a
neighborhood which is made up of a majority of rental apartments, interspersed with single family residences. He stated they
view this project as a very small step in providing housing for people who work within this community. He noted that the
project has been recommended for approval by the staff, the Chamber of Commerce, the Vision Committee, the Citizens
Advisory Committee for Redevelopment; it was a very large step for the Marin Conservation League to endorse this project.
He pointed out that when Mr. Caramucci purchased his property on Laurel Place, the height limit on this site was 50 ft. He
stated that the Vision document seemed to be an invitation to begin this process. He noted they are proposing to build
townhouses which will be sold in the low $200,000 range, making these homes accessible to people who are employed in and
around San Rafael and want to own homes near their work, but earn too much money to qualify for the affordable housing
which has been built in San Rafael. He noted this is the first, and only market rate housing project proposed for San Rafael in
many years. He noted they are not asking the City to make monetary contributions to the project. They have redesigned and
modified this project many times, working with staff and the DRB and Commission, so it will be harmonious with the existing
neighborhood and still maintain their goal of market rate housing. He stated this is their third design, and their construction
drawings will incorporate all the conditions set by the Planning Commission, including additional lowering of the height.
Mr. Levin pointed out that if they wanted to build efficiency apartments they could come up with a different design, but they want to
do ownership housing. He read quotes from the Vision document regarding achieving the community dream.
Mayor Boro asked Mr. Levin could he answer Councilmember Phillips' question about the ultimate height. Mr. Pendoley
explained the question to Mr. Levin, stating that when he had shown the story poles and explained that the southeast corner
would drop 7 ft., the question was, what is the relationship between the poles and the highest point of the roof, the gabled
peaks?
Mr. Donald MacDonald, project architect, explained that the story poles were at the flat roof part of the building. As you looked at
the building with your back to Mission, the right side of the building was lower. He noted there are three buildings, so they
each are a different height. Within the flat roofs there are some peak portions, and they are about 8 ft. wide and 3 or 4 ft. high.
There are also a couple on the back. Basically these are flat roof buildings with embellishments in certain locations.
Councilmember Phillips accepted the explanation, and added that on Schematic II, is that the scale with regard to the shrubbery
and the surrounding buildings? Mr. MacDonald replied they are drawn to scale, and explained the rendering, which depicts the
scale in relationship to the buildings at either side, with articulation taken from the vocabulary of the buildings at either side. He
added that they had omitted the trees in the front so you could see the buildings. He added that the trees in front will be
preserved.
Mayor Boro asked for a show of hands from the audience, for persons wishing to speak. He stated everyone can have 3 minutes,
and asked that they refrain from repetition of issues already mentioned.
Mr. Joe Walsh, a publisher, and member of the Chamber of Commerce Affordable Housing Committee, stated everyone is in favor
of affordable housing but opposed to it when it comes to a specific location. He stated the City is losing businesses due to the
lack of affordable housing, and we need much more.
Ms. Sandy Goldman stated she does not like Boyd Court because of the color and the fact that it obstructs the view of Mt.
Tamalpais. She stated she likes the small town feeling of San Rafael. She is in favor of this process, but would like central
San Rafael to be for tourists and the theater. She stated this is a handsome development and is an interesting combination of
traditional style and modern architecture, and she hopes the Council approves it.
Mr. Fred Divine, local architect and property owner who also participated in the Vision process, stated that this project is what the
Vision is looking for. Housing was an important consideration in the Vision. He noted this is a difficult project, because of the
scale and mass. He pointed out the DRB were not in favor of it, but he does not have any trouble with it. Many of the
buildings in this area are close to the street, just as high and just as wide. He stated this is part of the scale of that
neighborhood. The buildings behind this site are tall, and this is cut into the hill as much as they could with a building like this.
He stated that scale and mass are not an issue, and he urged approval.
Dr. Eric Scher, resident of Laurel Place, stated he differs on the issue of scale. He stated he attended all of the DRB meetings
pertaining to this project, and feels that the process has not worked for him. He stated he was involved in the discussions on
Boyd Court, and they were successful. He noted the DRB clearly rejected this project for many reasons, only one of which
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 7
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 8
was the scale. He stated Mr. Pendoley attempted to make this a policy issue during those meetings, which they clearly
rejected once again and said this is a DRB issue. He stated that in conversation with Mr. Pendoley, he had said he was
aware the DRB did not believe that scale was the only issue, but this was his interpretation of their conclusion. He stated we
need to be more objective in this process. The community is asking that the City Council be objective in their decision right
now. He stated the only reason he is involved in this is because he really expected the process to work. He respected the
DRB's decision, and that was the reason that Boyd Court moved ahead. The DRB was quoted on many issues about that
project. He stated we need to be able to trust how the City works and how the process goes. He urged that the Council read
the DRB's comments in the minutes and talk to some of the DRB members.
Mr. Rob Simon stated he is present as a San Rafael resident, as well as the current chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the
Redevelopment Agency. He reported that when Mr. Blumenfeld brought this project before the Redevelopment Agency
Advisory Committee they were unanimously excited about the project and felt that it fit in with the Vision, and the market rate
housing issue was addressed well. He noted the Committee had a letter on file urging the Council to approve the project.
Mr. Simon said he lives, works, shops and plays in San Rafael, and cannot afford to buy here. He stated we need more
projects like this, and urged the Council to deny the appeal.
Mr. Jim Meyers, owner of 1105 Mission, directly across the street from this site, stated he has concern about the safety of the
citizens of this City. He explained that at this time the City has directed most of the traffic up Mission Avenue in front of this
project. He stated if there was a stop sign located at Wilkins, going both ways, there is a possibility of slowing the traffic. The
cars go by at 30 to 35 miles per hour, and they have no stop lights from Lincoln until they go all the way to the school. There
will be safety issues with the added number of units. He stated he heartily supports approval of the project, but he wishes the
Council could look at putting at least one more stop sign at Wilkins. That would slow down the traffic in the area, and make it
easier to get in and out of the driveway. This would bean appropriate time to do it.
Mr. John Cartwright of 243 Laurel Place, behind and to the east of this property, stated he is concerned about the number of units
in that very small space. He has had his house on Laurel Place since 1977, and is concerned with the impact on his view.
The buildings are directly in line with his view of the Mission and he is afraid they will obstruct his view. He added he is
concerned about the height, and no one has been able to state just what the height is. He is concerned that when it gets built
it will be higher than planned, and by that time it will be too late to do anything about it. He is also concerned about all of the
variances which apparently have been granted, from both codes and from condominium requirements. He asked, why do we
have all these codes and requirements if there is a way around them? He stated that if someone wants to build something on
that site which meets all of the codes and all the requirements and regulations, and which does not need variances or waivers,
he would have no objection to it.
Mr. Bob Grimes who has been a real estate broker for 32 years in Marin County and a Marin County resident for 33 years, stated
he has raised 5 children and has 11 grandchildren in this area, and he is here because he is concerned that this may be an
opportunity lost, to provide additional housing for home ownership. He stated that the Planning Commission also in their
approval of the project stated that "..our Vision for Downtown San Rafael has been accepted and it is expected to affect
changes. This type of development should be encouraged". Also, the Commission agreed that "..this type of housing is
needed in the Downtown and is exactly what our Vision calls for, especially principles of the Fifth/Mission District". He asked
that the Council follow their Vision and deny the appeal.
Mr. John Wilson of 1130 Mission Avenue, next door to this site, in the former Coleman House, stated they were surprised when
they heard that 13 units were going on the site. He stated he could understand building a couple of houses. He expressed
concern for the deer who come behind his house looking for food and walk right through the area where these units are to be
built. A lot of wildlife will be impacted. He stated this is a maximum number of units, and would prefer there would be a little
room left in the area.
Mr. Jay Tillotson, a 28 -year resident of San Rafael, is opposed to development and growth. He stated that people want to come to
Marin from all over the country. He noted that in the last 20 years the population has increased by 10% and the auto reg-
istrations have increased by 62% and the jobs have increased by 100%. He stated he has two sons who were educated
locally and are now professionals. They cannot afford to live in Marin County even though they would like to. He stated it is
important to remember in these discussions, that what is driving this project is the value of the land. He noted in the
correspondence remarks about this project lowering the property values. He stated the property value is there, and is just as
much in this piece of ground as in the ground surrounding it. He stated that, with all the discussion of the Mission, there is no
Mission. We had a winter like this year's 150 years ago, and the existing Mission San Rafael melted. Subsequently, a
beautiful redwood Victorian church, painted white, was built in its place. However, it burned down. We now have a 20th
century church which has no relation to Mission architecture and has dubious architectural merit. Mr. Tillotson stated he
would like to stop growth, but he knows he cannot stop change. Marin County is going through change, and whenever any
development goes through there will be some people adversely affected. The question for the Council to decide is, is this
project a benefit to the community as a whole, and does that outweigh any minor inconveniences it might have to those who
are objecting to it.
Ms. Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated that in February the Chamber sent a
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 8
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 9
letter to the Planning Commission, enthusiastically supporting this project because the lack of work force housing has become
such a critical business issue. Mr. Caramucci knows how difficult it is to achieve affordable housing, particularly without any
government financing and this project has none. There is increasing pressure from environmental groups to provide in -fill
housing, and not to build anywhere which has not been built. This project has been redesigned three times, and has already
cost the developer 11 months and $100,000, and this project was supposed to be "fast tracked". She stated that if it has to be
redesigned again, the project is dead. This area is already filled with apartment buildings and multiple units, and this is a very
appropriate place for condos. She urged the Council to deny the appeal.
Ms. Jean Taylor, 32 -year resident and homeowner in San Rafael, stated she is currently serving as the chair of the Commission on
Homelessness and also serves on the San Rafael Advisory Board on Homeless Projects. She stated that about two years
ago there was an Economic Conference held in the County, and they were urging all of the cities and towns to bring the people
back to the centers of the towns. She stated we need to urbanize, and have people living close by who can walk in and use
the stores and restaurants, and to the theater when it is open. She stated this is a perfect location, and an opportunity to meet
the demands for appropriate housing at this level. She commended both the Planning Commission and the Council for having
supported the Boyd Court apartments and #1 H Street. They fill particular needs, and this project will fill another need. She
only wishes it could have been more than 13 units. She urged that the Council support the Planning Commission and deny
the appeal.
Mr. Roger Smith noted he was before the Council a couple of weeks ago as co-chair of the Downtown Advisor Group (DTAG).
He stated he is very familiar with the Vision and what it says, and he feels that a point that the DRB may have missed is that we
can use more urban -oriented standards in working downtown. He stated that urbanization means that our projects can have
more density and house a few more people per square foot, and be a little taller. He stated the Vision said we should make a
development like this one possible. The Vision also encourages change as a way to revitalize downtown; however that
cannot allow change to happen unless we allow things which are different from what exists already. He noted that the
applicants have taken extraordinary efforts to make this project fit into the neighborhood, and he feels they have done about all
they can possibly do, and have addressed most of the concerns people have had. He stated that the Planning Commission
understood that this project is an important step for downtown San Rafael and saw the need to support projects which step
outside of conventional suburban standards. He stated that denying this project would send the wrong signals to others who
are considering projects in downtown San Rafael. He urged the Council to support the project and deny the appeal.
Ms. Mary Yeager, executive director of the North Bay Council, a business coalition representing businesses in Marin and Sonoma
counties, stated that as employers, the members of the North Bay Council are increasingly concerned about the inability of
their employees to find homes they can afford and still be near their jobs. She pointed out that businesses as well as
residents are affected as households migrate further and further away from the work site. There is pressure for salaries to
accommodate housing costs, and employee turnover and dissatisfaction increase, with the traffic congestion on long
commutes. She stated more affordable housing is needed to restore our competitive business climate. She stated that in
Marin there are not near enough moderately prices new homes to fill the demand, and urged the Council to deny the appeal.
Mr. Michael Gordon, vice-president of corporate real estate at Fair Issac, stated that housing opportunities for large employers is
something that they have been looking at. He stated that 54% of Fair Issac employees live outside of Marin and must
commute every day, disintegrating their quality of life, and Fair Issac's opportunity to hire these employees and keep them.
He stated that this project would offer employees an alternative, to live here and be an asset to the community. He stated that
they consider their San Rafael employees the backbone of their business, and he hopes the City will see them as the
backbone of their future.
Mr. Calvin Wolcott of 1108 Mission Avenue, directly adjacent to the property being discussed, read from a prepared statement and
distributed copies. He also asked for permission to make a 10 -minute presentation, since he had not been aware of the time
limit, and Mayor Boro agreed.
Mr. Wolcott stated there is little, if any, disagreement among San Rafael's planners and advisors that this project is completely out
of scale and character with the present residential neighborhood between Wilkins Place and B Street. Not only is there a long
list of current building regulations that would require variances, but the San Rafael DRB, in its rejection of the project by a 4-1
margin, is on record as considering the design to represent a whole new standard for the Downtown. Mr. Wolcott quoted
DRB members: Ed Trapolin, "...This is a three story building on a T wall, and (1) am concerned about the massing and scale.
This does not approach the character of the neighborhood". Richard Olmsted, "...if this is right then everything else is going to
go away ... ;"...were we to support this project, would we be in effect setting a whole new standard for Downtown? (I feel) the
answer is Yes..."
Mr. Wolcott stated he would therefore address his remarks to two arguments that have been used to justify such a radical change
in policy: 1) that the Vision Statement, as already approved by the City Council, calls for the implementation of projects such as
this; and 2) that this project carries no cost to the City of San Rafael.
Mr. Wolcott first addressed the Vision Statement, noting that several people who spoke in favor of the ED94-88 at the Planning
Board (Commission) meeting (and again tonight), claimed that this high density project is exactly in line with the intent of the
authors of the Vision Statement and therefore already had the tacit support of the people of San Rafael via the approval of the
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 9
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 10
Vision Statement by the City Council. He stated he does not know the intent of the authors, but he does know that the Vision
Statement in its written form, as approved by this Council and distributed to him and to other citizens of this town, contains
numerous safeguards that our neighborhoods and homes would be protected against intrusive developments of this sort. The
document contains clearly stated goals such as: "Preserve the pleasing scale and character of the District by ... respecting the
low scale and profile of existing development"; "Maximize the wonderful views of Mt. Tam and the surrounding hillsides". Mr.
Wolcott pointed out that such safeguards were read by him, and he is sure by many other concerned citizens, as promises by
this Council that the development and growth of the Downtown would be balanced by a sensitivity for the character and quality
of existing neighborhoods - that the new would enhance, not destroy, the old. Mr. Wolcott stated that with regard to this
particular project, the Vision Statement is at best a neutral document, presenting issues but not solutions.
Mr. Wolcott then addressed the cost issues, stating that one aspect of this project that delighted some members of the Planning
Commission was that, being a private project, it involved no cost to the City of San Rafael. He stated that, unfortunately, this is
not the full picture. There are several costs to the project, and they are all being paid by the current homeowners in this small
neighborhood. Mr. Wolcott first pointed out Loss of Neighborhood Character. He stated everyone agrees that the private,
residential, pedestrian character of this neighborhood will be lost. One Planning Commission member suggested that the
placement of attractive stones and colorful flowers along the Mission Avenue sidewalk would distract the casual pedestrian
from this "three story building on a 7' wall" looming at his elbow, but Mr. Wolcott added he doubts that the Commissioner took
himself seriously. He stated that a building this massive means a new look for Mission.
Mr. Wolcott next addressed Loss of Views and Privacy, stating that the proximity of a 40' wall, 20 feet from the west side his house,
means the end of both views and privacy for him and his wife. He noted that several of the Councilmembers have visited his
home, and know first-hand the impact this will have on panoramic views of the Mission San Rafael and Mt. Tam, as well as the
loss of privacy for the garden deck that has served happily as the "soul" of his private and social life for many years.
Regarding Loss of Value, Mr. Wolcott stated that the future is always uncertain, but it is hard to imagine that this project could in
any way enhance the value of his home; it probably will have an adverse effect. He noted that the architect for this project
stated, in an unguarded moment at the last hearing, "This house might eventually come down". Mr. Wolcott stated he does
not know what time frame the architect had in mind, but he just had a new set of 40 -year shingles put on his roof. He stated
this is his home, not an investment property, and he hopes to enjoy it for many years to come.
Mr. Wolcott concluded by stating that this is not a remote happening for him like the loss of a tree, however magnificent. He stated
that when he goes home at night, this is the home he "goes home" to. These views, sunsets, brunches "al fresco", are part of
the core of his life, and he hopes he has conveyed that to the Council. He stated that the prospective homeowners will have
their new homes, the merchants will have their new customers, the City will have its taxes, and the bank and developers will
have their profit - but the residents of this small neighborhood will be paying a heavy price. There is a perception of injustice
here that has not been addressed as
yet, and he is counting on the Council to correct that perception and deal with this question in the light of all the costs as well as
benefits involved.
Mr. Wolcott showed computerized pictures, superimposed on the elevations, and stated he had tried to do his own story pole
sketch of where the front section of the building will be as seen from his West window. The developers did not permit him to
put the story poles on their property, so he put them on the brick walkway. He stated the height he has shown is a
conservative one, and pointed out that it cuts out the view of the bell tower, Mt. Tam and the surrounding hills.
Councilmember Zappetini asked how high are his story pole sketches, and Mr. Wolcott responded they are 20 ft. high. They
wanted to go higher, but could not handle it.
Mayor Boro noted the hearing has gone on for an hour and a half, and unless there is something which has not been presented,
he would like to close the public portion.
Ms. Edna Woodbeck, a Laurel Place resident, stated it seems to her that at every meeting she has attended for new projects there
is always an issue of story poles. She stated it occurred to her, in listening tonight, that there is an arrogance in the remark
that the City has no policy on story poles. She stated the City could develop a policy for story poles since it is a concern of the
community. She added that this project is not going to help the homeless, and it is not affordable.
Ms. Sue Scott, Planning Commissioner, stated that in her years on the Planning Commission it has not been her policy to speak at
Council meetings. Tonight, hearing a number of advocates for the project, she was not going to continue the debate.
However, she wanted to respond to Dr. Scher's comments. He claimed that she was at a DRB meeting, and based my
comments at the Planning Commission on that meeting. She stated that, in fact, her comments were based on statements
made by DRB member Makoto Takashina made on September 20, 1994, at a DRB meeting, recorded in the minutes on page
15. Furthermore, on February 22, 1995, on page 12 of the minutes, Mr. Takashina indicated that he would be comfortable
with this becoming a policy decision, and felt that the issues raised were that it should be dealt with by the Planning
Commission. Mrs. Scott stated the reason she came to the meeting tonight was because several years ago there was a
second dwelling unit proposed by an older woman in an older neighborhood. When it came before the Planning Commission
the numbers did not work. The proportion of the second dwelling unit was too large for the modest home which was to
accommodate it. The need was great. The woman was getting older, and needed her son and family to move in. It
happened that the Planning Commission approved it, and to this date it is still working very well as hoped for. At that time,
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 10
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 11
when the meeting finished, the Planning Director (at that time) came up to Ross Cobb (a Planning Commissioner) who had
found the reasons for the variance, and said, "I knew you'd find a way". She stated her hope for the Council tonight is that
they will find a way to get around the numbers and to look at the policies for the future.
Mr. Doug Elliott, a builder and a neighbor of this project, whose offices are down the street and has been a Marin resident for 25
years, stated he has served as a board member for the Ecumenical Association for Housing and Innovative Housing. One of
his interests is creating affordable housing in the County. He has also had architectural training.
Mr. Elliott stated he has not seen a project like this one, sponsored exclusively by private sector interests. One of his jobs is to act
as consultant to a nonprofit organization on how to build such projects and is presently consulting on a project almost identical
to this one in terms of proportion, but it is for 59 units. They have gone to the city where it is located and asked for $1 million
so they could make the numbers work, and they have agreed to give them the money. He stated these sponsors have
figured out a way to build this project without asking the City to subsidize it. He added that Mr. MacDonald is a legend in the
affordable housing community. He has been a leader nationally, for the work he has done, and this project is an example of
exactly how you should do in -fill housing. He noted that about ten years ago he built a similar project in San Anselmo, with 13
units on top of the parking and almost identical acreage. The City Council approved the project and it won every national
award for affordable housing. The residents who had objected, after they had seen it built, came back to a special meeting of
the City Council when it was awarded the grand award for the best attached housing project in the United States. He urged
the Council to support this excellent project.
Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter to the Council for discussion and potential resolution.
Councilmember Cohen stated he will start with some questions for staff. There are relatively minor points he would like clarified.
He noted that in the staff report, in the discussion of project consistency with the Vision for San Rafael, there is a line about
"Enhancement of the brick path and stairs on the eastern property line of the site will establish a stronger connection (between
downtown and surrounding neighborhoods)". (Page #3 of 12, Attachment A to the staff report to the City Council). He noted
there is also a handwritten note which says page 5 of 12. Councilmember Cohen stated a question was asked of him today
and he has not been able to find an answer in the report.
Mr. Pendoley stated he thinks Mr. Cohen is asking, what happened to that? Mr. Cohen explained he has not been able to find any
condition which requires this. Mr. Pendoley explained the Planning Commission did ask that it be enhanced. Mr. Cohen
asked does that require enhancement of the stairs at the top of the path? He noted it is not specific, which would imply
that ... (he noted the developer was shaking his head), and stated he wanted to get some clarity on this point. He stated it is a
minor point given the larger issues we are facing, but at some point we are going to have to clarify the intent, or change the
language. Mr. Pendoley stated that staffs recollection of this is that the Planning Commission did not make it a condition but
they strongly encouraged the developer to make the enhancement. Mr. Cohen stated there apparently is no agreement on an
obligation to do so. Mr. Pendoley replied that is correct.
Councilmember Cohen stated the hardest thing he is trying to deal with here is to really get a handle on the height of this project,
how it will present to the street, and its relationship to the surrounding properties, particularly the appellant's property and the
impact on his views. He explained the reason he is having such difficulty with it is because we have been presented with
several different height estimates. There are several different measures which are being used to give us the height estimates
- the height from Mission Avenue, the Building Code height at mid -point of the roofline from the new proposed parking area, the
height of the building from the low corner - somehow we need to achieve some clarity on what the height of the building is.
We need to come up with a consistent measure, and understand where that point is relative to the surrounding properties. He
stated he has not been able to find anything which clarifies that for him in any concise fashion. He noted the Council is also
presented with several visual aids which seem to paint a different picture and he is concerned that the Council will be able to
operate on good information and know which of these is accurate if the truth is somewhere in between them. We need some
response to that and if the applicant or architect wants to respond to that it would be good. He noted that on the material we
received there were visual aids provided by Mr. Caramucci, which are drafts which appear to show significant differences in
elevation from what the applicant and architect have shown, and he would like clarification on that.
Councilmember Cohen stated he has a question of the architect, and has a concern about some of the information presented. He
has had experience reading plans, but has had a hard time with this project based on the information presented, and he does
not feel he has a solid handle on the project relationship to the surrounding properties and what the height is. One of his
concerns is to feel that he really has an understanding of how the project is going to present to Mission Avenue. He stated
that is an important thing for the Council to grasp.
Councilmember Cohen stated his other question is of a different nature. There is a concern about the approach which is being
taken, about the front of the project being built on fill. There was a comment about going 7 feet up, and then a three-story
building. He asked if the applicant could comment on the work they did on the possibility of lowering the building somewhat.
He stated it appears, from looking at the site (which he has visited several times) that there might be some room to look at
lowering the building pad, leaving the existing design. He stated he thinks we are in a situation where 2, 3 or 4 feet could
make a significant difference, at least to the surrounding properties. He would like the architect or applicant to comment on
that as well.
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 11
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 12
Mr. Donald MacDonald, project architect, showed renderings of sections, and explained he would try to place the Council in one of
the rooms of Mr. Caramucci's property. He stated the sections are quite accurate. They have been taken from topography
maps. He explained the fill element in front, and said he does not think it is quite 7 feet. He does not have the exact
measurement. However, he noted this building is three stories high. He noted it is not a three-story building when you come
to the back of the property, and to take it down 3 more feet it would not create a great situation for the living rooms of the back
units. He showed how, to take it down further, you would have to cut the hillside. He showed how a person standing (in the
Caramucci property) with a 5'6" eye, could look virtually straight out. He stated they also have an illustration of the long
distance view. He noted that the pitched roofs, on the Mission Avenue elevation in particular, are a very small portion of the
total sight area which goes across. One is about 6 feet wide by 3 feet high, and the other is about 7 feet by 3'/2 feet.
Councilmember Cohen noted there was a comment at one point in the staff report that there were a couple of facades with a gable
running all the way through. Mr. MacDonald showed on the rendering the location of the gable going through, and noted it is
very small, about 1'/2 feet. Two other gables are very small, and go through to a one -room depth, such as over a master
bedroom.
Councilmember Cohen stated he has a question relative to the section Mr. MacDonald showed, and asked could he place the
section on the elevation? Mr. MacDonald indicated the section lines marked on the elevation. He noted they are included in
the site plans, and explained in further detail. He showed the various height limits on the rendering, the 50 ft. height limit in
1980, the present height limit, and his buildable height limit, which he stated gives a comparison on the potential of the site, and
how they have dealt with it. He added that to cut the rear unit down and into the ground by 3 or 4 feet would ruin the access to
the rear yard, which he feels is quite important for that unit, and noted it would affect the whole back of the property.
Mayor Boro stated the concern is the impact of the units in front. When you look at those units, and stand on the site and look up
at the telephone pole and see how high it is going to be, and how close it is going to be, and you say that you are raising the
level 3 or 4 or 5 feet with fill, his question is, is there any way you can lower that? Mr. MacDonald responded that had actually
tried to lower it. They brought the central driveway down, but they could not take it any lower without taking the whole site
down. He explained that when you drive into the courtyard area, you have to enter the garage. It is a very tight space, and
you could not slope again into the garage. He stated they already sloped it and held it down as much as possible. He
illustrated on the site plan, and explained that is why you could not have a lot of level changes. You would have to push the
whole site down, and if you did that you would have problems on the other side.
Councilmember Cohen asked, is Mr. MacDonald saying that what drives the height is the height of the rear yard, or is it the
driveway? Mr. MacDonald replied it is basically the driveway? Mr. MacDonald replied it is basically the driveway, but out of
that you also get the usable, habitable space of the unit on the floor above the parking, in the back row of townhouses.
Councilmember Heller inquired, regarding Mr. Wolcott's deck, will anyone from the apartments be able to see into his back yard
and onto their deck? Mr. MacDonald responded that he had a meeting with the Wolcotts and checked over the views, and
they felt they could screen the windows, or put a screen on their site so their privacy area would be protected. He stated his
group is willing to work with the Wolcotts. They can visit the unit when it is under construction and check the views and work it
out from there. He added that his client has been very concerned about the impact on the Wolcott's yard, and he showed the
opening between the properties.
Councilmember Phillips noted that the DRB had significant problems with scale and one method of reducing scale in the elevation
off Mission Avenue was to drop the project down. He stated he recalls that the DRB had discussed reducing the height by
some means, such as dropping the parking down.
Mr. MacDonald explained that the real dilemma is that when you build affordable housing you cannot build a concrete box. You
have to do it in a townhouse fashion. If it was a concrete box it would be more massive because it would be one big block,
such as Boyd Court or 820 Mission Avenue. He explained that by designing this way you get in essence a small, detached
house at an affordable price.
Councilmember Cohen noted there was one issue raised by Ms. Moore with regard to either the Condominium issues or the
variances. He stated he understands the response staff has given about not considering the condominium issues until the
design itself is approved, and the rationale behind that response. His questions is, are there zoning variances which are
required by this project, or would those come into play if this were to be an apartment project? Mr. Pendoley responded that
the zoning variances would come into play for condominiums; particularly they are the height of the front fence which has been
proposed at 4 ft. 6 in. That could be corrected by cutting it down to 4 ft. which is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. There is
also a variance required to deal with the size of the parking garages. He explained that, as the Council is aware, within the
past eight months the Council approved an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow tandem parking downtown within
garages. However, staff failed to change the Ordinance to reflect that, and did not set up dimensions for tandem parking
garages. To deal with that discrepancy, we would need to grant a variance to allow them to build the garages, which would
seem appropriate because of the inconsistency in the Ordinance. The final issue which would require a variance is the side
yard parking. Two guest spaces are proposed for the side yard. The various Zoning Ordinance amendments which have
been proposed to implement the Vision, and which the Council received two weeks ago, accomplished that, but in the interim it
is not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and can only be allowed with a variance.
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 12
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 13
Regarding guest parking, Mayor Boro asked have we not in the past approved developments with off-site guest parking? Mr.
Pendoley replied that in downtown you have taken at least two approaches. One is to waive some or all of the guest parking;
another approach is to require off-site guest parking. He added that in some cases the Council has done a little bit of both.
Mayor Boro asked, is that a possible solution for this site? Mr. Pendoley responded that it could be, if the Council would prefer
to require that some of the spaces be off-site. He noted that part of this project is to build a replacement parking lot, and it may
be possible to work out an agreement in connection with that, if parking spaces could be reserved. He recommended that
would probably be the first consideration. Mayor Boro asked, what would you gain on this site if you took out those two
parking spaces, as far as amenities are concerned. Mr. Pendoley stated he feels the space could be made available to
residents for recreation. It would certainly be available for landscaping, which would be a project enhancement. Either of
those two approaches would be advantages.
Councilmember Heller stated she had read that the future bank parking lot would be open and available on weekends and
evenings, for neighborhood parking. Mr. Pendoley replied that is correct. They have testified to that effect. Mayor Boro said
that is what he had in mind was dedicated parking.
Councilmember Zappetini stated that a problem he had when visiting the site was that the traffic is very fast. He would like to see
some method of slowing the traffic down in the neighborhood. He noted that if we do not have a lot of on-site parking and
people want to get across the street, the average person is not going to want to go down to the end of the street to cross. The
other concern he had was regarding the easement, or brick path, going through the edge of the property. He asked what kind
of security would the people who live there have from someone just wandering in? Mr. Pendoley responded that we would
have to get comments from the Public Works Department on whether a crosswalk would be appropriate. He stated that stop
signs would be problematic on that street. The usual practice would be to have it on the street that intersects, rather than on
Mission itself, but he will explore the crosswalk issue. He stated that the security issue for the pathway has not come up.
Mrs. Patterson stated that there are plans for a 6 ft. high fence along the eastern property line adjacent to the brick pathway,
but to her knowledge there is no gate proposed in it. Mr. Pendoley noted that a 6 ft. fence is a typical approach to security in a
residential area. Mr. Zappetini noted that in Terra Linda where he lives there is a similar problem with through easements.
They get to be a big maintenance problem, and the City does not have the funds to maintain them. If the neighbors do not do
it, it becomes a real problem. He wondered if there was a way the City could protect itself from liability if someone tripped and
fell. Mr. Pendoley stated that it is already the City's easement. Mrs. Patterson stated that we have researched it with Public
Works, and it is not numbered as a separate parcel, but it does belong to the City, and is the City's pathway. Mr. Zappetini
stated he sees a real problem there because it is in disrepair, and it is slick, and something has to be done.
Mr. Pendoley agreed that it is an issue, and added that the problem we have in dealing with it on this project is that this is a problem
which predates this project. To the extent that this project contributes to it, we may be able to develop a condition. However,
probably the contribution is pretty minor compared to how long the easement has been there and the number of people who
use it.
Councilmember Cohen stated he was given information earlier today that this is not property of the City; that it has been the
position of the Public Works Department that the City does not have ownership of that easement and does not have
responsibility for those improvements. He stated he thinks we should be very careful about putting on the record a claim to
title for that easement. If we do, in fact, own it there are some issues we need to look into. If we do not own it, we do not want
it on the record that we do. It should be clarified. (Asst. City Manger Golt went to get Public Works Director Bernardi).
Mayor Boro stated there are two questions on this project. He gathers from the Councilmembers' comments that there is full
support for the project, which he thinks means support for the housing. The issue it really comes down to is the issue of
design. There was comment made earlier that this is a policy issue, and he understands that. However, that does not mean
we could not still have good design, whether it be a policy change or not. Mayor Boro stated he has two concerns. One is
the impact on Mission Avenue because of the bulk of this project. He was looking at it again the other day, when you stand
there and look up at the telephone pole on the east side and note the area designated on it as the height of the building, it is
very tall. That is why he was interested in the discussion about what can be done to reduce the height on the front. Unlike all
of the other sites on Mission, which are either as tall or taller, they are set back or have large trees in front for screening, this
building is not set back and the trees are not large. Mayor Boro stated that his second concern, to which he does not believe
we have the answers, is the impact on Mr. Caramucci's and Mr. Wolcott's properties. They are the most directly affected. He
stated he does not know if we have been definitive enough in our answers regarding the impact on them.
Mr. Pendoley responded that staff believes the cross-section data which the Council saw a few minutes ago is accurate. The site
was surveyed and a registered civil engineer has certified the current elevation of the property, and the elevation of the
property after grading for construction. Then it becomes a relatively straightforward matter to add on the building height.
When comparing it to the property behind, the same engineer also certified the height of the ground - the topography - at about
the point the cross-section which Councilmember Cohen asked about intersects with Mr. Caramucci's property.
Cross-section A intersects Mr. Caramucci's property at approximately 116 ft. elevation. The height of the pad which is
immediately in front is approximately 107 ft. That is actually the first story level of that townhouse unit above the garage. So,
you have the first floor, second floor and then below grade at the back is the garage. Mayor Boro noted that Mr. MacDonald
had said that a person who is 5 ft. 6 in. standing on the first floor deck would be able to see over the building; and someone on
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 13
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 14
the second floor deck would have a clear view. He stated that when he visited the site with Mr. Caramucci, he did not have
that understanding, and Mayor Boro would like to get this to a point where everyone can see this and understand it. Mr.
Pendoley replied that after analyzing the data staff would have to agree with the architect about what a person 5 ft. 6 in. could
see. He added staff attempted to evaluate the designs which were prepared using the computer assisted design. However,
because there is not a scale indicated, they cannot come up with a final evaluation. He stated there is a question in his mind
as to whether or not the computer aided design misread the slab to actually be the garage, which would account for the
differences between the two cross-sections. However, without a scale drawing on the computer assisted design, staff could
not begin to give the Council a final opinion on it.
Mayor Boro stated he is not interested in trying to understand their computer assisted design, as much as he is trying to get some
specificity or something very definitive about the plans we are looking at, where someone can say, "This is the impact", and
another party can look at it and agree with it. That conversation, to date, has apparently not taken place between Mr.
Caramucci and the project architect.
Mayor Boro asked, what can we do to reduce the impact of the front building, as far as height and mass on Mission are
concerned? What alternatives do we have?
Councilmember Heller stated it is her understanding, from the photograph we saw of the story poles, that after that the design was
lowered 7 feet . She asked is that correct? Mr. Pendoley responded that a portion of it was lowered, the most substantial
occurring on the Southeast unit, which will be the first unit you come to when you drive up to the house. Mayor Boro asked
what was done on that location to reduce it. Mr. Pendoley explained that some interior dimensions where changed,
particularly the ceilings. The roof treatment was changed, and that helped to reduce it. Mayor Boro asked, could you do that
across the whole front of the project? Mr. Pendoley stated that question would have to be addressed to the architect.
Mr. MacDonald explained with aid of a rendering, showing how the views of the surrounding property are affected. He noted the
sweeping views, and pointed out that view for Mr. Caramucci's property blocks out the houses below, but the sweeping view of
Mt. Tam is preserved. He showed how Mr. Wolcott's view is affected. Mayor Boro asked, has Mr. MacDonald sat down with
the two neighbors and gone over this issue with them? He stated he has been told that they have not had this benefit directly,
where they can see and understand it, so there is still that doubt. Mr. MacDonald stated they have met with Mr. Wolcott, and
he has met with Mr. Caramucci but his client has not. He stated that his drawings are as accurate as you are going to get.
They have been very careful in all of their drawings.
Mayor Boro inquired about the front of the building. He noted that the one corner was reduced 7 feet, and asked if that can be
done to the rest? Mr. MacDonald replied that cannot be done because of the site. He explained there are concessions made
within the unit itself, to do that. They sited the building down so there is a 5 ft. 6 in. internal ceiling so it is more like an attic
space, to accommodate Mr. Wolcott's particular concern for this corner. Mayor Boro stated he is concerned because of all the
people who go by that site every day. If they were able to lower one unit, he does not understand why they cannot do that on
all the units. Mr. MacDonald stated it would be too constrained and they do not have the space to do it. Mayor Boro asked if
the marketability is a factor, and Mr. MacDonald said that is one issue. Mayor Boro explained he is not only concerned about
the neighbors, but about the people who go by there every day.
Mr. MacDonald explained that this particular unit is an end unit, so they can cantilever the floor out and pull it down. They cannot
do that with the units in the middle. They are locked in. He noted they are lowering the ceilings, and cutting it off at certain
angles. They can do that on the end, but cannot do it on the middle. Mayor Boro noted that four of the affordable units are
end units, and stated that could be done on those four. Mr. MacDonald said he has not studied that issue in this particular
case because it has not come up before, but they will definitely consider it.
Mayor Boro stated he is looking at the massiveness of this building from the front. He explained his frustration is that we got tied
up with the policy issue; we have had disagreements with Design Review, left them and went to the Planning Commission, and
now we are here at the Council, because of the impact of the massiveness. He stated he is trying to see if there is a way to
reduce that, especially in the front, and the impacts made on Mr. Caramucci. He is trying to see what we can do. Mr.
Pendoley agreed, and stated it appears to him that the next step would be to literally take some square footage out of the top
floor. Mayor Boro stated that he is not trying to redesign the project, but he is saying that if you have taken care of a problem
on one side and there are four units like that, of the six in front, what would happen if you did that, and how would it look?
Mr. Levin stated that when we went to the Planning Commission they said can we lower the heights of the floors at each level, and
we agreed to lower the height of the garage level, and we agreed to lower the height of the middle level. Therefore, the plans
you are looking at are taller than the plans that we are going to build. Mayor Boro inquired, you mean you have something
before us which is not what you are going to build, but higher than what you are actually going to build? Mr. Levin responded
that the Planning Commission as a condition of approval asked for reductions in the floor heights. We agreed to that as a
condition of approval. Staff recommended to us that we not change our plans before we came before you, which was
originally scheduled for April 17th. Therefore, the project we are going to be building is smaller than the project you are
seeing. He added, we designed the project three times. They asked us to lower it as part of the conditions of approval.
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 14
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 15
Mayor Boro stated he understands, but frankly, part of the problem with this project is that it is one thing for neighbors to
disagree with a project, but when they have facts which are not supported collectively is where he has a problem. Now you
are saying that what we are seeing tonight is not quite the height. He stated that goes back to his earlier point. Mr.
Caramucci said that every time he talked with the developers he heard something different. Therefore, Mayor Boro stated he
is asking Mr. Levin to be very definitive. Now Mr. Levin is saying the plans before the Council are not definitive, but will be less
than what is on the plans, so how do we know what it is? Mr. Levin responded that the project is going to be about 1'/z feet to
2 feet lower. Mayor Boro noted that Mr. Levin did not say until now that it is going to be a foot or 2, just that it was different.
Mayor Boro asked for comment from staff.
Mr. Pendoley referred to the colored rendering, and stated that these elevations were prepared in part in an effort to lower the
height of the buildings. He pointed out where the "greatest lowering" occurred. He added that, in addition to lowering the
ceiling heights (he pointed out the areas), they also took a more extreme approach to lowering the ceiling levels on the third
floor where there are bedrooms. They did that by putting a gable all the way through which, in effect, would be the kind of
gabled ceiling you might have in an older home. That lowered the actual height in portions of that room to as low as 5 ft. 6 in.,
but it is still legal under the Uniform Building Code (UBC) because you have the peak. That will bring down the side walls
commensurately. He stated it is a little difficult for him to explain but, as he understands it, they simply will not be able to get
the rest of the building to work if they try to do the same thing on the other end. Whether or not that can be achieved in the
other end unit, he does not know. He stated that when this design came out of the Planning Commission, the Commission
asked that 1 foot be taken out of the third floor and the second floor on all of these five units as had already been accomplished
on the one unit. That is the discrepancy between these drawings and the conditions the Planning Commission approved -2
feet in elevation on these five units.
Mayor Boro stated that what is troubling him is that Councilmember Phillips, about two hours ago, asked somebody if this is exactly
the scale and the answer was it is to scale. Now we are hearing that it is not to scale. Mr. Pendoley stated it is to scale and
the question was, are these buildings drawn to scale? They are drawn to the same scale as the other part of the drawing.
However, the approval is for a building which is 2 feet lower in these five units. He showed on the rendering the height of the
units to be lowered. Mayor Boro stated he is a layman, but that when he heard built to scale, and we talked about the size of
the trees, stating it was an exact representation of the size of the trees, he was led to believe that the height of the buildings is
what the Council was seeing, and now you are saying it is not. Mr. Pendoley responded that if he did not tell the Council that
this building is actually 2 feet lower than shown on this drawing, it is unfortunate.
Councilmember Cohen noted that Public Works Director Bernardi had returned to the meeting, and asked him who owns the land
under the brick walkway and the stairs which go up to Laurel Place. Mr. Bernardi responded that without a title search he
could not tell definitively. On the old maps it is shown as part of City right-of-way, but how that right-of-way was dedicated to
the City he could not say, whether it was actually a fee dedication or whether it was some kind of easement. He stated that
the maps in Public Works are not clear, and they will have to go through a title search. It is shown as part of the City
right-of-way. Mr. Cohen asked if that gives the City responsibility for its maintenance as a City easement? Mr. Bernardi
replied that it would. Mr. Cohen stated we will have to discuss those issues at a later date, particularly the condition of the
stairs. Mr. Bernardi added that there are other situations over in the West End where there are similar pedestrian pathways
which we have had to close because we are notable to maintain them properly. Mr. Cohen stated that to the extent that this is
an amenity, a connection which is important to the developers of this project, it is something we need to take into consideration.
He noted the condition of the stairs concerns him greatly. He stated he was told by Mr. Caramucci this afternoon, that he did
not believe that the City actually claimed the easement, and that it seemed impossible to get anyone to take responsibility for it,
and that is the reason the stairs are in the condition they are. He noted there are also similar pathways in Bret Harte which
were abandoned, but this does not appear to be one which should be. He stated we need to make a determination and take
action whether it is tied to this project or not. It is the City's obligation and we need to address it.
Councilmember Cohen asked about the public utilities easement behind the project, and asked if Mr. Bernardi knows anything
about it. Mr. Bernardi replied that he has no knowledge about it, except that it is shown on some of the old maps. What we
need to establish is whether public utilities - gas, water, sewer - have the right to put their utilities in there to serve the properties
around it. Councilmember Cohen noted that we do not know at this point whether anyone has actually done that, or what is in
there, or at what depth it is located. He stated he noticed there is a cleanout. Mr. Bernardi stated he thinks we have a
sanitary sewer there. Mr. Cohen asked if the Sanitation District would be able to map that, relative to grade, etc.? Mr.
Bernardi said they could. Mr. Cohen asked would it be possible to build a retaining wall on the property between this project
and the appellant's property, depending on the location of the sanitary sewer? Mr. Bernardi stated it would depend on the
sanitary sewer location.
Councilmember Cohen noted that a lot of speakers tonight who talked about the policy issues confronting the City, are right on
target. He stated he had met with Mr. Wolcott and discussed the Vision and different policy statements in the Vision,
regarding maximizing the wonderful views and protecting the character of the neighborhoods. He agrees that those aspects
of the Vision can be read as being in conflict with some of the aspects of this project. That is what makes it so difficult. If it
were not for those issues, he feels this project would be a "slam dunk". There is a clearly stated need, one which residents of
the community and business people have articulated. It is one which this Council and previous Councils have also realized,
that we have a need for diversity of housing and want to achieve ownership housing and want to recognize the urban
character of downtown. We do want to accept and embrace change. All of those things are involved in this project. We are
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 15
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 16
not going to get those things unless we yield somewhere. If we just make the assumption that if we leave things the way they
are, things like this are going to happen, the record shows that this is not the case. This is not affordable housing in the trad-
itional sense of a subsidized housing project. It is the next rung up the ladder and it is not asking for financial help, although it
is not without cost, because of the impact on the neighbors, and we recognize that. He stated he does not want to minimize
that fact. However, from his point of view and his understanding of the work which has been done in terms of our Vision for
San Rafael, and this Council's public policy position on the importance of housing, there is a strong presumption in favor of
approving housing projects of this type in the downtown area. He stated he had listened very carefully tonight to the issues
which were raised, and read all of the staff reports to the Council and Commission, and the appeal letter, etc. The issues for
him, in that respect, are resolved. He stated that the issue of what is the scale of this project and how big is the impact of the
mass, and can we truly grasp it? For him that is the remaining issue. The variances, and the Condominium Ordinance which
we are going to have to address, he feels are changes we need to make. Sooner or later we must go back and revisit the
Condominium Ordinance. Rather than saying, as these projects come along, that we have to make the exceptions and
variances to the Condominium Ordinance, we should say that the type of project we are looking for is not adequately
described in our Condominium Ordinance. We should change the Ordinance, and not the projects. He added that, with due
respect to Mr. Wolcott and to the neighbors, there are trade-offs. There are impacts, and not all of them are minimized by
some of the landscaping changes and stepping which has been done. He stated that this speaks to a larger community need
and the type of entry level housing we need, and we should be willing to accept some changes. Mr. Cohen added that he
drives on Mission Avenue very frequently, and Mr. Wolcott's home is the exception rather than the rule as one drives along
Mission. The impression one has of Mission is of larger buildings, and not single family homes. It is zoned for high density
residential, and not zoned for two single family homes as someone mentioned they would like to see on this site. He stated
there are a lot of reasons to support this project, and we got some good background for that from the Planning Commission.
He stated he recognizes the concerns that the Design Review Board had. A lot of the comments did come down to a policy
issue, and not just a question of scale. He stated he feels we are changing some of the rules for design in the downtown area.
That is part of what our Vision was asking us to do, and that is what this project is asking us to do. He stated it is going to be
one of the larger projects along Mission because of the way it presents to the street. He noted he met with the Planning
Director this afternoon and discussed the project with regard to its impact on Mission. If it was back 20 ft. it would not be a
concern, but it is only back 9 ft. so it will present much larger than it would otherwise.
Councilmember Cohen stated he is down to two issues. One is his concern, to assure that we all grasp the impact of the mass on
Mission. The other is, he wants to be sure we have done everything we can do to address the concerns of the immediate
neighbors with regard to the impact on their properties and maximizing the view of Mt. Tam and the surrounding hillsides. He
stated he does not believe there is much more to be done to address the impact on Mr. Wolcott because of the nature of this
project and his house, without significantly changing the project. He added he wonders whether or not it would be possible to
look at lowering the project a couple more feet. The other issues have been resolved for him, but if there are other issues for
the rest of the Council we should discuss them. He stated he would like to get focused on, do we grasp what the scale of the
project is, and is it adequately mitigated?
Mayor Boro stated that he thinks the Vision intended that housing be on this site, and he knows that to achieve the kind of housing
we are talking about we need to look at it differently. He stated he wants to make sure that out of all of this, we get the best
possible design on this site, when we consider the impacts we are putting in. He is concerned about massiveness in the front,
and feels we should take a better look at that. He still wants to have something very definitive that can be shared with Mr.
Caramucci so that he understands what the impact is on his building. He added that the easement is something we should
look at, as a condition for this project, and see what benefits the City can derive out of this as long as the project is going to go
forward. He added we need to look at the off-site parking. He noted it has been purported that the price of these units will be
around $200,000. If we are going forward with this he would look to hold the developer to some number which he would
guarantee he would not exceed - he is not trying to hold the developer to the $200,000 figure tonight. He stated he is not
worried that the price would increase after the project is underway. He stated he knows Mr. Blumenfeld quite well, and he is a
man of his word, and he is sure his partners are the same. He would like something in the conditions of approval to assure
that it will be in that range when it goes on the market.
Councilmember Heller stated she concurs with Mayor Boro and Councilmember Cohen, and she feels the project will benefit the
community. She stated she would like to ask the Planning Department once again to see if we can work on the Condominium
Ordinance to get it updated. She concurred with Mayor Boro on the guest parking spaces, to see if we could move them
off-site, and provide public open space for the apartments, or if there is room for a small play area, or to enhance a backyard
for one of the apartments. She thanked the Planning Director for the time he spent with her explaining the issues. She stated
this has been an interesting and difficult project, which she thinks will benefit the City, and it should go forward.
Councilmember Phillips stated that before and during the meeting he listed all the pro's and con's. Most of the weight lends itself
to approval of the project. He stated the overriding principle seems to be the appropriateness of the site for this type of
development, considering the community, the low cost nature, and the need for this in -fill type of construction. He stated he is
quite concerned about the Design Review Board's reaction to the design. He stated he holds them in high regard, having
dealt with them when he was on the Planning Commission, so their reaction concerns him a lot, particularly with regard to
scale. He stated we have seen renditions which he thought were in proportion, and he finds they are not, so it is a little difficult
for him to relate to some of the drawings and some of the comments. He added it was unfortunate that he did not have the
opportunity to see the story poles. To him, it seems quite tall in contrast to Mission Avenue. It seems that there are issues
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 16
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 17
which need to be addressed and he concurs with those issues. He wondered if it would be possible to place story poles so
that Councilmembers could actually view them as Planning staff was able to, for perhaps a more accurate visual impact,
particularly off Mission. He asked, would there be interest on the Council to see something along those lines?
Councilmember Zappetini stated that when you talk about scale you have the drawing and it shows 31 ft., and you have another
way of interpreting, but you have to visualize 2 ft. off of that, and it should not be too difficult. Councilmember Phillips stated he
was thinking about standing on Mission Avenue and viewing the story poles. He stated he is not an architect, so perhaps it
is more difficult for him to visualize, than it would be for others.
Mayor Boro asked Councilmember Cohen if he sees an advantage to having story poles again? Councilmember Cohen replied
we have seen projects with better visual aids than we have tonight. The pictures of the story poles which were put up helped
somewhat, but he is not sure which design they represented. He stated he is not interested in fundamental redesign of this
project, nor in sending it back again to the DRB or the Planning Commission. He asked if the story poles would really make a
difference on the decision by the Councilmembers? Would they see anything which would lead them to uphold the appeal
and deny the project? If it is not going to make a significant difference, he does not feel it is worth the time and investment.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would like consideration of lowering the project a couple of feet. He noted that the drawing we
have shows 7 ft. from the sidewalk to the path. He stated that if we could lower the overall project somewhat, that is an area
where we could reduce the impact somewhat. He stated there are two issues; one is the driveway access to the pad for the
central area and into the garages. The other issue is outdoor areas in back. He stated that possibly may be addressed by
stepping the hillside back, but that depends on what is in the public utility easement and, if there is a sanitary sewer, where it is.
It might be possible to step the hillside and open up the back slope a little more, so you could lower the outdoor living areas
and still have an open sensation, and not a 6 or 8 ft. wall for private patio.
Councilmember Phillips stated he understands and agrees with Councilmember's Cohen's remarks about the story poles. He
stated he is leaning toward approval. This project is going to be here for a number of years, and the DRB's reaction concerns
him, because they are professionals and they had concerns about scale. He stated the story poles may not persuade him,
but however there is a doubt, perhaps more than just looking at drawings.
Councilmember Cohen noted that the project at the last meeting concerned story poles, but the photomontage had an impact on
some of the Councilmembers. The difference in the view, between looking at story poles and at a photomontage, was what
really had an impact. He stated he has concluded that lowering the buildings two or three feet will have quite an impact,
particularly on the properties to the rear of the project, and he does not need any more visual aids to come to that conclusion.
Mayor Boro suggested that his sense is that the Council is supportive of this project. He thinks they also want to feel comfortable
with what they approve so they will be pleased and proud of it. The burden will be on the developer to come back to us and
give us his best shot on a representation as to what this will look like, and see if there is any lowering he can do. If he cannot,
he should tell the Council why he cannot. He should be prepared to give the Council a presentation which will show what the
impact is from the front, and the impact from the back and review that with the neighbors and the Council. He stated he thinks
the applicants have heard that the Council will support them for this project, but we are looking for you to help us with the issue
of mass and to bring clarity to the impact on Mr. Caramucci's property; to look at the off-site parking issue; to work to have the
path issue included in the conditions so that can be solved long-term; have some discussion on market price; and for the
Public Works Director to look at the issue of slowing the traffic.
Councilmember Cohen stated that he had a comment on the parking. He stated he had said something earlier which perhaps is
not correct. He said he did not know that at this point, without rejecting the project, the impact on Mr. Wolcott could not be
solved. He stated that if the Council is willing to consider eliminating the visitor parking on the east end of the building, the
impact on Mr. Wolcott could be mitigated by landscaping. Perhaps some tree planting there would be appropriate. It could
shield the gap between the two buildings and lower the impact Mr. Wolcott will have, of a blank wall where he previously had a
view. An open area or a play yard would not do that. Trees, if they can be accommodated there, would shield the building
and reduce the impact on Mr. Wolcott. Councilmember Heller agreed, and added that if there is a chance for having a public
area for children she would not like to give that up. Mayor Boro stated that probably you could accomplish the screening with
the trees, and still have the public area.
Mayor Boro noted for the record that the Public Hearing had been closed. He stated we have taken public testimony and the
issues which will come back to us are the issues we have addressed. As soon as the architect and staff have them resolved
we will schedule it and bring it back to Council.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to continue the item to a date uncertain.
City Clerk Jeanne Leoncini verified that it will not be a Public Hearing. Mayor Boro stated that is correct. We have all of the
issues before us, and we will take comments if there are questions or disagreement about what is brought back, but he feels
we have focused the issues.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to see it done in a relatively short time frame, since the approval process has already
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 17
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 18
taken a long time.
Mayor Boro stated he thinks the sense of the Council is to support the project, and it is important that the applicant understands
that.
Councilmember Cohen asked would it be appropriate to consider approval in concept, and then come back with these issues?
Mayor Boro stated he thinks we have conceptual approval, based on all the comments, so he does not feel the issue is the
approval, but of resolving the details we have been discussing.
Councilmember Heller stated she has no problem with putting into the motion that we approve this in concept, and ask staff and
the proponents to discuss the details we have discussed tonight. Councilmember Phillips agreed to second the amended
motion.
Planning Director Pendoley stated he understands that the Council approves the project in concept, with final design to be brought
back for approval.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
OLD BUSINESS
Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
None
None
21.CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA PROPOSAL - PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF
INTENT (PI) - File 10-2 x 9-2-45
Mayor Boro asked for a report from staff.
Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council, stating this item was last before the Council on November 21, 1994. At that time
staff had recommended a number of alternatives for responding to the Draft General Plan Amendment prepared by the St.
Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Committee. At the conclusion of the Council's discussion staff was asked to prepare a Resolution
of Intent which would lay out the City and County policies which are presently applicable to the site, which would help to
evaluate the Committee's proposal and would describe actions which would occur in the interim. Staff has prepared that
Resolution for the Council's consideration.
Mr. Pendoley stated he will briefly summarize the Resolution, with the aid of a few overheads which will help to describe some
elements of the Resolution in a map format, after which he and Principal Planner Jean Hasser will answer questions.
Mr. Pendoley explained that in the Resolution staff first reviews the process which have gotten us to this point in time, and go back
to earlier planning efforts of a number of years ago involving this property. We then look at City, County and LAFCO (Local
Agency Formation Commission) policies which describe the City's role. Staff found that those policies are well coordinated
and compliment each other. Staff had proceeded to lay out policies in the City and County General Plans which relate to the
substantive issues on the property. With that as a lead in, this Resolution would recognize the work of the St.
Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Committee. An important part of the Resolution is to recognize proposed amendments which are
characterized as noteworthy. Some of them are: Recommended policies having to do with environment, safety and open
space, such as policies to protect Miller Creek; policies to require further study and consultation with the Federated Coast
Miwok on archeological resources on the property; policies which would encourage preservation of Pacheco Ridge, tidal
wetlands and seasonal wetlands; policies which are in concert with and would help to implement the Bayfront Conservation
Zone in the County wide Plan. In this Resolution the Council is endorsing the Committee's policies which recognize the
significant community view sheds which are on this property.
Mr. Pendoley further explained that the Resolution goes on to state the Council's favorable opinion - staff hopes the Council shares
the opinion - on the Use and Design policies in the Committee's recommendation. He noted that, in particular, what this
Resolution attempts to do is to say that the Council looks favorably on the design policies which would attempt to develop a
pedestrian -oriented community which has a substantial number of jobs on site which would be available to the people who live
on the property, that would encourage a high level of home ownership, and that would exclude low intensity, auto oriented
uses. Mr. Pendoley noted that some of these policies reflect the traditional town planning which is beginning to become an
alternative to the traditional subdivision development in this country. This Resolution would also support retaining, upgrading
and using the existing St. Vincent's complex, which we usually call the "H" Complex. It would also encourage the further
development of sustainable design principles in any plan which is proposed for this property.
Mr. Pendoley stated that this Resolution says that the Council is in substantial agreement with the proposed map which was
developed by the Committee majority, in terms of identifying suitable areas of the site for development. The Resolution also
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 18
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 19
goes on to discuss areas where the Council would recommend changes, which he will discuss with the overhead. With the
aid of the map, he showed the recommended changes in detail, and explained each one.
Councilmember Zappetini inquired about the location of the water tanks, and Mr. Pendoley pointed them out on the map, in the
north area.
Councilmember Heller inquired about the plan for the streets. Mr. Pendoley explained the major streets, showing the existing St.
Vincent's Drive and showing where it is proposed to extend the way it does at present, except for the median, and then there
will be a loop which would intersect in the vicinity of the chapel, go around the existing institutional site, loop through the
property and connect with Silveira
Parkway. The loop is the basic circulation system, and there could be another loop which would go down to the Silveira property.
Mr. Pendoley reported that in a conversation with Councilmember Cohen this afternoon, he asked if we could add a sentence
which would call for both the majority and minority proposals which are in the Committee recommendations, to be evaluated as
part of the Alternative Study in any Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which might be prepared for this property. Mr.
Pendoley stated that is part of the staff recommendation in the staff report. If the Council agrees with that comment, staff
recommends it be included as part of the first paragraph under Section C. Copies of the revised wording were furnished
tonight. Mr. Pendoley then commented on Interim Actions (Page 9 of the Resolution), and noted that #1 includes requesting
the Board of Supervisors to extend its interim land use designation on the property until the City reconsiders land uses as part
of a Citywide General Plan Amendment. He noted that #2 would have the City continue to cooperate with other agencies on
needed regional and area wide circulation measures. Under #3, the City would coordinate and cooperate with involved
agencies and property owners on other studies pertaining to the site; and #4, groups interested in purchasing all or portions of
the site would be encouraged to use this interim time period between now and subsequent General Plan Amendments to
pursue purchase.
Mr. Pendoley concluded by stating that this Resolution is drafted as a statement of your opinions, as the City Council. It is not
drafted, nor intended, to be a policy statement. There is no decision here. It is very important that the Council be satisfied
that is the case, because if they are making decisions or setting policy, the Resolution would be subject to Environmental
Review. He stated staff has reviewed the Resolution very carefully with the City Attorney and he is satisfied that this does
not "trip" CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act).
Councilmember Cohen inquired about the future location for the CYO/St. Vincent's campus, designated as "W" on the
Development Area Land Use Plan. He stated he had understood that any development east of the railroad tracks would not
be consistent with the Bayfront Resource Corridor. Mr. Pendoley responded that actually the Bayfront Conservation Zone
does permit some amounts of development. Mrs. Hasser explained that the Bayfront Conservation Zone talks a lot about
uses which are preferred, and that the intention is to promote agricultural use, waste water reclamation, and habitat restoration.
That is the primary intent. She noted there are properties in the County which are entirely within the Bayfront Conservation
Zone, and Bel Marin Keys is one of those examples. Her understanding, from conversations with County Planning staff, is
that there is policy pertaining to housing uses with emphasis on affordable housing, which could be considered in the Bayfront
Conservation Zone, but that protection of the Bay front environment should take precedence over affordable housing. She
added there are other policies which apply to the area east of the tracks, including our own, which talk about that area being
agriculture and recreation. It is unfilled, very low-lying land within the 100 -year flood plain. It is Bay mud. There are a
number of policies which would urge that if you can cluster development elsewhere on the site it is better to do so.
Councilmember Cohen noted, under the opinion which the Council is expressing, if we were to eliminate that area from consider-
ation as a future campus location, since he does not hear anything in what Mrs. Hasser said which would include a campus in
this area, presumably that 50 -acre use has to be brought back into the area between the railroad tracks and the freeway. Mr.
Pendoley replied that is what we would presume. Councilmember Cohen asked, if the office use were moved from the
freeway area to another area within this plan, would there still be room for the 50 -acre campus? Mrs. Hasser responded that
the 50 -acre campus includes expansion for future use. Their current campus is within the 13'/2 acres, and covers
approximately 6 or 7 acres. In addition, there are also ranch buildings. She added it would be possible for low intensity ranch
uses, such as the stables which currently serve the school, to be in the eastern part of the site. That would be completely
consistent with the agricultural designation of that area. She pointed out there is also acreage devoted to the boys' homes,
which amounts to less than 10 acres. She stated that transferring it back to the western site does have an impact. It appears
that the total nonresidential acreage needs for 361,000 sq.ft. of commercial is only about 21 acres. There is more than 200
acres of land proposed for development and the nonresidential area constitutes only about 10% of that. The other 20, 30 or
40 acres of St. Vincent's uses would have an impact on how much land you could use for residential, but those are choices
which would be up to a future Master Plan.
Mayor Boro stated he had discussions recently with a couple of people, regarding the issue of "the engine necessary to drive
affordable housing on the site is going to be the development of the commercial", and that would be the way to achieve that.
He noted that Mrs. Hasser stated she feels there is enough land left to still achieve approximately 360,000 sq.ft. of commercial
development. He asked about the number of acres remaining.
Mrs. Hasser responded that the number of acres remaining is over 225 total development area west of the tracks. If you use a .4
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 19
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 20
FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for nonresidential intensity, 361,000 sq.ft. would need 20 to 21 acres of that. Mr. Pendoley noted that in
Area G, the existing complex, there are 13'/2 acres; Area T, the Transit Station, is about 4. Mrs. Hasser added that Area 0 is
4 acres.
Mayor Boro asked, what if you want to achieve one massive commercial site? Mr. Pendoley responded that with this Resolution
you are saying you are supportive of those policies in the Committee's recommendation which call for 360,000 sq.ft. of office
and commercial. Staff has tried to draft this so that the Council is open and flexible about the location. The Council is saying
they like putting it around the existing St. Vincent's complex, but have not ruled out alternatives. He stated he tried to give the
example where perhaps our future builder would prefer to convert the existing St. Vincent's complex to high density senior
housing, which could be a good option. In that case, you could move the commercial off to the west, further along on St.
Vincent's Drive. That is one option. Staff thinks that would be consistent with this Resolution of Intent. That would put it all in
one place, and aggregating it from several different places.
Councilmember Phillips inquired how the Minority proposal is significant with regard to the change in #1 of Section C, as discussed
previously. Mr. Pendoley explained that the report the Council received about a year ago was actually in two parts. There
was a Majority recommendation, which is reflected in the map the Council has seen on the overhead. There was also a
Minority recommendation which came out of the same Committee, and it recommended much more open space on the
property. It did not include a map, but concentrated more on principles and emphasized a need to keep a maximum amount
of the space open. It was not very specific, except in its reference to the existing St. Vincent's complex, as to where
development could be allowed, or how much. Councilmember Phillips asked why is the Minority element included. Mrs.
Hasser explained that Appendix I identifies the Minority recommendations, and it is, as Mr. Pendoley stated, fairly general.
However, we have a group called Citizen Advocates for Preservation of St. Vincent's (CAPS) and they have probably been
working on developing this alternative further, since the Committee came up with its recommendations.
Mr. Pendoley noted that an important issue is that CEQA would require an EIR on a change to this property. In addition to looking
at the actual project proposal, it would require that we look at alternatives. At a minimum, you have to look at an alternative
more intense than this one, and you also have to look at one which is less intense. That is the traditional way of doing it. He
added there is a real advantage to doing this with alternatives which were generated by the community, which is exactly what
came out of this Committee report.
Councilmember Heller noted that staff had said this would lower the density of the residential, and she asked if there are any
figures on that. Mr. Pendoley replied that he feels it would lower the yield, but he would not want to try to put a number on it
because there are a number of good policies which were recommended by the Committee which could be played out several
different ways. For example, one concern is with traffic impact. There is less traffic from senior housing than there is with
family housing, for example. So, in terms of traffic impact you could have a greater number of units if you chose to put some
emphasis on senior housing. He stated there area number of other contingencies which could affect the range.
Councilmember Heller noted that on page 2 of the report it stated that the Resolution requests that the Board of Supervisors
extend its interim land us designation and accompanying policy for the site... She asked had Mr. Pendoley talked with the
County staff, or have they had any input into this? Mr. Pendoley replied staff has met with the County, as well as
representatives of the Board of Supervisors, to explain the issues and to get an opinion. He stated we have had a good deal
of input from County staff, which was useful.
Councilmember Zappetini stated he thinks one of the things which was holding this project back was that we looked at it with the
fact that the City did not have the money to do the EIR. He stated the way he understands this document, some restraint
which was there before has been eliminated, which would allow this project to go with a Request for Proposal. He asked if
that is correct? Mr. Pendoley stated it is. He explained that one of the requirements of the General Plan is a policy SVS -1,
regarding St. Vincent's/Silveira, and it says that before a development proposal can be entertained a specific plan must be
prepared and there must be citizens' comment. In this Resolution, the Council is giving their opinion, but the requirement for
citizens' comment has been met. There has been a good deal of citizens' comment on this property. That would mean that
the Council could consider a specific plan. Because the Council is not making a decision here, that does not preclude them
from working with other citizens' committees, or taking any procedural approach they choose. Nevertheless, it does
acknowledge the work of this Citizens' Advisory Group.
Mayor Boro asked if either of the property owners would like address the Council at this point.
Mr. Douglas Maloney, attorney representing the Silveira family, owners of the Silveira property, spoke stating the first thing about
the staff report which encouraged them was the sentence at the bottom of the first page, which says that the Resolution also
recognizes the City's responsibility to be fair to property owners, for example, to provide for economically viable use of the
property. He stated he thinks that, although the Resolution said that, the Council is not being fair to them by having this
hearing tonight at 11:45 PM, after this report has been available for only three days. No member of the public or no member
of the Silveira family, was even able to see it until Friday. Needless to say, it involves a lot of changes in the Committee's
report which are of great significance to the Silveira family. He stated he is sure the Council recognizes that this is the most
beautiful piece of property which is still available for development in the entire Bay Area, if not in Northern California, and the
decisions the Council makes on how it is to be developed and what the uses will be, are perhaps the most important planning
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 20
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 21
decisions that the Council will be making during their tenure in office. Yet here we are, almost at midnight, with several pages
of intense and detailed material which they have not had any realistic opportunity to assess or evaluate. He stated that
obviously, in order to comment intelligently, they would have to get their own planners and their own economists. Despite
what the Planning Director said, this is much more than just a little "touch-up" of the Committee's report. He noted that
paragraph A contains a number of major reductions in density and reductions in land use on the property, and they feel that
due process and fairness require that they be given time, preferably two months, hopefully on a night when there is not a
previous zoning matter, to come before the Council and answer these in detail. He stated that to adopt this in a "rush to
judgment" is not only unfair to Mr. Silveira, but it is unfair to the Council. There was no time between last Friday and tonight to
make any kind of intelligent response. He pointed out that the Committee worked for three years to develop this report, and
the Planning Department worked for six months to draft this, and as representative of the property owner he is supposed to
come before the Council tonight and answer this. Secondly, he can understand why the City does not want to get an EIR,
which is probably premature at this point. He noted that if he were to file an application to develop the property they are
supposed to give us a "fair shake". The first thing they will look to is, what did the Council say and what was their opinion? In
a sense you are predetermining these issues, and that is a denial of due process in terms of the Silveira's property. He noted,
as mentioned by Councilmember Heller, that the yield was indicated to be reduced, but they do not know how much,
depending on the amount of senior housing. If the staff does not know how much, how can we? How can we respond to that?
He stated that if the Council really wants to be fair to the property owners, they should be given a reasonable chance to
respond. The Council should also give itself a chance. He stated that considering something at this moment by the City
Council in an hour, after the citizens have worked on it for three years and staff has worked on it for six months, is not fair to
anyone.
Mr. Malone v added that another problem has arisen, even since this was released on May 12th. On May Ilth the Las Gallinas
Valley Sanitary District (LGVSD) voted to condemn 87 acres of Mr. Silveira's property. He noted that in paragraph 8 a of the
Resolution, which he believes was partially put in at the behest of the LGVSD, it indicates that, "We believe the historic
baylands and immediately contiguous agricultural lands east of the railroad ROW should respect and be consistent with
Countywide Bayfront Conservation and the current City land use designation. Retaining this land in agricultural, habitat and/or
wastewater treatment use is consistent with Countywide Bayfront Conservation Zone and wetland protection policies; provides
a significant buffer to identified wetland and pond habitat, and appropriately addresses flooding, geotechnical and odor
concerns". He stated that what the Council is doing, in a sense, if you adopt this - and it should be discussed with the City
Attorney - is engaging in illegal activity to reduce the value of Mr. Silveira's land to allow the LGVSD to condemn it for a later
price. There is material in the Committee's documents and other letters they have sent to the City. Under the law Mr.
Silveira, if they are forced to go to court with the LGVSD, they are talking about a spread of values. He stated LGVSD thinks
the property is worth $500,000, and we think it is worth $10 million. If they are in court, the LGVSD will take this section 8 a of
the Resolution and waive it in front of the jury. Mr. Maloney stated he does not think the City can aid and abet the LGVSD in
getting this land at a cheaper price. He stated that is exactly what this language would do, and he urged a discussion with the
City Attorney on that issue. He added that the law is very clear that a public agency cannot down -zone property to facilitate
more economical acquisition either by that public agency or by another one. Also, in terms of the map, if the LGVSD takes 87
acres out of that property how do we know what effect that would have on the density computations, etc.? He stated he thinks
the Planning staff would be the first to admit they did not count the fact that the Sanitary District may well condemn the property.
In conclusion, Mr. Malone v asked the Council that, before they act on this Resolution, the Silveira group be given a fair opportunity
- to be fair not only in terms of what you say in your Resolution - but in fact to the property owner, and give us a chance to file a
comprehensive written and oral response to these recommendations.
Mr. Michael Marovich, General Director of the Catholic Youth Organization (CYO), the parent corporation for St. Vincent's, stated
the Council knows how he feels about their endowment, which is similar to the way the Silveiras feel about their lands. The
lands represent more to them than just a plot of dirt, than an asset on the ledger sheet. They have been the safe place where
thousands of kids have been served since 1865. The land which once sustained them agriculturally, now needs to sustain
them in a different way. It is no longer the 1890's in the days of the orphanage, it is the 1990's and we need to convert that
endowment to an economic harvest. These last 4 years have been a kind of emotional roller coaster. There have been
some highs and some lows. They went into it very anxiously and did not know what the entity called the St. Vincent's/Silveira
Committee was going to come up with. They participated honestly and feel that all of the members of the Committee
participated honorably and honestly, and came up with a majority recommendation. He noted the lateness of the hour, but
said they are very anxious for the City Council to move this forward. While they share some of the concerns expressed by Mr.
Maloney and the Silveira family, at the same time they do not want to continue to delay, and delay this. He stated he was
heartened to hear Mr. Pendoley say that this was a statement of opinions and feelings, and not a policy statement or a decision
per se. At the same time, he is concerned about what Mr. Maloney said about this being perceived as some sort of
benchmark. He asked that, at the very least, the record remain open for a period of time if the Council chooses to make a
decision tonight, so they might be able to comment. He stated that St. Vincent's, like the Silveiras, have not had much time to
analyze this. Whether the Council takes action tonight or sometime after that, he encouraged the Council to take action and
not leave this open or extended; it has been an exhaustive process and they have expended a lot of time, energy and money.
They feel there has been a good community process and good community planning and staff work. They feel that the Majority
recommendation was a good one. He asked that the record be kept open for their further comment.
Mrs. Sue Beittel, spoke as a member of the Citizens for the Common Good at St. Vincent's/Silveira, and member of the former
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 21
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 22
Advisory Committee. She stated her group met Friday after picking up the report, and again today. She stated that they are
here tonight to consider closure to the Committee's work. The Citizens for the Common Good would like to thank the City of
San Rafael for the tremendous time and effort the City has invested in the future of this important site over the past 4 years.
They believe the City's planning process has been an outstanding effort which can serve as a model for other communities
throughout the country.
Mrs. Beittel stated she hopes the Council will adopt a Resolution soon. However, they are concerned about a few aspects of the
proposed Resolution. The economic viability of the project, as envisioned by the Committee, is in jeopardy because of
suggested changes before the Council this evening. She explained that the goal has been to help meet a critical shortage of
housing affordable to people of moderate means, especially those people who work in Marin County. When there is a
significant reduction in the number of units, or in the areas which can be developed for housing, it becomes more difficult to
produce the style of housing described by the Committee and acknowledged in the Resolution. The 360,000 sq.ft. of
commercial development, with some flexibility in exact placement, is an important part of the St. Vincent's/Silveira Plan. Each
of the sites designated by the Committee have advantages for commercial development, and should be preserved for future
study when the landowners' Master Plan is submitted. Commercial development, modest as it is, can help offset some of the
infrastructure costs including preservation of the "H" area buildings, and enhance affordability. The Citizens group asks that
Section 8 b on page 7 of the Resolution be deleted, and that the City commits in there to the 360,000 sq. ft. and recognize the
sites identified by the Committee.
Mrs. Beittel added that the other major issue of concern is the transfer of development rights. She noted that a number of the
participants in the design competition, as well as some of the judges, suggested further study of this innovative idea. She
also thought the Committee should study the transfer of development rights, and talked with staff about it on several occasions.
She was told that it was very complex, had not been done successfully in similar situations, and was not suitable for these
owners. She stated that now they have some suggested revisions, based on the successful transfer of development rights.
She questioned whether that is a valid assumption. She stated that the Committee for the Common Good recommends that
paragraph 8 f on page 8 of the Resolution be shortened, ending on mid -line 5, after the words "evaluated further". The rest of
the paragraph should be blocked. She asked that the Council adopt the Resolution with the suggested changes, and thanked
them for allowing her to be involved in this very challenging planning process.
Ms. Margaret Azevedo, speaking for the Citizens for the Common Good at St. Vincent's/Silveira, stated that when the Advisory
Committee was formed some expectancies were created. The City had the expectancy that this Committee would bring
forward some good, clear directives for the future of those properties and they have done that. The landowners had an
expectancy, and they supported this process all the way, as the Council knows. The Committee had an expectancy that once
the results were in, the Council would take whatever steps were needed to enable them to move ahead with preparation and
submittal of a Master Plan for development of the property. She stated they assume that with the adoption of this Resolution
of Intent the Council will have done that. She stated her group would like to offer a third change. On page 9, under Interim
Actions, they would suggest addition of a fifth point which would read, "Allow the landowners to submit a Master Plan for the
development of the St. Vincent's/Silveira properties under the existing General Plan".
Mayor Boro asked if a CAPS representative would like to address the Council.
Mr. Frank Nelson, speaking on behalf of CAPS, distributed a letter which he stated he will highlight in view of the late hour. He
stated that CAPS would like to applaud the San Rafael Planning Department and the Council for articulating within the
Resolution of Intent, site concerns which go beyond those recognized by the "Urban Village" plan. He explained that his letter
focuses on the comments in Section B 3 of the Resolution, which is the site concerns section. The letter expands on some of
those concerns, a through k, and adds some additional ones, 1, m and n, and also suggests that the Resolution of Intent
include a subsection, entitled "Protection of and Concern for Public Health and Safety". He stated that issue should be of
paramount concern whenever City entities are reviewing and evaluating development proposals for the St. Vincent's/Silveira
lands. Therefore, their third request is that the Council add a subsection with the recommended title, and that it include three
concerns: 1) No development shall take place within the designated flood plain; 2) No structural development shall take place
on soils which are subject to significant ground shaking during seismic events; and 3) No development shall take place within
the toxic emissions range of the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District facilities. Mr. Nelson noted that Mr. Maloney had
mentioned the LGVSD action on May Ilth directing that eminent domain action be filed against 87 acres of the Silveira Ranch.
He added that with the CAPS letter he has attached a letter form the LVGSD to the Advisory Committee (dated 10/20/92) and
read excerpts: "The risk of cancer, as well as other health concerns, arises out of the emission of potentially carcinogenic or
other harmful compounds from the treatment process. Our board feels that it does not make sense to build near the plant and
expose residents to health hazards". In another section: "We hope that the committee shares our conviction that new
residents should not be penalized by buying homes or working in an area where health and odor problems exist, affecting their
lifestyles and property values". Mr. Nelson stated it is of interest that the Sanitation board has taken the position that
development on the Silveira property is not feasible, without expansion of their facilities. He stated that raises the question that
if you expand facilities, whether or not you can even develop on the property because of the toxic emissions. He stated that is
a serious question, which CAPS commends to the Council, and requests that the question be included in the Site Concerns.
Mr. Nelson stated that, in summary, CAPS is requesting that the Final Resolution of Intent, whether adopted tonight or, as
requested, two months from tonight, that in any event it include the public health and safety concerns of flooding, earthquake
SRCC Minutes 5/15195 Page 22
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 23
hazards and toxic emissions. He thanked the Council for the opportunity to address them.
Ms. Barbara Salzman of Marin Audubon Society stated they did not have time to review the document, but she is sure that her
concerns are the same as those Marin Audubon would have had. She stated she feels that this is a step in the right direction
and is pleased it is heading this way. She stated she was a member of the Advisory Committee, and co-author of the Minority
report, and she thinks this reflects the many concerns she had, as well as the larger community, after the Committee adopted
the report. It much better reflects the presence of wetlands on the site and the sensitive habitat by pulling the site off the
Baylands. Also, wildlife interests are reflected much more with movement of corridors. She stated that with regard to transfer
of development rights, this was one of the Minority recommendations because they found that the Silveira site had so many
constraints. She suggested that the Council look at the new Baylands maps because there maybe some areas which are not
reflected on the previous ones. She stated they would be very interested in trying to work out some way to acquire the site,
and would like to take advantage of this opportunity to look into that further.
Mayor Boro stated that the property owners have been heard, as well as the two advocacy groups, and this will need to be carried
forward. He suggested it be less than two months, and would like to bring it back for the second meeting in June. He asked
the Council if they have comments on any issues for the staff to look at. He asked that City Clerk Leoncini find a way to
schedule this early in the evening, even if it means breaking our agenda cycle, so we will have enough time for discussion.
He then asked if there was any Council comment.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to hear from the City Attorney's Office with regard to the legal issues which have been
raised. He was unaware of the action by the LGVSD, which is a concern. Ms. Hasser explained we do have a land use
designation on that portion of the site. It is Agriculture/Recreation with a very low land use intensity. The Resolution does
nothing to change that. Councilmember Cohen stated he is glad to hear that, and would still like to hear from the City Attorney
as to whether any actions we are considering taking would result in City liability. He added he does not think we should get
into getting comments from all the parties and modifying this Resolution to the point where it becomes essentially a planning
document. We are starting to go in that direction, and we should be very careful about that point. He stated that the language
regarding EIR Alternatives is a little too constraining, as a result of the years of community study of alternatives for these
properties. We need to recognize the continuum of opinion. We have accepted the Majority and the Minority reports, but we
do not want to go too much further in trying to analyze or make decisions between or along that continuum, without benefit of
an EIR or a Master Plan proposal. He stated one of two things will happen which will trigger the next step - either a Master
Plan proposal for the properties or a General Plan revision a few years from now. He is not sure at this point that he is
prepared to say that he holds some of these specific opinions or beliefs laid out in Section C 8, on page 7 of the Resolution.
He stated he also needs to read the entire CAPS letter. He noted that at this point, without benefit of further study, we are at
some point going to need an EIR. He stated he shares some of the beliefs in Section C. He is supportive of protecting the
historic Baylands east of the railroad tracks. He stated we need to be careful of those areas which may infringe on wetland
areas. Beyond that, he feels we have to be careful, without the benefit of public hearing or further study, stating opinions and
beliefs about appropriate levels of development, other than what has already been presented to the Council. He stated he will
confer with staff and come up with some suggestions for a way we can accomplish the intent without making statements quite
that strong. He stated we do not want to continue the hearing process and come to any conclusions without the benefit of an
Environmental Impact study, which we are not prepared to do at the present time. He stated we need to take time to study
this, and he feels that 30 days is ample time to do that.
Councilmember Zappetini agreed it definitely needs more study and 30 days would be fine.
Mayor Boro concluded by saying it was encouraging tonight that at least three of the four groups we heard from are looking at this
point in time to get some resolution as to where we are. He stated that the planning process we went through with the citizens'
group brought up a lot of issues. We always wanted to identify opportunities and constraints on that site, and we have done
that. At the same time, we made a decision several months ago that we did not get involved in any kind of EIR because we
would not have an application before us. At some point, when there is something definitive to look at, then it is appropriate for
this Council to get involved in an EIR. At the same time, he feels we have to recognize that the County has a commitment to
revisit this issue in the next several months to look at their interim zoning. He feels the approach which staff has taken here,
where they looked at what the committees presented, what the City's policies are, and what the County's policies are, and for
the most part there is compatibility. He noted there are some issues which Councilmember Cohen brought up, and he agrees
that we do not want to get to the point where we will trigger anything. However, he feels that we can say that in certain areas
we want to change certain things, and we will do that in a way that it is our opinion of what we hope to achieve.
Mayor Boro asked the Councilmembers to review the letters received, and he is sure that we will hear further from Mr. Maloney
and others, so that at the second meeting in June we will be prepared to adopt a Resolution of Intent. Mayor Boro added he is
curious about the condemnation issue, as to why this plant feels that they need that much level of land to process their product.
He noted there is another similar plant in this area which achieves their goal without vast acres of land. He would like to
know the pros and cons of this issue.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to continue this item to June 19, 1995.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 23
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 24
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
NEW BUSINESS
22.CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
None
URGENCY ITEM:
MARIN RELEAF - File 109
Mayor Boro noted there is an emergency item on the agenda, and asked for a motion to put it on the agenda.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to consider this item an emergency and place it on the
agenda.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Ms. Sandra Sellinger explained that this program is meant to educate the youth in planting of trees, in an effort to curb the
vandalism. It would include preschool students up to high school. She explained that a Resolution is required from the City
Council, stating that they support the project, and approve an application for funds for an Urban Forestry Grant program.
Public Works Director Bernardi explained that the Resolution is necessary as part of the grant application with the Department of
Forestry, so he would recommend adoption of the Resolution. The City Attorney has reviewed the Resolution and finds it to
be consistent with our standards.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution as recommended.
Under question, Councilmember Cohen asked is there any financial impact for the City. Mr. Bernardi replied there is none.
Councilmember Cohen noted that there must be certification that the applicants have, or will have, sufficient funds to maintain
the project. Mr. Bernardi stated he has reviewed the documents and they are in order. He stated that the first part of this
program is to get the trees, and the second part is to get another available grant out there which will be for the maintenance of
the trees. Ms. Sellinger cannot apply for the grant for the maintenance, until she gets the trees. This is the first step in the
whole process. Councilmember Cohen confirmed that by certifying this the City is not accepting any liability to the grant, or
that we will cover shortages in the program. Mr. Bernardi stated that is correct.
RESOLUTION NO. 9364 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL, TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR
FUNDS FOR THE URBAN FORESTRY GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE, COASTAL, AND
PARK LAND CONSERVATION BOND ACT OF 1988
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 AM, May 16, 1995.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1995
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 24
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
REVISED SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 25
SRCC Minutes 5115195 Page 25