Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1998-02-17SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1998 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM None OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: PM iteJ91I93 MILL STREET SHELTER - 100 X 9-3-16 X 233 Melany Kramer, resident of Harbor Center, stated this was her fourth visit to the San Rafael City Council, and she was again requesting the Councilmembers treat her allegations against the Mill Street Shelter as an item to go on the Agenda, noting she would continue to be back on Urgency Hearing Calendars until they do. She reported that today she had delivered to the City Clerk's Office a two-page letter, which details the abuses of residents at Mill Street, including those experiences she went through during her short stay there. She asked Council to take seriously the issue of the drug and alcohol abuse by staff members and residents at the Mill Street Shelter, and the fact that sexual favors are being extracted in exchange for the ability to have a place to live. She pointed out those to whom she had sent copies of her letter, including the County Board of Supervisors, John Burton, Lynn Woolsey, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, the Federal Bureau of Investigation in San Francisco, Equal Rights Advocates in San Francisco, and the State Licensing Board. Ms. Kramer noted the City issues a Use Permit to Mill Street, and it would not exist in San Rafael without it. Mayor Boro instructed City Manager Gould to pursue the allegations, and report back to Council. Ms. Kramer asked when she could expect a report with a real investigation? City Manager Gould stated, as he had previously reported to the City Council and to Ms. Kramer, after she made a series of allegations at previous Council meetings, he asked the Police Department, the Fire Department, Code Enforcement, and the County Health Department to review their records for complaints at the Mill Street Shelter, and also to perform three inspections over a period of two weeks, to look for violations and issues within the jurisdiction of the City of San Rafael to enforce. Mr. Gould stated a small number of Fire Code violations were found, but none of the issues Ms. Kramer had raised. He pointed out her allegations were not within the City's jurisdiction, as they are civil matters, and the City has suggested she pursue them civilly. He offered to ask the Police Department and the others to again investigate the Shelter. Mayor Boro stated, in light of Ms. Kramer's letter, he would like Mr. Gould to pursue this issue one additional time, and submit a written report of his findings to the Council and Ms. Kramer. Mayor Boro stated there would be a hearing if it was found to be warranted. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. Tuesday, January 20, 1998 (CC) 2. Call for Applications for One, Four -Year Term Accepted staff recommendation: on the Fire Commission Due to Expiration of a) Called for applications to Term of Dr. Stephen Mizroch (Term to Expire fill one, four-year term on End of March, 1998) (CC) - File 9-2-5 the Fire Commission, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 2 applications due by Tuesday, March 10, 1998 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's Office; b) Set date for interviews of applicants at Special meeting to be held on Monday, March 16, 1998 at 6:30 PM. Term to Expire End of March, 2002. 3. Approval of Volunteer Program Advisory Committee Approved staff recommendation: New Appointees (CM) - File 9-2-53 x 235 Volunteer Program Advisory Committee and length of terms: Kara Birkenstock, 2/99; Barbara Bloom, 2/00; Christine Chun, 2/99; Carol Dillon, 2/99; Jeanne Friedel, 2/00; Connor Kamada, 2/00; Deborah Meltzer, 2/00; Tom Obletz, 2/99; Marcia Schatz, 2/00. 4. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) - File 9-1 5. Resolution of Appreciation to Bill Tuikka, Associate Planner, Employee of the Quarter Ending December 31, 1997 (CM) - File 102 x 9-3-85 x 7-4 Approved staff recommendation: AB 511 (Migden) Bank In - Lieu Tax, SUPPORT; AB 726 (Baugh), Sexually Oriented Businesses, SUPPORT; AB 1236 (Floyd), Public Safety Officers Procedure Bill of Rights, OPPOSE; AB 1677 (McClintock), Redevelopment Debt, OPPOSE; SB 1388 (Knight), Real Property, OPPOSE. RESOLUTION NO. 10020 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO TO BILL TUIKKA, ASSOCIATE PLANNER, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1997. 6. Resolution of Appreciation to Ria Tuatagaloa, RESOLUTION NO. 10021 Retired Deputy Finance Director (Admin. Svcs.) - File 102 x 9-3-20 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RIA TUATAGALOA, RETIRED DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR. 7. Monthly Investment Report (Admin. Svcs.) Accepted report for month - File 8-18 x 8-9 ending January, 1998. 9. Request for Partial Closure of Fifth Avenue at Approved staff recommendation. "D" Street Parking Lot for T&B Sports Event on Saturday, February 28 and Sunday, March 1, 1998 (RA) - File 11-19 10. Second Street Widening Project - Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 10022 Accepting Proposal from CSW/Stuber Stroeh for RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL Design and Preparation of Plans and Specifications FROM CSW/STUBER- STROEH for Second Street Widening Project, and Authorizing ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. FOR the Execution of the Agreement With CSW/Stuber- DESIGN AND PREPARATION OF Stroeh (PW) - File 4-3-342 x 11-15 x (SRRA) R-405 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SECOND SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 3 STREET WIDENING PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WITH CSW/STUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion: 8. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT WITH TERRA LINDA ORCA SWIM CLUB FOR 1998 SWIM SEASON (Rec) - File 4-10-172 x 9-3-65 Councilmember Phillips asked, in light of the recent Cost Study, if the recovery the City is expecting under the terms of this agreement was sufficient to pay for the cost of operations? City Manager Gould noted when the series of study sessions regarding the Business Cost Study were held, it was clear where the City Council wanted to go in regard to a host of fees and charges, but they did not reach consensus on what they wanted to do about many of the recreation programs, as far as recovery, public subsidy, and the like. He noted those decisions had been deferred until better data could be gathered, and staff could put together proposals for Council's consideration, as to what level of cost recovery the City should achieve for various classes, programs, and activities. Mr. Gould stated he could not respond as to whether this was a proper recovery, but noted it was certainly in line with what other communities are charging for private swim clubs' use of public property. Councilmember Phillips stated he hoped the system could be refined by next year so Council could have a clearer picture. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the signing of an agreement with the Terra Linda Orca Swim Club for the 1998 swim season. RESOLUTION NO. 10023 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH TERRA LINDA ORCA SWIM CLUB FOR 1998 SWIM SEASON. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 11. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO BILL TUIKKA, ASSOCIATE PLANNER, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1998 (CM) - File 102 x 9-3-85 x 7-4 x 10-2 This item was carried over to the meeting of 3/2/98. PUBLIC HEARING: 12. PUBLIC HEARING - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND SIDNEY HENDRICKS, DENNIS HORNE AND SPINNAKER POINT DEVELOPMENT, INC. (OWNER) (CA) - File 5-1-292 x 3-1-1476 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. City Attorney Ragghianti noted the staff report had been prepared pursuant to negotiations with the owners of the property. He reported that in connection with the matter having to do with the construction of the Baypoint Lagoon, it was agreed the City would entertain a request to extend the current Development Agreement which exists on the property for another two years. He stated the only way to accomplish that was to do it by Ordinance, and the document now before Council for consideration does that. Mr. Ragghianti reported that since the staff report was prepared, staff received a telephone call from Mr. Neil Sorenson, Attorney, who indicated there were two legal entities who are presently owners of, or enjoy ownership interest of, the subject property, and will need to be identified tonight, so the Ordinance can be amended to so reflect. Councilmember Heller asked why this had to be done with an Ordinance, rather than a Resolution? City Attorney Ragghianti explained Development SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 4 Agreement legislation requires that Development Agreements may only be adopted, amended or modified by Ordinance. Neil Sorensen, Attorney representing the owners and applicants, reported that since the Development Agreement was entered into in 1993, a portion of the property has been transferred to fully owned entities of the Developer, so the property is now owned by Spinnaker Point Development, Inc., Pablo Land, Inc., and Rockport Land, Inc., and those two names should be added to the amendment to the Development Agreement. Mr. Ragghianti asked Mr. Sorensen to provide the names to the City Clerk and the City Attorney's Office, so the Ordinance can be amended to reflect those names. Mayor Boro asked if there was any problem in going forward with this tonight? City Attorney Ragghianti stated there was not. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Cohen noted the substance of this had already been resolved by a Settlement Agreement Council agreed to last year. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND SIDNEY HENDRICKS, DENNIS HORNE AND SPINNAKER POINT DEVELOPMENT, INC., PABLO LAND CORPORATION, AND ROCKPORT LAND CORPORATION ('OWNER')" Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1720 to print, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 13. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT ZONE CHANGE, USE PERMIT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR FAIR, ISAAC OFFICE PARK DEVELOPMENT, SECOND STREET, LINDARO STREET, AND LINCOLN AVENUE; VILLAGE PROPERTIES, APPLICANT; FAIR, ISAAC & COMPANY, TENANT AND OPTIONEE; AP NOS. 13-012-120, 13-021-100 AND 13-021-190 (CITY FILE NOS. ZC-97-2, UP -97-10, ED -07-24, TS -97-1, AND DA -97-1) (CD) - File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 x (SRRA) R-368 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and recused himself from this item, due to conflict of interest. He turned the gavel over to Vice - Mayor Phillips. Interim Community Development Director Sheila Delimont reported a public hearing was held on February 9th regarding the final EIR (Environmental Impact Report) and Response to Comments, which was prepared for the 406,000 square foot Fair, Isaac Office Park development, and on a 4-0-1 vote, Council voted to certify the EIR. She noted tonight's public hearing was the second phase, at which Council would consider the Merits of the office project. She stated the applications now before Council include the Planned District Zoning, Environmental and Design Review Permit, the Tentative Subdivision Map, the Use Permit, and Draft Development Agreement. Ms. Delimont reported that on February 3rd the Planning Commission reviewed all of these applications, and the Commission recommended Council approve this project. Ms. Delimont noted the staff report for tonight's meeting was very voluminous and covered numerous project issues, including the summary of the General Plan issues, as well as Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance provisions pertinent to this project. Summarizing some of the primary issues, Ms. Delimont referred to the proposed building height bonus, and community use of the conference/meeting room facilities and accompanying outdoor areas. Ms. Delimont reported the Zoning Ordinance for this area permits buildings up to 54 feet in height, but also provides for a 24 foot Building Height Bonus in exchange for either park area next to Mahon Creek, or a 10,000 square foot community facility. She stated the request for a Building Height Bonus for four of these buildings proposes a community use facility of 10,000 gross square feet, with meeting/conference room space in SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 5 Building A, as well as seasonal use of 16,000 square feet of outdoor plaza area, and an additional 19,000 square feet of adjacent lawn and amphitheater area. She noted these outdoor areas would be available from May through October 31st, and the applicants proposed the facilities would be available during the weekday hours of 5:30 PM to 10:00 PM, and on Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM for use by not-for-profit organizations, homeowner groups, neighborhood groups, and schools in San Rafael, and also for use by the City of San Rafael. In reviewing the proposed bonus, there were two considerations Council needed to keep in mind; one was the appropriateness of the building heights for the site, and the second was the adequacy of the Community Use proposal. Ms. Delimont reported the Design Review Board did review this project, including the proposed heights, and felt it was an appropriate building for this particular location. She noted the Final EIR also concluded the project would not have any significant visual impacts. She pointed out there were some excellent computer simulations contained in the document, to aid Council in making this decision. She reported both the Planning Commission and staff had reviewed the adequacy of the community use. She felt it was important to note the Height Bonus provisions for the Zoning Ordinance require that the facilities be made available to the public for cultural and community events, and that the facilities be maintained and operated by the property owner. She pointed out the proposal does not require that the facility be publicly owned and operated; therefore, there were a number of rules and regulations proposed by Fair, Isaac, which staff feels are acceptable and reasonable. She noted the proposal had initially included a 72 hour cancellation clause, and possible requirements for a security guard, which would be charged to the users; however, those components were deleted as it went through the hearing process. She reported staff had originally recommended the facilities be made available to governmental agencies, but this was not acceptable to Fair, Isaac, so staff was recommending a revision to state use could be made available to governmental agencies if the function or event is related to a San Rafael issue or activity, such as when Caltrans had hearings regarding the HOV lane. Ms. Delimont stated another issue was a proposal for a waiver from the Wetlands Set -back Buffer Requirements, noting it was outlined in the final EIR that a portion of the building "B" was encroaching, but there was the required 50 foot set -back from Mahon Creek Wetlands. She stated this was actually encroaching into a proposed Wetland area that has not yet been created, noting it is part of the Andersen Drive mitigation area. She reported it was suggested in the EIR, and in discussions with the Department of Fish and Game, that the path either be shifted closer to the buildings, or be eliminated. She noted the Planning Commission recommended the path be shifted north, so there could be an additional buffer area there. Ms. Delimont stated the City is currently reviewing a proposal to modify the Wetland Mitigation Area, because one of the groundwater monitoring wells is in this area, and it is likely that this area will be adjusted. She explained, if that is done, then the modifications to the set -back will no longer be an issue, because it will no longer be required. Ms. Delimont reported another issue that has been raised is the adequacy of the on-site parking, noting the proposed parking ratio is 3 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet, while the Zoning Ordinance and EIR note that a 1 per 300 ratio would be more appropriate. She stated there is a difference of 135 spaces, and the mitigation for this is to provide a Parking Contingency Plan, which has been identified as potentially being provided in the parking garage. She stated Fair, Isaac believes what is being proposed is appropriate for their use, pointing out the Use Permit would require ongoing monitoring of the parking, so if what is currently provided is not adequate, they could then move to the contingencies. Ms. Delimont reported a Draft Development Agreement has been prepared which would vest the project for a ten year period, noting in return for this, Fair, Isaac was proposing to contribute $250,000 to the City for partial implementation of improvements along Mahon Creek. She pointed out there was no nexus between the proposed office and Mahon Creek, so this contribution could not be required as part of the standard Project Review Process; it was only through the Development Agreement that the City could get this. She stated it would be intended to provide a bicycle/pedestrian path along the south side of the creek, between Lindaro Street and Francisco Boulevard West. Referring to Traffic Improvements and the timing for the widening of Second Street, Ms. Delimont reported these issues had been gone over very SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 6 thoroughly in the EIR presentation. She noted the widening of Second Street was proposed to occur during Phase I construction of Fair, Isaac, and the street widening would include both the General Plan required improvements along Second Street, as well as some project related improvements, and the undergrounding of overhead lines. She stated Department of Public Works has put together a Phasing Schedule to ensure the widening can occur in phases to meet the January, 2000 completion date, which is the Fair, Isaac target. Ms. Delimont noted the Conditions of Approval include a Condition that is recommended to ensure the Level of Service is maintained along Second Street if Phase I of Fair, Isaac, the Macy's Redevelopment Project, and the Kaiser Project are ready for occupancy prior to the completion of the widening. She explained if all three projects were in line, this could cause our Level of Service to deteriorate below General Plan standards, so staff was recommending a Condition requiring interim TSM measures be imposed to reduce the project's proportional traffic, in order to maintain the Level of Service during this interim. She stated this Condition would also be required of the other projects, and they would also have to pay their fair share of the widening project. Ms. Delimont stated the Design Review Board had given the project a favorable review and recommended approval of the Design Review Permit, and the Planning Commission had also recommended approval. Councilmember Cohen referred to the interim TSM measures, and asked if he were correct that there is a plan which shows that if those measures were implemented, the impact would be reduced, so the impact on Level of Service prior to the widening of Second Street would be mitigated? Ms. Delimont stated this was correct, noting the Traffic Engineer has noted the number of trips they contribute that would bring it below the Level of Service, and they will be required to implement TSM so those trips are not there during the peak hours. Mr. Cohen asked if we had some kind of performance standard for that, noting he recalled when there was TSM implementation for the YMCA, as an offset for other mitigations, those targets simply could not be met. He noted the YMCA simply paid the City more money, but that would not work here, because we are talking about a Level of Service Impact. He asked how we were addressing that? Ms. Delimont stated they would specifically have to put together a program which hits that number of trips. She noted Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian knows exactly how many trips they contribute during the peak hours, and we will monitor the level of service there, and determine how many trips they will need to reduce it to maintain the level of service. She reported there was also a Condition that requires ongoing TSM, and there will be an annual review of the Use Permit for compliance with that, as well. Referring to the issue of parking, and the possibility of adding 135 spaces if that should prove to be necessary, Councilmember Cohen asked if it would be possible to add those 135 spaces for commuter parking, at some point in the future, if a funding source could be found, if the City found that Fair, Isaac had been correct it their parking assessment, and those 135 spaces were not needed? He wondered, if there was a slight change in the public policy approach to this, and providing additional parking in the area of the Transportation Center made good sense, could those spaces be added at someone else's expense, and a separation maintained between those spaces and the Fair, Isaac parking, to address the security concerns of Fair, Isaac? Ms. Delimont stated that as part of the DDA, there was an attached Memorandum from the Redevelopment Agency which deals with the sale of the Corporation Yard, and addresses the Transportation Center. She noted the memorandum references the fact that during the Vision and General Plan this was done as a transfer site. It also discusses the fact that the concept of shared parking facilities, or the inclusion of other uses on the Corporation Yard, were discussed with Fair, Isaac representatives in 1996, but it was determined that this substantially conflicted with their desires for a campus identity, as well as security and financing issues. She stated the inclusion of other uses or shared parking could cause a reconsideration of whether the site could adequately accommodate the Fair, Isaac facility. She also pointed out current General Plan policies do not address a Park and Ride lot in that location, although it was specifically looked at during the Vision process. Cecilia Bridges, Attorney representing Fair, Isaac, introduced Larry Rosenberger, President and CEO of Fair, Isaac, John Woldrich, Executive Vice -President and COO of Fair, Isaac, Michael Riordan, Vice President of Fair, Isaac, Stephen Gale, Project Manager for Fair, Isaac, and Marty Zemcik, of Village Builders. Larry Rosenberger, President and CEO of Fair,Isaac, thanked the Council, and asked them to continue to work with Fair, Isaac to make this project a SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 7 reality for their company, and for the citizens and businesses of San Rafael. He recalled that in 1996, when the City, the Redevelopment Agency, and the community representatives came to Fair, Isaac with a concept for a corporate campus within walking distance to Downtown San Rafael, Fair, Isaac was intrigued with the idea of fulfilling their additional office space needs on this infill site, one that badly needed redevelopment. He noted the site has turned out to be challenging. Mr. Rosenberger stated Fair, Isaac set out to accomplish both the City's vision for a gateway entrance to Downtown San Rafael and a high quality office project, with Fair, Isaac's vision of a second campus in Marin County, as a long-term home for their company, located with convenient access for their employees coming from the north, the south and East Bay areas. He noted it has not been quite as easy as everyone first thought, stating Fair, Isaac owed a very large "thank you" to the Mayor and the City Council, and to the entire City and Redevelopment Agency staffs, particularly Planner Paul Jensen. Mr. Rosenberger also thanked the project team, especially David Israel and the architect team from Backen, Arrigoni & Ross, noting they have planned a beautiful set of buildings and landscaped areas, which will be, as the General Plan states, "a graceful addition to the views of Downtown San Rafael". However, Mr. Rosenberger stated that as graceful and beautiful as these buildings will be, they believed the largest value of Fair, Isaac to Downtown San Rafael, by far, will not be its buildings, but rather its greatest value will be the employees, and what they will contribute to Downtown San Rafael, that will be the real enhancement. Mr. Rosenberger acknowledged that as we move forward there are bound to be additional challenges during the final design and construction of their new home, and when these new challenges do arise, he asked that Council think of this first, greatest enhancement, and work with Fair, Isaac to accomplish each of their goals jointly. Cecilia Bridges distributed copies of the Site Plan for Phase I and Phase II, Exhibit "A" to the Development Agreement, and a letter regarding community use of the facilities. Ms. Bridges noted the rules for community use of this private facility are in the process of being developed. She pointed out a basic set of rules is included in Condition 2 of the Use Permit, and there is also a kind of further, "next level" set of details, which she believed would be developed further as they begin to use the facility. She stated it was Fair, Isaac's intent, as those additional rules are developed, to use the City's existing rules for the community facility at "B" Street and at Falkirk, noting they had spoken with the Directors of both those facilities, and they have been very helpful. Ms. Bridges stated there were two issues she would like to summarize regarding the Development Agreement. First, regarding the term of the Development Agreement, she stated for a project of this size, in order to match Fair, Isaac's projected needs for space, a ten year term was necessary to be able to fulfill five buildings and two parking structures. Regarding the Public Benefits of the Agreement, she noted these benefits were much more than the contribution for Mahon Creek. She stated the first public benefit is the conversion of a blighted, vacant, Downtown site, to a high quality office, which will contribute to the vitality of the Downtown and, in fact, will contribute to the economic base of the entirety of San Rafael, not just the Downtown. The second benefit is the development of an attractive gateway to the City, as everyone has said they wanted, and a gateway that is consistent with the source of that statement, the Downtown San Rafael Vision. The third benefit is to include, within this development, property which is badly under used as the City's Corporation Yard, which now finds itself in the middle of Downtown San Rafael. The fourth benefit is the dedication, contributions, and improvements by Fair, Isaac to the public road system, sewers, water drainage, landscaping, and irrigation, which includes a $1.1 million contribution which enables the planning and construction of the public improvements to Second Street by the City. She noted there were also public improvements to Lindaro Street and Lincoln Avenue, which will both be done as part of this project, and also a $250,000 contribution for public improvements for a public path and landscaping on the south side of the Mahon Creek conceptual plan. Ms. Bridges stated this Development Agreement was consistent with the General Plan objectives, is compatible with the Land Use District for this property, conforms with good land use practice, and public convenience and welfare, and is in the best interest of the City, and the health, safety, and general welfare of its residents. On behalf of Fair, Isaac and Village Properties, Ms. Bridges asked for Council's approval of the Development Agreement. Peter Kleinbrodt, Attorney, noted staff was recommending approval of this project based on the determination that either the significant effects SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 8 would be mitigated upon Council's determination that they are unavoidable, or there are overriding considerations. He stated he did not believe all of the significant effects had been identified in the EIR documents, and respectfully requested Council hold off on approval of these Resolutions at this time. He acknowledged the EIR did identify circulation improvements, noting it clearly establishes the widening of Second Street and Francisco Boulevard West, among other improvements that have also been added to the mitigation report. He stated the EIR recognizes that Second and Third Streets are critical arteries in the Countywide system, and need to be retained as efficient corridors. He reported Impact 4.1A of the EIR states, "The construction of off-site improvements and their impacts will be discussed in the respective section of the EIR". He further pointed out that under Impact 4.1E, regarding Consistency with Planning, Police and Zoning, the EIR states the proposed project would not result in degradation of the LOS Peak Hour standards, but tonight he had heard otherwise. Mr. Kleinbrodt noted Councilmember Miller emphasized at the Certification Hearing there would certainly be "pain for the gain", stating he agreed, and what concerned him was that we were learning about the pain subsequent to the hearings, where this information should have come forward. He stated the EIR refers the reader to Section 4.5 for a detailed discussion regarding transportation related impacts associated with the project. He reported that section was prepared by Fehr and Peers Associates, and has been thoroughly reviewed through the various stages. Unfortunately, under the "Existing Conditions" on Page 4.5-8, Fehr and Peers Associates admit there are often congested conditions along quads on the arterial roadways that lead to the freeway, such as at Second Street and Hetherton, Mission Avenue and Irwin Street, and the Irwin Street on-ramp to northbound Highway 101. He stated we were all familiar with the current congestion, noting it is heavy and problematic. He noted Page 4.5-11 states, "In the morning, heavy eastbound traffic volumes on Second Street result in LOS D conditions. In the evening, it is the same condition"; therefore, in the morning and evening, Second Street is problematic. Mr. Kleinbrodt stated his concern is that the EIR, under "Construction Period Impacts", sites the presence of slow moving construction vehicles, and concludes that will be significant, and he pointed out there was no discussion of what is going to happen on Second Street during the phasing of this construction, nor is the impact on the adjoining streets discussed. He noted he read in the report the phasing was going to be over a one-year period, and at last week's meeting he learned from Mr. Mansourian's comment, that during construction the closure of two lanes of Second Street is planned. Mr. Kleinbrodt stated those impacts will obviously reduce the effectiveness of Second Street, and he did not know what they would do to the adjoining streets. He felt there was a failure in the EIR to look at those issues. Mr. Kleinbrodt pointed out not only does CEQA require mitigation and monitoring, but monitoring is not mitigation, noting mitigation and evaluation of mitigation are important, and what the effects of those mitigations will be. He stated we are going to mitigate Second Street by widening it, but we do not know what we are going to go through for a year. He pointed out his firm is on the Fifth floor (of a building on Second Street), and they are going to be impacted by not using Second Street in the morning, and by the congestion down Lincoln Avenue, and north on Fifth Avenue. He stated the ultimate decision of whether to approve a project, be that decision right or wrong, popular or unpopular, is an anomaly if it is based on an EIR that does not approve or provide the decision makers and the public with the information about the project that is required by CEQA. He urged Council not to approve the Resolutions until it is known what the true construction impacts will be. He stated he and his clients want to know what the gain will be for the pain. Gary Ford, resident of San Rafael, stated he believed Fair, Isaac was a good project in a bad location, noting the more he learns about the project, the more he has his beliefs reinforced. He referred to Page 247 of staff's report to the Planning Commission, in which they discuss the TSM. He felt they made an excellent point when they stated, "The TSM Program anticipates a maximum Fair, Isaac employment of 1,300 employees" and, in fact, the EIR made the explicit assumption that the population of the project would be 1,300. Mr. Ford noted all the traffic implications, and all the traffic studies, were based on two factors: a) the number of employees, and b) the amount of square footage. He reported this recommendation from the Planning staff states further, "There are no guarantees that Fair, Isaac will not exceed the amount of employees presented in this proposal", which means the employee population at this site could go up to 1,500 to 2,000, with the resulting impact of further cars into San Rafael. In addition, the staff report noted, "As a condition SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 9 of the Office Park Use Permit, the City can impose a 'cap' on the maximum number of employees for the Office Park; however, such a condition would be difficult to monitor and enforce". Mr. Ford stated he felt there should be a cap on the number of employees at this Office Park, and believed it was quite irresponsible to approve a project, assuming it would be 1,300 employees, and then ten years from now, which is what the vesting period is supposed to be, they will not really know how many employees there are, noting it could be as many as 2,000, with a phenomenal impact on traffic. Mr. Ford felt it was important to understand there was no causal relationship for the increase or decrease of traffic congestion because of the existence of a TSM Program. He pointed out a TSM Program has various factors, but you have to force the employees to use the program, and stating that we have traffic congestion, and we are hoping the employees will use the TSM Program, is of absolutely no assistance whatsoever. He stated this point was brought up in the Development Agreement on Page 120, citing, "If Phase I buildings are ready for occupancy prior to completion of the Second Street improvements, referenced herein, the City agrees to permit occupancy of the Fair, Isaac buildings, Phase I, provided that Fair, Isaac commits to provide and implement a plan of TSM for any interim period while construction of the widening of Second Street is being completed, which will, to the City's reasonable assurance, maintain a General Plan Level of Service for that intersection of Second and Hetherton Streets". Mr. Ford stated there was a major, glaring fault there, noting there should be a stipulated LOS. He stated, to his knowledge, after reading the EIR, all intersections in Downtown San Rafael are grandfathered at Level of Service E, so if it goes to Level E or F, or below, then that would cause the TSM. He felt, in order to have clarity, it should be required that we note what would trigger a TSM, and what Level of Service it must denigrate to. Mr. Ford stated he also had concerns regarding the issue of when the Use Permit is going to be imposed, and from what starting point. He noted it was apparently only after one year of occupancy of Phase I that there would be an analysis of the traffic, but he felt that to wait one year after the occupancy of Phase I was too long, noting an analysis of the occupancy and traffic implications should be looked at after 60 or 90 days. He asked why we had to wait one year? He referred to Page 104, Paragraph B, which states, "One year following completion and occupancy of Phase II, an identical parking report, as required by 3-A above, shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Redevelopment Department". He noted that when he reads this, there seems to be a very nebulous aspect as to what would happen at the time the report was done, and asked, "if there is disagreement between Fair, Isaac and the City concerning the traffic implications, what would be the result?" Mr. Ford addressed the fees to be paid by Fair, Isaac, citing $211,000 for the Lindaro Street improvements, $111,000 for the eleven foot turn, and 79% of the widening improvements, for a total of $793,218. In reading this section of the report, Mr. Ford pointed out he could not find what would happen if there were cost overruns, nor could he come to a conclusion as to how these numbers were arrived at. He asked what the remedy would be, should there be disputes about this later on? Referring to the Corporation Yard, Mr. Ford noted the Development Agreement states the City and Fair, Isaac would work with each other to assure there is proper control in turning over that property from the Redevelopment Agency to Fair, Isaac. He believed there were distinct similarities between this and earlier discussion with St. Vincent's, in putting the "cart before the horse". He reported, to his knowledge, the City had not yet found a new Corporation Yard, and although the City may want to get the $2.1 million in the City coffers, he felt it would be productive and prudent to find a site first, get neighborhood approval for the relocation of the Corporation yard, and then, and only then, should the City talk about turning over the Corporation Yard to Fair, Isaac. Sue Beittel, resident of San Rafael, stated she believed this was a very good project, in a good location, and was the kind of project the City had thought about many years ago when we wanted to improve the tax base in San Rafael, again in the early 1970's when we set up the Redevelopment Agency, and a third time when we did the Downtown Plan. She pointed out it is a transit oriented development, and has a very aggressive TSM. She noted a Transportation Plan is being developed, with Fair, Isaac representing the larger employers, through Steven Gale, in funding that work, and they hope to be able to pass something in November, which will significantly improve public transit to the Transportation Station in Downtown San Rafael. She believed this could be improved even further, and referred to a recent article in the newspaper, which reported one of ten workers in Santa Clara SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 10 County could soon receive an offer of free transit passes, which might entice them out of their cars and onto County busses and trains. She stated this could be a significant measure to change behavior, which she believed was what we really had to do to make Downtown work better. She stated this was something she had been working on for a long time, and hoped for Council's support. Ms. Beittel best access able to get referred to the proposed community room, and noted it has the she knows of to public transit, which means more people will be to it and use it. She pointed out there are a significant number of people, both cars. young and old, and the disabled, who cannot drive Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated she was very excited about the project having reached this point, noting the Chamber has wholeheartedly supported the Fair, Isaac development, because of all the benefits it brings to our community. She stated one of the least attractive parcels in the Downtown was now going to be replaced with a very attractive, well designed office complex. She reported she had been on the Vision Committee, the Keepers of the Flame, and stated this was the Vision they had wanted, noting this project would bring the community's Vision for the Lindaro district to fruition. She reported the committee had been presented with several proposals for the property, including "big box" retail, which they rejected in the belief that a quality office project would be developed. She stated we have that in the Fair, Office project. Referring to the Building Height Bonus and the Community Facility Use, she stated it was entirely appropriate to give this bonus, because of what the community is getting in exchange. She noted when they first discussed having community usage on the site with the Vision Committee, they asked staff what kinds of bonuses could be given. She explained they wanted this community use because of the lack of space in the Downtown, noting almost 10,000 square feet will be provided, which will be a wonderful resource for the community. She noted the Vision Committee also discussed having an outdoor performance space, in back near the creek, and now there will be a 19,000 square foot lawn amphitheater, plus an additional 14,000 square feet in the central plaza. She pointed out this was definitely a great community plus. Ms. Giambastiani stated much time has been spent talking about parking and traffic with this project; however, the traffic issues had been well addressed, the mitigations, including the widening of Second Street and establishing the parking reserve, had been well studied, and the entire area was going to benefit from these improvements. Ms. Giambastiani noted people tend to think that every employee coming to Fair, Isaac is going to be driving solo, in a single -occupant vehicle, and every employee is going to be coming at 9:00 AM and leaving at 5:00 PM; however, she stated that was not the way this company operates, pointing out she did not think anyone there works from just 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. In addition, she stated not all of the employees are going to be coming from the north, noting that was one of the reasons Fair, Isaac wanted to be here; therefore, the idea that we are going to have a huge crush of people coming down in the morning, and a huge crush of people go back north again, is not going to happen. She believed the project's proximity to the Transportation Center was one of the things that drew the company to this location, and reported they plan to have a shuttle bus going from the north campus to the Downtown campus; they will have bicycles available for the employees to use during the day; they have set up a telecommuting center in Petaluma, and have begun a carpooling survey among their employees. Ms. Giambastiani stated that when the City's General Plan Revision is completed, it will include, hopefully, an economic element so that economic impacts can be weighed, along with traffic and environmental considerations. She pointed out we do not have that at this point, but even though the element is not in place, she believed we had to consider the positive economic impacts this project will have. She reported we would be creating another 1,200 jobs, most of them high -paying; we are going to bring more customers into the Downtown to support our Downtown retailers; the company intends to use as many local vendors as possible; and Fair, Isaac's business is not going to compete with any of the merchants in the Fourth Street Retail Core, which was one of the concerns the Chamber had regarding the development of this site. Ms. Giambastiani stated Fair, Isaac has proven to be a wonderful community asset, and a leading corporate citizen, who has shown extreme sensitivity to citizen and environmental concerns. She believed it was a great project, and a perfect location, and urged Council to approve the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 11 Resolutions so the project can get started. There being no further public comment, Vice -Mayor Phillips closed the public hearing. Councilmember Heller asked for clarification on the use of the community facility, asking if it would be available only for City government? She also questioned whether 10:00 PM would be a firm closing time for special events, noting often times meetings run later than that hour, and she had a bit of a problem in looking at that as a firm closing time. Cecilia Bridges referred first to the closing time, noting the rules that have been included may end up changing; however, she explained the closing time was included because, unlike the Council Chamber, which may not be used early in the morning, every morning, the community facility is a private facility during the day, noting it is the conference center that Fair, Isaac will use to train the people who purchase the software. She stated it has been Fair, Isaac's experience to be flexible when they can; however, she believed setting that guideline for people was a good idea, so they do not regularly expect to have Midnight usage, and then ask Fair, Isaac's employees to work until 3:00 AM to clean something up in order to get it ready for 8:00 AM the next morning. Councilmember Heller stated she was thinking more about the time restriction on the weekends, pointing out it does specify 10:00 PM on the weekends, as well as weekdays, and she felt there should be a little flexibility. Ms. Bridges agreed, noting that in talking with the directors of the facility on "B" Street and at Falkirk, they expected to learn along the way. Vice -Mayor Phillips noted the Council had not yet seen those guidelines, and asked if they would be given to Council for approval at a later date, or if this was something that would be handled at staff level? Ms. Bridges stated Council had been given the guidelines as of February 3rd; however, questions had arisen at the Planning Commission regarding liability, and after also talking to the directors of the City's facilities, they realized there were other guidelines they probably needed to add. Therefore, the provision is that a copy of the guidelines will be filed with the Community Development Department, and it was anticipated that any time there is a significant change to those, they will be re -filed, so there is always a current set of guidelines available to the public. Councilmember Heller asked about the government use? Ms. Bridges stated the Condition had been changed, as described earlier by Ms. Delimont, to include the City of San Rafael and other governments, as long as the issues relate to the City of San Rafael. Ms. Delimont pointed out this was listed as Condition #2 on Page 103, and the change was noted in bold print. Ms. Bridges explained they had already added that the use by governmental agencies would be permitted if the function or event is related to a San Rafael issue or activity. She noted what they were trying to eliminate were the other un- named governmental agencies, who might not have a nice place to meet, from deciding it might be nice to come down and meet at Fair, Isaac's every month. Councilmember Heller referred to the TSM, and asked if the company might aggressively look at adding the Park and Ride lots to their shuttle service? She felt this could pick up a lot of cars, and pointed out most of the Park and Ride lots are not used to their fullest capacity. Ms. Bridges stated one of the things Fair, Isaac does is to survey their employees before they take an action, and noted if, in a survey of employees, they found that stopping at the Park and Ride lots would be helpful, that was what they would do. Councilmember Cohen stated his understanding of the Parking Contingency Plan was a proposal to add another bay onto the parking structure proposed for the Corporation Yard site, if that proves to be necessary, and asked if this was correct? Ms. Bridges stated it was, pointing out the additional bay would be approximately 51 feet long. Mr. Cohen noted long ago the City decided it would rather see some kind of development on this site that was of greater community benefit than acres of parking for people coming from outside San Rafael, and taking transit to somewhere else outside San Rafael. He still believed that was the right way to go on this, and it did occur to him, in thinking about this after the EIR, that should it prove the parking was not necessary for the project, as ultimately used by Fair, Isaac, and if the potential existed to build 135 spaces, there might be some time in the future when some other public policy body might decide we should add more parking around the Transit Center. He felt it was worthy of discussion at this phase of the project, rather than later, perhaps ten years from now, and then wishing we had planned for that possibility. He asked if, at some point in the future, there would be the possibility of discussing perhaps adding those 135 spaces at someone else's expense, and separating them from Fair, Isaac's parking? SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 12 Ms. Bridges stated one thing that needed to be clarified when thinking about the decision to add additional spaces to this parking structure was that you do not build the parking structure, and then add the spaces later; the decision is made, and the building is built with the additional spaces. She explained the parking structure itself is not set up so you could just add an additional 51 feet at some future time, it has to be incorporated into the plan when the structure is built; therefore, the decision had to be made whether to build the structure with the additional spaces or without them. Ms. Bridges also pointed out one of the most important considerations to the Fair, Isaac employees was Fair, Isaac's way of doing a survey and asking their opinions. She reported when Fair, Isaac decided to go to this site, they asked their employees if they had any concerns about this, noting the employees had been very upfront about their concerns. She stated one of their concerns was to make sure the parking was secured, noting many of them do not want to walk out into a parking garage at 10:00 PM and wonder who is out there. She reported the employees have stated security is very important to them and, therefore, it is very important to the management of Fair, Isaac. She stated if, at some time, it was determined there was no need for the spaces, if they had already been built, and if there was no need for security, then it would be time to discuss whether something different should be done with the spaces; however, at this point Fair, Isaac has no projections that indicate any of those three things would take place, and they could not agree to anything, based on those things they do not believe will happen. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not understand the Parking Contingency Plan. He noted he understood Ms. Bridges last point, and could respect that; however, he felt it might be possible to address the security concerns. He noted, on balance, he would certainly rather see this project than 135 parking spaces serving the Transportation Center. However, it was his understanding of the Parking Contingency Plan that the City had the right to review the adequacy of the parking on an ongoing basis and, in fact, the Use Permit Conditions state the City may, at any time, require review of the on-site parking. He noted the language the Council was being asked to approve states, "The City can require review and study of the on- site parking at any time. If, during this periodic review and study, it is determined additional parking is warranted, the City can require the project sponsor to implement the approved Parking Contingency Plan". He noted it did not state "prior to construction of Phase II", it states, "at any time". He pointed out it also calls for monitoring to take place one year after occupancy of Phase I, and when they are at occupancy of Phase II; therefore, it appeared the City reserved the right, in the future, to require the additional parking be constructed to serve this office campus. He stated, in this case, the applicant is proposing a parking standard that is less than the City has generally required, and the City is agreeing to that, in return for the applicant allowing the City the right to evaluate that on an ongoing basis, and if, at some point in the future, it appears from the City's review that Fair, Isaac's proposed standard is not adequate, then the City can require the applicant to build or provide the additional spaces. Ms. Bridges stated it was Fair, Isaac's understanding that the decision would be made before they design and build the parking structure on the Corporation Yard, because that is how that structure had to be built, noting it is not an add-on. Interim Community Development Director Sheila Delimont reported the way the Condition is worded does provide for the Parking Contingency Plan, noting it had been proposed during the public hearings that this was a solution to the parking problem, and while they have indicated there is a problem with the construction phasing of this, the Use Permit is worded to provide ongoing monitoring. If, at some point, there is a deficiency, the City would still have the right, if additional parking was not feasible, for Fair, Isaac to come up with another solution at that point in time. Senior Planner Katie Korzun stated the idea was that after the first phase was built and the parking was in, there would be an evaluation of the number of spaces per employee, and that would be the decision point as to whether or not the Contingency Plan would be implemented. She stated if it was found they needed more parking, the City would require that they build the additional spaces, and we would continue to monitor. She noted that if, at that first point, the City found they did not need additional parking, we would still check up on them in the future. Ms. Korzun stated that after Phase II is built, if it looks like more parking is needed, Fair, Isaac would have to do something, but it would be back before Council to determine what that "something" would be. Ms. Delimont pointed out that "something" could be the implementation of a much more stringent TSM program, to bring them back within the required parking; however, if that were not feasible, they would have to find additional parking. Ms. Delimont stated staff felt that after the Phase I construction they would SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 13 have a very good handle on what their requirements are, because they will be in operation at that point. David Israel, Project Architect, stated that from their perspective, that was the approach they had anticipated, explaining that should Phase I show that a higher parking need is necessary, they would make the decision to build -out to the City's standard of 3.3 per thousand, for the total build- out in Phase II, should the survey show that to be necessary. Should it not show that to be necessary, they would make a decision at that point in time as to whether they are going to go forward with the additional parking or not. If they did choose to build -out, and to continue to build that 3 per thousand, then they would do whatever methodology they felt was necessary to make sure their needs stay below the monitoring requirement. Mr. Israel pointed out a diagram of the modified Lincoln Avenue building, noting it shows the inclusion of an additional story on the southernmost end, as well as the additional length. He stated it would be possible to do this, once the garage is in place; however, the additional cost for oversizing the foundations, and the destruction to the uses, would be very problematic in this type of facility, because it has a continuous ramp system, and it would be destructive to the flow. Mr. Israel stated it had never been Fair, Isaac's anticipation to have a situation where they would need to add in the future, rather they would make that decision after the first phase monitoring had been completed, and that decision point would carry them forward. Councilmember Cohen pointed out that was not what the actual language stated which Council was being asked to approve, and he felt the Council should understand what it is they are approving. Citing Page 82 of the staff report, he quoted, "Prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase I, an alternative Parking Contingency Plan shall be prepared and submitted, which provides on-site parking for both Phase I and Phase II, at a ratio of one space per 300 gross square feet of office area", and continued, "The Parking Contingency Plan shall remain on file with the City for the purpose of serving as a parking reserve. Implementation of the Parking Contingency Plan may be required by the City, if it is determined after occupancy of Phase I or Phase II, that additional parking is warranted". Mr. Cohen stated he understood this to mean a future City Council could come along and tell Fair, Isaac their parking is insufficient, and require them to implement their Parking Contingency Plan, which calls for them to build additional spaces. Mr. Cohen stated if this was not everyone's understanding of the language, he would like to have explained how he was misreading it; however, if that is the understanding, then he wanted to make sure everyone agreed. Mr. Cohen noted he did not believe this was going to happen, and he was willing to believe the City could agree on an alterative set of proposals that would otherwise mitigate the parking requirement, if it came to that, and building the additional spaces was prohibitive. However, the language before Council tonight clearly states the City has the right to require Fair, Isaac to build those additional spaces, after occupancy of Phase II, and he felt we needed to resolve this. Ms. Bridges acknowledged Mr. Cohen had brought up a good point, noting they had all been working with this so closely, and known the intent of its meaning, noting it was one of those situations where they all knew what they thought it meant, and had not been reading with a critical eye. She believed it would be possible to solve this by asking staff to add clarification that at the Phase II stage, if it is determined the parking does not meet the City's standard, then that inadequacy or shortfall could be accomplished by providing spaces, or other methods to reduce parking demand. Ms. Bridges believed the reason for the confusion was because they all thought that after Phase I was built, they would have, through monitoring, a very good understanding of the parking demand. She acknowledged their understanding of this was somewhat tainted by the fact that they believed their parking demand was actually lower, and they believed the numbers would actually be lower. However, at the end of construction of the first two buildings, they did expect to have clear demand figures to tell them whether to add the spaces or not, as an economic decision. She stated if Council would be satisfied with the additional clarification in the language, she felt that would address Phase II. Vice -Mayor Phillips asked if Council could be assured, and perhaps have confirmed by staff, that Phase II operations are similar, that is, reflective of the operations of Phase I? Ms. Bridges stated the use was the same, and Ms. Delimont reported it would be the same parking demand. Ms. Korzun cited the Conditions of the Use Permit on Page 103, quoting, "One year following completion or occupancy of Phase I, a report on the adequacy of the parking will be prepared and submitted to the Community SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 14 Development Department. The report will be prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer, and will analyze parking use, occupancy, and vacancy, and present recommendations on the contingency measures and/or the need for implementing the Parking Contingency Plan. One year following completion of Phase II, an identical parking report, as required above, will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Department". Ms. Korzun stated those Conditions, linked together, do what staff and the applicant thought they had done, which is to address the timing and what would go on. However, she stated if Council did not agree that it does that, she agreed with Ms. Delimont that staff could add additional language to clarify the issue. Councilmember Cohen stated it still read to him, under this language, that the City could come back one year after Phase II and demand implementation of the Parking Contingency Plan. He stated rather than trying to rewrite this with a "Go" or "No go" decision prior to Phase II, he felt the language called for preparation of a Parking Contingency Plan, noting we do not know exactly what that is yet. He pointed out one way this has been described was the ability to construct an additional 135 parking spaces, so the ratio would equal the City's baseline, as opposed to what is proposed by the applicant. He felt it might also be possible to incorporate into the Parking Contingency Plan other ways for Fair, Isaac to guarantee they would get parking demand to match the parking that is being proposed. Ms. Bridges stated that was what she had tried to propose in the language she suggested, so at Phase II it could be addressed not just with spaces, but with additional measures. Vice -Mayor Phillips noted it sounded as though staff and the applicant were at the same place with regard to this issue, and asked Ms. Delimont to propose additional language. Ms. Delimont referred to that section on Page 82, 22-C which states, "Alternative Parking Contingency Plans shall be prepared and submitted, which provide on-site parking for both Phase I and Phase II, at a ratio of one space per 300 gross square feet of building area". She felt we needed to add the wording, "or an alternative Plan which reduces the need for the available parking on-site", and then continue, "The Plan shall be accompanied by a scheduled timeframe for implementing additional parking, or parking reduction methods". She stated this would allow the flexibility of either providing the parking on-site, or altering the TSM Program to meet the available parking. Mr. Phillips asked for City Manager Gould's reaction to this suggestion? Mr. Gould stated the wording would be consistent with what staff had believed they negotiated with Fair, Isaac, but had not clarified in the original language. Councilmember Cohen noted this meant there would also have to be a change to the Use Permit, as well, stating Fair, Isaac would either provide additional spaces, or prove to the City they could reduce the demand to meet the parking spaces actually provided. Ms. Korzun noted the Use Permit actually states the Parking Contingency Plan was required to present a parking landscape reserve, and/or revisions to the parking layout of the parking structures. She noted staff could add the phrase, "Reduction of overall parking demand" at the bottom of Page 3-C.2. Councilmember Cohen referred to 3-D, which also needed to be changed to read, "If the City determines the Plan must be implemented, additional parking shall be installed within the timeframe, or other measures must be taken to reduce demand on the available parking". Vice -Mayor Phillips asked if there were any other sections that would be impacted by this? City Attorney Ragghianti stated there were. He noted Subparagraph (e) on Page 104 needed to contain the same modification; therefore, staff would modify Page 83, Paragraph 22-C; and also Page 104, Subparagraphs (d) and (e), each of which talk about the Parking Contingency Plan. Vice -Mayor Phillips stated he was a little uncomfortable with the changes just made, although he did want to proceed. He asked City Attorney Ragghianti if Council could act on this now, and if staff later discovers there are other sections that are impacted, could they then come back and add to those sections, if necessary? City Attorney Ragghianti stated they could, noting he felt when the time came for Council to actually vote on a particular motion, they should be sensitive to incorporating the changes that had been articulated, so staff can bring back, if necessary, the final language after they have had a chance to refine it, and insert it into these various approvals. However, he stated there was no reason Council could not act at this time. Ms. Bridges suggested also including the statement, "These sections are to be changed, and any other sections that should also appropriately and similarly be changed", which would allow staff and Fair, Isaac a final check to make sure they have caught everything. Councilmember Miller referred to Councilmember Cohen's speculation of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 15 adding public parking around the Transit Center, stating he felt that would be an additional problem rather than a solution. He noted he would rather see the solution, as Ms. Beittel suggested, in terms of the transit system itself. Councilmember Cohen stated there had been several public comments regarding the EIR, and asked about the issue that had been raised regarding impact during construction, and the allegation that, somehow, the City had failed to consider or mitigate the impacts during construction. Matthew Ridgeway, of Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, speaking for Laura Forbes, noted the issue had been raised about the impacts of construction on Second Street, and he felt there was a distinction to be made between the impacts of construction on the project, and the impacts of construction of the improvements on Second Street. He pointed out the improvements on Second Street were slated as part of the General Plan, and were not associated with the project. However, he stated it was important to note that as a mitigation for construction in Beckswith's project, they have required a detailed construction staging plan, prior to the issuance of building permits. Public Works Director Bernardi responded to the construction of the roadway itself, noting prior to this meeting Council approved a contract with an engineering firm to look at the staging of the widening of Second Street, and to put together the plans and specifications for that particular project. He reported they would now begin to do that, and analyze the impacts of the construction as it relates to the traffic on Second Street. He noted, clearly, we would have to keep in mind that when one end of the road is under construction, not to have the contractor out there between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, or 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM, whatever staff determines the time to be. He stated staff also wants to have the contractor stage the work so he does not have the entire length of Second Street torn up at one time, noting he would have to work in some progressive manner. Mr. Bernardi stated this would be arrived at when they prepare the plan specifications, noting he could report back to Council with this staging plan, when staff asks for authorization to call for bids. Councilmember Cohen noted the point was also raised that while there is conceptual discussion of the number of employees, there are no limits or controls on the number of employees. He stated it was his understanding that in the mitigations they have been discussing, we were mitigating the impacts, and it would not matter to the City how many employees Fair, Isaac had at the site, as long as the impacts were within the range the City considered within the EIR, Use Permit, and Design Conditions. Ms. Delimont stated that was correct, noting both the traffic generation and the parking demand were based on gross square footage, not on the number of employees. She stated it would be very difficult to enforce a cap on the number of employees, and it would serve no useful purpose; therefore, staff would not recommend that. Councilmember Cohen noted Council was going to be asked to make a Finding regarding a Statement of Overriding Considerations, with regard to significant cumulative, unavoidable impacts on US 101, and he felt they should discuss this, so there was no question of Council having fully considered this in their decision to take action. Ms. Delimont reported that when the EIR was certified, there was a detailed description of the potential impacts on Highway 101, noting that goes beyond the ability of the applicant to mitigate. She pointed out it is a regional problem that needs to be resolved, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations provides the economic and community benefits which override that significant impact. She noted Matthew Ridgeway could provide additional details if Council wished more information. Councilmember Cohen noted if he understood correctly, given the current status of Highway 101, virtually any project that is approved contributes to that problem. Ms. Delimont stated that was correct, noting when staff looked at the General Plan they looked at the cumulative impact of the build -out on Highway 101. She pointed out that because this is a large project, it rises to a level of significance, but every development that comes through in San Rafael has a cumulative impact, noting that goes for every project in the County. Vice -Mayor Phillips noted a question had been raised because the Level of Service had not been indicated, and asked if that was something that should be included? Ms. Delimont stated the Development Agreement does not specifically state the Level of Service standard, but it is shown as Condition 25 on Page 85 of the Conditions of Approval on the Design Review Permit, stating, "If the project is ready for occupancy prior to completion of the Second Street improvements, the City will conduct a traffic analysis to determine the existing Level of Service for the Second and Hetherton SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 15 a. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 16 Streets intersection, the cumulative Level of Service for existing conditions plus project, plus other projects approved by the City that are not built or occupied. If the traffic analysis determines that the General Plan adopted Level of Service E standard at the Second and Hetherton Street intersection can be maintained with project occupancy, then building occupancy shall be granted by the City". Vice -Mayor Phillips asked if she was satisfied that issue was covered? Ms. Delimont stated she was, noting if the Level of Service is not maintained, then the City would implement the TSM, so it will meet Level of Service E. Therefore, it is definitely in the Conditions of Approval to guarantee that the General Plan standard can be maintained, and there is a standard for TSM for occupancy. Ms. Bridges referred to Page 121 of the Development Agreement, noting it states, "Maintain General Plan Level of Service standards", and while it does not specify what that is, it refers to "General Plan" as an adjective, describing the Level of Service standards. Therefore, one would go to the General Plan to find that. Vice -Mayor Phillips referred to Cost Overruns on Page 84, asking if there were any issues Council should be concerned about? City Manager Gould reported that as part of the City's negotiations on the Development Agreement, the City would incur any cost overruns on the widening of Second Street, and the traffic mitigation fees that would be paid are being off- set by the additional commitments to do the General Plan improvements of $1.2 million. He stated this would cap Fair, Isaac's contribution to the traffic improvements along Second Street, and additional costs would be borne by the City. Public Works Director Bernardi noted the City has collected other Traffic Mitigation Fees for General Plan projects, so if the project is overrun, the extra costs come out of the Traffic Mitigation Fees we already have in the bank. Councilmember Heller noted there had been a question regarding a site for the new Corporation Yard, and asked if the City was looking at several different sites, and would make a decision at some point in the future? Mr. Bernardi stated staff was working on that issue now, and were investigating sites, noting he and Economic Development Director Ours have had discussions concerning this. Mr. Ours noted that after Council certified the environmental documents, he and Mr. Bernardi went to the Marin Municipal Water District and had a very successful first discussion regarding a joint use Corporation Yard on ten acres on Pelican Way. He reported those discussions are underway, noting he had spoken with staff at the Water District, and they were receptive to the City's ideas. Councilmember Cohen noted the City had at one time discussed a joint venture with the City's schools, and as he recalled about this particular site, it was anticipated it would also accommodate their needs, as well. Mr. Ours stated that was correct. Mr. Gould pointed out this could perhaps offer us a chance to share the facilities, as well as staffing. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving a Statement of Findings and Fact of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigating and Monitoring Program. RESOLUTION 10024 - RESOLUTION APPROVING A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 406,000 SQUARE FOOT FAIR, ISAAC OFFICE PARK DEVELOPMENT ON 15 PLUS ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF SECOND STREET, AND FRONTING LINDARO STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE (RE: FORMER PG&E SERVICE CENTER SITE AND CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CORPORATION YARD) AP #13-012-120 (PORTION), 13-021-100 AND 13-021-190. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT/DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (due to conflict of interest). The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT TO PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT FOR THE FAIR, ISAAC OFFICE PARK MASTER PLAN (RE: ZC-97-2, FAIR, ISAAC OFFICE PARK, SECOND STREET, LINDARO STREET, AND LINCOLN AVENUE; AP SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 17 NOS. 13-012-120 (PORTION), 13-021-100 AND 13-021-190)" Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety, and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1721 to print, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT/DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips None Mayor Boro (due to conflict of interest). C. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving an Environmental and Design Review Permit, a Tentative Map, and a Use Permit, with the modifications as discussed, and other modifications as staff determines them to be necessary, consistent with the discussion that either additional parking will be provided on-site, or an alternative plan that reduces the parking demand to the parking actually provided, will be presented in the Parking Contingency Plan. M e RESOLUTION NO. 10025 - RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, TENTATIVE MAP AND USE PERMIT FOR THE 406,000 SQUARE FOOT FAIR, ISAAC OFFICE PARK DEVELOPMENT ON 15 PLUS ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF SECOND STREET, AND FRONTING LINDARO STREET & LINCOLN AVENUE (RE: FORMER PG&E SERVICE CENTER SITE AND CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CORPORATION YARD) AP NOS. 13-012-120 (PORTION), 13-021-100 AND 13-021- 190 (WITH MODIFICATIONS AS DETERMINED NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED ON- SITE, OR AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN THAT REDUCES THE PARKING DEMAND TO THE PARKING ACTUALLY PROVIDED, TO BE PRESENTED IN THE PARKING CONTINGENCY PLAN). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT/DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (due to conflict of interest). The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE FAIR, ISAAC OFFICE PARK PROJECT, SECOND STREET, LINDARO STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE; AP NOS. 13-012-120 (PORTION), 13-021-100 AND 13-021-190). CITY FILE NO. DA -97-1" Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety, and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1722 to print, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT/DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips None Mayor Boro (due to conflict of interest). Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the Vice -Mayor to Execute the Development Agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 10026 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE FAIR, ISAAC OFFICE PARK PROJECT (SECOND STREET, LINDARO STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT/DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips None Mayor Boro (due to conflict of interest). SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 18 14. MONTHLY REPORT: City Manager's Report (CM) This report was not given, due to the lateness of the hour. 15. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS None. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1998 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/17/98 Page 18