Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1998-08-03SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 1998 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM: Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items. CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM: la. Conference With Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Name: Oungoulian v. City of San Rafael Marin County Courts Case No. 171119 lb. Conference With Labor Negotiator Government Code Section 54857.6(a) City Negotiator: Daryl Chandler Employee Organization: Police Mid -Management Association City Attorney Ragghianti announced no reportable action was taken on items la. and l.b. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: PM ALTERNATIVE HOUSING - File 13-16 x 100 8:30 Larry Simmons, President of the Terra Linda Valley Property Owners Association, referred to a survey his Association had conducted, asking for opinions concerning the addition of another facility in their neighborhood, along the Golden Hinde corridor, for alternative, handicapped housing. Mr. Simmons stated he was not one of those kinds of neighbors who has been referred to as having a "Not In My Back Yard" attitude, noting that for the past twenty years the residents along the Golden Hinde corridor had been accepting various alternative housing facilities into their neighborhood, long before communities were required by State law to incorporate alternative housing facilities, and they have been doing this in a fair and open environment. Ms. Simmons reported these alternative housing units do have an impact on a neighborhood, and are not without problems, pointing out the residents had accepted and managed the problems without complaint, and with little or no outside assistance, and he felt they should be commended for their actions. He referred to Attachment B, on Page 4 of his survey, which gives examples of some of the problems they have incurred. Mr. Simmons reported the number of units along the Golden Hinde corridor had exceeded what would be considered their fair share, referring to Attachment A of his survey for a list of alternative housing units located in their neighborhood. He explained five of the units are Eichler homes that have been modified, noting each unit may house two people per bedroom, and have an additional facility for one on-site staff member. He pointed out most of the Eichler homes have six residents and a staff person. In addition, when the garages are converted to office space and other uses required by staff, then a fourth bedroom may be used to house an additional two people. He stated the facility at 5 Golden Hinde was originally built as senior citizen housing, and the neighbors accepted the reduced parking and access capability, with the assurance of the County of Marin that this facility would be used as senior citizen housing. However, that is not the case, and the facility has now been opened to a variety of housing, for which it was not designed, and it has put additional pressures on the neighborhood. Mr. Simmons reported a reasonable estimate of the number of individuals now residing in the neighborhood could be calculated at 75 individuals supporting these facilities, or living in them. He reported the analysis did not cover or include other units in the neighborhood that are reserved for low-income or senior citizen housing. Mr. Simmons asked Council to make a clear statement that the neighborhood along SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 2 the Golden Hinde corridor had done its fair share of incorporating alternative housing, and in an effort to conform to the spirit of the law, and avoid targeting, or giving the perception of targeting a single area, organizations should avoid locating additional facilities along the Golden Hinde corridor. Each housing facility should limit its use of the facility to the residential needs of the individuals residing at the facility. Mr. Simmons stated they also recommend that each unit being modified from a single-family unit be limited to a maximum of six individuals and one staff, and that a plan be put into place to further analyze the impact of State legislation, which gives organizations too much of an exception to local zoning ordinances, and also make recommendations for change where required. Mr. Simmons referred to the State legislation, as it now exists, stating its original intent was good, but noting it cannot be enforced in a fair and equitable manner as there are no tracking facilities to do this. Mayor Boro stated last week he had spoken with Community Development Director Bob Brown concerning this issue, due to a concern raised by another resident about the concentration of assisted facilities, and the fact that the City does not have any discretion with those units that have six or less people. Mayor Boro noted the Terra Linda Valley Property Owners Association was conducting a survey, and would follow-up with the Council, adding it may be that this issue will require discussion with the State Legislators in an effort to resolve this issue. Community Development Director Brown stated this was a situation of frustration for most California cities, noting the cities are pre-empted, for the most part, from restricting these types of residential care facilities through zoning. He stated staff was attempting to contact the representative from Community Care Licensing to make certain the facilities listed in this area have been properly licensed, and are complying with their licenses. He noted they would also review the permitting for 5 Golden Hinde. Mr. Simmons called attention to the last paragraph on Page 4, noting there was a specific unit they were interested in, as well as specific issues such as the expansion of the units being used as medical clinics; the number of people living in the units, pointing out hired staff are not counted; and the excess number of units now in this area. Mr. Simmons stated he would be happy to participate in this review, or provide any information the City may need. Mayor Boro stated the City would get back to Mr. Simmons regarding this issue. ONE-WAY STREETS IN EAST SAN RAFAEL - File 11-1 Bob Hoffman, resident of 114 Plymouth Cove, and owner of H & J Tire at 160 Bellam Boulevard, addressed the one-way traffic plan for East San Rafael. He requested the City postpone the day it begins the one-way streets until we have identified the effect this will have on real estate and business. He noted the City had decided there should be mitigation to the affected area; however, he had not seen any information as to how the City had determined what was being mitigated. Mr. Hoffman believed a qualified person or firm should study the area to determine the financial effect of the change, noting this should include the effect in the short-term, within the next year, as well as the long term effects during the next five years, ten years, and twenty years, on real estate values and business income. Then, he believed, the City would know what mitigations would be required to compensate the efforts of its plan. Mr. Hoffman stated he had studied the minutes of previous discussions regarding this issue, noting that, possibly, if the Councilmembers had not made their decision the night they did, and had studied the minutes and the actual plan, they might have reached the same conclusion he had, that there may be a further problem, other than what has been concluded, pointing out there had been a lot of testimony at the meetings regarding this issue. Mr. Hoffman suggested the City do what it had done in the Downtown, and change the General Plan Level of Service from LOS "D" to LOS "E", and evaluate the effect; then, if people complained, and the City determined this was not working, we could change the traffic to alleviate the situation if it goes beyond "E". He noted another suggestion, which was brought out at one of the neighborhood meetings, was to start an Assessment District, to extend Kerner Boulevard beyond where it is today. Mr. Hoffman stated if Council felt they had to go ahead with this, then he believed they needed to make a study to be able to explain to him what the City is mitigating, and why. He reported he purchased a building in 1975, which has gained in value, and he assumed he would retire on the rent from this building; however, in looking at Downtown San Rafael, or any of the other areas where the City has done this, the value of the buildings and the income that can be derived from those buildings starts to taper off. Mr. Hoffman stated he was very concerned about this, noting he is only 68 years old, and might live to be 90. REMEMBRANCE OF FORMER COUNCILMEMBER JOHN MISKIMEN - File 9-1 Steve Andersen, resident of San Rafael, requested a moment of silence in SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 3 remembrance of former City Councilmember John Miskimen, who passed away July 30th. Mayor Boro stated he would adjourn the Council meeting in Mr. Miskimen's memory, observing a moment of silence at that time. Mr. Andersen thanked the Council on behalf of Mr. Miskimen's family. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, Approved as submitted. July 6, 1998 (CC) 4. Call for Applications to Fill One Unexpired recommendation: Term on the Design Review Board, Due to Resignation of Kurt Gettman (CC) - File 9-2-39 1.7 VA 8 0 City Work Plan Review (CM) - File 237 Resolutions of Appreciation to Chuck Stuckey and Gerald de Kerchove, Former Budget Oversight Committee Members (MS) - File 102 X 9-2-48 Resolution of Appreciation to Greg Cella, Police Officer, Employee of the Quarter Ending 6/30/98 (CM) - File 102 x 9-3-30 X 7-4 Approved staff a) Called for applications to fill one unexpired term on the Design Review Board (Licensed Architect or Licensed Landscape Architect), due to resignation of Kurt Gettman, Architect, with applications due by deadline of Tuesday, August 25, 1998 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209; b) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 8, 1998, commencing at 6:30 PM, to fill one unexpired term to the end of June, 2001. Accepted report, including a compilation of those projects and activities that were completed during the last fiscal year, consistent with the Council's policies. RESOLUTION NO. 10276 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO CHUCK STUCKEY, FORMER BUDGET OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEMBER. RESOLUTION NO. 10277 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO GERALD de KERCHOVE, FORMER BUDGET OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEMBER. RESOLUTION NO. 10278 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO GREG CELLA, POLICE OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING 6/30/98. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE Approved final adoption of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 4 No. 1728 - An Ordinance of the City Ordinance No. 1728. of San Rafael Amending Title 12 of the Municipal Code of the City of San Rafael, Sections 12.04.010 and 12.04.020, Creating the Building and Safety Division in the Community Development Department and Designating the Building Official (CD) - File 9-3-85 x 9-8 10. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE Approved final adoption of No. 1729 - An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael Ordinance No. 1729. 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 the Planned Development (PD) District to the Planned Development (PD Ordinance No. 1729) District to Allow Six Single - Family Residences (Re: ZC96-3, End of Twin Oaks Drive, AP Nos. 10-142-24, 11-051-23 & 11-115-29) (Academy Heights) (CD) - File 5-1-336 x 10-2 x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 11. Resolutions Accepting: (a) Grant Deed of Easement a.RESOLUTION NO. 10279 for Public Use and (b) Grant Deed of Easement for RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GRANT Maintenance Access at Civic Place on McInnis Parkway and Civic Center Drive (PW) - File 2-5-38 DEED OF EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC USE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (from Joe Shekou and Heidi Shekou at Civic Place on McInnis Parkway at Civic Center Drive). b. RESOLUTION NO. 10280 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GRANT DEED OF EASEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (from Joe Shekou and Heidi Shekou at Civic Place on McInnis Parkway at Civic Center Drive). 13. Resolutions of Appreciation to the Citizens Advisory RESOLUTION NO. 10281 Group for Caltrans (PW) - File 102 x 9-2-47 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DIANE BLACKMAN, CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP FOR CALTRANS MEMBER. RESOLUTION NO. 10282 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO SCOTT KAPLAN, CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP FOR CALTRANS MEMBER. RESOLUTION NO. 10283 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO GREG POULOS, CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP FOR CALTRANS MEMBER. RESOLUTION NO. 10284 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ROBERT COOPER, CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP FOR CALTRANS MEMBER. RESOLUTION NO. 10285 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO LYNN KOGER, CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP FOR CALTRANS MEMBER. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 10286 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO CAROL DILLON, CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP FOR CALTRANS MEMBER. RESOLUTION NO. 10287 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO GEORGIANA McCARTY, CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP FOR CALTRANS MEMBER. 14. Resolution Authorizing a Joint Public Hearing RESOLUTION NO. 10288 of the City Council and San Rafael RedevelopmentRESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A JOINT Agency to Consider Adoption of Proposed Second PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the COUNCIL AND SAN RAFAEL Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project (RA) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - File 140 x (SRRA) R-140 XVII TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion: 3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RE: CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PARAMEDIC SERVICE SPECIAL TAX FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES (MEASURE J, SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1998) (CA/CC) - File 9-4 X 9-3-31 X 9-12-1 1) CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AND SUBMITTING SAME TO THE ELECTORS OF SAID CITY, AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION THEREOF; 2) REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE WITH ANY OTHER ELECTION CONDUCTED ON THE SAME DATE; 3) REQUESTING ELECTION SERVICES BY THE COUNTY CLERK; AND 4) REQUESTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE MEASURE Mayor Boro felt it was important that when the message is structured for the ballot, not the wording itself, but the actual description of this, that we are very clear about how this increase will roll out over a four- year life cycle, and that we are not talking about an increase from $40.00 to $53.00 during the first year. He also noted the last time this issue was before the City, in 1988, the Councilmembers were the five individuals who signed the Ballot Measure, and unless members of the Council did not agree, we would assume that this would happen again. City Manager Rod Gould reported Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan would be returning at the next Council meeting with the City Attorney's Impartial Analysis of this Ballot Measure, which would also make clear that we do not expect to go to the maximum amounts the first year, and that this would happen over time. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution re: Paramedic Service Special Tax on residential and non- residential structures, and Appropriations Limit increase. RESOLUTION NO. 10289 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL: 1) CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AND SUBMITTING THE SAME TO THE ELECTORS OF SAID SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 5 N 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 6 CITY AND ORDERING PUBLICATION THEREOF; 2) REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE WITH ANY OTHER ELECTION CONDUCTED ON THE SAME DATE; 3) REQUESTING ELECTION SERVICES BY THE COUNTY CLERK; AND 4) REQUESTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE MEASURE. (Election Date: Tuesday, November 3, 1998, Special Municipal Election). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION AND COMMENDATION TO CAROL DILLON - File 102 Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated the fact that Council was able to do this, asking that wording in the Resolution be amended, at the third "WHEREAS", changing the text from "...she was known...", to read "...she is known...", noting he understood the context in which this had been written, because it is referring to the Downtown; however, he felt, in the overall context "is" would be more appropriate. Councilmember Cohen noted it was his understanding Mrs. Dillon would not be able to come to the Council Chamber to accept the Resolution, and asked how Council might present this Resolution to her? Mayor Boro stated he would be meeting tomorrow with Sue Beittel, a friend of Mrs. Dillon, and would discuss how those Councilmembers who might like to visit Ms. Dillon could arrange a time convenient for her; Mayor Boro will then inform the other Councilmembers, so they can all pay her a visit and present the Resolution. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution of Appreciation to Carol Dillon, as amended. RESOLUTION NO. 10290 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO CAROL DILLON, as amended. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO REPUBLIC ELECTRIC FOR EAST SAN RAFAEL TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I - TRAFFIC SIGNALS (BID OPENING TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1998) (PW) - File 4-1-495 x 11-1 x 11-10 Councilmember Phillips noted the Engineer's Estimate of $265,000 for this project, the maximum bid of $312,000, and the bid Council was being asked to accept of $146,000, pointing out this was a very big spread, and asked if staff was comfortable Republic Electric knew what they bid on, and was capable of carrying out the work they bid on? Public Works Director David Bernardi reported Republic Electric was the same contractor who bid on the "D" Street traffic signal, and they had also been well under the Engineer's Estimate on that project, finishing the project in three weeks. Mr. Bernardi stated it was Republic Electric's intention to finish this project in three weeks, as well. Councilmember Phillips stated it was comforting to hear Mr. Bernardi state so explicitly that he believes they will perform, and asked why the Engineer's Estimate was off by so much? Mr. Bernardi stated the City bid a standardized, signalized intersection, and included a lot of things in the estimate that ultimately, when it came down to putting the actual "spec" package together, were unnecessary for this item, and we did not change our numbers, keeping our numbers the same. Therefore, the contractor, in first looking at this, estimated how long it was going to take him to do it, noting, of course, to the contractor, time is money, and if he can do it in three weeks, that means he has to pay less in wages, and that is where they are saving most of their money, in wages. Mr. Bernardi reported one of the Conditions the City had was that the signal poles had to be delivered on time, noting there was a $1,000 per day penalty for each day after August 31st they did not install the signals. Mr. Bernardi stated it SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 7 was staff's understanding Republic Electric already had the signal poles in stock, saving them the necessity of having to go out and buy them from someone else, and they already know what they cost, making this part of the cost savings, as well. Councilmember Phillips stated Mr. Bernardi had been very good in the past about reviewing these bids, and he would rely on this recommendation, noting he was pleased it came in at over $100,000 less than we had expected. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 10291 - RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE EAST SAN RAFAEL TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I - TRAFFIC SIGNALS TO REPUBLIC ELECTRIC IN THE AMOUNT OF $146,000. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 15. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO GREG CELLA, POLICE OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER FOR PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1998 (MS) - File 102 x 9-3-30 Mayor Boro explained that each quarter the City employees select an Employee of the Quarter, based on interaction with fellow employees, and contributions they have made to the City of San Rafael. Mayor Boro introduced Police Officer Greg Cella, Employee of the Quarter ending June 30, 1998, noting he had already received a $100 award, as Employee of the Quarter, and would be in the running for Employee of the Year, which carries a $500 cash award. Mayor Boro stated it was a real pleasure to recognize Officer Cella, congratulating him on the fine work he has done for the City of San Rafael throughout the year. He stated Officer Cella was a very friendly person, yet very firm and effective, and was a wonderful representative of San Rafael's Police Department. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Boro congratulated Office Cella, and presented him with the Resolution of Appreciation. 16. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY GROUP FOR CALTRANS (PW) - File 102 x 9-2-47 Mayor Boro reported that over the past couple of years the City has had a number of its citizens work with staff on an issue involving Caltrans and its impact on the City of San Rafael with the Highway 101 widening that will be underway. Mayor Boro explained that when it became apparent that Caltrans had the money, and was going to go forward with work on the expansion of the freeway through San Rafael, this Citizens Advisory Committee was put together. He stated Mr. Cooper had been an initiator of that request, noting one of the main goals of this group was to make sure the people in this City had an opportunity to be heard by Caltrans. Mayor Boro stated there had been a collective experience at the start of this process, noting when Caltrans came to town, they had their mind made up, and left; however, the City felt we needed to not have that happen as we went forward in the future. Therefore, Mayor Boro stated the Citizens Advisory Committee members had provided the City a great service, and on behalf of the Council, he thanked and congratulated the Committee, and presented Resolutions of Appreciation to Bob Cooper, Scott Kaplan, and Lynn Koger. Georgiana McCarty, Diane Blackman, Gregory Poulos, and Carol Dillon were unable to attend, and Mayor Boro stated their Resolutions would be sent to them. Committee member Bob Cooper thanked his fellow Committee members, Redevelopment Agency Secretary Sheila Edwards, who served as the Committee's Secretary, and Public Works Director Bernardi, City representative on the Committee. 17. PRESENTATION BY ARTIST PATRICK MALONEY OF A PROPOSED MURAL AT PICKLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY CENTER (CM) - File 9-3-65 x 9-2-24 Councilmember Miller stated the people of the Canal area were very proud of the great spirit in the Canal, and of the artists and residents who have SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 8 worked with Patrick Maloney through the Canal Ministry. Mr. Miller reported Mr. Maloney founded the Canal Arts, and was able to get a grant to allow him to empower the youth in the community, noting they had originally planned to paint one mural; however, the project had expanded, and there would now be several murals of people in the Canal. Mr. Miller introduced Patrick Maloney, who presented Council with the mural. Patrick Maloney displayed the mural depicting portraits of people in the Canal, explaining the idea behind the mural was to honor the people who live in the community, and their diversity. In presenting the mural, Mr. Maloney was joined by three young artists, high school students who had helped with the mural. He stated they hoped the City would allow them to mount the mural on the west end of the Pickleweed Community Center, which is the end that is visible when approaching from Canal Street. City Manager Gould reported Councilmember Miller had suggested a joint meeting of the Pickleweed Advisory Committee, the Park and Recreation Commission, and perhaps even the Design Review Board, to see the mural, understand the vision, and make a recommendation accordingly. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Maloney and the other artists for a wonderful rendering. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 18. PUBLIC HEARING - BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 (PW) - File 6-48 Public Works Director David Bernardi reported this was a ratification of an assessment that has remained the same for the last two fiscal years. He explained this District had been formed in 1990, as a Condition of Approval for the Spinnaker by the Bay development project. He stated the purpose of the District was to fund ongoing management of Spinnaker Lagoon as a freshwater system, and to remove certain invasive exotic plants, particularly Pampas Grass. He noted Council was being asked to ratify the assessment, and at the conclusion of any public testimony, to adopt a Resolution confirming the diagram and assessment, and levying the assessment for fiscal year 1998/99. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Jean Sward, 23 Dowitcher Way, and Tyrone Cannon, 9 Egret View, addressed the Council, presenting a photograph of what the Lagoon looked like when it was first developed. Ms. Sward reported that when the Lagoon had first been built from fill land, it had three little islands; however, those islands were now becoming massive, not because of exotic plants such as Pampas Grass, but because the cattails were expanding and growing all around the islands. She noted that while this may not have been predicted in 1990, when the assessment was calculated, they were now losing the Lagoon, reporting it was going to fill in with grasses, just as any vernal pond will fill in with grasses. Ms. Sward stated they were requesting that more money be allotted to harvest and maintain management of the cattails, now that this has become a significant problem, and the Lagoon is filling up with grass. Mr. Cannon reported he was living in the most recent phase of development, Phase 3-B, known as Baypoint - The Peninsula. He noted one of the main reasons he purchased his home was for that particular setting, with the Lagoon and the water fowl. He stated he was quite concerned that the cattails are growing, and appear to be taking over the Lagoon. Mr. Bernardi explained that as far as the mechanics of increasing the assessment, Proposition 218 had very strict restrictions on increasing the assessment, noting that in order to increase the assessment they would need a 2/3rds vote, requiring that 2/3rds of those who lived in this Assessment District would have to vote to add the funds to do this. Mr. Bernardi reported that at this point in time, the cost of removing the cattails, or the advisability of moving them, was still to be determined. He pointed out some people believed the cattails provided good habitat for the water fowl, while others believed they were choking the pond, and eventually there would be only cattails, without any water. He noted there were merits on both sides of the issue. He explained, however, that this meeting only covered the Pond Management Plan, and did not address the issue of cattails. He reported there would be an assessment which occurs later this year, in which landscaping and natural plants would be reviewed, and he felt that at that time it would be appropriate for the consultant to look at the cattails, and make a recommendation. Mr. Bernardi stated if this were to proceed further, there would need to be enough time to put SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 9 together a consensus of at least 2/3rds of the neighbors who would want to have extra funds set-up, so they could go out and remove the cattails. Mr. Bernardi stated there was a process they would have to go through, probably over the next year, at the direction of Council. Ms. Sward stated the Lagoon really belonged to the City, and was not part of their development. She reported everyone in Baypoint Lagoons already pays an assessment for the Lagoon maintenance, which is how the funds have been accumulated so far; however, no one in Spinnaker Point, which is on the other half of the Lagoon, has ever paid a cent for the Lagoon, noting those houses had been there for five years or more, longer than any of the Baypoint Lagoons houses. She stated nothing has ever been collected from them, only from the people in Baypoint Lagoons, and she did not believe the City would ever get the other people to vote to pay money for the Lagoon, since they did not have to at the beginning. Ms Sward stated no one in her development who did not live on the Lagoon would care, so she did not believe the City would ever get a 2/3rds agreement for them to be assessed more, because they do not even see the Lagoon. Ms. Sward stated it was her request that other ways of funding be looked at, because this was never going to happen. Mr. Cannon stated another problem he had was that the next phase of development was already started, and the homes would be completed by late Spring of 1999. He noted those homes would also face the Lagoon, and he believed a number of people who were considering this location were considering it due to the setting and the water. Councilmember Heller asked if the consultant, when he looked at this, would have some idea of the cost of clearing the Lagoon of the cattails? Mr. Bernardi stated they would be able to obtain that information. Ms. Sward asked if Mr. Bernardi could forward status information to the Baypoint Lagoons Homeowners Association President, so the Association could see what to do next in order to keep the Lagoon looking good? Mr. Bernardi stated he would. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro asked that an update of this item be brought back before Council in four to six months. In addition, he noted that if there are any alternative ways to obtain funding, possibly from some of the conservation groups, then perhaps we could also pursue that. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Bernardi to keep the residents informed. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 10292 - RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-1999 (BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT) (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE APPLICATIONS FOR THE EAST SAN RAFAEL AREA (CD) - File 115 (PPP) Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Paul Jensen, Planning Consultant, reported that in April, Council adopted a Resolution which initiated the Priority Projects Procedure (PPP) for 1998, noting to date, the City has considered and taken action on applications for the North San Rafael Area. He stated Council was now being requested to consider the applications for East San Rafael, explaining this process was initiated in East San Rafael for two reasons. First, the City Council recently authorized implementation of transportation improvements for the East San Rafael area, which includes a one-way street circulation system. He stated those improvements were expected to free -up 800 additional PM Peak Hour Trips; however, he noted that for this PPP, only 200 of the trips SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 10 were being released for new development. Secondly, the City had received interest in, and approved, several development projects for the East San Rafael area. Mr. Jensen reported four applications had been filed for this area, including the Sonnen BMW Dealership, which was approved several months ago; the Shoreline Golf Center, a driving range with associated improvements, which was approved last fall, with restricted hours of operation approved for the driving range, prohibiting operation from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Mr. Jensen noted that if the Golf Center were permitted Priority Project status, these restricted hours could be lifted; Public Storage USA, a 77,000 square foot mini -storage proposed on vacant land just south of the Bayview Business Park; and the REI Retail Center on the former Honda property. Mr. Jensen reported that to date, no Development Applications had been filed for either the REI Retail Center, or the Storage USA projects. Mr. Jensen stated the staff report summarizes recommendations from the Planning Commission and the Priority Projects Review Committee, pointing out it was important to note that the recommendations were based on the criteria outlined on Pages 4 and 5 of the report. Mr. Jensen stated these criteria were important and specific, and were the same criteria the City has used year in and year out for approving Priority Project status, noting the three categories: Affordable Housing, Needed Neighborhood Serving Uses, and High Tax Generating Uses. Mr. Jensen reported the four applications that had been filed were requesting consideration in the two latter categories. Mr Jensen stated the Planning Commission and the Committee were recommending approval of Priority Project status for the BMW Dealership. He stated this project qualified as a high priority project, as it is a High Tax Generating Use, has received all of its Land Use approvals, and the traffic that would be generated by the project was well within the 200 trip allotment under this process. Mr. Jensen stated the Committee and Planning Commission recommended denial of the other three applications, specifically for the following reasons: 1) The Shoreline Golf Center project, as proposed, does not qualify as a high priority project, as the project does not present any specific proposal to demonstrate that it is a Needed Neighborhood Serving Use, as defined in the staff report; 2) The Storage USA proposal raises some basic Land Use issues, and the appropriateness of Land Use is in question. Mr. Jensen stated that with the Floor Area Ratio that is proposed, which is a 1.04 FAR, there were four Findings which must be made under the General Plan in order to approve a mini -storage use at this site. He noted it was questionable whether some of the Findings could be made, and the Committee and Planning Commission found this was really a Project Merits issue, not a Priority Projects Merit issue. Therefore, it was premature, at this time, to grant Priority Project status; 3) Referring to the REI Retail Center, Mr. Jensen stated there was no question this project qualified as a high priority project because of High Tax Generation; however, the Center was expected to generate more traffic than what is being released under this process. In addition, the project exceeded the Floor Area Ratio limits, as well as the trip allocation under the General Plan for the former Honda site. Mr. Jensen stated the Committee Findings and Recommendations were outlined in the staff report, and noted the staff report also contained several additions and changes made by the applicants at the Planning Commission meeting. He reported the applicants of the Golf Center had proposed to reduce the number of driving range tee -boxes available during the PM Peak Hours, from 56, which is what was approved in the full operation of the Golf Center, to 49. He explained the purpose of this was for their traffic to fit within the 200 trip allotment, if the City were to approve the BMW Dealership, and consider the exempt projects that were approved as part of this process. He reported the second change was to the Storage USA project, noting additional Public Benefits had been presented to the Planning Commission, as outlined on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. Councilmember Phillips noted there were 800 trips, 200 of which have been "freed -up", and asked what the basis was for freeing -up 200 trips, rather than some other number? Mr. Jensen stated it was his understanding that this was a "cushion", or safety factor, until the improvements in the East San Rafael area were actually implemented. Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian reported staff's estimate in the one-way modeling was a maximum of 800 trips, and since not all of the implementations would be completed by August 1st, such as purchasing Scotland Car Yard, and seeing the capacity increase, he stated it would take six months for traffic to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 11 stabilize. Therefore, staff felt comfortable starting with 200 trips while they study the whole thing for six months, and then come up with the actual. Mr. Phillips asked if that meant that the improvements already in place could easily accommodate those 200 trips, but perhaps not more at this time? Mr. Mansourian stated that was correct. He noted the widening of Francisco Boulevard East, and working with Caltrans on all the signals they are changing, would take approximately a year and a half. Robert Wright, of TWM Architects, thanked Mr. Jensen and staff, as well as the Planning Commission, for coming up with the very excellent recommendation that Sonnen be considered a Priority Project. He noted they had no concerns about the staff report, or recommendations for modifications. There being no further comment regarding the Sonnen application, Mayor Boro invited the representative from Shoreline Golf Center to address the Council. Lee Jordan, Attorney representing the applicant for the Shoreline Park Golf Range, stated he believed it was important to note that of the four projects now before Council, only two had gone through the entire Planning process, received final City approvals, and were prepared to proceed, if allocation of the traffic movements were made to those projects: Sonnen BMW, and Shoreline Park Golf Range. Mr. Jordan noted, as staff had also indicated, when the Golf Range received its approvals from the City, part of their proposal was to keep the Golf Range closed between the Peak Hours of 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM, because last Fall, when approval was given, the existing traffic conditions were not sufficient to allow the number of Peak Hour Traffic movements the Golf Range would generate; therefore, the interim solution was to close the Golf Range between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. However, after they received their approvals and began discussions with several prospective operators of the Golf Range, they were told by each of them that this was not an economically feasible proposal, and it would not be possible to operate the Golf Range under those restrictions. Mr. Jordan stated at that point, it appeared that at least the immediate future of the Golf Range was in jeopardy. He noted, fortunately for them, last March the Council acted to free -up 200 additional Peak Hour trips. Mr. Jordan stated they were aware at that time that the Sonnen BMW project was in the pipeline, but it appeared that with the 200 PM Peak Hour Trips, and knowing that the Traffic Engineer for Sonnen BMW had indicated they would consume 102 PM Peak Hour Trips, and that the Golf Range would consume 97 PM Peak Hour Trips, they still fell under the maximum, as this would be only 199 trips. Therefore, they went forward with their Priority Project application; however, they were unaware at that time that they must also deduct from the 200 available trips the number of trips that would be generated by two Exempt Uses proposed for the East San Rafael area. He stated those two Uses would consume 14 trips, and in adding Sonnen, the Golf Range, and the Exempt Uses, it would exceed the 200 Peak Hour Trips. Mr. Jordan noted that was why, just before the Planning Commission hearing, after they learned this to be the case, they amended their proposal to suggest they would be willing to shut down seven of the tees during the Peak Trip Hour period of 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, which would leave 49 tees that could operate, allowing them to operate at 87% of capacity, which they have been told would be feasible. Explaining those figures in more detail, Mr. Jordan explained that of the 200 Peak Hour Trips that are available, the City would first devote 102 trips to the Sonnen BMW project, which was a project they acknowledged should have a higher priority, noting it appeared to be the most desirable, from the City's standpoint, to which should be attached the highest priority. Subtracting the 102 trips left 98 trips remaining, and subtracting the 14 trips for the two Exempt Use projects, there were still 84 Peak Hour Trips remaining. Mr. Jordan noted that when the Traffic Engineer analyzed the operation at the Golf Range, he determined the known standard for each tee was 1.73 Peak Hour Trips; therefore, 49 tees could still be operated, and fall within the 200 available PM Peak Hours Trips, which is why they altered their project to suggest that during that period, until such time as additional traffic capacity is available, they would be willing to restrict the operation to 49 tees between the hours of 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Mr. Jordan stated that with this proposal, they believed the Planning Commission recommendation, which states categorically that the Golf Range, when combined with the Sonnen BMW project, would exceed the 200 available trips, simply ignored the proposal they made to reduce the operation during those hours. He stated there was no question they could fall within the 200 Peak Hour Trips, so the only issue that remains is whether or not this SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 12 facility provides a Needed Neighborhood Service, and they disagreed with staff on that issue. He reported staff suggested it did not provide a Needed Neighborhood Use because, while they have indicated this would be a facility that could provide golf education and training facilities to public institutions, such as public schools and the City of San Rafael Recreation Department, staff pointed out they did not have a specific commitment or proposal along those lines to present to Council at this time. He noted, unfortunately, they could not sit down with representatives of the School District, or the City Recreation Department, or any public agency they would be ready to serve, until they had an operator in place; and the owner or developer could not enter into a lease or Operation Agreement until such time as the project has been bid; and for that they would have to know the specific costs, but those costs cannot be known until such time as they have the trips allocated to the project, so they can proceed. However, Mr. Jordan assured Council they were willing to sit down and work out programs with City representatives and School District representatives. Mr. Jordan stated there was a dire need for facilities of this kind, noting the existing facilities in San Rafael, at this time, were "maxed" out. He reported there had been an article in the Marin Independent Journal on July 14th which stated that at McInnis Park, all of the 1998 session Youth Golf Camps were sold out, and he reiterated there was not a sufficient capacity to meet the need in the City of San Rafael. Mr. Jordan stated they had discussed their proposal with Recreation Director Carlene McCart, noting she was very pleased, and anxious to see this go forward, having told them they could make that representation to Council. He pointed out Ms. McCart saw it as a location where the City could operate a City sponsored program, the details of which would have to await finalization of the project, so an operator could be in place who can make the commitments that would be necessary. However, he stated Ms. McCart had assured them this was something she saw as a needed community service. Mr. Jordan noted that in looking at the San Rafael General Plan 2000, there was definitely a need for this kind of facility in East San Rafael, pointing out the East San Rafael Policy Statements in ESR -49 and ESR -50 recognize the need for increased recreation opportunities and facilities, to serve neighborhood residents and employees in the East San Rafael area. Mr. Jordan introduced Dennis Kalkowski, Member of the Professional Golfers' Association, and Director of Golf at the Bodega Harbor Golf Links, someone who has been published in a number of golf publications and is very knowledgeable in the field. Mr. Jordan asked Mr. Kalkowski to address Council as to the nature of the growth the golf industry is experiencing, and the increasing demand for facilities of this kind. Mr. Jordan noted there were two projects which, at present, were prepared to proceed, and Council has freed -up 200 Peak Hour Traffic movements to accommodate development between now and the time the interim traffic solutions are nearer completion, when other projects will be able to proceed. He stated they felt that by the time the other projects before Council have gone through the entire Planning process and received all Planning approvals, there would probably be an opportunity, at that time, for them to apply for the additional traffic movements, which would then be available. Dennis Kalkowski, PGA Management Consultant, cited figures recently released by the United States Golf Association which report that in 1997, golf experienced a 51% increase in beginning golfers, made up of players of all ages; a 34% increase in junior golfers; and 76% of adults ages 20-29 had recently named golf as a sport they are most interested in learning and playing. Mr. Kalkowski stated that during the next three years, they were looking for a 39% increase in Americans over the age of 50 who will take up the game of golf. He noted that from a recreational standpoint, there were not many other neighborhood activities that addressed the cross-section of individuals that the game of golf could host. He reported that on the heels of the U.S. Open, which was recently held at the Olympic Club, a number of studies were conducted concerning golf in the San Francisco Bay Area, and of the 309 largest cities in the Country, San Francisco ranked almost dead last in the ability to provide access to good, affordable public golf facilities and golf programs, noting San Francisco was 304, Oakland was 301, and San Jose was 293. Mr. Kalkowski stated that when you consider the weather, the populace, and the opportunities that we have, he believed we had to work a little harder, as communities, to try to bring golf to the masses in affordable ways. Mr. Kalkowski believed, with what they would bring the community of San Rafael, in the spirit, tradition, and enthusiasm being seen in the game of golf, that this project could be looked upon as a Needed Neighborhood Service. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 13 Councilmember Phillips referred to the statistics that had been cited, noting if they were to close the driving range from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, most people would not be aware of that, and if they had an inclination to go to the range, they would go out and discover they were there at 5:00 PM and the range was not going to open until 6:00 PM; therefore, he questioned whether closing during those hours, and reducing the number of stalls down to 49, was really going to help the traffic? Mr. Jordan stated they believed it would, noting the Traffic Engineers reported there was a formula of 1.73 trips per tee, which seems to work, area wide. He noted the capacity of a golf range was something that, ultimately, became self- regulating, pointing out people know that between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM, tees may or may not be available. He stated the same could be said if all 56 tees were being operated, noting people were still not going to know if all 56 tees were being used at a particular time or not. However, taking all of those things into consideration, Mr. Jordan stated the Traffic Engineers had come up with a figure of 1.73 per tee, which was the basis upon which they calculated the traffic trips, based on whether 56 tees or 49 tees were in use. Mr. Phillips stated he suspected the 1.73 was more closely related to 49 stalls being open for all hours of operation, and he was not certain it actually regulated it that precisely. Mr. Jordan stated DKS, a firm the City frequently relies upon, had reported that 1.73 was the factor which could legitimately be used to determine the number of Peak Hour PM Trips that would be generated per tee. Councilmember Heller noted that last year, when the applicant came to the City and received the approvals for this operation, they were aware at that time that they would not have any trips from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, and at that point, it seemed to "pencil out" as an operation that would work. However, in reading through some of the current information, it seemed they were now questioning the ability of the operation to be in the black if they are not allowed to operate during those two hours. She asked what had changed to cause them to question this now? Mr. Jordan stated it had been the applicant's decision to close between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM, without having spoken with prospective operators prior to making that decision. He noted that after they received the approvals, the applicant actually made a Request for Proposals from operators in the field, and was told at that time that it would not work. Mr. Jordan noted, at that point, the applicant faced a difficult decision until the City decided to free -up the additional 200 trips. Councilmember Cohen stated that if it was possible to put together a specific proposal that involved some sort of partnership, it might go a long way toward meeting the definition of a Neighborhood Serving Use. Mr. Cohen stated he did not believe the onus was on the City, but rather on the applicant, to figure a way out of this "chicken and egg" problem, and asked if Mr. Jordan could suggest a way in which this might be resolved? Mr. Jordan stated he did not believe it was possible for them to make a specific commitment until the project was further along. Mayor Boro stated if the applicant had gone on the hypothesis that they could be open between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM, and would only have 49 stall instead of 56, they could make that assumption and go to anyone interested in opening a golf park here, and tell them they want to do something for the community, and ask what they could do for them. Mayor Boro noted the onus was really on them to come to the City with a plan on which Council could make a Finding that there was community benefit. Mr. Jordan acknowledged Mayor Boro's concern; however, he stated he did not believe they could go any further than they had so far. Mr. Jordan noted that in looking at the General Plan, the Priority Project history, and the documents upon which that history is based, "Neighborhood Serving" did not mean something that is necessarily in the nature of a public benefit, whether it is a free program for the City, or giving computers to schools. He stated, as he interpreted it, in looking at the history of the matter, it meant a "Use which provides a Neighborhood Service". He noted the General Plan actually identifies various kinds of Uses which are deemed Neighborhood Serving Uses, without any qualification of additional offers. Mr. Jordan stated he wished they could go further with this, but they were not in a position to do so at this time. Councilmember Phillips asked if it might be possible to put this on hold, or have it revisited, and perhaps reach a compromise whereby the applicant could take the sentiment of the Council, if, in fact, it was a favorable one, take that to a developer, with that signal, and return with a specific plan that could then be acted upon? He stated he was sympathetic to their project, noting he recognized the demand, and believed it would be highly utilized and enjoyed by a large segment of the population. Mr. Jordan suggested if Council needed something of a more specific nature, and if they were not to allocate all of the Peak Hour PM Trips at this time, then SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 14 the matter could be continued for some period of time, allowing them to come back with a more specific proposal for Council. Councilmember Heller asked if, at this time, there was no operator for the facility, and that was why they could not come forward with an offering for a Needed Neighborhoods Serving Use? Mr. Jordan stated there was no operator at this time, noting it had not even gone out to bid yet, because they could not try to solicit bids and award a contract without the traffic trips available to serve the facility. In addition, they could not enter into a binding agreement with an operator, whether by lease or Operating Contract, without knowing the costs involved. Referring to Mr. Jordan's suggestion of a continuance, Mr. Sonnen, Sonnen BMW, stated he hoped there would be some kind of conclusion regarding the BMW project, and not have that be part of the continuance. Attorney Al Bianchi, representing the project sponsor for Public Storage USA, noted that while this property is owned by Fred Grange, he was not representing Mr. Grange, rather he was representing the Hansen Organization, a large mini -storage operator throughout certain portions of the Country, who is ready, willing, and able to move forward with the project. Referring to a rendering of the proposed building, Mr. Bianchi pointed out it looked like an attractive office addition, showing it was not the standard type mini -storage facility, as constructed in the 1970's and 1980's, rather it was a project they believed would enhance and improve the community. Mr. Bianchi stated that had the Planning Commission acted in granting another project PPP approval, they probably would have granted it to this project, noting there were comments and statements in the Planning Commission meeting minutes indicating several of the Planning Commissioners recognized the need and value of this project. Mr. Bianchi reported that although it did not yet have the Land Use project approval, he believed some of the Planning Commissioners were under a misconception in that regard, stating that if they had been prepared to address that point, they would have understood it was not a prerequisite to getting PPP approval to have approval of the other development processes that some of these other projects already have. Mr. Bianchi stated he based that belief on the City's Resolution and Ordinance dealing with and establishing the PPP, noting Resolution No. 10162 states very specifically that prior to, contemporaneously with, or after securing necessary Planning permits and applications, an applicant or authorized representative of the development project in the circulation impacted areas subject to the PPP projects, shall file an application for a Priority Project determination. Mr. Bianchi explained it was not a reason to deny PPP approval, simply because a project has not yet gotten its Land Use approvals, noting it had to start somewhere. He stated if the applicant had pointed this out to the Planning Commission, he believed they might have gotten a more affirmative result than they did. Mr. Bianchi stated there was substantial support for the project within the community, which he felt would be demonstrated to Council this evening. He believed the only opposition to the project came from a competing owner and operator of such a facility. Mr. Bianchi stated they would also be able to demonstrate to Council that there is a need for this type of facility in San Rafael, noting a couple of the Planning Commissioners indicated they, themselves, had attempted to obtain storage units in this area, and had a very difficult time doing so. Mr. Bianchi stated the Planning Commission also recognized the amount of Peak Hour Traffic generated by this type of project was minimal, and this was an absolutely minimal type of traffic generating project. Mr. Bianchi stated one of the points mentioned in the staff report had to do with the cluster of storage facilities, and there had been a couple of reasons some concern had been raised. One of the reasons was that perhaps there were too many of these kinds of facilities in the area; however, he asked Council to keep in mind that the property in this area was zoned for this type of Use, and therefore, it was appropriate to apply for this kind of Use, and there should be no impediment placed on the fact that there are other facilities of this type already there. Regarding the issue of competition, Mr. Bianchi stated he had heard Council state, more often than once, that they did not deal in the area of competition, and did not concern themselves about the business aspects of it. However, Mr. Bianchi stated if they were to concern themselves with that aspect, they would find there was no problem with competition, in the sense that this kind of Use was, in fact, very much needed. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 15 Addressing the issue of benefits, Mr. Bianchi noted there were a number of what they believed were substantial community benefits, including the creation of a trust fund, noting this would be an actual $30,000 trust fund over three years, for education and community service, plus the commitment of five storage units for the permanent use of five benefiting agencies within the immediate area, noting those agencies include Homeward Bound, Canal Community Alliance, Bahia School, the Canal Ministries, and Pickleweed Center. Mr. Bianchi reported these agencies could either use the storage facilities themselves, or donate them for the use of their members for a worthwhile purpose. He stated another of the benefits proposed by the applicant was Job Preference for members of the local community, as far as what is legally capable of being done in terms of operation and construction of the facility. He noted another community benefit had to do with the donation of eight computers, and a six-month training program for community agencies, for use of those computers. Finally, and most important, Mr. Bianchi stated there would also be a dedication of a portion of Shoreline Park, which would enhance the Shoreline Park strip already there. He noted that sooner or later, that strip was going to be dedicated to the Shoreline Park Use; however, with the granting of this application, the owner of the property, Fred Grange, had committed himself to making the dedication now. He pointed out this would happen no matter who owned the property, as it was already committed, it was contractual, it was in place, and it had previously been approved by the City, and agreed to by the property owner. Mr. Bianchi stated the benefit was that this would happen now, rather than at some future date when the property is developed. He reported the Condition that deals with the Shoreline Park only required a dedication at such time as there was development of the property. Mr. Bianchi acknowledged Council was likely going to grant the Sonnen BMW project, pointing out there had not been any opposition to it by anyone, and noting it was a fine project and something that met all the criteria. He stated that would leave more than enough allocations for this or some other project, and it seemed to make sense that if we had those leftover allocations, rather than doing what the Planning Commission did, which was simply to recommend approval for BMW, instead of doing only that, why not grant this project's allocation as well? He stated that in doing so they were not taking any risk, because if the project did not achieve its Land Use approval, then the allocations would be of no use to the project, and would fall back into the pool of allocations available to be made. Mr. Bianchi suggested, in order to encourage Council to consider doing exactly that, Council condition the granting of allocations to this project, on the basis that it must achieve its Land Use approvals before Council has another hearing to allocate PPP Traffic Trips, whenever that may happen. He noted another hearing would be held at some time in the future for allocation of PPP trips in this same neighborhood, and if Council conditioned this project's approval upon obtaining Land Use approvals before that time, they ran no risk, whatsoever. Carol Whitmire, Planning Consultant representing Storage USA, stated she would be addressing the issues of Land Use and Zoning implications of the project, noting staff had indicated in the staff report that traffic impacts were completely acceptable, and the benefits were commendable; however, they were concerned about the Land Use implications. She noted General Plan LU -1 establishes that new development may only be considered after needed circulation improvement projects have been secured, and with the completion of those projects, the City maintains a Level of Service "D". She reported the Circulation Policy, C-3, reiterates the timing of development with the Transportation Improvements set forth in LU -1, and Section F identifies East San Rafael, I-580, and the Bellam Interchange as a circulation impacted area. Ms. Whitmire reported Policy C-7 established a Citywide priority for projects in the circulation impacted areas which provide a significant amount of affordable housing, generate high taxes, or provide Needed Neighborhood Serving Uses, and calls for establishment of a procedure for processing the Priority Project applications. However, LU -2 recognizes that given traffic constraints, and the cost and timing of circulation improvements, property owners should be permitted a reasonable use of their property, and she stated the mini -warehouses were such a use. Ms Whitmire reported the subject property, which is in the East San Rafael traffic impacted area, has been on the market for the past four years, and potential buyers have only considered the development of this property for mini -storage Uses. She noted the East San Rafael portion of the Land Use Element stresses improvement of Community Services, through the provision of additional neighborhood parks, the encouragement of neighborhood -serving Commercial Uses, and "Other Means". She stated most of their benefits address the City's "Other Means", although as Mr. Bianchi pointed out, the dedication of the final segment of Shoreline Park contributes to Shoreline SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 16 Park. Ms. Whitmire stated the East San Rafael Land Use Policies discuss limiting Retail and Service Uses, and directing Retail/Commercial Land Use designation, which generates heavy traffic volumes to other City locations better able to support those Uses. She noted ESR -18, the City's Land Use Policy, establishes the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for the subject property, a low impact area, as ranging between .26 and .38; however, given that the subject property is 77,500 square feet, slightly over an acre and a half, and the smallest of the remaining undeveloped parcels in the East San Rafael area, the conceivable development intensity of 20,000 to 29,000 square feet is too little for a developer to be interested in either Office or Retail development, because it does not pencil out, and the need to compete in the PPP process adds to that burden. However, the LU -47 does permit mini -storage with an FAR of up to 1.0, subject to certain Land Use determination, although there would be four Findings which must be made. She stated Storage USA could meet all of the designated criteria: 1) The facility is needed in the community. Ms. Whitmire stated their resource indicated all existing facilities were full, and had waiting lists, noting two of the City's Planning Commissioners actually confirmed this in the meeting last week, from their own personal experience; 2) The design of the project is compatible with surrounding Uses. Ms. Whitmire noted Council had been provided with a rendering of the project, noting it would look like an office building, both from I-580 and East Francisco Boulevard. She reported the design would compliment the adjacent business park, noting it had windows along the frontage, no roll -up doors along the frontage, it had height variations, color and articulation, and substantial berming and landscaping. She stated QuadraMed had actually given them their support for the project, based upon appearance; 3) The project is designed so it cannot be converted to other, more intensive Uses, noting this project had clearly been designed in that way; 4) The location is appropriate for this type of Use. Ms. Whitmire stated the project had been designed in an Industrial Zone, which allows for storage as a permitted Use. She noted this site was easily accessible from the freeway, was the smallest of the remaining undeveloped parcels, and the use of the property as a mini -warehouse had minimal trips, allowing the remaining, larger undeveloped parcels in the area to generate higher tax producing uses, or attract companies needing office space. She pointed out no one had sought this parcel for an Office or R & D Use, and no neighbor has sought it for expansion. She noted what this mini -warehouse Use could do, with a 1.0 FAR, was offer the community a number of ancillary benefits, including establishment of a trust fund for the five local agencies, a storage room for each of the five local agencies, eight computers, a computer tutor, dedication of the next, final link of Shoreline Park, and an affordable house and job preference for local residents. Ms. Whitmire reported the zoning was Light Industrial, noting the purpose for that district was to, "Provide a landscaped setting for Light Industrial Uses, Research and Development facilities, Warehousing, Wholesale Distributing and Office Uses". She stated these were all equal in the Zoning Ordinance, noting the Zoning Ordinance did not prioritize that list, and they were all permitted. She stated, had the City chosen to support an Office facility, this property could have been zoned for Office or Commercial; however, the City chose a Light Industrial designation, with all those balanced Uses. Therefore, essentially, this project was consistent with the City's Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance, and all of the Land Use aspects of this are in place. Ralph Cole, Realtor in the Marin area for 47 years, and founding partner of Orion Partners, largest commercial real estate firm in the County, stated he was speaking at the request of Fred Grange, seller of the property under discussion, to define what they had done to market the parcel at 1775 East Francisco Boulevard. Mr. Cole reported the property had been on the market for at least four years, noting it has been advertised, discussed at numerous meetings of the Marin County Association of Realtors, been in the Multiple Listings Service of the Association of Realtors, been included on inventories of land available for sale, and has had various signs on the site. Mr. Cole noted it had been marketed by leading Marin County Commercial Real Estate Brokers from different companies, including Grubb and Ellis, Home and Land, Meridian Commercial, and Orion Partners, and to the best of his knowledge, there have been no offers, at any price, for an Office or Industrial Use. Mr. Cole stated the reason is because the Floor Area Ratio of .26 to .38 would permit only a small building of between 20,000 and 30,000 square feet. He stated that with the cost of construction, coupled with the land value, traffic problems, and the location, which is beyond the center of San Rafael business activity, no SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 17 one has submitted an offer to purchase the site, except for the three offers that have come in for mini -storage use. Mr. Cole reported two of those designs were not comparable with the design needs of the City, noting they looked like mini -storage buildings. Mr. Cole stated the current offer by Storage USA was completely different, noting the owners had designed an attractive building, and it did not front on East Francisco Boulevard. In addition, they had provided excellent landscaping. In summary, Mr. Cole stated he believed the plans of Storage USA were excellent, and implementing them would be a real asset to our City. Dwayne Hunn, Realtor specializing in the Canal Area, referred to a rendering of the site, describing the project as being quite stunning, and stating this storage facility looked as good as IMSI next door, which is why the neighbors, IMSI and QuadraMed, have all supported the project. Mr. Hunn also pointed out the small building which is actually an affordable housing unit, noting if there is a qualified East San Rafael resident who can handle the full-time management job, he and his family have a two bedroom, two bath home on-site, so in a minimal way, this 1.6 acre project is providing an affordable house. He stated it was very likely that someone in the area was going to be qualified, and since the agencies know about this, and have suggested this, the applicant also expected the agencies to do some training of people to make sure they have qualified applicants for this. Mr. Hunn reported that during an earlier General Plan update in the late 19801s, a consultant was hired to present renderings, and go out into the community and ask people what their needs were. He reported some of the needs that were identified included after school programs for children under 10 years old, supervised after school programs for children 11 years old to 18 years old, English as a second language, outdoor basketball and volleyball courts, softball and soccer programs, additional child care, and the survey also showed a desire for more supermarkets, drug stores, and a dentist's office. Mr. Hunn noted the owner was donating at least $30,000, and at 1% of revenues for three years it could be more than that, as well as donating the computers, and these things were all going out into the community to address those needs identified in the surveys. Mr. Hunn reported Storage USA was stating, "Here's some money, here's some resources, here are some computers, and here's storage". He noted John Wilson-Bugbee had pointed out they needed storage even more than they needed money, and every agency Mr. Hunn had talked to had also stated they needed storage, although everyone would be glad to get the money, or the computers and the training. Mr. Hunn explained the Canal Ministries and Canal Community Alliance could use the money for child care, or pre- and after school programs. Mr. Hunn noted they had followed all the rules, pointing out the General Plan does call for this; however, if the City wants another vision, and if Council is going to deny this for some reason, because they want something else there, then perhaps the City should change the Floor Area Ratio and not wait three to six years for the General Plan Update to take place. He stated if Council was going to state there should be an office there, they should make the Floor Area Ratio what it was for the Bayview Business Park. Ms. Whitmire noted the City's Resolution for the PPP did not restrict the applications to projects that have already received their entitlements. She stated they understood the City did not want to commit to something prematurely, and give away those traffic trips; however, given that this particular project does not have environmental consequences that would hold it up, it could be submitted. She reported they had completed all of their design elements, their architect was ready to submit immediately, so the project could move forward quickly, ready to be up and going before the next PPP. She stated that to punish it by asking them to wait, after an approval, for eight months or a year before coming back on the Agenda again was a hardship, and made it difficult for both the property owner and the developer to carry the parcel for a long period of time. Ms. Whitmire reiterated the Use was permitted in this Zoning District, pointing out they had met the LU -47 provisions, and any issue related to the design could be addressed at Environmental and Design Review hearings. She stated they had tried to bring the Council a project the City would be proud of. Ms. Whitmire acknowledged the PPP did not give them the Land Use Permit, but noted the traffic reserve was not an issue. She stated if the project were approved, it could be built immediately, and if it is not approved, the traffic trips return to the pot. Mayor Boro referred to the pre- and after school programs, English as a SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 18 Second Language, citizenship classes, healthcare, and youth recreation and sports, asking if this was all going to be funded out of the trust fund? Ms. Whitmire stated that was correct. Mayor Boro asked if the trust fund was going to raise $30,000 over the next three years, to be invested, noting that if this money was invested at 5%, it would be $1,500 per year toward these programs. Ms. Whitmire stated that was what they were anticipating. Mayor Boro asked for clarification concerning an apparent lawsuit between Mr. Grange and Mr. Shekou over the property. Ms. Whitmire noted Attorney Al Bianchi had already left the meeting, but she attempted to describe the explanation he had given to the Planning Commission at an earlier meeting. She stated the lawsuit was over a portion of the property that had nothing to do with the dedication of the strip for the park, noting the strip for the park would be dedicated under any circumstances; therefore, Mr. Grange could dedicate that strip, and the lawsuit would settle itself out. Councilmember Heller asked if the lawsuit was over this same piece of land? Ms. Whitmire stated it involved an adjoining piece of land. Clarifying an answer given earlier to Mayor Boro concerning the trust fund, Mr. Hunn explained it was not intended as a trust fund unless they decided they wanted to use it as a trust fund. He reported that on an annual basis, 1% of the total revenues generated by Storage USA would be distributed to those agencies, and they would choose what to do with that money. Mr. Hunn stated they expected it to actually be more than $30,000 over three years, or more than $10,000 per year; however, if 1% of the total turned out to be less than $30,000, they would still give $30,000. The money would go to the agencies on an annual basis, and they would decide what they felt was best to do at that time, and spend the money as they choose. Mr. Hunn noted another benefit of doing it this way was that many times non -profits have to go to the Marin Community Foundation, or other funders, who tell them that if they raise a certain amount of money, they will match it, and this gives them the mechanism to go to the agencies and state, for example, that they have raised $10,000 this year, and ask if they will double it. Therefore, while in a quasi- sense it could be called a trust fund, they were actually telling the agencies to use the money in what they feel is the best way possible, as they know their needs. Councilmember Cohen clarified that the $30,000 was the total amount of the three-year period. Mr. Hunn stated that was correct, unless 1% per year was greater, in which case it would be the greater amount. Councilmember Heller referred to a letter to the Planning Commission from Craig Pridgen, of the law firm McQuaid, Metzler, McCormick & Van Zandt, in which he questions whether Mr. Grange has the authority to dedicate a portion of that property to the City, under circumstances where he is obligated to sell the whole of the property located at 2147 Francisco Boulevard. Ms. Heller asked if this was going to make any difference in whether that piece of land is ultimately deeded to the City for the Shoreline Park? Planning Manager Sheila Delimont stated ultimately it would not make any difference, noting what was unclear was whether the applicant had the ability to offer this to the City at this point in time. However, she stated it would be deeded to the City, pointing out it was a requirement of our General Plan that whoever develops the property makes that dedication. Mayor Boro clarified the contention was over who owns the adjoining piece of property, not who is dedicating it, so in theory, this could go another way, and there could be another owner, and then the offering of this piece of land, would not happen at this time, if there was a second owner. Ms. Delimont stated that was staff's belief, and what was stated in the letter from the attorney. Dan McGoon, Manager of a storage facility on East Francisco Boulevard, stated he had approximately fifty storage units, and for a very long time he has had a waiting list of over fifty people. He noted they have had to limit their waiting list to fifty people because they cannot handle anything more; therefore, he supported the need for this project. Mr. McGoon noted another reason he supported the project was for the traffic implications. He stated that every day, when he comes out of the driveway on East Francisco Boulevard, it is almost like a freeway because of all the traffic, noting they have a lot of difficulty getting in and out of the driveway. He stated he would support any kind of improvement that would have the least amount of traffic. John Wilson-Bugbee, Executive Director of Homeward Bound of Marin, stated that as the operator of a non-profit in the community, they have been in strong need of storage space for a long time, and it has not been available. He noted it was not within the capacity of their various sites to provide storage, simply because they are trying to house as many people as possible; however, the people bring things with them that needs to be SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 19 stored. In addition, he noted the graciousness of the community was sometimes a little overwhelming, and while it would be wonderful to accept some of that graciousness, without the storage, they cannot do it. Referring to the design, Mr. Wilson-Bugbee stated he had never seen storage look as nice as this does, and expressed his strong support for this application. Fred Grange pointed out he had owned a lot of property in East San Rafael, pointing out there was not a lot of property left. He reported East San Rafael was a little over 1,016 acres, and of that land mass, this was the only vacant land left. He noted this vacant land, including Canalways, was approximately 50 acres, and without Canalways it was approximately 25 acres. Of the 25 acres left, there is the property that has the Shoreline Park issue, the Ghilotti's property, the subject property, property of Mr. Provante, and then the Canalways and the proposed Sonnen BMW and REI sites. Mr. Grange felt that beyond question, there was a need for storage, and the only real question was "where?", and he believed this was the ideal spot for it. He acknowledged there was a desire to approve something like REI, which he agreed would be a good use; however, REI had approximately 335 trips on four acres, and he had less than 20 trips on approximately half the amount of acreage. He believed they had a good site, not for an REI -type facility, but for a storage facility that looks as good as, if not better than, some of the other buildings in the area. He recalled he was the one who brought Phoenix Leasing to East San Rafael, noting they were the second highest tax generating business in the entire City. He stated Phoenix Leasing, which was next door to his site, was a benefit to the City, and supported his Use. Mr. Grange stated that by approving something that is way below the line, like Storage USA, it allowed a certain amount of capacity available for other things, such as REI, which is above the line; therefore, it is an averaging, and putting the right thing in the right location. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Planning Manager Sheila Delimont noted there had been a question as to whether Council could continue this item, and she pointed out the Resolution states Council must hear and act upon this item within thirty days of the Planning Commission's action. Mayor Boro asked for clarification regarding an item being denied without prejudice. Ms. Delimont explained the applicant would still have the ability to come back with the application, and go through the regular application process. She stated anyone denied without prejudice would have the ability to make an application, and in the next round of PPP, to make a subsequent application for Priority Project status. Councilmember Cohen stated the Planning Commission seemed to have had a lot of discussion as to whether the next round of PPP would necessarily be a year from now. Ms. Delimont stated it could be done in a year, but basically, it was at the discretion of Council. She noted the Community Development Department would need to coordinate that with the Traffic Engineer, pointing out they would want to wait for his six month evaluation before freeing additional trips. Mr. Cohen noted if the Council chose not to allocate all the trips currently earmarked as available, they could call for another PPP three to six months from now, to consider allocating whatever trips might be remaining to other qualified projects. Ms. Delimont stated that was correct, particularly if a number of projects had gone through the process and had all their approvals. Councilmember Phillips noted the staff report concerning Storage USA seemed to indicate it was basically premature to grant approval for this project, yet the applicant seemed to make an issue of the fact that it was not. He asked if this was a valid and significant consideration? Community Development Director Brown stated that in terms of the process, the applicant was correct, noting there was no requirement that they have all their other entitlements prior to applying for PPP. However, staff's point was that under LU -47, there were four Findings that must be made in order to grant a Floor Area Ratio this high for the mini -storage. He reported one of those had to do with the appropriateness of the Land Use for this particular location. He reported staff believed that would certainly be a significant issue, as part of the entitlement process, and for that reason, they felt that process should precede the PPP application. Mr. Phillips asked if staff was still committed, even with this evening's discussion, that this was a valid consideration for Council to take into account, at this point in time? Mr. Brown stated they believed it was, noting there were very few sites remaining in East San Rafael, and given that limited SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 20 supply, staff felt it was very important the City take great care in allocating the remaining development in East San Rafael. Councilmember Phillips referred to the Shoreline Golf Center proposal, asking if this item would have to come back within thirty days if Council were to table that particular piece of tonight's action? Ms. Delimont explained Council needed to take final action within thirty days of the Planning Commission's action, which was on July 22nd; therefore, Council could continue the item until the meeting of September 8th, but not beyond that; however, she noted they did not have to allocate that capacity. Mayor Boro noted if Council so directed, and there was a reason something materialized on one of these projects, or any other project, Council could direct the PPP process to begin sooner than a year from now. Councilmember Miller referred to the report for the Golf Center, and asked for a definition of the term "neighborhood". He noted Storage USA referred to East San Rafael as the neighborhood, but the Golf Center also uses the term "Citywide", and he was not certain what was meant by "neighborhood" in the Golf Center report. Mr. Brown stated it meant East San Rafael. In addition, Mr. Brown noted the specific language in the General Plan Policy for the East San Rafael area states that neighborhood services are defined as Public and Quasi -Public services to residents and businesses such as, but not limited to, parks and recreation, child care, health services, Police services, street sweeping, etc. Park and Recreation was essentially defined as public park facilities. Mayor Boro asked if this meant, in order to make that Finding, we would have to show there was a demand for this Use in East San Rafael, in order to be "Neighborhood Serving"? Mr. Brown stated that was correct. Councilmember Cohen referred to the QuadraMed project immediately adjacent to this, and asked if staff recalled the square footage of that office building? Ms. Delimont stated she did not recall, but noted Bayview Business Park had received their approvals prior to the establishment of some of the East San Rafael policies; therefore, she believed their FAR was higher than this. Consultant Paul Jensen stated he was not certain, but he believed Building A of that project had been estimated at 40,000 square feet, which was part of a pool for the whole business park. Mr. Cohen noted that was significantly larger than what would be allowable under currently existing FAR for Office. Mr. Jensen stated that was correct, noting they were also exempt from PPP. Councilmember Cohen believed it was likely everyone agreed Sonnen BMW clearly met the criteria, and clearly deserved the traffic allocation. He felt with REI, though it might very well be desirable and meet the criteria, the allocation was too high, so we are left with the other two. Regarding Storage USA, he stated he felt the issue of the Shoreline band, as well as the legal issue, were moot, because City policies already require the dedication of that land upon development of this property; therefore, to argue that the dedication of the land is a benefit is a very weak argument. He stated the only "gain" he could identify was the gain in getting it sooner, rather than later, and the marginal benefit of getting the park dedication now, as opposed to a couple of years from now, or whenever this property develops. He noted it was not the actual dedication itself, because that was already required. Mr. Cohen stated he had met with the applicants and discussed this project, and while the inclusion of a reference to storage spaces being provided to non -profits gets a little closer to the one issue he keeps coming back to, his fundamental concern is the link between the Land Use and the Neighborhood Serving Use. He noted C-7 of the General Plan Policy states a Needed Neighborhood Serving Use is a Use that provides a valued service or public benefit to the community, such as direct construction or substantial financial contributions to the development of child care centers, library plan, and that the Uses shall be identified by Neighborhood Plan, North San Rafael Vision, or the General Plan, or recommended by the Priority Committee. Mr. Cohen stated his concern was that in this case, he felt we strayed dangerously far from the notion of the Use itself being the Neighborhood Serving Use, and while the language does state "substantial financial contribution", he was concerned that, taking that to its logical extreme presented a hypothetical situation where we might be seen as being in the business of selling traffic allocations. Mr. Cohen noted, as Mr. Jordan had pointed out, the decision should not be that whoever offers the highest number of dollars determines who gets priority for the traffic allocations. Mr. Cohen stated his understanding of the concept behind this, when Council adopted the General Plan, was that it was the community who incurred the impact of allocating this traffic capacity, because it was those who lived SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 21 and worked in the community who had to drive through the impacted intersections; therefore, the community had the right to determine which of the competing Uses had a higher priority. He believed that, ultimately, when the circulation system is in place, everyone was going to build out their entitlements, and the question of who gets to come first impacts the community; therefore, the community had the right to set priorities. He explained the priorities were the three the City came up with, and noted he had stated at the time that he feared the City was missing the boat, and he believed that was still true today, and the City needed to find a way to address Office Uses and high quality jobs. He believed the City needed to try, in the next General Plan Update, to add a fourth criteria. Mr. Cohen stated the City had made some very clear statements, describing Land Use as Affordable Housing, High Sales Tax Generating, Neighborhood Serving Uses; however, it did not state "highest bidder", noting if that was what the City meant, that was what it should have said. Mr. Cohen stated he did not believe it fit with the notion Council had talked about, and he felt there had to be, as much as possible, a direct link between Land Use and the benefit, or the Neighborhood Serving Use, noting he was really struggling to try to see that here. Councilmember Cohen referred to the $30,000, noting he must have misunderstood, because he had thought they were discussing $30,000 per year, yet he learned tonight that it was $30,000 over three years. Mr. Cohen acknowledged there were definitely problems and needs in this community, and stated if $10,000 a year could solve all those problems, the City's budget would have included that money. He stated it was a drop in the bucket, noting the money goes away; however, the problems do not go away, the problems do not get solved, and the traffic does not go away, so the notion that a Neighborhood Serving Use is $10,000 per year, for three years, does not ring with him. He did not see the granting of storage space as being nearly significant enough, and the simple fact that there was demand for storage space did not, in and of itself, make this a Needed Neighborhood Serving Use. Therefore, while Mr. Cohen agreed staff's concern regarding whether or not this project had the potential to get the Land Use designation was a valid one, he did not even have to go that far, stating he just could not fit this Use, and the benefits it suggests, into the definitions proposed under the PPP. Addressing the last application, Councilmember Cohen noted he could get closer to this one, as the Use and the proposed benefit, a recreation partnership with public entities for public recreational purposes, related directly to the Land Use proposed. However, he noted that while it seemed to him as though the Planning Commission had been sympathetic to the Golf Center, there was no tangible public benefit identified. Mr. Cohen stated he could see this as a Recreational Use, and although it was not necessarily a public park facility, it was a partnership the City had some degree of confidence would be maintained over the long haul, or at least over the proposed seven year Interim Use in a partnership between the School District and the City's Recreation Department. Mr. Cohen felt we needed to be open to seeing this as Public Recreation Use, whether or not the City owns the facility, or has the right to use it under a partnership. He stated he would be sympathetic to that, except it was not really before Council as a concept, which he believed fell back to the applicant. Mr. Cohen stated he would be inclined to find a way to address that aspect, that shortcoming, sooner than a year from now, if the applicant could find a way to develop some specifics, and make a proposal the City could consider. He encouraged the applicants to look at that issue, and try to come back with something they could specifically identify, and which would fit under the category of Neighborhood Serving Use. Councilmember Miller stated he agreed with Councilmember Cohen's comments concerning Sonnen BMW and REI. Referring to the Shoreline Golf Center, he explained the reason he had asked for the definition of "neighborhood" was precisely to find out whether this was a geographic issue, and since it was, he did not see that this type of recreation was necessarily Neighborhood Serving. He noted that when he looked at the population out there, he believed the Uses from that neighborhood would be quite minimal. Mr. Miller stated he also agreed that if a specific plan were to be presented to Council, then the Councilmembers could decide whether it was Neighborhood Serving or not. Regarding Storage USA, Councilmember Miller stated he agreed with Councilmember Cohen, and with staff, that this was a Merits problem, and he did not feel the public benefits were proportionate to the under -use of the land. Councilmember Heller stated she agreed with Councilmember Cohen and Councilmember Miller, noting they had brought all the facts together and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 22 laid them out. She stated her most difficult problem was with Storage USA, because while she agreed with most of what Councilmembers Cohen and Miller had stated, she did not agree with completely taking this project out of the mix at this point. She acknowledged that perhaps her history was not long enough, because she was not here when the General Plan was developed, noting her history with the Council began much later than that. However, she believed it had definitely been shown that there was a need for this type of service in the community, and she also found it appealing that there was a very small number of Peak Hour Trips that would be used. Therefore, she stated she would like to see if the proposal could go through the process, get the appropriate Use Permits and approvals, and then have Council review this in the next few months, along with the Golf Center, because she believed there would be benefit to the entire community. She felt, given time, they would be able to prepare a proposal, once they had an operator, noting she would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, with another review. Mayor Boro noted, as indicated earlier, that if there appeared to be merit in coming back, staff could certainly bring this back to Council, and Council could initiate another round of PPPs, if there was something that answered the questions that have been raised. Therefore, if they came back with answers, regarding Land Use in one case, and answers concerning Community Benefit in the other case, and if staff had something to recommend, Council could initiate another round, if it chose to. Councilmember Heller stated she would be willing to initiate another round. Councilmember Phillips stated he agreed with approving BMW and not approving REI. Referring to Storage USA, he stated he would agree to hear this at a later date, noting that although he did believe there was some need, he was taking the word of staff that the project was premature at this point. With regard to the Shoreline Golf Center, Mr. Phillips stated he was certainly sympathetic, noting he had seen the growth and support, and felt the community might very well utilize the facility, especially if the benefit was tailored by way of discount, particularly for the youth in the area. He believed this could easily be done through some imaginative programs, and he did not feel it would be difficult to implement, to encourage use of this additional recreational facility. Mr. Phillips stated there was a need for additional recreation in the area, and this would add to that, noting he would be sympathetic to that use if the Neighborhood Use issue was tailored to the residents of East San Rafael. Therefore, he stated he would like to see that particular project, and Storage USA, as well, returned to Council, so Council could move forward with the BMW Dealership, and at the same time keep their options open, particularly with regard to the Golf Center, and perhaps Storage USA, as well. Mayor Boro referred to the Golf Center, noting representations had been made by the City's Recreation Director, Carlene McCart, which he believed was certainly a good start. He pointed out there was a Junior High School and a High School in East San Rafael, which served a lot of the residents of that area, and he believed that through the School District and the City's Recreation Department we could find out if there was an area of interest among the youth of the community, as well as the adults, and see if we could come up with a program that would directly benefit people in that community. He recalled that when the City approved the Pell Building in North San Rafael, one of the mitigations was for a child care facility, noting it turned out to be a Head Start facility, serving the greater Terra Linda area. Therefore, he felt that if we could work with the City's Recreation Department, and show there was a market for this Use, and that we could promote it through our Recreation Department and the schools, he believed it was a natural idea. Regarding the public storage facility, Mayor Boro stated the Merits needed to go first, and if the project got through the Merits process, and they were willing to live with nothing going on between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM, the project would not even have to be in the PPP process. Councilmember Cohen, referring to one of Councilmember Heller's earlier comments, stated he would not so much refer to the history of the General Plan process, but to the text of Policy C-7, which was provided in the staff report. He believed this needed to be looked at, and asked that Community Development staff provide a further discussion of the issue. He noted it was his understanding the language, which states, "If the User provides a valued service or public benefit", and continues, "The Use shall be identified by a Neighborhood Plan, North San Rafael Vision, San Rafael General Plan, or be recommended by the Priority Project Review Committee as a Neighborhood Serving Use". He noted it also referenced specific types of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 23 Retail, i.e., Neighborhood and Commercial; however, he pointed out it did not state that something for which there is a market demand is a Needed Use. Mr. Cohen stated there have been a number of occasions, over the years, where people have attempted to make that argument, noting they have attempted to fit under the Needed Neighborhood Serving Use by stating there was a demand for what they proposed to offer on the site. Mr. Cohen noted that was well and good, but simply the fact that there is market demand for a proposed Land Use does not qualify it, under this description, as a Needed Neighborhood Serving Use. He stated that was where he saw the storage facility falling short, in terms of priority, noting they would have to make the argument that storage fits under this criteria, or else they would have to come up with some other inducement, and he did not feel the off-site funding was close enough to make him feel comfortable that this project fit the criteria. Mr. Cohen stated that even if the project was before Council on the Merits, he would need a lot more convincing that it fit under the criteria. Councilmember Cohen noted a project that has a reasonable opportunity to go forward and get approval on its Merits could certainly apply for Priority designation first, and then go for the Merits, if there was a reasonable expectation that they are going to get that; however, in a case like this, where staff has raised some serious doubts, Mr. Cohen stated he would prefer to see it go forward on the Merits first, and then come back. He noted if, for example, Council were to allocate trips to this project, and then tell them to see if they could get approval on the Merits, Council would clearly be removing any opportunity for the applicants of the Golf Center project to come forward with a tangible Neighborhood Benefit and ask Council to reopen the PPP process, because Council would have locked up the 21 trips by allocating them to the storage facility. Councilmember Heller stated that if they were both to decide to come back before the Council, she felt they should come back together, because they were still competing for the little amount that was left. Councilmember Cohen stated it was his understanding that at this point, they ended up back at the staff recommendations, and the only thing Council could do was consider reopening the PPP earlier than a year from now. If Council did that, they could not limit the hearing to the two applicants appearing before them tonight, they would have to publicly notice such a hearing, and anyone who thought they had a qualifying project and wished to apply, could come forward at that time. Community Development Director Brown stated the only other option would be if the Traffic Engineer identified, with a certainty, additional trips in the area. Councilmember Heller stated she felt Consultant Paul Jensen had done a wonderful job, noting it was an excellent report, and very well done. She pointed out staff had also worked very hard on the report, and she was quite pleased with it. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution recommending 1998 Priority Projects determination for development impacting the Bellam Boulevard/I-580/Highway 101 Interchange in East San Rafael, approving Priority Project determination for Sonnen BMW, and denying without prejudice the Shoreline Golf Center, Storage USA, and REI Retail Center. RESOLUTION NO. 10293 - RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING 1998 PRIORITY PROJECTS DETERMINATION FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING THE BELLAM BOULEVARD/I-580/HIGHWAY 101 INTERCHANGE (EAST SAN RAFAEL) (City File Nos. P-98-6, PPP98-2, PPP98-3, PPP98-8, PPP98-9). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None MONTHLY REPORT: 20. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT - File 9-3-11 Mayor Boro noted he had asked City Manager Gould to prepare an update regarding the traffic problems experienced on Saturday in connection with the improvement of Irwin Street, and what the City's future plans might be. City Manager Gould stated there had been two strategic errors, which combined to create the high levels of frustration Saturday morning regarding the repaving of Irwin Street. He reported there had been some confusion between the Contractor and staff as to just how long Irwin Street would be completely blocked by traffic, noting there was a considerable difference between what was expected and what occurred. Mr. Gould stated SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 24 that had we known what was going to actually play -out on the streets, the decision would have been very different, and the paving would have happened at night. In addition, there was not nearly sufficient public outreach to tell the community that this was going on, noting the Marin Independent Journal had been having trouble with its FAX machines, and the City's FAX's informing them of the repaving program were not received, so there was no public notice in the newspaper. However, Mr. Gould acknowledged that even if that had occurred, it would not have been sufficient, and putting both of those situations together caused the complaints that were heard all day Saturday. Mr. Gould reported the good news was that staff had risen to the occasion, and recovered very quickly. He stated the Police Department was very much put on the spot with all the angry motorists, yet he had heard tales of Officers making the best of a difficult situation, with one Officer doing a little hula dance to keep everyone entertained while directing traffic, which was well received; and another Officer, after being publicly berated by a very angry man about how he was directing traffic, offered his Traffic Direction bib to the motorist, to the guffaws of all around him, and suggested he try. Mr. Gould noted these things did help to break the tension. More importantly, Mr. Gould reported the Public Works and Police Departments huddled in mid-afternoon and decided the City was going to have to do this extremely differently the next day. He stated the plan they came up with, which was agreed to by the Contractor, ended up alleviating a great majority of the difficulties on Sunday. He stated the paving was done between 5:00 AM and 9:00 AM, it was done in sections, and the process was much better than what had occurred on Saturday. Mr. Gould stated that perhaps the best news was that we were finished with Irwin Street, for probably the next 20 years. As to the City's plans for next Saturday, Mr. Gould reported the Public Works and Police Departments had discussed this again, and formulated plans for the repaving of Grand Avenue next Saturday. First of all, the paving will begin on Friday night, as the City is making the determination that the public interest and convenience outweigh the Noise Ordinance in the City's Municipal Code; therefore, the bulk of the work will be done at night. Beginning Friday night at 9:00 PM, grinding will begin on Grand Avenue, starting at Fourth Street and moving toward the Grand Avenue Bridge. He noted Grand Avenue would be kept open the entire time, and they would be working on the street in one -block sections. He reported that on Saturday night at 12:00 Midnight, the actual repaving would begin, and continue until 8:00 AM Sunday morning, and again, they would be doing the work in sections, keeping the main intersections open as they go, and keeping East/West traffic moving. Mr. Gould noted there would be detours for each phase of the paving and grinding; four changeable message boards placed at strategic locations in the area, beginning Thursday at Noon; and leaflets and flyers handed out to all property owners, residents, and businesses within 300 feet of the area. Mr. Gould stated the City already had the assistance of the Marin Independent Journal in publicizing these plans, and it was expected that the work would go very differently than it did last Saturday. Mr. Gould noted that in the future, when the City specs road repaving projects, we were going to specify in the bid documents just exactly what traffic mitigations and traffic handling procedures were going to be observed by the Contractor. He pointed out that in the past we have left that fairly loose, and negotiated it after the fact; however, that did not work in this case. He stated we would also work with the Police Department ahead of schedule to determine the best way to manage the traffic during the repaving, and that would be included in the bid document, which any Contractor accepting the bid award would abide by. Mr. Gould noted that for these reasons, he felt confident we would not see a recurrence of Saturday's fiasco. Mayor Boro referred to the area of Fourth Street and Grand Avenue, and down to Second Street, noting he believed there were many more residents in that area than there were on Irwin Street. He asked, rather than saying we were going to take over the whole street, why did we not just take half the street, for example, do the right half first, between Fourth and Third Streets. He stated we could dispense with all the parking, and then do this on Saturday, having two lanes on the left-hand side as you go up Grand Avenue, doing the repair work on the right-hand side, paving that portion, and then reversing it? He stated he was concerned we were going to have the flip side of what happened last weekend, noting last weekend we had a lot of problems with motorists. He pointed out one of the reasons we did it that way was because of the Noise Ordinance; however, in retrospect, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 25 there were not that many residents involved in the stretch of road we were dealing with last weekend. He noted we were now going into an area that was much more residential, and we were going to be banging away all night, two nights in a row. He wondered why we could not do this during the day, and just take the street a half at a time? Public Works Director Bernardi reported that when they begin work at 9:00 PM on Friday night, the plan is to start at Fourth Street and Grand Avenue, closest to the residential areas, at which time the grinding will begin, going along the edge of the curb side of the pavement, and grinding the curb down. He noted they would go all the way down toward the Grand Avenue Bridge, and come back up, working between Fourth and Third Streets first, so that by 10:30 PM or 11:00 PM, they would be finished with the grinding and the noisemaking closest to the residential area. Mr. Bernardi stated that from Third Street down to the Grand Avenue Bridge, they could work in the same fashion, but they would be further away from the residential area, so by starting early, they could get the biggest noisemaking part of it done early. He stated that on Saturday, when they do the paving, they were going to begin at the Grand Avenue Bridge, and work north toward Fourth Street and Grand Avenue, and by the time they get to Fourth Street and Grand Avenue, it will be approximately 6:00 AM Sunday morning. Mayor Boro asked why did we not pave during the day on Sunday, when there was hardly any traffic? Mr. Bernardi explained there were two critical intersections that needed to be paved, Grand Avenue and Second Street, and Grand Avenue and Third Street, and noted we needed to do that when there were not very many cars. He stated if they could get all of that done before 9:00 AM Sunday morning, as they did when they paved Irwin Street, it would work all right, but they would still have the rest of it to do. He noted they wanted to get the rest of it completed before 8:00 AM or 9:00 AM on Sunday morning, so Grand Avenue would be open, as well as Second and Third Streets. Mayor Boro likened it to a freeway, or a two-lane road, noting you would not close a whole road down and pave it, you would close one side down and pave it, and then close the other side down and pave it. He asked why we could not do it that way on Saturday and Sunday, rather than taking the whole thing on at once, noting we were going to jeopardize a residential neighborhood, and anticipating the screams we were going to get as a result of that. Mr. Bernardi stated staff would review the options. Mayor Boro acknowledged it would be Mr. Bernardi's decision, and noted the main thing was that the City publicize whatever we were going to do ahead of time, and perhaps distribute flyers to the residents of that street, or put them up on the poles along the street. Mr. Bernardi reported the reader board would be posted, so the drivers would see it, and they were also going to notice within 300 feet, which was approximately a block and a half, around Grand Avenue, so they would get all of the businesses, as well as the homes nearest the work. Councilmember Cohen asked about signage. He reported he had gone out of town Sunday morning, at approximately 11:00 AM. Knowing the City fairly well, and having had the benefit of reading the morning paper, as he headed north on Highway 101, he came out of town on Mission Avenue, already anticipating turning onto Lincoln Avenue, having figured the Irwin Street onramp to northbound Highway 101 would be closed, based on what he had read in the newspaper. He stated that, indeed, when he looked down Mission Avenue, he saw a parked Police car at Irwin Street, so he made a left turn onto Lincoln Avenue. He observed several other drivers who either had not read the newspaper, or did not know the City well enough to know that going up Lincoln Avenue was the best way to get out of town to northbound Highway 101, or for whatever reason did not put two and two together, and they had to go down and make a U-turn to come back. Mr. Cohen stated a simple sign at Lincoln Avenue saying, "Detour, northbound Highway 101 this way" would have prevented that. Mr. Bernardi stated staff had identified that as one of the critical shortcomings of the signing program. Mr. Cohen noted a contributing factor to the confusion, and something that still exists today, was that the light on the southeast corner of that particular intersection, Mission and Lincoln Avenues, was not functional. He stated the middle cone on the yellow light was missing entirely, so it appeared in daylight as though the yellow light was on. He noted today it appeared as though the entire light was non-functional. Mr. Bernardi stated Public Works would take care of that. Councilmember Heller stated that at one point on Saturday it had been reported to her that trucks were coming into the City with what appeared to be dirt, and she assumed it was coming in for Fair, Isaac. She wanted to be certain that when those trucks are coming in, we have them timed so we do not have any back-up like this. Mr. Bernardi reported trucks for Fair, Isaac were coming in all during the week, and Public Works had established SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 25 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 26 a route for them, primarily coming up I-580 from the East Bay, then up Andersen Drive, and when they leave, going down Andersen Drive and turning left on Francisco Boulevard. Ms. Heller stated it seemed like a lot of trucks per hour to be getting through the rush hour, and she wanted the City to look at this very closely, so we do not have this happening again. City Manager Gould reported the VLF (Vehicle License Fee) debate took a bizarre turn over the weekend, which he could not explain. He noted he had reported that Governor Wilson seemed to have succeeded in cajoling many of the Senate Democrats into accepting a $3.6 billion tax cut, as of last Friday; however, as of today, he had cut that back to a $1 billion tax cut, over three years, and there were various triggering mechanisms, so it was not clear whether or not cities and counties were in the gun sights or not. Therefore, the situation was very much in flux, and attempts to obtain information from our Legislators had yielded nothing today. Mr. Gould also reported there would be a change in leadership at the League of California Cities, noting that at the end of the recent conference attended by Councilmember Heller, Don Benninghoven announced his retirement, effective January 1, 1999. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 21. DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR ROD GOULD, CITY MANAGER, FOR YEAR 1998/99 - File 9-3-11 x 7-3 Mayor Boro announced this item had been placed on the Agenda at the request of Councilmember Cohen and himself. Consistent with the Council's review of Mr. Gould's continued outstanding performance as City Manager, Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to propose a 4% salary increase (to $124,800 per year), and a $5,000 bonus. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None City Manager Gould thanked the Council, stating he was much appreciative. He noted Councilmember Miller had recently described his situation as having the best job, in the best place, at the best time, and stated he could not agree more, and he appreciated their trust and confidence. City Clerk Leoncini asked if this was effective July 1, 1998? Mayor Boro responded that it was. ADJOURNMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN MEMORY OF FORMER CITY COUNCILMEMBER JOHN MISKIMEN - File 9-1 Mayor Boro noted it had been reported in the newspaper last week that John Miskimen, former City Councilmember, had passed away. Mayor Boro stated Mr. Miskimen had an outstanding record of public service, having served for twelve years on the City Council, and three years on the Planning Commission. Mayor Boro asked for observance of a moment of silence, and then adjourned the meeting in memory of former Councilmember John Miskimen at 11:15 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1998 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/3/98 Page 26