HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1999-05-17SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 17, 1999 AT 8:00
PM
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Vice -Mayor
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 PM
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items:
CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM
la. Conference with Labor Negotiator
(Government Code 54957.6)
Negotiator: Daryl Chandler
Employee Organization: San Rafael Firefighters Association
lb. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation
(Government Code Section 54956.9(a))
Case name: David Irving v. City of San Rafael
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board No. SF389153
l.c Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(Government Code Section 54956.9(a))
Case Names: City of San Rafael v. Kimball C. Kaufman, Jr., et al.
Marin County Courts Case No. CV991572
City of San Rafael v. Leonard D. Stein, et al.
Marin County Courts Case No. CV991571
City of San Rafael v. Christopher Bradshaw, et al.
Marin County Courts Case No. CV991569
City Attorney Ragghianti announced no reportable action was taken on la,
lb, and lc.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
PM
8:25
RE: LEAF BLOWERS - File 100 x 13-9
Muriel Paule, resident of San Rafael, requested Council consider a ban on leaf
blowers in San Rafael, noting she felt people had enough stress in their lives
without the horrible noise generated by the leaf blowers. She stated they were
not actually vacuuming up the leaves and debris, all they were doing was blowing
the leaves from one place to another, and urged Council to outlaw the leaf
blowers, as she believed they were nothing but noise pollution.
Mayor Boro asked City Manager Gould to comment regarding an upcoming item on the
Agenda that related to this issue. City Manager Gould reported the State of
California was trying to decide whether or not leaf blower regulation was a
matter of State concern, and was seeking to curtail the abilities of local
jurisdictions to regulate leaf blowers. Mr. Gould stated Senator Burton had
introduced a bill that would postpone any further debate on this issue, while it
is studied from an environmental standpoint. Mr. Gould stated
there was a debate going on at the State level as to who controls leaf blowers,
and he did not believe Council should take action on this issue until the matter
is settled.
RE: TRAFFIC ON WOODLAND AVENUE - File 100 x 11-1
Scott Fornaciari, resident of San Rafael, reported he has noticed a considerable
number of drivers do not obey the stop signs posted at the corner of Woodland
Avenue and Eva Street, and at times, people also drive through the intersection
at excessive rates of speed. He pointed out there is an elementary school on
one corner of that street, and a block and a half away there is a middle school,
where people drop their children off, and when the schools let out, children are
crossing through that area.
Mr. Fornaciari noted a condominium development was also being constructed on the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 2
hillside, at Woodland and Lovell Avenues, and he believed the introduction of
those vehicles dropping onto Woodland Avenue, and not having any way for people
to stop and let them into the street, was going to create a dangerous conflict.
Mr. Fornaciari asked the City
to look at how speed reduction might be accomplished, suggesting perhaps a stop
sign at Woodland and Lovell Avenues, which would help people coming out of the
new development, and might also slow people down a little.
Mayor Boro referred the issue to the Traffic Committee. City Manager Gould
stated there were two parts to this issue; one was traffic enforcement, which he
would refer to the Police Department. Regarding the second, Mr. Gould stated he
would speak with the Traffic Coordinating Committee, and ask them to determine
whether additional speed control devices might be necessary at that
intersection. Mayor Boro pointed out the Police Department had doubled the
number of Motorcycle Officers from two to four, and the City would certainly be
able to patrol the area.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the new traffic standards recently set by the
City, noting the proximity of Laurel Dell Elementary and Davidson Middle Schools
merited looking into whether the new standards might allow for some of the new
traffic calming techniques. Public Works Director David Bernardi pointed out
one of the limitations to that was the number count of the average daily traffic
on that roadway, noting the average daily traffic determined whether the old or
the new standards applied. Mr. Bernardi stated counts were currently being
taken.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the
following Consent Calendar items:
2.
3
4.
ITEM
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Budget Minutes approved as
submitted.
Hearings of June 23 and June 29, 1998,
and Special and Regular meetings of Monday,
May 3, 1999 (CC)
Call for Applications for Appointment to Fill
One Four -Year Term on the Design Review Board
to the End of June, 2003, Due to Expiration of
Term of Andrea Purdy MacLeod, Architect (CC)
- File 9-2-39
Call for Applications to Fill Two, Four -Year
Terms on the Planning Commission to the End
of June, 2003, Due to Expiration of Terms of
James Atchison and Jeff Kirchmann (CC)
- File 9-2-6
Approved staff
recommendation:
a) Called for
applications to
fill one four-year
term on the
Design Review Board
(Licensed
Architect or Licensed
Landscape Architect), due
to expiration of term of
Andrea Purdy MacLeod,
Architect, with
applications due by
deadline of Tuesday, June
8, 1999 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
Monday, June 21, 1999,
commencing at 6:30 PM, to
fill one four-year term to
the end of June, 2003.
Approved staff
recommendation:
a) Called for
applications to
fill two, four-year
terms on
the Planning
Commission, due
to expiration of terms of
James Atchison and Jeff
Kirchmann, with
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 3
5. Appointment of Galen Fultz Harkavy to the
Cultural Affairs Commission, Currently Serving
as Alternate, to fill Four -Year Term of
Commissioner Mary Welch, Who Resigned May 11,
1999 (Term to Expire End of April, 2003) (CC)
- File 9-2-24
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued):
6. Report on Annual Filings - Fair Political
Practices Commission Form 700, Statement of
Economic Interests for Designated Employees,
Including Consultants, Geotechnical Review
Board, Design Review Board and Cultural Affairs
Commission (CC) - File 9-4-3
applications due by
deadline of Tuesday, June
8, 1999 at 12:00 Noon in
the City Clerk's Office,
Room 209, City Hall; b)
Set date for interviews of
applicants at a Special
City Council meeting to be
held on Monday, June 21,
1999, commencing at 6:00
PM, to fill two, four-year
terms to the end of June,
2003.
Council appointed
Galen Fultz
Harkavy to the
Cultural
Affairs Commission,
to fill
four-year term of
Cultural
Affairs Commissioner
Mary
Welch, who resigned May
11, 1999. Term to expire
end of April, 2003.
Accepted report.
7. Request for City of San Rafael Amicus Approved amicus
participation.
Participation: (CA) - File 9-3-16
Haggis v. City of Los Angeles,
California Supreme Court Review
granted 12/16/98
8. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael Approved staff
recommendation:
(CM) - File 9-1 SB 1200 (Poochigian),
Disabled Access to Public
Accommodations: OPPOSE; AB
220 (Washington),
Community Based Alcohol
Education Programs:
SUPPORT; AB 398 (Migden),
Housing Bond Act of 2000:
SUPPORT; SB 510 (Alarcon),
Housing Bonds: SUPPORT;
SCR 19 (Burton), Leaf
Blowers: SUPPORT.
9. Resolution Accepting a Proposal From Harris & Item deferred to
meeting of
Associates for Construction Management Services June 7, 1999, at
request of
and Authorizing Execution of Agreement for the staff.
Second Street Widening and Lindaro Street Rule 20A
Undergrounding Utility District (PW) - File 12-18-12
10. Resolution Accepting Proposal From Harding Lawson RESOLUTION NO. 10406
Associates (HLA) to Conduct Construction Health RESOLUTION ACCEPTING
A
and Safety and Geotechnical Oversight in the PROPOSAL FROM HARDING
LAWSON
Amount of $182,700 and Authorizing Execution of ASSOCIATES (HLA) TO
CONDUCT
Agreement for the Second Street Widening and CONSTRUCTION HEALTH
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 4
AND
Lindaro Rule 20A Underground Utility District SAFETY AND
GEOTECHNICAL
(PW) - File 4-3-359 x 12-18-12 x 167 x 11-15 OVERSIGHT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $182,700 AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
AGREEMENT FOR THE SECOND
STREET WIDENING AND
LINDARO RULE 20A
UNDERGROUND UTILITY
DISTRICT.
11. Merrydale Overcrossing - Merrydale Right -of -Way RESOLUTION NO. 10407
Contract and Easement Deed from WHLW Real Estate RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
to the City of San Rafael (PW) - File 2-2 x 4-1-468 SIGNING OF A RIGHT-
OF-WAY
CONTRACT FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT
EASEMENTS FOR ROADWAY AND
UTILITY PURPOSES FROM WHLW
REAL ESTATE FOR THE
MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING
PROJECT.
RESOLUTION NO. 10408 -
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING
EASEMENT DEED GRANTING THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL A
PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, AND
UTILITY PURPOSES UPON
CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM WHLW
REAL ESTATE FOR THE
MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING
PROJECT.
12. Second Street Widening - Resolution Approving the Item deferred to a
future
Purchase of an Easement From Golden Gate Bridge,meeting, at request of
staff.
Highway and Transportation District in an Amount
of $10,000 and Authorizing Execution of Agreement
(PW) - File 12-18-12
13. Request for Waiver of Fees Re: 96 Pilgrim Way
(Marin Head Start) (CD) - File 9-10-2 x 10-2
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued):
RESOLUTION NO. 10409
RESOLUTION WAIVING
FEES FOR 96 PILGRIM WAY
(MARIN HEAD START).
14. An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael Amending ORDINANCE NO. 1736
Title 12 of the Municipal Code of the City of
San Rafael, by Amending Chapter 12.12, Adopting
the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition, with
Amendments; by Amending Chapter 12.14, Adopting
the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1997 Edition, with
Amendments; by Amending Chapter 12.16, Adopting
the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1997 Edition, with
Print: "AN ORDINANCE
OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
AMENDING
TITLE 12 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE
OF THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL, BY
AMENDING CHAPTER
12.12,
ADOPTING THE UNIFORM
BUILDING
CODE, 1997 EDITION,
WITH
Amendments; by Amending Chapter 12.20, Adopting AMENDMENTS; BY
AMENDING
the National Electrical Code, 1996 Edition, with CHAPTER 12.14, ADOPTING
THE
Amendments; by Amending Chapter 12.26, Adopting UNIFORM MECHANICAL
CODE, 1997
the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition, with EDITION, WITH
AMENDMENTS; BY
Amendments; by Amending Chapter 12.28, Adopting AMENDING CHAPTER
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 5
12.16,
the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous ADOPTING THE UNIFORM
PLUMBING
Buildings, 1997 Edition, with Amendments; and by CODE, 1997 EDITION, WITH
Amending Chapter 12.32, Adopting the Uniform AMENDMENTS; BY
AMENDING
Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code, 1997 Edition, CHAPTER 12.20,
ADOPTING THE
with Amendments (CD) NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE,
1996
- File 1-6-1 x 1-6-2 x 1-6-3 x 1-6-5 x 1-6-6 x 1-6-7 EDITION, WITH
AMENDMENTS; BY AMENDING
CHAPTER 12.26, ADOPTING
THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE,
1997 EDITION, WITH
AMENDMENTS; BY AMENDING
CHAPTER 12.28, ADOPTING
THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE
ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS
BUILDINGS, 1997 EDITION,
WITH AMENDMENTS; AND BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 12.32,
ADOPTING THE UNIFORM
SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT
TUB CODE, 1997 EDITION,
WITH AMENDMENTS.
15. Resolution Authorizing the Execution of Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 10410
Between the City of San Rafael and the Marin RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE
Agricultural Land Trust for the Rental of Office SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT
WITH
Space at Falkirk Cultural Center (Lib)
- File 2-8-29 x 9-3-84
THE MARIN
AGRICULTURAL LAND
TRUST FOR THE USE OF
FALKIRK CULTURAL CENTER
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND
PROGRAM SPACE (At $425 Per
Month, on a Month -to -Month
Basis).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
- File 9-10-2 x 10-2
Referring to Agenda Item #13, concerning the waiver of fees for the Marin
Head Start program at 96 Pilgrim Way, Mayor Boro announced the City
received an award last week for the work the City has done in conjunction
with Pell Development Company, the church at the site, Pilgrim Park
Apartments, and Marin Head Start, in providing child care at that site. He
explained the City had realized the need to do something as part of the
development of that site, and the Developer came forward, constructing and
funding the site for child care in that neighborhood. He noted the City
was awarded the plaque for its creative solution to this problem.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Mayor Boro announced the Council would address Agenda Item #17 as the first
Public Hearing.
17. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1997 UNIFORM
FIRE CODE AND/OR 1998 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS AND
FINDINGS OF FACT (FD)
- File 1-6-4
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff
report.
Fire Marshal Keith Schoenthal explained this Ordinance would adopt the 1997
Uniform Fire Code, noting this has been a "status quo" Ordinance since
1991, when the current standards were first introduced. He noted the major
changes that have been introduced were all administrative; one to change
the "Enforcement and Penalty" section to mirror the City's Administrative
Citation and Hearing Officer provisions, which were adopted after the Fire
Department last came before the Council. In addition, the "Findings of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 6
Fact" were moved, to be included within the Ordinance, rather than as a
stand-alone Resolution.
Fire Marshal Schoenthal stated highlights of the technical changes made in
the amendments included such things as deep fat fryers and commercial
kitchens, where the Fire Department was changing the type of fire
extinguisher required because of the change from animal -based fats to
vegetable-based fats, which burn hotter. He stated they were also
requiring additional exit lights and signs in buildings with over 100
occupants, upon change of occupancy, which he explained would mirror the
current provisions of the Uniform Building Code.
Fire Marshal Schoenthal reported that neither the Fire Department, nor the
City Clerk's office, had received public comment during the past two weeks
following the published notice of this Ordinance and public hearing.
Mayor Boro invited public comment. There being no public comment, Mayor
Boro closed the public hearing.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING
CHAPTER 4.08, OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE
CODE, 1997 EDITION, WITH AMENDMENTS, AND PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS GOVERNING
CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE, EXPLOSION AND OTHER
DANGERS, AND ESTABLISHING A FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU AND PROVIDING OFFICERS
THEREFOR, AND DEFINING THEIR DUTIES AND POWERS"
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title
only, and approve Final Adoption of Charter Ordinance No. 1735, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
16. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE (ZC98-3) FOR A PLANNED DISTRICT ZONING TO
ALLOW SIX SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
(TS98-2) TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING PARCEL INTO SIX PARCELS, MASTER USE PERMIT
(UP98-38) TO ALLOW SIX SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ASSOCIATED USES,
ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED98-107) FOR SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS AND SIX SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES; END OF FERNWOOD WAY AND
FERNWOOD DRIVE; APN 185-030-01; THOMAS TRUST, OWNER; WATERFORD ASSOCIATES,
LLC, REPRESENTATIVE (CD) - File 10-3 x 10-4 x 10-5 x 10-7 x 10-8
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff
report.
Associate Planner Louise Patterson reported this project was a six -lot
subdivision with six custom homes, all subject to the City's Hillside
regulations and/or Hillside Design Guidelines. She stated the project had
been reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 13,
1999, and five major issues were discussed. One of the issues was
drainage. She noted the neighbors were very concerned about the drainage,
and it had been an issue throughout the processing of this project. Ms.
Patterson reported a Drainage Analysis had been prepared and reviewed by
staff, and the analysis concluded that with the addition of two catch
basins and a flap gate, the project would not increase the amount of
drainage to the system, and would have no impact. The visual impacts of
the house on Lot #4 was an issue of concern with the neighbors on
Castlewood Drive, and with the Planning Commission, and the Commission
recommended the house be redesigned and reviewed again by the Design Review
Board and the Planning Commission. Ms. Patterson reported the applicant
had begun that process, and staff anticipated receiving the redesigned
plans for the house within the next few weeks. Ms. Patterson stated the
neighbors had also expressed concern regarding the French Broom on the
perimeter of the property, and the Planning Commission concurred. Ms.
Patterson reported an addendum to the Vegetation Management Plan had been
prepared to address that issue.
Ms. Patterson stated the Planning Commission also wanted to be very clear
about what the conservation easement was, where it was on this property,
and what could be done within it, and that had been addressed and described
in detail in Condition #42. The last issue concerned the location of the
turnaround at the end of Fernwood Way, and after discussion, the applicant
agreed to relocate the turnaround onto their property. Ms. Patterson noted
this would not require additional tree removal, and would require only
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 7
minimal grading, if any. Ms. Patterson stated the Planning Commission had
stated these modifications must be incorporated into the project, and also
recommended modifications to certain Conditions of Approval, which were
reflected in the Conditions being presented to Council.
Councilmember Heller noted another item that had been listed as a concern
was Soil Stability. Ms. Patterson stated this was not a major issue,
noting it was something that had been mentioned by one of the neighbors.
She reported a Geotechnical Review had been done by the City's Geotechnical
Review Board, and their recommendation was that the project was stable, and
could be built.
Mayor Boro invited the applicant to address the Council.
Fritz Wooster, partner with the firm of Waterford Associates, the project
applicant, introduced his partner, Mike Smith, Civil Engineer Lee
Oberkamper, Architect Dick Hunt, and Landscape Architect Pete Pedersen.
Mr. Wooster thanked those neighbors in attendance at the Council meeting,
as well as those who had attended a series of meetings over the past year.
He noted they had conducted three general meetings, with all the
surrounding neighbors, as well as site-specific meetings with neighbors of
Upper Fernwood, Lower Fernwood, and Castlewood Drive, and with a group of
individuals concerned about drainage. In addition, he reported they had a
number of individual meetings with homeowners surrounding the property,
where the project Architect showed them revisions made to the plans during
the past few months.
Mr. Wooster thanked Associate Planner Louise Patterson, noting she had done
a very thorough job of presenting all the issues. He stated he and his
associates were in complete concurrence with the staff report, and the
Conditions of the project.
Mr. Wooster explained the 12 acre in -fill site was surrounded by existing
neighbors and their homes, and a number of issues and concerns had been
presented by them, which the applicant had tried to address over the past
few months. He stated they tried, through meetings, studies, and extensive
revisions to the project, to address these concerns, and felt, for the most
part, they had satisfied the outstanding issues raised. Mr. Wooster noted
that in evaluating the particular home sites selected, they spent a lot of
time and effort trying to balance the concerns of tree removal, grading
impacts on the site, and view impacts on the various neighbors. He stated
their intent has been to minimize the collective impact on the people with
whom they are going to be working, and who will be their neighbors. He
acknowledged he did not believe their solution was a perfect one; however,
it had been approached with a lot of effort and skill on the part of the
consultants, and he believed the neighbors would agree they had spent a lot
of time and effort in addressing their concerns.
Lee Oberkamper, Civil Engineer, referred to a map of the project, outlining
the twelve and a half acres being developed. He referred to a memorandum
shown in the staff report, written as a result of a meeting between the
developer, staff, and the neighbors, noting the conclusion of the report of
the meeting was that the piping system in the Fernwood area was adequate to
carry the water generated by the project. He stated they were careful not
to add additional drainage to the Castlewood Drive side, as there had been
considerable expressions of concern about the drainage, and they wanted to
make sure they did not exacerbate those concerns. He noted in areas being
developed within the project where hardscape was being created, that
drainage was being pulled toward Fernwood, where there was adequate
capacity to take care of it. He stated that as a result of the analysis
and the meeting, it was agreed there would be a catch basin located at the
intersection of Fernwood Way and Rosewood Court, where the capacity to
accept water would be increased. He also noted there was a catch basin
across the street from that location, on Fernwood Way, opposite the
intersection, and its capacity would also be increased. He stated those
two things would be done by the developer, while the City had agreed to
replace a sub -standard catch basin on the other side of the street, and
construct a new catch basin at the intersection of Fernwood Way and Knight
Drive. Mr. Oberkamper stated a flap gate would also be added where the
drainage enters the drainage channel at the end of the pipe, so water
cannot back up into the system, and hinder the flow as it comes out.
Councilmember Cohen noted there had been a fair amount of discussion in the
Planning Commission Minutes about whether it would be feasible to deal with
some of the already existing drainage issues in conjunction with the
drainage issues related to this project, perhaps figuring out a way to trap
some of the drainage coming off the hillside. He noted from the responses
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 8
he had read, it seemed no one had studied that particular issue, and the
focus had been mainly on the impacts from the hardscape created by this
project. He asked if, as a result of their discussions, there had been any
further study of that issue? Mr. Oberkamper stated the discussions had
been primarily focused on one home at the end of Fernwood Way. He
acknowledged that homeowner did have drainage which flowed from the
hillside to his property; however, that drainage, as it comes from the
hillside in its natural condition, has historically gone to that location,
and it was his understanding the drainage had the right to go there, as it
has historically done. However, Mr. Oberkamper reported they were slightly
reducing the amount of water that would flow in that direction, by carrying
the water from the area that is being developed directly to the street;
therefore, that portion would not be passing through his property. Mr.
Oberkamper stated they did not have a way of going onto the homeowner's
property, or adjoining his property and fixing his problem, without opening
that question with respect to anyone else who felt they had a problem, as
well.
Councilmember Cohen understood the developer did not have an obligation to
do this; however, he wondered, since they were going to be up there doing
construction anyway, and they were going to be doing drainage improvements,
would that be an opportunity to look at whether or not there were
cooperative solutions that could
solve, if, in fact, there are, existing drainage problems that are severe?
Mr. Cohen noted this homeowner was the only one who had come forth and
spoken about severe drainage problems, in terms of water coming off the
hill. He asked if there was an opportunity, as part of this drainage
solution, to look at a way to solve that, and without getting into the
issue, at this time, of whose obligation it would be to pay for that, would
there be a way to incorporate a solution to that problem, along with the
drainage solution being proposed?
Mr. Oberkamper believed there was an opportunity for a cooperative effort;
however, he felt the solution to the problem on that particular property
was going to involve improvements within that property, and was not
something they would be able to take care of by doing something on the
property uphill from his property. Mr. Oberkamper felt certain his clients
would be willing to cooperate with this homeowner, and help him work that
into the program, not that they would volunteer to bear the expense, but
they would certainly cooperate as far as working something out with the
contractor who will be on the job.
Councilmember Cohen noted one question which did pertain to the drainage
solution being proposed was whether it was engineered sufficiently, if, for
example, the property owner were to decide on a solution, such as a v -ditch
running across the top of his property. He asked if there would be a place
where that water could go, and if there was sufficient capacity within the
drainage system being proposed to accept that? Mr. Oberkamper stated there
was certainly capacity within the drainage system; however, he believed it
would be very difficult to take the water any direction but through his
property, which was where it goes now, getting there overland through his
backyard, impacting his pool and a number of things such as that. Mr.
Oberkamper stated there was certainly enough capacity, once the drainage
gets to the street, for that water to get to where it needs to go.
Dick Hunt, of Hunt, Hill & Jones Architects, noted their home designs had
been presented, in detail, to the Planning Commission and the Design Review
Board. Referring to the general concepts which shaped the designs, he
noted the key to the project had been the selection of the building sites.
He explained there had been a number of factors which they had needed to
balance, and sometimes there were competing factors, such as grading, tree
removal, preserving reasonable access, and ensuring privacy, and
occasionally, what satisfied one solution worked against another. Mr. Hunt
stated they had identified six very reasonable sites for the homes, and
then set forth to design six homes that responded to those sites. He
pointed out they designed homes that step down the hillside, looking to
minimize exposed mass, particularly on downhill sides; they used extensive
landscape screening to separate the homes from surrounding properties, and
from one another; and they used six individual home styles, to preserve an
individual character for each lot within the project. Mr. Hunt reported
they had spent considerable time working with the neighbors, and had made
substantial changes to a number of the plans, particularly with Lot #4,
which they redesigned. He noted they would be going back to the Planning
Commission on June 22nd.
Mayor Boro invited public comment.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 9
Robert Burton, a neighbor on Castlewood Drive, stated he had attended all
the meetings, and wanted Council to understand that the property which will
become Fernwood Estates was, today, a wooded hillside overlooking the
entire area, covered with trees and wildlife, noting people use it to walk
and children use it to play. He pointed out the developer was proposing
six very large estates, which did not conform with the existing
neighborhood, and would loom over the neighbors' houses. Mr. Burton
acknowledged the developer and consultants had worked very hard with the
neighbors to tinker with what they had, to hide things and minimize the
impacts by installing landscaping and putting in additional trees.
However, Mr. Burton stated no one had adequately addressed whether or not
they should even be building up on the ridgeline. He stated it was his
understanding the City of San Rafael had a Ridgeline Protection Ordinance
and Hillside Design Guidelines; however, no one had been able to tell him
how the project complied, noting he believed at least two members of the
Design Review Board had felt the project did not comply. Mr. Burton
stated, no matter how many trees are planted, the proposed homes would be
an eyesore, overlooking the neighbors' much smaller homes. He believed the
project would change the nature of their neighborhood, and affect their
property values.
Mayor Boro asked Community Development Director Bob Brown to comment on the
City's Hillside Design Guidelines. Mr. Brown explained the hillside
requirements do discuss the intent of the City to build below ridgelines;
however, on this particular site, that was somewhat difficult, because the
site is up -land from the entire neighborhood, and is composed of a three-
part ridgeline. He stated in that instance, the guidelines provide an
opportunity to develop the site, even if the homes are closer to the ridge
than 100 vertical feet, as well as provisions to reduce the density to the
minimum allowed by the General Plan, which was the case here. Mr. Brown
stated staff believed this site, given the slope density, would have
allowed as many as fifteen homes; however, that had been reduced to the
lowest
of the General Plan's density range, to six homes. He stated there were
other criteria, as well, allowing discretion of the siting and mitigation
factors, in terms of design and landscaping, which would reduce the
visibility of the homes. He noted staff and the Planning Commission felt
that had been accomplished in this proposal. Mayor Boro asked if the City
had, in any way, avoided or gone around the Ordinance? Mr. Brown stated
that was not the case, noting there were provisions for allowing
development within 100 vertical feet of a ridgeline.
Don Hodgen, 34 Fernwood Way, stated his home was adjacent to the proposed
development, and the most impacted by it. He commended Waterford
Associates for the development they have created at Fernwood Estates, and
for the professional way they had met their obligations. He stated he had
attended every neighborhood, Public Works, Design Review Board, and
Planning Commission meeting related to this project, and believed the
developer had shown sensitivity, courtesy, and extraordinary patience to
all those concerned. Mr. Hodgen felt Council should allow the developer to
proceed with this well conceived project.
Joy Phoenix, resident of Fernwood Way, recalled that during a meeting
concerning the drainage, there had been a discussion about the property at
Knight Drive and Fernwood Way, which floods every time it rains, and it had
been mentioned that the City might install a drain on Knight Drive. She
reported the owner of that property gets water coming down Fernwood Way,
which was addressed; however, she also gets water coming down Knight Drive.
Ms. Phoenix noted there had been some discussion of possibly installing
another drain on Knight Drive to alleviate water coming downhill from both
streets; however, that had not been mentioned as part of the project.
Public Works Director Bernardi pointed out the location of one of the new
catch basins to be installed, noting it would be connected to the existing
drainage system, and located in such a manner that the low spot which
currently exists on Knight Drive, and does not drain, would be rectified by
the installation of the new pipe and catch basin.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public
hearing.
Councilmember Heller referred to a letter Council received from Mrs. Rose,
in which she asked Council not to require the placement of the house on Lot
#3 to be changed. Ms. Heller asked if staff had specified that change be
made, or if it was something that could be decided at this time? Associate
Planner Louise Patterson explained Lot #3 was the highest lot, and lowering
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 10
the site would have complied more with the guidelines; however, this would
have required additional grading and tree removal, which was something the
guidelines also addressed. She stated it had been felt that leaving the
home site where it was would be the best solution.
Councilmember Phillips stated this was quite an attractive site, and to
preserve it would be an overall plus; however, recognizing property rights,
he believed the City would likely move forward with the project. Mr.
Phillips noted it had been stated by one of the neighbors that this project
might result in a negative impact on the surrounding homes. He asked staff
what they felt the impact to surrounding home values might be? Community
Development Director Brown stated staff avoided, at all costs, trying to
guess what would happen with land values. He noted, in terms of
compatibility with the neighborhood, these lots were obviously five to ten
times as large as the typical neighborhood lot and, therefore, supported
larger homes; however, he stated staff did not have any opinion regarding
land prices.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was satisfied the project had been
thoroughly reviewed, and that the Design Review Board, Planning Commission,
and staff had done a thorough job of reviewing the site and the resulting
proposal of six homes on the twelve acres.
Councilmember Miller acknowledged the remarkable process that had taken
place in terms of involving the neighbors, noting Mr. Hodgen's testimony
certainly indicated this was the way the City liked to do business, in
terms of community development. He stated staff had done a fine job of
doing just that.
Councilmember Heller pointed out there were not many neighbors who had
expressed dissatisfaction. She felt, after looking at the property, that
it was well planned, and the homes were beautiful.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the conservation easements, noting nothing
would be built, and there would not be any disturbance of the vegetation in
the conservation easements. He clarified that the conservation easements,
as shown on the map, were all those areas outside the circled development
areas, exclusive of subdivision improvements. Mr. Brown stated that was
correct, with the exception of the roadways and walkways. Mr. Cohen noted
that could be undone if someone wanted to make a change, but only by action
equivalent to that being taken by Council this evening. Ms. Patterson
stated staff was recommending it be incorporated and recorded into the
final map; therefore, the map would have to be amended, as well.
Councilmember Cohen noted that in reading the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting, at least one of the Commissioners, although expressing
his support for the project, voted against it because of his concerns
regarding the Hillside Design Guidelines. Mr. Cohen asked if staff had
been able to address those concerns? Community Development Director Brown
stated there were three criteria for allowing development within 100
vertical feet of a ridgeline, and it was his understanding one of those
provisions had been added to the project at the very end of the process, at
the public hearing. He explained that provision states, "No new
subdivision lots are created which will result in ridgeline development",
which he noted goes against the whole point, which was to provide an
exception to do just that. He noted the intent of that wording was that
re -subdivision of the lot would not be allowed, which would allow ridgeline
development; therefore, coming back after the fact, to divide an already
large lot into two smaller lots, one could provide for the ridgeline
development. He acknowledged the wording was not very well done, and
should probably be revised in the future, noting this was the problem
Commissioner Kirchmann had with this issue. Councilmember Cohen stated, if
staff was clear on the interpretation, then at the appropriate time, that
wording should be amended so it is clear, and there is not this kind of
confusion. Associate Planner Patterson pointed out the Planned District
for this project specifically states there are to be no future
subdivisions, which addresses that point.
Councilmember Cohen agreed it was exceptional to have an immediate neighbor
address the Council and laud the developer, the consultants, and the
design, stating it was an extremely rare occurrence, and he complimented
the developer and consultants on the work they had done to bring that
about. He stated he, too, had visited the site, and thought it was
beautiful. He stated if the City were to be able acquire it for the public
and the environment, many people would think that was a wonderful thing;
however, the City did not have the funds to do that, and there were no
foreseeable funds to do that. He stated this was private property, and the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 11
City did not have the right to acquire it by zoning development rights out
of existence. Regarding the view, Mr. Cohen stated he did not want, any
more than staff, to get into estimating land values or impacts. He noted
in some Ordinances the City had attempted to address severe impacts caused
to views by over -building immediately adjacent to a neighbor; however, the
law clearly established a person did not necessarily have the right to a
view across a neighbor's piece of property. Therefore, while there was
some impact on view, he believed a lot had been done to reduce that impact
as much as possible, and noted the City would push the developer to do even
more of that on Lot #4.
Mayor Boro expressed his compliments to the community and the developer for
a job well done, and one that met everyone's needs.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration, as presented.
RESOLUTION NO. 10411 - RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (ZC98-3), VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP (TS98-2), MASTER USE PERMIT (UP98-38)
AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED98-107)
FOR SIX SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS (FERNWOOD
ESTATES) END OF FERNWOOD WAY AND FERNWOOD DRIVE (AP
NO. 185-030-01)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY
OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY FROM THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(PD ORDINANCE NO. 1737) DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR SIX SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOTS (RE: ZC98-3, END OF FERNWOOD WAY AND FERNWOOD DRIVE, AP NO. 185-030-
01) (FERNWOOD ESTATES)"
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title
only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1737 to print, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution conditionally approving the project.
RESOLUTION NO. 10412 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TS98-
2), MASTER USE PERMIT (UP98-38), AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL
AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED98-107) FOR SIX SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS (FERNWOOD ESTATES) END OF
FERNWOOD WAY AND FERNWOOD DRIVE (AP NO. 185-030-01).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Boro announced the Council would next address Agenda Item #19.
OLD BUSINESS:
19. CITY'S EXERCISE OF MARIN HOUSING AUTHORITY'S OPTION TO PURCHASE TWO BELOW
MARKET RATE ("BMR") UNITS AT THE MARIN LAGOON CONDOMINIUM PROJECT: 33
MARINERS CIRCLE AND 29 MARINERS CIRCLE (CA) - File 229 x 9-3-16
Mayor Boro stated he was very disappointed the City had lost ten units out
of the 18 facilitated in this project, due to legitimate reasons. He noted
he had been made aware that a settlement (re: lawsuit) had been reached,
and he was curious whether that might have an impact on these units, and
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 12
whether these two specific units had any damage to them. He asked if the
City was on a path where it was going to lose all eighteen units, or if
this was eventually going to stop?
Richard Bornholdt, Housing Consultant, stated Mayor Boro was correct in the
way he summarized this development, noting they had gone through a lot of
machinations and great lengths to get these units in the first place. He
explained the lawsuit had created real difficulties for the owners of these
Below Market Rate units, concerning the increased assessments to pay the
litigation costs. Mayor Boro asked if they had paid anything, to date?
Mr. Bornholdt reported there was an additional assessment of approximately
$60 to pay the interest on the loan, in addition to the homeowners fees,
and there was a possibility of additional assessments, as well as the
possibility of additional costs to undertake the repairs. He stated it was
his understanding that somewhat of a settlement had been reached; however,
the final details were not clear as to how that was going to be
implemented, and it was possible the remaining five units might come up for
sale during that process, and the City might have to take the same action
being taken now. Mayor Boro asked if the two units now being considered
had any physical damage? Mr. Bornholdt stated Maurice Wolohan, with the
Marin Housing Authority, had inspected the units, and reported there was
some damage to these two particular units. Mayor Boro asked if the other
units the City had disposed of also had physical damage? Mr. Bornholdt
reported they had.
Mayor Boro noted at the last meeting the comment had been made that, as a
result of the pending litigation, buyers might potentially have to put down
more money than the customary 10%. He asked if the City could pursue using
its Housing money from Redevelopment for some type of bridge loan, in order
to maintain these units, and then work out a way to collect that over time,
rather than just abandoning the units? He stated he found it very
frustrating that the City was losing these units, and he was trying to see
if there was some way the City could put a stop to it.
Mr. Bornholdt stated the City could step in and take these units; however,
based upon the history and experience of the Housing Authority, it would be
very difficult to find another qualified buyer. Mr. Bornholdt noted the
City could step in and create a buyers' downpayment program, and recapture
that if the unit was ever sold; however, the City would not be able to
require any payments on that portion, which he noted was the problem in the
first place.
Ida Baugh, member of the Board of Directors of the Marin Lagoon Homeowners
Association, and an active real estate agent in the neighborhood, explained
the $60 special assessment was to pay off the loan, and while there had
been a settlement, it was only a verbal agreement, and they had not
received it in writing, which was why the $60 assessment had not been
discontinued. Ms. Baugh stated that when they get the money for the
settlement, the $600,000 loan for the attorney's fees will be paid, and the
assessment of $60 per month is supposed to be discontinued. She noted they
had settled for $3.5 million, and it had cost them $1.5 million to get
that. In addition, although they had a loan of $600,000 to pay the
attorney's fees, with the consultants and the construction defects testing,
they had depleted their reserves, which they had planned to use for
painting, roofing, and siding, and now there was nothing to fall back on.
Therefore, after paying $1.5 million, they will have approximately $2
million to fix ninety units. Ms. Baugh explained this was what made it
hard to sell these units, noting she had recently spoken with a lender,
asking how lending institutions treated units that have settled lawsuits,
but have not yet been fixed. She reported, because of the future of being
in a construction zone, the lending institutions would want to see the
units fixed first, before they start feeling good about lending.
Mayor Boro asked what had happened to the units the City had owned, and
then abandoned? Ms. Baugh stated they had been sold. Mayor Boro asked if
third parties came in, who did not need assistance, and bought the homes?
Ms. Baugh stated she believed that was what had occurred. Mayor Boro noted
those third parties had been willing to take the risk. Ms. Baugh pointed
out there currently was a shortage of inventory, noting for a while no one
was buying at Marin Lagoon; however, now that the interest rates are low
and there is a shortage of inventory, the buyers are looking the other way,
because they have nothing else to buy. Mayor Boro asked, if it was good
enough for the private sector, why would it not be something the City would
want to consider? Mayor Boro asked if he was correct that there had been
90 condominiums damaged? Ms. Baugh stated there were 90 condominiums in
the development, and a lot of them had damage, although not all of them
did. She noted there was a lot of deferred maintenance, because they have
not been painting the units as scheduled, having used the reserves for the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 13
lawsuit; therefore, the units were not looking very good. She hoped, once
they received the money and could fix them, they would look a lot better.
Mayor Boro asked Mr. Wolohan if he was correct that the units the City had
abandoned were approximately $150,000 to $160,000? Mr. Wolohan stated
there had actually been quite a range in price, noting he had a list of
resale prices which went from a low of $129,000, to a high of $170,850 for
one of the units now being considered by Council, which was the highest
price to date. Mr. Wolohan explained the pricing had to do with the
initial purchase price when the units were first built, how much time had
elapsed, and whether they had been resold one or more times since the
initial purchase. Referring to the two units now being considered by
Council, Mayor Boro pointed out their resale prices were $170,850 and
$162,300.
Councilmember Cohen asked, as an example, if the City were to exercise the
option and acquired the properties, then found it had no better luck
finding a buyer than the current sellers, was the City then allowed to sell
the units at market price? Mr. Wolohan stated that would certainly be
Council's decision, because the City was the source of these units, and
they were under resale restriction to begin with. Therefore, in acquiring
a unit under those circumstances, the City would always have the option of
how to dispose of the property, whether to resell through the program to
moderate -income, first-time home buyers, which was how the program was
presently designed, or to take any number of other options, such as
operating the unit as a rental; reselling to a non-profit which might want
to operate it as affordable rental property, as was the case with four of
the original BMR units, which went to EAR (Ecumanical Association for
Housing) for that purpose; or to simply resell it, at such time as the City
might be able, to a qualified first-time home buyer.
Mr. Wolohan believed the real problem was not a lack of buyers for the
program, but a lack of buyers who fit the profile of the first-time home
ownership program, which was limited to low- to moderate -income, first-time
home buyers. He pointed out the greatest difficulty for those home buyers
was coming up with enough downpayment. He noted, typically, in this
program, with financing such as it is today, they were able to facilitate a
sale with 5% down, and 95% financing, although that was with a property
that did not have a cloud of pending litigation. However, in this case,
lenders were not willing to lend more than 80%, if they would lend at all.
Mayor Boro believed the City could overcome that by fronting the money, if
it chose to. Mr. Wolohan acknowledged that would be possible.
Mr. Wolohan explained the second difficulty, for any buyer, was evaluating
the risk, noting that for a first-time home buyer who does not have equity
or experience, it could be a very intimidating prospect. He stated that in
order to fully disclose the nature of what the buyer would be getting into,
the seller and the Housing Authority, because they are facilitating these
sales, must make the buyer fully aware of the current status, and also the
worse case scenario of how the settlement might play out. Mayor Boro
noted, however, the private sector had elected to buy the other ten units.
Mr. Wolohan felt what they had seen, in a number of the properties
released from the program, were speculative buyers coming in, who were
willing to take the risk and ride it out for a period of time, seeing the
opportunity of selling at a profit.
Councilmember Cohen referred to a list of the BMR properties, noting three
of the units showed actual market sales price, because there was a
recapture provision. Mr. Cohen asked if there had been others of these
units sold? Mr. Wolohan stated there had. Mr. Cohen asked if that
information was available, and whether, if someone wanted to know the
approximate sales price of a unit, there was information in the public
record that would enable him to determine the approximate selling price of
these units? Ms. Baugh reported there was. Mr. Cohen stated he would be
very interesteT in that information.
Councilmember Cohen pointed out one of the units detailed on the list had a
purchase price of $114,000, a BMR resale price of $125,000, a BMR price at
resale of $140,000, and it sold for $219,000, noting there was a big gap
between today's market price for that unit and its BMR price. He stated he
did not know if there was a source of funds, or how the City might deal
with this; however, he felt, if there was that kind of gap between the BMR
price and today's market price, it might be worth taking a look at this,
particularly if the City had the ability to sell the units at market. He
acknowledged the circumstances surrounding the particular unit he had cited
might be an anomaly; however, if the market rate on these units was an
indicator of what the price difference was today, he felt it might be worth
acquiring some of these units, and trying to find a way to keep them
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 14
affordable. Mr. Bornholdt stated that information was available, and he
could look at the last five or six units that had most recently sold, as
they would be similar to what the market was now, then come up with an idea
of what it would cost, and where those funds might be. He believed if the
City did acquire the units, it was likely the City would own them for
awhile, noting the City could ask the Housing Authority to try to locate
other qualified buyers, and perhaps set a timeframe. Mayor Boro asked if
they could be rented in the interim? Mr. Bornholdt stated they could be,
and the City could perhaps contract with someone for the management.
Councilmember Heller asked how many units were left? Mayor Boro noted they
had gone from eighteen to eight remaining units. Ms. Heller asked for
clarification of the recapture provision. Mr. Wolohan stated the recapture
provision had only been introduced in a more recent version of the resale
restrictions, and were not in place when the properties sold in 1989
through 1990. He explained that if a property was released from the
program through the abandonment of option, and there was a recapture
provision in the most current resale restriction recorded on the property,
then 85% of the difference between the actual sales price, unrestricted,
and the BMR formula price, as of the time the owner gives notice they wish
to sell, was returned in a payment to the City. He reiterated that applied
to some of these units, but not all, noting that of those units, three had
produced recapture dollars back to the City. Mayor Boro stated it was his
understanding it had been an oversight on the part of the City that the
recapture provision had not been included for all the units. Mr. Wolohan
pointed out much of this program was completely unique, and was constantly
evolving. Mayor Boro stated, under the ideal recapture, it would be that
each time the unit was sold they would begin with a new base, as the intent
was to maintain these units as affordable, in perpetuity. He noted, with
the recapture provision, the success of the buyers would be to "step-up"
where they bought, and their increase would, too, but the units would still
be held below market. Mr. Wolohan explained it was actually an "either/or"
situation, stating a unit either resells through the program, where it does
step-up but remains affordable, or it is released from the program, and
there is a one-time recapture of the difference between the market sales
price and the BMR price at that time.
Councilmember Cohen stated with a BMR price at resale of $149,060, and a
sales price of $219,500, if the City had acquired the unit at the BMR
price, which was what the City's option was, and then could not find a
qualified buyer and sold the unit at market price, the City would have made
$78,540, before the costs of purchase and sale, instead of the $55,000
recapture. Therefore, the City could have taken whatever was left after
paying the fees, and put that back into the Housing Fund. Mr. Wolohan
stated that was correct. Mr. Cohen noted even if the costs associated with
this unit had gone up, there would have been a $78,000 cushion, which was
considerable in terms of the City's ability to recapture money back into
the Housing Fund. He asked if the City could acquire these other units,
hold them for a pre -determined period while attempting to find a buyer, and
if unable to do so, then release them? He noted if the City did that, it
could take the money, put it in the Housing Fund, and the City would get
the recapture. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to know the
relative value of the other units, and some of the other sales that have
taken place, noting it appeared the market had driven the value of the
units up high enough that the City should look at this. He noted the City
had approved this project, and others like it, in an attempt to increase
affordable housing stock; however, because of the sad set of circumstances
here, that was going away. He believed the City could be more aggressive
in going after this, and recapturing some of it, whether it be in terms of
dollars, or keeping the units affordable.
Councilmember Cohen asked how much time the City had before its options
expired on these two units? Mayor Boro stated one expired on June 28th,
and the other on July 25th, so the City still had time. Mr. Wolohan noted
the owner of the first unit coming up had alrady moved, due to employment
relocation, and was calling everyday regarding the status of Council's
decision. Ms. Baugh pointed out that if the City assumed these units, it
also assumed the risks of a special assessment, interest rates going up,
and values going down. She stated that while they did know more now as to
where they stood, there were still some unknowns that went with the
ownership. Mr. Cohen stated right now, on the particular unit that had
sold, there was at least a 30% cushion. He noted if that was anomalous,
then he was leaping to conclusions; however, data was available to
determine whether that was a pattern, and if it was, it might be prudent
for the City to take that risk.
Mayor Boro noted these units had cost between one-half and one-third the
price of the market rate units when they went out the first time, and he
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 15
asked, when Mr. Bornholdt returns to Council, that he also provide
information on what comparable condominium units are selling for, whether
damaged or undamaged, noting it could strengthen Mr. Bornholdt's point
regarding the risk. Noting the Housing Authority
had the "C" and "D" models, Ms. Baugh reported the larger three-bedroom
models were selling for approximately $270,000, and the smaller two-bedroom
units were selling for approximately $219,000.
Mayor Boro stated the City had already lost eleven of these units, and if
the City declined its options on these two, that would leave only five. He
believed if the City could find a way to responsibly stem the tide, with
minimal risk, it might be worthwhile to pursue this.
Regarding Housing Funds, City Manager Gould noted that with the City's
commitment to Gordon's Opera House, Council had essentially spoken for the
Housing Fund at this time. However, included in that was $250,000 to be
used to jump-start the Canal Housing Improvement program, and to date, the
City had not been able to get an apartment house under contract.
Therefore, if the Council wanted to make an emergency reallocation for this
purpose, the City would not be jeopardizing a sale. Mayor Boro stated the
City would also know by the 28th whether we had been "redeveloped". In
addition, Mr. Gould noted the bond issue would generate additional Housing
Funds. However, he cautioned the City did not yet know the extent of the
repairs needed for these units.
Mayor Boro noted it was interesting the majority of the units already sold
were the ones that had no recapture, noting it was not the City's purpose
with this program to get a first-time buyer into these units, and then let
them make a killing. He stated it was a shame how difficult it was to come
up with affordable units, especially of this quality, and in a neighborhood
as good as this, and then to lose them. Therefore, he wanted to see if
there was any way it might make sense for the City to do something.
Councilmember Cohen felt that looking at the City acquiring these units
might be the wrong direction, and perhaps the City should look into
partnering with a couple of very capable, well funded, not-for-profit,
affordable housing developers. He asked, if the City had the option, could
the City acquire the units, then turnaround and sell them for cost to a
private enterprise dedicated to affordable housing, with some agreement
that they be kept affordable? Mr. Bornholdt explained that currently the
City actually assigned the option to a qualified buyer; however, the City
could assign the option to a non-profit, with some kind of regulatory
agreement. He noted EAH currently had four units in Marin Lagoon like
that. Mayor Boro asked if they had been able to sustain those units? Mr.
Bornholdt stated they had, but he understood it was very difficult for
them, noting he would contact them to determine what their experience has
been.
18. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REPEALING SECTIONS 8.12.030, 8.12.220 AND 8.12.230, AND
ADDING CHAPTER 8.18 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE THE
POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PUBLIC AND CERTAIN
PRIVATE PROPERTY (CA)
- File 13-8 x 13-9 X 9-3-16 X 9-3-30
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff
report.
Assistant City Attorney Guinan stated that in January of this year, at the
direction of Councilmember Miller, the City Attorney's office prepared a
draft Ordinance to comprehensively regulate and control the possession and
consumption of alcoholic beverages on public property, and on certain
private property. After discussion and comments by the Councilmembers,
staff re -drafted the Ordinance to address some of the comments the
Councilmembers made that evening. He reported changes made by staff
included the following: language concerning the definition of "open to
public view" was revised to read, "open and accessible to the public", and
it was defined and included in the "Definitions" section; the requirement
of an ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) license for any exception to the
alcohol regulations, before such an exception would apply, was deleted; and
a section was added to make mandatory the posting of parking lots for
multi -residential structures of ten or more units.
Mr. Guinan noted Council had also asked that staff circulate the Ordinance
and solicit input from members of the public who might be affected by the
Ordinance being enacted, and to get their reactions. He reported staff had
sent out copies of the re -drafted Ordinance to approximately 100
individuals and organizations, and received very little comment. He stated
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 16
two people had called him, noting Ms. Susan Kirby of the Sonoma Bell
Apartments had called and indicated she was in favor of the Ordinance,
although she did not like the mandatory sign placement requirement, as she
felt it might scare off some of her perspective tenants. In addition, Mr.
Guinan reported that prior to this meeting, Mr. Tom Nguyen, Manager of the
Camelot
Apartments had spoken with the Deputy City Clerk, indicating the owner had
sent him to the meeting to make sure the City knew they were in favor of
enactment of this Ordinance.
Mr. Guinan stated the staff report included comments of City staff members
from various departments, most notably three comments from the Police
Department, in which they suggested the following: 1) redefine the
definition of the receptacle of an alcoholic beverage; 2) add to the
definition of "parking lot" the wording, "adjacent carports, passageways,
and staircases which are open and accessible to the public"; and, 3) delete
the mandatory posting requirement. Mr. Guinan stated if Council desired to
enact the Ordinance at this time, he had prepared language which would
address the three comments from the Police Department. Mr. Guinan noted
Police Chief Cam Sanchez was also present to respond to comments.
Mayor Boro asked Chief Sanchez why the Police Department recommended the
requirement for mandatory posting be eliminated? Chief Sanchez stated the
Police Department expected to receive a lot of compliance, and believed the
apartment owners and managers would applaud this Ordinance, as they have
been asking for help on quality of life issues at their buildings. Chief
Sanchez did not believe that forcing them to post the signage would make a
big difference. He stated if it was left voluntary, and specific buildings
began to have problems, he believed the owners would post the signs. Chief
Sanchez noted the goal was not to be so restrictive that people were scared
off from renting; however, he felt the City was also obligated to give them
the option of putting up the signs or not.
Councilmember Miller believed this legislation was a part of good Community
Policing, noting it did not come from the Police Department, it came from
the community. He noted this was going to help the Police Department in
keeping neighborhoods safe all over the City. He stated the good thing
about this Ordinance was that it protected Fourth Amendment rights, it came
from the community, it was very simple and direct, noting it had been
drafted in a manner in which common sense prevailed.
Police Chief Sanchez reported he had attended a meeting with over 120 Canal
residents to discuss some of the issues in their buildings, and if there
was a list of top five concerns, this issue would be number 1 or 2. He
noted the people really care about the quality of life, they do not like
what they see, and they want some help. Chief Sanchez felt Assistant City
Attorney Guinan had done a fine job, and believed this Ordinance would be a
great tool to help the Police Department help the residents who really want
to take back their buildings, and make them safe and clean.
Councilmember Cohen asked, if the City does not have the requirement to
post, and a property owner chooses not to post the building, is the
Ordinance unenforceable on private property? Mr. Guinan stated that was
correct. Mr. Cohen asked Chief Sanchez if he was comfortable with that,
and Chief Sanchez stated he was.
Councilmember Cohen noted they had commented on the issue of possession of
alcohol in parks, and asked if the City was making this tougher, or
changing the way Community Services regulates the use of alcohol in public
parks? Mr. Guinan stated all he had done was recodify that as part of this
comprehensive approach to alcohol regulation, noting it remains the same.
He explained that technically, as it exists right now, anyone drinking in a
public park may only do so with the permission of the Director of Community
Services. Councilmember Cohen asked if people were required to get a
license from the ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control)? Mr. Guinan stated they
were not, noting he had specifically deleted that requirement from the
proposed Ordinance.
Councilmember Phillips stated he believed this Ordinance was a plus, and
commended Mr. Guinan for drafting it upon Councilmember Miller's
initiation. Mr. Phillips asked, since this Ordinance would impact some
people who perhaps might not read the newspaper, or the Ordinance itself,
how was the City going to communicate the requirements to those who might
be in violation? Chief Sanchez stated the Police Department had already
begun dialogue with some of the apartment owners and managers, Citywide.
He reiterated this was a Citywide issue, and was not designed to be a
specific enforcement issue for a specific area. He noted part of the
Police Department's plan was to begin an education process with the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 17
apartment owners and managers, making this issue a part of the Community
Policing process, along with the healthy housing issue. He agreed it was
all about education, acknowledging not everyone was going to read the
newspaper. He stated that since the City had come up with this Ordinance,
they had an obligation to educate everyone, letting them know what the City
will and will not do, what the laws are, as well as the consequences, and
go from there.
Councilmember Phillips asked what the timeframe would be for the various
phases being suggested? Chief Sanchez noted the process of putting this
together was still in its infancy. He stated the Police Department wanted
to begin this summer, making
this issue part of the agendas of the meetings that have already been
scheduled, noting this was not going to require additional meetings for
those apartment buildings they were dealing with.
Councilmember Heller noted the report stated the signs were to be obtained
and installed at the owner's expense. She asked if perhaps this could be
reviewed after six months to a year, to see if that factor might be keeping
some apartment owners from putting the signs up, suggesting that if it did
not involve a lot of money, perhaps the City could offer them for free?
Chief Sanchez agreed to review this.
Mayor Boro stated he had mixed feelings about not requiring the posting of
the signs, noting that if the Police Department wanted to get the word out,
and wanted to have enforcement, it would seem they would want to have the
signs posted. He stated he was willing to go along with their
recommendation; however, he would look to Chief Sanchez, if he found that
this was not working, to come back to Council for an amendment of the
Ordinance requiring the posting of the signs. Chief Sanchez stated they
planned to try the program this summer, then review the entire program to
see how it is working.
Mayor Boro asked if a final Ordinance was to be brought back to Council at
a future meeting? Assistant City Attorney Guinan stated that with
additional language, based on the comments of the Police Department, he was
prepared to present the Ordinance at this time.
Assistant City Attorney Guinan amended the Ordinance by including the
following language: 1) In the Definitions under Section 8.18.010,
Subsection C, on the second line, after the word "can", the word "glass" is
to be added, after the word "receptacle", the words "or container of any
type" are to be added. Mr. Guinan noted these changes were to make sure it
is clear that receptacle means anything that holds alcohol; 2) a new
Section would be added to Definitions, to read as follows: "Parking lots
include adjacent carports, passageways, and staircases which are open and
accessible to the public"; 3) in Section 8.18.050, Subsection C, the
mandatory posting requirement is to be deleted, and Subsections D and E are
to be re -lettered as Subsections C and D, respectively.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REPEALING
SECTIONS 8.12.030, 8.12.220, & 8.12.230 AND ADDING CHAPTER 8.18 TO THE SAN
RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE THE POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PUBLIC AND CERTAIN PRIVATE PROPERTY (As Amended: a)
Section 8.18.010 - Definitions, Subsection "C" changed to read, "Open
Container of Alcoholic Beverages. The Phrase 'open container of alcoholic
beverage' means a bottle, can, glass,or other receptacle or container of
any type which contains alcoholic beverage and has been opened, or a seal
broken, or the contents partially removed"; b) Section 8.18.010 -
Definitions: the addition of a Subsection to read, "Parking lots to include
adjacent carports, passageways, and staircases which are open and
accessible to the public": c) Section 8.18.050 - Consumption of Alcohol on
Private Parking Areas: Delete Subsection "C" referring to the mandatory
posting requirement, and re -letter Subsections "D" and "E" to become
Subsections "C" and "D", respectively.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title
only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1738 to print, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 17
20. a.
C-2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 18
RE: CHARGING FOR HANGING OF BANNERS - File 9-10-2 x 125
Councilmember Cohen reported he had been contacted by Joy Phoenix on
behalf of the Italian Street Painting Festival, concerning the issue
of payment for the hanging of banners. He stated her position was
that their agency would not have purchased the banners had they been
aware that after a period of three years they would be required to
pay the City for the privilege of hanging them. Mr. Cohen stated, as
he had discussed with Ms. Phoenix, he was not really interested in
getting into an investigation of who said what to whom, or what
people's understandings were, noting he raised this issue to see
whether anyone else wished to consider a waiver of those fees for
this particular event. He pointed out the City had recently
increased the charges to the Festival for the costs the City incurs,
and he did not know what the fee structure was on the banners,
relative to the actual outlay of the cost for having someone put them
up. He felt, if there was no support for doing
anything regarding this, the City should let it go; however, if the
other Councilmembers were sympathetic, he noted he might be inclined,
for this particular event, to consider a waiver.
Mayor Boro recalled the City had met with some of the event sponsors,
based upon a letter the sponsors had written, and then the City
responded to them in writing, addressing this issue in its response.
He felt the best thing to do would be to resurrect the letter,
verifying what the City's position had been regarding fees. Mayor
Boro noted the City had supported this event extensively in the past;
however, now that it had reached a point of maturity, and was
obviously making money, at some point the City had to back out.
Councilmember Cohen agreed it would be beneficial to review the
letter, and see whether or not the issue of the banners was
specifically addressed.
City Manager Gould stated he was not certain the issue of the banners
had been addressed in the letter Mayor Boro referred to. However, he
noted staff had totalled the value of all the direct and in-kind
services the City provides the Italian Street Painting Festival, and
it was considerable. He stated he would provide that information to
the Councilmembers. City Manager Gould also asked, if the City
offered free banner hanging to this group, on this occasion, how
would the City respond to the next non-profit group that also wished
to raise money, or had difficulty making its cost, and what would the
City do for them? Councilmember Cohen stated his answer would be
that if another non-profit put together an event the City chose to
highlight as much as it had high -lighted this one, and if the event
brought as many people to the Downtown and as much attention to San
Rafael as this one does, he might be willing to consider their
request. Mr. Cohen believed the job the Italian Street Painting
Festival has done was outstanding, and he knew they were raising a
lot of funds now; however, he agreed the City also got a lot of
exposure and benefit from having that event here.
Councilmember Heller asked if staff could determine how much the City
would be donating, if they chose to grant a waiver of the fees?
Councilmember Cohen stated if the letter did not show the charges for
hanging banners, he agreed it would be helpful if they could be given
that information.
RE: SHELL STATION EXPANSION IN TERRA LINDA - File 9-2-52
Councilmember Phillips stated the owner of the Shell Station in Terra
Linda was in the process of further developing his station to include
a car wash, noting the proposal had already gone through the Design
Review Board, and a number of other steps. Mr. Phillips reported
this proposal had also been presented to the Vision in Action group
(VIA), stating he had attended the meeting at which this was
presented, and it struck him, in listening to the debate, that the
Vision in Action Committee might not be clear as to the role they are
playing with regard to these projects. He noted this involved a
service station that has long been in existence, making a fairly
minor adaptation. Mr. Phillips encouraged staff to review what the
expectations are regarding the role of the Vision in Action Committee
when it comes to these kinds of actions.
City Manager Gould reported Community Development Director Brown has
done a good job of reminding them, every other meeting, that the
Vision in Action Committee is not the North San Rafael Planning
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 19
Commission.
Mayor Boro stated the key might be to come up with some kind of
guidelines as to what the City expects the Committee to do, noting
what comes before them is in compliment to the Vision. He questioned
whether, in this case, it was even necessary for the project to have
gone before that Committee. Mr. Gould stated he did not believe
every development application north of the hill needed to be passed
by the VIA Committee. Mr. Phillips noted the timing was critical in
this particular case; therefore, it was a little bit of an annoyance
and a disturbance, and the service station owner did not yield very
much. Mr. Gould stated that on projects presented to the VIA
Committee, the only question before them is "Yes" or "No", does it
conform to the Vision, "Yes" or "No"?
There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:00
PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1999
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/17/99 Page 19