Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2004-02-02SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2004 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:00 PM: Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) Negotiators' Names: Ken Nordhoff, Daryl Chandler, Lydia Romero Employee Organizations: San Rafael Fire Chief Officers' Association San Rafael Fire Association San Rafael Police Mid -Management Association San Rafael Police Association Marin Association of Public Employees SEIU 949 (Supervisory Unit) Marin Association of Public Employees SEIU 949 (Miscellaneous Unit) Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan announced that no reportable action was taken. 2. INTRODUCTION AND SWEARING-IN OF FIRE CHIEF BRUCE MARTIN — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 8:00 PM— FILE 9-3-31 x7-4 a) Mayor Boro stated he was pleased to introduce Bruce Martin, new Fire Chief, whose employment commenced with the City of San Rafael on January 26, 2004, when an informal swearing-in took place. He indicated that the formal swearing-in would take place this evening, and in lieu of the normal reception, three receptions were scheduled around the City: February 3 — Terra Linda Community Center — 7:00 — 8:30 p.m. hosted by San Rafael Fire Commission and the Coalition of North San Rafael Neighborhoods February 5 — Falkirk — 6:30 — 8:00 p.m. hosted by San Rafael Fire Commission and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods February 11 — Pickleweed Community Center — 6:30 — 8:00 p.m. hosted by San Rafael Fire Commission and the Pickleweed Park Advisory Board Mayor Boro stated that in all cases, the Firefighters Association would be involved and he issued an invitation to all to attend any or all of these receptions. b) City Clerk Jeanne Leoncini administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed San Rafael Fire Chief Bruce Martin Mayor Boro acknowledged the presence of Mr. & Mrs. Martin, parents of Fire Chief Martin, Fire Commission members, Chuck Daniels, Chair, and Mary -Ellen Irwin, Firefighters, and members of the community. Mayor Boro stated that Chief Martin came to San Rafael from Palo Alto where he was the Battalion Chief; he grew up in Marin County and the City of San Rafael was very pleased to have him. Expressing thanks, Fire Chief Martin stated this was day 6 in San Rafael. He indicated that he and his wife were very excited to be in San Rafael and were very thankful for the opportunity. Chief Martin stated he looked forward to being part of the San Rafael Fire Department and having spent six days with the men and women of the Fire Department, indicated they were an amazing group of people, giving a lot to the community and he looked forward to working with them. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 2 Fire Chief Martin thanked the crews in attendance this evening: Fire Department staff, Division Chiefs Angeli and Waterbury and Fire Marshal Keith Schoenthal. He also expressed thanks to friends, local residents, with whom he had worked in the City of Palo Alto: Fire Captain Randy Revilla, Engineer/Paramedic Kevin Wilcox, Cameron Oslar, Engineer Mike Chiesa and Park Ranger Michelle Wagner. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: None 8:02 PM Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 3. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meetings of Minutes approved as submitted. Monday, January 5, and Tuesday, January 20, 2004 (CC) 4. Resolution Authorizing Agreement with RESOLUTION NO. 11490 — Emanuels Jones & Associates for Legislative RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Advocacy Services on Behalf of Marin County CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO RENEW Council of Mayors and Councilmembers THE CONTRACT WITH EMANUELS ("MCCMC) (CM) — JONES & ASSOCIATES FOR File 4-3-354 x 113 x 9-3-11 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE MARIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF MAYORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2004 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2004 5. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) Approved staff recommendation: — File 116 x 9-1 SB 744 Planning: Housing. Senator Dunn — OPPOSE Regional Measure 2. Regional Traffic Relief Plan -SUPPORT 6. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a RESOLUTION NO. 11491 — Contract Between the Marin County Community RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Development Agency and the City of San Rafael MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT for a Block Grant in the Amount of $10,000 DOCUMENTS WITH THE COUNTY OF During the 2003-2004 Fiscal Year for Child Care MARIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Salaries (CS) — File 4-13-110 x 147 AGENCY FOR CHILDCARE STAFF SALARIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003- 04 IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 7. Resolution Authorizing the City of San Rafael to RESOLUTION NO. 11492 — Enter Into an Instructional Materials Contract with RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE the California Department of Education (FIMS- CITY MANAGER TO SIGN 3323) for FY 2003-04, and Authorizing the City CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WITH THE Manager to Sign Documents in the Amount of CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF $950.00 (CS) — File 4-10-297 x 9-3-65 EDUCATION FOR INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 IN THE AMOUNT OF $950.00 8. Resolution Authorizing the Execution and RESOLUTION NO. 11493 — Delivery of an Equipment Lease for Two Fire RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Trucks with LaSalle National Leasing EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A Corporation, and Authorizing Certain Actions in LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE Connection Therewith (MS) — TWO FIRE PUMPER TRUCKS WITH File 2-9-27x 9-3-31x 9-3-20 LASALLE NATIONAL LEASING CORPORATION AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 9. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an RESOLUTION NO. 11494 — Agreement Between the City of San Rafael and RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE E. Scott Patton Regarding Future Annexation of MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN Real Property at 365 Margarita Drive, APN 16- AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY 011-02 and 16-011-16 to the City of San Rafael AND E. SCOTT PATTON REGARDING (PW) — File 5-2-109 x 12-7 FUTURE PROCEEDINGS FOR SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 3 ANNEXATION OF REAL PROPERTY AT 365 MARGARITA DRIVE, APNs: 016-011-02 AND 016-011-16, TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 10. Resolution Accepting a Proposal from Pacific RESOLUTION NO. 11495 — Openspace, Inc. to Conduct Management and RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A Restoration Services for Baypoint Lagoon, and PROPOSAL FROM PACIFIC Authorizing the Director of Public Works to OPENSPACE, INC. TO CONDUCT Execute a Sole Source Agreement for these MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION Services (PW) — File 4-3-428 x 6-48 SERVICES FOR BAYPOINT LAGOON AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE A SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENT FOR THESE SERVICES 11. Resolution Approving Map of Subdivision Entitled RESOLUTION NO. 11496 — "Parcel Map - Lands of Rainoldi" (PW) — RESOLUTION APPROVING PARCEL File 5-1- 351 MAP ENTITLED "PARCEL MAP — LANDS OF RAINOLDI" (APN 15-041- 37) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (from minutes of January 20 only, due to absence from meeting) PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mayor Boro indicated he was taking the following item out of order because of the number of people attending who wished to speak. 13. Public Hearing — EICHLER AND ALLIANCE HOME TRACTS IN NORTH SAN RAFAEL; CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO EICHLER AND ALLIANCE HOMES BY CREATION OF AN EICHLER AND ALLIANCE HOMES (-EA) COMBINING DISTRICT AND MODIFICATION OF THE ZONING MAP TO RECLASSIFY APPROXIMATELY 1,230 PROPERTIES IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS IN NORTH SAN RAFAEL TO INCLUDE THIS NEW OVERLAY DISTRICT LIMITING HOMES TO ONE HABITABLE FLOOR, AND REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO ROOFS ON THESE SAME PROPERTIES; FILE NO.: Z003-003 (CD) — FILE 10-3 x 10-7 x 10-2 x 9-3-85 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Community Development Director Bob Brown recalled that in August of last year, Council heard requests from North San Rafael residents to impose a moratorium on second -story additions to Eichler and Alliance homes, as a result of two additions carried out in that neighborhood earlier in that year. He indicated that this study was appended to an earlier study that Council requested of the City's single-family design review process. Mr. Brown stated that the slides he would present were just intended to summarize the findings of staff in the study and the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission. Explaining that one of the earlier actions in the study was to survey the community in terms of their desires related to second stories on these homes, Mr. Brown reported that 1,230 surveys were distributed, with an approximately 47% response rate. The actual figure was slightly higher due to the fact that a number of surveys were returned pursuant to tabulation by the League of Women Voters. He noted it had been stated that this was an inadequate amount on which to base a decision; however, as pointed out by staff throughout the process, typically, local elections are based on anywhere from 27% of registered voters in 2001 to 36% in 2003 for Council seats. Mr. Brown stated that typically, a 47% - 50% rate on a public survey is a very high response rate. Reporting the findings indicated that approximately 59% of the residents surveyed wanted a strict prohibition on new second stories of these homes, Mr. Brown indicated that 19% indicated they wanted a ban; however, would consider some form of exception process, and how tightly that exception process was crafted was not explained in a very short survey. Mr. Brown reported that 22% indicated they would be satisfied with improvements in the Design Review process. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 4 Based upon public input, Mr. Brown stated this survey could be considered in two ways, i.e., the glass being about 75% full of those who want some form of a ban or a little under 50% who want some provision for second stories. Reporting no clear pattern on the geographic responses on these surveys, Mr. Brown indicated that the results were tabulated and mapped as follows: • Orange identified the properties that strictly wanted a ban on second stories; • Yellow indicated those who wanted a ban; however, with some exceptions; and • Green — those who wanted to allow second stories with better design review. In general, Mr. Brown stated the results were pretty mixed and it was very difficult to state that any particular segment of these 1,230 homes had a really uniquely different voting pattern. Mr. Brown reported that the community was somewhat more split on the issue regarding modifications to roof lines on the Eichler and Alliance homes, i.e., modifications to roofs that would not involve a new second -story living area. He stated that 30% indicated they wanted to disallow any roof modifications and he believed this was more to retain the character of the Eichler and Alliance designs. 46% indicated they would be willing to consider roof modifications if there was a better design review process with wider notification, and 24% indicated they were comfortable allowing roof modifications without design review, rather just with a building permit. Mr. Brown stated that staff found, firstly, there had been relatively few second -story additions in the approximately 50 years these homes had been in existence — 7 in 50 years — or approximately half a percent. In terms of changes over time, he stated there were no additions in the 1950s and 1960s, one in the 1970s, two in the 1980s, two in the 1990s and two so far in this new millennium. Indicating it was also found there are CC&Rs which preclude second -story additions, Mr. Brown stated staff believes those CC&Rs are present in most of the tracts of the Eichler and Alliance homes. He stated that Council would hear from Sue Paul tonight that some of the relatively newer tracts built towards the end of the period when Eichler and Alliance were building apparently did not have a second -story prohibition, as was the case with the earlier tracts. Based on staff's knowledge, he stated it appeared that the majority of these tracts did have these CC&Rs. As pointed out repeatedly to the public, Mr. Brown stated the City does not enforce CC&Rs, rather they are private covenants between property owners. The City has complete legislative authority, it can enact zoning regulations that mimic those CC&Rs so they are compatible with one another, or it has the ability to have differing zoning regulations. Mr. Brown stated that staff found it was difficult to add a second story to Eichlers. He indicated he had combed Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Mateo, Burlingame, San Rafael tracts and Marin County, and suggested that out of over one hundred Eichler additions he photographed, only one or two were well done. Mr. Brown stated that in most cases, the home was completely altered so that it did not look anything like its original style and did not blend with the character of its surroundings. Mr. Brown stated that in other cases, people often added what he termed a box on the box, which was not particularly well done. Explaining the reasons for this, Mr. Brown stated that perimeter glass walls around the property means a high incidence of privacy impacts. The homes are very much oriented towards the exteriors so they do tend to look out and that visibility can be changed with the appearance of a second -story on an adjacent home. He indicated they have a flat roof so it is very difficult to design a second story, which does not appear like a box on a box. Noting the home has a very horizontal character, Mr. Brown stated that many people have added on and changed that, i.e., adding sloping roofs and very different styles. In terms of compatibility, Mr. Brown stated the City was dealing with areas in San Rafael with less than half a percent of second -story additions, so they are uniformly single -story. Mr. Brown stated he had shown many of these slides at the neighborhood meeting to identify examples of good and bad. Indicating there are situations where this could be done correctly, Mr. Brown stated the best example he had seen was in San Rafael, i.e., the Fischer residence at 19 Cermenho Court. Commenting that he was unable to obtain a good picture of the addition because of the surrounding trees; however, he stated this was a perspective drawing when the addition was completed. Mr. Brown presented a slide depicting an elevation of the rear of that addition where an attempt SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 5 was made to maintain the lines of the Eichler and a lot of the detailing the same. He indicated there were other reasons it appeared to work in this location, e.g., the particular lot is a double - wide lot, it abuts open space, depicted in green, and the owners worked very carefully with their neighbors. Mr. Brown stated staff found that a larger lot could make a difference in that should it be adjacent to open space, one less neighbor is involved, and in this case, attention to detailing of the Eichler and the involvement of neighbors to ensure no privacy impacts. Mr. Brown stated staff checked a number of other cities having Eichler homes to ascertain how they dealt with this issue and he indicated that the one with the most experience was Palo Alto. Explaining, he stated that back in the early 1990s, a process was approved for neighborhoods, or even blocks of homes, to apply for a single -story zoning overlay district. Mr. Brown stated they now have approved nine of these, ranging from as many as 240 homes to a single court with 16 homes, and they found the process was getting particularly difficult moving along in time. Mr. Brown reported that originally, there was approximately 69% acceptance; however, it was now becoming much more contentious going area by area. He stated it also had created a real patchwork on their zoning map as to which areas are single -story and which are not, and this had been difficult for staff to administer. Reporting that Sunnyvale had essentially picked up on that same solution, Mr. Brown stated they had approved two of these single -story tracts since year 2000; however, the difference was that they indicated they would revisit all of these in seven years. Mr. Brown reported that Marin County has a one-story height limit in Lucas Valley; however, there is provision for a second story if it is significantly set back from the sides and goes through design review. Regarding Cupertino and Lucas Valley, Mr. Brown stated they have design guidelines specific to Eichlers, and Cupertino, San Mateo and Walnut Creek allow second stories with design review, not only to Eichlers, rather any home. Mr. Brown reported the question kept arising in the public process regarding the economic implications of establishing a single -story ban. He stated he spoke with two realtors from Palo Alto and Sunnyvale who specialize almost exclusively in Eichlers and they basically, provided some anecdotal evidence. Mr. Brown explained they indicated the easiest Eichlers to sell are those that are single -story next to single -story, while single -story next to two-story were the most difficult to sell. He stated they also indicated that in those areas of Palo Alto that have had the single -story overlay for some time, they could not discern a difference in resale values between those areas with the single -story overlay and the areas nearby without. From all of this information, Mr. Brown reported that staff and the Planning Commission recommended that a single -story overlay district be established and applied to all 1,230 Eichler and Alliance homes in North San Rafael. Mr. Brown stated staff believed that these homes are uniquely different, and certainly different from other homes in San Rafael where there is a greater diversity of single and two-story homes. However, he indicated they are also different in terms of their very unique design which makes privacy impacts particularly challenging. Indicating that some tracts have CC&Rs which supposedly preclude second -stories, Mr. Brown stated that these are only enforced between private property owners. Regarding the advantages of this kind of approach, Mr. Brown stated it would eliminate the controversy that had erupted concerning second -story additions and it appeared to reflect the majority of property owners in the area and their wishes. He noted staff had hoped early on for a solution that would be easy to administer; they were not impressed with what Palo Alto had done and did not wish to repeat that example. Mr. Brown stated the difficulty was that it limited the flexibility of homeowners in terms of expansion potential. He indicated that both Palo Alto and Sunnyvale increased their ground floor coverage to 40%, which is currently San Rafael's regulation, and staff believes that in most cases, ample opportunities exist to add on to these homes. For example, he stated that on a 6,000 square -foot lot, a very typical size Eichler home ranges between 1,100 and 1,500 square - feet; therefore, with a 40% ground floor coverage, this would allow between a 900 and 1,300 square -foot expansion. Mr. Brown stated that with 40% coverage, there still appeared to be sufficient flexibility to add square -footage. In terms of roof modifications, i.e., sloped roofs, atrium coverings, exterior duct work, which could be unsightly in some cases, and anything but flush -mounted solar panels, Mr. Brown stated the suggestion was that they should be subjected to an administrative design review process with staff to ensure the immediately adjacent homeowners would be notified of the proposed change. He stated this could assist in retaining the character of the Eichler homes and also gives staff the ability to suggest some technical and construction techniques that might SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 6 improve the situation, such as the exterior ducting. From the negative standpoint, Mr. Brown stated it would add cost and time to an applicant's modification; the application cost currently would be $575 for the planning review. He reported it was still possible that even with this design review, the character of the Eichler homes could be changed with a roof modification. Mr. Brown stated staff suggested that the residential design guidelines be adopted as part of the General Plan process over the next few months. He indicated staff suggested that these design guidelines be modified in the future to expand their applicability, and a specific solution for Eichler and Alliance type homes could be addressed, i.e., how to deal with ground floor modifications and roof changes. Mr. Brown identified examples from other cities having Eichler specific design guidelines. Mayor Boro announced there were copies of the staff report in the lobby for the public. Regarding the surveys not included in the League of Women Voters tabulation, Councilmember Phillips inquired whether there was any reason to believe this would have altered conclusions or recommendations. Mr. Brown reported that a couple of percent more surveys were received subsequent to the deadline and in his review of those, he found they essentially were of similar proportions as the surveys submitted within the time frame. Councilmember Cohen stated there had been a lot of discussion concerning CC&Rs, noting copies of CC&Rs from the different neighborhoods were included in the packet, and he inquired as to what extent the language in the CC&Rs impacted staff's recommendation. Responding, Mr. Brown stated not significantly. He indicated he probably used them more as examples in his discussions with the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods when they inquired as to why the same solutions were not applicable in other neighborhoods of the City. Mr. Brown stated he would quickly point out that the CC&Rs made these somewhat unique. From staff's perspective, and as pointed out repeatedly by the City Attorney, he stated the CC&Rs do not influence the City's legislative authority regarding zoning. Having obtained a sense from the audience as to how many people wished to speak, Mayor Boro requested that each speaker limit their remarks to approximately three minutes. Carolyn Lennert, Council for the North San Rafael Coalition, Board of Directors, Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association and neighbor stated she works in San Rafael and lives in Terra Linda. She expressed the hope that those in attendance this evening felt free and welcome to state their opinions, and would conduct themselves with courtesy and clarity. Bill Mixsell stated he purchased an Eichler home in the Terra Linda area approximately fifteen years ago. He indicated it had a nice view of the hills until a neighbor built a monster home, obliterating his view, which caused a lot of friction. To prevent a recurrence of such friction between neighbors, he strongly requested that there be no second stories. Mr. Miller, Devon Drive, San Rafael, stated that while he finds the second stories obnoxious and aesthetically displeasing, he was unsure he wanted government instructing him that he could not build a second story, even though he had no intention to do so. Concerned with the roof modification issue, Mr. Miller stated his flat roof Eichler leaks in one of the bedrooms, and he inquired whether he would have to go through a design review process to install a foam roof, which he indicated was unquestionably hideous; however, nonetheless, cost efficient and practical. He questioned whether he would have to go to design review to install some type of swale to remove the water from the roof. Mr. Miller indicated he was not concerned with second stories, rather the roof modification issue which he believed was intrusive. Mr. Miller stated it had been a pleasure dealing with the City of San Rafael. Mayor Boro suggested that Community Development Director Bob Brown keep track of the questions and answer them at the conclusion of testimony. Drake Dawson, Preservation Committee for Terra Linda, stated that the results of several surveys conducted indicated second stories were not favored, as did the Planning Commission. He believed that with the 40% lot coverage and money available, these homes could be expanded, albeit not 5,000 square -feet, and not overlooking neighbors' yards or destroying the basic reason people purchased these homes. He stated that most of those he was acquainted with were promised in their CC&Rs they would have single stories next to them in perpetuity. Mr. Dawson stated that a neighborhood is not just the real estate, rather the people who live in the properties who wished to remain, with the rights they had been granted. He noted people SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 7 had done amazing things within their given parameters and he believed a huge part of the heritage would be destroyed by economic interests as opposed to the interest of the real neighborhood. Mr. Dawson requested that the City Council not fail these people now, rather permit them to do whatever they wished to their homes, albeit in a single story. Paulette Jo Ferriter, 1014 Las Reposas Road, San Rafael, stated she lived next door to the most recent monster Eichler home. She indicated she wrote the following: "Joseph Eichler had a plan for his communities. Uniformity was his way of equalizing the neighbors. He did not want one pitted against another. When you purchased your home with those CC&Rs it was not just implicit. We were all to have equal enjoyment from our open patio styled homes. Walls of glass were to invite the outdoors into our homes, but now, my walls of glass make me feel as though I am living in a fishbowl. It is not the beautiful hills surrounding my windowscape, now all I see are my neighbor's fireplace, windows and walls — great big walls of blue. This should never have happened. Please do not let it happen again." Elaine Larson, 10 Don Timoteo Court, stated she purchased her home in August of last year. Indicating it was not an Eichler home, she explained that the Eichler home on that lot burned down twenty years ago and was replaced with a two-story structure. Cherishing diversity, she indicated she appreciated that apparently, the vast majority of those present did wish to preserve the single -story character of the neighborhood; however, she requested that consideration be given to the existing two-story homes. Not having a backyard neighbor, Ms. Larson stated she did not believe her home was in the view shed of anyone; however, if it were she would be willing to carry out planting or landscaping to mitigate that. Greg Knell stated this issue was about property rights; people had the right to enjoy the property they lived in and not have those rights diminished. He noted Bob Brown had uncovered anecdotal information to the effect that a home next to a second -story addition was worth less and the hardest to sell. Mr. Knell noted the City survey indicated 78% in favor of the ban, while his survey revealed 90% in favor, which was the result of walking door to door and talking with a lot of the elderly people who did not return the surveys. Regarding the recent CC&Rs, Mr. Knell stated they do not specifically ban second stories, rather discuss one-story dwellings and that nothing would be built without the approval of the Eichler committee; however, from the Eichler network, he was aware that the intent of the Eichlers was always to keep these one-story neighborhoods. Mr. Knell noted staff had done a lot of work, they had done a lot of work and subsequent to a long process, he believed it was clear that close to 90% of the people wanted to preserve their property values. He believed there would be extreme pressure, similar to that in Mill Valley, to purchase these relatively inexpensive homes, build second stories and expand for economic development purposes. Mr. Knell considered it important for the City now to take a stand and support the ban, noting variances could always be considered. Anne Laird -Blanton, Architect, San Rafael Design Review Board and State Board of the American Institute of Architects, stated she was present as an architect as she did not believe bans were a solution to design issues. She indicated the problem with the Eichler/Alliance homes in the particular neighborhood was one of inadequate design guidelines and inadequate procedures for notification of neighbors and for having designs approved. Noting there was no big rush in terms of second -story additions, there had only been 7 applications in 50 years, Ms. Laird -Blanton did not believe there needed to be a rush to prohibit them. She stated she strongly understood the community's upset over buildings that had been modified without their input, which she considered critical, and believed it important to mandate that quality, comprehensive design guidelines be developed. She noted that San Rafael's own hillside design guidelines were an excellent model of where the City should be going in terms of residential design guidelines for the entire City that pay attention to specific neighborhood criteria and input, are developed with people in those neighborhoods, and tied to the zoning regulations, so that as planners, the community, architects and designers look at the guidelines, they understand what they are looking at in relationship to the zoning requirements. Ms. Laird - Blanton believed that if an overlay of not allowing second story additions in this neighborhood were adopted, it should have a sunset provision, as times change. It should be re-evaluated periodically, and hopefully, there would be much stronger design guidelines by the time it came up for further re-evaluation. Ms. Laird -Blanton expressed agreement with the concerns about roof modifications and believed those needed good guidelines so that people would know what would work and what SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 8 would not. She did not believe planning staff should be evaluating these and while not favoring someone having to go before the Design Review Board until there were good guidelines for people to understand what would work or otherwise, this could be the best answer. Ms. Laird -Blanton stated she was present to advocate really strong guidelines and to inform Council that the Marin Task Force of the American Institute of Architects had volunteered to offer their time to help develop these guidelines, both for this particular neighborhood and for the remainder of San Rafael. She recognized the budget constraints, they were offering help, would like to provide illustrations and ideas and make guidelines that would work for all. David Green stated he had owned an Alliance home for over 25 years and was concerned with the roof modification issue primarily. He indicated he did not believe property owners should have to go to such lengths to carry out minor improvements, such as install gutters on roofs, add a carport, or add a foam roof, etc. Raising a more important second issue, Mr. Green explained that several homes in the area had radiant heating, and this heating going down was a major problem. He reported that some owners had installed other types of heating and air conditioning, and these units are often located on the roof. Indicating that Alliance homes have A shaped, slanted roofs, and although monstrous, this was really the best way to do it. He stated provision should be made for a false roof because of the difficulty involved in locating heating and air conditioning units on the roof. Diana Nay, Bamboo Terrace, stated that when they moved into the neighborhood three years ago they were unaware of any imposition on their rights, assuming them to be similar to choosing a home in any other neighborhood, and they wished to retain those rights. As they were starting a family, they favored having the opportunity to expand should they so choose. Ms. Nay stated growing families' needs needed to be considered and not just the needs of those who had resided in the neighborhood since its inception. Susan Paul, Las Ovejas, stated her husband was an architect and they were not planning on adding a second story to their home. She presented illustrations of ideas generated by her husband, Larry Paul, using setbacks, along the lines of the Lucas Valley development. Regarding the CC&Rs in her particular tract, which were written in 1954, Ms. Paul indicated they stated "that no lot shall be used except for residential purposes. No home shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on anything other than a detached single-family dwelling, not to exceed one-story height and a private garage for not more than two cars." She noted the Alliance CC&Rs were almost identical, although permitting usual buildings such as greenhouses, purely incidental to the dwelling of the house. She identified areas where the CC&Rs specifically deleted the single -story language. Ms. Paul believed the Planning Commission was unaware the CC&Rs did not have a blanket one-story limit. Had they known, she questioned whether they would have voted in the same manner, since two members specifically stated the CC&Rs were in effect. Ms. Paul noted that a lawsuit scheduled for hearing on February 17, 2004 would determine whether the CC&Rs were still valid. Ms. Paul stated that to ban second stories would be taking away the property rights of the 377 homes not excluded by CC&Rs, i.e., 30% of the 1,200 homes surveyed. She believed the issue should be re-evaluated, perhaps awaiting the outcome of the February 17th lawsuit. With the moratorium in effect until July, she questioned why this issue was being pushed through now, rather than permitting the architects to meet and generate guidelines. Larry Paul, Las Ovejas, noted a large number of people expressed a problem with second stories; however, he did not believe an outright, total, permanent ban was the solution. Noting only seven additions in fifty years, he did not believe a lot of people wanted to add a second story and most could not afford to. Should a really good design review process be instituted with proper guidelines, Mr. Paul believed it could be done in limited circumstances under the right conditions. However, with a ban that requires a variance, being a member of the Planning Commission, he would be unable to make easy findings for a second story under the provisions of the zoning code. As he owns some Eichlers, Mr. Paul stated he had to recuse himself; however, from the minutes he noted that the majority of Planning Commissioners who did vote for the ban cited the CC&Rs as their reasoning for its support. He questioned the validity of the CC&Rs, as they had not been enforced for a long time and there was no active architectural review committee overseeing them. Mr. Paul favored some type of solution respecting the rights of the minority that may want the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 9 opportunity to do something in the future and he believed proper design guidelines could be provided. Believing the Planning Commissioners, to a large extent, based their decision on the CC&Rs, Mr. Paul stated that on the other hand, the Design Review Board saw the possibilities in limited circumstances and unanimously opposed the ban, recommending design guidelines instead. Mr. Paul believed design guidelines, referral to the Design Review Board and a better notification process should be developed instead of a ban. He strongly urged the City Council to postpone their decision until a determination is made on the CC&Rs and then allow some time for the AIA state and local chapters who had volunteered their time to develop a set of design guidelines that would work for the City. With the moratorium in place and the fact that it could be extended, Mr. Paul urged the City Council to consider all the owners and their property rights. Arthur Duffy, Terra Linda, stated that easily 90% of the people in Terra Linda favor the ban and expect it. Referring to an article in an Eichler publication, he quoted "combine this creativity trait with the trend of contemporary life to own and house more and more stuff and you've got a recipe for a potential disaster, and imposing multi-level Eichlers capable of unhinging the neighborhood. While self expression can be a wonderful thing, when it's lacking intelligence, restraint and regard for how it impacts others, it can be something else altogether. In other words, how does your neighbor feel when his sunlight is cut off, his view is erased and his privacy gone?" Reiterating that the people in Terra Linda were behind this ban, Mr. Duffy stated they do vote in almost every election and attend important meetings such as this, and he urged that the ban be passed. Peter Frank, 528 Wisteria Way, stated it appeared clear what the neighbors wanted and he did not believe the CC&Rs' provisions should be ignored. Having closed escrow in July, 2002, Mr. Frank stated that a few days later he received a notice from the City regarding a proposed second -story addition, and being new he did not wish to make a fuss. He commented that this was not a second -story addition, rather a new house, and he did not believe neighbors should be put in such a position. Mr. Frank stated it was clear the neighborhood did not need second stories and the City should support that, dealing separately with ducting for air-conditioning, etc. David Nichols stated he moved from Britain in 2000 to work at the Buck Center. They own an Eichler on Nova Albion Way and he indicated that any architectural vandalism that destroys the homogeneity of the Eichler community would be awful. He stated these houses were architectural gems and affordable Frank Lloyd Wrights, and anyone desiring a two-story home should move to a two-story tract, selling their Eichler to someone who would appreciate it. Jerry Moore, 615 Woodbine, stated that he moved into his Eichler 29 years ago and having had the CC&Rs explained, inquired whether they applied to him. He was informed they used to; however, they had not been enforced in many years, and this was the agreement under which he purchased his house. Explaining the design of an Eichler, Mr. Moore stated that when his son (now 21) was born he considered adding a small second -story on half of his house. He stated he could have done a nice job and certainly would have welcomed a legitimate design review. Mr. Moore reported that his next door neighbor erected a second -story without a permit and then added a trampoline, and in the seven years since he spoke on this issue, nothing was done to prevent it from happening again. Not appreciating this second -story addition, he indicated there are sliding glass doors looking onto his patio area. Recognizing that neighborhoods needed to evolve and accommodations needed to be made, Mr. Moore urged the City Council to add a sunset provision to the issue. Salange Gold, 48 Vallejo, stated that with only 7 additions in the past fifty years, she did not understand the rush to implement the ban. Regarding the comment that Eichlers are architectural gems, she indicated that since purchasing her house she changed everything to render it beautiful today. Ms. Gold stated the area is beautiful and she appreciated this was what people wanted. She believed that not every Eichler or Alliance home should be permitted to add a second story, rather it should be done on a house-to-house basis. Ms. Gold stated there were ways to have second stories that would not impact the neighbors or destroy the architectural integrity of an Eichler. Ms. Gold thanked Mayor Boro for the way in which he conducted the meeting and believed no one should be afraid to express his or her opinion. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 10 Patrick O'Hare, Architect, 41 Serra Way, noted material from the AIA and interested architects was included with Mr. Brown's staff report. He stated the AIA was a business organization and one of its prime purposes was to promote the profession and promote work for the profession. He reported that the AIA did not appear when these additions were being built; however, with the anticipation of a ban or limit on work, they were ready to provide guidelines. Noting that architecture was neither benign nor malignant, Mr. O'Hare stated it was neutral and only as good as the practitioner; therefore, by simply implying architects would design their way out was not a guarantee that when faced with this type of complex issue, there would be a successful outcome. He stated that as a neighborhood they had the right to regulate themselves through zoning. Mr. O'Hare stated he strongly supported the ban and urged Council not to implement a sunset provision. Robert Butler, 28 Miramar Avenue, Gerstle Park, stated that three to four years ago they carried out an extensive remodel to their home and it was in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He indicated that six to seven months ago, Micah Hinkle, Planner, handled the application of an addition to a home and they did not oppose it at that time because they did not believe it would be much of a problem. Mr. Butler stated he was conscious of the fact that people needed to enhance the value of their real estate and do what was right for their families; however, should a substantial mass, or monster home, be located next to a home, or homes, of entirely different character, this would be a major consideration. He stated that while they spent a fortune remodeling their home, the character remained the same from the street. Mr. Butler stated that major consideration should be given to compatibility for any addition, particularly a second -story with considerable massing on a small lot, with particular emphasis on livability and diminution of value. Maureen Boyer, American Institute of Architects, 82 Duran Drive, stated she was present both as a professional and neighbor to urge Council support of the ban which had been overwhelmingly supported by the community. Regarding remarks that the Planning Commission was focused on the issue of CC&Rs, she expressed her belief that the Planning Commission was responding overwhelmingly to the community support. She felt strongly that neither she nor her neighbors wanted second stories on their homes and she urged Council to support the ban. Tom Krase, Las Ovejas, urged Council to support a permanent ban. He stated he could not envisage any conceivable second story of any of the three houses adjoining his lot that would not totally devastate his views. He defied any architect to design a second story on his neighbor's house, which he cannot see presently, as anything would have a dramatic impact. Mr. Krase stated it would not be right for any neighbors to do this to each other, nor was it correct for the City to permit such action. Oren Levay, Architect with Aaron Green & Associates, stated they like the Eichler houses. He believed tonight's topic dealt with the need of maintaining and preserving the architectural character of an important example of American history. He stated the Eichler homes were a treasure of the community and in fact, of the entire Northern California Bay Area. Mr. Levay stated that the Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco recently had a retrospective exhibition of Eichler's accomplishments as innovations. While he agreed times change, values and design based in principle need not expire merely due to the passage of time. He stated that all too often it is in hindsight decisions are regretted that have led to the destruction of something of significance in architectural history. Tom Lollini, Gerstle Park, stated they do not add second stories in Gerstle Park, rather first stories. He indicated he had spent six years on the San Rafael Design Review Board and worked with California communities regarding design guidelines, both in urban and residential neighborhoods; therefore he had some background in this subject. With powerful statements from residents and very good research carried out by staff, Mr. Lollini stated there was a powerful argument for a ban; however, he wished to put forward some points for thought. Mr. Lollini indicated he had walked every one of these neighborhoods during the campaign season and saw some really bad properties, a lot of which were not second stories. He commented that people do things to these buildings on occasion that work against the original design intention; however, a ban was a pretty blunt instrument. Stating the principal issue was preservation of community character and value, Mr. Lollini stated that to explore the possibility of guidelines, they could not only serve for second story additions, with very serious constraints concerning setbacks, etc., rather also as a guide for anyone SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 11 wishing to improve their property even with a one-story addition or modifications. He believed the roof issue was of particular concern. Mr. Lollini stated that due to the fact that there were only seven in the past fifty years, there was no rush. Instead, perhaps the City could put a stay on this decision pending review of guidelines the AIA could work with staff to develop. He indicated this could be one way to evaluate this with an open mind, taking into consideration some of the concerns of the 53% who did not vote in the survey, and use the guidelines to commence community conversation. This would also afford the architects a chance to prove how this could happen. Clark Hinderleider, Terra Linda, referring to the CC&Rs, stated that while they may be under court review, this should not influence Council's decision, as it had nothing to do with Council's ability to enact this ordinance. Noting the CC&Rs state "enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity," he indicated the Court was almost mandated to uphold the fact that these were to be in place for a period of thirty years and then consecutively, each ten years were renewed for ten years. Mr. Hinderleider stated the only thing that changes this is an instrument signed and recorded by the majority of the then owners. He noted that those who did not read their CC&Rs were pleading ignorance as a result, and he did not believe this made sense. He indicated the idea that the Planning Commission relied solely on the CC&Rs was at best, a moot argument. From English Common Law, Mr. Hinderleider stated it was recognized that property rights have never been absolute. He stated that the CC&Rs specifically set out the enforcement procedure; however, the fact that it had not been enforced did not negate the fact that it is currently in force. He requested that Council consider this and also what exactly property rights mean and to whom. Regarding the AIA, Mr. Hinderledier believed they had a fiduciary relationship only to the financier, not the community. Stephen Bingham, Hibiscus Way, stated he was in awe at the conclusiveness of Mr. Brown's recommendations, as it left no room for ambiguity. As a lawyer, he believed the only relevant question pertained to property rights and while it was true it was not absolute, he believed it was of concern to some. Mr. Bingham stated the conclusion in Mr. Brown's report was that in the areas he studied, property values were, if anything, negatively affected when second stories were added, which made this an easier decision; however, overall, there was not much impact, one way or the other, in Palo Alto or Cupertino. As articulated by someone earlier, Mr. Bingham reiterated that should people really wish to build second stories, they could move. He urged the City Council to decide this issue and move on. Lyle Simon, 531 Wisteria Way, stated that of the 47% of those who responded to the City's survey, only a total of 28% of the affected homes were in favor of a ban, which was not overwhelming. He indicated that 341 homeowners were in favor of a ban and he inquired as to the remaining 889 homeowners. Regarding view impacts, Mr. Simon believed the CC&Rs also stated it was illegal to have trees that blocked views and he suggested driving through Terra Linda to observe how many trees blocked views. Reporting it is he who is going to court on February 17, 2004, Mr. Simon stated a judge would rule on the validity of the CC&Rs and whether he was in violation or not, as he is building a second story at 531 Wisteria Way. Quoting from the Planning Commission minutes, Mr. Simon stated: "Chair Whipple indicated that generally he would be opposed to a ban but due to the CC&Rs, he noted his support." "Commissioner Lang pointed out that this is an extreme step to take and she would not be supportive of the ban if the CC&Rs were not present." Mr. Simon suggested working towards solutions that are right for the majority of the homeowners and not those who had tried to mislead the residents and the City of San Rafael. Peter Frobenius, 859 Del Ganado Road, stated he was astonished at the vehemence of emotions. Regarding the Santa Margarita Creek, he indicated that when citizens were invited to contribute, a very small percentage of homeowners responded and it took people like himself SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 12 to collect the money. Mr. Frobenius believed the professional and review process was the better way. Cliff Meneken, Serra Way, stated that when he first moved to the area a few years ago he became involved with the Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association on the Open Space Committee and trails. He then became involved with the effort to improve the Creek, and subsequently the second story issue. Having conducted a survey, Mr. Meneken stated the response indicated that 90% were against second stories. Mr. Meneken reported that having presented the survey results to the Planning Commission and City Council, Community Development Director Bob Brown was instructed to conduct a survey, the results of which indicated that approximately 60% were in favor of a total ban and approximately 20% in favor of a ban with some restrictions. Mr. Meneken stated the results of the two surveys indicated that approximately 56% of the community voted and a blend of the two showed 85% in favor of a ban on second stories. Mr. Meneken stated that the only way this unique community could be preserved was by a zoning overlay. From his review of the CC&Rs, he indicated that at least 75% had the one floor restriction. He noted that the more recently constructed subdivisions contained some second floors on hillsides, which could have been the reason for not including a blanket restriction. He noted there were letters from architects indicating their opposition to any type of second floor construction, and also that Katherine Munson, Eichler salesperson and realtor, had also indicated her opposition, as did David Shapiro. Urging the City Council to consider the zoning overlay, Mr. Meneken stated that Pete Martin, Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association, indicated he thought it wonderful the community voted the way they did and "we would like to not have any of these second floors in this community and the architectural heritage of the Eichler community is destroyed when these types of buildings are built." Subsequent to the Planning Commission vote, Mr. Meneken indicated Mr. Martin stated "their action was absolutely right because staff had studied the issue and recommended that a majority of people in the Eichler and Alliance community had twice, with strong majorities, requested that the City ban these." He indicated that Mr. Martin indicated he was happy to live in a city as responsive to concerns as San Rafael. Mr. Meneken stated he felt likewise and trusted the City Council would be responsive to their concerns and do the right thing. Kyle Keilman, 8 Del La Guerra, stated they purchased their Eichler from Mr. Shapiro last year and prior to that they lived in an Eichler for approximately four years. He thanked Community Development Director Bob Brown who had been exemplary throughout the process. Mr. Keilman stated he probably was the only audience member who had recently run for political office and in that process he learned how not to campaign, and how to listen, and he congratulated Mayor Boro on his re-election. During his campaign period, Mr. Keilman stated he did not believe he spoke to more than 6 people who were adamantly opposed to the ordinance to be enacted. He believed the majority of those in the Eichler and Alliance communities did not want second stories and the evidence was overwhelming. Clyde Doolittle, stated he purchased his home when at a young age and unfortunately, electrolysis destroyed his radiant heating. He noted a lot of neighbors had a lot of children and this should be a consideration. Also, when considering additions to homes, neighbors' opinions needed to be taken into account, together with construction and appearance of the house. He believed a lot of people wished to live in California and sooner or later, there would be a need for space to house them, and one solution was to build up instead of out. Sharon Ferritta, Golden Hinde, stated she was shocked by the attempt to manipulate the statistics to make it appear it was not the majority of people who wanted the ban. Secondly, in considering the Design Review Committee, the alternative to the ban, should one of her neighbors wish to build a second -story addition and it invaded her view or privacy, she inquired by whom the decision on impacts would be made and how it would be done. John Buffum, Bamboo Terrace, stated he was opposed to second stories; however, he was also opposed to limitations on rooflines. He reported having purchased his home in 1976 and in 1980, acquired solar panels which are not flat on the roof. Mr. Buffum stated that in 2001, he acquired a foam roof which he believed appeared like a blinding white snowfield to the neighbor behind. He indicated that the radiant heating had begun to fail and while his neighbor fixed it, he believed he would have to install forced air or radiant baseboard heating. He favored the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 13 option of having ducts going over the top of the roof, which would probably be somewhat ugly Mr. Buffum stated that Eichlers are tinderboxes and at some point, he could want to decrease his susceptibility to fire by having a slanted tile roof with metal siding or stucco. He indicated that living in an area highly susceptible to wild fire, reducing the flammability of homes should be done by any means necessary. Mr. Buffum stated he mentioned slanted tile roof and metal siding because that was the ugliest he could think of; however, there could be other more aesthetic solutions available and he believed Eichler lovers would present those solutions to him. Mr. Buffum stated he did not wish to be told what he could put on his roof; however, he would accept that he could not place another story on his roof. Sam Ennis stated second stories impinge on views and privacy. He reported that his Eichler had four bedrooms and he questioned how big families were. Indicating that his flat roof leaks, he would favor being able to do something about it. Vera Topinka, stated she lived on Wisteria Way near the second -story addition and her neighbor, Mary Ann Quirke lives next door to the second story. She reported having been in Ms. Quirke's house before the second story was built and it had the usual views, etc. Since the addition of the second story, she stated the view is now of a sheer tall wall, with no view of the sky, etc. She encouraged the City Council to vote for the ban to ensure this would not happen accidentally through some overlook to another home. Charles Page, 15 Cermenho Court, stated he lives next door to an Eichler with a second story and a block away from an Eichler that looks like a bay tug boat. He stated he purchased his lot in 1960 before the house was erected and liked the openness and sense of freedom. Regarding 19 Cermenho Court, (the second story Eichler next door) Mr. Page stated he was pleased this second story was erected as it enabled the family to remain in their home. The addition overlooks his backyard and pool; however, the owners installed special glass in their windows to mitigate the impact, and oriented the window openings to redirect their view. Mr. Page stated they were very pleased with the addition next door and in the event he eventually wished to add a second story to his home for his son, he questioned whether he would be permitted to do so. Mr. Page stated this was a draconian solution and the City was not taking the rights of the minority into consideration. Amy Farrell, 531 Wisteria Way, noted she was the 12th speaker opposed to the ban, preceded by 18 in favor. She stated they moved into the neighborhood four and a half years ago, not because they valued the architectural integrity of an Eichler home, rather because they wished to live in San Rafael in an affordable home. She indicated she was proud the community had come forth in such large numbers; however, was disappointed in the manner in which this had come about, and the tactics used. Ms. Farrell stated she visited approximately 100 homes in her immediate tract to discuss the CC&Rs, not to voice her opinion, rather to obtain a sense of what the neighbors felt. She reported having received 51 signatures of those not objecting to second stories; however, that sense had shifted somewhat. Ms. Farrell stated people bought into these neighborhoods because of community, integrity, affordability and investment, and to spend $500,000 - $600,000 on a home and then be informed what was and was not permitted did not appear right. While she did not believe many would wish to build second stories, people wanted the right to be able to do so, and she indicated she was present on behalf of all those who had not felt comfortable speaking. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro invited Community Development Director Bob Brown to answer particularly the question with respect to roof replacement, roof modifications, air-conditioning, etc. Mr. Brown stated that staff's original take on roof modifications was that essentially any modification of the roof would require some form of design review. At the suggestion of some members of the Terra Linda community, he reported having visited a couple of homes that had modified the roof with low profile, forced air ducting and then a foam insulation covering it. Mr. Brown stated the ordinance was modified to allow any modification of less than six inches; therefore, as long as it was roughly in the same roof pitch, within six inches, a resident could do whatever they chose with a building permit only. Mr. Brown stated the intent was that roof modifications that would change the pitch, would be much taller, would include the large scale SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 14 ducting and not the reduced profile ducting, would necessitate design review. He commented that the type of design review in question was an administrative staff design review; it did not involve a public hearing, although it did involve notification of the adjacent neighbors. Councilmember Phillips concurred with the comments with regard to the report generated by Mr. Brown, noting he had taken a number of concerns into consideration. Should the ordinance be put in place, he inquired as to the provisions for a variance, i.e., were there any circumstances under which a second story could be built. As was pointed out when discussing exceptions in some of the community meetings, Mr. Brown stated that a number of members of the public inquired whether a variance constituted an exception. He explained that it does in that a variance is available for any of the development restrictions or regulations in the zoning code. Mr. Brown stated the criteria for a variance are difficult to achieve in that it requires there be a unique situation applicable to that property which is not the norm in the surrounding area, and also, that the proposal would not be detrimental to surrounding properties. He reported the responses from members of the public at the community workshops indicated that type of exception was appropriate. In considering 19 Cermenho, Mr. Brown believed this was an unusual situation and could qualify for a variance. He explained that it is a larger lot, not adjacent on all sides to neighbors and the design that was done took neighbor concerns into account. Commenting that he lives in Terra Linda, albeit not in an Eichler, Councilmember Phillips noted several members of the Planning Commission recused themselves from voting. He reported that he spent some time on Sunday visiting Shirley and Gerry (Fischer), who took him through their home, and he believed in that case it was appropriate, particularly with regard to the neighbors' acceptance of a second story. Councilmember Phillips stated he was pleased there are certain circumstances which might be appropriate, and should the outcome tonight favor a ban, he believed there still was some flexibility to accommodate where appropriate, the family that could have a need and where the addition was not intrusive. Because of the overwhelming support for the ban, and yet still some allowance for the rare exception, albeit few and far between, Councilmember Phillips stated he would support the ordinance calling for the ban. He noted the Eichler design is such that it would be hard to imagine an appropriate design modification that would allow for a second story that would appear compatible. Furthermore, because of the significant amount of glass on the back as opposed to the street side, Councilmember Phillips stated it would be difficult to imagine how it would not be imposing upon the neighbors. He believed there was good justification for the ban and this appeared to be the predominant feeling by the neighbors who recognize the unique nature of the Eichlers. In these cases he believed there was not necessarily a right and wrong, rather a particular view, and it was important for the City to take the wishes of the community into consideration. While proceeding with the ban would not please everyone, Councilmember Phillips stated that should there be a variance to allow for unique situations, to some degree, there was an accommodation. Councilmember Phillips expressed appreciation to Community Development Director Bob Brown and his staff. Councilmember Heller stated it was difficult to make a decision on this issue. She thanked the staff for their fine work and reported having discussed her gut feeling on the issue with the City Manager and City Attorney. Regarding the fifty-year old CC&Rs, she noted that some of the subdivisions did have restrictions, while others did not; however, Councilmember Heller stated it was her thought that the City was not a party to these. Who the parties are and whether the CC&Rs are legally enforceable would be decided in a court of law and she did not believe that as a city, or council member, she could make that one of the overriding points of her decision. Having spoken with numerous people and reading all of the letters received, Councilmember Heller stated the question was whether the City should establish that single -story overlay district and apply it to all the Eichler and Alliance homes. She noted that many present wanted this and many did not; however, to her it was a matter of looking at the changing requirements of the community and what the rules are citywide. She was aware that with fifty year-old homes, many needed to be changed and upgraded and solutions were not always the same to everyone. Also, Councilmember Heller stated that the City allows second units in other parts of the San Rafael and should it be fair to have that rule in the entire City, she questioned whether it was fair to single out one neighborhood and not allow it. She believed this was special treatment and she was unable to vote for the ordinance because of this. Should the ordinance be adopted, Councilmember Heller stated she would like to see the issue reviewed in perhaps ten to fifteen years. She thanked everyone for attending and stated it had not been an easy decision. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Pagel 5 Like Councilmember Heller, Councilmember Cohen stated he did not feel bound by the CC&Rs. He believed it was well known there are CC&Rs in existence in the State of California today that contain absolutely reprehensible clauses, which he did not believe anyone in attendance would encourage the City to enforce; however, beyond that point was where he began to diverge. Councilemmber Cohen recognized the comments that some Planning Commissioners made their decision based on the impact of the CC&Rs and he was not precluded from reaching a similar decision, albeit getting there by a different route. Explaining, Councilmember Cohen stated he thought a lot about the design of Eichlers. He indicated that he and his wife own their second home in San Rafael and on both occasions, while searching for a home they looked at Eichlers in Terra Linda and chose not to buy one, as they did not feel it was right for them. He stated it was not for him to issue a design for historical preservation or request everyone to live in museums, although he was taken with the line that good design principles need not expire due to the passage of time. Although the Eichler design was not right for him, Councilmember Cohen stated it was right for a lot of people. It was an open design concept that makes use of light and the wonderful views afforded in the Terra Linda valley, and he stated that particular design and the way in which those homes take advantage of those benefits make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to mitigate the impacts of a two-story building immediately next door. Councilmember Cohen stated that the unique design characteristics distinguish the Eichler and Alliance subdivisions from other neighborhoods in San Rafael. He noted that some bought them for those characteristics and some did not; however, those characteristics exist as an objective condition, and mitigating them, as several people had commented, appeared extremely difficult to do. Regarding the suggestion that the City have design standards and take these on a case-by- case basis, Councilmember Cohen stated that as articulated earlier, this would have the debate repeated over and over, and furthermore, would pit individual neighbor against individual neighbor. He stated Council would make a decision one way or the other tonight and people would leave happy or unhappy; however, hopefully with a couple of small exceptions, it would not put people in the position of attending a Council Meeting on any given Monday evening to argue that a neighbor ought not be able to do something with their house they desperately wanted to do. Councilmember Cohen stated that making this decision, not about anyone's specific house, but about design standards for the neighborhood and the subdivisions in general, would avoid creating ongoing neighborhood battles with people who had to live next to each other for many years. Councilmember Cohen stated he believed there was an issue of process involved. He noted a lot of figures were mentioned this evening, together with calculations in different ways, and while it was probably an historical accident, it was striking that the number of speakers came out exactly 60% in favor of the ban. Referring to the survey the City conducted and tabulated by the League of Women Voters, Councilmember Cohen believed the only thing known about those who did not participate in the survey was that they did not participate in the survey, because they chose not to. He noted there was plenty of publicity over six months, every effort was made to be out in the community and everyone was mailed a ballot. Alluding to the forthcoming presidential election, Councilmember Cohen stated that should any one of those candidates have 40% of the eligible voters vote and receives 59% of the ballots cast, like it or not, all would agree they had a mandate. This, he indicated was the situation here — a very significant percentage of people took advantage of this opportunity. Councilmember Cohen stated that for him it was not a done deal. He listened carefully to the testimony this evening, read all the comments provided by staff (adding his thanks to Mr. Brown and his staff); however, he believed the City needed to keep faith with the community and respect ultimately the process set in motion when the City stated it would allow the community to decide the issue and sent out a survey to everyone living in these homes. Councilmember Cohen stated he would respect the decision that was returned and would support the ban on second stories. Councilmember Miller stated he agreed with Councilmember Cohen in that it was a process of the community getting together, looking at the problem and attempting a solution. He stated that property rights were obviously relative and it was necessary to look at a system of relationships that protects and enhances the light, view, privacy, compatibility and economic value of the individual components. With that view, Councilmember Miller stated the ban certainly protected the community interests and demonstrated how the community influences the individual and vice versa. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 15 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 16 Councilmember Miller stated that Mr. Brown and staff did a remarkable job in bringing all the issues forth. He indicated he found it interesting that one of the speakers alluded to the Eichler communities and this he believed distinguished them from other communities in San Rafael. Councilmember Miller stated he did not find this an unfair application of law, rather it respected the community and therefore, he would support the ban. Mayor Boro stated he had visited Eichler homes many times and in particular, one in Terra Linda where good friends had lived since the 1950s, raising three boys there. He indicated he was very familiar with the openness of the house, the views and hills. Mayor Boro noted the CC&Rs were an issue at the time the homes were built; however, the issue before the City Council this evening was whether the City should adopt a policy that restricts certain things from happening. He indicated he had been concerned about the issue of property rights; however, he heard time and again that the ability of one person to have property rights exercised had greatly impacted other people's property rights, diminishing them, and he did not believe that was right. Mayor Boro believed the neighborhood was built by design with the fact that there would be privacy and openness, and it appeared to him that not to support the ban would be allowing the neighborhood to change. Regarding the remarks on monster homes, Mayor Boro stated that discussions had taken place in the Chamber on this issue and some cities had banned them; however, the City had not entered this. While recognizing there were only seven second -story additions in the past fifty years, he realized times were changing, cost of housing was rising and people were buying homes, tearing them down and rebuilding, and he did not believe this should happen with the Eichler homes in Terra Linda. Mayor Boro stated he believed what's there is what people bought into and the CC&Rs may or may not guarantee that. He believed the strong sense of the community was that they wanted to guarantee that and he believed this was the best way to go. Mayor Boro thanked all for being in attendance this evening and for giving their time not only tonight, but to the other meetings they attended. He thanked Community Development Director Bob Brown and his staff and having attended one of the meetings in Terra Linda, he commented that while Mr. Brown had his hands full he did a great job. Mayor Boro stated that attorney Mr. Bingham's comment concerning Mr. Brown's report was impressive. Mayor Boro stated this was about protecting the integrity of this community, which was the expectation when the properties were built. He believed that most who purchased homes had that in mind and as it was important this was protected, he would support the ordinance. The title of the ordinance was read AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 14.14 CREATING AN EICHLER AND ALLIANCE HOMES OVERLAY DISTRICT, AMENDING SECTION 14.25.040 TO REQUIRE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR ROOF MODIFICATIONS TO EICHLER AND ALLIANCE HOMES, AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM R5 AND R7.5 TO R5 -EA AND R7.5 -EA (EICHLER AND ALLIANCE HOMES COMBINING DISTRICT) [File No. Z003 -003(b)] Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1819 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. Public Hearing — SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATIONS; CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF REVISIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD MODIFY REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN REVIEW OF UPPER -STORY ADDITIONS AND NEW TWO-STORY HOMES ON NON -HILLSIDE SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTIES — APPLIES CITYWIDE; FILE NO. Z003-003 (CD) — FILE 10-3 x 10-7 x 10-2 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Community Development Director Bob Brown stated that staff would present the results of the public hearing noticing study at the next Council meeting, which would be the final piece of these two issues. Highlighting one issue on which the Planning Commission and staff did not agree, Mr. Brown explained this concerned solar shading and view impacts. He stated staff had originally SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 16 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 17 proposed dealing with solar shadowing with a quantitative restriction that would allow no more than an additional 10% shadowing of primary recreational areas, and they tried to define those. Mr. Brown stated the Planning Commission felt this was too technical a solution and instead, recommended a more generic design criterion that basically stated that other impacts on adjacent properties, such as shading and view blockage, should be minimized through the design review process. Upon reflection, Mr. Brown stated staff did have concerns about that approach, believing that while it allows the City to get into those two issues through design review, it offers no guidance as to what a reasonable amount of shadowing or view blockage would be. On the view blockage issue, he stated it also is not consistent with both past and proposed City policy in the General Plans. Mr. Brown reported that the current and proposed General Plans both state that the only views protected are from public vantage points, not from private; therefore, it is difficult to quantify or objectively evaluate how much view blockage is acceptable. Mr. Brown stated this was the only point staff and the Planning Commission deviated on. Councilmember Miller inquired whether there was a way to deal with the issue of view blockage. Responding in the negative, Mr. Brown explained the only view impacts the City protects are from public vantage points, with photomontages, etc., done from public vistas. He indicated it was very difficult because in any situation, particularly where a second story is being added, someone's view would be blocked as it would be impossible to avoid; however, the question was how much. Having worked briefly in Berkeley, Mr. Brown reported that they do try to regulate views through very generic policies. He stated there were numerous hearings where people displayed their 600 view panorama, informing the Planning Commission or Council that 5% would be affected. He indicated that no one understood how to deal with the significance of this. Together with the issue of views, Mayor Boro stated there also was the issue of privacy and loss of use of property, and he invited Mr. Brown to discuss this. Mr. Brown stated that privacy is covered in the current criteria and he believed this was done well and better than the other ordinances he had read. Explaining, he stated one could not have direct straight on views into an adjoining building's windows or yard space and for that reason, a lot of time is spent with applicants attempting to change the orientation of windows, or requiring high or frosted windows, etc.; however, views had never been dealt with. Regarding views, Councilmember Heller inquired whether staff was using the same criteria in the new General Plan as the old, i.e., just the public views, to which Mr. Brown responded affirmatively. Ann Laird -Blanton stated that good design guidelines were needed and she did not necessarily believe the zoning regulations was the place to do it. She expressed support for two of the three options in the staff report: 1) Requiring all second -story additions to be referred to the Design Review Board, as without good design guidelines, staff would not do a very good job of approving second - story additions any better than they did in the Eichler/Alliance community. 2) The proposed criterion about solar shading view impacts should be eliminated as it is very difficult to understand. She indicated that illustrations were needed and better design guidelines that were not mandatory, rather would help people understand the value and importance of what staff was attempting to achieve, so they could design within those criteria. Ms. Laird -Blanton reiterated that the AIA had offered to help and she had been working on the guidelines with a committee that included Linda Jackson, Principal Planner, a member of the Planning Commission and a member of the Redevelopment Agency. She indicated her concern was that what they had been working on was an abbreviated version and not the comprehensive document it needed to be. She believed design guidelines needed to be postponed so they could be done well, could be related to the zoning regulations and be a document that everyone could understand and work with, rather than a series of piecemeal items. With regard to doing it all now as opposed to piecemeal, Councilmember Cohen stated he did not believe the resources or staff time were available, given the looming General Plan adoption. Noting that one of the recommendations was to expand the draft residential design guidelines to address second -story additions, he inquired as to why this language as proposed could not be adopted in order to obtain some criteria and somewhat more control on the process in place SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 17 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Pagel 8 now, so that the remainder of this year could be allocated to finishing up the General Plan. At the same time, perhaps Ms. Laird -Blanton could be taken up on her offer to begin the process of generating some meaningful design guidelines. Councilmember Cohen stated he could not see why action had to be deferred altogether while waiting on these design guidelines. Ms. Laird -Blandon stated she was not suggesting deferring action altogether. She indicated that most of it did not concern design guidelines, rather the review process. She believed the best way to deal with the review process was to take it to the Design Review Board at present, in terms of all the second -story additions, rather than having an administrative review, because she did not believe the Planning staff had the tools to be able to evaluate good quality second - story additions. Until those tools were available, she suggested taking them to the Design Review Board. Ms. Laird -Blanton confirmed for Councilmember Cohen that there were not that many second -story additions in San Rafael; most were hillside and the Design Review Board reviews them already. She stated the consensus of the Design Review Board was they believed they needed to be much more involved in the process until really good guidelines could be developed. Concurring with Ms. Laird -Blanton, Larry Paul, Las Ovejas, architect, stated that in response to Councilmember Cohen's question, rather than postponing adoption of these, language should be inserted that would encourage the City to develop real good design guidelines, rather than adopting existing design guidelines for the Montecito Neighborhood Plan. He favored adopting guidelines that would work for the Eichler/Alliance and Glenwood communities, and other communities with unique problems. Referring to the Eichler/Alliance issue, Mr. Paul stated these were the same issues that arise over and over because a lot of the lots are small and neighbors are impacted by badly done additions, whether second -story or first; albeit, second stories were much more visible. He suggested that strong guidelines could be developed that would better equip the Planning Department to assist applicants before they made some critical mistakes, but then refer everything to the Design Review Board. Mr. Paul stated he strongly supported the Design Review Board and having been a member for twelve years, he reported that they made a lot of projects much better. In general, he stated the Design Review Board is complimented by the applicants, the applicants' designers and neighbors as being a really good judge of what is and is not appropriate. Mr. Paul stated that Council made a very subjective decision earlier in the Eichler/Alliance overlay district, based on what they believed was right and he believed this was what the Design Review Board does every meeting. Being designers, they have design principles they go by as a starting point; however, sometimes those rules could be broken and judgments needed to be made on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Paul favored inserting language to promote the development of design guidelines in the near future with the help of the AIA architects who are willing to volunteer their time, and also the option to require that all second -story additions be referred to the Design Review Board. Mayor Boro stated he did not believe this was similar to the last item where the entire community was designed a certain way with a certain intent and was about protecting the integrity of the entire community, whereas this was neighborhoods that were not necessarily designed and limited or intended to be single-family or no second stories. Mayor Boro stated that the issues Mr. Paul discussed were similar; however, the intent was different from the Eichler/Alliance issue. Giving an example, Mr. Paul stated right across the street from Freitas Parkway, the Kinney homes were pretty much alike, single -story for the most part; however, there were some second -story additions, on fairly small lots, and they had similar issues. He noted there was a design intent there. The Eichler/Alliance was homage to Frank Lloyd Wright from the architects and they did a great job; however, Mr. Paul stated that even Frank Lloyd Wright built two and three-story homes. Cliff Meneken stated they generally support Community Development Director Bob Brown's recommendations. For reasons previously stated he believed the second -story issue was important for everyone and while the Design Review Board was one step, there could also be neighborhood design reviews. He indicated they submitted their neighborhood design review to Mr. Brown and believed this could be done in other communities to assist in working with the Design Review Board, so rather than being an architecturally controlled group, it would receive input from different interests in the neighborhood. He reiterated that generally they support Mr. Brown's recommendations to have more review of second floors in the remainder of San Rafael also. Kyle Keilman seconded Mr. Meneken's remarks. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 18 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 19 There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing Mayor Boro requested that Mr. Brown discuss the process and difference with the Planning Commission and address the issue of standards. Mr. Brown stated that ultimately, it was proposed to adopt design guidelines that would be applicable to all situations. As part of the General Plan he indicated there would be a discussion with the Planning Commission and then with the City Council as to whether those guidelines should be adopted with what is available presently, which apply in Montecito and downtown, or as suggested by the AIA, defer them in some manner and make them not applicable until they can be revised in their entirety. Regarding the difference with that recommended by the Planning Commission and staff's recommendation, Mr. Brown stated the only difference related to how view impacts and shading impacts are addressed. In evaluating design standards, Mayor Boro stated he would also like to fully utilize the twenty- first century tools available and instead of having photomontages, he favored the use of computer-aided design. Applicants could use it, the Three-D approach would show the shadows and impacts, and it should be done impartially so that people would understand what they were getting. Regarding standards, Mayor Boro stated that consideration should be given to what is realistic and available and when it could be used. He believed it would be of benefit to the applicants, the Planning Commission, Design Review Board and certainly to the surrounding neighbors who are interested in the impact on them. Mr. Brown stated staff would discuss this with the Design Review Board. With regard to the issue of referring everything to the Design Review Board, Councilmember Cohen stated that if he was reading the report correctly, everything had to go through design review. He noted staff or any neighbor could request that any non -hillside second -story addition could be shifted from Zoning Administrator review to the Design Review Board. Councilmember Cohen inquired of Mr. Brown whether anything over 500 feet would automatically go before the Design Review Board. Mr. Brown stated staff would eliminate what they considered to be a pretty arbitrary square -footage amount and any new two-story home would automatically go to the Design Review Board. Councilmember Cohen noted that all second -story additions might or might not, depending on whether staff or a member of the public felt the need. Mr. Brown stated there are, albeit probably few, second -story additions, very small in size that are not visible to neighbors, and staff would be reluctant to require them to go before the Design Review Board, both taking up the DRB's time together with the additional cost of at least an additional $1,000 to applicants. Should it truly be a very small situation that no one could see and had no impact, staff believed it unnecessary. In the event a member of the public requested in writing that it should go to the Design Review Board, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether it would go. Mr. Brown stated that it would as long as they could address how the design related to or did not meet the City's criteria. In making the change recommended by staff, Councilmember Cohen confirmed with Mr. Brown that there would be no reference to private view impacts whatsoever. Councilmember Cohen recalled an extended discussion in past years about a beautiful panoramic view with a very small roofline that became controversial, and he believed that debating what is and is not a view impact would cause real headaches; therefore, he supported Mr. Brown's recommendation. With regard to solar shading, Councilmember Cohen stated that having some numbers and something somewhat more measurable made a lot more sense than merely considering those impacts without any guidelines. He favored approving the item with the amendment to eliminate the proposed criteria as recommended by the Planning Commission, and instead use staff's language which precludes new or increased shading of solar panels or primary recreational areas in the side and/or rear yards by more than 10%, with the understanding that the draft residential design guidelines would be expanded and further discussion would take place regarding how to do those design guidelines as part of the General Plan process. Regarding the option that all second story additions include referral to the Design Review Board, Councilmember Cohen stated that firstly, any neighbor could write a letter, and secondly, he believed staff would look carefully and should they consider something to be remotely controversial, they would hand it off to the Design Review Board anyway. He believed, therefore, that for now sufficient protection was provided. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 19 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 20 The title of the Ordinance was read: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SECTION 14.04.030 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO RELOCATE UPPER - STORY SIZE LIMITATIONS, AMENDING SECTION 14.25.020 TO ALLOW FOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR PUBLIC REFERRAL OF DESIGIN REVIEW APPLICATIONS TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, AMENDING SECTION 14.25.030 TO REQUIRE SUBMITTAL OF SHADOW DIAGRAMS IN CONJUNCTION WITH DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS, AMENDING SECTION 14.25.040 TO REQUIRE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR NEW MULTI -STORY HOMES AND ALL UPPER -STORY ADDITIONS, AND AMENDING SECTION 14.25.050 TO REVISE DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA AND ADD A CRITERION ADDRESSING SOLAR SHADING (File No. Z003 -003a)" (as amended to include regulations contained in the original Planning Commission Resolution which preclude new or increased shading of solar panels or primary recreational areas in the side and/or rear yards by more than 10%) Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1820 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: NEW BUSINESS: 14. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (CC) — FILE 9-1 Mayor Boro stated that he and the City Clerk had presented the list of appointments as they currently exist. City Clerk Jeanne Leoncini stated that City Manager Gould had pointed out that the Marin Emergency Radio Authority (MERA) had been omitted and should be included: Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the City Council Committee appointments as follows: CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS POSITION Vice -Mayor, City Council Chairman, Redevelopment Agency Vice -Chairman, Redevelopment Agency City/School Liaison Committee League of California Cities North Bay Division City Representative to Association of Bay Area Governments County Priority Setting Committee (Re Community Development Block Grant Funds - CDBG) San Rafael Sanitation District Countywide Planning Agency APPOINTEE Cyr Miller Albert J. Boro Cyr Miller Albert J. Boro Gary Phillips Paul M. Cohen (Alt.) Barbara Heller Cyr Miller (1 s'Alt.) Albert J. Boro (2nd Alt.) Barbara Heller Albert J. Boro (Alt.) Cyr Miller Supervisor Susan Adams Gary Phillips (Alt.) Albert J. Boro Paul M. Cohen Barbara Heller (Alt.) Albert J. Boro Paul M. Cohen (1St Alt.) Gary Phillips (2nd Alt.) Local Agency Formation Commission (MCCMC) Barbara Heller SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 20 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 21 Mobile Homeowners Associations Liaison Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority Board and Executive Committee Marin County Waste Management Advisory Committee Re AB 939 Marin Emergency Radio Authority (MERA) Marin Telecommunications Agency Congestion Management Agency Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit ("S.M.A.R.T.") (MCCMC) San Rafael Business Issues Committee Farmers' Market Board of Directors Oversight Committee - Council Liaison MCCMC Legislative Committee Golden Gate Bridge District (MCCMC) Marin County Transit District Board of Directors (MCCMC) Joint Powers Authority Oversight Committee Water Transit Authority (Golden Gate Bridge District) Paul Cohen Rod Gould Barbara Heller (Alt.) Barbara Heller Gary Phillips (Alt.) Rod Gould Ken Nordhoff (Alt.) Cyr Miller Barbara Heller (Alt.) Albert J. Boro Paul M. Cohen (Alt.) Albert J. Boro Paul M. Cohen (Alt.) Albert J. Boro and Gary Phillips Cyr Miller Gary Phillips (Alt.) Barbara Heller Albert J. Boro Barbara Heller Barbara Heller Albert J. Boro Water Transit Authority, Citizens Advisory Committee Barbara Heller AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: 15. San Rafael Focus Magazine: - File 9-3-11 x 9-1 City Manager Gould introduced the first issue of the San Rafael Focus Magazine. He explained that six months ago, as part of budget balancing, Council directed staff to combine the City Newsletter, Community Services Brochure, Falkirk Newsletter and Volunteer Newsletter into one document, which when published quarterly would save over $35,000. Mr. Gould stated that this 20 -page first issue should be in mailboxes by Wednesday of next week. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 16. Marin County Transit Authority: - File 143 x 9-1 Mayor Boro reported that Councilmember Heller was reappointed to the Marin County Transit Authority Board of Directors (MCCMC representative). There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12004 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 02/02/2004 Page 21