Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2005-11-21 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2005 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Barbara Heller, Vice-Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBER – 8:45 PM (at conclusion of City Council meeting) Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION – CONFERENCE ROOM 201 – 8:50 PM (at conclusion of City Council meeting) 1. Public Employment – Government Code section 54957(b)(1) Title: City Manager Mayor Boro announced at 9:53 p.m. that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:8:00 PM None CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Minutes approved as submitted. Monday, November 7, 2005 (CC) 3. Reappointment of Lila McCarthy as City’s Lila McCarthy reappointed as City’s Representative on the Marin/Sonoma Representative on the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Mosquito & Vector Control District Vector Control District Board for a Two-year Board for a two-year term expiring Term Expiring end of December, 2007 (CC) – end of December, 2007. File 9-2-9 4. Resolution of Appreciation for Esther Beirne, RESOLUTION NO. 11853 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION Deputy City Clerk, Employee of the Quarter TO ESTHER BEIRNE, DEPUTY CITY ending September, 2005 (CC) – CLERK, EMPLOYEE OF THE File 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-14 QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER, 2005 5. Resolution Appointing Robert Gallimore to the RESOLUTION NO. 11854 – RESOLUTION APPOINTING MR. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Access ROBERT GALLIMORE TO THE ADA Advisory Committee (MS) – File 9-2-56 ACCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (To be sworn in on 12/7/05) 6. Resolution Instituting the Annual Holiday Parking RESOLUTION NO. 11855 – RESOLUTION INSTITUTING THE Program from Thursday, November 24, 2005 HOLIDAY PARKING PROGRAM through Sunday, December 25, 2005 and FROM NOVEMBER 24, 2005 UNTIL Allocating $10,000 for a Downtown Parking DECEMBER 25, 2005 AND Validation Program (MS) – File 11-18 x 9-3-87 ALLOCATING $10,000 FOR A DOWNTOWN PARKING VALIDATION PROGRAM SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 2 7. Resolution Waiving Competitive Bidding RESOLUTION NO. 11856 – RESOLUTION WAIVING Requirements Pursuant to 2.55.070(D) of the COMPETITIVE BIDDING San Rafael Municipal Code and Authorizing Staff REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO to Negotiate and the City Manager to Execute a 2.55.070(D) OF THE SAN RAFAEL Contract for the Purchase of Multi-Space Parking MUNICIPAL CODE AND Equipment in an Amount not to Exceed $50,000 AUTHORIZING STAFF TO (MS) – File 11-18 x 9-3-87 COMPETITIVELY NEGOTIATE AND THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MULTI-SPACE PARKING EQUIPMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 8. Monthly Investment Report For Month Ending Accepted Monthly Investment Report for month ending October 2005, as October, 2005 (MS) – File 8-18 x 8-9 presented. 9. Resolution Approving the Application Software RESOLUTION NO. 11857 – RESOLUTION APPROVING THE License and Use Agreement for $85,650 with APPLICATION SOFTWARE LICENSE Ironpoint Technology, Inc. of Vancouver, British AND USE AGREEMENT FOR $85,650 Columbia (MS) – File 4-3-443 x 9-3-20 WITH IRONPOINT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT 10. Resolution Approving Use of State Homeland RESOLUTION NO. 11858 – RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF Security Funds in the Amount of $22,640 for STATE HOMELAND SECURITY Equipment Purchase (PD) – File 9-3-30 FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,640 FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASE 11. Resolution Approving Memorandum of RESOLUTION NO. 11859 – RESOLUTION APPROVING Understanding Between the San Rafael Police MEMORANDUM OF and Marin County Division of Alcohol, Drug and UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE Tobacco Programs in the Amount of $23,100 for SAN RAFAEL POLICE AND MARIN Local Enforcement of Youth Access to Alcohol COUNTY DIVISION OF ALCOHOL, Laws Activities (PD) – File 9-3-30 DRUG AND TOBACCO PROGRAMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,100 FOR LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OF YOUTH ACCESS TO ALCOHOL LAWS ACTIVITIES 12. Resolution Approving Use of State of California ESOLUTION NO. 11860 – RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF Office of Traffic Grant Funds in the Amount of STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF $194,362.62 for “Avoid the Marin 13” DUI TRAFFIC GRANT FUNDS IN THE Enforcement Campaign (PD) – File 9-3-30 AMOUNT OF $194,362.62 FOR “AVOID THE MARIN 13” DUI ENFORCEMENT CAMPAIGN AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (from item #2 only, due to absence from meeting of 11/7/05) SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 13. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ESTHER BEIRNE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER, 2005 (CC) – FILE 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-14 For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Boro explained that each quarter an Employee is honored and this time the recipient was Esther Beirne who had worked in the City Clerk’s Office as Deputy City Clerk for five years. He indicated that each quarter City employees select someone who had demonstrated a spirit of cooperation not only with the community members but with the entire staff. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 3 Quoting from the Resolution Mayor Boro stated, “Esther is one of the most courteous and friendly employees in City Hall who never says ‘it’s not my job’. She is always patient and willing to help solve problems and assist in finding information. She volunteered to serve on the Budget and Website Committees, becoming a Notary Public to assist City staff and the public and is pursuing her Municipal Clerk certification.” Continuing, Mayor Boro quoted “While it’s widely known that Esther’s mini cooper is the sun around which her universe revolves, she still carries out her many duties in a professional and courteous way even as visions of the Mini Cooper dance happily in her mind.” He joked that she had already written to the producer of the Italian Job indicating she would like to be a driver in the third version of the movie. On behalf of the City Council, city staff and the community, Mayor Boro congratulated and thanked Esther Beirne for her work. Expressing thanks for the honor Esther Beirne stated it was a privilege and a pleasure to work with everyone at the City. She particularly thanked her friend and mentor, City Clerk Jeanne Leoncini. PUBLIC HEARING: 14. CONSIDERATION OF MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS – AMENDMENTS TO VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (CD) – (Public Hearing Continued from City Council Meeting of 11/7/2005) – FILE 10-3 x 10-1 x 10-2 x 10-5 x 10-6 10-7 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Community Development Director Bob Brown reported that the packet of Ordinance amendments had grown exponentially since its inception in February 2005. He indicated that the original intention was to correct some errors in the Municipal Code; however, with additional items, it now totaled 86 individual amendments and a 41 page ordinance. Mr. Brown stated he would address a couple of the items in a little detail this evening and respond more specifically should the City Council or members of the public raise other issues. Regarding Density Bonus provisions, Mr. Brown recalled that earlier this year a Study Session was held on SB 1818 with the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods and Chamber of Commerce, and the main message was that these provisions of state law were mandatory and offered very little discretion to local agencies. Therefore, with the assistance of City Attorney Gary Ragghianti and Todd Smith, Attorney, attempts were made to craft an ordinance that tried to minimize the impacts of this legislation where possible, without putting the City in jeopardy of litigation. Mr. Brown reminded the City Council that this state law requires granting density bonuses on a graduated scale based on the proportion and level of affordable units in a proposed housing development. He indicated that the law also requires granting additional concessions, which are waivers to zoning regulations, fee waivers or even waivers of design review conditions in response to requests from developers. Again, the number of available concessions is also based on a sliding scale of affordability. He stated that the City was also required to grant reduced parking rates for multi-family housing that excludes provisions for guest parking and allows tandem parking spaces. As previously reported, Mr. Brown stated that SB 1818 was very poorly written and happily, this year, SB 435 clarified one very important point of ambiguity – that the amount of available density bonus and concessions is calculated based on only one affordable income category. For example: with a project providing 10% low income units and 10% moderate income units, the developer would be able to base density bonus and concessions only on one of those two income categories, obviously the 10% low income units would yield more. Mr. Brown explained that a 10% low income would yield a maximum 20% density bonus and one concession; however, the developer could not also add the additional density bonus and concessions based upon the 10% moderate income units. He added that it could conceivably be possible to obtain 20% bonus for the 10% low income units and an additional 5% density bonus for the 10% moderate; however, these two categories could not be combined and the developer would have to choose just one. Mr. Brown stated that this had somewhat significantly reduced the maximum amount of bonus and the number of concessions, which he believed was favorable to local agencies. Mr. Brown stated that the principal area where some local flavor could be added to this law was in the definition and process for granting concessions. In the draft ordinance, not all concessions were considered equal; staff had a list of “preferred” concessions, which would include fee waivers – already offered to developers for the affordable units – utilization of the downtown parking rates or utilization of the new state parking rates - even though these are normally just permitted, they would be counted as concessions - height bonuses allowed now SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 4 under the General Plan, or up to a 20% increase or decrease in regulations such as setback, lot coverage and landscaping requirements. He indicated that these concessions would not require the submittal of a financial pro-forma and could be approved as part of the regular entitlement process. For all other concessions, other than this short list, Mr. Brown stated that a financial pro-forma would be required and a trip to the City Council would also be necessary for approval, and it was something of a disincentive for a developer to go through a list of the concessions staff would not consider in their “preferred” grouping. Mr. Brown cautioned that it would be very difficult to deny requests for concessions since the developer need only prove that they reduce project costs and make the project more financially viable; therefore, it was a very low bar. Indicating that it would also be difficult to deny density bonuses or concessions based on their impacts, Mr. Brown explained that there must be a significant impact affecting public health or safety. For example, he indicated that it would be necessary to prove that traffic increases from the bonus units would jeopardize public safety by significantly slowing emergency response vehicles and it would be very difficult to make those kinds of findings. However, as was learned, Mr. Brown stated the one area where CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) clearly trumps this new law was with regard to historic structures, e.g., the Lincoln/Mission project. Mr. Brown stated this concluded his discussion concerning Density Bonuses and City Attorney Ragghianti and Attorney Todd Smith were available for questions on this issue. Indicating they were present to answer the City Council’s or any member of the public’s questions, Mr. Ragghianti explained that this legislation was signed by the governor in September of 2004 and became effective in January 2005. He emphasized Mr. Brown’s remarks with regard to the lack of discretion public agencies had in connection with the adoption of this legislation. Indicating it was mandatory, he explained its purpose was to encourage the development of housing and to lower what the legislation felt were disincentives or obstructions put in the path of developers who sought discretionary entitlements for residential and other housing throughout the state. Mr. Ragghianti stated that they did participate with Mr. Brown and the City Council in a session where it was endeavored to go through how this legislation was drafted. He agreed with Mr. Brown that the legislation was very poorly worded and staff was sailing in unchartered waters in some of the areas having to do with incentives and concessions. Mr. Ragghianti indicated that this applied to every development of five units or more and it could be expected to occur on every one of those moving forward. Mr. Ragghianti noted that Todd Smith, who works with him, had become an expert in a number of areas, this being one of them, and at the appropriate time he could speak on this issue. In terms of not repeating the provisions of the Code, rather referencing state law, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether there was a means of including an addendum incorporating a copy of the state law to assist the members of the public who had not attended a study session, thereby having the entire document in one place. Mr. Brown stated that a very significant summary of the calculations for density bonus and concessions was included, noting Attorney Todd Smith prepared the table, page 23 of the ordinance, which every planner with whom he (Mr. Brown) had spoken believed to be a marvelous summary of a very complex set of regulations. Mr. Brown believed there even was a concern amongst the City Attorneys that this section could become dated should state law change; however, considering it such a useful summary, staff had gone ahead and included it as a summary. Beyond that he believed that trying to include language from the actual law itself would probably be more confusing than beneficial, as it was very poorly drafted. Regarding other topics in the package, Mr. Brown noted in Conservation and Dwelling Units, the elimination of that portion of the ordinance, and while unfortunate, he believed it very necessary based upon court decisions on a virtually identical ordinance in Berkeley. Mr. Brown indicated that should there be questions on this, Mr. Ragghianti could respond. On the question of Relocation Assistance, Mr. Brown explained that this arose from a suggestion from the Planning Commission because of the loss of the City’s control on the elimination of housing units. He indicated they believed the City should provide some level of assistance to tenants displaced by new development. Mr. Brown reported that staff reviewed several existing programs in various cities and determined that the program in Walnut Creek was the most practical and easiest to administer. He explained that it required the developers offer payments equal to two months of their present rent to all low-income tenants who were SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 5 being displaced, and these tenants would essentially self-certify themselves as being low income and would be provided with the range of income levels to meet that category. Mr. Brown indicated that the developer would also be required to provide a maximum of one such payment per unit; therefore, should there be multiple households or unrelated individuals living in a low-income unit, they would have to split that payment. He stated that the developer would also be required to provide the tenants with the contact information for the Marin Housing Assist Line. Should this be provided for by the applicant in a project that would displace low-income tenants, the City would require that prior to issuance of a Building Permit the applicant would have to provide documentation to staff of the offers to the tenants, letters of acceptance and payments to those tenants. Regarding the provision covering Earthtone Colors, Mr. Brown noted this was one where there was something of a difference of opinion among the Planning Commission, the Design Review Board and staff. He explained that presently, the City controls the color of buildings for new development through the design review process. Buildings having received design review approval since its initiation in the 1980s had to maintain those approved colors and to change them necessitated applying for a modification. Mr. Brown noted, however, that this left a large number of buildings that existed prior to initiation of design review. He explained the ordinance now requires that all building colors be earth tones unless the proposed color palette was otherwise found to be compatible with the building’s surroundings. Mr. Brown indicated that staff occasionally runs into enforcement problems on this because the City does not require building permits for repainting; therefore, it can come to light that a building had been repainted after the fact. Reporting that this problem was raised with the Planning Commission, Mr. Brown stated that they agreed the limitation of earthtone colors made most sense up in the hillsides where it was desirable to have those buildings blend in with the natural colors of their surroundings. However, the Planning Commission believed it to be too constraining elsewhere in the City and really was an unnecessary requirement; therefore, they recommended limiting that provision to the hillsides. Mr. Brown reported that the Design Review Board felt the same in terms of the hillsides; however, also felt that the downtown was important enough that the City should have a provision and a process for reviewing color changes in the downtown. He indicated staff responded that this would take additional staff time and services and would also require some type of process and even more importantly, require that building owners downtown would be aware of that requirement. Mr. Brown stated this probably was the biggest challenge, as again, most property owners believed they could just hire a painting contractor and go. He stated that staff had not recommended that provision for the downtown because it constituted an additional process that was not currently in place. Regarding #8 – staff report – Parking in residential front yards - Mayor Boro quoted: “Currently, parking and maneuvering areas are precluded in side and rear yard setbacks. Staff has suggested that this prohibition also apply to front yards which are more visible…. The Commission expressed concern that this could eliminate existing parking in older neighborhoods like Gerstle Park and exacerbate the existing parking shortage.” In reading this he noted that the representatives of Gerstle Park agreed with the idea of banning parking in front yards and inquired whether this was correct. Mr. Brown confirmed it was recommended to preclude parking in the front yards, other than on the driveway. He noted this had been a Code Enforcement problem in many cases. Regarding #6 – staff report – “Bumping up and bumping down” – Councilmember Heller inquired whether Council could receive a report back in perhaps twelve months to ascertain its use or whether it had become a problem. Mr. Brown stated this was one of the Planning Commission questions, and explained that since instances of “bumping down” an application would not be noticed, they wished to ensure that staff was tracking correctly. He stated staff would be happy to provide copies to the City Council and Planning Commission of any instances where this was done. Regarding #9 – staff report – Noise Ordinance – Councilmember Heller requested clarification on whether staff could do a “stop work” notice for more than two days per violation. Mr. Brown clarified that staff could ratchet up the level of enforcement; however, suggested that at least initially, two days of stoppage for each day of violation would make sense. He agreed that should there be repeated violations, this did not appear to be correcting the problem. Councilmember Heller requested that this be checked out further. Mr. Brown noted staff found that fines were not effective at all. Regarding #10 – staff report – Design Review Board alternate member – Councilmember Heller stated it was her understanding that alternates were to attend all of the meetings. To her it read as though they would only drop in if another member could not be in attendance. Mr. Brown clarified the language indicated that they could participate whenever there were not five members in attendance. From a practical standpoint, he stated staff had encouraged the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 6 alternate to attend all meetings because they were unaware of when he would be required to step in. Mr. Brown confirmed alternate was attending at this point. Regarding the Noise Ordinance, and noting it could be an enforcement challenge, Councilmember Cohen stated that should there be a situation where someone was repeatedly violating it causing a stoppage in the project for two days for every day of violation, this could prove to be a very significant and costly impact on a construction project. He believed this would gain the attention of the contractor pretty quickly in the event it occurred once or twice. Councilmember Heller indicated she was referring to a situation of a home builder constructing the project himself where stopping for two days did not matter. Mr. Brown stated there were different regulations for home owners working on their own homes under the Noise Ordinance. Jeannie Cohn, President, Loch Lomond Homeowners Association, requested clarification on “emergency” with reference to the density bonus. She explained that this morning (Monday, November 21, 2005) there was a real emergency down at the marina – two boats went on fire - with five fire trucks, two auxiliary fire trucks, several police cars and an ambulance attending. She indicated this occurred between 8:00 and 8:30 this morning when people were either walking their dogs or entering the marina, and the emergency vehicles had a difficult time getting to the area because of those trying to get in or out. Ms. Cohn inquired whether this would classify as an emergency. Responding, Mr. Brown stated that perhaps Ms. Cohn may have misunderstood the example he was giving. He clarified that the City’s ability to deny density bonuses or concessions based upon the impacts they would have on their surroundings was limited to impacts to public health and safety. Therefore, for example, should a project have ten bonus units, the City would have to prove that those ten units would increase the level of traffic congestion and delay such that it would delay not only resident traffic but safety personnel, which could constitute a health and safety impact. Being specific, Ms. Cohn stated that there were two entrances currently to the marina, both of which were jammed, and the proposed development had only one entrance. As she was concerned about safety, she inquired whether safety would enter into this. Mr. Brown stated he did not believe the design of this particular development had anything to do with the density bonus law, rather it related to concerns about the development proposal which was not really relevant to the density bonus provisions. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that particular attention needed to be paid to this law even by those used to reading legal documents. He believed it important to point out that there is no ability to deny a requested density bonus. He explained that this was changed in the law and it was important to point this out because it was possible to deny an incentive or concession, if the requisite findings were made; however, the Legislature was very clear in that a density bonus could not be denied. Mr. Ragghianti stated he would not expect Mr. Brown to remember all that because it was in the legislation; however, it was important to remember that the hands of this Council were tied by the law that had been adopted and it was made clear there would be no denial of a density bonus, no matter what the reason given for it was. He indicated this was done purposefully, not because the City requested, rather is was what was believed important to include in the legislation. Mr. Ragghianti stated it was important for the public to understand when they interposed an objection that the City did not have discretion to deny it. Mr. Brown stated that even though this was not a discussion about the Loch Lomond project per se, he would like the Council to understand that there was a proposal in the current application for an emergency only entry point. Ms. Cohn stated that this would not have helped and Mayor Boro noted there would be plenty of time in the future to discuss Loch Lomond. Roger Roberts, San Rafael, stated he was still on the learning curve attempting to understand how SB 1818, the new law with respect to waivers and concessions, operates in the City. He understood this law applied to affordable units, senior housing, etc., and he inquired about its application to other aspects of municipal controls over development such as the use of PSP, condominium conversion language and things like this that reached to the nature of the projects that would be under review. He indicated that it was unclear to him how the waivers and concessions worked within all of the aspects of the regulations the City was involved with in approving various land use plans. Mr. Roberts requested further elaboration on how waivers and concessions were applied within the law and how they affected, or not, other aspects of the City’s oversight of projects. Addressing Mr. Roberts’ questions, Mr. Ragghianti stated that this law did not trump or override the City’s PSP, which would still operate. He explained that in his opinion it did not apply to condominium conversions, rather it applied only to new construction and he invited Todd Smith to speak to the issue dealing with concessions and incentives. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 7 Attorney Smith explained that concessions and incentives were defined as a reduction in site development standards or modification of zoning code requirements that resulted in identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions. On the question of what this means, Mr. Smith stated it was not entirely clear although they had done their best to ascertain what it meant. He explained that essentially, a developer/applicant could request the waiver of any of the City’s current design review or development standards as a concession or incentive and the City would have little discretion to deny that request unless findings could be made that it affected the public safety or health, or if the applicant could not prove it would contribute to the financial feasibility of constructing the affordable units. Mr. Smith stated that concessions, incentives, waivers, modifications - four words read as being synonymous - could mean any reduction in any type of development standard the City has in place at the moment. Mr. Roberts stated that prior to the City Council meeting he had posed the same question to Mr. Brown and Mr. Brown’s response was that it did not apply to City processes, rather only to City standards and he requested clarification of the difference between the two. Mr. Smith explained that a process would be how the application moved through the City’s machinery and specifically, State Law §65915 of the Government Code stated that the density bonus law was not meant to trump the City’s right to have a review process in which all of these concessions and incentives were considered. Explaining that a concession or incentive was simply a standard, he indicated that height bonus and setback requirements, for example, were the types of concessions or incentives specifically referenced, although state law was not limited to those types of standards. Mr. Smith clarified that essentially, it would be some type of physical standard that would apply to the project that could be reduced, waived, or whatever the applicant actually requested. Mr. Ragghianti added that should an applicant request not only a density bonus, but to have the City waive PSP, the City could respond in the negative and it could not be forced to do so under this law for the reasons previously stated. He confirmed that it simply did not apply. Sara Jensen, Loch Lomond, stated that she too was in the process of being somewhat confused about SB 1818; however, she noted in Zoning Change #52 concerning the requirement for two guest spaces for a second unit, the recommendation was to lower standards. Should state law indicate it was not possible to control some of these issues, she inquired as to why the City would wish to lower standards at all. Ms. Jensen stated it was her understanding that the City did not take action to oppose SB 1818 as it was going through the adoption process and being poorly written, she questioned whether anything could be done now officially to oppose, clarify or object to the overly intrusive impact on local control. Responding to Ms. Jensen’s comments regarding reduction in parking requirements for second units in item #52, Mr. Brown explained this was the Hillside Parking Requirement for residential units. He indicated it states that on narrower streets not only the two parking spaces for the unit itself had to be provided, but also two more spaces, making a total of four. Mr. Brown reported that when the Planning Commission received a second unit proposal in the hillside, they read the section and questioned whether per unit meant four spaces for the main unit and four spaces for the second unit, and this simply was a clarification to indicate four spaces for the main unit, plus whatever parking was required for the second unit under the City’s normal regulations. He confirmed it was not intended to reduce the parking requirements, rather a clarification. As to the City’s reaction to SB 1818, Mr. Brown reported the City did state it opposed the law consistently. He indicated he may have indicated publicly that in his initial reading of the law, he did not realize it also applied to waiver of design review conditions, which he believed was unanticipated by most planners and attorneys initially. City Manager Rod Gould added that the City Council did take a position in opposition to SB 1818. Further, it was raised at the legislative committee of the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers (MCCMC), and the lobbyist was directed to lobby against SB 1818, which he did vigorously, and that position was also adopted by the MCCMC. He confirmed that the City took a leadership position in opposition to SB 1818. Howard Cohn, Loch Lomond, addressing item #42 stated that the description specifically refers to a condition in the Loch Lomond Marina area vis a vis parking for dry boat storage. Indicating he was the first permitee in San Rafael for a dry boat storage facility, he stated he lobbied a previous City Council successfully for a location on Dodie Street, behind the post office on Bellam, near Andersen Drive. He explained this was a parcel of land of 6 acres, two of which he owned, two were owned by the Grady family and Bert Capel of Marin Outdoors owned two acres. Speaking honestly, Mr. Cohn commented that this was purely self-serving because he was sitting with an empty two-acre parcel, paying taxes and earning nothing. He reported that SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 8 he conceived of the notion of dry boat storage and RVs at the time purely to obtain some income from the land until he could get a higher use or sell it at a profit. He indicated that the Grady family liked his concept, were contiguous to his property, and also put in a similar facility. Mr. Cohn stated it was shortly afterwards that the Marin Surplus purchased his property and he did not need to go forward. Having experienced it, Mr. Cohn indicated he was very familiar with the mentality that as soon as a higher use or better deal for the property owner came along, it would be “goodbye” to that dry boat storage. In his case, he stated it was less than a year. Mr. Cohn stated that if in the description it was being promoted in order to alleviate a future problem at the Loch Lomond Marina, then he believed it to be a “shellgame.” He indicated there was no doubt that General Plan 2020 in this regard was edited at the eleventh hour to insert “needed dry boat storage for ‘local residents’” – local meaning San Pedro Cove, San Rafael, Marin County – it was not very specific, just local. He believed it was tailored to alleviate a problem Mayor Boro was familiar with, i.e., “what are we going to do with this dry boat situation if we are going to fit housing in the quantity envisioned on this property?” Mr. Cohn stated that “hocus, pocus” politics could be voted favorably or unfavorably; however, this was not something that was a meaningful change on behalf of the people of San Rafael or the boating community. Believing it would not last, he indicated that sooner or later someone would approach the owner of the property. Mr. Brown stated this was a use suggested by Mr. Al Barr in the Loch Lomond discussions, to the effect that alternative locations for dry boat storage might be found in East San Rafael. He stated staff realized the City did not have any zoning allowances for that and there also was a General Plan policy for East San Rafael that addressed expanding the list of interim uses for properties that did not have or could not gain traffic capacity in the near term. He pointed out that any use involving storage could be an interim use and could be eliminated. For example, he stated that the current dry boat storage at the Loch Lomond Marina could be eliminated by the property owner tomorrow without any City authorizations. Mayor Boro questioned the sentence in Attachment ‘A’ linking the allowance of dry boat storage in East San Rafael with the Loch Lomond application. Mr. Brown stated that this sentence expressed staff’s rationale for the change, but was not part of the ordinance change. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro suggested the phrase “particularly if such use is reduced at the Loch Lomond Marina” be dropped from Attachment ‘A’, as it was not necessary. Mr. Brown indicated that that verbiage was not in the ordinance; however, Mayor Boro directed that it be dropped from the record. The title of the Ordinance was read: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH REVISIONS OF STATE LAW FOR PROVISION OF DENSITY BONUSES AND ZONING INCENTIVES FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, TO REQUIRE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE TO LOWER INCOME TENANTS DISPLACED BY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, TO CORRECT THE RANGE OF BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE WEST END VILLAGE DISTRICT TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF GENERAL PLAN 2020, TO ALLOW SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION WORK FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE, TO MODIFY CRITERIA FOR GRANTING OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE NOISE ORDINANCE, TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF SECOND DWELLING UNIT TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW, TO MODIFY PROVISIONS FOR AN ALTERNATE MEMBER OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, TO ADD REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY BANNERS, TO CLARIFY THE GROUND FLOOR USE RESTRICTIONS IN THE FOURTH STREET RETAIL CORE DISTRICT, TO CHANGE REFERENCES TO THE CULTURAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION RELATED TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO MODIFY REGULATIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF ROOFS WITHIN THE EICHLER/ALLIANCE HOMES COMBINING DISTRICT TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW FOR REGULATION OF SOLAR COLLECTORS, TO CLARIFY THE APPEAL PERIOD FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS INVOLVING LAND SUBDIVISIONS TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW, TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW FOR FAMILY DAY CARE FACILITIES, TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW FOR PROVISION OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR ACCESS TO HOUSING BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, TO REMOVE SECTION 14.16.070 RELATED TO CONVERSION OR DEMOLITION OF DWELLING UNITS, TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 9 FOR REGULATION OF SATELLITE DISHES, TO MODIFY DEFINITIONS, TO MODIFY ALLOWANCES FOR VARIOUS USE CATEGORIES IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, TO INCREASE PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS, TO CORRECT BOUNDARIES OF THE DOWNTOWN PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AS DIAGRAMED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF DECK HEIGHTS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO SETBACK REGULATIONS, TO PRECLUDE THE PARKING OF VEHICLES IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES TO PROVIDE FOR REQUIRED DISABLED ACCESS, TO ELIMINATE REQUIREMENTS THAT BUILDINGS OUTSIDE OF THE HILLSIDE AREAS BE PAINTED IN EARTHTONE COLORS, AND TO REZONE PROPERTY AT 3240-3270 KERNER BOULEVARD FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE TO CORRECT A MAPPING ERROR Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to dispense with the Charter Ordinance reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass No. 1838 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS REPORTS: 15. Canal Stakeholder Committee: - File 9-3-85 x 9-1 Mayor Boro stated he wished to indulge upon the City Council to accept a recommendation from Councilmember Miller and himself. He recalled that a month ago a committee of Canal Stakeholders was appointed to work on the bicycle issue in the Canal and they would like to add two people to the committee, Tom Wilson and Rocky Birdsey, and with the remainder of the Council’s agreement, that would happen. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:45 p.m. to Closed Session. ____________________________ JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ DAY OF __________, 2005 ___________________________________ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 11/21/2005 Page 9