Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2005-12-19 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 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: Ken Nordhoff, Interim City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBER – 9:55 PM Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION – CONFERENCE ROOM 201 – 10:00 PM 1. Public Employment – Government Code section 54957(b)(1) Title: City Manager Mayor Boro announced at 10:47 p.m. that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:21 PM Conflict in Iraq: 9-1 Mary Morrison, Santa Rosa, Rachel Bell, Santa Rosa, Kim Le, Santa Rosa and Elizabeth Neylon, Santa Rosa, read portions of a document urging support for a ceasefire in Iraq. John Jenkel, Graton, stated this document would be presented at the Marin County Board of Supervisors meeting tomorrow, Tuesday. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Minutes approved as submitted. Monday, December 5, 2005 (CC) 3. Resolution Approving ZC04-02 Amendment to RESOLUTION NO. 11866 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Agreement for Professional Services with RBF INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO Consulting to Prepare an Environmental Impact EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AN Report for the Village at Loch Lomond Marina AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL Project (CD) – File 4-3-429 x 10-2 SERVICES WITH RBF CONSULTING FOR ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAGE AT LOCH LOMOND MARINA PROJECT (Term of Agreement: from March 1, 2004 to August 1, 2006, for an amount not to exceed $376,597.00) 4. Resolution Approving Agreement for Professional RESOLUTION NO. 11867- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Services with RBF Consulting to Prepare an INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO Environmental Impact Report for Phase II of the EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR San Rafael Corporate Center Project (HINES) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH (CD) – File 4-3-445 x (SRRA) R-140 x R-465 x RBF CONSULTING FOR R-405 x R-368 ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAN RAFAEL CORPORATE CENTER PROJECT (HINES) (Term of Agreement: from December 1, 2005 to December 1, 2006, for an amount not to exceed $173,280.00) SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 2 5. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter RESOLUTION NO. 11868 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN into a Professional Services Agreement with AGREEMENT WITH CSG CSG Consulting, Inc. for Building Permit Plan CONSULTING, INC. TO PERFORM Review Services (CD) – File 4-3-446 x 9-3-85 PLAN REVIEW SERVICES FOR BUILDING PERMITS (Term: One (1) year commencing on January 1, 2006 and ending on January 1, 2007. Upon mutual agreement of both parties, and subject to approval of City Manager, may be extended one (1) additional year) 7. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to RESOLUTION NO. 11869 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Execute a Budget Amendment to the Agreement INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO for Professional Planning Services with Paul EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO Jensen for Assistance as Project Planner for THE AGREEMENT FOR “The Village at Loch Lomond Marina” Project, PROFESSIONAL PLANNING Increasing the Budget by $40,375.00 to a Total of SERVICES WITH PAUL A. JENSEN $80,750.00 (CD) – File 4-3-370 x 9-3-85 x 10-2 FOR SERVICES AS PROJECT PLANNER FOR “THE VILLAGE AT LOCH LOMOND MARINA” PROJECT, INCREASING THE BUDGET FOR SERVICES (Original Agreement Term: March 22, 2005 through March 21, 2007, with an amended budget not to exceed $80,750.00) 8. Monthly Investment Report For Month Ending Accepted Monthly Investment Report for month ending November 2005, as November, 2005 (MS) – File 8-18 x 8-9 presented. 9. Acceptance of the Annual Report Including a Accepted reports. Blight Progress and Agency Owned Property Reports from the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency (RA) – File 8-18 x 8-9 x (SRRA) R-62 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion at the request of Mr. Roger Roberts: 6. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH LSA ASSOCIATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE “LINCOLN/MISSION RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT” (1203-1211 LINCOLN AVENUE), FOR A TOTAL BUDGET OF $98,297.00 (CD) – FILE 4-3-447 x 10-5 x 10-6 x 10-7 Roger Roberts stated that this was the first opportunity the public would have to address the scope of work associated with this project, which was the reason for requesting that the item be removed from the Consent Calendar. Mr. Roberts inquired whether the City Council and staff had received an electronic message today from Tymber Cavasian – Mayor Boro confirmed it had been received. Referring to page 5 of the LSA Scope of Work document – Population and Housing, Mr. Roberts stated the first sentence indicated that there would be a displacement of residents from five occupied residential units. While it was true that currently, only five of the 24 units were occupied, and it was also true that CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) typically called for a snapshot at the time a Notice of Preparation is issued for the drafting of an EIR (Environmental Impact Report); however, since in this case the City made an error in not having an EIR issued in the first instance, he believed the baseline should go back to the time of the application and the time of the Negative Declaration. Mr. Roberts indicated that at that point in time, seventeen to nineteen of those units were occupied; therefore, the impact on the residents is greater using that baseline rather than the alternative based on current occupancy. He requested that this be evaluated, backdating the baseline for analysis of the impact on residents and the socio economic impacts in the community. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 3 Referring to page 7 of the LSA Scope of Work document – Task K– Mr. Roberts stated that the phraseology of the Alternatives ended with the statement that “LSA will not prepare a comprehensive analysis of alternatives specific to this project.” He indicated that they believed this flies in the face of the requirements of CEQA. He realized that staff would like to have a focus study; however, in this particular case there ought to be at least three alternatives analyzed, which he outlined as follows: 1) There should be a “No Project” alternative analyzed, meaning just taking the project site as it stands and analyzing it as it stands as if no project was going forward. Mr. Roberts stated this was a normal procedure under CEQA for all EIRs. 2) The second alternative should include incorporating rehabilitation of the existing historic structures, since a major issue in this case is the fact that the buildings are on the City’s historic list of historic buildings and structures. Mr. Roberts stated it should be analyzed as to an alternative in the simple rehabilitation and bringing up to code of the existing buildings and what this would mean for the City, the community at large and the developer. 3) Mr. Roberts stated that the third alternative which should be analyzed and which they requested be included in the Scope of Work was one which would accomplish three things:  Preserve and rehabilitate some significant portion, at least, of the existing buildings and structures so that their historic character would be integrated into the site and into the design of the proposed project and would carry the thread of the history of those buildings and that site into the future.  Since this site had provided housing since 1979 for people of below, moderate or middle income levels and was a resource for lower income people to locate an efficiency apartment and live in the community, Mr. Roberts stated they believed the project should also include in the third alternative a greater proportion of affordable units than provided in the proposed plan.  Mr. Roberts believed it important that there be a second entrance on Mission Avenue to deal with the traffic problem - another major issue associated with this project - together with the circulation in the neighborhood, and would, in fact, help relieve potential congestion from turning movements associated with an intersection already at Level of Service E – corner of Mission and Lincoln. Mr. Roberts stated they believed a third alternative with these three objectives incorporated deserved analysis as an Alternative, and a fair and complete decision could not be made without looking at that alternative as well as the other two. He therefore requested that the contract be amended to incorporate these three alternatives. Mr. Roberts indicated that Nina Lilienthal-Murphy would also like to address this particular contract this evening. Nina Lilienthal-Murphy, President and Co-Founder of the Lincoln/San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association, stated she had lived on San Rafael Hill for 26 years. She indicated she would address some points of interest for consideration prior to carrying out an EIR for the 1203-1211 Lincoln Avenue proposal. Since there had not been a scoping session, some points were not addressed. Ms. Murphy stated she would discuss Traffic Circulation, Second Parking entrance and exit, Parking, to include service vehicle parking, Low-income Housing and finally, exploring project alternatives. She indicated she would also touch on six points of failure to comply with General Plan 2020. Providing some history of the Lincoln/Mission Intersection, now at Level E, Ms. Murphy reported that this was the third busiest intersection in all of San Rafael with approximately 30,000 cars going through on a daily basis. With all the upcoming development in the neighborhood – approximately ten to twelve projects currently, and an increase of well over 100 additional cars, they would like to have all proposed projects taken into consideration in traffic counts. Ms. Murphy indicated that this would include the conversion of the Villa Inn, with 52 condominiums, conversion of the Colonial Motel, ongoing projects such as 1515 Lincoln Mews, Cotton property at the north end, the Elks Development and others. Referencing a point made by Mr. Roberts, Ms. Murphy stated that when the 1203 Lincoln Avenue property was purchased, nineteen units were occupied. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 4 Regarding Traffic Circulation, Ms. Murphy stated that circling around the block to enter a building was not acceptable. She also noted the impact on surrounding neighborhoods and streets, currently at full parking capacity, filled with cars throughout the day and night. Noting many children and seniors resided in this area, Ms. Murphy stated that with the increase in cars to the neighboring streets, it would become much more unsafe than presently. She reported that currently, as seen in San Rafael police reports, Mission and Nye was one of the worst pedestrian crosswalks and intersections in town. Having to circle around the block to enter into an apartment was not acceptable to anyone. To proceed with this plan, Ms. Murphy stated that two entrances would be needed – one each on Lincoln and Mission Avenues – mainly for safety purposes. She indicated that this would also ease traffic and not impact the surrounding neighborhoods, which was a very big point in her neighborhood. Ms. Murphy stated that Service Vehicle Parking was also a must, possibly at the entrance of one of the driveways; a pullout was suggested but not looked at by the developer. Garbage needed to be collected, mail, UPS and FedEx delivered and she questioned where the builders and demolition crews would park their cars without interrupting any other traffic. She noted that 30,000 cars go through this intersection daily. Ms. Murphy noted the need for an extended T at both entrances of the driveway to direct traffic into the lot and deter motorists from crossing the double yellow lines. Regarding Parking, Ms. Murphy stated that the LSA report - Scope Study - indicated that parking was on ground level; however, as it stood, it was subterranean parking. She indicated General Plan 2020 stated that in almost all neighborhood plans underground parking needed to be encouraged in every new development, and this site especially needed to do this. She stated that the overall massiveness of this building made it an eyesore. Ms. Murphy stated that should this be financially infeasible, as indicated by the developer, she would like them to prove this was so, otherwise underground parking was truly needed, especially on one of the most visible corners in all of San Rafael. Regarding the proposal for 52 parking spaces for residents in the proposed building of 36 condominiums, she stated that while this may meet City requirements, having the building surrounded by “red zones” – meaning no parking – made it unrealistic, as in reality approximately 70 parking spaces were needed, together with guest parking spaces. She noted this was another reason to have underground parking. Indicating that Alternatives needed to be explored, Ms. Murphy stated that since both of these buildings were of historical value to the City, restoring rather than replacing them needed to be looked at. She indicated that the 1211 Lincoln was a 1907 building that showed what workforce housing was at that time. The Motor Court Hotel was a first in San Rafael, which could never be replaced, not even with photographs. Ms. Murphy stated that the Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association would prefer a No Project alternative, or at minimum, a reduction to the existing plans and change of design and character in keeping with the Motor Court Hotel and home that blended with their neighborhood. She indicated that the proposed building did not blend into the character of their neighborhood which was imperative according to General Plan 2020, which states: “Incorporate a smooth transition.” She stated that the building, as is, did not belong in their neighborhood nor did it belong in San Rafael, and indicated that the design was taken off the mission roof tiles of the gas station across the street. Ms. Murphy noted that alternatives needed to be explored, keeping a neighborhood character feel. She stated that currently, it was massive and lacking in design, with which residents from all over the City concurred. Regarding Low Income Housing, Ms. Murphy stated that prior to the purchase of these buildings there were 24 affordable units in a low income house. With the purchase, rents had increased from $1,150 to $1,600 monthly, compared to the luxurious condominiums at 820 Mission which rent for $1,500 monthly. From information received from tenants who previously lived there, she reported that tenants at 1203 Lincoln were forced out with just five remaining. Ms. Murphy stated that those who had left moved to areas such as Richmond, Vallejo and Santa Rosa, now having to commute to their jobs in San Rafael or Marin County. She indicated that in the Motor Court there were 23 Hispanic families and one African American wheelchair bound gentleman in need of Section 8 housing, and she commented that this was Gentrification at its finest. Ms. Murphy stated that at the first Design Review Board meeting in January 2005 she requested help from the developer to assist in relocating these tenants and the consultant indicated they would be happy to; however, to date, no help had been forthcoming. She questioned what low income housing was in San Rafael and who truly could say what worked, noting the proposal had only three affordable units - a loss of 25. Being a diverse neighborhood, Ms. Murphy stated they thrived on diversity and were proud of it; however, the condominium conversion would remove diversity from their neighborhood and also much needed low-income housing. Ms. Murphy stated that this proposed project provided nothing for their neighborhood or the City SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 5 of San Rafael. The design was massive, out of character, lost 25 low-income units, impacted surrounding areas, made the Lincoln/Mission intersection a complete mess and would impede on the safety and quality of life of residents. The Lincoln-San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association hoped the City Council would look seriously at an alternative plan. Should the existing plan be proceeded with, they would encourage the addition of a Mission Avenue entrance and exit. Ms. Murphy referred the City Council to General Plan 2020 and all the exclusions this project ignored: 1) Underground parking; 2) Promote upgrading of run-down buildings. If the building was in such dire need of repair, she questioned why it was not red tagged back in 1979; 3) No loss of affordable housing; 4) Redesign to the character of the neighborhood; 5) Allow for improvements for the next twenty years; and 6) Encourage new developments to reduce building mass and height. She noted that this proposal ignored all of them. Ms. Murphy encouraged the City Council to study all the above issues. Judith Allen, Mission Avenue, stated she supported Ms. Murphy’s statements. In addition, she wished to emphasize the need for study of a parking area for service vehicles. Realizing Councilmembers were very busy, Ms. Allen requested that each take 20-30 minutes in the middle of a workday and walk the four blocks from the corner of Mission and Lincoln, to Nye, Laurel and back to Lincoln, observe the neighborhood itself and the quality and character of the houses, to see whether this massive five-story building would be a good addition to the City of San Rafael. Ms. Allen reported the developers had repeatedly stated that everything they proposed was legal; however, this did not mean it had to be done. Bill Meeker, Principal Planner, stated that the item before Council was simply a contract for preparation of the EIR. A lot of the comments this evening related to the merits of the project, which was something that would occur at the appeal hearing later in the process. Noting the proposed EIR consultant was present and had heard the comments made this evening, he indicated that she could anticipate through the drafting of the document what some of the concerns would be. He repeated that the comments made this evening, both in writing and verbally, would be considered by the consultant, similar to comments made during a scoping hearing on an EIR and would be taken into account during the drafting of that document. Mr. Meeker stated that the EIR once drafted would be released for public review and comment. There would be an opportunity at that time to make revisions and the consultant and City would be required to respond to any comments received during the public review period. Mr. Meeker stated that the scope proposed by the consultant, attached to the staff report, was somewhat broader than was even required for a project of this type, given that the City adopted General Plan 2020 just a year ago and certified the EIR for that document at the same time. He indicated that under those circumstances, CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) provides for any projects consistent with the policies of the adopted General Plan to allow much of the environmental evaluation to occur under the auspices of that General Plan EIR. When additional work is required to be done it is in those instances where there are peculiar impacts that are attributable to a particular project that require further evaluation and this is what the scope of the EIR contract includes. Noting one exception, Mr. Meeker explained this dealt with Population and Housing. He stated it was staff’s opinion that that element of the scope was unnecessary as it had been fully addressed in the General Plan EIR and there was no necessity to re-address the issue as part of a project EIR for a project that is proposed consistent with the adopted General Plan. Mr. Meeker recommended that the City Council authorize execution of the agreement with the exception that they authorize the elimination of the Population and Housing element of the scope of services before that contract is executed. Concurring with Mr. Meeker, City Attorney Ragghianti stated it was important for the City Council to keep in mind that this merely was the request for authorization to enter into a contract with the consultant. He confirmed it was he who refused to recommend the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration in this case and he who required the preparation of an EIR, with which the applicant’s attorney agreed. While there was no question that one needed to be done, Mr. Ragghianti believed it very important to spread upon the record the fact that this EIR SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 6 was being performed under the auspices and the applicable provisions of Public Resource Code §21083.3, which contained a partial exemption for “projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning and/or General Plan policies for which an EIR has already been certified.” He indicated that this project was consistent and it was true it did not need to be approved as requested. Indicating that the only issues that required to be focused on were impacts peculiar to the parcel, Mr. Ragghianti believed traffic clearly was important and peculiar to the parcel as were the cultural and historical resources issues discussed, together with all of the other matters contained in the scope, except Population and Housing. Mr. Ragghianti explained that the City’s Housing Element and EIR took into account the Housing Element and analyzed the impacts of that element as well as the City’s current population trends and need for affordable housing. The City had implemented policies and procedures to promote such housing as required by state law. He noted the City’s recently released annual report to HCD, which everyone appeared to be interested in, analyzed the progress made in implementing these goals. He reported having indicated to the CDD (Community Development Director) and was repeating now, that he did not want, nor did he recommend that the wheel be re-invented in connection with this EIR. The purpose of it (for $100,000) was to focus in connection with those aspects peculiar to the project. Mr. Ragghianti stated that Population and Housing had been done for a project consistent with this application. It was legally unnecessary, redundant, and he had made a very strong recommendation as far back as November and as recently as th December 16, so he concurred wholeheartedly with Mr. Meeker’s remarks and respectfully requested it be deleted. Mayor Boro noted the question of the second entrance had arisen on several occasions and was specifically addressed by the City Council, and he assumed this would be part of the traffic analysis. Mr. Ragghianti concurred. Councilmember Heller noted that Mr. Roberts addressed alternatives and she inquired whether these would be in the EIR. Mr. Meeker stated that the City was granted certain exemptions through CEQA from performing the alternatives analysis based upon just the peculiar impacts of this project, and this was the focus. Mr. Ragghianti stated it was staff’s determination as to whether they wanted project alternatives analyzed. Public Resource Code §21083.3, which is the Section being used to focus the EIR, states nothing about project alternatives. Indicating they may or may not be included, he believed this was a staff determination to be made with the consultant. Regarding Circulation, Councilmember Cohen, referring to Task I – 3. Traffic and Circulation, noted it referenced determining trip distribution and safety and operational impacts, and stated he wanted to be clear that the EIR in its study of the Traffic and Circulation fully analyzed the impacts of those two alternate designs in all of their aspects, not just trip distribution, rather in looking at the impact on the neighborhood to fairly analyze the difference between the two designs. ias Mr. Meeker stated it was his understanding that it would and Ms. D, LSA Associates, could state her concurrence with this. Ms. Lynette Dias, LSA Associates, referred Council to the second to last bullet on page 5 – Evaluate access to the site based on alternative designs. Councilmember Cohen confirmed that this analysis would be done for all of the bullet points, i.e., evaluate both alternatives to fairly compare them. Councilmember Cohen stated it appeared that much of tonight’s comments went to the merits of the project. He personally believed some valid issues were raised that needed discussion and he assumed there would be an opportunity to do that, whether or not they were dealt with in the scope of the EIR. He confirmed with Mr. Ragghianti that there would be an opportunity to review the project on its merits and it was not necessary to do this in the context of the contract for the EIR this evening. Councilmember Phillips indicated he was trying to decide whether or not it would be appropriate to evaluate the three points presented by Mr. Roberts. He inquired whether in this context the City Council would be better prepared to make a decision with regard to the overall project if these three alternatives were looked at as a result of this report. Mr. Meeker indicated that staff would need to evaluate this. He believed that once the information was prepared based upon the project itself, this could open the door through the review of the draft EIR to further analysis of other alternatives should it be determined that the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 7 project impacts were such that there could be additional merits in evaluating those impacts. He stated that at this time, staff did not propose this as part of the analysis; however, this was not to say it was precluded at some point in the future. Councilmember Phillips noted the City Council would be charged with making the decision on a), b), c) or the fourth alternative the project proposed and he questioned whether they would be better prepared to make that decision if those points were included in the report. Ms. Dias stated that the current scope proposed pretty minimal effort for alternatives and assumed that heavy reliance would be placed upon alternatives considered in the City’s General Plan EIR. However, she believed that based on comments this evening, she would recommend considering alternatives that were peculiar to this project site, such as the historic resources. In going through the process of the analysis, she indicated she would work with the City Attorney to determine what would be appropriate, which would probably be more than what was included in the scope at this point in time. Councilmember Phillips stated he was concerned that sight might be lost of the fact that these were considerations and having done all of the work it would be difficult for LSA to return and state “Well, you should have included it, it was talked about, but it was outside the scope of the project for $100,000.” Ms. Dias stated there would be some flexibility if the City Council approved the current budget amount with the Population and Housing section eliminated. She indicated that there was some time for alternatives and in a lot of cases things balanced out by taking a little from one area and giving a little to another. She stated that provided alternatives did not become really complicated, it was likely they could cover them within the proposed scope of work. She indicated she might ask the Council to consider including a 5% or 10% contingency which could be authorized by staff should additional time be needed to address those issues. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether Ms. Dias concluded that for a further $10,000 they could take these three possibilities into consideration as part of their report. Ms. Dias stated they could do so should this be Council’s desire. Stating it appeared strange to construct the agreement in this way, Councilmember Phillips suggested that should the contract be brought back with reference to these points and the cost adjusted to reflect this, he would be more comfortable. Being new to the City of San Rafael, Ms. Dias stated it was her understanding that the City Council was authorizing the Community Development Director to finalize the contract. They could insert these specific issues and return to Council; however, this would incur additional time. Councilmember Phillips stated that in his view this was a major project. These issues would appropriately be raised; therefore, he suggested raising them up front rather than regretting not having done so after the fact. Mayor Boro stated it was his understanding the City Attorney had indicated that under the provision of CEQA where this was being pursued, it was not necessary to do this. He noted the comment this evening that this was the first opportunity at a scoping session, and he clarified that this was not a scoping session. Concurring that this was not a scoping session, Mr. Ragghianti reiterated that the section mentioned previously does not require an analysis of project alternatives. Noting Councilmember Phillips’ question as to whether with it the City would be in a better position to adequately analyze the project, Mr. Ragghianti stated he did not believe so. He believed the project would not go up or down on the basis of whether there was a No Project alternative that was set forth in the EIR. Traffic, historic and cultural resources, parking and visual mass, etc., were the types of things that would drive the project to wherever it went; therefore, he suggested that the answer to Councilmember Phillips’ question was “No.” He did not think it necessary that they be included in order to have a legally sufficient environmental document with which to review and pass upon the merits of this project. Councilmember Phillips stated he understood the references to legal consideration; however, he was going beyond legal consideration in trying to sort out in his own mind whether or not this was the appropriate media to gather additional input with regard to the alternatives presented as he believed the alternatives presented had merit. Should this not be the forum, that was fine; however, should it be part of that forum, he suggested expanding the contract to address this. Mr. Ragghianti stated this was the forum. He referred to Task K – page 7 – setting forth what the project consultant proposed - and stated this could be embellished upon. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 8 Regarding the suggested incremental cost, (which perhaps later would be found not to be quite in that range), Councilmember Phillips suggested that from his standpoint it would merit that additional expenditure. Ms. Dias confirmed this cost would be less than $10,000. In that case, Councilmember Phillips stated he was all the more adamant that it would be appropriate to obtain the input. Councilmember Cohen stated he believed there were policy decisions to be made on the issue of Circulation and in terms of the merits of the project, the issues of Historic Preservation and what type of affordable housing the City was seeking to pursue. He was unsure whether an EIR study of those would help him achieve any policy clarity, rather it was a decision the City Council would have to arrive at. As the opponents of the project had found, he believed there were arguments in the General Plan to oppose the project, together with arguments to support moving forward, and the City Council would have to make a policy decision. Councilmember Cohen was also unsure whether the EIR would introduce factual evidence based on alternatives that would make that policy decision any easier; however, he did not believe it would do any damage to the discussion. Indicating he was interested in moving forward this evening he stated he had no problem supporting an alternatives analysis, particularly given the fact that a piece was being removed, and he favored this being defined to include No Project and Historic Preservation Alternatives. Regarding Mr. Roberts’ third point, Councilmember Cohen stated he was unsure that with an EIR when looking at alternatives it was possible to define and study a project “you would have built had you been the property owner.” He indicated that generally, a range of alternatives was evaluated - No Project, emphasis on Historic Preservation and perhaps, a third looking at the impact of building to the absolute maximum allowable density - so there was a range within which the project could be placed. While this could make sense, Councilmember Phillips stated it could possibly further confuse the matter and become further quagmired by considerations. He was struck by the City Attorney’s earlier point that made reference to this being the right place for these considerations. Councilmember Cohen stated the answer given was, “Was this the right place to discuss the scope of the EIR” and he did not believe this was Councilmember Phillips’ question, rather his question was whether the EIR was the right place to chew on these questions about what was appropriate in this project. Councilmember Phillips stated his basic underlying position was whether he as a decision- maker would be in a better position to get some input on these points, particularly considering the cost ($5,000) and he would be interested in the response in this context. In terms of alternatives, Councilmember Cohen inquired what specifically Councilmember Phillips would like this to study. Councilmember Phillips suggested that perhaps there could be more than the three presented and he, therefore, wondered whether the City was in the right place with regard to the . expansion of the consideration under the alternatives casque Mr. Ragghianti explained that this contract has a specific section dealing with alternatives. Should there be a desire to expand it and that content was available, it could be done this evening; however, he did not believe it was helpful to debate what it should contain when the professionals had not had a chance to discuss how it might help. He indicated he remained firm in his previous statements that he did not believe the inclusion of a No Project alternative would make any difference substantively in Council’s ability to determine what they considered to be in the best interests of the City when the time came to vote on the project merits. Mr. Ragghianti suggested that should the sense of the Council be to have the three alternatives articulated by Mr. Roberts examined, it should not be done in public, rather allow staff to talk to the consultant and return. On the other hand, should Councilmembers believe they could make the right determination, he emphasized that the purpose of the environmental document was simply to produce information. Elaborating, he stated that all it does is produce a universe of information, the purpose of which is to permit the decision-makers to be better informed about what it is this project would do should it be built. Mr. Ragghianti stated his feeling remained the same that it was unnecessary to do this. Councilmember Heller stated she concurred with Councilmember Cohen. On the alternatives, she noted that LSA would include a discussion of alternatives based on the General Plan EIR; SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 9 however, they were not planning to provide a comprehensive analysis of the alternatives specific to this project. She indicated she would be happy with this. Councilmember Miller stated he agreed with Mr. Ragghianti in terms of the No Project as he did not believe it would add any information that would sway the project. With regard to Mr. Roberts’ third suggestion, Councilmember Miller stated that to rehabilitate the building to bring it up to code could be a valuable piece of information. Explaining, he stated that looking at an alternative in terms of rehabilitation could provide a lot of information. Relative to the rehabilitation, Ms. Dias stated it appeared that Council’s interest would be with regard to the financial feasibility of rehabilitating the project. With regard to traffic conditions, she stated the City had a good understanding of what those were; however, there would be good information on both occupied and non-occupied in the EIR. She believed it important to consider in the alternatives analysis, should this be Council’s direction, the type of analysis required, both related to the rehabilitation and affordable housing issues, which were economic issues that were the focus of a CEQA analysis. She explained that CEQA focuses on the physical environmental affects of a project. Should LSA go forward without the City making any further changes to the contract as proposed this evening, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether the EIR would include an analysis of the impacts of this project, the existing 25 units and the house next door, in terms of circulation and other environmental impacts as though all the units were fully occupied. Ms. Dias stated this was something they could do. Councilmember Cohen stated this was an alternative that could be helpful. He noted this was one of the issues brought up by the neighborhood, and he considered it valid, i.e., to know the impact on circulation of having all twenty-five units occupied, versus the project as proposed. Mayor Boro noted that rehabilitating all twenty-five units to current status was almost a No Project and he inquired how twenty-five affordable units could be created on that site. Councilmember Cohen suggested that the 25 units could be red tagged, informing the owner of the necessity of bringing them up to code. He stated that the impact of the five occupied units downplayed the impact of the project as it exists if it were fully occupied. He understood the financial considerations were a separate issue. Comparing circulation impacts on five units versus thirty-five units was one issue; however, comparing the impacts of twenty-six units versus thirty-five, which would be the situation with full occupancy of the project that exists currently, that difference would be smaller and he believed this to be valuable information in analyzing the circulation impact. Councilmember Cohen noted that in the past when all the units were rented there was a parking and circulation impact and he believed an EIR could determine the impact if the units were brought up to code and rented out. He believed this was an alternative the EIR could study that would provide some useful information for the City and neighborhood. Councilmember Cohen confirmed for Councilmember Heller that he was not requesting a financial study, rather circulation, pedestrian impact, etc., as though the existing twenty-five apartments were fully occupied. Councilmember Phillips stated this could be the outcome. Should this project not move forward, more than likely those units would be rehabilitated, and not at $1,600, as the market would drop down. Mayor Boro clarified that Councilmember Cohen was discussing analyzing the traffic impact with twenty-five occupied units and the additional impact of further units as proposed. He believed the question of not getting approval and, therefore, rehabilitating the units, was another issue. Councilmember Phillips stated that one of the possible consequences of the project not being developed was that the owner would rehabilitate the units and they all would become occupied as a result. He clarified that he was intending to articulate the same thing. Mayor Boro stated he would not jump to that conclusion. Councilmember Heller stated this simply was a financial assumption that the City Council could make a judgment on. Mayor Boro concurred with the City Attorney’s original position that the City was following CEQA under a specific code and the need for this was not necessary to certify the EIR. The issues presented could be looked at as alternatives – look at the merit without going through the EIR. Should the Council chose to add to this section, the Planning staff, City Attorney and SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 10 consultants should not only have the opportunity to analyze what they heard and make a recommendation, but add anything further they wished to raise, and bring the item back to a future meeting. Councilmember Cohen suggested that the issue before Council could be approved tonight with the modifications recommended by staff on the broader housing study. Council could also request that staff and the consultant work on an addendum to the contract for an alternative study to be added to the scope of work. He explained this would allow the issue to move forward and look at an alternative study without having to try to do it on the fly tonight. Mayor Boro concurred with this suggestion. Ms. Dias recommended that the City Council direct this be done following the close of the notice of preparation period – 30 days – because other written comments could be received that would affect the scope of the document. Confirming this was to wait to allow the consultant time to incorporate other comments that could be received, Councilmember Cohen stated he would make that motion. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the scope of work as provided, excluding the reference to Population and Housing, with the understanding that an addendum would be returned to the City Council, with potential review of alternatives under Section K to be taken separately. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 11870 – RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LINCOLN AND MISSION RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (Term of Agreement: from December 20, 2005 to December 19, 2006, for an amount not to exceed $98,297.00) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 10. PUBLIC HEARING RE: MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (MS) – FILE 9-10-2 x 9-3-20 a) CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.34 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPARISON SYSTEM BY REVISING SECTION 3.34.040 b) RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS AND FOR LICENSING AND SERVICES BY THE ANIMAL SERVICES AGENCY, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 11670 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Cindy Mosser, Finance Manager, reported that the City Council’s consideration of this ordinance would amend Chapter 3.34 of the San Rafael Municipal Code which establishes a fee and charge for service. The resolution would establish a new Master Fee Schedule for services provided by the various City departments. Ms. Mosser stated that for this public hearing, notices were issued for the adoption of a proposed resolution establishing a new schedule of parking penalties and late penalties for notices of parking violations, and for the adoption of a proposed resolution establishing a new schedule of fines for administrative citations. She indicated that no changes were being proposed to the two existing resolutions, so these had been withdrawn. Providing background, Ms. Mosser reported that in late 1996, the City Council commissioned a study to identify the full cost of services provided to the community. In September 1997, the City Council approved an ordinance establishing percentages of cost recovery for over 150 municipal services. Two thorough updates were made to the Business Cost Study since that time – one in 1999 and the other in 2003. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 11 Ms. Mosser explained that the adoption of the November 2003 resolution allowed the City to index fees based upon local consumer price indices for two successive one-year periods. She indicated that this was the second year of indexing the fees based upon the local consumer price indices. Items noted with a number (#) sign in table 1 reflected a CPI adjustment of 2.2% rounded down to the nearest whole dollar. Exhibits A through J also represented fees for City services. Addressing several key changes, noted on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report, which could be above the 2.2%, Ms. Mosser explained: Police Services – Concealed weapon application and renewal fees have been raised to the new state limits of $100 and $125 respectively. Building Services – Building permits are undergoing the first major adjustment since 1991. Staff proposed an increase in building permits to the amount in Exhibit A, with a proposed reduction of plan check fees to 65% of the building permit fee. This action would result in approximately a 12% increase in fees, needed to maintain higher levels of inspection services implemented this year. Attached also was an addendum, prepared by Thomas Ahrens, Chief Building Official, which was a survey of building permits charged by other jurisdictions, and which indicated that San Rafael was much lower than other jurisdictions. General Plan maintenance and long range planning surcharges were also tied to building permit fees and these surcharges would be reduced to maintain the same level of cost recovery. Mechanical and electrical permit fees had been increased to align them to recover costs – Exhibits B and C. Plumbing fees were reduced to align them to recover costs – Exhibit C. Community Services - An increase in fees was proposed for Falkirk rentals to help recover the cost for the increase in utility and maintenance charges. – Exhibit G. Pool season passes had also been increased to assist in recovery of the high chemical costs and other high utility costs. An increase in the reservation deposit for the San Rafael Community Center was also proposed, in an effort to discourage cancellations. Planning Services – “Design Review – Fence” and “Design Review – Over the Counter” were combined into one fee since they required the same level of review. A fee for “Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled” had also been added. General Services – Microfilming fees were adjusted to mirror the actual cost of microfilming. Ms. Mosser reported little change to the proposed ordinance, and should there be limitations to the recovery costs like state laws, these were noted in the footnotes. Ms. Mosser indicated staff estimated that the changes to the proposed fees would increase total revenues between $110,000 and $120,000 per year. Indicating that staff had met with the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce last week and presented the proposed fees, Ms. Mosser stated that a letter from the Chamber was attached as an addendum to the staff report and it was staff’s intention to respond to their concerns. Ms. Mosser reported that the report was generated with the assistance of all departments, and especially with the help of Andrew Thompson, Revenue Supervisor. With regard to “Reasonable Accommodation for the Disabled”, Councilmember Heller invited Ms. Mosser to expand on this somewhat. Ms. Mosser stated she would procure this information from Planning and provide it to Councilmember Heller. Mayor Boro reported observing recently that San Rafael was the lowest provider of sewer connection fees in the County and even with the increases, remained the lowest provider, and he inquired why Belvedere received $15,000 as against San Rafael’s $6,000. Thomas Ahrens explained that the type of construction in Belvedere was high-end residential, with no track work or easily defined construction element; therefore, it required a higher level of review and field inspection. He noted this was probably an interim increase being requested and San Rafael was still well below the median in the County. There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Cohen stated he was pretty amazed to receive the letter today and in some sense he was disappointed that no one from the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce chose to attend to back the letter up. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 12 Should staff intend to respond to this letter, Councilmember Cohen offered the following suggestions:  Regarding the exorbitant cost of housing, the total fees, based on an $800,000 building permit, were less than 1%. This appeared to be a market issue, and the other 99% cost drivers, not the City’s need to recover its cost of business, could be discussed.  The Chamber was concerned that increased taxes and fees made it more difficult for people to locate to San Rafael. Councilmember Cohen stated that an equal impact would be the City being unable to deliver the high quality of service currently being delivered, which could not be done without the money with which to function.  New services were not being added, which was clear from the excellent staff report, rather the City was trying to recover the cost of providing the services currently being provided. Councilmember Cohen stated that staff had given answers to most of the questions raised in the Chamber’s fourth point, except for the last. Indicating he personally was offended, Councilmember Cohen stated that given the City had not raised these fees since 1991, that the Chamber of Commerce would somehow suggest this would be used as an excuse to “laze around all day long” because such volumes of cash were coming in the door for the plan check, probably did not even merit a response. The title of the Ordinance was read: “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.34 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPARISON SYSTEM BY REVISING SECTION 3.34.040” Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to dispense with the Charter Ordinance reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass No. 1839 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Cohen moved and Concilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11871 – RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS AND FOR LICENSING AND SERVICES BY THE ANIMAL SERVICES AGENCY, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 11670 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 11. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNING COORDINATOR POSITION (CM) – FILE 13-11 x 7-4 x 9-3-31 Ken Nordhoff, Interim City Manager, stated that one of the City’s primary responsibilities in Local Government service was protecting property and life and this was done by allocating a great portion of the budget into Police and Fire functions, and he considered disaster readiness, emergency preparedness to be an essential service. He believed the City needed to move to the next level and it was necessary to have a person in place that was living, breathing, eating and sleeping disaster readiness with regard to preparing and training staff, having the EOC functioning properly, having all plan documents in place; this would become really important with the occurrence of an event and it was necessary to recover, or work through FEMA, to maximize the money to be recovered. Explaining why he felt very strongly that the City should have this Emergency Services Planning Coordinator position in place, Mr. Nordhoff stated that as part of this process he wanted to work to establishing very quickly an in-house committee with some objectives as laid out in the report. He indicated he would like Council to act on this, noting the budget amendments to make that happen. Mr. Nordhoff stated that this person would report out of his office; however, would have a lot of day to day oversight with the Fire Chief, and they had expertise to do that. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 13 Councilmember Heller inquired whether this position would take a long time to fill. Mr. Nordhoff stated he did not believe it would. The job specification was part of tonight’s packet, he would be working with Interim Human Resources Manager, Adela Gonzales, and they would commence the recruitment process quickly. He was hopeful that in 60 – 90 days he would be in a position to introduce this new person to the City Council. Regarding fiscal impact, Councilmember Heller inquired whether there were grants available. Mr. Nordhoff stated there were a lot of grants, most of which were geared towards capital and equipment issues. This person would be tasked with doing some of that work, and an intern currently working in the Fire Department had identified a number of these. He indicated that part of getting a lot of that grant money involved the City doing some additional hazardous mitigation planning which currently is not in place, and with this document in place the City would be eligible for a further series of money. While he was aware work needed to be done, he believed grants were certainly a place to go. Councilmember Phillips inquired as to how many other cities had someone in this capacity and exclusively devoted to this activity. Mr. Nordhoff stated that most cities of similar size and complexity to San Rafael had someone doing this regularly. It might not be identified by this position or title, or placed in the City Manager’s office, noting that a lot of times it was handled out of the Fire Department, i.e., Division Chief, Battalion Chief, etc. Staff looked at other communities when generating the Job Description and it was found to be common in the state to have someone in-house dedicated to doing this. Mr. Nordhoff confirmed for Councilmember Phillips this was not necessarily one hundred percent of their time but certainly a good portion thereof, and it was felt that San Rafael needed someone more aligned with business hours for interaction purposes. He noted it was difficult working with Fire staff because of the nature of their work and their other responsibilities. Councilmember Phillips stated he wanted to ensure it was necessary. He indicated he was struck by Mr. Nordhoff’s comment “in context” - the Transactions and Use Tax Measure had just been passed and additional things could be done which had not yet been addressed. Whether or not Measure S had passed, Mr. Nordhoff stated this item would still have been on this evening’s agenda and he would still be recommending the City Council take this action even if it meant making additional choices to determine where the additional cost could be absorbed. He emphasized this was how strongly he felt about the issue. Councilmember Phillips suggested that Mr. Nordhoff’s reference to “in context with other considerations” really did not apply. He noted the remark that another approach might be to wait until all the other demands on funds were evaluated and decide in context how those were to be allocated, and this could be one of those items. Mr. Nordhoff stated he was suggesting one way to approach this was to wait several months and in working through the staff process, bring back some budget options where Measure S would be providing some additional monies that Council could choose how to utilize. However, he believed very strongly that this should be done now, employ someone as soon as possible and improve the City’s readiness situation. This was not to take away from what had already been done, rather the necessity to be in a better place as there was a lot of work to do. Councilmember Phillips confirmed that some employees were currently addressing the issue at least in part and would be attending to other issues as a result of this new position. Regarding the $129,000 salary, Mayor Boro inquired where this put this person in the hierarchy as far as Department Heads. Mr. Nordhoff confirmed that it was a mid-management position and at the very low end of the salary scale in terms of management positions. He also confirmed for Mayor Boro that this was a full compensation figure. Responding to Mayor Boro’s question as to whether or not this low salaried position would attract applicants, Mr. Nordhoff explained that Fire Chief Montenero and Interim Human Resources Manager Adela Gonzales spent time evaluating other positions and what they were paying. This was right in that range, was very consistent with other communities, and staff was confident that a suitable applicant would be found. Mayor Boro stated he appreciated Councilmember Phillips’ question as he had posed the same question to Mr. Nordhoff recently. Mr. Nordhoff and he both felt the City was potentially very vulnerable in this area and the sooner the issue could be addressed, the better. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 14 Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11872 – RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EMERGENCY SERVICES PLANNING COORDINATOR POSITION AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (CC) – FILE 9-1 x 9-3-14 Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to accept the report, with the following substitutions: Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Ken Nordhoff Joint Powers Authority Board & Executive Committee Barbara Heller (Alt.) Marin Emergency Radio Authority (MERA) Ken Nordhoff Lydia Romero (Alt.) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None By decree, Mayor Boro appointed Councilmembers Cohen and Phillips to work with Mr. Nordhoff, Interim City Manager, regarding issues relating to garbage fees. 13. ELECTION OF VICE-MAYOR OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR YEAR 2006 (CC) – FILE 9-1 Councilmember Cohen placed in nomination the name of Councilmember Phillips to serve as Vice-Mayor of the City of San Rafael for the year 2006. Councilmember Heller seconded the motion, and Councilmember Phillips was elected Vice-Mayor for year 2006. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: 14. None. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 15. None. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:55 p.m. to Closed Session in the City Manager’s Conference Room 201. ____________________________ JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ DAY OF __________, 2006 ___________________________________ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/19/2005 Page 14