Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2008-05-05SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor San Rafael City Council Greg Brockbank, Councilmember Damon Connolly, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, City Manager Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Esther C. Beirne, City Clerk OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:00 PM Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 - 7:00 PM Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Name: Karen Littman v. Citv of San Rafael Marin Superior Court Case No. CV065433 City Attorney Robert Epstein announced that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM War in Iraa: Mary Morrison and John Jenkel requested Council support for ending the war in Iraq. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of April 21, 2008 Minutes approved as submitted. (CC) 3. Report on Annual Filings — Fair Political Practices Accepted report. Commission Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests for Designated Employees, Including Consultants, Design Review Board, Downtown Business Improvement District Board, Geotechnical Review Board, and Park and Recreation Commission (CC) — File 9-4-3 4. Second Readina and Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 1866: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA07-01 TO MAINTAIN A 0.40 FLOOR AREA RATIO IN ORDER TO PRESERVE A RIGHT TO BUILD BACK COMMERCIAL SPACE REMOVED AS PART OF A RENOVATION PROJECT TO THE MALL AT NORTHGATE, LOCATED AT 5800 NORTHGATE DRIVE (APN: 175-060-12, 40, 59, 60 & 61)" (CD) — File 10-2 (1) Northaate Mall Renovation Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1866. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 5. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign a Professional Services Agreement with Baird+Driskell Community Planning for Planning and Document Assistance for the Climate Change Action Plan (P07- 011) (CD) — File 4-3-484 x 13-1 Resolution Supporting Reform of the Bond Rating System to Eliminate Discrimination Against Municipal Bonds (CM) — File 9-12 x 9-11-1 7. Resolution Authorizing Purchase and Installation of a Relocatable Classroom for the Childcare Program at Glenwood Elementary School (CS) — File 4-3-485 x 9-3-65 8. Resolution Authorizing the Director of Public Works to Approve an Agreement Between the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) and the City of San Rafael to Exchange $265,300 in Local Measure A Funds for $265,300 in Non -Motorized Pilot Program (NTPP) Funds for the Medway/Canal Enhancement Project (#10705) (PW) — File 12-18-15 x 4-13-120 x 170 x 9-3-40 9. Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Submit an Application for $933,646 in FY 2007-2008 Proposition 1 B Funds and to adopt the San Rafael Proposition 1 B Streets and Roads Program Budget (PW) — File 276 x 9-3-40 10. Resolution Designating May 7 — 14, 2008 Small Business Week (RA) — File 119 11. Resolution Approving the 2008-09 Annual Report of the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement District and Declaring Council's Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment for the Downtown Parking and Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2008-09, and Directing the City Clerk to Schedule a Public Hearing for May 19, 2008 to Consider Levying the Assessment (RA) - File 224 x 183 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 12481 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BAIRD+DRISKELL COMMUNITY PLANNING FOR PLANNING AND DOCUMENT ASSISTANCE FOR THE CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $24,640 (COMMENCING MAY 12, 2008 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2009) RESOLUTION NO. 12482 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING REFORM OF THE BOND RATING SYSTEM TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUNICIPAL BONDS RESOLUTION NO. 12483 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $175,000 FOR THE INSTALLATION AND PURCHASE OF RELOCATABLE CLASSROOM FOR GLENWOOD CHILDREN'S CENTER RESOLUTION NO. 12484 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MARIN AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO EXCHANGE $265,300 IN LOCAL MEASURE A FUNDS FOR $265,300 IN NON -MOTORIZED PILOT PROGRAM (NTPP) FUNDS FOR THE MEDWAY/CANAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (#10705) SUBJECT TO AN APPROVAL FROM THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN (TAM) BOARD (amended) RESOLUTION NO. 12485 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR $933,646 IN FY 07-08 PROPOSITION 1B FUNDS AND TO ADOPT THE SAN RAFAEL PROPOSITION 1B STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 12486 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING MAY 7 — 14,2008, AS SMALL BUSINESS WEEK RESOLUTION NO. 12487 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2008-09 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DOWNTOWN PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND DECLARING COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DOWNTOWN PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 3 DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 19, 2008 TO CONSIDER LEVYING THE ASSESSMENT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 12. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION DESIGNATING SMALL BUSINESS WEEK TO THE SAN RAFAEL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (RA) — FILE 119 Mayor Boro explained that May 7 — 14, 2008 was Small Business Week and also Public Employee Week. This morning he had the opportunity to visit the Social Security Office in San Rafael to congratulate those who work for the Federal Government and this evening he wished to congratulate the members of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce who were in attendance to receive a resolution. Understanding that at least 75% of the members of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce were small business, Mayor Boro stated that they were the heart of the community, whether downtown, North San Rafael, Canal or any part of the City and the Chamber represented them well. Mayor Boro quoted from the resolution: "Small businesses make up an essential part of the economic health of the City of San Rafael and San Rafael; The City of San Rafael supports the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Business Showcase (May 14, 2008, at the Marin Exhibition Center), which functions as a highly successful resource for small business; Small businesses generate vitality and add life to the downtown and other San Rafael business centers; Small businesses, the City of San Rafael and the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce work together to promote and strengthen the community; The City of San Rafael and the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce want to recognize the contributions of small businesses." Mayor Boro stated that he and the City Council designate May 7 — 14, 2008 as Small Business Week, support the Business Showcase on May 14, and express sincere appreciation for the contributions of all small businesses in the City of San Rafael. He congratulated and thanked Don Maxon, Jennifer Clarke and Jerry Tallman representing the small businesses on behalf of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce. Don Maxon, on behalf of the small businesses and the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce thanked Mayor Boro and the City Council and invited all to attend the Business Showcase on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 from 4:00 — 7:30 p.m. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: OLD BUSINESS: 13. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPACTS FROM THE CHANGE IN OPERATING HOURS OF THE DOWNTOWN FARMERS MARKET FESTIVAL (RA) — FILE 11-19 Economic Development Director Nancy Mackle explained that on March 17, 2008 staff requested City Council approval to try different hours for a season for the Farmers' Market and Council directed that they return in a month with a status report, particularly with regard to traffic. Reporting that her one -line summary indicated traffic was fine, Ms. Mackle stated however, that staff wanted a little more time before deciding to proceed for the full season to talk to the vendors and downtown merchants. The Police Department indicated that everything was going fine; however, some were unhappy and staff would like to return at the June 2nd City Council meeting with more information. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 4 Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Brockbank seconded, to accept the report.. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None APPEAL HEARING: 14. Appeal Hearing — RE: 33 SAN PABLO AVENUE: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED07-045) AND TENTATIVE MAP (TS07-001) TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 4 -STORY, 33,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4 -STORY, 82 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT OVER THREE LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING WITH 138 PARKING SPACES, INCLUDING A ONE UNIT DENSITY BONUS AND ONE CONCESSION FOR USE OF STATE PARKING RATES, ON AN 81,495 SQ. FT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 SAN PABLO AVENUE (CD) — FILE 10-2 (2) 33 San Pablo Avenue x 273 Mayor Boro declared the Appeal Hearing opened Principal Planner Raffi Boloyan reported that this project was approved by the Planning Commission on March 11, 2008, concluding an approximate eighteen -month process, which included four Design Review Board meetings, two Planning Commission hearings and one neighborhood meeting. Mr. Boloyan reported that the project would demolish the existing 33,000 square -foot office building, replacing it with 82 residential condominium units. The new structure would be up to four stories of residential units over one — three stories of subterranean parking. The proposed new structure would be no taller than the existing office building structure, except wider and encompass a larger portion of the site. The project proposes 82 units, which is one unit over the City's maximum allowable density. The maximum density is 81 units for this site, based on the zoning ordinance allowances for the office zoning district, which permits residential density of one unit for every one thousand square -feet of land area. With regard to confusion regarding the difference between the General Plan density provisions and Zoning Density provisions, Mr. Boloyan explained that the General Plan density is a gross density calculation, allowing up to 32 units per gross acre. It measures the number of dwelling units per acre, plus the areas of streets and other public improvements. The General Plan density calculation is based on raw, un -subdivided land without any streets or public improvements. It is used for long-range planning purposes and in developing scenarios and analyzing traffic impacts for development of general plans and area wide plans. Mr. Boloyan explained that the more specific Zoning Density is a net density calculation, and in this case for the office zoning district, allows one unit for every one thousand square -feet of land area. This is a net calculation and does not include "as used for the developed and subdivided sites such as this in developed areas." The net area for density does not include area of streets that serve sites. Net density is approximately 20% - 30% higher than the gross density numbers used in the General Plan. The City's Zoning Ordinance was adopted to implement the General Plan for the purposes of establishing density on specific sites in developed areas. Mr. Boloyan indicated that the City always uses net density from the zoning ordinance for project specific sites. Therefore, in this case, the maximum density would be based on the zoning and is up to the 81 units, maximum. Mr. Boloyan reported that the project also includes 20% of the total units as being affordable to low and moderate income households. By providing that affordability, the project is entitled to a state density bonus of up to 20% and one concession. The density bonus allows a project to exceed the maximum City density by 20%, or in this case, seventeen bonus units above the maximum City requirement of 81 units, which could allow up to a total of 98 units for the site. The project initially proposed 93 units and through the development review process, it was revised down to the 82 ultimately approved by the Planning Commission, and this was revised by the applicant over the various hearings to address issues with the design and mass. As mentioned, Mr. Boloyan explained that projects eligible for a state density bonus are also allowed the use of one concession and in this case the applicant chose to use the state parking rates. State parking rates are lower than the City's typical zoning ordinance requirements for parking. In this particular case, a project of this size under the state rates would be allowed to build the project with 124 total parking spaces. A typical project under the City's regular zoning ordinance would be required to have 160 spaces. In this scenario the applicant proposed 138 spaces on site, 14 more than allowed under the state density bonus regulations, but 22 less than typically allowed by the City's zoning ordinance. Mr. Boloyan stated that the use of the state parking rates is a concession the City must grant to projects qualifying for density bonus. No discretion can be used in evaluating the parking. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 5 Regarding density bonus and limitations, Mr. Boloyan explained that in 2004, the state adopted the State Density Bonus Regulations, SB 1818. This legislation limited the ability of a City to deny a development proposal which includes affordable housing and qualifies for the state density bonus law. Cities are precluded from denying or conditioning qualifying projects unless very stringent findings relating to health and safety are made by the City and supported by substantial evidence. He commented that the City Attorney was present and could answer questions on this subject. Following the Planning Commission's approval in March, an appeal was filed by seven neighbors and residents in the surrounding area. The appeal letter cited two points of appeal: • The inconsistency of the project with General Plan 2020, citing fourteen policies the project is inconsistent with. • Use of the categorical exemption for infill development projects was inappropriate for this project, given that they believed the project would create significant effects on traffic in the area. Regarding the General Plan inconsistency, Mr. Boloyan explained that many of the fourteen policies listed were related and could be grouped into six different topic areas: ➢ Integration of new development in the neighborhoods; ➢ Views; ➢ Design integration with the Marin Civic Center; ➢ Neighborhood planning; ➢ Circulation Improvements; and ➢ Safe streets. Mr. Boloyan noted that this evening's staff report provides a detailed discussion on all the specific policies cited in the appeal, together with analysis on all 72 applicable General Plan policies. Mr. Boloyan explained that during the first of two Design Review Board (DRB) meetings on this project, the DRB expressed concern with mass, density and parking. The Planning Commission reviewed this in October, 2007, to provide feedback on these issues. The Planning Commission generally found that the density was appropriate for the site and understood that the City could not require additional parking because of the State Density Bonus law. The Planning Commission referred the item back to the DRB for further refinement to address some issues with massing and articulation. They believed the structure could use further refinements to minimize its impact on adjacent properties. The project was subsequently revised and returned to the DRB for two further reviews. The Planning Commission ultimately reviewed the revised project in March, 2008, and analyzed the specific policies under appeal, together with all policies applicable to the project. They weighed the various policies in different elements of the General Plan, some of which were competing and conflicting in their goals, and concluded the following: Mr. Boloyan reported that the project site is not located in a purely single-family neighborhood as envisioned in a lot of the policies listed, rather is in a maxed -use area with a variety of different land uses, including single-family, medium and high density residential, commercial, office and some mixed-use. The Planning Commission also understood that as part of the adoption of the General Plan 2020 update, adopted by the City in 2004, the City had allowed for residential uses in commercial areas as part of the major component of the strategy to increase housing supply for housing needs. As part of the adoption of the element, a conscious effort was made to not intensify the low density residential areas, but place this additional housing in mixed-use areas, such as the Downtown, commercial and office zoning districts throughout the city and other mixed-use areas near employment and transit. He indicated that the Planning Commission also understood the City's discretion on density and parking requirements was limited, given the state density bonus. They found that the modifications ultimately made to the project to provide more stepping and terracing of the structure and more articulation on the rear elevation were adequate to address the policies relating to the transitions in the neighborhood, provide better mass and articulation and to integrate better with the mixed-use neighborhood, and ultimately they approved the project. Regarding the second point of appeal — Use of the Infill Exemption — Mr. Boloyan addressed two points: 1) Why the City counted historical trips for the currently vacant office building within the traffic model; and 2) How it is determined whether traffic impacts are significant or not. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 6 Directing Council's attention to Attachment 5 — page 54 of the staff report — Memorandum from the City Traffic Engineer, Nader Mansourian — Mr. Boloyan stated this explained the City's traffic analysis process Mr. Mansourian conducts on all projects, together with the specific findings for this project at this site. Mr. Mansourian could answer questions this evening. With regard to the issue of using historical trips in the model, Mr. Boloyan explained that a legally built building within the City is entitled to certain development rights, one of which is that, although a building may be vacant for some time, it is a legally built structure and could be reoccupied completely with office, in this case, at any time without any City review or discretion. In analyzing traffic impacts, the City's model includes traffic related or associated with all existing uses in the City, as well as any approved but not yet built projects. Vacant buildings are also included as part of the existing uses and are calculated at their last legally entitled use, in this case, office. He indicated that these existing conditions used in the traffic model are called "the baseline traffic conditions." The practice of counting vacant office buildings or any type of vacant building in the traffic model was a conservative and reasonable approach to traffic analysis, and is used as the basis of all traffic impact analysis conducted in the City for numerous years. Mr. Boloyan explained that removing traffic associated with vacant buildings from the model would result in a flawed traffic analysis, since the City could review numerous other projects for new development within a neighborhood and approve those. When the vacant building was reoccupied, the extra unaccounted for traffic from the previously vacant building could skew the traffic analysis. Therefore, the way the traffic was reviewed and conducted in this case was a very conservative and reasonable approach. Regarding how to determine the significance and impact of the traffic, Mr. Boloyan stated this was the point in the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Infill Exemption. In order to qualify for an infill exemption, a project must meet five conditions, one of which was that a project would not result in a significant effect relating to traffic. He noted that in the appeal letter, the appellants believed the project would result in a significant effect. Mr. Boloyan reported that to determine whether an impact was significant for CEQA purposes there needed to be some type of measurement, and in CEQA's world, this was entitled "Threshold of Significance." Therefore, for the measurement of traffic, the City's established threshold was a measurement of the average vehicular delay at intersections for all vehicles entering that intersection within a 60 -minute period during the morning and evening peak hours, and is known as LOS (Level of Service). Mr. Boloyan explained that this threshold is established by the City's General Plan in Circulation Element Policy C5. LOS standards are ranked from LOS A — F, with A being generally free flow conditions and F having the most delay. The City's standard adopted for these intersections in the North San Rafael area is LOS D. When the traffic analysis was conducted for this project, the baseline traffic conditions were used, together with the addition of traffic from the proposed new project. The City's traffic model found that the baseline conditions of LOS B and C currently existing at the three affected intersections would not change with the addition of this project, and furthermore, all three intersections would continue to operate within LOS D — the City's established threshold. Given that the project would not change an LOS standard, not exceed a City policy, there was no significant effect on the traffic system. Mr. Boloyan reported that new correspondence received was distributed to the City Council this evening and also made available to the public on the lobby table. These were copies of letters received pursuant to completion of the staff report. He indicated that the staff report included all correspondence since the inception of the project, both in support and opposition. Mr. Boloyan stated staff recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval, conditionally approving the project at 33 San Pablo Avenue, San Rafael. Councilmember Brockbank inquired as to when the traffic studies were conducted specific to those intersections, this project and additional traffic. As he had the impression that the number of cars per household and vehicle miles traveled over the last two or three decades had risen astronomically, he considered that perhaps, the old data would no longer be relevant. City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian explained that counts are taken every year or two; therefore, the last major counts in this area were conducted in 2005 and 2006. These intersections were monitored a little more carefully over the last two years because of traffic operating issues in the morning from the Santa Venetia area; therefore, the numbers were fairly recent. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 7 As to this project, understanding there were certain state standards regarding parking, Councilmember Brockbank stated he did not understand why 13 guest parking spots for 82 units appeared to be sufficient. He indicated he could easily see that the number of cars of those living in these units would exceed the number available, including the 13, and foresaw a scenario where cars would use the street for parking. Mr. Brown, Community Development Director, explained that state law requires no guest parking under the state density bonus law. The fact that the applicant proposed to include some guest parking was not required and he could not explain how the state arrived at these parking ratios. Councilmember Connolly stated the interesting fact in this case was that there was an office building that had been vacant for five years and he inquired whether there was a statute of limitations on a period of non -occupancy. Mr. Mansourian explained that in order to correctly estimate the number of trips or intersection volumes, vacancies always have to be accounted for because it is impossible to anticipate when and how these would be occupied in the future; therefore, the most conservative approach is taken. Mayor Boro invited City Attorney Robert Epstein to address the entitlement phase on a property with respect to parking on a vacant site. Mr. Epstein stated that entitlement was permanent and there was no statute or limitations period of which he was aware that would prohibit the property owner from filling the site with office dwellers today. Noting extensive work was carried out on the San Pedro/Civic Center intersection recently, Councilmember Heller requested clarification on whether it decreased the LOS, making it much smoother for the morning hours. Mr. Mansourian stated that over $1 million was spent in 2000/2001 to improve the intersection. The a.m. LOS used be F, the eastbound left -turn from Highway 101 to the Civic Center used to back up; however, the improvements rectified this and the LOS is now C. Councilmember Heller noted traffic from Santa Venetia in the morning was going through a little faster. Concurring, Mr. Mansourian stated it had improved since then, but had had its own operating issues. Stacev DeGoover, appellant, stated she was before the City Council this evening for the good of her community, and in her presentation she would repeatedly make the point that this project was too big and an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) was needed. She stated there was insufficient information to allow a residential complex of this magnitude to be built on a dead-end street in suburbia. Ms. DeGooyer stated they were appealing Sequoia Heights for four key reasons: 1) The 82 unit project was incompatible with the neighborhood; 2) It does not conform to the General Plan; 3) It should not receive a CEQA exemption; and 4) The traffic patterns, parking and pedestrian safety had not been adequately addressed. Ms. DeGooyer stated that her presentation (including PowerPoint) would detail the many inconsistencies with this massive project, the massive structure of which was completely incompatible. The development grossly exceeded all other buildings in the area and the DRB was not able to fully address these issues due to the restrictions placed on them by the Planning Commission. She indicated that neither body had requested a scale model which would provide a true sense of the size of this project against everything else. Ms. DeGooyer explained the area was comprised mostly of 20 small single-family homes, 27 homes in Laurel Glen Terrace over fifteen acres, 140 condominiums in Meadow Oaks over twelve acres, 70 apartments in six separate buildings, two -stories high, and 2 two-story buildings. The proposed building was four stories and seven levels, 6 of which were residential. 82 units on 1.9 acres was too dense and 200 additional people would make it too crowded. She indicated that the massive development was almost four times larger than the current structure, dwarfing the homes nearby. Ms. DeGooyer identified SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 8 the single-family homes, the current building, etc., and she noted the only small area of actual green space. Indicating there was no Neighborhood Plan for this area, Ms. DeGooyer reported that the "Friends of the Civic Center Neighborhood" was created, met, organized petitions and signed letters specifically protesting this project. She stated that satisfying NH1 meant a comprehensive neighborhood plan, including a safety building, SMART transit hub, and other future developments. This was seen as an area that in the future would be for the entire county a real draw for commuters; however, those currently residing on this street could not safety get to any of the commuting possibilities without being in the middle of the road. Ms. DeGooyer stated that the 70 -foot structure violated the City's 36 -foot height limit. She indicated that the proposal uses the Universal Building Codes rather than the General Plan to determine height. The elevator shaft on the rooftop deck should be removed. During the DRB meeting in January, 2008. one of the members declared that the lower point of the building was not the lower point and staff agreed that for the measurement of height this was the case. With the assistance of a slide, Ms. DeGooyer identified the space of the proposed building, which would be much larger on the back side. Identifying 36 -feet on both ends of the building, she indicated that the middle section was much larger than 36 -feet; therefore, the true height of the structure exceed the 36 -foot limit. Noting 33 San Pablo Avenue was at the gateway to the Civic Center, Ms. DeGooyer stated this was the most prominent structure in Marin, not just San Rafael. From North San Pedro Road, both the existing office building and Civic Center were clearly visible from the same vantage point. The comprehensive Neighborhood Plan for the entire Civic Center area was a necessary first step, which meant the City of San Rafael and County of Marin needed to come together when proposing new developments such as this one that had a significant benefit for affordable housing, together with the ability to meet housing quotas. Other slides and photographs identified views of both buildings. Indicating that this four-story, high density complex was not consistent with the scale of the existing neighborhood since it would be spread out almost over the entire width of the site, Ms. DeGooyer stated that the green space would force many of the natural, mature trees to be destroyed. rather than preserving the landscape character of the neighborhood and the park like feel of the Redwoods currently there. She noted there had been concessions from the developer to meet the neighbors' needs in terms of the Redwoods — no Redwoods would remain on Sequoia Heights. Ms. DeGooyer displayed a slide with a larger view of the size of the building. Indicating that the context and scale disrespected the neighborhood, she stated there was no publicly stated vision for this area and much like the Civic Center in Frank Lloyd Wright's time, this could be a state-of-the-art building, with green roof and energy saving amenities, rather than taking a greater toll on energy. Reiterating that the complex was huge, Ms. DeGooyer stated it would dwarf the neighboring County offices also, due to the grade. She identified the small homes that would be front of the large, looming complex, where most of the trees would be removed. Regarding circulation and traffic problems, Ms. DeGooyer stated that a complete EIR was required. City and County cooperation was needed to resolve the safety issues on this street. The Traffic Analysis Report was theoretical and did not address the actual situation on the road, especially since this office building had been vacant for at least five years. The general consensus was that 20 years ago it may have been fully occupied and she noted the developer had indicated that they originally bought the property to use as office; however, considered it a difficult location to fill. Assuming one car per one -bedroom and two for two -bedrooms, Ms. DeGooyer stated this would substantially impact the environment; therefore, they would like to see an EIR. Noting this was an infill project with significant benefits, Ms. DeGooyer stated that significant traffic improvements were imperative. The intersection between Laurel Glen and Sequoia Heights would slow SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 9 down traffic on San Pablo Avenue, which did not possess a single stop sign. There were no speed humps and cars traveled very quickly up and down the road. The width was irregular and with cars parked on either side, was reduced to a single lane, which was a serious concern. She stated that San Pablo Avenue was unsafe for pedestrians. The sidewalks ended without warning, did not run the full length of the street, no safe routes to schools, no bike path, no ADA compliance and the one speed limit sign that was removed a year ago had never been replaced. Although the developer indicated they would work on completing the sidewalks on both the north and south sides of San Pablo Avenue, there was no legal nexus for that, as stated in the staff report; therefore, there was no guarantee this would be done. Ms. DeGooyer believed that if this truly were an infill project, the streets would already be safe for people to walk on; therefore, adding 200 more residents would only exacerbate pedestrian risks. Ms. DeGooyer displayed a picture of children walking back from Santa Venetia school and pointed out it was taken when no cars were parked along the gravel path. She noted horses come down from the open space, together with cyclists. Indicating that a new and contiguous sidewalk was urgently needed, she stated that at the last Planning Commission hearing, the offer for the road improvements was given and withdrawn. There currently is no guarantee of safe access between 33 San Pablo, the Civic Center, the shopping area, post office, mass transit and other activity centers. Further slides identified areas surrounding the proposed development. Ms. DeGooyer stated that this location is touted as being a benefit for Autodesk, the Civic Center, mass transit hub; therefore, these plans needed to be in place now to ensure the ability to walk safely to these venues. Currently, the nearest busses were on North San Pedro and in order to get to those bus stops, people had to walk in the middle of the street; therefore, even if the area was not in the San Rafael Bicycle & Pedestrian Masterplan, it should be. Regarding CEQA, Ms. DeGooyer stated that this site was not substantially surrounded by urban uses, rather suburban and even adjacent open space. San Pablo Avenue and Tarrant Court residents would not be adequately served by emergency services due to parking overflow. Regarding the parking concession, should there be an EIR, which should be required, then the developer's offer to make the street safe would result in a reduction in street parking and mitigate a significant environmental impact. She explained one possibility was to put in sidewalks, which would make the street narrower, resulting in less street parking. The current empty office building demonstrated approximately ten parking spaces on the street from the proposed Sequoia property. A stop sign at Tarrant Court leads onto San Pablo Avenue and cars often park in front of it, resulting in a danger to enter and exit. Being on the lower part of the street, closer to the intersection, Ms. DeGooyer stated that she and her neighbors back their cars into their driveways to enable them to drive forward to enter the road safely, and this with the office building empty. Noting the street had limited parking, Ms. DeGooyer stated that the massive development could have up to 50 overflow cars that would have to park in the already crowded street. The road would have to accommodate the additional delivery and service vehicles for up to 200 new residents, utilities, etc. The claim that parking was not an issue because of state designated concessions relinquishes the control over the planning and permitting process. Should the developer wish to have this project passed, she suggested that perhaps giving up that parking concession could be an option. Ms. DeGooyer believed the traffic patterns would worsen. The Planning Department called this proposal "consistent, therefore, exempt"; however, it was not consistent until proven otherwise, if looking at the Project Selection Process (PSP) — traffic patterns are different switching from office to residential. PSP evaluates the impact of development on regional traffic, and rather than being exempt, this is the type of development the PSP was meant for. Also, depending on when the last traffic analysis was carried out, there was a new Montessori School had been approved in Oxford Valley, and with the proposed public safety building, could significantly impact this intersection. If CEQA were required, the traffic usage would be calculated at the time of the permit application, which would mean zero traffic from the existing empty office building. Ms. DeGooyer inquired as to how a residential complex with 138 parking spaces produce the same amount of vehicular use as an office building one quarter the size. Regarding public services, Ms. DeGooyer stated that the sidewalk issue and pedestrian safety could not be over emphasized. She recalled a recent fire (April 16, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. at Meadow Oaks), where accessibility for the firefighters blocked the street. Those residing further up the street were able to exit through the county office buildings; however, Sequoia Heights would not have another outlet for the additional 82 units — it was one in, one out, on a dead end street. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 10 Ms. DeGooyer stated that traffic conditions at San Pablo Avenue during the Marin County Fair posed a huge and viable threat to any emergency vehicle access on this dead end street, and although only four days a year, it became a parking lot for approximately two hours at the end of the fire works display. She noted that currently the schools at Santa Venetia had modular expansion to accommodate the current overcrowding. Ms. DeGooyer stated that the neighborhood supported responsible development and welcomed a project that followed established ordinances, practices and procedures. ➢ The General Plan inconsistencies would ultimately decrease the quality of life and neighborhood safety; ➢ At a minimum, an EIR was required for informed decision-making; ➢ Making the parking, height and density consistent with the General Plan. Even though zoned as office, with 81,000 -square feet = 81 units, reducing it to 61 units would be in line with a residential building and fit into the high density residential ratios; ➢ A sidewalk on San Pablo Avenue needs to be completed prior to construction. In conclusion, Ms. DeGooyer thanked her neighbors who had worked diligently on this project, which did not truly fit into the area. It was an infill because it was not an urban environment. The sidewalk issue would not be an issue if the pedestrian infrastructure were already in place. She stated they were requesting the City Council to rein in the size of this project with modifications. They were not asking for the project to be completely abolished as they were aware of the need for affordable housing and requested that 33 San Pablo Avenue be returned to the drawing board so that it could be a complement to the neighborhood, not a negative impact. John Mosher, Tarrant Court, stated he thought the City's General Plan called for community involvement in new growth. When plans were made to change the use of 33 San Pablo from office to residential, no one told the neighborhood, and the decision was made without them. He believed the point of a Design Review Board was to provide the Planning Commission with an expert opinion on whether a proposal met City guidelines. The Planning Commission could ignore this, but it was part of the public process. Mr. Mosher commented that when DRB members were unable to approve this project twice, the Planning Commission limited the scope of the review, essentially directing a vote in favor. He noted that if the Planning Commission could not just ignore, but actively prevent the full review of such a major development, he questioned the point of having a Design Review Board at all. Noting that the General Plan took many years to draft, revise and adopt, Mr. Mosher stated he had read and re -read it, and as a resident he greatly appreciated the effort that went into it. There was a 36 -foot height limit in the City, and a maximum density of 32 units per acre, together with guest parking and the Project Selection Procedure (PSP) and he questioned whether this was all "out the window" now. If a developer could use generic building codes and city zoning guidelines that skirted around the published City regulations, he questioned whether the General Plan was meaningless and unenforceable, or whether it was being selectively enforced in this case. If so, he questioned how big a developer one had to be to get the "red carpet treatment." Mr. Mosher stated that if these state density and city zoning rules were a fact of life and a building this big with six levels of housing complied with City codes, before anything else, the General Plan needed to be revised to reflect these actual on the ground numbers. Something this big should not come as such a surprise to the next neighbor getting hit with one and he inquired as to the neighborhood plan, to provide context. If this significant area did not warrant a comprehensive plan for growth, he questioned whether this was needed either. Mr. Mosher questioned why a group of voting constituents were in attendance here this evening doing the job the Planning Commission should be doing, i.e., questioning the appropriateness of a too big building on a too small street. Mr. Mosher stated that on March 1, 2008, a group of neighbors submitted a list of 16 of their concerns with the propriety of the City's involvement in this project from the beginning. If the City's only answer was to approve this project, despite all the problems and without addressing their issues, the building would stand cheek by jowl with the Civic Center for years to come as a testament to the City Council's judgment this evening. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 11 Joan Gordon, stated she had lived at Tarrant Court for over twenty-one years and was not against the building of a condominium development at 33 San Pablo Avenue. Tarrant Court was a cul de sac off the end of San Pablo, with nine houses. They were directly above what would be the roof of the fourth story of the proposed project. They had a view of part of the Bay from their living -room and she questioned whether they would in the future look upon a rooftop patio and need to close their drapes for privacy. Ms. Gordon noted there were many affordable units in the several apartment buildings at the bottom of their hill at the end of San Pablo Avenue, many of which housed more than two adults per unit, with most owning a vehicle. At the end of the workday and on weekends, these people needed to find street parking; there was insufficient space on the street currently, thus the continuing problem of illegal parking. She noted that often a vehicle is parked for days at the stop sign at the bottom of Tarrant Court where it intersects San Pablo Avenue. While eventually vehicles are cited and towed; however, often only having been there for days. Noting the street is always in disrepair, Ms. Gordon stated that most of San Pablo Avenue looks very ghetto. She stated there was a section of San Pablo Avenue closer to North San Pedro Road where it narrows, allowing access to but one car at a time and her husband lost a driver's side mirror last year when someone just "barreled through." San Pablo Avenue needed to be widened or no parking allowed, and enforced, on one side of the street, at least in this one section. She indicated that when parked vehicles narrow the street like this, emergency vehicles face more than a challenge getting through, and those on San Pablo Avenue and Tarrant Court felt quite vulnerable. She noted also that it was not safe to be a pedestrian on San Pablo Avenue, especially if a child. She noted, therefore, that density was already over the top for safety and flow. Ms. Gordon stated that when they arrived in the neighborhood, workers at 33 San Pablo Avenue arrived between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. and departed between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. typically, and there was virtually no coming and going of vehicles at any other time from this building. This would not be the case with the proposed condominiums as coming and going would occur at any and all hours, and she feared it could be like Fourth of July week daily. Believing rules had been bent or changed to accommodate this developer because a few affordable condominiums would be made available, Ms. Gordon stated that if the letter of the law were to be followed implicitly, a development of this size would not be permitted. As stated initially, she indicated she was not against a condominium development being built at 33 San Pablo Avenue, rather she took exception to its size as she had hoped for responsible development. Ms. Gordon stated they were not just numbers, but people. Belle Chiao, Tarrant Court, stated they were aware of the changes in store for the Civic Center area. They were not against growth or development around them and in fact, welcomed reasonable enhancement to the neighborhood. What troubled them was not so much that the office building had been converted to residential condominium use, but the sheer size and volume of the building, which did not comply with General Plan 2020, or fit the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Chiao stated that some members of the Planning Commission had mischaracterized them as NIMBY elitists, flat out rejecting any improvement to this non-performing property. They were aware that 2 acres near the Civic Center was a hot commodity; however, this was all the more reason to proceed with caution. All they asked for was a structure designed to fit the surrounding buildings, one that met General Plan 2020 policies. She commented that these guidelines appeared reasonable on 1.9 acre, a maximum range of 28 — 61 units, with parking in line with other condominium developments in the City. Aware that people were concerned about affordable housing, Ms. Chiao noted the current 82 units contained only 16 affordable units. Reducing this to 61 units would mean a loss of maybe 4 affordable units, which was not that many, and would keep the neighborhood in proportion with other recent major projects, such as Laurel Glen and Meadow Oaks. Ms. Chiao stated that what they were requesting was not unreasonable or difficult. It would bring more harmony to the neighborhood and fewer headaches for the current community and any future development around the area. Councilmember Connolly invited Mr. Mosher to elaborate on the type of interaction or outreach there was between the developer and the neighborhood. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 12 Mr. Mosher stated that for the most part, the developer had reached out to them. He reported that when they moved in the building was an office building, which they accepted. They first heard it would become a high density condominium complex when the die was cast, receiving an announcement of the plans that were ready to go. He did not recall receiving anything in the mail about a change of use. Councilmember Connolly inquired whether Mr. Mosher or other neighbors were given an opportunity to make suggestions to the developer, etc. Mr. Mosher stated he first heard when a DRB meeting was called to address the issue of a fully -blown proposal and had not had the slightest hint anything was in the works. He noted they share a property line with the building. Mayor Boro invited Raffi Boloyan to explain the outreach done from the beginning on this project. Mr. Boloyan stated staff receives lots of inquiries on a daily basis with regard to potential projects in the City. They encourage applicants to discuss projects with neighbors as well as any neighborhood groups in the area. While this was not a requirement until an application was received, staff strongly encouraged it. He explained that when an application is received copies of the plans are sent to any neighborhood groups in the area, informing them of receipt of an application and allowing them to provide preliminary comments. They are then added to a mailing list to receive notice of any future meetings. In this case he noted there were two neighborhood groups in the surrounding area - Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association and the Civic Center Homeowners Association — to whom copies of the plans were submitted, with a referral form to the effect that a project had been received. Mr. Boloyan reported that prior to each meeting the public is noticed and the site posted. Mr. Boloyan reported that subsequent to the Conceptual Design Review Board meeting and prior to the first DRB meeting, a neighborhood meeting was held at the Civic Center where the developer showed the proposed plans to the neighborhood. City staff was present to take notes and hear comments; this meeting was held in July, 2007. He confirmed that all residents within 300 feet, neighborhood groups and Planning Commission and DRB members were invited to this meeting. Addressing the developer, Mayor Boro inquired as to the offsite improvements they were committed to. Jeff Hutchinson, Project Manager, representing the applicant, stated he would be presenting slides, copies of which were already in the possession of the City Council. With regard to the process with the neighbors, Mr. Hutchinson explained that they initially began discussing the project with City staff approximately two years ago when in escrow and at that point, they were encouraged to submit some design proposals for quick review by City staff and to discuss the project with some of the immediate neighbors. Over the six — eight months between the time they purchased the building in 2006 to the time they submitted a preliminary application, they met with some of the immediate neighbors, including those primarily along San Pablo Avenue. They submitted a preliminary conceptual application in January 2007, which went through a preliminary design review, and since that time, the project had been revised several times. Along the way they conducted one noticed formal neighborhood meeting, July, 2007, and held several one on one meetings with concerned people from Tarrant Court, together with continuing discussion with the residents on San Pablo Avenue. Using slides, Mr. Hutchinson explained that as developers, they had done a number of high-quality projects. Having always seen the need for housing in San Rafael, they reviewed the General Plan and had the option to continue to use this property as an office building or create a housing opportunity site. He believed the neighbors felt a change of use had been slipped in "under the radar." He noted that in public and private conversations with the neighbors, they (Monahan Pacific Corporation), mentioned that the General Plan adopted in 2004 went through a very thorough public review process, including dealing with rezoning, policies, etc. The applicant created the change of use and the rules under the new zoning adopted were responding to it and this appeared to have been lost on some of the appellants. Presenting a slide with an overview of the neighborhood, Mr. Hutchinson explained that the Civic Center was a very diverse neighborhood with quite a mix of uses. He identified commercial and office uses, Northgate Mall, Sutter Medical Facility, Autodesk, Civic Center, Embassy Suites Hotel, open space, fairgrounds, lagoon, etc., and more immediately along San Pedro Road, County office buildings. He SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 13 identified Meadow Oaks townhomes, Laurel Glen townhomes, 80 units of apartments and the current 33,000 square -foot office building. Sprinkled amongst all these uses along San Pablo Avenue were approximately one dozen single-family homes. Mr. Hutchinson used further slides to identify the adjacent conditions and he noted it was a diverse neighborhood with a lot of uses, and the location was anything but suburbia and their proposal would be a positive addition. Regarding what was allowed under the code adopted by the City and that allowed under state law, Mr. Hutchinson explained that the zoning code calls for 81 units at the site and state law permits that by providing 20% affordability, they were eligible to receive a state mandated density bonus of 20% or 16 units, resulting in a total project of 97 units. As stated in his letter, Mr. Hutchinson reported that the City Traffic Engineer ran a traffic study at this location and resulted in the same traffic analysis, i.e., even a 97 unit project would generate fewer trips and result in no adverse impacts to LOS. However, through the process, the project had been reduced based on some concerns from neighbors and feedback from the DRB. Therefore, the project before the City Council for approval was an 82 -unit project with one density bonus unit. He indicated that essentially they had forfeited their density bonus and continued to maintain the same level of affordability. Mr. Hutchinson reported that the approved current project had less density and more parking than allowed under state law and zoning code and as stated in the staff report and they believed was the opinion of the City Attorney, as well as their own attorney, legally, the City could not reduce the density any further. In terms of moving forward and conformance with the policies, Mr. Hutchinson noted that the staff reports agreed that the project was compliant with 72 of 72 applicable General plan policies, 21 of 21 applicable design guidelines and 13 of 13 applicable zoning controls. He noted that very rarely is a project deemed to be compliant with all these policies. General Plans by function have conflicting policies that are resolved at the Planning Commission or Design Review level; however, this project was compliant. With the assistance of a further slide Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that they had not requested one variance. They were compliant with the height as deemed by the City Building Department. They were compliant with all the zoning setbacks in terms of landscape buffer zones, site coverage and were more compliant with the City code in terms of landscaped area, lot coverage and compliance with setbacks. Mr. Hutchinson noted that none of the residents most impacted by the project, residents of 27, 35 and 39 San Pablo Avenue, were in attendance this evening, nor had they signed the appeal. Mr. Hutchinson reported that through the eighteen month process, there had been four DRB hearings, two Planning Commission hearings, a noticed neighborhood meeting and at the encouragement of staff and in an attempt to be good neighbors they had met several times on an individual or small group basis with the neighbors and neighborhood. They believed the project had a lot of benefit for the City. They were providing 82 new homes in a city desperately needing them, 16 of which were below market rate units — 8 affordable to low income households and 8 affordable to moderate income households. They believed it achieved a lot of the General Plan policies and goals adopted in 2004. It would be a very high- quality design. They hire the best architects, competent contractors and produce a very high quality product. Mr. Hutchinson noted they would be adopting and exceeding the City's new Green Building policy — the Green Points Rating System. Their condition of approval would be a minimum of 60 points which they believed they would exceed and do more. It would be a green building and reuse of an existing built site, replacing a paved parking lot and three-story building. There would be more impervious area on the site than currently, with the removal of terraced parking, and additional landscaped areas, as identified on the site plan. Noting they had relied on the City's interpretation of the traffic, Mr. Hutchinson explained that as a developer in San Rafael, this was one of the first things to do. He indicated that discussion took place very early on with Bob Brown, Raffi Boloyan and Nader Mansourian in terms of the traffic implications. Several studies were conducted and they were relying on Mr. Mansourian's interpretation of the model and conditions, and no negative impacts were being created. It was close to the freeway, public transit and a lot of open space. Mr. Hutchinson identified the open space on San Pablo Avenue, the Civic Center Lagoon and public park and the nearby China Camp State Park. In terms of recreational SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 14 opportunities he believed it to be a really good site for housing and was very close to employment — Kaiser Permanente, Marin County Civic Center, Autodesk and Sutter Medical Center. Regarding the appeal and noting the comment that this was suburbia, Mr. Hutchinson disagreed, believing it to be a transitional neighborhood with a lot of mixed uses, different sized building and adjacency conditions. With regard to violation of height limit in the General Plan and Zoning Code, he noted this has been discussed several times with the Building and Planning staff. He explained it was a compound slope going up the hill from east to west, and up the hill from San Pablo towards San Pedro; therefore, the building was stepped to respond to the compound slope. Essentially, a couple of four-story buildings were placed next to each other to create the hillside condition and make the project work, and this had been vetted with staff and the Building Department, as well as the Fire Department. In terms of pedestrian improvements, Mr. Hutchinson stated they recognized that San Pablo Avenue was not the best pedestrian environment. It had an incomplete sidewalk, vehicles parked on both sides of the road, it narrowed at the end, and all along, they had indicated they wished to participate in making it a safer street for current and well as future residents. He indicated that the City requires, under the Conditions of Approval, that they improve the frontage of their property to a certain level with sidewalk, curb and gutter. They proposed to complete the sidewalk along the entire south side of San Pablo Avenue to create better pedestrian conditions, together with completing the sidewalk on a portion of the north side of the street between their building and the County office building. Mr. Hutchinson stated they were also exploring ways to curtail parking to only one side of the street, particularly where the road bends, even suggesting a crosswalk or stop sign. Mr. Hutchinson noted the City had made the following a Condition of Approval: completion of the sidewalk on the south side of the street and on a portion of the north side of the street, and to work with the City Traffic Engineer to evaluate a crosswalk and stop sign at Laurel Glen. These issues had to be completed prior to obtaining a building permit. Noting the project was in compliance with the General Plan, Mr. Hutchinson did not believe that the appellants in their appeal or in their presentation this evening provided sufficient evidence to confirm it was not compliant with the General Plan. In terms of the CEQA exemption, he indicated there were five conditions to be met to qualify. He indicated there was substantial evidence in the record, and staff and the Planning Commission concurred that all five were met. Traffic appeared to be a continuing point of appeal and discussion with the appellants and they believed they and the City had vetted that issue and they were relying on the City's interpretation of the traffic that it reduces the total daily trips, that it would reduce peak hour trips and would not impact Levels of Service. Mr. Hutchinson reported having met with several people over the past eighteen months who were active in the City and looked at the City as a whole in terms of economics, quality of life, housing, business and transportation issues, and had received the endorsement of several groups — The San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters, Marin Workforce Housing Trust, Marin Family Action, Fair Housing Marin, The Greenbelt Alliance and Marin Conservation League, and notably, two major adjacent employers who deal constantly in finding affordable housing for their employees. Mr. Hutchinson expressed the hope that when the City Council listened to the voices of the few who were impacted by the project they would also listen to those representing the many also. He indicated he would like to have some time for rebuttals to perhaps some of the public testimony as they believed there could be facts that would need to be clarified on the record by either the developer or staff. Regarding the number of affordable units in the project, Councilmember Connolly stated his understanding was that 20% was the minimum percentage under the City ordinance and inquired whether any consideration was given to a higher percentage. Responding affirmatively, Mr. Hutchinson explained that on this particular project it would be difficult to achieve for the following reasons: 1) They purchased a site with an existing office building that cost a lot more money than a typically vacant site; and 2) They were providing all of the parking in this project underground in a concrete garage which had to be dug out 20 or so feet in some places; therefore, the construction costs for this housing project relative to other housing projects approved in the City were a lot higher on a per unit basis. Therefore, in discussing 20% affordability, that was a fairly high load and against the cost of bringing the project forward, there was not much room to provide more affordable SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 15 housing. In fact, they had been in this discussion several times with Planning Commission members also and believed they were at the minimum density where this project could sustain itself, given all the cost factors. They still had the opportunity to lease the project as an office building; however, they had held it in development reserve because they had been encouraged to do so, and believed it would make a better housing than office site. Councilmember Connolly noted that under the General Plan there was a question about the density level and conflicting numbers, and he inquired whether there was any analysis of a slightly reduced density, i.e., 61 units or any approximation thereof. Mr. Hutchinson stated he had a stack of drawings from May 2006 through January 2007 getting to a project approval and there was a sketch that showed approximately 70 units. In order to make this feasible it would be necessary to split the project into two buildings and encroach them further towards the neighbors on the downhill side towards San Pablo Avenue. However, at the encouragement of the City and based on comments from the neighbors, the building had been shoved up and away from the neighbors on San Pablo Avenue as much as possible, retaining a one -building scheme. Mr. Hutchinson stated that while there was an initial analysis, for several reasons both design -wise and for cost feasibility, it was not feasible. Councilmember Connolly inquired whether there was a study in terms of cost and feasibility. Mr. Hutchinson stated there was cost associated with every type of design evaluated. Mayor Boro invited Mr. Hutchinson to address specifically where the improvements on street access, sidewalks, etc., would come in and how this served the existing as well as the anticipated residents. Using slides, Mr. Hutchinson identified the existing conditions around the property. He identified the office building, terrace parking lot, #s 27, 35, 37 and 39 San Pablo Avenue, the sidewalks and public open space, and indicated they proposed to complete the sidewalk from across their property and down approximately 250 linear feet to make a complete sidewalk. They had been requested to investigate the installation of a crosswalk and stop sign to increase pedestrian safety and would meet with the City Traffic Engineer to review this and should the Traffic Engineer deem it feasible, the developer would pay for the stop sign and crosswalk. For the benefit of the audience, Mr. Hutchinson identified the locations of the proposed sidewalks together with the proposed crosswalk and stop sign. Agreeing that the condition of the street and sidewalks was terrible and needed improvement and appreciating the fact that the developer was willing to install sidewalks, Councilmember Brockbank stated he also noticed that sidewalks would block spaces currently being used by parked cars, pushing them further out into the road. Mr. Hutchinson stated that approximately three spaces would be lost where people currently park, and with the assistance of slides, explained the situation. Councilmember Brockbank stated he assumed Mr. Mansourian had something to determine what streets most needed widening or improvement. Responding, Mr. Mansourian stated that the volume on San Pablo was not sufficient to require full widening. Certain areas were too narrow - as a result of a complaint received last month parking would be removed at the bend by Meadow Oaks. The remainder was approximately 36 -feet wide and while adding a sidewalk would make it narrower calming techniques would be used. He would investigate but did not believe there was room to widen it. Mayor Boro requested speakers to limit their remarks to 2 — 3 minutes. Chuck Cacciatore, Laurel Glen, stated he believed some things were overlooked on the need for an EIR and the fact that this was entitled to an urban use exemption. The position of the neighbors was that an EIR was required because of the substantial size, mass, bulk and density of the development, and the fact that it would substantially and irrevocably alter the character of the neighborhood. He indicated that SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 16 an EIR was done for Meadow Oaks, Laurel Glen and Loch Lomond Marina; however, with this gigantic building on a 1.9 acre site, there was an exemption — the Urban Use Exemption — referenced in CEQA at § 15332. The letter submitted by the attorney for the developer cites Banker's Hill v. City of San Diego , 139 Cal. App. 4t" 249, and he urged everyone to read it. In the project under consideration the open space across the street was not an Urban Use Open Space and the property was not substantially surrounded by urban use property. Mayor Boro stated that the City Attorney would address the issue of why he upheld that there was no need for an EIR. Susan Paulev, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated that as an organization dedicated to maintaining San Rafael as a good place to live and locate business, they supported the 82 -unit residential project proposed by Monahan Pacific Corporation at 33 San Pablo Avenue. As part of its mission, the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce had formed its Advocacy for Housing and Economic Development Committee, which promotes good development, and in particular, the development of housing in the City of San Rafael. As identified in General Plan 2020, the City of San Rafael has an obligation to provide over 900 units of new housing. There are very few sites within the City of San Rafael to provide new housing to meet these obligations. Ms. Pauley stated they understood the traffic issue had been identified as a concern by the neighbors. Residents of the City of San Rafael were very fortunate to have a 95% accuracy rating from the traffic engineering division of the City of San Rafael. This city is a built out community and there was a responsibility to provide affordable housing to residents living within city limits, especially in times of escalating gas prices and newspaper headlines spotlighting foreclosures and skyrocketing rents. She stated that the project at 33 San Pablo Avenue provides such a solution. The opportunity to have 82 new housing units includes 16 affordable units in such an ideal location, which they fully embraced and supported. The site at 33 San Pablo Avenue was ideal for housing, was close to public transit, shopping, community services, neighborhood schools and many major employers. She questioned whether the effort to create positive change for the city at large would be allowed to be damaged by the limited vision of those unable to see the benefits for the entire community. Ms. Pauley requested that when the City Council reviewed the project proposal this evening, they consider the following question: "Is the City of San Rafael committed to providing affordable housing, if so where, if not here then where." She urged that they vote affirmatively for the 82 unit project at 33 San Pablo Avenue. Mark Wallace, Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association and Friends of San Pedro Mountain, stated his primary points on the 33 San Pablo Avenue development were that the City of San Rafael acted incorrectly and was not following CEQA law by finding the project exempt from environmental review. He indicated the exemption was based on finding that the project was urban infill and no significant impacts, both of which were incorrect and based on faulty assumptions and inaccurate information about the environment of the project. Stating the project was not urban infill because it was not in an urban area, Mr. Wallace stated the location was on the border of City limits adjacent to the County and directly across the street from open space. The street and neighborhood lacked the infrastructure soon to be part of an urban area. There were inadequate or non-existent sidewalks, street lights and public services, such as bus routes, and getting to the nearest bus stop required a dangerous walk through areas without sidewalks or crossing lights. The project was also not infill because nothing similar existed in the neighborhood and the high density of the project would fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood and this was not consistent with the definition of infill. Mr. Wallace stated that the project would have significant impacts on the neighborhood because of the increase in density, traffic and inadequate parking. The methodology of extrapolating from existing traffic data would work for a smaller project; however, 82 units required more careful study, which got to the central issue. By not having environmental review in the form of an EIR, the City of San Rafael had followed a process not based on fact. Indicating that apparently the project had been discussed for more than two years, Mr. Wallace stated that in this amount of time an EIR could have been completed. Mr. Wallace noted that the project sponsor in their letter dated April 28, 2008, argued that the citizens' appeal of the Planning Commission's decision had not offered evidence of the impact claimed; however, to qualify for a CEQA exemption, the burden of proof was on the project sponsor to show there would be no significant impacts. Because of the lack of accurate information supporting this, the claim of no impacts could not be supported, e.g., the building being removed had been occupied for most of time SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 17 since being built over 20 years ago; therefore, claims about traffic impacts were not based on fact. Residing in the neighborhood and driving from the 711 to the Civic Center — about 15 minutes each morning between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. he stated the LOS was closer to F. Sue Beittel, League of Women Voters of Marin County, stated that they had looked at this project several times, wrote two letters to the Planning Commission, October and March, and they viewed this as an infill housing opportunity site with easy access to Highway 101, transit and jobs. They believed it to be a good use of a vacant office building and believed that a very good process was used in the Planning Commission reviewing the project and recommending Council support. She indicated they hoped the City Council would follow that recommendation. Jenny Gregg, Tarrant Court, stated that apparently she was not amongst those who lived within the 300 - foot noticing area as she did not receive any communications nor was she a part of any meetings. As a market researcher, of those supporting the project, she inquired how many people lived in the North San Pedro Road or San Pablo Avenue areas and noted none of the immediate impacted areas were represented. Indicating she had a son attending Venetia Valley school, Ms. Greggy read a letter from the Principal "I am the Principal of Venetia Valley School and it's down the street from the proposed building site. I am writing this letter to express some concerns the City should take into consideration in looking into the future planning development of the 33 San Pablo Avenue project. Having students who come to Venetia Valley from the San Pablo neighborhood, I would encourage the City to look at the safety of the North San Pedro Road intersection for the wellbeing of students who will be walking or riding their bicycles to and from school. It is a high volume traffic area and is the main entrance to the Marin Civic Center, China Camp State Park and the Santa Venetia neighborhood. Whatever decision is made, I hope that the interests of our neighbors' children are taken into consideration. Please also consider the increase in traffic that already is very slow during the 8:00. — 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 — 3:15 p.m. hours, which are right during the start and end times. The increased traffic will affect many parents and students that live and come to drop off and pick up their children from school. If you have any further questions or concerns, please free contact me via phone or email — Pepe Gonzales." Ian Sammis, small business owner, stated he was in favor of the project. He had lived in Marin County for almost 30 years and had a business in San Rafael for approximately twenty years, and along with other small business owners, they had problems getting employees. This project would provide some additional help in that respect and he believed it important this be considered in voting. While he was in sympathy with the neighbors concerning the road, Mr. Sammis stated they apparently had the same type of problems for a number of years. Adding 200 people at the top of the hill would put a whole lot more pressure on the City to have a safe egress and ingress for all kinds of services, and therefore, the problem from that point or view would in itself, be improved by the project. He urged the City Council to take into consideration that the current conditions would be improved because of pressure from the project they should approve. Mary Feller, Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association, stated they represented 1,000 homes with 400 paying members, and felt very strongly that the Achilles' heel of this project is the traffic study and all of the improvements at this intersection had absolutely no benefit for Santa Venetia and in fact, that traffic had increased dramatically in the last five years, to the point where dozens attended the Countywide plan hearing and begged Supervisor Adams for help, because they now had a very severe safety issue. Ms. Feller noted it was no longer possible to get emergency vehicles in and out of Santa Venetia between 8:15 and 9:00 a.m. during the school year, Monday through Friday. She commented that several years ago her husband had an asthma attack, which he would not have survived, had it been during those morning hours. She believed the City was facing a large liability issue if something was not done about the traffic at the stop light. Ms. Feller referred Council to her letter in this evening's packet — page 191 — where she indicated that on September 25, emergency vehicles could not get in or out of the community. Conditions were dangerous in Santa Venetia and the timing of the light needed to be changed. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 18 Referring to page 56 of the staff report, Ms. Feller questioned the traffic study, noting Mr. Mansourian's traffic study was one day, for two hours in 2007, to look at the traffic at their intersection. She reported that Mr. Mansourian stated staff had examined the traffic signal and sufficiency and found it to be adequate; however, she believed two hours was not enough. She stated that an EIR needed to be done to really assess this. Don Maxon, Redwood Village, stated he would be directly impacted by traffic increases this development would produce. He indicated he was in attendance this evening primarily in support of small businesses in San Rafael, which needed employees, who needed affordable places to live. He believed this was a great opportunity for the City to approve a project that was an improvement of an under-utilized and not very attractive building. He strongly recommended approval of the project as proposed. Tad Inouve, President Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association, stated there did not appear to be a Condition of Permit to complete the sidewalks in the resolution, as had been stated earlier. Indicating he was a resident with two children attending Venetia Valley school, he stated he walks to school daily with his children because it was faster to walk than drive, noting 50% of the time cars were backed up to 711. Should the project be approved he believed that not only would more children be added to the school, which was fine; however, the safety issue would be increased. Mr. Inouye believed the reason for such a traffic issue was because of the many families living in single-family homes, with four or five cars in some, and he believed the same situation would prevail in the new development. Four and five bedroom houses were rented which produced an equal number of cars at one home. Mr. Inouye urged the City Council to vote negatively on this project. Tamara Hall, Santa Venetia, stated that unlike her neighbors, she supported affordable housing in the area. She realized it would impact her, having a son beginning school next year, and while the traffic was bad, it was a sacrifice she was willing to make, and she encouraged the City Council to support the project. John Metcalf, Point Gallinas, stated it appeared as though he would not be affected by the project; however, he was affected. He did not believe the sentiment this evening was against affordable housing or making property more productive and available to those who needed it, rather there was a desire to ensure the property was used in a productive way. Indicating he was appalled that no EIR was done on a property across the street from the Civic Center, Mr. Metcalf noted the Civic Center had a lot of design rules and guidelines that must be followed. He believed the building should be evaluated to see whether there could be 61 units and if not economically feasible, perhaps it was not the correct project for the area. He believed the City Council's decision this evening would have an effect for the next 40 or 50 years, and he requested they use the voice of reason in making this decision. Elissa Giambastiani, League of Women Voters and Marin Workforce Housing Trust, stated that this evening she spoke as a twenty-year affordable housing advocate. She indicated that any housing built in the City now would be opposed. People were concerned about traffic and many did not understand that cities were required by law to provide housing. She believed elected officials would be under more and more pressure to do the right thing. While wishing to respond to the concerns of residents, they still needed to follow the law. Regarding traffic, Ms. Giambastiani stated she attends the JCC (Jewish Community Center) three times weekly at approximately 8:00 a.m.. at which time there was a lot of traffic going east on San Pedro dropping children off at school, and going west commuting to work. However, she noted that at the intersection at San Pablo Avenue, the traffic quickly dissipates as cars enter High 101, going either north or south, or to the Civic Center. She, therefore, doubted that any additional traffic generated by this project would affect this intersection. Ms. Giambastiani noted that the private sector was building the affordable housing the state required the City to build. Public dollars were not being used to finance these projects; therefore, when a project was delayed, it cost more. When density was reduced, the cost of financing those affordable units was also reduced, so when opponents suggested reducing the project by 20 units, with 12 affordable units remaining, they were not thinking about whether or not it was financially feasible to do so. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 19 Responding to a comment from Councilmember Connolly, Ms. Giambastiani explained that a number of years ago before this last iteration of the housing element, the City's requirement for affordable housing was 10%. Being with the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce at that time, she recalled that their Affordable Housing Committee urged the City to increase it to 20%. They did not suggest that it go more than 20% because they also, being business people, were aware there was a certain point beyond which it was not economically feasible; therefore, asking for more than 20% was really tough to get. Indicating that Marin was the fastest aging community in the state with a tremendous need for healthcare workers, amongst others, Ms. Giambastiani stated this was a good project in a perfect location. She requested the City Council to maintain the density, deny the appeal and let the private sector go to work and build some homes. Linda Levev, submitted a letter and map to the City Council, which identified the route to the building. When discussing the project with Monahan Pacific originally, she suggested having some other access and noting everyone shops at their local market, she believed the project would add a further 200 cars making it impossible to get in or out of the market parking lot. She believed that in discussing the size of the building, how people got there was not being evaluated. Besides traffic, Ms. Levey stated the final blow was the view entering and leaving their neighborhood. Currently, the Civic Center could be seen on one side and the brown building on the other, which blended in. The new building was three times the size of the brown building and did not fit in. While sixteen affordable units was great, she questioned why not more. Noting the development was intended for people to live and work locally, she inquired whether it could be demanded they work locally. While she was unsure whether it would solve problems, she was sure it would cause some. Maria Rodriquez, stated that as a former employee of the City and current County employee she requested approval of the 82 unit development at 33 San Pablo Avenue. She and her husband lived in San Rafael for the past seventeen years and because of the lack of affordable housing, they and hundreds of others working in Marin, had become permanent renters, with no opportunity to build equity to purchase a home. The opportunity to build 82 units, including 16 affordable, was one the City should support. The site at 33 San Pablo Avenue was an ideal location as it was in the hub of activity, close to major employers, neighborhood schools and shopping, including the Civic Center. She indicated this was an opportunity for the City to build a future for those working locally, allowing them to achieve the dream of home ownership in San Rafael. She urged the City Council to vote affirmatively for the 82 -unit project. Kvle Keilman, welcomed new Councilmembers Brockbank and Connolly. He indicated he was present as a representative of the Terra Linda Architectural Review Committee, and reported that the ad hoc committee was unanimously against the project, believing it was out of character with the neighborhood and Marin County, and most importantly, it was out of character with a building that was a world monument. He believed this was the only building constructed by Frank Lloyd Wright representing a governmental agency. Mr. Keilman did not believe those in opposition were out of line asking for a reconsideration of the size of the project, and having read their letters he believed they made an eloquent case. Having lived in San Rafael for 50 years, Mr. Keilman recalled how as a child how proud his parents were that the Civic Center was being constructed and the whole point of the Civic Center design was that it fit in with the hills, it was designed to bridge the two hills and fit in with the natural surroundings. He believed this project would not compliment Frank Lloyd Wright's vision and expressed the hope that the City Council would unanimously request further consideration and improvements be required. Roaer Roberts, Marin Conservation League, stated they supported the project as an infill site. The project sponsor was stretching the point in saying they were a proponent of this specific project. He indicated they never endorsed this specific project, rather endorsed it in principle as an infill site. Regarding Councilmember Connolly's remarks, Mr. Roberts believed that SB 1818 allowed the City Council the privilege and could require that the applicant prove his case that it was infeasible to provide more affordable housing at a smaller size project. Should the applicant come forward with information that could determine the feasibility of doing a smaller project and have more affordability, they should do so. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 20 Huao Landecker, Gerstle Park, stated the existing building looked good and fit the site and if not mistaken, he recalled that when built it received an award for outstanding architecture. He indicated that the new building would have a very significant impact on the view as seen from southbound Highway 101. It was large, did not fit the hillside and was not what most envisioned as the future of the County and neighborhood. The wooded hillsides were valued, which this building obliterated. Mr. Landecker stated that this building would have very significant impacts on the adjacent properties. It was unfortunate that all the homes were single-family in the surrounding area and the impacts would mean loss of privacy, noise and parking. Understanding state requirements for parking, he believed this was a good example of how Sacramento had screwed over San Rafael. Noting the appellants mentioned neighborhood plans, Mr. Landecker believed a number of neighborhoods in San Rafael would like neighborhood plans, and he believed this was a good example of why they were needed. The idea of no time, no money did not cut it, and he believed this Council recently approved $350,000 to provide one unit of affordable housing, and this money could have gone a long way towards neighborhood plans. Believing this was another example of sloppy, long range planning, Mr. Landecker stated he lived in a neighborhood with many such developments, which did not work and never would, and the impacts were too great on existing adjacent properties. Mr. Landecker stated that San Rafael learns by its mistakes, which it makes over and over. Chet Davis, San Pablo Avenue, stated he was pleased to live in a country and city were someone like him, who stood to be greatly affected by this decision, had the opportunity to share his thoughts and feelings. He believed he was one of the few with branded, limited vision who chose to exercise his duty as a citizen to let his feelings be known without due process. Mr. Davis stated he was not only a homeowner but also a small business person. He appreciated that commerce drove society and real estate development was part of that. He was both in favor of low- income housing, and affordable housing; however, also highly in favor of a greater review of the scope and breadth of this project. While understanding truly the need for affordable housing, he suggested being clear and direct without waving the banner of affordable housing — the discussion concerned 16 units, of which 8 were affordable, low-income units. Requesting that the City Council consider two items this evening regarding 33 San Pablo Avenue, Mr. Davis stated that firstly, with regarding to parking, he believed the number of spaces to be thoughtless. He understood and appreciated there were laws, which City staff duly and appropriately made known; however, as there appeared to be many in attendance with a strong concern about the actual number that would benefit the residents of the proposed project, to simply state nothing could be done about it, he considered a serious injustice. Mr. Davis stated he appreciated the suggestion that traffic safety was fine; however, as a resident in that narrow section he could assert that traffic would be grossly affected by this development. If the project remained approved, he invited City leaders to put into motion a plan to better promote and enforce traffic safety on this diverse street. He commended his neighbors and friends who were part of the political process and had taken their time and energy to be present this evening on this decision that would directly affect them. Mary Henlev, Santa Venetia, stated that having followed the project since its inception, she never really was able to grasp its size and mass from drawings, etc. It was not until May 1, 2008, when the City Manager's Snapshot contained a rendering from the rear that she saw the building had maintained its height of 36 -feet. She realized then that although the developer reduced the units and stepped it down, it made no impact on the rear of the building at all. The building still was 370 -feet long and 36 -feet tall, with windows, sliding doors and balconies as their view. Ms. Henley stated that her neighborhood participated in the General Plan which was time-consuming, with a lot of meetings, workshops and working groups; however, they wanted to be sure their concerns were included in the General Plan. When it was complete they were very happy that the General Plan, DRB, Planning Commission and City Council reviewed projects, and never did they consider the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 21 possibility of an applicant's being able to simply request jumping Design Review and going directly to the Planning Commission. In looking at the staff report, Ms. Henley stated that all their concerns for the Civic Center corridor, San Rafael Airport, anything close to them, were taken into account, but were not consistent. She felt it an insult for her neighborhood to invest all that time and have it come down to a simple "not consistent." She stated it was o.k. with the Planning Commission because they wanted to stay forward on the fact that the project would provide additional housing to the City's housing stock and she believed they balanced this against design density, views, the neighborhood, and figured that the housing stock was more important. She did not believe this was right or fair and believed the Planning Commission's approval should be denied and the appeal upheld. Bill Wilhelm, President, Laurel Glen Homeowners Association, stated he would like to correct the record that Mr. Hutchinson indicated he noticed all the neighbors as he had yet to receive any notice of any meeting, except for the notices on the property itself. Regarding low cost housing, he noted that no indication had been given as to the cost of these units, which should be an issue. With regard to the width of the street, sidewalk and parking would leave 17 -feet for two cars to pass, while a normal lane was 10 -feet. Cllif Meneken, San Rafael, stated he had been involved in a number of environmental struggles over the years, especially in Terra Linda; therefore, some of his remarks had to do with the general concerns of the City rather than the particular concerns of this community. He stated it was interesting to note, however, that not one person from the immediate community, nor one person from the community at this hearing spoke out in favor of this project, nor was the community surveyed as had been done when opposing the second floors in the Eichler community. He indicated it was interesting to note that those in support of the project were the traditional pro -housing lobbyists he had seen in hearings time and time again, and there was little discussion from them on the particulars of this project. Mr. Meneken believed the hearing process was seriously flawed in that there was a lot of housing interest, contractors and architects represented on the Planning Commission and DRB, which tended to give that flavor to the proceedings. The two relatively new people from the community, Mr. Sonnet and Ms. Mills, both vigorously opposed the project, and they were both much more community-based than those they believed had too many conflicts of interest. Two final points, Mr. Meneken stated that very importantly, the City Council had to use its discretion based on the regulations, which clearly stated that should there be a major building project, such as this, there had to be two studies done: 1) whether it was compatible with the predominant style of the neighborhood — both sides and length of the street — and this was not undertaken by the Planning Department on many projects they opposed, nor was it undertaken in this case, as far as he could see. He believed the predominant style at the most would be two floors, and perhaps less, so how could it be stated that proper studies had been done and the regulations had been followed when no study was undertaken, and clearly this was not compatible with the predominant style of the neighborhood. The other regulation not dealt with was when views of the hills, open spaces and public buildings such as the Civic Center could be impacted by a construction, a study needed to be done, and it was not done. Mr. Meneken stated the developer's history should be checked because Santa Rosa had indicated they did not wish to deal with them, as they had not shown good faith on a project of theirs. Shellv Sweet, Santa Venetia, stated that in principle it was a good idea to use the site for housing; however, she believed the project was out of scale and threatening what was so unique to Marin County. She requested the City Council reconsider the scaling of the project, traffic issue and parking. Mary Lou Kinq, Marin Civic Center Vision Committee, echoed a previous speaker's remarks about the impact and effect on the Frank Lloyd Wright building, which was such an important international building. There being no further comment from the audience Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro stated that after a brief break he would invite staff to answer some of the issues raised. The City Attorney would discuss the adequacy of the EIR, (see minutes 6/2/08) why the exemptions were given, discretion with regard to SB 1818, and Mr. Brown and Mr. Boloyan would address the different issues. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 22 The City Council meeting was paused briefly at 10:40 p.m. and resumed at 10:56 p.m City Attorney Robert Epstein stated that as had been discussed earlier, the Density Bonus law was a relatively recent animal of the state legislature and also the categorical exemption under discussion this evening - §15332 of the Public Resources Code — was not in effect when earlier projects were considered. Regarding the question raised as to why that exemption was not used in the past, he explained that it did not exist then in the law. Mr. Epstein stated that the code section where it describes infill development projects refers to projects that are substantially surrounded by urban uses. He indicated this is not defined in the code section and in looking at this property, the urban uses surrounding it would include the freeway and urban uses to the north, east and west. He noted several statements in the record this evening that due south of the property is open space — he believed it was not actually due south, but slightly down the street. Looking at the definition of infill site - §21061.3 of the Public Resources Code, where the legislature has defined what is an infill site — Mr. Epstein quoted: "Site in an urbanized area that meets either of the following criteria." He indicated that a lengthy statutory definition followed with which he believed the property actually complied; however, he would not go into it because there was an alternative definition which is: "A site that has been previously developed for qualified urban uses." He stated that in his judgment, this was a site that was previously developed for qualified urban uses and, therefore, did fit within the categorical exemption for infill development; thus the exemption applies. Regarding the questions raised under the density bonus law and level of Council's discretion and authority to require things like more explanation or evidence from the developer regarding the economic feasibility of the project with increased affordable housing, if that were something the Council was considering, Mr. Epstein stated that the concessions that could be requested under state law were not being requested. It was staff's judgment that that type of economic feasibility study would not be something the Council would have discretion to require. He explained that here where the density bonus law is triggered by the addition of one unit over what would otherwise be allowable arrived at the point of where the Council's discretion did lie in their review of this project, i.e., a health and safety exception in the code. Mr. Epstein stated that if the City Council were to exercise their discretionary authority at this time over the project by denying it or by requesting it to be downsized somehow, they would have to make a finding of a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, the physical environment or historic property, and the code defines a specific adverse impact as a "significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the day the application was deemed complete." With regard to a specific adverse impact on health and safety, the physical environment or historic property, Mr. Epstein stated there had been discussion this evening about several of those concepts. Whether there was sufficient evidence in the record to base a finding on that at this time was a question in his mind; however, he believed one of the things that would be useful to hear about further was the traffic study from the Traffic Engineer, because that was one area where there was specific safety standards that apply and which staff had studied in connection with this application. Mr. Epstein invited the planning staff to add more comment should they deem it appropriate. Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Mansourian could answer questions raised about the adequacy of the traffic study's specific reference in the staff report to a two-hour evaluation of the intersection. The second question related to the ability to have an access to the site from the freeway off -ramp. Mr. Mansourian explained that normally staff takes the model runs and evaluates the data. In this case staff went to the location on two occasions: In February, 2007, staff observed the operations at the intersection to verify the model results, and in addition, he personally, on a Thursday Farmers' Market morning in April, observed it. Subsequent to this observation and confirming the information he wrote a memorandum which indicated that in the morning there were issues coming from Santa Venetia due to the inadequate number of lanes, and the remaining lanes at the intersection were operating satisfactorily. With regard to the off -ramp, Mr. Mansourian explained that Caltrans does not allow additional entrances or exits to their off -ramps. With regard to the sidewalk condition, Mr. Brown reported this was found as Condition #39 — page 27 of the staff report. A further Condition, #119 — page 37 - discussed when that had to be implemented; however, the principal requirement was under condition #39 — page 27. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 23 Mr. Boloyan explained that condition #39 lists the type of improvements required that the applicant had offered to install and that had been memorialized in the condition. He stated it indicated that the plans for this had to be drawn up and reviewed by the Public Works Department before a building permit was issued on the project, and #39 a), b) and c) discussed exactly which improvements were being required on the southside and northside. He indicated that Condition #119 — page 37 — basically stated that those frontage improvements that were in Condition #39 had to be installed and operational prior to final occupancy of the building. He commented that the construction had to be completed and done before the building was occupied. Mayor Boro clarified that there would be a continuous sidewalk on the southside from this project down to the intersection, on the opposite side of the street from the market. Regarding the sales prices of the affordable units, Mr. Brown stated this depended on a number of factors — County income standards in place when the units were actually sold and the size of the units. Typically, at least in the current situation, these units for low income had been selling in the high $100,000s, low $200,000s, and moderate income units in the mid $200,000s. Regarding Mr. Meneken's point on the lack of a study of design compatibility with the predominant character of the street, Mr. Brown explained that that provision in the zoning code only applied to second - story additions on single-family homes - §1425050(f) (6) (f) — and again, it did not apply in this situation. With regard to the remark that no formal study was done of the impact of the view on public buildings (and hills), Mr. Brown stated that those were analyzed as part of the staff report and in the General Plan compliance with Policy CD 5. Regarding the crosswalk, stop sign study, Mr. Boloyan this was a result of the Planning Commission hearing. He explained that the Planning Commission asked that the applicant explore the feasibility with the City on installing a stop sign and crosswalk at the Laurel Glen Terrace intersection with San Pablo. At that time staff mentioned that for the City to install a stop sign and crosswalk entailed a pretty detailed warrant study and certain findings had to be made on traffic volumes, accident history, etc. The condition as written stated that they had to explore that with the City's Traffic Engineer and Traffic Coordinating Committee. Mr. Boloyan stated that that potential idea had been evaluated initially by Mr. Mansourian. Mr. Mansourian reported that based on the volumes and data on hand, it would not meet the warrants to install a stop sign or meatblock crosswalk at this time. Staff would like to defer this until the project is fully occupied (if approved) to ascertain whether it met warrants for an all -way stop on San Pablo Avenue. Mayor Boro inquired whether staff could project the volume from what was planned to be built to make a determination prior to construction. Mr. Mansourian stated he evaluated this and based on the low volumes currently, it would not meet the warrants; therefore, it was necessary to wait. Also, with regard to the roadway speed on San Pablo Avenue, surveys needed to be done to gather this information. Mr. Boloyan stated this was Condition #40 — page 27. Councilmember Heller invited Mr. Mansourian to explain what warrants meant. Mr. Mansourian explained there were requirements to justify the installation of an all -way stop, e.g., there should be approximately 300 vehicles per hour for eight hours entering the intersections, and this type of volume would not be generated on San Pablo Avenue or from this development. There also should be five accidents annually susceptible to correction. He indicated the issue was that, should stop signs be installed where they were not justified, they would not be obeyed by motorists, hence causing more of a safety issue and false sense of security. Indicating he had one major concern, Mayor Boro stated he understood the law and the fact the City Attorney indicated that the EIR was adequate (see minutes 6/2/08) He trusted Mr. Mansourian's numbers, understood what he was stating and was aware that intuitively, people did not believe that; however, he believed it made sense and that was how the City did its planning. Referring to page 67 of the staff report — Planning Commission Minutes of meeting on 3/11/08 — Mayor Boro noted that SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 24 Commissioner Lang asked whether they ever required a scale model. Principal Planner Boloyan responded that it had been required in the past for projects in terms of a physical scaled model, but photo simulations of vantage points or still shots could be used to demonstrate scale. A visual massing diagram was produced that was an aerial computer generated simulation from 360 degrees to show the massing in relation to the adjacent properties, which was presented to the Planning Commission at the prior meeting. Mayor Boro stated his understanding was that those in attendance this evening were not at the first Planning Commission meeting, rather they got involved later on. He was very disappointed that between the staff and applicant there were no visual simulations as to the impact the project would have as it was approached, in going by it on Highway 101 or as seen from up or down San Pablo Avenue. He indicated he was a strong believer in computer aided design and simulation and if done correctly and in a trustworthy manner, it would demonstrate what would be placed there, and photomontages could to some degree to that. The code provides for impact on historical sites and the impact approaching the Frank Lloyd Wright building was important. He indicated it was important that views supposedly being taken away were addressed. The staff report stated that the City code did not protect individual views but did protect public views; therefore, it was important to see that. Mayor Boro stated it was important to have a better sense of what the project would look like once on the ground, because it was massive, and he believed this was owed to the City and community. Mayor Boro believed the issues of the EIR and traffic had been answered and did not see any way to challenge them. The state had put these regulations in because exactly what was happening in this case went on generally and housing did not get built, resulting in minimal discretion for the City. He commented this was just the history of the Senate Bill introduced and enacted a few years ago. He, for one, would feel a lot better with a sense of what the development would look like when completed, and the view from the different vantage points, and believed it was a legitimate request to the applicant. Councilmember Heller requested clarification on the PSP and why this project did not fall under it, and the comment that this development violated the City's 36 -foot height limit. Mr. Brown explained that the PSP in the resolutions adopted by the City Council only come into play when there is a net increase in traffic from a site. PSP was a way for the Council to take a higher level view in a year of all anticipated development to get a sense of what the cumulative traffic was. He reiterated that it referred to situations where there would be an increase of at least ten peak hour trips per project, which was not the case here, and would not qualify under the Council adopted PSP resolution. In terms of the height, Mr. Boloyan stated this issue was addressed on numerous occasions. He explained that the standard for the measurement of height in this case was the Uniform Building Code Measurement of Height as defined in the 1997 Building Code. That was a fairly complex measurement and was a little difficult to explain verbally. Graphical illustrations were available in the file for anyone to view; however, he explained that basically for segmented buildings the City was allowed to calculate height for each segment of the building itself and, should there be a difference of more than ten feet on the high end of the building and the low end of the building segment, a ten foot bonus was given from the low side and height is measured from that point up. The height limit in this case was 36 -feet. Mr. Boloyan stated that each building segment is calculated separately, as defined by the Uniform Building Code. He explained that the complicating factor in this case was that there were two differing slopes, so the City's Building Official had to determine the methodology to calculate those differing slopes. He had the applicant's architect present the different datum points, and based on that, staff concluded that it was within the 36 -foot height limit. Mr. Boloyan confirmed for Councilmember Heller that the Uniform Building Code was a state code, adopted locally. Councilmember Connolly thanked both sides for their very informative presentations this evening. He also complimented the public for attending en masse, staying this late and expressing their opinions publicly, which really helped the City Council make an informed decision. Councilmember Connolly stated he believed the City was heading in the right direction in proposing housing to replace the vacant office building at this site. It was also positive that affordable housing was included in the project. He was disappointed that the project only included the minimum number of SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 25 affordable housing units called for under City policy and believed that legitimate issues had been raised about the mass and scale of the project, relative to its impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Stating that this project was infill in the sense of replacing an existing building however, in his view, Councilmember Connolly noted it was not a classic urban infill mixed use site, as had been suggested this evening, in the sense of being suitable for a high-density project of this mass and scale. Noting the project was situated on a narrow, dead end street, Councilmember Connolly stated it was in fact, adjacent to some office space and apartments; however, the only other commercial activity really adjacent to the area, was a small grocery, and the only nearby public transit was a bus stop some distance away across a major thoroughfare near the Civic Center. Councilmember Connolly stated his sense was that this was a neighborhood on the cusp or tipping point. At this time it retains a quiet neighborhood feel; however, it is only barely clinging to that quiet neighborhood feel currently. This project at its current size would likely have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He believed that additional analysis and input would be appropriate and is advisable to assess the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He questioned whether the project should be a reduced number of units. Councilmember Connolly stated there was evidence that under existing General Plan policies there would be a maximum of 61 units and he would find it helpful to have cost and feasibility studies on a lower number of units. Noting a lot of concern about traffic, and having the utmost respect for Mr. Mansourian and the work he does, Councilmember Connolly stated this was not a black and white issue because this site had been vacant or under-utilized for so long. It appeared to him that a project of this size would have a major impact on this particular road as it is configured, and there could be safety issues that at least warranted additional analysis. Noting conflicting evidence on noticing, Councilmember Connolly stated testimony was heard on both sides regarding that issue. In his experience, the best win-win projects had a lot of input from a variety of stakeholders, including the surrounding neighborhoods. Councilmember Connolly proposed that rather than granting or denying the appeal this evening, he would move to continue the hearing to let the parties and City staff continue to work on different options and talk through legitimate concerns pertaining to the neighborhood impacts of the project, and he had heard a great deal already in terms of possible modeling to do so. He believed that if this additional legwork was done together as a community and as City government, a positive result and vision could be achieved for the area. Councilmember Brockbank stated it was impossible not to feel great sympathy for the neighbors. He had been up that street a number of times, as he visits the Law Library a lot, and walked the site last week. He believed it was fair to say that 70, 80, 90, 95, 98, 99% of neighbors in this or any other neighborhood so impacted would oppose such a project, commenting that if he lived in that neighborhood, he would not like it either. He would not like the additional traffic and was unsure he liked the looks of it, no offense to the applicant — he considered they did the best they could under the circumstances; however, he was not elected to use his aesthetic discretion on whether or not he liked the looks of that project, noting he did not believe that was the role of the City Council, perhaps, however, the DRB. Councilmember Brockbank believed it came down to how much discretion the City Council had and in the last few days as he agonized about this, he thought often that it would be very easy to say maybe 82 is too many, 62 would be nicer, because that was what the neighbors wanted and it would be nice to make the neighbors happy. He believed there was a common perception the developer was making millions anyway; therefore they should make a few less million and reduce the project to 62. However, that was under the old rules, when City Councils had a lot more discretion than now. Believing the City could run the risk of being sued for non compliance with the rules, Councilmember Brockbank noted Councilmember Connolly just expressed a different understanding of the rules; however, his (Councilmember Brockbank's) understanding of the rules was that the City did not have discretion here or, at least, very little. Councilmember Brockbank indicated that what he had seen in eighteen years as an elected official and, of course, it would come up a lot more as a City Council member, was that neighbors often felt, (he was SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 26 not accusing anybody of saying this, and maybe many did not feel this) they knew best what was best for their neighborhood, and ought to have veto rights; however, the trouble was, they did not. The City Council had to represent all 58,000 people in San Rafael, not the 5,800 people, or the less than 1 % or so of this neighborhood. If veto rights were given to every neighborhood, then nothing would ever get built anywhere because nobody wanted anything built in their neighborhood. Understanding the great frustration with this process, Councilmember Brockbank stated that as an attorney, he analogized it to, not a lawsuit, but more like a legal motion, where one side files a motion and a brief and the other side files a response, and sometimes there's back and forth, and a judge makes a ruling in a month. He commented that it should not have to take a year and a half, in a perfect world a month would be nice. However, as a lawyer, he came to rely on the strength of the legal authorities. Councilmember Brockbank stated the applicants did a very good job of doing their legal research. He could not blame the neighbors for not coming up with comparable legal authorities; they were not lawyers, did not have a lawyer and perhaps could not afford lawyers. He could not blame them for that, but as the City Council was the judge in this case, they listened to the legal authorities and decided which legal authorities they found most persuasive. It seems to him as a judge in this case, that the applicant's legal authorities compelled the City Council to deny this appeal. Councilmember Brockbank stated that too often in his 20+ years as an affordable housing activist, and environmentalist, he had seen those two groups at odds, and it was nice that a couple of environmental groups - the Marin Conservation League and the Greenbelt Alliance - supported, at least in concept, the idea of infill housing, because infill housing was needed, and he hoped that all environmentalists everywhere would recognize the need for affordable housing, just as all affordable housing advocates should recognize that there were places where it was not appropriate — the environment had to be protected. Indicating he was distressed at the quality of the street and would like to see it improved, Councilmember Brockbank believed he had to listen to Mr. Mansourian when he stated it was not too bad, and as mentioned recently, perhaps it would get worse. If the development were approved, built and fully occupied perhaps it would qualify for some improvements; however, at least there would be sidewalks, which would bring some improvements. Councilmember Brockbank stated that he too would like to have seen a larger percentage of affordable housing. This developer did a project in Larkspur a couple of years ago that he followed carefully, that was 50% affordable. The case was different in that 17 or 18 market rate units were built and they deeded the other piece of the property to EAH, who built an equal number of affordable units. They also did not have to demolish an old building nor build a lot of underground parking. He indicated he had been informed by people who perhaps knew the numbers better than he, that it was difficult to make more than 20% pencil out, so he had to accept those numbers, and it did not appear as though there was a lot of discretion in that area either, according to the City Attorney. Noting the City was expected to have 900 units, Councilmember Brockbank indicated he was not stating horrible penalties would be imposed if that number was not in place tomorrow or next week, or next month or next year, but eventually they had to be realized, and ignoring this fact would lead to being sued, as the City of Corte Madera did a few years ago, by Marin Legal Aid. They suffered horrible consequences, and probably paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees, only to lose that lawsuit. Councilmember Brockbank did not believe San Rafael could risk that, and serious efforts needed to be made to meet the goal of 900 housing units. There was an opportunity for nearly 10% of that in this development, which did not come along every month, or even every year; therefore, even if there was discretion, it would be very difficult for him not to want to take advantage of that opportunity. Councilmember Brockbank stated that as hard as it was for this neighborhood, whether this was an increase of 40%, 30%, 20% or 10%, everyone had to live occasionally with large jolts to their immediate environment; however, there would be silver linings. He believed the City needed this development, was required to approve it, and he would. Mayor Boro stated his concern was that apparently the visuals were shown, and should have been shown this evening also. He believed the City Council needed to have a sense of the impact on the immediate neighborhood, the highway and Civic Center. He stated it was not a matter of getting into the design of the building, rather he wanted to see what it would look like on the ground, the impact in driving by, the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 27 impact approaching it in the neighborhood and the impact from the Civic Center. He noted one of the questions related to public views and believed that issue needed to be addressed. Agreeing with Councilmember Brockbank, Mayor Boro believed the City Council did not have a lot of discretion. He supported the fact that the traffic works and the EIR was adequate (see minutes 6/2/08). He noted Councilmember Connolly requested more work on direct neighborhood impact; he was unsure what this meant and how it would be done. Speaking candidly, he stated he was surprised that the property owners of the four homes directly affected were not in attendance this evening. He concurred with Councilmember Brockbank that this was the reason for these laws. San Rafael had made hard decisions before these laws; something would be done on this site, it was a matter of what degree, and he believed the Council's discretion on density was limited. He did not believe the law allowed for asking for numbers, since additional concessions were not being required. Mayor Boro stated his biggest concern was what the development would look like when built, not the style but the impact. He believed Council consensus was to carry the item over to a future meeting. Mr. Brown suggested that, since staff was not sure to what extent they might want to recommend the applicant increase the number of photomontage vantage points, etc., it could be best to continue the item to a date uncertain, to be re -noticed. Mayor Boro suggested deciding on a realistic date that was fair to the applicant and the community, and suggested two months. Mr. Nordhoff stated the question went beyond just the simulations, as Councilmember Connolly raised other points regarding input and process. He indicated staff's suggestion was to ensure they had clear direction on Council's expectations, which would assist in framing the timeframe. He did not believe the simulations alone would be time-consuming, rather some of the other issues raised by Councilmember Connolly. Mayor Boro stated that Councilmember Connolly should be specific on his requests. He indicated that the noticing which was done could not be recreated, and believed the developer and staff would work with the community prior to returning the item to the City Council. Councilmember Connolly recalled two issues he raised — 1) Mass and density, which equated primarily to the number of units. 2) Traffic impact, including relative to potential safety issues. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff would work with the developer and the community and return the item at the June 2"d City Council meeting. Councilmember Brockbank invited Councilmembers Heller and Miller to comment, as it could make a difference between having another four hour meeting in a month, with 30 or 40 speakers. Mayor Boro confirmed that the public hearing was closed and on June 2nd, the City Council would review the points raised this evening. Mayor Boro stated he believed the project would go forward and the City Council did not have a lot of discretion to stop it. He believed his and Councilmember Connolly's points were valid and should be pursued. Councilmember Connolly moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to continue this item to the City Council Meeting of June 2, 2008. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008 SRCC Minutes (Regular 05/05/2008 Page 28 COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 11. JPA Oversiqht Committee and ABAG: - File 9-1 Councilmember Connolly reported having attended meetings of the JPA Oversight Committee and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:40 p.m. ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2008 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/05/2008