Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 12726 (Motel Commercial Retail Complex Appeal)RESOLUTION NO. 12726 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL: A) DENYING AN APPEAL (AP09-001) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE INITIAL PROJECT; AND B) APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT (SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT ISR08-070, SIGN EXCEPTION [EX09-002 , AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AMENDMENT JED08-1101) TO ALLOW: 1) AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF SIGNAGE; 2) AN INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT OF AN EXISTING FREESTANDING PYLON SIGN FROM 21' TO 28'; AND 3) NEW SIGN AND BUILDING COLORS FOR AN EXISTING MOTEL/BULK COMMERCIAL RETAIL COMPLEX LOCATED AT 721-737 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST ("LITCHFIELD'S") APN: 014-204-11 WHEREAS, on December 4, 2008, the applicant submitted applications for a Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-1 10) to allow: 1) an increase in the number and size of signage; 2) an increase in the height of an existing freestanding pylon sign from 21' to 32% and 3) new sign and building colors for an existing motel/bulk commercial retail complex located at 721-737 Francisco Boulevard East ("Litchfield's) in the General Commercial (GC) District; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2009, Staff deemed the applications complete and adequate for review by the City's Design Review Board (DRB); and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2009, the DRB reviewed the project and continued the matter to a date uncertain in order to allow the applicant to address design consistency issues; and WHEREAS, at the February 3, 2009 DRB meeting, the property owner indicated that the proposed increase in height to the freestanding pylon sign and sign colors were "non-negotiable" elements of the project and further indicated he had no interest in pursuing the recommendations of the DRB; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission (Planning Commission) held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110) and Exception (EX09-002), accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department Planning staff, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, voted unanimously (4-0 with Chair Pick and Commissioner Paul absent), to adopt Resolution No. 09-03, denying without prejudice the Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110), based largely on the DRB recommendation and the property owner's request that the matter not be continued further by the Planning Commission for revisions; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2009, Martin J. Malkin, attorney for the property owner, filed an appeal (AP09-002), pursuant to the provisions of San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.28, citing a variety of constitutional issues (e.g., Equal Protection and Due Process, Takings without just compensation), abuse of discretion, unlawful discrimination, substantive and procedural failures based on allegations that the record of review supports an alternative finding of approval for the project. The appeal letter cites six general and specific appeal points that are answerable; and WHEREAS, following the filing of the appeal to the City Council, the property owner submitted an alternative sign proposal, which included: a) a shorter, freestanding sign (28 -foot -high) with improved design and illumination; and b) elimination of one wall -mounted sign (for Motel 6). The property owner requested that this alternative signage be reviewed by the City Council in approving the project and resolving the appeal; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2009, the San Rafael City Council (City Council) held a duly noticed hearing to consider the Appeal (AP09-002) of the Planning Commission's denial of a Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-1 10), accepting and considering all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff. As part of this hearing and review, the City Council considered the initial proposal and action on appeal as well and the alternative sign proposal submitted following the filing of the appeal; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department:; and WHEREAS, upon review of the original applications, the project was determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270(a) (Projects Which are Disapproved) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts projects that are rejected, disapproved or denied by a public agency. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby unanimously denies the Appeal (AP09-001), upholding the February 24, 2009 decision of the Planning Commission (Resolution No. 09-03) denying the project as originally proposed. The City Council finds and determines that the points of the appeal cannot be supported for the following reasons: Appeal Point #1: "The action of the Planning Conunission aluounted to all abtrse of discretion in that the record supports a finding of approval as opposed to denial of the application. " (Underline added) The Planning Commission has the review authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny signs requiring a "major" Exception. Since the project requires multiple permit approvals, the Commission also has exclusive and final approval authority over these as well. During the Commission hearing, Mr. Litchfield and his project team (Robert Rogers of Barber Sign Company, project applicant; Ken Kurtzman, project architect; and Martin Malkin, project counsel) were each given an opportunity to present the project, which they each did individually. Minutes from this Planning Commission hearing show no bias, or improper comments made, from any of the Commissioners at any time. The permits proposed by the project are quasi- judicial actions, which involve the exercise of discretion by the hearing body (the Planning Commission). Approval of the project must be supported by all of the required findings set forth is the Sign Ordinance of the San Rafael Municipal Code. As shown in the record, the Planning Commission reviewed the project during its February 24, 2009 hearing and, while indicating an interest in continuing the item to allow for revisions, ultimately denied the project based on Mr. Litchfield's request that the Commission take action that evening. During this hearing, Commissioners Colin and Kirchmann specified their inability to make Finding #2 required for the sign height Exception. The public record on the project contains evidence that the Planning Commission exercised clear sound logic, fairly and impartially, in their decision-making to deny the project based on their inability to make the required findings. 2 Appeal Point #2: "The denial of Mr. Litchfield's application violates the United States and/or California constitutions in general and specifically with respect to the First Antendment, and those sections of the federal and/or state constitutions which deal with Equal Protection and Due Process. " (Underline added) While the appeal does not specify any legal authority or argument supporting this constitutional claim, the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the issue and found it to be without merit. Section 14.19.022 of the Sign Ordinance expressly prohibits regulation of the message content of signs so those general allegations are incorrect. In terms of the Due Process protections under the First Amendment, Mr. Litchfield and the proposed project have been afforded fair and timely notice and hearing through two, separate public forums: the February 3, 2009 DRB meeting and the February 24, 2009 Planning Commission hearing. The appellant asserts that the project is being denied Equal Protection because the proposed signs are being held to a different, higher or stricter standard than other Sign Program applications that are similarly situated, such as the Best Buy site (700 DuBois Street) and the Shamrock Center (647-655 Irwin Street). These sites are uniquely different from Litchfield's by their: size; location; visibility and significant setbacks from the street and highway; and existing architectural design. The Litchfield's motel/bulk commercial complex is slightly over 2 acres in size, while the Best Buy site and the Shamrock Center are 3 -acres and 4 -acres in size, respectively. All three sites have visibility from the freeway (U.S. 101); however, unlike Mr. Litchfield's site, these other sites do not have direct frontage access or frontage road connection. Instead, these other sites are uniquely situated requiring vehicle traffic to navigate surface streets to find. These other sites, like Litchfield's, have had Sign Program applications reviewed and approved by the same hearing bodies, which considered the unique locations of these sites, the appropriateness of their signage, and the compatibility of the signage with the existing architectural design. Appeal Point #3: "The subject application requested less than similarly situated projects which have previously received approvals of the City of San Rafael. E.rantples of previous approvals which requested more than the present application and were approved include, but not limiter/ to, the Best Buv application, as well as the Shantrock Center application for signage relating to Staples and CompUSA." (Underline added) All sign applications, including the Sign Program previously approved at both 700 DuBois Street (Best Buy) and 647-655 Irwin Street (Shamrock Center), are reviewed and determined based on their own sign needs, unique site conditions, the architectural design of the buildings themselves and applicable sign standards, if any. The sign needs, site conditions and design compatibility for the Best Buy Sign Program approval were determined to be distinct to those for the Shamrock Center Sign Program approval. Similarly, the sign needs, the site conditions and design compatibility for the project and Litchfield's are distinct from those of Best Buy and the Shamrock Center. The approved signage for Best Buy, the Shamrock Center, and other "big box" -type development are based on their own merits. All are larger sites than the Litchfield's. These and other similar developments with approved Sign Programs (including Toys-R- Us/Border's and the Shoreline Center) have greater building or site setbacks from the freeway. Each has signage determined to be appropriate for their site and architectural design. The signage for these developments was approved based on required findings. Appeal Point #4: "The City has set a precedent for allowing more than the signage requested by this application when dealing with other retail uses. Its attempt to distinguish this site front the others previously approved amounts to unlawful discrimination and abuse of discretion. " (Underline added) As discussed above in response to Appeal Point #l, the Planning Commission clearly stated its inability to make the necessary findings to approve the project, as proposed, particularly Exception Finding #2 to exceed 21' height limit for freestanding signs. The public record on the City's review of the project application reflects absolutely no discrimination or arbitrariness in providing services to Mr. Litchfield on the basis of race, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, martial status, medical condition or political affiliation. Minutes from both the DRB meeting and the Commission hearing show no bias, or improper comments made, from any of the Board Members or Commissioners at any time. Throughout the processing of the project applications, staff, the DRB and the Commission all expressed a hope to work with Mr. Litchfield to help him regain the partial visibility of the freestanding pylon sign lost during the US 101 `Gap Closure" improvement project by Caltrans. As discussed above in response to Appeal Point #3, all Sign Program applications are reviewed and determined based on their own sign needs and unique site conditions. The approved Sign Programs for both the Best Buy and Shamrock Center do not constitute a precedent in that their sign needs and unique site conditions are distinct from the project applications and the Litchfield's site. Appeal Point #5: "The Design Review Board and tlhe Planning Commission failed to follow its own rule and regulations, both procedurally and substantivelv." (Underline added) As stated above, the Planning Commission has the review authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny signs requiring a "major" Exception. Since the project requires multiple permit approvals, the Commission also has exclusive and final approval authority over these as well. The DRB serves as an advisory board to the Commission on design -related issues, including signs (i.e., location, type, colors and materials, height, etc.). Although the applicant requested that the DRB not continue the matter, but, rather that a recommendation be made (either for approval or denial), the DRB did not find that recommending denial was appropriate at the time since it was found that there were further revisions that could be made to the signage to address the DRB comments. Instead of returning to the DRB with revisions as recommended, Mr. Litchfield requested that the project be presented, as proposed, to the Commission at the earliest opportunity. On February 24, 2009, the Commission reviewed the project and, based in part on the recommendations of the DRB, found that the findings necessary for approval of the project could not be met. Mr. Litchfield once again requested that the Commission either approve or deny the project applications but not remand it back to the DRB for further review. The Commission subsequently denied the project applications, without prejudice. Appeal Point #6: "The failure to act affirmatively on the application, put in context with the facts presented in this situation, amounted to a taking without iust compensation as defined by the United States and/or California constitutions." (Underline added) While the appeal again does not specify any legal authority or argurnent supporting this constitutional claim, the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the issue and found it to be without merit. Mr. Litchfield contends that by failing to approve taller, larger and more signage on the site, the City has affected an unconstitutional taking of his property and/or property rights. Some sign visibility on the site has been impaired by the actions of Caltrans freeway improvement but not by the City's actions. The Signage is, and will continue to be, visible on the site, just not to the extent that Mr. Litchfield would like. WHEREAS, upon review of the original applications, the City Council also was unable to make the findings required to approve a Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110), based primarily on that the proposed number and height of signs: 1) would not be in proper scale with the buildings and site improvements; 2) would not promote a good design solution; and 3) would be precedent -setting; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2009, City Council additionally reviewed modifications to the project, including an alternative design of the freestanding pylon sign which reduced the height from 32', as originally proposed, to 28' and an overall significantly better quality architectural design; and WHEREAS, upon review of the modifications to applications, as presented to the City Council at their April 20, 2009 hearing, the project is determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15301 (g) (Existing Facilities) and 15311 (a) (Accessory Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts projects that propose new copy on existing on -premise signs and new on -premise signs that are accessory to an existing commercial facility. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council approves modifications to the project, as presented to the City Council at its April 20, 2009 hearing. The City Council approves revisions to the applications for a Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110) to allow: 1) an increase in the number and size of signage; 2) a redesign of an existing freestanding pylon sign and an increase in its height from 21' to 28% and 3) new sign and building colors for an existing motel/bulk commercial retail complex located at 721-737 Francisco Boulevard East ("Litchfield's"), based on the following findings: Sign Program Amendment Findings (SR08-070) The modifications to the Sign Program Amendment application proposes signage containing adequate common design elements, in that: a) the colors of all signs will be "French white" surrounded by "Legend tan" trim, with the exception of the motel tenant and its corporate colors (i.e., ., "Sky blue" background with red "6" and minor white edging and lettering); b) the shape of all signs will be either triangular wall signs or rectangular freestanding sign panels; c) the placement of all signs will either be located on the building within pediment entrances to the bulk retail tenant spaces or on the two freestanding signs; d) the materials of all sign faces will be painted aluminum; e) the architectural design of all signs will include `routed' sign faces with '/" punch -through letters, with the exception of the motel tenant panel which will be raised 2" off the surrounding sign fagade to match the design of the routed sign panels; f) all signs will be opaque with internal illumination of the sign lettering only, with the exception of the motel tenant panel, which will be externally illuminated with LED defused down lighting; and g) the font or letter type and size on either all wall signs or the monument sign will match those secondary tenant sign panels on the freestanding pylon sign. The modifications to the Sign Program Amendment application proposes the design of signage which is in scale with the design of the building and improvements on site and in the vicinity, in that the design, colors and materials of all signage is high-quality to match and compliment the design, color and materials of the adjacent building on the site fronting Francisco Boulevard. Further, all signs will be consistent with general design standards of the City's Sign Ordinance (Section 14.19.054 of the Zoning Ordinance), in that: a) the high-quality design of all signs will be compatible with and complement the high-quality character and design of signage for neighboring motor vehicle dealerships concentrated west of the site; b) the design of all signs will promote signage which is simple, uncomplicated and legible due, in part, to the increased size of the freestanding pylon sign panels; c) the colors and materials of all signs are subtle and neither bright nor reflective, which will be compatible with and complernent the same subtle colors and materials found on the on the site; and d) the 28' high freestanding, pylon sign will be in scale with and below the height of the existing site improvements, specifically, the clusters of mature palrn trees, which provide a backdrop for the sign and the historic "Litchfield's" roof sign, which exceed 36' in height. The modifications to the Sign Program application proposes an amount of signage which is in scale with the building and improvements on the site and within the vicinity, in that: a) the site has approximately 350 linear feet of building frontage along Francisco Boulevard East where, if the City's sign standards were applied, a maximum of 350 square feet of total sign area (i.e., one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage) would be allowed; and b) the current Sign Program approves 324 square feet of sign area, which will increase slightly by 19 square feet to 342.8 square feet of total sign area, below the maximum allowed under the sign standards. Sign Exception Findings (EX09-002) The Sign Exception to allow a 28' high freestanding pylon sign is necessary to overcome special or unusual site conditions such as exceptional building setback and lack of or limited visibility due to orientation, shape or width of the property and building improvements, given that: a) the "Litchfield's" site is located along the frontage of Westbound Interstate Highway 580 as it merges with Northbound U.S. Highway 101; b) recent Caltrans "Gap Closure" improvements to U.S. Highway 101 have increased the height of both the freeway grade and the bordering solid, concrete safety wall (a height of 10-12 feet) directly in front of the "Litchfield's" site, which has created a loss of direct line -of -sight freeway visibility to both the existing freestanding pylon sign and the frontage buildings on the site of up to ten feet (approximately). This condition is specific and unique to the subject property as: c) most of the other properties along this portion of the US 101 frontage retains a direct line -of -site freeway visibility where the freeway grade is generally the same as the frontage properties; and d) the safety wall at these other locations is considerably lower (height of 3-4 feet). 2. The Sign Exception to permit a 28' high freestanding pylon sign is appropriate in that it would allow signage in proper scale with the building and site improvements, would be compatible with other signs in the vicinity, and would promote a good design solution, given: a) the existing "Litchfield's" roof sign is 36' -high which, together with the tall mature palm trees on the site that are of a similar height, provides a backdrop for the sign and creates a visible "relationship" with the proposed, 28' -high, freestanding pylon sign; b) while other freeway -oriented freestanding signs in the vicinity are predominantly a maximum height of 21,' there are legal non -conforming signs in the area, which pre -date the current Sign Ordinance standards and are greater than 21' in I height, including the 50' -high, 3-dimensional, freestanding "boat" sign for the Seafood Peddler Restaurant (100 Yacht Club Drive) located within the concentration of motor vehicle dealerships along Francisco Boulevard west of the "Litchfield's" site; c) the quality of colors and materials, architectural design and illumination of the freestanding pylon sign has been improved significantly from the original applications to be more compatible with the colors and materials, and architectural design and details of the nearest frontage building on the site; d) the taller freestanding pylon sign consolidates tenant identification into one sign, thereby reducing visual Clutter as the current sign standards allow an increase in the height of the existing 6' -high monument sign up to 21' or the addition of a second 21' -high freestanding sign on the site; and e) as discussed in finding #1 above, the taller freestanding pylon sign will not be precedent - setting due to the unique circumstances created by the Caltrans "Gap Closure" improvements to the freeway and safety barrier wall in front of the Litchfield's site, which effectively eliminated approximately 10' of sign and storefront visibility where no other site along Francisco Boulevard East has been negatively impacted as much. 3. The Sign Exception to allow a 28' high freestanding pylon sign would permit an improvement that would not be detrimental or disruptive to the safety or flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic either on- or off-site, given that: a) the alternative design proposes a more open base with two, 24" -square support posts, rather that a single, 6' -wide, solid base, as originally proposed, which creates a new 5' -wide view "portal" underneath the freestanding sign; and b) the alternative design proposes softer, more focused illumination of the tenant panel lettering which will be less distracting to adjacent highway motorists. Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment Findings (ED08-110) The design of the modifications to the Amended Sign Program application is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Chapter 25 (Environmental and Design Review Permits), in that: a) the project will be consistent with San Rafael General Plan policies, including Community Design Policy CD -1 (City Image), given that the architecture, scale, and colors and materials of all signs and their structures are high-quality and create sufficient design relationship among themselves, with buildings on the site and with the neighboring motor vehicle dealerships concentrated west of the site; b) the project will be consistent with the objectives of Title 14 (the Zoning Ordinance) which requires that all development promote design quality (As outlined above, the project proposes signage which proposes sufficient common design elements in terms of sign colors, materials, architecture, placement, illumination, type, shape, and letter size or type, and the amount of signage is in scale with the building and improvements on the site and within the vicinity); and c) the project will be consistent with the purposes of Chapter 25 (Environmental and Design Review Permits) which requires that all development promote design excellence and contribute to the attractiveness of the City. (As noted, the project proposes signage with sufficient common design elements in terms of sign colors, materials, architecture, placement, illumination, type, shape, and letter size or type, and the amount of signage is in scale with the building and improvements on the site and within the vicinity). 2. The design of the modifications to the Amended Sign Program application is consistent with the applicable review criteria, in that: a) the proposed 28' freestanding pylon sign will be compatible with and respect the scale of the buildings and site improvements by minimizing visual impacts to the existing historic roof sign; and b) the predominant earthtone colors of all signs will be 7 harmonious with the earthtone colors of the buildings on the site fronting Francisco Boulevard and compatible with the high-quality character of sign design for neighboring motor vehicle dealerships concentrated west of the site. 3. The design of the modifications to the Amended Sign Program application minimizes adverse environmental impacts, in that; a) grading will be limited to the minor excavation of footings for replacing the freestanding pylon sign; and b) no significant trees will be removed and all existing landscaped areas will be preserved. 4. The design of the modifications to the Amended Sign Program application will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that: a) the project has been previously reviewed by the appropriate City departments - including the City's Traffic Engineer who determined that the original design of project, that proposed a 32' -high freestanding pylon sign, would not impair or diminish the safe sight distance for motor vehicle traffic exiting onto Francisco Boulevard East; and b) the project does not propose a use or activity that is prohibited, but will continue the commercial bulk retail, motel and daycare center uses that are either pemitted by right in the General Commercial (GC) District, pursuant to Section 14.05.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, or by existing Use Permit approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approval of revisions to the applications for a Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110), is based on the findings listed above and subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval (SR08-070; EX09-002; ED08-110) Community Development Department, Building Division 1. The design and construction of all site alterations shall comply with the 2007 California Building Code and 2007 Electrical Code. 2. A building permit is required for the proposed work. Applications shall be accompanied by three (3) complete sets of construction drawings to include: a) Architectural plans b) Structural plans c) Electrical plans d) Structural Calculations Community Development Department, Planning Division The building techniques, colors, materials, elevations and appearance of the project, as presented to the City Council as modifications to the proposed signage at their April 20, 2009 hearing, date-stamped April 14, 2009, labeled "Alternative Design" and on file with the Community Development Department, Planning Division, shall be the same as required for issuance of all building permits, subject to these conditions. Further modifications or minor revisions to the project shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department, Planning Division. Further modifications deemed not minor by the Community Development Director shall require review and approval by the original decision making body, the City Council, and may require review and recommendation by the City's Design Review Board. 4. The revised project approves 342.8 square feet of total sign area for the site, as follows: • Roof Sian . One, historic "Litchfield's" internally -illuminated roof sign - with a maximum height of 36' 2" located above the frontage building at 727/733 Francisco Boulevard East - 144 square -feet; • Freestandina Monument Sia_ n - One, internally -illuminated motel tenant monument sign" - with a 4' pedestal base and a maximum height of 8' above finished grade -- located within a landscape planter island of the south entry drive - 36.1 square -feet; • Wall Sians Two, internally illuminated triangular wall signs -w located within the pediment entrance features for the two bulk retail tenants spaces at 727 Francisco Boulevard and 733 Francisco Boulevard - 50 square -feet total (25 square -feet each); • Directional Sian One, internally -illuminated freestanding directional sign 3.5' in height and 6.8 square feet located along the north elevation of the north entry drive, between the two frontage buildings at 721 and 727/'733 Francisco Boulevard East, and setback from the front property boundary line equal to that of the existing freestanding pylon sign; and • Freestandina Pvlon Sian One, internally -illuminated freestanding pylon sign 28' in height located in front of the bulk retail tenant at 727 Francisco Boulevard 105.9 square -Feet total (one, 30 square foot motel tenant sign above three bulk retail tenant signs 25.3 square - feet each). 5. All sign panels on the freestanding pylon sign shall have a consistent 6" vertical reveal and a 5" horizontal reveal. 6. The replacement pediment wall signs shall match the same high-quality architectural design, colors and materials, and illumination of the freestanding pylon tenant sign panels. The replacement pediment wall signs shall be opaque aluminum pan, painted ICI "French white" with routed faces with ''/z" push-thru letters and internal illumination. Only the lettering of the wall signs, like the freestanding pylon tenant panels, shall be visual during nighttime. 7. These approvals shall require final inspection by the Community Development Department, Planning Division. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to request a final inspection upon completion of the project. The final inspection shall require a minimum of 48-hour advance notice. I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, the 4"' day of May 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ,-SS •Ey— _ 9tu Pu.- ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk E