Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-12-20SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1993, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 93-23(a) - #1 - Hozz v. Trust for Public Land et al. No. 93-23(b) - #1 - Cole v. City of San Rafael No. 93-23(c) - #1 - Arnold v. City of San Rafael No. 93-23(d) - #7 No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1993, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember David J. Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: None Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk RE: APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION - File 9-2-6 Mayor Boro announced that earlier this evening the Council had interviewed eight candi- dates for a vacancy on the Planning Commission, and he is pleased to announce that the Council unanimously appointed Mr. Cyr Miller as the newest member of the Planning Commission. He thanked all of the applicants for their interest and stated the Council will write to them and encourage them to apply again in the future. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE None CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as amended. October 4, 1993 and Special Joint Meeting of October 18, 1993 (CC) 3. Annual Audit and Annual Report for San Rafael Accepted report and audit from the Redevelopment Agency (RA) - File 140 x 8-3 x San Rafael Redevelopment Agency; to (SRRA) R-62 x R-103 be forwarded to the State Controller 4. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE Approved final adoption of Ordinance NO. 1655 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN No. 1655. RAFAEL AUTHORIZING FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE SMITH RANCH HOMES (FORMERLY SMITH RANCH HILLS) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CA) - File 229 x 5-1-290 5. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1656 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT TO THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT (RE: Z92-2, SISTERS OF ST. DOMINIC MASTER PLAN, 1520 GRAND AVENUE, AP 15-142-02) (Pl) - File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1656. 6. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE Approved final adoption of Ordinance NO. 1657 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN No. 1657. RAFAEL, AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5, TRAFFIC REGULATIONS TO ADD TRIP REDUCTION AND SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 2 TRAVEL DEMAND REQUIREMENTS (Pl) - File 11-1 x 11-11 8. Resolution Approving Final Map of Boyd Court RESOLUTION NO. 9076 - APPROVING Condominiums (PW) - File 5-1-322 FINAL MAP OF CONDOMINIUM SUB- DIVISION ENTITLED "MAP OF BOYD COURT CONDOMINIUMS" 9. Resolution Granting Maintenance Easement in City Open Space to the Guardian Founda- tion - Smith Ranch Personal Care/Skilled Nursing Facility on Silveira Parkway, San Rafael (PW) - File 2-5-34 x 5-1-290 10. Call for Applications Fire Commission Due to Commissioner Jeremiah File 9-2-5 to Fill Vacancy on Death of Fire Sweeney (CC) - RESOLUTION NO. 9077 - AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT OF MAINTENANCE EASEMENT IN CITY OPEN SPACE TO THE GUARDIAN FOUNDATION - SMITH RANCH PERSONAL CARE/SKILLED NURSING FACILITY ON SILVEIRA PARKWAY, SAN RAFAEL Approved staff recommendation: a) Application deadline 1/11/94 at at 12:00 noon in City Clerk's Office b) Set date for interviews 1/18/94 at 6:30 PM. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller and Zappetini from Item 2 - Minutes of October 4 & 18, 1993 only - newly elected 11/9/93) The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 7.RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE STEPS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY'S CABLE RATE REGULATION AUTHORITY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CABLE TELEVISION CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMPETITION ACT OF 1992 AND THE RULES OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO DELEGATE RATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (CM) - File 4-13-88 x 9-7-4 Councilmember Thayer stated that obviously there was some sort of time interval between this step and the entry into a JPA (Joint Powers Authority). She asked if in the interval, would we be regulating rates for VIACOM? City Manager Nicolai responded that she does not expect that interim to be very long. She noted we already have a JPA for the Master Franchise Agreement, and what the consultant is working on and should have completed soon, is revised regulations around that joint Master Franchise Agreement which will give the Council the ability to add rate regulation to that function. She noted you cannot give to a JPA any authority you do not already have, so tonight the City is taking this action to certify themselves so that when the revised terms and conditions on the Master Franchise Agreement get adjusted, that can be passed on to the JPA. Councilmember Thayer inquired who will be participating in the JPA, and Ms. Nicolai responded it will be all of the Marin jurisdictions except Novato because Novato has a different cable franchise, Chambers. All of the existing jurisdictions are part of the Master Franchise Agreement now, and assuming they all take this action, which the group is strongly encouraging the Councils to do, then they will be adopting similar resolutions to the one before the Council tonight and will pass it on to the JPA once the regulations are revised. Councilmember Thayer inquired about the voting process under the JPA once it is regu- lated. Ms. Nicolai replied that former Councilmember Dorothy Breiner was the Council appointee to that group, and Councilmember Zappetini was appointed last week as her replacement. We will have one vote. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to adopt the Resolution as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 9078 - APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE STEPS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY'S CABLE RATE REGULATION AUTHORITY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CABLE TELEVISION CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMPETITION ACT OF 1992 AND THE RULES OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO DELEGATE RATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 2 107GUY0 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 3 Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro 11.FUNDING OF SEISMIC REPAIRS - SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC LIBRARY (CM) - File 4-1-457 x 9-3-61 x 9-3-40 x 8-5 x 8-20 The Council considered the staff recommendation that the funding for the seismic repairs be: Redevelopment Agency (50%), $390,000; Capital Fund (250), $200,000; Davidson Bequest (25%), $200,000, for a total of $790,000. Councilmember Zappetini stated he wanted to make the Council aware that he was a sub- contractor on the project, and wanted it to be on the record. City Manager Nicolai stated she had checked on this issue, and there is no conflict of interest because all of the actions related to awarding of the contract took place prior to Mr. Zappetini being elected to the City Council. Tonight the item is really how to distribute those charges out to various funds. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to accept the report and approve the proposed funding. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12.PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN PERMIT FOR A MIXED USE PERMIT RESI- DENTIAL/COMMERCIAL PROJECT WITH 122 AFFORDABLE APARTMENT UNITS; 931 SECOND STREET; AP NOS. 13-012-10 AND 11; STEVE ZAPPETINI AND SON, INC., OWNERS; COURT STEWART, REP. (PL) - File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-6 x 10-7 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Councilmember Zappetini left the dais. City Attorney Ragghianti stated the record should reflect that Councilmember Zappetini has absented himself from the Council and may not participate in the vote on this matter or attempt to influence it. He is, by regulation, entitled to speak in a private capacity as a member of the public on behalf of the project. Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council on the proposal, stating that this is an application by Mr. David Zappetini to amend the General Plan land use designation for his property at 931 Second Street from General Commercial to Retail/Office. The purpose of the amendment is to support a mixed-use project of 95 affordable units and about 2,100 square feet of commercial development. He added that other applications have been filed in support of this proposal, but only the General Plan issue is before the Council at this time. Environmental review has not been conducted, and staff anticipates that an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) will be required if this application proceeds. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that on October 12, 1993, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the project, and Mr. Zappetini appealed. He briefly outlined the sequence of events which have transpired on this application. He stated this idea was originally broached with the Planning staff in early 1992. Staff had concerns and recommended meeting with Mr. Zappetini and his consultants prior to them filing an application. Following several meetings, staff advised Mr. Zappetini on February 24, 1992, that the Planning Department could not recommend approval if an application were submitted. The basic concern was the compatibility of a proposed residential development with a surrounding pattern of light industrial, office, utility and other uses. In March of 1992, applications were filed and the General Plan amendment was taken to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial in May of 1992. However, the Commission said they did not have enough information to act on the proposal, and directed staff to proceed with processing the development applications. Mr. Pendoley explained that subsequently the proposal was reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) twice. They were critical in their review. Some months later, Mr. Zappetini asked that the project be brought back to the Commission so he could get some direction as to whether he should proceed further with processing. On the advice of the City Attorney, and with the applicant's concurrence, staff set a Public Hearing on the General Plan Amendment proposal in October of this year before the Planning Commission. Mr. Pendoley stated that basically the project is a four-story, mixed-use building, with SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 4 95 affordable units with affordability set at 600 of median income. The basic design is with parking on the ground floor along with retail on the Second Street frontage, and the units on the second, third and fourth floors. There is an atrium, and the units would be built around the periphery of that. He explained that the site is about 1-2/3 acres, largely undeveloped at this time, with a single family home and Wade's Polish Service. Nearby are a variety of retail uses as well as light industrial uses. A PG&E transformer substation lies directly to the east. The project fronts on Second Street, which is the highest volume surface street in the Downtown area. Andersen Drive Extension would go across the southern end of the pro- perty, with no access at that point. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that the surrounding General Plan designation is General Commercial for PG&E, and Retail/Office across the street where PG&E also has offices. Mr. Pendoley addressed the analysis of General Plan policies which was furnished to the Planning Commission on May 26, 1993, which would discourage this project. He noted there are a variety of policies which would tend to encourage or support the project, especially in the Housing Element, where there are policies regarding affordable housing. However, there are also policies which staff feels would tend to discourage the project. He noted that in the staff report before the Council tonight, there is an analysis of land use policy LU -13 which sets up the General Commercial land use district, which includes the reasons for this area being designated General Commercial. One was land use compatibility, and staff recognized the compatibility with the surrounding high impact commercial uses and utility uses, particularly the future commercial development of the PG&E site. Other concerns were the nearby transformers, a variety of audio and stereo businesses in the neighborhood, and a welding and iron works. Another issue was the potential for a lot merger with the PG&E properties for a more cohesive, large scale commercial development. Another consideration is the high volume traffic on Second Street. Also, the project site has the potential to contain toxic/hazardous substances from the adjacent PG&E site. He noted this potential problem has not been fully studied at this time. Mr. Pendoley explained that staff feels that all of the reasons for designating this site General Commercial are reasons for not designating it Retail/Office, which would permit the residential development. Mr. Pendoley noted that in the staff report he had briefly summarized the concerns of the Design Review Board. They were not so critical of the quality of the design, as the kind of design techniques which had to be applied to this project in order to cope with the surrounding constraints, most of which he has covered in his summary tonight. Mr. Pendoley noted that his report has a discussion about electromagnetic fields (EMF). One reason this is a difficult issue is because the health effects of EMFs remain unresolved in the scientific community. He noted there is a good deal of material which shows some association between EMFs and the incidence of cancer, particularly in children. However, there is no agreed-upon standard for coping with EMFs in terms of land use decisions, and certainly there is no standard which is based on health effects. He noted that one approach which has been recommended comes out of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, which recommends the policy of prudent avoidance. He stated that staff would recommend, and the Planning Commission concurred, that prudent avoidance would be the appropriate approach in this case. The designation of General Commercial probably does not give a person greater exposure than they would have in the rest of their everyday life, whereas the designation of Retail/Office, particularly with residential development, arguably does increase exposure. Councilmember Thayer asked, with regard to the EMF related studies, has anyone sug- gested any kind of threshold level? Mr. Pendoley responded that a couple of agencies have levels, but he would caution that none of them are health related. He noted that they were developed at a small town in Illinois, as well as in Irvine, California. They range from 2 to 4 milliGauss (mG), which is a low exposure. He added that the California Board of Education has a setback standard of 300 feet from the transmis- sion line right-of-way. The edge of this property is within 60 to 140 feet of the lines themselves. That difference from the Board of Education standards does not necessarily prove a health effect, it only answers Ms. Thayer's question of standards. However, it does not address the question of health effects. Councilmember Thayer inquired if, when this project was before the DRB, was there any other way to design this project which did not have access and egress on Second Street? Mr. Pendoley responded there probably is, but it would be very difficult. He explained that Andersen Drive is presently planned for limited access, and the plans would not permit a driveway entrance for a project like this. Another consider- ation would be the possibility of entering into some sort of access agreement to cross the PG&E property, out of Lindaro, for instance. That would be a big assist, if it could be done. Another possibility may be to somehow acquire access onto 'A' Street. He noted that at one point, we had a plan which was proposing access from SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 5 Lindaro Street, but that was withdrawn because the property was not available from PG&E at that time. He noted Mr. Zappetini can address that issue. Councilmember Thayer inquired, what are the other potential uses for that property? Mr. Pendoley replied that the property is designated for General Commercial. Ms. Thayer noted it is in an office/retail zone, and essentially the land use designation would not be incompatible, except for housing. Mr. Pendoley explained that General Commercial land use does not permit residential, basically because General Commercial is the most intense retail designation in San Rafael. It is quite permissive, and envisions high intensity retail and office development. He noted that the potential to merge with PG&E looks attractive, but the adjacent PG&E property is restricted, particularly with the overhead lines, however, it is available for parking. He stated there should be some good opportunities there. Councilmember Cohen asked for a procedural clarification. He noted that the heading on the staff report indicates solely the General Plan Amendment, not zone change, use permit, or environmental and design review permit. Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct, as noted in the staff report. He stated one reason that is true is because the other applications are incomplete at this time. Councilmember Cohen then referred to page 2, the bottom of the second paragraph, where it speaks of the recommendation for denial which went to the Planning Commission on May 26, 1992. He quoted, "At that time, staff recommended that the General Plan proposal raised fundamental land use issues that could be answered without the more detailed review that would be involved in the various permit applications." He noted that normal procedure would be to take the General Plan Amendment, along with the other permit applications, and have all of the information in front of the Council, but staff is saying that at that time it was staff's feeling that the Council could tackle the General Plan Amendment issues without going to the expense and time involved in processing all of the other applications, because staff felt the issues were clear enough, and still feels that way. He asked if that is the substance of the staff report, and Mr. Pendoley responded that it is. Mayor Boro verified if the density is 95 units on 2.3 acres? Mr. Pendoley responded that it is 1-2/3 acres. Mayor Boro asked how that compares to St. Isabella's? Mr. Pendoley replied that St. Isabella's is 63 units on slightly more than 2 acres. Councilmember Heller verified that this proposal is for 95 units and not the 122? Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. When it came in with 122 units, there were problems with parking. The applicant explored the possibility of using the PG&E property, but decided that was not going to work out, so he reduced the density to get close to the parking formula. Councilmember Heller asked, are these all one bedroom units? Mr. Pendoley replied it is a mix, and the architect could answer that question. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Zappetini if he wished to address the Council. Mr. David Zappetini stated he will first provide background on what they have done and what they tried to do. He showed the Second Street elevation, heading east, showing the turnout, the commercial area on grade with three floors of housing above. He pointed out the adjacent area with the transformer station around which they intend to build a site screen. In the site screen, there will be a product which will either be put into the screen or into the side of the building to eliminate the EMF. He explained that this idea of the project is a community within a city. It is built around a central area with the idea of a community within a community. Mr. Zappetini showed an elevation, looking at the project from Andersen Drive, noting that this was the 122 unit proposal. He explained that the first intent was to nego- tiate purchase of the adjacent parking area from PG&E, with hopefully an easement onto Lindaro Street. He pointed out the portion of the PG&E parcel which, by deed restriction, can only be a parking lot. Mr. Zappetini pointed out the back side of the commercial properties on A Street, noting that the buildings will probably not be torn down and rebuilt as a result of the Andersen Drive extension. He showed the location of the site screen around the transformer station. Mr. Zappetini then described, with the aid of colored renderings, the entry to the project and the floor plans, including a section of the common area which has a feeling of a place where the community can get together. All units will face toward the inside, and the higher units will also face outwardly. He showed the location of the laundromat, and stated that with the constraints on the project he thinks the architect has done an excellent job. He added that they have dealt with the traffic noises by design of the project. With regard to hazardous materials at the ground level, they have drilled 7 holes and have sampled 4 holes on the property line adjacent to PG&E. They have found in one hole a minimal amount of PCPs, and no PNAs. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 6 He has spoken with Hazardous Materials Officer Forrest Craig of the Fire Department, and he wants more holes drilled and tested, primarily in the area of Wade's Service because they presume there will be some solvents from the steam cleaning. Mr. Zappetini reported that the mitigation on all of the PG&E property is in an Environmental Impact study done by Harding, Miller & Lawson, and it shows that if there is any type of waste there, it is not moving and the ideal mitigation is to cap it. He explained that the way this project is designed, it will cap the whole area. The only penetration it will have will be at the elevators and at the storm drains and sewers. Those will be minimal. They are looking at a new type of elevator which only penetrates three feet. Mr. Zappetini next addressed the EMF issue, and noted there is information in the packets about "Emumetal", a product which can absorb the EMF and mitigate it. He stated that with the letter he furnished the Council, it will convince them that he can mitigate all of the EMFs in that area. Mr. Zappetini stated he had received today a copy of a study on Ecology House, and their EMF study shows that this project is in the same area of exposure as Ecology House. Other projects in town which have already been approved are Centertown and Boyd Court, which have substantially higher amounts of EMFs than his project. He presented the Council with the study mentioned. Mr. Zappetini stated that the location of the project is controversial, and he presented a chart of the Downtown area, marked to indicate commercial on grade, with housing above. He pointed out the area which can only be a parking lot, and the location of the Transportation Station, Safeway, Fourth Street and the Downtown. He stated that he would not be here unless he felt that this location is an excellent one for housing and, as we know, it is needed in the Downtown. He stated that concluded his presentation. Councilmember Heller inquired of Mr. Zappetini if all of the 95 units are to be one bedroom units. He replied that there will be a mix of one and two bedrooms. There will be 28 two-bedroom units, and the balance will be one bedroom. Councilmember Thayer inquired if Mr. Zappetini is planning to develop this project himself. He replied that the way the loan is set up, it is financed for 40 years at the affordable rate and it is a fixed rate loan. He and his family will own it for the duration. They will be the owner and developer. The financing is on line, and they are ready to go. Ms. Thayer inquired why he had decided on affordable housing rather than something which was more in keeping with the rest of the area. He replied that if you look at the area and try to contemplate some type of growth there, you are looking at office space for which there is a glut on the market, and it is not feasible to do. He explained he had consulted with Mike Smith when he first started going through the process, and his advice was not to get involved with the office space market. Mr. Zappetini stated that he went through the Design Review process with this project; they did the presentation through Planner Chantry Bell, and there were only three things the Board did not like - the wall on the back side of Andersen Drive; they wanted to reduce the units and break it up a little; and wanted the columns in the front to be changed. The second time he went to Design Review, Mr. Pendoley did the presentation; there was different personnel on the Design Review Board, and there was different criteria, and they basically did not like anything. He stated that with the guidelines, he thought he was heading in the right direction by changing the size, the front and the back, but it was rejected. That was the reason he decided to go to the Planning Commission again, because when he went before them originally, they said they did not have enough information and wanted to know more. When he went to the Planning Commission the second time, they rejected it, he believes, mainly because of the EMFs and the Design Review Board. He stated he did not want to make another drawing without some sort of assurance. He stated he has talked this over with his architect, and they can design almost anything the Council wants, and make it work. It would be difficult, but he is sure they can do it. The only other thing is, he believed it is an area which is needed in San Rafael, and he cannot see it as being a problem. He stated that if the PG&E property does get developed, there will still be only a parking lot adjacent to it, and he thinks this is an excellent spot for housing. Mayor Boro called for further input from the audience. Mark Harwood, speaking as a member of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Affordable Housing Task Force, presented a letter from the Task Force, which he proceeded to read. The letter expressed support for the housing project proposed by the Zappetini family, and noted the lack of affordable housing as being one of the main reasons why companies are leaving Marin. It noted the emphasis in the General Plan on the impor- SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 7 tance of creating affordable housing and stated the City Council should be commended for taking the lead in affordable housing production. The letter stated that this is a well thought out and carefully designed project, and that the Zappetini family has spent considerable time and money responding to the recommendations of the Design Review Board. It is recommended that instead of using the argument of this being a "stand alone" project, it should be considered a first step in creating a suitably planned neighborhood. Mr. Harwood stated that as a concerned citizen, and as Vice -President of San Rafael Thrift & Loan, he sees many affordable housing projects come across his desk. He stated this is a good opportunity to approve an affordable housing project, and noted that Mr. Zappetini has worked very hard on it, and is willing to invest in the local community and spend his money to create a better environment through meeting the affordable housing needs of this community. He asked that the Council consider this proposal seriously. John Newman of PG&E in San Rafael stated that EMF is one of the prime issues staff has singled out. He stated they believe they have been a good neighbor in the commu- nity and will continue to be, regardless of the decision by the Council. He stated he supports affordable housing and would like it for their employees, especially when they are needed at night and other off-duty times. He stated we are dealing here, to a large extent, with a perceptual, rather than a quantifiable problem. He stated it is important for this Council to distinguish between perceptual and quantifiable issues. With EMF, the trend is for more studies, more conflict and more disagreement in the scientific community. There is not a consensus being built which is a linkage between EMF and health as a conclusive issue. It is inconclusive, and they deal with it every day in the worst imaginable circumstances, with people who claim their chil- dren may have tumors caused by the PG&E lines. He stated it is a real conflict, and it is not going to go away. PG&E, as a company, has adopted a policy that EMF and the linkage to health effects is inconclusive; however, under PUC regulations, they have also adopted a policy of "least cost prudent avoidance". When they rebuild facili- ties, or build new facilities, they allot a certain percentage of the project to engineer the lines so that EMFs are reduced. Mr. Newman stated that PG&E looked very carefully at Mr. Zappetini's proposal and believe he has hired competent help, and it appears that with the new material he spoke about he may be able to significantly reduce EMF dosage exposures. He stated that does not take away from the perceptual problem, but from a quantifiable stand- point, he may be able to reduce EMF below a lot of other similar developments in the community. Mr. Newman pointed out that there are other issues in their substation neighborhood. He noted a substation is an industrial facility, and there are issues of noise, light, and access with workers going in there late at night, and occasionally arcings and explosions which occur in substations. They control that, and believe that there are no off-site impacts, but in their experience, residential uses adjacent to a substation eventually create an inevitable conflict, a situation of incompatibility. He explained he has checked this issue with people from other PG&E substations with many years of experience. He stated they will be a good neighbor, regardless of what the Council decides, but he wants the Council to appreciate that land use compatibil- ity is the key issue for PG&E, and they asked that the Council recognize the light industrial nature of their facility. It is not a health hazard, but it is an industrial facility. Mr. Hugo Landecker, a long-time San Rafael resident, stated that the PG&E site is a concern, and experts on both sides, and the City Council, have to make a decision. He noted that Mr. Zappetini stated they are going to have a shield incorporated into the building, but he questions whether it will eliminate most of the hazards. He noted that transformers make a constant humming noise. There is also the traffic noise from Second Street, and the Andersen Drive Extension project is coming before the Planning Commission in January. He stated he does not know how the Council can make a decision until we know the outcome of the Andersen Drive project. He cited the compatibility of residential use with the present uses of the adjacent properties, and stated it is a problem. Mr. Landecker stated he wishes we had truly affordable housing, noting that unfortu- nately when each project is completed, the price is not truly affordable. He noted that the density for this project is considerably less than in the Canal area, but in affordable housing we crunch people too tightly together. He stated we want afford- able housing, and this proposal sounds as though it has a lot of amenities we do not have in other high density development in the City, which is good; however, we need to watch this very carefully. Mr. Terry Lofrano, a resident of San Rafael and project architect, spoke as a resident. He stated too often projects of all kinds are commented on by well-meaning citizens and, unfortunately a lot of negative remarks are made which have more to do with SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 8 emotion than with facts. He stated the reality is that affordable housing is something which all communities want, but they want it to be luxury housing at affordable prices. He stated that small communities like San Rafael, where there is not a lot of room for things to happen, there are not a lot of choices. If a commu- nity wants housing, they have to look at where they have choices. The choices will not be open, rambling sites, but will be in the middle of town. He explained that this housing is intended to meet a certain group of people at a certain socio- economic level which means a person making about $30,000 to $35,000, working in the City Hall. This is not a relief project. He noted that affordable housing has gotten an unfortunate name with "affordable" sounding like it is a lesser place to live. He added that each unit has a private deck, and access to open space. The project is designed to give amenities to people in town, which are not likely to happen in the majority of apartments in the downtown area. He stated that the density is intentionally higher than normal, because that is how one can build a project and offer rents at lower rates, with buildings of reasonable quality. He noted that some of the low cost housing in San Francisco is now having to be torn down. He stated San Rafael needs housing, and this would be the kind of project where someone's son or daughter could live, work in town, and not need a car. He stated that even though it is on Second Street, you can look out across the landscape and see the trees and mountains. He asked that all these things be taken into account when the Council makes its decision. Mrs. Patti Thayer of Citizens for a Toxic Free Marin, stated that no one can argue the necessity for affordable housing. She stated that once again a group of people with limited income are being forced to live in a hazardous site, and that is wrong. She stated that although there is a lot of inconclusive information about the EMF issue, it is important to pursue. She added that the research is starting to show that you have a constant bombardment of EMF which is worse than having occasional exposure and, in some cases, there is a variation of the frequency as would occur in this substation, you would have increased usage of the power station in the morning and in the evenings and, as a result, that variation wrecks havoc on peoples' bodies, and the research is beginning to explore that. She stated she hopes the Council vote "No" on this project. Mr. Jim Mahoney, a resident for 37 years in San Rafael, and a businessman here for many years, stated he did not think the toxic factor was a highlight. He stated that he was involved with the development of the Regency Theater on Smith Ranch Road, and they were very much the motivator of the change of design when the theater owner, who was the developer, came in from Fresno. With the type of construction, like a bridge deck, 4 -foot grade beams into the ground, a whole network of them, Mr. Mahoney pointed out to him that they could not be built physically and they had it redesigned at their own expense. They put in a pre -stressed type of foundation. The reason for necessity for the change was that the theater was being built on the old Smith Dump location, and the main concern was toxics and methane gas. Now they have meters out there, and it is a usable site. He stated there has been a lot of hysteria regarding toxics throughout the area. There being no more public input, the Public Hearing was closed. Councilmember Cohen stated that this Council has been a strong supporter of afford- able housing, and he has been wrestling with a decision. The Planning Department has also supported it, as infill projects. He stated he does not think the debate tonight is about that issue or whether we recognize that density is necessary to have afford- able projects. It is a question of whether this project in its location merits a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Cohen stated that, similarly, it is not a question about the toxic question on the site. If that were the issue, then anyone who feels that is a decision-making question would probably take the position that we should go ahead and have an EIR and really evaluate this, and look carefully at the question. He stated that the information on the toxics is not in front of the Council to evalu- ate. He stated he thinks the reason that the question of the EMFs comes up and gets so much attention from the staff is that we really seem to know as much on that issue tonight as we would know after an EIR. There is really no conclusive evidence one way or the other. He stated he fails to be convinced by the material which has been submitted, saying that this problem can be resolved. He feels this is an open question, and we do not know the answers yet. He stated in that light, "prudent avoidance" makes a certain amount of sense. Mr. Cohen added that the issue raised by PG&E about the conflict in type of land uses is also worth considering. He stated we have a proposed project in front of us, and we need to make a decision on that. He stated he is sorry that the applicant was not able to work out something to make use of some of the PG&E property to incorporate some of the parking on that site. He stated he feels there is some potential here, if done in conjunction with some of the surrounding property. It seems to him that the difficulties of this property developed by itself really drive and create some of the problems in the study by Design Review. In isolation, much as Mr. Cohen supports affordable housing, and infill affordable housing in the Downtown area, and mixed-use projects, he does not SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 9 find that what he has seen of this project so far merits a General Plan Amendment on this parcel alone. Councilmember Thayer stated she agrees with Councilmember Cohen. The idea behind the project is laudable. The City certainly needs affordable housing, and this appears to be an affordable housing project which is truly affordable, at 600 of median income. She stated she believes, however, that it is in an area which is inappropri- ate because of its location in a commercial zone which definitely has commercial characteristics. It is not a case of a slightly changing neighborhood where we might look at a new type of zoning for a Retail/Office designation. She also thinks, with regard to the EMF, the jury is not in, and she will not vote against this project on those grounds because it would be unfair to just presume that something is true when there is no clear-cut scientific data saying it is. She noted there has been some indication, however, that EMFs might cause a problem, and what she would be concerned about is that if housing were built there, what would be the City's liability if a child came down with an unexplained case of brain cancer. She stated she would also ask that of the owners. She thinks it is something to consider, when you consider a project which is so close to such an industrial use. She, too, would advocate the doctrine of "prudent avoidance" in this case. However, her main reason is that she cannot approve a General Plan Amendment at this time if she thinks that the project is inappropriate for the area. She stated that one day there may be a larger area which could be considered for the purpose of affordable housing, but not at this time. Councilmember Heller stated she has looked at this project over the last two years on the Planning Commission, and has read extensively each time it has come across her desk. She still has two concerns, and they have not been addressed at any time. The concerns are public safety and the future liability of the City. She feels that with the public perception what it is, about a danger which might or might not be out there, the City would be very foolish, and the landowner would be very foolish, to place themselves in a legal situation in a few years. She also feels that a General Plan Amendment is not necessary, because the site is not the correct site for what Mr. Zappetini is asking. It is light industrial, and will not support this type of residential facility at this time. She intends to vote against it. Mayor Boro stated that his comments parallel the rest of the Council. He stated that the issue before the Council is not the need for housing or the design of the build- ing. It is not the EMFs. Those are all issues to be considered if the Amendment went forward. The real issue is land use compatibility, and he feels that the comments in the staff report, which talk about what was decided and discussed at the time the General Plan was amended and revised in 1988/89, still applies. On the other hand, that at some point may be overtaken by the ultimate disposition of the PG&E site. It seems to him it would be premature to do something with this site at this time, not knowing what we will be doing with the rest of the PG&E site. He stated he thinks that the two sites have to work together, which is unfortunate for this applicant, but at that time he would be willing to entertain a change, especially for the housing. He noted this Council has always been a strong advocate for housing. He noted we opened the 65 units at Centertown; we have 40 being constructed for Boyd Court for purchase; we will have 26 affordable units at #1 H Street, the old Telephone building. He stated we are willing to work with people to provide it, but this site is not ready for it at this time, from a General Plan Amendment point of view. The design issues and EMF will be dealt with at the appropriate time, but they are not the compelling reason for him. The compelling reason is that it would not be compatible to change it at this time. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to deny the application for amending the General Plan. Councilmember Cohen stated he wanted to respond to a comment by Mayor Boro. He made a similar comment about the possibility for residential development in conjunction with the adjoining property. He stated he would not necessarily want to take the position that any kind of development on this site is dependent on development of the PG&E property, but he would agree to the extent that we are saying that what is proposed here is not compatible with the General Plan, nor does it appear to be compatible with the direction to which we are pointing in the Visioning process. To that extent, he does not think that taken by itself, it merits a General Plan Amendment. On the other hand, it is not fair to say we would not consider another project which was consistent with the General Plan land use designation, absent something on the PG&E site. Mayor Boro noted that in the Vision, which is not an adopted policy, it talks about this entire site all the way down to the Corporation Yard, as the PG&E site, Lindaro Project. He sees a linkage to that ultimate site, and is simply saying that doing something with this site now, not knowing what we will be doing with the rest of that site, is the reason why he could not support the change. He stated that once we know SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 10 what we are going to do on the PG&E site, housing on this site, forgetting for the moment the toxic issues which have to be addressed, could be considered. He stated that although there is separate ownership, he sees a linkage, and something which is consistent throughout. Councilmember Thayer stated that with regard to this site, if the owner came forward with another project which was compatible with the land use designation, whether or not the entire PG&E site is going to be developed, she certainly would consider it. Mayor Boro and Councilmember Cohen agreed. Councilmember Cohen added that the only thing in front of the Council tonight is whether it is appropriate to amend the General Plan to allow for residential development on this site and what we are saying is that at the present time and under present conditions, the motion is "No" on that application. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Zappetini CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: None. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM. Mayor Boro adjourned the meeting in memory of Velma Fitzpatrick, mother of Betty Mulryan, and Jeremiah Sweeney, Fire Commissioner, both of whom recently passed away. The City Council then reconvened their meeting and went back into Closed Session to discuss Labor Negotiations. No reportable action was taken. The City Council adjourned Closed Session at 11:30 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1994 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/20/93 Page 10