A.    CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, INVOCATION AND ROLL CALL

Invocation - Pastor C. P. Titus, Christ Church North Bay

ROLL CALL

Present:
Mayor John Mani
Mayor Pro Tem Michael Di Giorgio
Councilmember Carole Dillon-Knutson
Councilmember Pat Eklund
Councilmember Bernard Meyers

Also present: City Manager Roderick Wood, Community Development Director Harry Graves, Community Services Director Larry Dito, Public Works Director Steve Wallace, Redevelopment Administrator Ron Gerber, Acting Planning Manager Alan Lazure, Senior Planner Louise Patterson, Hamilton Project Manager Ken Bell, Planning Consultant Margit Allen, Planning Consultant Laura Forbes, Assistant City Attorney Veronica Nebb, and City Clerk Shirley Gremmels.

B.    CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT

6:00 p.m., Simmons House Conference Room

The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Council met in Closed Session for the items listed on their agenda and with regard to the liability claim the Council voted unanimously to settle the claim.

C.    CEREMONIAL MATTERS/PRESENTATIONS

Proclamation:
Trick or Treat for UNICEF - October 31, 2002

Mayor Pro Tem Di Giorgio announced community forums to receive public input on the draft Transportation Vision Plan sponsored by the Congestion Management Agency, of which he was the City's representative. The forum in Novato would be hosted by Supervisor Murray on November 7, 2002 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Margaret Todd Senior Center.

D.    APPROVAL OF FINAL AGENDA

Councilmember Dillon-Knutson moved, seconded by Councilmember Eklund, to continue Item 13, Marion Avenue Subdivision, to November 18, 2002 and approve the final agenda. The motion carried unanimously.

E.    PUBLIC COMMENTS

Jim Henderson, former Mayor, stated that he was present to thank the Council for their hard work. He requested that the Council reconsider giving a donation to help with the purchase of the property at Bahia.

August Stemmer, Novato resident, referred to his letter regarding a retaining wall that he was erroneously given permission to construct partially in the public right-of-way. He requested an encroachment permit so that he could encroach into the public right-of-way similar to what many of his neighbors have done to construct the retaining wall. He requested this item be placed on a future agenda.

After the Mayor gave permission, the following residents of Hamilton who were present with small children for Items 11 and 12, Hamilton Landing Phase III, 350 Hangar Avenue, and Hamilton Landing Phase III Use Permit for Outdoor Uses, spoke:

Brian Leehoper spoke in support of the use permit.
Greg Nicoli spoke in opposition to the use permit.
Dorea El Sayed spoke to Item 11 in support of a better design for the building and to
Item 12 in opposition to the use permit.
Audrey Bayless, spoke in opposition to the use permit.
Ben and Sally Carlile, spoke to Item 11 in support of the office building and to Item 12 in opposition to the use permit.
Jennifer Strailey, spoke in opposition to the use permit.
Cathlyne and Charlotte Keaie spoke in opposition to the use permit.
Gloria Kopshever, Novato resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit.
Shannon Burham spoke in support of the use permit.
Linda Abernathy spoke in opposition to the use permit.

F.    CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1, 7 and 8 were removed.)

2.    ADOPT MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2002

Council adopted the minutes of September 24, 2002.

3.    ORDINANCE INCORPORATING THE NEW STATE BUILDING CODES

Council held the second reading and adopted Ordinance 1465 adopting by reference the 2001 California Building Standards Code, the 2000 Uniform Fire Code, and the 1999 National Electrical Code. This action will amend Chapter IV of the Building and Housing Sections of the Novato Municipal Code.

4.    ESTABLISH APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 (file 401-01)

Council adopted Resolution 160-02 establishing the appropriations limit for the fiscal year 2002-03 to be $58,436,411.

5.    NOVATO STREETSCAPE MAINTENANCE ADVISORY COALITION (file 302-20)

Council received the Annual Report from the Novato Streetscape Maintenance Advisory Coalition and adopted Resolution 161-02 extending the Coalition for an additional two-year period.

6.    DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (file 206-02)

Council appointed duly elected Board of Directors of the Novato Downtown/Oldtown Business Association (NDOTBA) as the District Board for the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID), authorized execution of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Agreement 3633) for administration of the District, and approved the proposed District budget for 2003.

9.    TWIN CREEKS SUBDIVISION ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS (file 206-01)

Council adopted Resolution 165-02 that accepts the improvements for this subdivision as complete and releases 90 percent of the Labor and Materials bond and 90 percent of the Faithful Performance bond in accordance with the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) for the project. Developer/ Subdivider: De Angelis Construction, Inc.; Engineer: I. L. Schwartz Associates, Inc. This project is located approximately at the intersection of Novato Boulevard and Tamalpais Avenue.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson, to adopt Ordinance 1465, Resolutions 160-02, 161-02, and 165-02 and the remainder of the Consent Calendar by roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously.

F.    ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

1.    ADOPT MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2002

After Councilmember Meyers stated that he removed the item so the action that the Council took on the Consent Calendar could be reflected and to add to Item I-27 remarks from Scott Phillips, attorney representing the developer Dan Morgan: "and that he had no opposition to the Council's continuing the matter to a subsequent date," Councilmember Meyers moved, seconded by Councilmember Eklund, to adopt the minutes. The motion carried unanimously.

7.    HAZARD ELIMINATION SAFETY GRANT APPLICATIONS (file 1106-06)

a.    Consider adopting Resolution 162-02 authorizing the City Manager to apply for a $206,686 Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) grant to design and construct a new traffic signal on Ignacio Boulevard at the westerly driveway to the Pacheco Plaza Shopping Center and a $149,490 HES grant for upgrading traffic signal on Novato Boulevard at the intersection of Tamalpais Avenue and Seventh Street.

b.    Consider adopting Resolution 163-02 conditionally amending a future fiscal year budget resolution to increase both revenue and appropriated expenditures upon the award of one or both HES grants.

Mayor Mani stated that he removed the item because he was concerned that the traffic signals in the Ignacio area were not in sync. He hoped with the addition of this signal that they could be synced. Councilmember Meyers agreed.

The Public Works Director stated that there was another grant coming forward to study the traffic signals in the Ignacio area to determine the appropriate action. He responded to Mayor Pro Tem Di Giorgio that staff will continue to work with CalTrans, however, CalTrans' position has been to not let traffic stack up on the freeway ramp.

Councilmember Dillon-Knutson moved, seconded by Councilmember Eklund, to adopt the resolution. The motion carried unanimously.

8.    PROJECT REPORT FOR REDWOOD BOULEVARD LANDSCAPING FROM HILL ROAD TO DIABLO AVENUE (file 803-02)

Consider adopting Resolution 164-02 approving the concept plans for Redwood Boulevard Landscaping Project Report from Hill Road to Diablo Avenue, Project No. 02-016. The plans will become part of a master plan for the development of Redwood Boulevard from Hill Road to San Marin Drive. This will allow tree planting to proceed on Redwood Boulevard.

Councilmember Eklund stated that she supported the project but was concerned about taking the funding from Measure B Bonds. She spoke with staff and they agreed that the funding should be from the gas tax fund.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Mayor Mani, to adopt the resolution with the source of funding changed to gas tax. The motion carried unanimously.

G.    UNFINISHED AND OTHER BUSINESS

H.    WRITTEN COMMUNICATION

I.    PUBLIC HEARINGS

10.    DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (file 206-02) (Resolution 166-02)

Hold public hearing on the levy of the proposed annual assessment for the Downtown Novato Business Improvement District (BID) and the setting of annual assessment for the participating businesses.

Redevelopment Administrator Gerber gave the staff report, noting there were no written protests and there were now over 400 members of the District.

The public hearing was opened.

Ken Harth, President of Downtown/Old Town Business Association (DOTBA), spoke briefly of the Grant Avenue Improvement Project and meetings with staff to review the project. He wanted to look at the possibility of installing some elements of the "gold version" by having some cost savings by coordinating the phasing. He noted that DOTBA will be devoting time at their monthly meetings for the Grant Avenue project. He stated that DOTBA is investigating ways to do fundraising and noted that the Farmers Market did very well this year.

Councilmember Meyers moved, seconded by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson, to adopt the resolution. The motion carried unanimously.

11.    HAMILTON LANDING PHASE III, 350 HANGAR AVENUE

Consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Precise Development Plan and Development Standards Exceptions for Hamilton Landing Phase III which proposes 89,500 gross square feet of office and associated uses within a vacant parcel (Planning Area 8) of the Hamilton Master Plan area, and site landscaping. the subject properties are located at 350 Hangar Avenue, APN 157-700-02 and portion of 157-180-35.

12.    HAMILTON LANDING PHASE III, USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR USES

Consider a use permit for an outdoor vehicle storage and training area for a service center tenant of Hamilton Landing Phase III, a vacant parcel (Planning Area 8) of the Hamilton Master Plan area. The subject properties are located at 350 Hangar Avenue.

(Note: See Public Comments for additional public testimony.)

Mayor Mani announced that the public would be given opportunity to give testimony to both items if desired. After the applicant presents the project and the public gives testimony for Item 11, the public hearing will be closed. He will then ask the applicant to speak to Item 12 and for testimony from the public. After the public hearing has been closed, Council will deliberate on both items.

Margit Allen, Planning Consultant with Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF), stated that the item was denied without prejudice by the Council on February 26, 2002 based on height, setback and parking issues. She gave the staff report and reported that there was an error in the analysis of the parking demands in the Planning Commission staff report, which was done under the old Zoning Code which was based on net square footage instead of gross. The allowable spaces for Phase I were actually 146, not 181, and for buildout, 255, not 321. She responded to Councilmember Eklund that the parking lot lights would be like those at the Fireman's Fund parking lot as previously requested by the Council and regarding questions about lowering or turning off parking lot lights, she requested the applicant respond.

Todd Wright, speaking for the applicant, gave a PowerPoint presentation. He stated that they have reduced the height of the building, moved parking further away from the Southgate Subdivision, reduced the parking by 68 spaces, would be using the same parking lot lights as used at the Fireman's Fund parking lot, which have to be left on at night as required by the Police Department. He referred to the training area, located behind the Coast Guard diving tank area, which would be screened with a wall like the one at the Bayside Subdivision and also landscaped. He illustrated and discussed how the parking would look to adjacent neighbors in the Southgate Subdivision. The wall would be six feet high, and could be increased in height with landscaping. The vehicle parking would be 155 feet from the Southgate Subdivision. He illustrated the line of sight of Hangar Avenue drivers of the service vehicles would have when exiting the facility. He stated that currently there were many service vehicles such as those used by AT&T that travel the streets at Hamilton currently and they were not noted by the residents as a problem. He stated that on Thursday of last week they counted in excess of 200 such vehicles coming into Hamilton. AT&T vehicles will represent less than five percent and when Hamilton was fully built out, less than two percent of all traffic. The 118 vehicles created no more traffic than was planned for this site. He stated that there would be a customer service component at 2,500 square feet and that traffic was also incorporated into the traffic count as planned. He noted that the location of the building was considered by the Design Review Committee three times. He referred to the condition with respect to parking and the limitation of the 146 spaces, the minimum amount under the old Code as inappropriate and requested that it be deleted.

Michael Barker, Barker-Pacific Group, applicant, stated that this project would help to create the work component of the "Live, Work, and Play" theme of Hamilton. He discussed his investment in the old hangars and said that it was a challenge to create a viable working environment to attract companies to locate at Hamilton. He described Hamilton Landing Phase III as a quality new project and as a space for new employees. The top floor was designed for small business office space. He referred to numerous community meetings that were held, one of which was held as late as last Saturday and said he tried to be reasonable and fair. He stated that this project would fulfill the commitment to the community. He said he was committed to AT&T's compliance with the conditions of the use permit. He referred to the difficult economic times and said many neighbors do not want the land to remain vacant for many more years.

Cecily Talbot, Bingham McCutchen, attorney for the applicant, stated that she hoped this could be a "win-win" for everybody. She said she had reviewed the Development Agreement, the various staff reports, applications, and the Planning Commission decisions as they were reported in the staff report. She stated that it was her opinion that if the City were to approve the planned development permit, but then conditioned it on a use permit, and then denied that use permit, it would be a violation of the Development Agreement. She stated her opinion the document was not referred to very often in any of the agreements and staff reports, but it was very important. The reason was the Development Agreement provided to the extent it had the full authority to do so, that the City agreed to grant the land use zoning site plan, subdivision approvals and all other approvals, which will accomplish development of projects for the usage, density and intensity shown. With the Master Plan, the City would apply the rules, ordinances, regulations and official policies that were in effect when the Development Agreement was applied for and signed in 1993. She said her reading of the City's Zoning was that this was in a Planned Industrial area. The Planned Industrial area permits warehousing, storage, (quote from a letter that she submitted to the City Attorney) "wholesale distribution, etc." These types of usage very much involved for instance warehousing, trucks and ancillary facilities that would be parked in the parking lot as part of that use. This was in a Master Plan Industrial area. She said she did not agree that a use permit was required. She stated that they had submitted an application because that's what staff asked the applicant to do. She referred to the resolution prepared by staff, that gave the Council two options. The first one was to determine that the storage area was not permitted. She stated that she did not believe the Council could possibly find that the use of vans and vehicles was absolutely prohibited in the Industrial Planned zoning and that it was an interpretation of the City's Zoning Code that would not hold up. The second option was that the Precise Development Plan required a use permit. However, the very resolution that staff prepared had an amendment. Its says this supercedes the current Zoning Code and added "exterior storage uses." Unfortunately, staff did not put whether it was permitted or needed a use permit, there's a blank there. She stated that she thought the intention of staff in their report was that "exterior storage uses" would be added and supercede that with the requirement there be a use permit. She stated her opinion that the decision to deny a use permit would not be consistent with the Development Agreement or the Zoning Code. She stated she thought the decision before Council was whether or not this planned development permit, which included the storage, can either be upheld or denied. She said that she did not think it could be denied on the basis that there needed to be a use permit for this particular parking and training facility.

Todd Wright responded to Councilmember Eklund that the wall could be raised along Lots 6 through 13 in the Southgate Subdivision if desired. He further responded that they would be using the same monument signage that has been used at Hamilton and would not be lighted. He again responded that the level of detail of how to address any pile-driving activities has not yet been done. He further responded that all the indoor lights would be set on motion detectors.

Councilmember Eklund referred to a discussion by the Design Review Committee about moving the building back on the site and also about stepping the building back from the Southgate Subdivision and questioned why that was not done.

Todd Wright responded that there was significant discussion, but ultimately the Design Review Committee agreed to the position of the building as presented. Moving the building would have had it sitting awkwardly on the site in relationship to the Coast Guard diving tank, would have caused problems with the parking and would have been inconsistent with the design guidelines. He further responded to Councilmember Eklund that the light poles would be 18 feet, the same as at the Fireman's Fund parking lot, but no bollard lighting was proposed. The pedestrian lighting would be similar to what was done at the old hangars. He responded to Mayor Mani that the old hangars are actually closer to the sidewalks than the proposed siting of this new building.

The public hearing was opened.

Of the following people who spoke in opposition to the use permit, most spoke to traffic concerns and those who spoke in support, most supported the work component of the Master Plan vision:

Tim Kenney, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the Precise Development Plan and the use permit because the building would block his view of Mt. Burdell, the hills and the historic control tower. He responded to Councilmember Eklund that he would be interested in having the building set back on the site.
Janet Brown, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit.
Marie Hoch, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the condition in the Precise Development Plan allowing the outdoor storage uses.
David Nusser, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Gail Gallagher, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit.
Joe Salesky, Hamilton resident, spoke to support of the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Tom Kopshever, Hamilton resident, illustrated five enlarged photos of vehicles and equipment taken at the AT&T facility in San Rafael and spoke in opposition to the outdoor storage condition in the Precise Development Plan.
Sam Levin, Hamilton resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Rich Gatter, a large employer in Novato, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.

Kevin Bradley, employee of WBE in Novato, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Danny Garon, Hamilton resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and use permit.
Django Bayless, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the siting of the building as proposed in the Precise Development Plan and also the use permit.
Diane McKone, Hamilton resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Michael Ireland, Bel Marin Keys resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan.
Margi Levin, Hamilton resident, stated that she contacted over 600 homes at Hamilton and two-thirds were either neutral or fully supported the project. She spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan.
Liz Seingold, Hamilton resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Michael Nann, Novato resident, employed by WBE, spoke in support of the use permit.
David Brewer, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the siting and design of the building as presented in the Precise Development Plan and requested a continuation to work on a compromise to redesign the building. He responded to Councilmember Eklund that he preferred the building to be placed back on the parcel and thought it should be 120 feet away from the Southgate Subdivision, similar to the distance from the Bayside Subdivision.
Bill Krill, Sausalito resident, spoke in support of the use permit.
Richard Johnson, Barker-Pacific Group, spoke in support of the placement of the building as approved by the Design Review Committee.
Bill McCubbin, San Rafael resident and member of the Marin Economic Commission, stated that Michael Barker and his group would be receiving an award under the Smart Growth category for his work at Hamilton at the Annual Excellence Awards luncheon on October 24. He spoke in support of the use permit.
Brian Eisberg, Novato resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Eilene Eisberg, Novato resident, spoke in support of the use permit.
Mike Champie, Novato resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Patrick Luchtel, Hamilton resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and the use permit, saying that the residents would make sure that the conditions were enforced.
Hugh Trenkamp, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Robert Sedor, Hamilton resident, spoke against the Precise Development Plan and the use permit. He distributed photos of the story poles where he "connected the dots" on his computer print shop and showed how the buildings would look. He also showed a revised design of the building where he narrowed the front part and added square footage to the other side of the building at the rear by the parking. He responded to Councilmember Eklund that he would prefer Building #1 be moved back ten feet. He noted that AT&T was sold to AT&T Comcast and questioned their citizenship record in the community.
Chris Barlow, Hamilton resident, a previous opponent, now spoke in support of the revised Precise Development Plan and the use permit. He stated that AT&T as a tenant was an economic reality of the times and parking behind the Coast Guard diving tank was a good compromise. In response to Mayor Mani, he stated that some sort of truck route was needed at Hamilton and suggested that the parking area be raised.
Vic Brown, Novato resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Ashley Sovig, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit.
Beth Miller, Hamilton resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and in opposition to the use permit. She expressed concern that if she sold her home, she would have to disclose that the AT&T facility was next door.
Brian Hoffman, Hamilton resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and in opposition of the use permit.

A five-minute recess was taken at 10:30 p.m.

Joan Goode, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Jim Albrecht, Barker-Pacific, distributed a handout that talked about the redevelopment of the old military base and spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Linda Abernathy, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit, saying that many who spoke in support were not Hamilton residents.
Jared Gouldy, Hamilton resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and in opposition to the use permit. He referred to the AT&T operation in San Rafael and said that facility was not near any residential areas. He responded to Councilmember Eklund that AT&T told Hamilton representatives that the service center on Sweetser would be closed and that this facility would be the only service center in Marin.
Steve Miller, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit, saying that the agents at the sales office spoke of traditional office space for this site to potential home buyers.
Barbara McCann, Hamilton resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and in opposition of the use permit.
Jim Flanagan, Hamilton resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and in opposition of the use permit.
Clark Blasdell, Novato resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan.
Rae Miller, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the building she said would loom above her yard and the use permit. She responded to Councilmember Eklund that she thought Robert Sedor's plan would be acceptable.
Jan Miller, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the outdoor storage condition of the Precise Development Plan and in opposition to the use permit.
Ed Kujawa, Hamilton resident, spoke in support of the Precise Development Plan and in opposition to the use permit.
Gail Meyers, Novato resident, complained about the zoning of Light Industrial and claimed that the public could not see the Master Plan when it was being developed by the Council in 1992.
Mark Triska, broker representing AT&T Broadband, stated that the parking was needed for the facility. He said the 2,500 square foot service center would be used infrequently and understood it to be a requirement of the City. Currently they are constructing two other facilities, in Napa and in Oakland, that are supported by those communities. He responded to Councilmember Eklund that there were other opportunities to contact AT&T than coming into the service center and that the customers no longer have to pick up cable boxes. He responded to Councilmember Dillon-Knutson that their proposed Napa and Oakland facilities were not adjacent to residential areas. He responded to Councilmember Meyers that he did not have the statistics of visitors to the service center in San Rafael. He responded to Mayor Pro Tem Di Giorgio that AT&T has always been very responsible and that would not change when it becomes AT&T Comcast.

Principal Planner Lazure responded to Mayor Mani that a cable company service center probably would not need a use permit.

Todd Wright, in his rebuttal for Item 11, referred to the conceptual drawing done by Mr. Sedor and said that for the small offices on the second floor the lack of windows in many of the offices would make them unleasable. Also, parking would be lost because the configuration of the building was moved around. The setback Mr. Sedor proposed was more than the older hangars were from surrounding neighborhoods. He said that a flashing light could be installed at the entrance/exit, but he did not think it was necessary. He illustrated the model of the proposed building and parking lot and noted that the public art program still needed design review. The Hamilton Master Plan listed Light Industrial as a use, and this was given to prospective buyers when they came to the sales office. Also, prospective buyers were shown at the conceptual level what was expected. He advised that 50 to 75 people visited AT&T's service center in San Rafael on an average day and submitted three additional letters of support. He responded to Councilmember Eklund that he did not ask whether the AT&T service center on Sweetser would be closed and that he did not know how many people patronized that center.

The public hearing for Item 11 was closed.

The Assistant City Attorney advised Council to wait to deliberate this item until after the hearing on the use permit was closed. She affirmed to Mayor Mani that if the redesign of the building was contemplated, the item may have to be sent back to the Design Review Committee.

The City Manager responded to Mayor Mani that it only would be sent back if an action was taken that had not been contemplated previously by either the Planning Commission or the Design Review Committee.

Planning Consultant Margit Allen responded to Councilmember Dillon-Knutson that neither the Planning Commission or the Design Review Committee saw Mr. Sedor's plan.

The City Manager noted that deeper setbacks where considered by the Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee so the Council could take action regarding placement of the building. The City Attorney agreed.

The City Manager responded to Mayor Mani that the comparison to the Marin Airporter application was not relevant. The airporter was not near a neighborhood, had customer parking in a secured lot and was not a bus storage yard. He further responded that the possible relocation of the Coast Guard diving tank was not under the jurisdiction of the City.

Principal Planner Lazure responded to Councilmember Dillon-Knutson by reading the definition of Light Industrial as printed in the City's old Zoning Code under which this project was planned.

The Mayor requested the applicant to speak to Item 12, the use permit.

Todd Wright, representing the applicant, referred to the conditions of the use permit as described in the staff report and said that it was their belief that the conditions should be part of the Precise Development Plan. He stated that if the Council decided that a separate use permit was required, he was prepared to review their application. He noted that the Marin Airporter was part of the Hamilton Master Plan and zoned Commercial/Office. He stated that they believed that the property located next to the Southgate Subdivision was subject to the same set of rules. They have taken every reasonable measure to screen the outdoor use as well as the training facility.

Cecily Talbot, attorney for the applicant, distributed her letter dated October 18, 2002 and referred to Page 2 regarding the Condition of Approval #56 of the Hamilton Master Plan related to outdoor storage. She responded to Mayor Mani that she interpreted the language that either indoor or outdoor storage was permitted without a use permit and did not think the parking of vehicles was necessarily storage and was part of the principal use of the project. The Marin Airporter was in the same Master Plan. She also referred to the Smith & Hawken project which had parking, but was not subject to a use permit. She stated that she did not believe that the Council could approve the Master Plan and turn down the use permit. She responded to Councilmember Meyers that Smith & Hawken had an outdoor research area within a fenced area.

Michael Barker, Barker-Pacific Group, applicant, advised that the research area was enclosed by fencing and was used for photographing and testing of their product line that was for sale.

Todd Wright responded to Councilmember Eklund that he did not see the memo to Council from Senior Planner Patterson regarding the limitation to three-quarter tons for vehicles to be stored.

Margit Allen advised that there were four types of vehicles proposed to be stored on the site. Members of the public entered into the record at the Planning Commission meeting that Vehicle #4 exceeded the one-ton capacity. She referred to Condition #10.

Todd Wright responded to Mayor Mani that a number of potential other sites were examined for the AT&T vehicles, but there was no property that was reasonably available from an operations standpoint where the vehicles could easily come and go. He again responded that the training area could be moved inside, but would be expensive.

The public hearing was opened.

The following people spoke, some of whom spoke at the previous hearing:

Marie Hoch, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit, discussed the various weights of the vehicles and trucks to be stored and urged that the vehicles be referred to in terms pounds rather than tonnage. She also urged that the Saturday hours be considered, as the 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. was extensive for a residential area. She also suggested that if approved, the use permit expire with terms of renewal.
David Gallagher, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the Precise Development Plan and the use permit.
Gail Gallagher, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit because the service facility would be noisy.
Tom Kopshever, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit and referred to the meeting he and other residents had with a public relations representative from AT&T on October 21, 2002. They heard from that representative that the San Rafael AT&T model would not be changed and it would be the same operation. Many of the employees would be driving the trucks and would not work in the office.
Margi Levin, Hamilton resident, spoke in support of the use permit, stating that many of the vehicles are vans, similar to an Astro minivan.
Django Bayless, Novato resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit and entered into the record a petition of over 300 signatures of people who were opposed to the use permit. He noted that the vans are going to be replaced by full-sized vans. He stated that more people would not be hired to work for AT&T and currently only two of their employees lived at Hamilton.
Richard Johnson, Barker-Pacific, spoke in support of the use permit and entered a letter into the record from Mark Portman, a Hamilton resident, who supported the use permit.
Hugh Trenkamp, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit.
Robert Sedor, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit and referred to his letter sent to the Council in August expressing his concerns.
A Hamilton resident who did not give her name spoke in opposition to the use permit and said that the applicant should have received input from the Hamilton residents regarding the AT&T usage sooner in the process.
Peter Shamray, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit and simulated the sound that the vehicles would make as they backed up and said that they would not be able to come and go quietly.
Jim Albrecht, Barker-Pacific, spoke in support of the use permit, stating that the noise would be muffled with the landscaping and the large trees.
Jill Spezzano, Hamilton resident, read her husband's letter into the record which was in opposition to the size of the building and the use permit. She also spoke in opposition.
Martin Orbachi, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit and referred to its close proximity to the proposed Baytrail.
Liz Kramer, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit and referred to the various schools, skateboard park and other activities at Hamilton that involved children.
Joel Brand, Hamilton resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit.
Gail Meyers, Novato resident, spoke in opposition to the use permit.
David Brewer, Hamilton resident, referred to remarks made earlier by Chris Barlow, another Hamilton resident, in support and said it was not always possible to get consensus. He spoke in opposition to the use permit.

Todd Wright, in his rebuttal, said he appreciated the remarks from the residents that they liked the New Hamilton Partnership project. He noted that the Master Plan evolved and had to overcome the obstacles as a shared asset with the rest of the citizens of Novato. He referred to all the amenities that the New Hamilton Partnership provided at Hamilton. The vehicles would only be parked overnight and should not be viewed as storage. Everything else will take place inside the building. The large trees shown that would help screen the project were only 18 months old. He said there were many service vehicles already coming into Hamilton and there have not been any traffic incidents. He thought some other vehicles would be precluded from Hamilton if weight was considered by pounds rather than tonnage. He responded to Mayor Pro Tem Di Giorgio that the traffic the project would generate had been considered and planned for with the 100,000 square foot office use in the Master Plan. He responded to Councilmember Dillon-Knutson that washing, repairing, or maintaining vehicles would be done at another location. He further responded that the Saturday hours are for customers who are not available during the week and that there was no Sunday hours.

The public hearing was closed.

Mayor Mani complimented the citizens in the audience who exercised their First Amendment rights with civility.

The Assistant City Attorney referred to the revised version of the Precise Development Plan distributed at the podium and said this resolution would approve the outdoor storage plan. If the Council wanted to deny outdoor storage, staff was requesting that direction be provided and that the resolution would then be drafted by staff and placed on a future Consent Calendar for Council adoption.

Margit Allen, Planning Consultant, responded to Councilmember Eklund that if approved as proposed there would be 321 parking spaces for both buildings at buildout.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Di Giorgio, to adopt the resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

After the Assistant City Attorney clarified that the Negative Declaration does not refer to or approve outdoor storage of vehicles, the motion carried 4-1, with Councilmember Meyers dissenting.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson, to adopt the Precise Development Plan resolution.

Councilmember Eklund moved, which did not receive a second, to amend the main motion to relocate the building back from the sidewalk 35 feet instead of 25 feet and redesign the building as proposed by Robert Sedor.

Councilmember Eklund referred to the discussion held by the Design Review Committee to move the building back.

Councilmember Meyers stated that the building, though not exactly the way he would like, was presented to the Council as approved by the Design Review Committee and that he was not able to say what should be changed. Much of what the Council requested at the last hearing was done.

Mayor Mani stated that he did not want to micro-manage the design since it was reviewed by the Design Review Committee three times. He said that since no member of the Council was an architect, he was opposed to moving or redesigning the building at this time.

Mayor Pro Tem Di Giorgio agreed and said that he would not want a parking lot in front of the building, as then it would look like a strip mall. Also, it was more in style with the old hangars on Hangar Avenue, which he liked.

Councilmember Dillon-Knutson stated that she would be uncomfortable at 1:00 a.m. in the morning trying to redesign the building. It was reviewed by the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission and she liked it closer to the street, but did think it was too tall. She said she was not sure how it could be moved away from the houses at the Southgate Subdivision.

Councilmember Eklund emphasized that the project would not come back to the Council again and that the design of the building must be addressed at this time. She either wanted to continue the item or have continued discussion regarding the design.

Councilmember Eklund moved, which did not receive a second, to amend the main motion to step the building back from the neighborhood.

The City Manager responded to Councilmember Meyers that the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee. If the Council desired any changes, they would have to be made at this time. The item could be continued and people would be able to speak again.

Margit Allen, Planning Consultant, responded to Councilmember Dillon-Knutson that the parking lot lights illuminated at night were a requirement of the Police Department.

Councilmember Dillon-Knutson moved, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, to amend the main motion that the parking lot lights closest to the Southgate Subdivision not be illuminated, depending on review by the Police Department.

Principal Planner Lazure stated that the light issue could be reviewed by the Design Review Committee to see if it could be resolved.

The amendment to the main motion carried unanimously.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson, to amend the main motion to change Condition 25 to include Lots 6 through 13. The amendment to the main motion carried unanimously.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, to amend the main motion to direct the Design Review Committee to consider ways to minimize glare of the lighting. The amendment to the main motion carried unanimously.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, to amend the main motion to restrict any pile-driving activity to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The amendment to the main motion carried unanimously.

Councilmember Meyers moved, seconded by Councilmember Eklund, to amend the main motion to change Condition 6 so that the front setback shall be "not less than 25 feet." The amendment to the main motion carried unanimously.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson, to amend the main motion that all outdoor storage of fleet vehicles, training uses, and supplies be prohibited and that only employee parking of private vehicles or customer parking be allowed.

Councilmember Dillon-Knutson stated that she met with the applicant and the neighborhoods and would support the main motion as she welcomed an office building and the spaces that would be provided for small start-up businesses. She could not support storage of the service vehicles, the training center, the spools of cable and other supplies, ladders on top of the vehicles or trucks, as these would not be compatible with the neighborhood. This type of use should be closer to a freeway. She stated that also the noise from the vehicle's backing would be disruptive to the neighborhood. She noted that there were no other AT&T facilities mentioned that were located in a residential area. She stated that all of Novato needs small office spaces, not just Hamilton.

Mayor Pro Tem Di Giorgio stated that he met with all the groups and traffic was discussed. He stated that he actually saw someone driving a car out of the Southgate Subdivision and at 40 miles per hour, drove through the first stop sign. The vacant office space can be detrimental to the property values and more traffic could be generated by another type of office use. He stated that he could not approve of the outdoor storage condition because of the backing noise of vehicles. He said the applicant complied with what the Council previously requested at the last hearing and thought that the Precise Development Plan application was a good project. The AT&T facility would change the character of the neighborhood and the City would have to pay for street repairs because of the larger service vehicles.

The City Manager affirmed to Councilmember Meyers that peer review would be done on the soils geotechnical report and that it was now standard protocol.

Councilmember Meyers stated that he also met with the applicant and the neighborhood and agreed with the comments made by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson.

Councilmember Eklund stated that she met with the applicant and residents who were opposed and for the project. With her the issue was safety with the line of sight because the building was too close to the street. With regard to traffic, there were not only the service vehicles, but cars that the 152 employees would drive to and from work. The service vehicles were not a compatible use next door to a residential area. All the other service centers discussed were located in industrial areas. Traffic would also be generated by people coming to pay their bills. She did not want allow outdoor storage of vehicles.

Mayor Mani stated that this was an agonizing decision. The Council heard the concerns of the homeowners. He noted that Todd Wright has been a good friend who has stood up for the City many times. He referred to the rehabilitation of the old hangars as an example. The $100 million investment by the applicant into the community has been appreciated, however he could not support the outdoor storage. Just because there was some blight in the area does not mean that there could be more blight. He referred to the characterization that this was a reused air base and said that the buildings that were rehabilitated were beautiful and Hamilton was an icon. He said he always talked about Hamilton with great pride.

The amendment to the main motion carried unanimously.

The City Manager stated that he had taken notes and wanted to paraphrase the issues he heard. The zoning was not a Planned Industrial area, but Planned Commercial and Light Industrial. When the Master Plan was reviewed by staff and approved by Council, there was no intention for outdoor storage, construction or service operations. The Council was concerned and also wanted to limit the amount of inside storage or warehousing. He referred to the application listing outside storage as a conditional use and said inherent in the discretionary action was the possibility of denial. Customer and employee parking was a different function than stored equipment operated in conjunction with a business. He emphasized that the City Zoning Code knew the difference between inside and outside storage. If it were the intent to allow outside storage the Hamilton Master Plan would have said "outside storage" and not just "storage." The Hamilton Master Plan called for no more than 40 percent in storage or warehousing use and the combined inside and outside storage and warehousing was 83,584 in relationship to a 50,500 square foot building. This plan was not consistent with the intent to limit storage as an active use. This type of use belongs in a heavy industrial area, not in a Commercial Light Industrial area immediately adjacent to the residential. The City has the right and duty to regulate uses that may be incompatible or detrimental to surrounding properties. The Marin Airporter was in a different area, has a different General Plan designation and is not adjacent to a residential area. Their parking was for customers and had controlled access for security. Buses may be stored a few hours at a time between scheduled runs. A more proper comparison to the AT&T facility would be the Marin Airporter's bus storage yard, which would not have been approved for that site. Outdoor storage was not the only use requiring a use permit. In reviewing the applicant's Precise Development Plan, utility service centers, utility repair centers, construction or contractor's facilities are not listed as a permitted use. In the Master Plan storage meant inside and outside storage was separately noted. He said that he did not agree that the storage of construction and repair equipment and vehicles was the same as customer parking. He referred to the Smith & Hawken landscaped area outside of the rehabilitated hangar it occupied, which has tables, chairs, etc. for the employees and said that if research was conducted City approvals were being violated. He emphasized that the Precise Development Plan was a request, not a right, and the purpose was to more completely define the land use and development standards for each site and more narrowly define the intent of the Master Plan. The Zoning Code sets a standard for employee and customer parking and parking service vehicles and equipment in this customer and employee parking would be a violation of the Code. This proposed use was not "parking" in the definition of "parking" in the Zoning Code and would fall into the definition of "storage." Since it was outside storage that is proposed, a use permit would be required. The vehicles belong to the employer and take up the majority of the parking. Council has some obligation under the development agreement to approve a project, but does not have an obligation to approve outside storage or any specific use. The outside storage and service operators are being represented by the applicant as ancillary uses. The construction yard was the largest area of AT&T's leasehold and thus the equipment and service repair operation were the primary use. Only a small area, 18,500 square feet, was for non-repair and instruction purposes, specifically classroom training and customer service. On Marin Airporter's and other sites the City was entitled to approve or deny all or any part of their applications. The facts surrounding the airporter and Smith & Hawken are completely different from this facility. There was no provision in the Master Plan for outside training facilities, whether it's this training or any other. Basically, this was AT&T's corporation construction and maintenance yard.

Councilmember Meyers stated that he agreed with the City Manager's comments. He stated that he voted for the Hamilton Master Plan when it was developed in 1992 through 1994. He stated that he had a vision then of the Plan and it was not to put trucks next to a residential neighborhood. He complimented staff for doing an excellent job. He said he visited the Smith & Hawken site and did not see any research and development. The proposed use at this site was more Industrial than Light Industrial and if AT&T's needs grew, they would need more service vehicles. He questioned the ability to enforce the use permit. The backup "beeping" sound six days a week would be very difficult for the adjacent neighbors. He stated that the people who supported having the AT&T facility gave good arguments.

The main motion as amended to approve the Precise Development Plan carried unanimously.

The Assistant City Attorney stated that the resolution will be placed on a future City Council agenda Consent Calendar for final adoption.

Mayor Pro Tem Di Giorgio moved, seconded by Councilmember Dillon-Knutson, to deny the use permit.

The Assistant City Attorney stated that the resolution for this item would also be placed on the same future agenda Consent Calendar for final adoption. Much of the same reasoning for not including the outdoor storage plan will be included in the resolution.

Councilmember Dillon-Knutson stated that she said everything she needed to say in her previous remarks. She said that she appreciated the applicant for bringing in other high-quality companies such as Smith & Hawken for the old hangars.

Mayor Mani reiterated that the City had the right and the obligation under its Code and the Hamilton Master Plan to deny the use permit. He stated that if the Council erred, it should be in favor of the neighborhoods and questioned what would require a use permit if one was not required for outdoor storage of service vehicles.

The motion carried unanimously.

13.    MARION AVENUE SUBDIVISION

Consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Master Plan, Precise Development Plan, Design Review and Vesting Tentative Map applications for the Marion Avenue project. The project proposes a subdivision of 10.5 acres into 10 single-family residential lots. The subject site is located on the north side of Marion Avenue between Anna Court and Bryan Drive.

Mayor Mani stated that the Council has previously announced its intention to continue the hearing.

The public hearing was opened and after no testimony was received, Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, to continue the opened hearing until November 18, 2002. The motion carried unanimously.

J.    GENERAL BUSINESS

14.    ART PROGRAM - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT

Consider introducing and waive further reading of an ordinance amending Novato Municipal Code Chapter 19, Zoning, to add Division 19.21.000, Art Program.

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, to continue the item to November 18, 2002. The motion carried unanimously.

15.    HAMILTON NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER MASTER PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE (file 302-07)

Consider request from Mayor Mani and Councilmember Dillon-Knutson to form a Hamilton Neighborhood Center Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee.

Mayor Pro Tem Di Giorgio moved, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, to appoint Mayor Mani and Councilmember Dillon-Knutson as the members.

The public comment session was opened and closed with none received.

The City Manager responded to Councilmember Eklund that the new ad hoc committee would look at all the City-owned property at Hamilton in conjunction with the neighborhoods to receive their input including the old hospital and report back to the Council.

The motion carried unanimously.

K.    COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES AND BOARDS APPOINTMENTS

16.    CONSIDER REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER EKLUND TO APPOINT PATRICIA WILLAT TO THE COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Councilmember Eklund moved, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, to appoint Pat Willat.

Mayor Mani requested and Council agreed that after this appointment no others would be considered because the Committee was well into its work and ad hoc committees were working on the various components.

The motion carried unanimously.

L.    ADJOURNMENT

At 2:23 a.m., the meeting was adjourned to November 12, 2002 in memory of Lawrence Tresch.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the Novato City Council on the 12^th day of November, 2002.

____________________________
Shirley Gremmels, City Clerk