HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1990-05-21SRCC MINUTES (Regular) j/21/90 Page 1
IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 21, 1990, AT 7:00 PM.
Regular Meeting:
CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a
1. 90-11 (a) - #2.
90-11 (b) - #1 - Pamela Duncan, Shelby Duncan, a minor, by and through her parents, Pamela
Duncan and Scott Duncan, and Scott Duncan vs. City of San Rafael, et al.
90-11 (c) - V.
No reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
Police Corporal Hutchinson, President of the San Rafael Police Association, responded to a
letter sent by Mayor Mulryan asking for donations toward a purchase of a replica bell to be
donated to Falkirk, Scotland (Sister City of the City of San Rafael), and submitted a check
in the amount of $1,000 from the Association.
Mayor Mulryan thanked Police Corporal Hutchinson and the San Rafael Police Association for
their generous gift.
CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the recommended
action on the following Consent Calendar items:
Item
2. b. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting
(Parking Authority) of May 7, 1990
3. Call for Applications Due to Expiration
of Terms of Two (2) Planning Commissioners,
Ross Cobb and Paul Cohen (CC) --File
9-2-6
4. Call for Applications Due to Expiration
of Term of Design Review Board Member
Thomas E. Lollini, Architect (CC) -
File 9-2-39
Recommended Action
Approved as submitted.
Approved staff recommendation:
a) Called for applications to fill 2 positions
on Planning Commission with deadline on
Tuesday, June 12, 1990 at 12:Noon, City
Clerk's Office;
b) Set date for interviews of applicants,
including one incumbent, at Special Council
meeting on Monday, June 18, 1990, at 6:30
PM, to fill two 4 -year terms to end of June,
1994.
Approved staff recommendation:
a) Called for applications to fill one
position on Design Review Board with
Deadline on Tuesday, June 12, 1990 at
12 Noon, City Clerk's Office; (Architect).
b) Set date for interviews of applicants,
including incumbent, at Special Council
meeting on Monday June 18, 1990 at 6:30
PM, to fill one 4 -year term to end of June
1994.
5. Report on Annual Filings - Fair Political Accepted report.
Practices Commission Forms 730, Statements
of Economic Interests for Designated
Employees, Including Consultants (CC) -
File 9-4-3
7. Resolution Approving the 1990/91
Latchkey Funds Contract with the
State Department of Education (Rec) -
File 4-10-238
RESOLUTION NO. 8173 - APPROVING 1990/91
"LATCHKEY" FUNDS CONTRACT WITH STATE DEPART-
MENT OF EDUCATION IN AMOUNT OF $69,780.00.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/21/90 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/21/90 Page 2
8. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 1590 - An Ordinance of
the City of San Rafael Amending the
Development Standards for Lucas Green
I and Lucas Green II as Described in
Exhibit "A" to Ordinance 1350 Adopted
by Reference, by Section 14.15.020 of
the Municipal Code of the City of San
Rafael, Reclassifying Certain Real
Property from PD -NG (Planned Development -
Northgate Activity Center Overlay
District to PD -NG (Planned Development -
Northgate Activity Overlay District)
Amending "Exhibit A" to Include a
Development Standard Requiring
the Implementation of a Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) Program
(Assessor's Parcel Numbers 165-010-94
and 96) (Lucas Green Buildings I & II)
(P1) - File 10-3
9a. Ratification of Resolution No. 8169,
a Resolution of the City Council of San
Rafael Certifying a Negative Declaration
for Amendment of Policy LU -17 of the San
Rafael General Plan 2000 ("Transfer of
Floor Area Ratio") Adopting said Amendment,
and Transferring 5305 Square Feet of Public/
Quasi Public Floor Area to that Area of
Smith Ranch Parcel Three Designated for
Office/Retail Development (P1) - File
10-5 x 10-3 x 115
9b. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 1591 - An Ordinance of
the City of San Rafael Amending the
Zoning Map of the City of San Rafael,
California, Adopted by Reference by
Section 14.15.020 of the Municipal
Code of San Rafael, California, so
as to Reclassify Certain Real Property
in the Northgate Activity Center
(RE Z89-9 - 101 & 111 SMITH RANCH ROAD)
(P1) - File 10-5 x 10-3 x 115
10. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) -
File 9-1
11. Claims for Damages:
a. Paul Brian Thompson (PD)
Claim No. 3-1-1482
b. Donald David Nicholson (PW)
Claim No. 3-1-1473
Approved final adoption of Ordinance
No. 1590.
Ratified Resolution No. 8169.
Approved final adoption of Ordinance No.
1591.
Approved staff recommendation:
SUPPORT ALCOHOL TAX INITIATIVE
OPPOSE SB 2773 (Rosenthal) - Playground
Safety.
SUPPORT SB 2748 (Deddeh) - Asbestos.
Approved City Attorney's recommendation
for denial of claim a.
Approved Insurance Consulting Associates,
Inc. recommendation for denial of claim
b.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey (From Minutes of Special Meeting of May 7, 1990 due
to absence from meeting; also Items 8, 9a and 9b
due to absence from Public Hearings held on 5/7/90).)
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion:
2. a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 AND REGULAR MEETING OF
MAY 7, 1990 (CC) - File 1-4
Councilmember Thayer referred to Page 3, Item 9 (Spinnaker Point Unit 5) of the Minutes
of May 7, 1990, and asked that an amendment be made to clarify as follows: "She expressed
concern that the Consumer Price Index for the 'in lieu' fees would probably be unsatis-
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/21/90 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) ,/21/90 Page 3
factory given the rising costs of building and land, and noted that staff was to come
back to Council with some figures that would reflect that other than the CPI."
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the Minutes of
Special Meeting of September 12, 1989 as submitted, and Minutes of Regular Meeting of
May 7, 1990, as amended.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey (Due to absence from meetings)
6. BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT - REROOFING FIRE STATIONS NO. 4 & 5, AND TRAINING TOWER
(PW) - File 4-1-435
Councilmember Shippey asked what the status was on funds for the remodeling of Fire Station
6. Ms. Nicolai responded that following last year's budget, various alternative options
were reviewed with the architect regarding remodeling and rebuilding. She said at this
time the most practicable option is to rebuild Fire Station 6, noting the estimated amount
far exceeds what was budgeted for this year. She therefore will be adding the necessary
funds in next year's budget to proceed with the bidding process.
Public Works Director Bernardi explained the contractor has 30 days to sign the contract
and obtain the bonds and insurance, and will then have another 30 days to complete the
work.
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to Adopt Resolution awarding
the Contract regarding reroofing of Fire Stations No. 4 and 5 and Training Tower to Wedge
Roofing, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. 8174 - RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR REROOFING FIRE STATIONS NO.
4 AND NO. 5 AND TRAINING TOWER TO WEDGE ROOFING, INC., IN AMOUNT
OF $26,796.00 (Lowest responsible bidder)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
12. PUBLIC HEARING - UP87-75 - EXCEPTION REQUEST TO ALLOW A SECOND DWELLING UNIT WHICH EXCEEDS
40% OF THE SIZE OF THE MAIN DWELLING UN ; 409 FORBES AVENUE; MARION ROYAEL, OWNER: JOHN
SIMONTACCHI, REP.; AP 101-171-27 (P1) - File 10-5
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened and announced that Councilmember Shippey
would not be taking part in this issue because he was not present at the meeting of May
7, 1990 when it was first discussed.
(Councilmember Shippey left the Council Chambers).
Planning Director Pendoley stated at the first hearing, Council directed staff to research
two points, the date establishing the second unit and the amount of space provided for
the proposed parking. He said the second dwelling was first built in 1983 in a set of
existing basement rooms constructed as a part of the original home.
Mr. Pendoley stated staff checked the figures submitted in the application to determine
whether or not a parking slot of 9 feet 6 inches could be installed on the property, and
found this could be accomplished.
Mr. Pendoley stated some residents at the end of Forbes Avenue questioned the effective
date of the Zoning Ordinance, and referred to a letter signed by residents of Forbes Avenue
dated May 16, 1990, asking if it has been proven that this second unit was in existence
before June 6, 1983. He referred to the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "Any unit built before
June 6, 1983 must be made legal and be done under the auspices of the Housing Code".
He said this means any unit built after that must be made legal under the provisions of
the Uniform Building Code, which is stricter. He said the point was that the date was
about the effective date of this Zoning Ordinance and the Council at that time encouraged
people to legalize pre-existing units with a then more lenient code. He stated staff does
not feel the provision applies to this unit, but should be inspected under the Uniform
Building Code.
Councilmember Thayer asked if it is possible to require Realtors to report sales of houses
with second units as a means of record, and for safety purposes if they are illegal units,
require legalization? Mr. Pendoley responded the City may have the right to do this, but
noted it is now dealt with differently. He said the seller has an obligation to disclose
any potential problems with the property, and that Realtors should be aware of the City's
Ordinances. He stated the fact that Realtors advertise second units tells you that they
are aware of the Ordinance. He indicated it paid in this case as a part of the Residential
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/21/90 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /21/90 Page 4
Building report done by the City disclosed that there was a non -conforming unit on the
property. Mr. Pendoley also noted that the City's Code Enforcement Officer carefully
watches real estate sales, attends open houses and, if he should find an illegal unit,
he does a follow-up on abatement.
In response to Councilmember Boro's concern as to what happens when an infraction is found,
Mr. Pendoley stated Zoning Code violations are referred to the Planning Department and
are assigned to the Code Enforcement Officer, who is quite successful in catching illegal
units and having them abated. Occasionally it is difficult when it gets into prosecution,
competing with other more urgent cases.
Councilmember Boro asked if a sale could be held up until the matter of an illegal unit
is corrected, and City Attorney Ragghianti responded he did not think so, adding the purpose
of the RBI (Residential Building Inspection) is to put the buyer on notice that there
is a non -conformity in the house. He stated there is a comprehensive disclosure statement
that the seller, under California law, is required to fill out. He noted once the City
performs its function and the buyer is made aware of the fact that there is an illegal
unit on the premises, they act at their own peril, noting this does not prevent the City
from coming back and causing that unit to be abated. He stated sometimes lenders look
at the RBI's, particularly if the house is sold as a duplex in a single residential zone.
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Mr. Ezio Palmiera, husband of the Realtor representing Mr. Alvin Nadler, seller of the
unit, stated the official listing of the unit as reported by the Multiple Listing Service
does not have the word "second unit" but "very attractive in-law suite". He noted the
word "suite" in the Realtors' world is different from the word "unit", meaning it is like
a master bedroom and part of the house.
Ms. Pat Randolph of 412 Forbes Street, said most of the residents have no objection to
the current use of the house but felt when an exception is granted, it goes with the house
and not with the owner and its current use. She noted the house is already at the maximum
size for the lot, inviting overcrowding in a neighborhood with an undersized street and
undersized houses. They are concerned about the present use of parking with two cars.
She concluded, with the additional parking space there will be an expanse of five parking
places, including the next door neighbor. Ms. Randolph asked Council to preserve the charac-
ter of the neighborhood.
Mr. Richard Leland of 411 Forbes Street, stated the unit was built with a kitchen added
and was rented out about 1984/85, indicating this was a problem unit.
Mrs. Maryann Royael, owner of 409 Forbes Avenue, stated she was not aware of the problems
when she purchased the house.
Mr. Charles Hartsook of 415 Forbes Avenue, submitted pictures of driveway parking space.
He stated walking through the area it will be a tight squeeze, with side by side concrete
and asked Council, instead of having a legal second unit, that the owner have her family
share the unit, but that it not go beyond the point of sale.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated this cannot be done, and referred to a case in Santa Barbara,
stating constitutionally there are problems in attaching conditions involving definitions
of family, family members or relatives.
Mayor Mulryan asked if there is a way to allow the present use, including use of the kitchen
without approving it as a second unit, and Mr. Ragghianti responded he did not know of
any.
Mr. Ezio Palmiera who spoke earlier, referred to the parking problems, noting he has driven
to the cul-de-sac many times and has seen a fair concentration of large vehicles parked
outside, not belonging to the present owner.
Mrs. Gayle Hartsook of 415 Forbes Avenue stated they have no problem with the owner and
her daughter living in the unit, and referred to the previous owner whose tenants moved
in and out with a U -haul trailer, causing disturbances at night. She suggested the second
unit ordinance be redone so it would not include cul-de-sacs, noting there are not enough
parking places.
Mrs. Maritza Palmiera, listor of the house, stated the house was advertised as an in-law
suite. She stated upon receipt of Mr. Leland's letter, she immediately called Roy Butts,
the City's Code Enforcement Officer, letting him know what was happening and asked for
his advice, indicating he told her not to worry, and therefore she did not inform Mrs.
Royael about it.
Councilmember Thayer asked if the current owner paid more for the house because of the
second unit, and Mrs. Palmiera replied she got the house for considerably less money than
the house was listed for, adding a second unit adds to the value of the house.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/21/90 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /21/90 Page 5
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Boro moved to adopt Resolution granting an exception to allow a second dwell-
ing unit which exceeds 40% of the size of the Main dwelling unit, stating although 46
percent is in excess of the 40 percent requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, he felt this
should be weighed against the fact that the City is looking at long-term alternatives
for affordable housing other than the traditional unit. He stated this site meets the
qualifications for parking and all other requirements, and said this application should
go forward.
Councilmember Thayer seconded the motion, adding that if the kitchen were removed from
the unit it would be legal, and indicating this to be the only difference between a second
unit and another addition to the house, noting basically, the owner would not have to
come before the Council if they did not have a kitchen; also that it currently is being
used by a family member. She stated the City's Second Unit Ordinance requires that the
dwelling be owner -occupied, which cuts down on the chances of an undesirable tenant.
In conclusion, she noted the Royael's paid more for the property because of the second
unit and she does not want to deprive them of their bargain.
RESOLUTION NO. 8175 - GRANTING EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A SECOND DWELLING UNIT EXCEEDING 40%
OF THE SIZE OF THE MAIN DWELLING UNIT AT 409 FORBES AVENUE
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Boro, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
None
Breiner & Shippey
13. PUBLIC HEARING - UP89-77/ED89-108 - APPEAL OF USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW RE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TWO ADDITIONAL APARTMENT UNITS IN AN R-3 RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT; 261 UNION STREET; MR. & MRS. FRED EBERTS, OWNERS; RICHARD HEGLUND, REP.; JEFF
MULANAX FOR MONTECITO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT; AP 14-024-08 (Pl) - File 10-5
x 10-7
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Pendoley stated the applicant proposes to construct a freestanding three
story, two unit apartment building to the rear of an existing single family residence
with a two -car garage provided for each unit at the ground level, dug into the side of
the gently sloping lot. The building will be 23 feet high and setback at approximately
100 feet from the front property line and 16 feet from the rear property line. The appel-
lants bring two points to the appeal, first that the proper environmental studies were
not done, noting a Negative Declaration was done in this case, and second, the project
is inappropriate for the neighborhood.
Mr. Pendoley referred to the environmental impact, stating basically the State law gives
an almost complete blanket exemption to projects of this scale, particularly on residential
projects; however, that exemption does not apply if there is any potential for cumulative
impact. Planning staff felt potential for cumulative impact was there, therefore, an initial
study was done and as a result, issued a Negative Declaration.
Mr. Pendoley stated the appellants cited 6 points to require preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report ranging from grading to loss of plant life and increase in noise, including
circulation impacts.
The second major issue of the appeal is the appropriateness of the project, given that
the lot is somewhat substandard and the scale of the project is not appropriate for the
lot. They are concerned that the duplex is too large for the lot, but staff states it
does meet with all of the requirements, indicating the total allowed lot coverage is 60%
and that this project comes in at 33%.
Mr. Pendoley stated there is concern regarding the need for a transition zone between
the low density and high density districts in the Montecito Neighborhood, and stated this
project is in the high density district. He noted the Planning Commission and staff concurrec
that a buffer is being applied between these two districts, because the duplex will be
50 feet away from its closest neighbor with an evelation change in the topography, ranging
from 5 to 10 feet which is not unusual in new construction as well as older neighborhoods,
to have homes much closer than this, including areas with mixed densities.
The appellants assert that the height of the proposed apartments is not in keeping with
the neighborhood. Staff recommends that at 23 feet this is not an excessively high building
and notes it is in scale in height.
Another concern is the loss of backyard space on the existing property because of the
construction, but nevertheless this project will have substantially more of an amenity
area than required by code, and it will have decks.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/21/90 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) ,21/90 Page 6
Mr. Pendoley said the approval would allow higher density than allowed by adjacent nearby
properties, referring to staff report's Exhibit F, showing a mixed density neighborhood,
ranging from 1 to 7 units per lot, indicating at 3 units per lot it is mid-range and well
below the range allowed by the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
Mayor Mulryan stated the appeal raises a question that possibly an Environmental Impact
Report should be required as opposed to a Negative Declaration as a way of testing the
cumulative nature when looking at not only this particular parcel but the adjacent parcel
as well.
Mr. Pendoley stated in looking at cumulative impacts, one should look at the impacts of
the project itself and ask, what does it exacerbate out there? Staff feels in going through
the usual check list of potential impacts, this project is fully mitigated. He cited that
it does not have a measurable traffic impact and the street level operates at Level of
Service "A" and will continue with this project. When going through the list of impacts
requiring examination by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff does not
find the tripping of any thresholds at all, therefore having zero impacts in every scienti-
fic sense.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated when the Legislature adopted CEQA, it did put into the
Statutes these categorical exemptions which apply to single-family homes and up to 4 dwel-
ling units as long as these other conditions are not met. The 15300.2 guidelines talk
about permitting CEQA to be applied in instances where there are unusual circumstances
and the CEQA guideline talks about cumulative impact. He noted it is important to note
that it is the record of proceedings before Council and the evidence submitted in the
form of staff report and staff's oral input, including public testimony, that Council
will have to use in order to determine whether there is a cumulative impact or not. He
indicated he believed it is clear from what Mr. Pendoley's staff has assembled that there
is not. Starting from the premise that this is categorically exempt to begin with, an
initial study was done and a recommendation was made for a Negative Declaration. He con-
cluded it would take a substantially greater amount of evidence to require an Environmental
Impact Report than that which exists in the record of these proceedings.
Councilmember Shippey noted if there were sufficient findings to suggest that there might
be cumulative impacts of this and future or similar developments, the proposal states
the EIR would properly be associated with the Montecito Neighborhood Plan; therefore,
any EIR should be associated with that Plan which is in the future. He asked what standing
would Council have to delay a use permit until such time as the Neighborhood Plan is in
place?
Mr. Ragghianti responded there would be no legal basis upon which to do that in the absence
of a moratorium. He reflected that two years ago when there was a Citywide moratorium
to implement a new General Plan , certain projEcts were not permitted to go forward.
However, this project is entitled to be acted upon on the basis of the design, building
and development policies that are currently in existence in the City now. He noted it
is improper to refuse to act on a development project when it is contemplated that perhaps
a planned amendment will occur in the future, absent the imposition of a moratorium.
Councilmember Thayer referred to cumulative impacts and asked staff if they considered
the impact upon Union Street, noting that street is very narrow. She said the times she
has been in the area, she often wondered why there are such high densities along Union
Street and would like to address this at such time when the General Plan is looked at
again and to consider an amendment in regard to zoning in that area.
Mr. Pendoley stated it is appropriate to look at the density on Union Street as part of
a Neighborhood Plan or part of a General Plan update, however, staff checked carefully
on this point because they felt it raised a question on cumulative impact. In discussion
with the Traffic Engineer, staff was told the street operates at Level of Service A and
would continue to do so. If a rapid rate of development took place on this street that
would allow staff to see that there is crossing of threshold to a lower level of service,
or high rate of accidents, then a harder look would be taken on cumulative impact. He
stated this is not the pattern at the time and a lot of units are not being built there,
and that it is not likely there will be in the future.
Councilmember Thayer suggested that Council look at the high density zoning of this area.
Mr. Pendoley stated staff can review this in the context of the Neighborhood Plan.
APPELLANTS
Mr. Jeff Mulanax, Spokesperson for the Montecito Neighborhood Association submitted a
letter to Council asking them to deny the negative declaration and use permit for the
2 additional units for 261 Union Street, reading the letter into the record.
Mr. Jeremiah Sweeney of Ridge Avenue stated he felt that Union and Jewell Streets are
very narrow, indicating although the Fire Department gave its approval, they commented
that based on limited access, that an automatic residential fire sprinkler system must
be installed. He did not agree with the proposed project.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/21/90 Page 6
SRCC MINUT€C (Regular) 5/21/90 Page 7
Mr. Cliff Elbinq of the Montecito Neighborhood Association, reflected on plans of the
neighborhood when first laid out 60 to 75 years ago and did not agree with the develop-
ment being placed in this area.
Mr. Jim O'Brien of Park Street stated it is also a narrow street, and pointed out that
parking is a problem. He did not feel the street could accommodate any more traffic.
Ms. Lisa Land ,y of 51 Jewell Street stated the Montecito area has grown, causing her to
use Mission Street rather than Union Street to get to her home. She felt the area is too
dense, the streets too narrow and parking too overcrowded to allow the project to be devel-
oped.
Ms. Alice Cochran of 245 Jewell Street agreed with the traffic issue and also felt because
of the redevelopment of the Montecito Shopping Center, more traffic has been created.
She spoke against the proposal.
DEVELOPER
Cecelia Bridqes, Attorney representing Fred & Doris Eberts, Applicants for the project,
stated the application calls for two rental units to be added to the existing single family
dwelling which has been a rental for 14 years to the same tenants. She felt staff presented
a complete presentation, addressing all the issues of the appeal, noting the record shows
that the plan is consistent with the General Plan designations, policies and City zoning;
also that it fully supports the initial study and the negative declaration.
Ms. Bridges referred to a letter she sent to Council, including a reduced cross-section
through the property from Ridge Avenue to Union Street. She stated the cross-section showed
that the entire residence at 82 Ridge Avenue (whose owner had objections on views), is
above the roof line of the proposed project, showing that the residence at 245 Jewell
Street, (which is most closely impacted) is 50 feet away from the project.
Ms. Bridges said besides the proposal being consistent with the present General Plan's
high density, were Council to decide to amend the General Plan, the proposal is also consis-
tent with the medium density residential designation.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Thayer asked what affect does a substandard property have in a determination?
Mr. Pendoley responded if Council decided to uphold the appeal because of a substandard
lot width and given the fact that it is in conformance with all of the setbacks and site
development standards of the Zoning Ordinance of the General Plan, Council would need
to have a finding explaining what is deleterious about the project. He added no excep-
tions are required.
Councilmember Boro stated he could see no legal basis as to why Council could not approve
this project. He mentioned that the Montecito Neighborhood Association has been very
effective in the past with Council supporting them, but noted in this particular case
there is no legal basis to support the proceedings, indicating the Council would liable
themselves if they did to the contrary. He mentioned the need for a neighborhood plan
and stated when the budget hearings take place in June, if there is a way to have the
plan proceed they will work on it.
Councilmember Thayer stated the big problem is the Montecito area does not have a neigh-
borhood plan. She objected to the proposal because of the density zoning in this particular
area, noting Union Street is too narrow and the development will add to the number of
cars on the thoroughfare.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, that staff prepare a Resolution
denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval of UP89-77/ED89-108.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Shippey & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
14. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING AND ADOPTNG THE FOLLOWING
CODES: (PW) - File 1-6-1 x 1-6-2 x 1-6-3 x 1-6-5 x 1-6-6 x 1-6-7 x 1-6-8 x 9-3-40
1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS
1988 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE
1988 UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS
1988 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE
1988 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE
1988 SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE
1987 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
15/1 UNIFORM ELECTRICAL CODE
1988 UNIFORM SOLAR ENERGY CODE SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/21/90 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) ,21/90 Page 8
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Public Works Director Bernardi stated as part of the process, staff was modifying Appendix
Chapter 32 - Reroofing - to conform with the Fire Code requiring retarded fire material
on the roofs rather than having non -fire materials on the roof; and raising the fees to
be consistent with the 1988 code.
There being no comments from the public, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt Resolution making
findings pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 relative to the
adoption of the 1988 Uniform Building Code.
RESOLUTION NO. 8176 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL MAKING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 17958.5 AND
17956.7 RELATIVE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BY AMENDING AND ADOPTING CHAPTERS AS FOLLOWS:
CHAPTER 12.12 "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE" (1988 ed.)
CHAPTER 12.14 "UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE" (1988 ed.)
CHAPTER 12.16 "UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE" (1988 ed.)
CHAPTER 12.20 "ELECTRICAL CODE" (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1987 ed. AND UNIFORM ELECTRICAL
CODE, 1971 ed.)
CHAPTER 12.26 "UNIFORM HOUSING CODE" (1988 ed.)
CHAPTER 12.28 "UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS" (1988 ed.)
CHAPTER 12.32 "UNIFORM SWIMMING CODE, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE" (1988 ed.)
CHAPTER 12.38 "UNIFORM SOLAR ENERGY CODE" (1988 ed.)"
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to dispense with the reading
of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance
No. 1592 to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
15. DISCUSSION OF WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES - File 151 x 9-3-66
Councilmember Shippey referred to the Freitas Park Wading Pond, stating it is heavily
used, and noting he has received a number of telephone calls from mothers with small children
who are concerned about the use of the pond being taken away due to water conservation.
He asked that another alternative be considered rather than shutting the pond down.
After further discussion, Council agreed to defer action and await the Marin Municipal
Water District's decision relating to mandatory water rationing.
ADD ITEMS
1. REQUEST FOR FUNDS FOR 1990 TERRA LINDA GRAD NIGHT PARTY - File 105
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, that the need to take action
on this item arose subsequent to the agenda being posted.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEPBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
Councilmember Boro referred to a letter received from Mr. John Hammond, Funding Raising
Chairman for the 1990 Terra Linda Grad Night Party, requesting funds from Council.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to donate $200 toward the
1990 Terra Linda Grad Night Party.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/21/90 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) x/21/90 Page 9
.2. EAST SAN RAFAEL NEIGHBORHOOD TASK FORCE - File 9-2-43
City Manager Nicolai stated today staff finalized the list for the East San Rafael
Neighborhood Task Force, and asked Council for discussion.
Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, that the need to take action
arose subsequent to the agenda being posted.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
Ms. Nicolai stated the list is a composite of applications, including comments and explained
that one of the reasons they have broadened the parameters is to get the appropriate mix
of all the ethnic minorities as well as the rest of the renters vs. owners, vs. property
owners and businesses. To get this spread, they got assistance from some of the agencies
in the area, making recommendations and contacting people. She noted this has been reviewed
by the Canal Community Alliance who has accepted it.
Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to endorse in principal,
the East San Rafael Neighborhood Task Force as outlined.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
Ms. Nicolai noted that once the people are informed, a notice will be given to the local
newspapers with the names of the East San Rafael Neighborhood Task Force listed, and the
date the first meeting will be held.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 PM.
�� 4
JEA E M. LEONCIN ,City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1990
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/21/90 Page 9