Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1990-11-05SRCC MINUTE (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1a 1. No. 90-22(a) - #1 - Willie Earl Walton vs. City of San Rafael No. 90-22(b) - #7 No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1990, AT 8:00 P.M. Regular fleeting: San Rafael City Council: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Tessie Belue, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COM14UNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE BOOK ON HISTORY OF FAIRHILLS - File 105 Michel Rousslin, representative of the Fairhills' Property Owners Association, stated that he had written an historical account of the Fairhills area, giving a brief background on the development of this area. He then presented Mayor Mulryan with a copy of the book. Mayor Mulryan thanked Mr. Rousslin for the book, stating it was an excellent project. Member Breiner asked if the book would be available in stores and Mr. Rousslin responded affirmatively. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM 2. Amendment to Agreement #90-106 Between the State Coastal Conservancy and the City of San Rafael to extend the Agreement Deadline to 12/30/90 for the Canalways Grant (Rec) - File 13-14-1 x 5-1-288 x (SRRA) R140 No. 7 3. Quitclaim of Excess Right -of -Way and Acceptance of Access Easements at Civic Center North Office Building Site (PW) - File 2-12-1 7. Renewal of Agreement with Insurance Consulting Associates, Inc., for Public Liability Claims Administration (CA) - File 4-10-184 8. Authorization to Submit Pre -Application for Proposition 85 Funds for San Rafael/Marin Library (Lib) - File 9-3-61 RECOMMENDED ACTION RESOLUTION NO. 8259 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY AMENDING AGREEMENT #90-106 (TO EXTEND AGREEMENT DEADLINE TO 12/30/90 FOR THE CANALWAYS GRANT). RESOLUTION NO. 8260 - RESOLUTION DISPOSING OF EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE CIVIC CENTER NORTH OFFICE BUILDING SITE ON McINNIS PARKWAY; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEED AND ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF ACCESS OF SAID EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENTS IN EXCHANGE FOR DISPOSAL. RESOLUTION NO. 8261 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT WITH INSURANCE CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC. (A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT) (for period from 11/1/90 to Midnight 10/31/91). RESOLUTION NO. 8262 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PRE -APPLICATION FOR CALIFORNIA LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION BOND ACT FUNDS FOR THE SAN RAFAEL/MARIN COUNTY LIBRARY PROJECT. SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 1 ITEM SRCC MINUTE:. (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION 10. Resolution Appropriating Davidson Bequest Funds RESOLUTION NO. 8263 - RESOLUTION to Supplement FY 1990-91 Library Book Budget and APPROPRIATING $43,400 FROM THE for Library Automation Project (Lib) - File DAVIDSON BEQUEST FOR THE LIBRARY 9-3-61 x 85 BOOK BUDGET, AND $25,000 FOR THE LIBRARY AUTOMATION PROJECT, FY 1990-91. 11. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract - RESOLUTION NO. 8264 - RESOLUTION Industrial Rated Tractor (Gen.Svcs.) - File AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF ONE 4-2-249 INDUSTRIAL TRACTOR FORD MODEL 545C TRACTOR LOADER WITH BACKHOE MODEL 764 (from NorCal Ford Equipment Co., low bidder, in the amount of $37,566.81). 12. Resolutions of Appreciation for 24 Members of the Child Care Task Force (Rec) - File 228 13. Claim for Damages: (CA) a. Gabe Riveras Claim No. 3-1-1519 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: RESOLUTION NOS. 8265 THROUGH 8288 RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE CHILD CARE TASK FORCE. (Doris Law Bagley, Al Boro, Greg Brockbank, Terry DeMartini, Jan Derby, Paula Beale, Margie Goodman, Gladys Gilliland, Marion Harris, Adija Jackson, Phyllis Jerome, Lori McAdams, Mara Meisner, Teri Moss, Virginia Neto, Greg O'Brien, Sandy Ponek, Nancy Percy, Gary Phillips, Bruce Raful, Stella Shao, Gail Theller, Laurie Townsend, Karin Wilson.) Approved City Attorney's recommendation for denial of claim a. Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan None None The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 4. BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT - ROOF REPLACEMENT "B" STREET COMMUNITY CENTER (PW) - File 4-1-440 Mayor Mulryan stated that mention was made in the report that the Mansard roofs will need to be replaced in the future and he wanted to make sure that there would be no serious risk of harm to the building or to the work that the City will be letting. Public Works Director Bernardi indicated there is no risk and that it is another phase of work that does need to be done, but will not interfere or ruin what will be done under this contract. He indicated that it involves two separate contractor types and rather than pay a premium of 27% for one contractor being a general contractor and one being a sub -contractor, they just wanted to split it into two projects. The Mayor then asked if by doing this they could get a smaller net cost. Mr. Bernardi answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Breiner stated that she was surprised to find on Page 2 of the contract something that usually was not seen in a roofing job and that is there will be a cost overrun of approximately 10%. Mr. Bernardi stated what they wanted to do was to let the Council know that if there were some extras on the job, that they would not exceed 10%. Mrs. Breiner asked if this still brings it under what was budgeted. Mr. Bernardi answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Breiner moved and Mayor Mulryan seconded, to adopt the Resolution awarding the contract for the "B" Street Community Center roof to Industrial Roofing Co. RESOLUTION NO. 8289 - AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR ROOF REPLACEMENT TO "B" STREET COMMUNITY CENTER (to Industrial Roofing Co.., low bidder, in the amount of $81,839.0-0) Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan None None SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 2 SRCC MINUTE- (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 3 5. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF TERRA LINDA FIRE STATION ON DEL GANADO ROAD (PW) - File 4-3-224 X 4-1-406 Mayor Mulryan asked why we are not putting out a bid for these services rather than just awarding a contract - this has to do with the design of the new Fire Station in Terra Linda. Public Works Director Bernardi stated that they went through a selection process when they had the design study done for the station itself, whether to build a new one or to tear down the old one. In order to continue with that base of knowledge, they are recommending to the Council that the same firm be used for the actual design work itself. Mayor Mulryan asked if that was because they were certain they could not get the same quality work done for less if it was put out to bid. Mr. Bernardi answered that basically that if someone else came in they would have to "reinvent the wheel" and basically do much of the research that has already been done by this particular firm which has all the base data already prepared and can simply start from that point, rather than go back and prepare all the base data again. Councilmember Boro asked if the City brought this firm in initially via the bid process. Mr. Bernardi stated that they do not go for bids on this, noting they usually request proposals from different firms and they propose to do the work for a certain amount and within a certain time frame. He noted Forsher & Guthrie was selected at that time due to the preliminary design study work. Councilmember Shippey stated that he would be concerned that if another firm was consulted that there would be a loss of time. He asked for a brief overview of the timeline where this section fits in vs. the overall time to finish construction on the new station. Mr. Bernardi stated that it was proposed now that the plans and specifications can be completed within 60 days. The only unknown within that 60 day period is going to the Design Review Board. If they have some major changes or some significant concerns then the process may be extended by what kind of work would have to be done in order to comply with the Design Review Board requirements. Mr. Shippey then asked if they could start breaking ground in 60 days. Mr. Bernardi answered negatively, noting that they would have the working drawings and specifications completed within 60 days and then the bid process starts, so it will be approximately 90 days after the design is completed and that the bid process will take 90 days from when advertised to award of the contract. Mr. Shippey asked that if at the end of that period, the Council would see it again. Mr. Bernardi answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Thayer asked how much we paid Forsher & Guthrie last year for the design study. Mr. Bernardi answered approximately $5,000. Mr. Bernardi explained that they did not have sufficient funds budgeted at that time and they wanted to do a cost benefit analysis of whether or not it was better to rebuild what was there or if it was cheaper in the long run to start over. According to the analysis, it will be cheaper to start over from scratch, rather to rebuild what was there. Ms. Thayer asked if that type of evaluation could be done in-house to determine whether something is repairable or needs to be torn down. Mr. Bernardi answered that there are many unknowns that staff did not feel they had the expertise to make judgements on, and that is why they went with this firm. Councilmember Breiner stated her concern was that staff had an RFP at the first tier and then staff felt it was worth saving time by not going out further at this step, and thought the City could receive criticism. She also stated that she hopes it is not done in the future or if it is done that some competitiveness will be worked in at future projects at the first tier step, as the City could be faulted. City Manager Pam Nicolai explained that staff felt at the time that they could remodel more cheaply and get the project done. Then as the staff started to investigate it and get response from potential contractors, it became clear that the remodeling project was not going to be feasible and they started researching the types of alternatives. It was found that it would be possible to rebuild for the same price as to remodel. She suggested that for this particular project, continuing to use this firm would be the best idea as they understood what the Fire Department needs in a fire station because of their prior experience with this project. Mr. Shippey then asked what the total percentage of the budget was being used for this. It was brought out that less than 10% was being used by this firm and the rest goes out to bid. Mr. Bernardi stated at this point, they have come to the decision point to rebuild the station, rather than remodel it, because if they had gone the other way, it would have cost more in architectural fees because it would mean changing ideas mid -contract and that would have been an extra cost for the City. SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 3 SRCC MINUTE., (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 4 Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt the Resolution to authorize the execution of the agreement for the design of the Fire Station No. 6 in Terra Linda, RESOLUTION NO. 8290 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH FORSHER & GUTHRIE FOR THE DESIGN OF THE DEL GANADO FIRE STATION IN TERRA LINDA AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 6. REPORT ON RETURN OF PORTION OF 1986 FLOOD RELIEF FUNDS TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA (PW) - File 12-9 x 9-3-40 Councilmember Boro complimented staff on reducing the State's request for return of an aditional $265,000 and asked City Manager Nicolai whether the $73,429 was budgeted or will this be new funds the City will need to come up with. Ms. Nicolai answered that this will be money that was not budgeted that staff will need to come up with. Public Works Director Bernardi stated that staff was recommending the money come from unappropriated reserves. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, authorizing the return of $73,429 in unused AB 2536 funds to the State of California; funds to be allocated from unappropriated reserves. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 8167 TO MODIFY BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZE ONE YEAR EXTENSION, AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR TS86-5 (SPINNAKER POINT UNIT FIVE) (P1) - File 5-1-263 Councilmember Boro asked Planning Director Pendoley to update him on what has been agreed to as of this date as far as the timing of the below market rate housing units. He stated there was some discussion on contributions vs. building, etc. Mr. Pendoley answered that basically what this agreement would require is that the developer provide five (5) BMR units in some phase of the last part of his project, which is called Baypoint Lagoons. It has been left to the builder's discretion as to which phase of his project he would include them in. Since there is only one phase that has not yet been approved, we assume it will be then, the Council also provided in this agreement that the City may accept fees in lieu of the units. The question that was raised when this was last before the Council was whether staff had an escalator in the fee to keep pace with the market and it was determined that the original contract did not. Staff therefore asked the housing consultant to negotiate the contract to include an escalator, which he did. Mr. Pendoley also stated he was not satisfied that this was the right escalator, so he sent it back. Mr. Boro then asked Mr. Pendoley why these units have been delayed to the second phase of this project. Mr. Pendoley stated that Council did not require that the units be built in the first phase. He also stated that this was done because this project already had a number of BMR's already in it. Mr. Boro confirmed that the City is pushing for the units, not the money at this time and Mr. Pendoley answered in the affirmative. Council accepted report, without motion. 14. PUBLIC HEARING - RECONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION OF AUGUST 28, 1990, RE DENIAL OF V90-12 VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 5 FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE; 506 "C" STREET; VENKATESWARA/PARAMESWARI LAKIREDDY, OWNERS; AP 12-155-02 (Pl) - File 10-4 x 10-1 Mayor Mulryan opened the public hearing and announced that a letter had been received from Attorney Perry Litchfield, who has recently been retained by the property owners, in which he asked for a continuance of this matter so that he may become familiar with his client's case. After discussion, Council agreed to a continuance as requested. Mayor Mulryan continued the public hearing to the Council meeting of November 19, 1990. SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 5 15. PUBLIC HEARING - TS86-4 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 7 -LOT SUBDIVISION; MEYER ROAD, EAST OF "D" STREET; ARMAND LOCKE, OWNER; PERRY LITCHFIELD, REP.; DON DAGLOW, APPELLANT; AP 12-291-16 & 17 (P1) - File 5-1-318 Planning Director Pendoley stated that this item was before the Council in August. At that time, additional information was requested on six points as covered in the staff report. Associate Planner Mark Wolfe then gave information on tree impacts and the project's compliance with the setback requirements in the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Wolfe explained that the current subdivision responds to tree impact concerns in the EIR in the following ways: Its design avoids some sensitive habitat and some large redwood trees in the lower Northern portion of the site by using a revised driveway and house location plan that was not covered in the EIR, thereby avoiding some of the tree impacts. Further, the recommended conditions of approval incorporate measures for protection of the trees on the site during construction. He referred to Conditions (ww), (aaa), and (bbb), noting ww provides that an arborist's report be submitted at the time of design review for each individual home which would include a complete tree inventory of the site in question. In this inventory, each tree on the site would be marked with a tag keyed to a site plan that would identify the tree, its size, species and its general condition, so the project could be closely assessed. Condition (aaa) requires that before any work can begin in the field, whether it be in regard to the subdivision improvements or home construction, that the Planning Department be provided a ten day notice and that all the trees to be removed as part of that work be tagged in the field so that the department can correlate with the actual conditions of approval to make sure that the right trees are marked and that no unauthorized tree removal is going to take place. The project conditions also call for preservation of trees that are removed as part of the project development through Conditions (uu) and (vv). Condition (uu) deals with a conservation easement within which tree removal would be prohibited and would be located outside all of the building envelopes provided on the map. This easement would also be on the face of the Final Map so that all parties becoming involved in ownership of the property would be sufficiently apprised of this condition. He also pointed out that standard review conditions do require that all landscaping be maintained and in healthy growing condition and that any project modifications be subject to further amendments of the original approval by the Planning Commission and, in this case, that would pertain to any trees because the landscape plans would be approved as part of the design review process to include both existing and proposed trees. He also pointed out that the conditions of approval on the map right now would require a two for one ratio replanting of trees removed with new trees in the landscape plans for the homes. He then explained the stream setback issue, stating the EIR includes a mitigation measure that references a couple of exhibits in the EIR and also recommends that the project be developed so that there are no incursions into a 50 foot buffer zone setback around several streams on the site. The mitigation measure points out incorrectly in the EIR that the site plans discussed in the EIR are consistent with this mitigation measure. The site plans discussed in the EIR did, in fact, include some incursions into this buffer zone. This is something that was not discovered through the EIR process that came up to review the actual Subdivision Map, because the subdivision that was originally proposed was based upon one of the alternatives discussed in the EIR. It should have been fully consistent with it and when he reviewed the actual building envelopes and compared it to the recommended mitigation measures, Mr. Wolfe stated he discovered that there were some points at which these would have been closer than 50 feet. Mr. Wolfe stated he then contacted the EIR author, who in turn contacted the biologist who prepared the mitigation measure to investigate this apparent contradiction in that the EIR states there are not any, when, in fact, there are some shown on the site plans assessed in the EIR. The biological consultant who prepared that mitigation measure responded in correspondence that is included in the staff report, and clarified that the mitigation measure should have acknowledged that there were incursions, that there should not have been any further incursions. He pointed out that this measure was further researched with Fred Botti of the California State Department of Fish and Game, that the proposed mitigation measure was clarified by the biological consultant and was found to be acceptable to Mr. Botti, with the request that there be some additional buffer landscaping in these areas; that has been incorporated into the project conditions. Councilmember Breiner asked Mr. Wolfe whether the two for one ratio for planting trees was part of the conditions, and Mr. Wolfe responded affirmatively. SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 5 SRCC MINUTE (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 6 Councilmember Thayer asked about Condition (xx) 2 on page 27 of the Conditions of Approval, mentioning it did not specify the size of the replacement trees and wanted to make sure that live oaks were not replaced with acorns. Councilmember Breiner stated that in the Loch Lomond Unit 10 Subdivision they were very specific on this particular issue, and suggested that Condition (xx) be changed to answer this. Planning Director Pendoley stated that they did specify the size of replacement trees at Loch Lomond 10 and recommended that Council specify 48 inch box trees. Mr. Pendoley stated that is an expensive tree and tends to discourage removal. He stated that the changes mentioned above should be noted for the record in Condition (dd) at the end of deliberations. Councilmember Breiner then stated that she was not sure whether appropriate species wording used in Loch Lomond should be used here. Mr. Pendoley recommended that in this case the species not be specified in the conditions, but that the species should be approved by staff because it will vary somewhat from place to place in the subdivision as to which is appropriate. Ms. Breiner asked for a report to the Commission to follow-up on this in case they are contacted by the neighbors about these changes. Mr. Wolfe stated that Condition (dd) incorporates a plant palette from which landscape plans would be developed and this range of plants was recommended in the EIR to include a number of different trees and shrubs. These trees would be selected from this list. Mayor Mulryan stated that the 48 inch box size was a good idea. Councilmember Boro then asked about an item on page 4, that a violation would be subject to legal action taken by the City. Then in the next paragraph, it referred back to the fact that the City cannot enforce the violation unless it takes title to the open space. Mr. Wolfe stated that there were two different restrictors on tree removal in the project and it depends upon where a tree is located as to which one is going to be effective. Areas outside of building envelopes would be subject to the CC&R's and the conservation easement and could be enforced as a violation of the CC&R's and can be enforced by the Homeowners' Association. Further, through the design review process, there are the standard conditions of approval which require the maintenance of all vegetation in a healthy, growing state which would apply to all the trees on the lots as well, so this is a double layer of protection for the trees. Mayor Mulryan asked where the City's legal action comes in. Mr. Wolfe stated it would be design review conditions. Mayor Mulryan also asked if, after the fact, would it be up to the Homeowners' Association via the CC&R's. Mr. Wolfe stated it would also be considered as a violation of the design review approvals, which makes double coverage. Councilmember Boro asked if in the case of a new development like this would it be appropriate to put in some type of a timeline, etc., that once the project starts, staff would expect an absolute minimum to be completed and not clear out trees without protecting the vegetation and causing other problems. Planning Director Pendoley answered that staff needs to do some research to answer these questions, noting there is no precedent in the City of San Rafael. The City can require bonding for public improvements and for such things as grading to assure that if the project stops in the middle, some minimal amount of work can be done to insure there is no safety hazard. Councilmember Boro stated a concern about being able to finish projects that are started and looking for some level of protection for the City. Mayor Mulryan mentioned a calendar to be built into the approval. Mr. Boro stated either a calendar or that this work be done in phases and after each phase a certain amount is complete before moving on to the next phase. Mr. Pendoley indicated that that is like what the Water District does in their permitting process and it seems to work in their case. Councilmember Breiner agreed with the above and stated that it is particularly pertinent to this site because it has to do with the steepness and the concern about once the grading goes in and the improvements are not done, there will be much concern about the streams coming downhill. She also stated that she would like to see the whole thing master planned more than it is at this point and build these safeguards into it at the same time. Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Pendoley for comments on the master plan thought. Mr. Pendoley stated that the Subdivision Map does include everything that would typically be required of a master plan. The only design review that is left to be done is the architecture of the individual buildings. Staff would expect that this project would be built on subdivided specs and be built by individual subdividers one at a time, which is typical on projects of this size. Mr. Pendoley stated that there would not be preapproval of the design of homes as in a large project. SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 7 Councilmember Boro stated that one of the things done on Loch Lomond Unit 10 was that all of the infrastructure (protection) was put in place in a much larger area. His concerns are with the neighbors and their concerns. Mr. Pendoley stated that in this case, staff is requiring that all of the off site drainage be built first and the on-site drainage controls be installed before the first building permit. Parallel conditions are being used. Councilmember Boro stated a concern that there was a difference in lot split and building permit time, and asked if taking care of the off-site drainage takes care of the danger problems. Mr. Pendoley answered that the major concern with this project is drainage. The grading is minimal and the basic grading is for driveway access. He also stated that the primary benefit for the community is the downstream drainage improvements being done first, so if there is a financial problem later on in the project, this has been completed to the benefit of the community. In the case of Loch Lomond, all of the public improvements were tied into issuance of the first building permit, rather than recordation of the Final Map. Councilmember Thayer asked about the amended provision of the EIR concerning the setbacks. She stated that it was her understanding that the actual mitigation measure in the plan required a 50 foot setback; however, it appears as though the amendment is being tailored to the anomaly in the plan, rather than the converse. Mr. Pendoley answered in the negative explaining that when they reviewed the subdivision, after the EIR had been completed and approved by the Planning Commission, a discrepancy was found in that the EIR seemed to be saying that both of the alternatives that had been identified should have 50 foot setbacks from the stream and that one did and was in full compliance, and the other did not. He went on to say that in both maps there were two lots that did not have a 50 foot setback and there was no sense made of that. Staff asked the author if this was an oversight or intentional and he told them that that was his intention. The author felt that those two lots which did put a building envelope closer than 50 feet to a stream bed did not represent an environmental problem. His concern was that should not happen on any other lots. Mr. Pendoley stated that they wanted an opinion from the Department of Fish and Game, and they said that they did not have a problem with this. He stated that staff required that they have this documentation in writing and verified by discussing it with Fish and Game themselves. He also stated that, in their review, there was an error in the writing of the draft and the drafting of the first EIR did not clearly say what it meant. The final significanc( of this was that if there was a disagreement with the author of the EIR and the Department of Fish and Game, and the Planning Commission, that there should be a 50 foot setback, this can be accomplished by adjusting one lot line 10 feet. This is explained to show that due to the design of this subdivision, it is not significant to the approval Council is giving. He noted there is a map reflecting this 10 foot adjustment prepared. Councilmember Shippey asked about tree mitigation. He referred to Table 2a in the recent staff report indicating that the driveway between Lots 6 & 7 will affect 14 redwoods being removed, with a footnote that it can be redesigned. His understanding is that no redwood trees would be removed and asked if a.) is this correct, and b.) where is it recorded? Mr. Wolfe answered affirmatively to a. and that the the current plan, by its design, avoids those redwood trees. He also stated that the current plan for the driveways and homes in that part of the site is more similar to the amended #1 plan. This plan avoided redwood trees. Mr. Shippey stated that his concern is the enforcement of not removing these redwood trees. Mr. Pendoley stated that the proposed map proposes not to remove any redwood trees. If it is approved, then the builder must not remove any redwood trees because he said in his project application that he would not do this. Mr. Shippey then asked with regard to his visit to the site with Mr. Pendoley, how the driveway for Lots 6 & 7 has been redesigned to avoid that. Mr. Wolfe then proceeded to show on the maps displayed this particular area. Don DaQlow, appellant, commented that the problem faced on this project is that so much of the southern part of San Rafael sees this area, although this is a small project. He stated it is a view impact on much of the City, as well as being a very direct impact on the people flooded directly below it and affected in other losses in this area. Mr. Daglow stated that on the tree impact and protection he was concerned about seeing an exact example of what these changes will be on one map. Mr. Daglow requested that the tagging of trees be done in the week subsequent to the approval by the Council of the Tentative Map, because if the applicant waits on development for a year or two waiting for the market to improve, there is no way of knowing if accidents happened to trees in the meantime. He would like to make sure that this does not happen. Mr. Daglow stated that Mr. Locke is a highly ethical and straight forward individual and he respects him a great deal, but once people are hired with a financial stake then the scenario changes. He stated perhaps tagging would allow the community to feel more comfortable if the builder waits a couple of years before going ahead with whatever map is approved. SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 8 Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Daglow to clarify what he is asking the Council to do. Mr. Daglow stated that the actual tagging of the trees does not have to occur until activity is going to take place on the site. Mr. Wolfe stated that this occurred after reports were made by the necessary agencies to protect the trees. Mr. Daglow then commented on Page 5 that many excuses were being used to amend the EIR. He noted he was concerned about downstream flooding, stating he feels this has not been adequately addressed. Mr. Daglow commented on building heights, noting on Wolfe Avenue there is in the CC&R's a one story height restriction and these new homes should be under the same restrictions. Mr. Daglow stated to the point of low intensity alternatives, specifically as discussed on page 8, there is one key point in the first indented paragraph which states "when a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable General Plan zoning. . .". He stated that the map displayed does not comply with the applicable General Plan, and asked that Council ask for the map which shows the 10 foot movement of the lot, as Mr. Pendoley has stated, along with the other driveways altered and look at the tree impact of those on the same map. Mr. Daglow also asked Council to withhold approval tonight, subject to the visualizing of that map by the community involved for input to resolve some of the existing problems. Mr. Daglow stated that the community would like to be helpful to Mr. Locke in getting a conclusion that is satisfactory and acceptable to everyone. Kevin Ho per, a ten year old neighbor, then read a letter into the record that he had written o Mr. Locke regarding the environmental impact the builder will have on this area. Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Pendoley about the map mentioned in Mr. Daglow's comments. Mr. Pendoley answered that it had been included in all of the Planning Commission meetings and that it did include all the new site changes, as requested. Dan Simonsen, 9 Wolfe Avenue, commented that he was unhappy about the report. He stated that General Plan 2000 called for the City to take an active leadership role in assuring implementation of the General Plan programs and encouraging public review and participation in all aspects of the project. He stated that what staff is asking Council to do is to accept an addendum to a certified EIR. The 50 foot setback was in the City's initial Environmental Report dated 1984, which states "no development within a 50 foot setback buffer". In 1987, it was stated again by Planning Director Anne Moore in a report to the City Council that said no developments within 50 feet of the creek setback. He mentioned that after the public testimony was closed, the biologist involved stated that what he really meant to say was that there were two incursions that were known at that time. He stated that to amend a certified EIR without public participation does not fit with the General Plan of the City of San Rafael which is encouraging public participation in all aspects of the planning process. Mr. Simonsen then referred to the staff report in regard to the clarification of the tree impacts. He stated a concern on this in that 65 trees with girth greater than 12 inches of height are going to be removed and that 14 of these trees are redwoods. Mr. Simonsen stated that the redwood trees were not the only trees in this report. In the report of 1984 it stated that no oak trees should be taken, but in the current report there are several oak trees to be taken, as well as other species. Mr. Simonsen also made comments on the stream setbacks problem. He felt the builder needs to redesign the houses to comply with this problem. Mr. Simenson stated that he submitted a letter to Public Works with regard to the downstream drainage problem which was not in the staff report. He questioned the flooding which will occur, in concurrence with the rise of high tide levels. He made a statement regarding global warming and that it was occurring at this time, in reference to the flooding problem. Mr. Simonsen stated that he also included in the letter information about the PG&E site where they were going to pave over toxics and that that project is now dead and the toxics are still in the soil, and are cancer causing, and any flooding will release these into the streets of San Rafael and the Canal area. Mr. Simonsen then commented on the creek setbacks, noting that in the EIR for the General Plan that setbacks from creeks and drainage ways are required. He referred to the lot which is so close to the stream that it is subject to stream undercutting. He also stated that environmental factors including preservation or repairing any areas and wildlife corridors are another reason why there are setbacks in the first place. He commented that a minimum of 25 feet from the high top of the creekbank shall be maintained for structures, wider setbacks of up to 100 feet for larger parcels, including parcels that are two or more acres in size, so instead of having 100 foot setback, as recommended in the General Plan, there is less than 25 foot setbacks and certainly much less than the 50 foot setback which was originally approved by the Planning Commission. SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 9 Mr. Simonsen stated that the Planning Commission was now asking the Council, without any public input, to approve this. He stated that he felt that the removal of large trees, redwood trees included, in this manner was a significant and biological impact because of the large size of the trees, the relative scarcity of redwood trees in San Rafael, and the relatively large area of forested lots. The community is concerned that the General Plan calls for a minimum of the fire and building code, which is not being maintained, and that the wishes of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood are being overlooked which call for a view assessment. Mr. Simonsen stated that Mr. Wolfe called him asking for copies of pictures he had taken of the flooding occurring in this area, which he took to Mr. Wolfe, and then noted he was not returning his calls. Mr. Simonsen then commented on the fact that the developer is asking the City to pay the bill for part of the drainage proposal. He stated that in the General Plan it states that no subdivision shall be allowed that does not have adequate down stream drainage in place. He questioned where the City was going to get the money to finish this drainage proposal because of the current tight monetary crunch experienced at this time. He questioned having the regulations at all if they were not being followed by staff. He stated that he hoped that the City Council approved the appeal and denied this seven lot subdivision. He then stated that in the staff report on Page 5, Item C, No. 3 where it says "mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible could in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more of the significant affects on the project". Mr. Simonsen stated a lower density alternative had never been seriously considered by the staff, noting this is not against the law. He suggested some changes that would eliminate the environmental problems, by using the minimum of four units and eliminating the one lot that is over -encroaching on the creek; also eliminate the grading that is up into the redwood forest; and eliminate the other encroachment in the driveway for Lots 6 & 7. He questioned why the staff has been "ignoring" these features of the plan. Councilmember Breiner asked which lot Mr. Simonsen was referring to as the one he suggests removing. Mr. Simonsen answered that it was the one that was the incursion into the creek, Lot 2. Sandra Lollini, President of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association stated the they have been involved in the project since 1984. She stated she was confused on what map was being used for this project. Planning Director Pendoley stated that it was the map that was attached as Exhibit C to the staff report of June 12th, which was approved by the Planning Commission. She stated that nobody had seen this map. Mayor Mulryan then asked whether this map was first presented to the Planning Commission in June. Mr. Wolfe answered in the affirmative, stating he thought that it was in June. Ms. Lollini stated she had the map where the driveway for Lots 6 & 7 are marked as possibly being redesigned to limit the impact on the other lots. She asked if, according to this map, it looks like they have been redesigned so the trees will not be eliminated. Mr. Pendoley answered in the affirmative. Ms. Lollini also stated that her group agreed with the staff recommendation regarding the condition that all homes to be developed in the subdivision shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of the design standards. She again questioned which map is the final one to be used in the tree removal part of the project. Mayor Mulryan confirmed with Ms. Lollini that she was saying that the map that staff has seen since June, except the changes in the driveway of Lots 6 & 7, is the one she is referring to. She answered in the affirmative, but Mr. Pendoley stated that this was the same map with the exceptions that were approved at the June meeting. Ms. Lollini stated that in the map she had, it was marked "amended", etc., to show the changes which also show more impacts on the trees in Lots 2 & 3, as well as the 50 foot setback incursions to the creek. She still questioned the fact that they did not have a good map to show all of the changes. Mayor Mulryan then confirmed with Mr. Wolfe that there were no changes in this map since June. Mr. Wolfe answered in the affirmative stating that this was the map approved by the Planning Commission, with slight changes in it on Exhibit C to the staff report. Mr. Pendoley stated that the lot lines were the same, but there was a slightly different alignment in the driveway for Lots 6 & 7. Mr. Wolfe stated the difference was less than 5 feet, and that Exhibit C was virtually the same map. SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 10 Councilmember Breiner then commented that this was a very poor map, as opposed to the past where they have received good maps. Councilmember Shippey agreed that it was very hard to see what is going on in Exhibit C. Mr. Wolfe then proceeded to explain the full scale map to Mayor Mulryan and Council. Councilmember Thayer asked Mr. Pendoley if he knew approximately how many trees will be removed with this reconfiguration of the driveways. Mr. Wolfe answered that that would be the amount shown on Table 2a in the final EIR, minus the fourteen redwoods, attached to the staff report. Mr. Pendoley stated the number of trees lost would be 41 California Bays, 5 Coast Live Oaks, and 1 Black Oak. Linda Bellatore, member of the Planning Commission, but not on the Commission when this item was heard by them, asked again about the map being used and requested that they provide one map to stop the confusion on this issue, especially about where the driveways are that are to be affected. She stated that this is a significant hillside in Gerstle Park and an asset to the neighborhood. Ms. Bellatore was concerned in looking at Exhibit C that the areas in question are not colored in to make it more clear. She stated that she had hoped that they could eliminate the development in the lower portion of the subdivision. She stated she felt that when the grading begins it will destroy the natural habitat and there is no changing this fact, and would like to see a lower density. She also stated that she wanted to get something on record tonight about their concerns with the EIR addendum and that the map on display is not the map in Exhibit C attached to the staff report. She requested that the Council require a photographic simulation of any house to be built in the subdivision so the community can see what is to be built. Aileen Treadwell proceeded to show slides of the area to the Council, with comments on each slide. Councilmember Shippey thanked Ms. Treadwell for her presentation. Leslie Simonsen, 9 Wolfe Avenue, stated her confusion about the maps. She asked how much the City is going to pay for the drainage pipe. Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Pendoley to clarify this. Mr. Pendoley stated that the proposal is to install 1,300 feet of drain line off-site, noting what is needed, ultimately, is a 1,400 foot extension. That would leave the City installing the last 100 feet, and is part of the Capital Improvement Plan, but he did not know the cost of the last 100 feet. Mrs. Simonsen stated that most people who use Wolfe Grade enjoy this area and would be affected by this subdivision. She stated they have drainage in their patio well into June now. Her concern was also for removal of the vegetation in the area affecting the ground. She stated the fire road is not sufficient and endangers her house and family. She also discussed removal of 50 trees and the significant affect on the environment. She also brought up the setback problem from the creek. She also stated that she agreed with the lower density idea of using 4 units. John Kolb asked about the creek involved in this and would everything go into a pipe instead of flowing down a natural creek. He was concerned that everything would be going underground, destroying the natural creek flow. Mayor Mulryan answered in the negative. Mr. Wolfe clarified that the length of pipe referred to in the project would underground existing gutter drainage coming down C Street. All the streams on the site would remain above ground. Lionel Ashcroft spoke with regard to his concerns about the architecture of the houses being harmonious with the general area with some input from the City and whether the area would be inconvenienced during the construction with blockage of the roads in the area by trucks, etc. He requested some way of mitigating the traffic along the road in question because of the short curves which drivers cannot see around sufficiently to stop in time for these trucks. Mayor Mulryan asked staff about the lower density question and why it has not been more fully explored. Mr. Pendoley answered that a consultant for the EIR did the research. He was required to analyze the project at a variety of lower densities. The EIR concluded that there would be no further mitigation accomplished by reducing density below the 6 new units that were proposed, so even if they used the lower density, it would not achieve any more mitigation than was identified by other alternatives in the EIR. SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 11 Councilmember Shippey confirmed with Mr. Pendoley Mr. Ashcroft's concern that Council's approval would not allow homes out of character with the existing neighborhood to be built here and Condition (xx) (the design review process) would prohibit that. Mr. Pendoley answered that these homes were not subject to design review and the lots were subdivided some time before today's General Plan. Therefore, there was no way to require design review on those homes. He mentioned Condition (xx) does deal with design and lays out some general standards that would have them work with conformity to what is in the neighborhood. He suggested that they add to this map that design review would be subject to the hillside design standards that are currently being prepared. Councilmember Thayer asked Mr. Pendoley about why the person who drafted the EIR did not find any fewer impacts if four houses were built and what the removal of trees would do to this. Mr. Pendoley stated that the EIR found that there would be no difference. Councilmember Thayer asked if there would be greater setbacks if the lots were configured for these. Mr. Pendoley stated that with the 50 foot setbacks for four of the homes and the incursion of two other homes into the 50 foot setback, it was not a significant impact on those intermittent streams. He noted if Council disagrees and feels that the incursion of those two homes would be a significant impact, it is possible to achieve 50 foot setbacks on all 6 homes. Councilmember Breiner asked why a 50 foot setback was used instead of a 100 foot setback. Mr. Wolfe explained that the General Plan has two policies that deal with setback from waterways, whether they be wetlands or streams. The one policy that deals with wetlands is NE 15 which establishes a minimum 50 foot setback and a minimum of 100 feet ideally when there is a larger site - a wetland along the Bay. The policy for streams is NE 17 that establishes a setback of 25 feet from streams. This policy also references a map that was prepared by the USGS (United States Geographical Survey) and the Fish and Wildlife Service to identify various streams and waterways in the City of San Rafael and that map is included in the General Plan as Map No. GP 16C. Ms. Breiner asked Mr. Wolfe if staff is being consistent with the General Plan, other than the two incursions. Mr. Pendoley stated the new recommended mitigation is in excess of what is recommended by the General Plan. Councilmember Shippey asked Mr. Pendoley about the other map mentioned that is a modification of the map that presently has 50 foot setbacks all around and would there be a tradeoff such as more trees being removed. Mr. Pendoley answered in the negative. Perry Litchfield, attorney for the property owner, stated that the question of the adequacy of the EIR and the question about whether it truly considered lower densities or higher densities in a proper way was subject to the action by the Planning Commission in January of this year. That action was attended by members of the community with objections made at that time and considered, and that then the EIR was certified. No appeal was taken from the certification of the EIR. Mr. Litchfield stated he did not believe that it was proper at this time to go back into the EIR and discuss whether it is adequate or not, noting we are bound from a legal standpoint to look at the EIR and apply the proposed Tentative Map to that EIR and determine whether it comports with the terms and conditions and the recommended mitigations of the EIR. He noted it is clear that the EIR states that the proposed project is the preferred alternative as compared with every other alternative that was addressed by the EIR consultants. He stated the EIR was not prepared on behalf of Armand Locke or under his control, indicating it was done by a company selected and directed by the City of San Rafael and the Planning Department. In 1984, it was proposed to be a 9 lot subdivision and through requests from the staff it went down to 8 and eventually down to the present 7. He noted it is well within the range allowed by the General Plan and this project has received a complete and thorough review. There has been a initial EIR, a focused EIR, and there were at least 5 Planning Commission meetings at which this project was discussed. There were at least 4 neighborhood meetings where input was taken from the neighbors and the reason that there are so many different maps is because at each stage a modification was made in order to appease a concern or to take into account a required or recommended mitigation. He stated this is really a process of development ultimately leading to what the Planning Commission approved and which has been available since before the June approval. He stated this development will result in a new and improved drainage system which will be essentially dedicated to the City, noting it goes far beyond what was required in order to mitigate the runoff that would be associated with this project. It will mitigate or eliminate a longstanding flooding problem along C Street. SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES kREGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 12 With respect to the questions about lowering the density, he stated he wrote a letter on August 17, 1990 which fully addresses what the builder's position is with respect to decreasing the density. Under Government Code Section 65589.5 and Public Resource Code Section 21085 there is required that there be made certain and specific findings to support further elimination of lots. He stated that he did not believe that the record with respect to the Environmental Impact Report and the other evidence presented tonight would support the findings that necessarily must be made in order to reduce density. Mr. Litchfield urged the Council to uphold the earlier findings of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal and allow this project to go forward. With regard to development, he stated there was no mass production comtemplated in this project. He affirmed for the record that Mr. Locke was ready, willing and able to meet and discuss with any of the neighbors or any other person the acquisition of land when he is in a legal position to do so, which will be after he has a Final Map. Councilmember Boro asked Assistant City Attorney Tessie Belue if as part of this appeal, does Council have the authority to change those conditions as a result of the hearings here tonight. Ms. Belue responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Shippey asked Ms. Belue if Council can accept the second map Mr. Wolfe was going to show Council on a transparency. She answered in the affirmative. Irvinq Schwartz, Civil Engineer, stated that his office prepared the Tentative Subdivision Map. He explained that the other three drawings were illustrated site plans that were prepared through the evolution of the planning process and the environmental review process and they show how the project evolved and how adjustments were made as staff made every attempt to comply with suggestions and mitigation measures in the EIR. He stated the Tentative Map shows building envelopes which were established to specifically avoid trees that were highlighted in the EIR and this is shown on the map. He stated that they did prepare a drawing that shows a 50 foot setback to the stream or creek. The lot of concern is Lot No. 2, the one closest to Mr. Locke's current house. The map shows that all of the lots could be slid over just a little bit and change some spacing around Meyer Road to accommodate the 50 foot setback, but they felt that there was a better plan as presented and approved by the Planning Commission. The stream is really just a gully or a crease in the hillside that drains a culvert under Meyer Road. The real creek on the property in down on the lower portion of the site where there is no incursion into the 50 feet. His last point was about the off-site drainage. He stated they are culverting the existing surface or gutter flow into C Street. The EIR proposed as a way to mitigate the increased rate of run-off caused by this development to build settling stations and holding or detention ponds on site. He noted that while this system theorectically would work, it would involve a maintenance problem over the long run and would involve potentially a health and safety problem of these ponds in this residential area and would probably result in removal of trees to create the ponds. He mentioned there was an existing flooding problem on C Street that would be there whether Mr. Locke developed or not. He stated the additional rate of run-off was taken care of from the proposed work site, while as an added benefit corrected some of the existing flooding to the upper portion of C Street. Based on what was considered a fair share amount of work that could be done on C Street, as compared to what it would cost to do the detention ponds on site, he prorated how much pipe it would take running downstream from the intersection of Wolfe down C Street. Where that proration ended was in the middle of a block, an illogical spot to stop the culvert system so instead they ran the culvert system all the way down to Ivy Lane, the next logical intersection. What is left is a short stretch between Ivy Lane and Octavia Street where there is sufficient gutter capacity to carry the water in the street. He stated this should improve what is there today. Mr. Wolfe showed Council the transparency of the changes for the map. Mayor Mulryan asked if it was felt that this was not as good a design as the other one because of the resultant closeness of the 4 homes to each other. Mr. Wolfe answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Shippey asked for Mr. Schwartz' opinion as to why he recommended one map to the Planning Commission rather than the other map. Mr. Schwartz explained that it was because it squeezed the houses up a little closer together and they thought the spacing would be more preferrable. Mr. Pendoley stated that the basic difference is that instead of having 150 foot of frontage, the two lots in question have 140 feet each. He noted the marks shown are building envelopes within which buildings could be built. There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Mulryan asked Ms. Belue whether or not it was too late to discuss the lower density levels. She answered that the City Attorney's Office agrees with Mr. Litchfield in this matter, that the time has expired. SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 13 Councilmember Boro stated his concern was that whatever was done should be done so that whenever each future property owner buys their lot, they are not in fighting with the Council and the neighborhood. He suggested that they needed to do some work on the conditions and the existing approval that is before the Council to tighten things up that have been brought to their attention. He felt that the whole issue about the view from other than the immediate neighborhood had been adequately addressed. In Condition (xx) there were five conditions dealing with design review and there was a prior one that had seven - the prior one seemed to be a little more restrictive as far as building material was concerned. The new one does not address this. He mentioned Commissioner Cohen raised questions at the prior Commission meeting about the visual impact. He stated he believes that Condition 5 can be written in a way so that all future owners of those lots will understand very clearly what the requirements are as far as visual. He felt that it was not fair to say that it would be worked out at the Design Review period. There should be some way to be very specific about the visual impact and make it part of the condition, not something to be negotiated later. Councilmember Boro also stated that in that particular condition it also states that a maximum of 2 full stories be used and also a maximium height of 30 feet for the buildings and then the report tonight says that "pending conditions of approval, all homes up to a maximum height of 30 feet, no limit on the number of stories is specified". He asked if there would be 2 stories or 3 in these houses; does 30 feet limit it to 2? Mr. Pendoley stated that the Planning Commission did question staff on a number of those conditions and they were changed in response to their direction. The concern about height vs. stories was that in recent approvals over the past couple of years, in order to get more articulation and reduce the apparent mass of building, staff has been requiring buildings to step up the hill so that they may want to go to what is technically 3 stories, but it is 30 feet or less high. Staff felt that requiring 2 stories, but allowing it to go to 30 feet would be a disadvantage in terms of minimizing visual impacts. Councilmember Boro asked about a question asked by one person tonight about being limited to one story. Was that a fact or not? Mr. Pendoley answered that that was the desired perimeter they are looking at to reduce the apparent height of the building from the street level on the down hill lots and they do require that they be one story from the street side. Mr. Boro asked if this will be compatible with the existing homes if they are one story and protection of the view. Mr. Boro expressed concern about the economic times we are getting into and that this project could stop and what impacts could occur to the downstream community. The other issue is the map and which map is correct. Mr. Pendoley stated that he did not think that the majority of the Commission wanted the option shown on the map tonight. The Commission came to the conclusion that Lot 2 really did not have a significant impact on the stream because the stream at that point is really just a rivulet and the real stream impact is down below where it starts to pick up a more significant amount of water. Mr. Boro wanted to clarify what exactly happened in the changes from the last Commission meeting and tonight. Mr. Pendoley stated that there was an error made in the process and Planning did not pick up on the discrepancy in the EIR until after it was certified. Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Pendoley if he could find a way to hold this project up to some definite standards of progress. Mr. Pendoley answered that staff could research the question, but he was not sure how to gauge things to this because of the size of the project. Councilmember Thayer stated that she would rather see 4 houses rather than 7 and would like to have a definitive legal statement as to why Council can not reduce the densities. She also asked how the Council can amend the EIR if they do not have any other power to review it. Assistant City Attorney Belue stated that they were not amending it. This process is basically an addenda for a minor change. The EIR has been certified, the time to appeal it has expired and this is the process that the CEQA guidelines provide for. Councilmember Breiner stated that she was not ready to take a final action at tonight's meeting. She stated the Tentative Map is the last shot at the project and there are too many inconsistencies that have yet to be resolved. She indicated she would like to see new maps showing precisely what is supposed to be the Tentative Map and she would like the maps to show the significant tree stands that have been identified in the EIR and the relocations of the driveway, and at that point she would like to have an arborist come back and help Council review those maps because they could be making some changes and they need that kind of expertise to help. She also indicated she would like to do a master plan on this area and Council would benefit from it. She also stated that the Design Review Board could help set advanced standards for this SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 14 particular site; that it has been done in the past. She indicated that they need to revise Condition (xx) in terms of the 48 inch box and need to add strengthening in terms of the techniques that Council wants the Design Review Board to have available to them so that the visual impacts and asthetics are very easily perceived on this type of project. She also stated that staff should write a condition to protect the neighborhood from the inconvenience over a long period of time on a very narrow road during construction. Mayor Mulryan stated he agreed with Ms. Breiner in that they are provided with clear maps, get some advice on the trees, etc., to make this look like a more fully planned development, in the sense of a schedule and assurance of a system that is a little tighter than it appears to be now. Mr. Pendoley stated that he understands that the Council wants, in addition to a clearer map, a basic environmental protection so it will not be a blight and he will look into those conditions. Councilmember Shippey stated again that he wanted to make sure that the map has no redwoods removal on it, that condition (xx) would be tightened up, that in the staff report that Council gets that there is an understanding that the variance to the setback requirements on Lot 2 are environmentally acceptable, to have clear language in this new report of the inability of this Council to reduce density, and no blights during the development. Councilmember Breiner added on Page 27, that earth tones are to be used to blend in with the surroundings and natural wood is to be used. Councilmember Boro stated that he would like Mr. Bernardi to report to the Council independently if he agrees with Mr. Schwartz that apparently C Street could accommodate the run-off that will be generated by the 1,300 foot section of pipe without the underground and what it will cost to put this underground, and he stated that he was not interested in building 100 feet of pipe as a City because of the possible problem of funding. Councilmember Boro stated he feels it should be the responsibility of the developer to put it in, not the City. Councilmember Breiner commented that the map should also show the stream flows. Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Pendoley how much time staff would need for this report. Mr. Pendoley asked for four weeks. Mayor Mulryan continued the public hearing to the Council Meeting of December 3, 1990. 16. COUNCILMEMBER APPOINTEE TO THE CATV JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY (CM) - File 9-7-4 Mayor Mulryan stated Councilmember Breiner wanted to open up the opportunity for another Councilmember to replace her on the CATV Joint Powers Authority. Councilmember Shippey stated he supported Councilmember Breiner continuing on the board. He then moved and Mayor Mulryan seconded, to have Councilmember Breiner continue as the appointee to the CATV Joint Powers Authority. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ADD ITEMS: 1. RE: HOMELESS BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE - File 13-16 Councilmember Boro reported that the Board of Supervisors unanimously accepted the Committee's report, noting the Coordinator position should be filled by the first of the year, with some funding needed from the cities. He also commended Suzanne Golt, Assistant City Manager, for her excellent work on the Committee. 2. CONTEMPO MARIN MOBILEHOME PARK - File 13-7-1 Councilmember Thayer asked for status; item to be on Council agenda for meeting of November 19, 1990. SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 15 3. RE: CHIANGMAI, THAILAND, SISTER CITY - File 128 Mayor Mulryan informed Council that the Mayor of Chiangmai, along with 30 people, will be coming to San Rafael on November 27th to learn about sanitation and education. They will tour the Central Marin Sanitation Plant and Davidson School. A luncheon will be held at the Embassy Suites Hotel in their honor on November 27th. ADJOURNMENT: 10:45 P.M. - Mayor Mulryan adjourned City Council meeting in memory of Scott Tilden, former Parks Superintendent, who passed away on October 22, 1990. He spoke of Mr. Tilden's many accomplishments and contributions to the City, including designing Freitas Park. JEAaEV TEONCINI,"City Clea APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1990 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (REGULAR) 11/5/90 Page 15