Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 1990-03-26SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1990, AT 7:30 PM. Special Meeting: CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION - File 1.4.1.a 1. No. 90-7(a) - #1 - Lynda F. Thomas vs. City of San Rafael. No. 90-7(b) - #1 - Michael Williams vs. City of San Rafael. No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1990, AT 8:00 PM. Special Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor San Rafael City Council Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: Item 5. Approval of Six Month Extension of Interim Personnel Board of Review Members (Pers.) - File 9-2-12 6. Extension of Agreement with Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson for the Sonoma-Plarin Training Consortium (Pers) - File 4-3-214 7. UP88-11 - Resolution of Denial with Findings Re Appeal of Planning Commission Decision of December 12, 1989, Revocation of Use Permit for Office in C-1 Zoning District; 605 "B" Street, Joseph & Michael Brown, Owners; Matt Brown, Rep.; AP 12-076-09 (P1) - File 10-5 Recommended Action Approved staff recommendation. RESOLUTION NO. 8143 - AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT BY CITY MANAGER FOR SPECIAL SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND LAW FIRM OF LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON, (Cost of $1,700) (1 Year Agreement, Commencing March 1990). RESOLUTION NO. 8144 - DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVOCATION OF UP88-111, REVOKING A USE PERMIT FOR 1,300 SQ. FT. OF OFFICE AT 605 "B" STREET AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 2. AGREEMENT WITH DR. MICHAEL SEXTON, LIAISON PHYSICIAN FOR THE EMT -D PROGRAM (FD) - File 4-3-228 Councilmember Boro questioned Fire Chief Marcucci about Dr. Sexton's roll in the EMT -D Program and Chief Marcucci responded that Dr. Sexton is currently in charge of the paramedic program at the base hospital for Kaiser. Chief Marcucci stated the Fire Department is hiring Dr. Sexton as a private contractor who will be the liaison physician, having medical control over the EMT-Defibillator program, with Kaiser Hospital extending their malpractice insurance to Dr. Sexton. Councilmember Boro referred to the agreement, stating it did not mention Chief Marcucci's comment regarding the malpractice insurance, and asked if wording should be included in the agreement. Chief Marcucci stated the City Attorney's office reviewed the agreement, noting they did not feel it was necessary. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 1 SRCC MINUTEF -pecial) 3/26/90 Page 2 Councilmember Breiner also questioned the need for public liability insurance as shown in the agreement and Chief Marcucci noted that should not be a part of the agreement. After further review and discussion of the contents in the agreement, Chief Marcucci stated he would have the agreement rewritten and brought back to Council at the next regular meeting of April 2, 1990. 3. RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT WITH MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS FOR SALES TAX AUDIT AND REPORTS (Fin) - File 4-3-212 x 8-10 x 8-5 Councilmember Breiner referred to the progress report dated March 18, 1990 from Municipal Resource Consultants, identifying 9 businesses for which the City has not been receiving sales tax income it is entitled to, noting the report states the City will receive income from 4 of the 9 accounts. She asked what happened with the other 5 businesses. Finance Director Coleman responded that the State Board of Equalization is reviewing the documentation on the 5 accounts, noting Municipal Resource Consultants are hopeful that they will prevail. He stated some of the 5 are rental or leasing companies and a determina- tion needs to be made as to where the proper point of sale is before the City receives credit for those leases. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to adopt the Resolution to renew the agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 8145 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS (AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR A 1 YEAR PERIOD, COMMENCING MARCH 1, 1990) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 4. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYERS & DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION (IEDA) FOR PERSONNEL RULES REVISION NEGOTIATIONS (CM) - File 4-3-134 Councilmember Thayer questioned the need for a negotiating team for the "Meet and confer" process for the revisions to the Personnel Rules and Regulations Negotiations, asking why it cannot be done in-house. City Manager Nicolai explained it could be done in-house but due to time constraints in allocating the necessary functions, and because the "meet and confer" labor negotiations will be done at the same time, staff felt it best to have an outside person who is disassoci• ated with the labor negotiations, making it a more neutral environment. She added that Assistant City Manager Suzanne Golt will be engaged in labor negotiations with the Marin Association for Public Employees (MAPE). Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing execution of a contract with Industrial Employers and Distributors Association for revisions to the Personnel Rules and Regulations. RESOLUTION NO. 8146 - AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WITH INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYERS AND DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, AT A MONTHLY COST OF $2,131.98. (To function as the City's representative in the "meet and confer" process related to the revisions to the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 8. LEGISLATION AFFECTING SAN RAFAEL - File 9-1 Councilmember Boro referred to the McAteer-Petris Act, asking if this item was previously discussed. Public Works Director Bernardi responded this is a separate item. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve staff recommendations as follows: SUPPORT - SB2266 (Mor. an) Child Health Immunizations. OPPOSE - Revisions to �cAteer-Petris Act AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 2 a SRCC MINUTES !Special) 3/26/90 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIUtR AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 1k.40 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE SETTING FORTH AN UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING MITIGATION PROGRAM (PW) - File 13-11 x 9-3-40 x 1-6-1 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Public Works Director Bernardi stated this item is on the agenda again after Council had directed staff to have some revisions incorporated into the proposed Ordinance, that would exclude any time frames with regard to mandatory repair. Additionally, physical testing requirements have also been deleted from Appendix A, which is part of the Ordinance. The revised Ordinance now proposed, states that every property owner perform a complete structural analysis based upon the requirements of Appendix A, which structural analysis must be submitted within six months of the effective date of the Ordinance. The Ordinance further provides that when submitted, the information will be analyzed and presented to the Council for additional consideration. He noted Council asked that all the information be submitted so that a second Ordinance could be prepared dealing with the mandatory repair portion, given the economic factors to Downtown, etc. Not included in the staff report is a $1,000 fee staff is proposing be charged to be submitted along with submittal of the structural analysis. This is similar to the City's Geotechnical Review Board process where the applicant would submit a deposit, an outside engineer would review the informa- tion and whatever funds were not spent would then be returned back to the applicant. He stated that State law provides that a fee can be charged to cover the City's cost of having the analysis done on the buildings. Mr. Bernardi stated there is no change other than the physical testing requirements to Appendix A. This means that the provisions of the 1973 Building Code are to be used as a Standard to review the building for structural integrity. He agreed with the property owners that the Standard is too high, but noted Council needs to have the full impact of what the costs would be if brought up to this Standard. As stated at the previous Council meeting, Mr. Bernardi noted their main concern is for life safety in the building. He noted there are many ways of holding the building together without doing the massive floor plywooding that would be necessary under the proposed Standards, indicating staff was asking Council to continue its support for the inclusion of the Standards because of their importance to Council in making their decision. He added staff has had meetings with the ad hoc committee to discuss this version of the Ordinance. Mr. Bernardi stated they met with the ad hoc committee, noting there is general consensus; however, there is still some discussion to be had on the provisions of the 1973 Code with regard to diaphragm shear; that is, the plywood on the floors. There is also some concern about the time frame of six months to submit this analysis. Mayor Mulryan asked if Council adopted the 1973 Standard, would it mean when Council review- ed the facts that it could be used as a target as opposed to requiring every building to use the plywood measures that are needed for a building to have been constructed in 1973? Mr. Bernardi answered affirmatively and referred to a second Ordinance, noting Council could determine whatever Standards it wanted; staff would recommend Standards sufficient enough to make the building stay together to allow people to get out. He said there is nothing they could do to completely hold those kinds of buildings together without massive reinforcement, noting there are many economic impacts associated with it. He stated the 1973 Code is the basis to start analyzing the building. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question if the Ordinance is passed, would they be getting an analysis of the buildings today compared to the 1973 Standards, Mr. Bernardi responded it would be the buildings built 100 years ago compared to the 1973 Standards, and Council would then decide how to deal with that. In response to a question from Councilmember Breiner concerning safety of the public, Mr. Bernardi stated part of the analysis of the building would be to look at the fronts of the buildings and the parapets, noting there is a problem of parapets falling into the streets. He stated they want to be certain that the analysis includes that part of the building, so that parts of the building will not peel off and hit pedestrians. In response to question by Councilmember Thayer concerning adoption of a second Ordinance if an outside technical review will be done of the mandatory repair portion, Mr. Bernardi responded that an analysis of all structures will be reviewed by an outside consultant which is the reason for the $1,000 application fee for every parcel. Regarding the actual provisions of the Ordinance, staff intends to have a number of Structural Engineers on the committee to do the actual writing of the Ordinance so the technical provisions will be incorporated properly. Councilmember Boro asked how long it will take before Council will know what the issues are on the buildings, and Mr. Bernardi commented hopefully they would not receive all 55 reports on December 4th, and stated what they think will happen is that as the reports are completed by the various property owners, they will submit them and they will be analyzec during the six months period. If this does not happen and they are all submitted on December 4th, staff would need to have time to digest all of the paperwork which would take it up to February 4, 1991. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES ,jpecial) 3/26/90 Page 4 Councilmember Boro stated he was concerned about the time period, noting the City is being put between the State and property owners. He stated it would be one year and a half before the Ordinance is created, and the process would be continuing without the problem being solved. Mr. Bernardi stated there will be a time line established for the various types of build- ings, noting they previously recommended buildings with the highest occupancy be dealt with first; that would allow for two years to have the repairs completed; for buildings with 20 or less they would be a couple of years out, having two years to do their work, and the low occupancy buildings were further out; there was a whole five year program to reflect this. However, staff understood Council still wanted to have this time frame, but to take it slower, without being put in a position whereby there would not be enough information to make decisions that would be costly to the property owners. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Mr. Fred Devine, Architect and building owner, representing some property owners stated they presented an alternative Ordinance to staff in early January that protected life safety and the building. He stated that over the last three months, through no fault of the Public Works Department, the only time they met was two weeks ago and at that time were shown the adjustments based on the December 22, 1989 meeting. He noted there was more information Council should have considered at that time. He noted that although the Council felt that the economic impact was important, the key issue is safety. Mr. Devine said it is important that everyone involved sit down together to work this out, stating they want to understand how the process for evaluation relates to the $1,000 fee for a group of outside consultants who will review the engineering calculations. Mr. Devine stated he personally felt this item should be continued to allow staff to work together with the people involved over the next month to evaluate the proposal he submitted to see if it would work. He stated a checklist could be brought back to Council of what is proposed tonight; possibly having part of a proposed Ordinance proposed by the owners that might work. Mayor Mulryan stated for clarification, if the owners of the 55 buildings are given up to six months they would hope by that time the whole group of buildings would have been studied and a report rendered that would be comparable one to the other, so they would know on an equal format, what has to be done to a building, including tenant disruption. Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Devine what his point was on the six months, and Mr. Devine replied they think the other alternative Ordinance and its approach should be evaluated. He noted with calculations he made the present Ordinance does not technically meet the requirements. Mr. Bernardi stated the other approach Mr. Devine alluded to is from Mr. DeNevers. He paraphrased, indicating it is a standard under which all buildings will be compared,speaking to unbraced parapets on exterior walls falling from buildings; exterior walls falling from floors and roofs generally of wood construction; walls failing because they did not have sufficient forces parallel to the walls (occurring in front of the building having stores on the ground floor with glass walls). He noted these are the Standards they will use to analyze the building to solve these particular problems, as opposed to the whole range of the 1973 Standards. Mr. Bernardi recommended that a more conservative approach be taken at this point. Mr. Vince DeNevers, Structural Engineer of San Francisco, stated what Mr. Bernardi is proposing is that these investigations be made so Council can tell whether there really will be serious impact to building owners and tenants if a strict State Ordinance is adopted He said it is his feeling that Council knows if the Ordinance is adopted, there will be a serious impact and that the proposed investigations will only tell them what they already know. Mr. DeNevers suggested that the investi ations be skipped, noting each building owner will need to put up at least $5,000 to 10,000 for a Structural Engineer, noting much of the money may be spent investigating things not part of the program at all. Councilmember Boro asked for a clearer explanation of what is happening on each stage as it takes place and what are we getting with one versus the other; he said there is a contradiction with one representative stating his concern is public health and safety and another, stating he is concerned about the dollar cost. Mr. Bernardi explained when the Legislation was passed, the Seismic Safety Commission prepared a model Ordinance that would assist all of the cities in California in the prepar- ation of their mandatory Ordinance that had to be sent back to the State. The City's first Ordinance presented in December, 1989, was essentially that model Ordinance and has been modified to fit the City's particular needs. The State law itself is silent on Standards that the City Council can adopt; that Council can adopt the most riguorous Standards and make them all comply within a year of the adoption of the Ordinance, or Council can simply authorize the property owners to post a notice on the front of their building and that would be the extent of what Council considers as appropriate mitigation. He said staff SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES 'pecial) 3/26/90 Page 5 is proposing a modification of that approach, feeling that some Standards should be estab- lished and at present it is a conservative Standard that is being proposed which complies, or is consistent with what the State is recommending in the model Ordinance. He said where they have moved from that model Ordinance is to take the mandatory repairs in a 2 -step process. First is to deal with getting all structural analysis in so Council can make an informed decision as to what is to be done next. Second is for Council to decide what they will do with that information. Mayor Mulryan stated what he hears from Mr. DeNevers is that the first step is one that will not produce any information staff does not already have and will not learn anything by the first step. Mr. Bernardi responded that the information gathered from the first step will be used by the property owners in their submittal plans for the ultimate repair of their buildings. He stated certain common things will need to be done, indicating "As builts" that need to be prepared for the building, which show what the building is today, identifying the existing structural elements of the building. Based on this information, the Structural Engineer will analyze them according to this Standard and make recommenda- tions and judgments based on what he finds and also what needs to be done. Staff is saying that that analysis will need to include looking at the floors and how they resist the dynamic motion of an earthquake and how it is transferred to the walls. Mr. Bernardi stated what he thought Mr. DeNevers is saying, is that rather than go through this exercise, use the Standards he is proposing, followed by a design submitted that will reflect these and get it done. Councilmember Breiner referred to Mr. DeNevers' letter regarding the complete disregard for features on how the floors will react, stating it would seem imprudent and a reasonable approach would be to require that a Structural Engineer be required to evaluate this and determine that it is unlikely that the omission will allow damage to occur. She felt the option could be "folded in" or have the Structural Engineer, in the first round, speci- fically include an either/or in terms of the plywood on the floors. She asked Mr. DeNevers if this would satisfy his concern. Mr. DeNevers responded his concerns were in getting this going and eliminating the investigation stage, however, he was told by Mr. Bernardi that the investigation will have to be done, and agreed this to be a good point. He stated there still will be some parts of the investigation that will address areas of the building that will end up not being a part of the Ordinance, therefore, that part would be wasted. Mr. DeNevers hoped Council would agree that his Ordinance makes sense, and would talk about it, including the property owners, local engineers and Mr. Bernardi, and have an Ordinance made they could all agree with. Mr. Dirk Brinckerhoff, member of the ad hoc committee on the proposed Ordinance, stated when they first met, there was a concern of everyone as to the expense to the property owners and the City if the full Ordinance was to be done. At that point, staff was directed to figure out the cost if the full Ordinance was used. Also, if it was found that it would cost too much, there would be a way to back down on the Standards as long as it was safe. At this point, Mr. Brinckerhoff stated studies should not be done to figure out if they would back down, but instead, figure out what is really an Ordinance to preserve life safety. Mr. Brinckerhoff said his position is the same as Mr. DeNevers with respect to the staff's suggested approach. Mayor Mulryan stated what staff is saying, is to have every building analyzed against staff's Standards and once having done this, it will be decided if every building will be held to this Standard or something less for good safety reasons. Mr. Bernardi affirmed this. Mr. Bernardi stated the work that will be submitted will be the basis for the preparation of plans and specifications that the property owner will submit for a building permit. The money they will be spending in the next six months will not be wasted to the extent that they have to do something like this in order to do the plans to submit to staff for building permits. There may be some portions not used, such as the plywooding of the floors in terms of preparing final plans and specs, but most will be used to be submitted for building permits. Dr. Gideon Sorokin, representing three of the 55 building owners, stated they are all concerned about human safety. He stated he supports the ad hoc committee but said he would like to know tomorrow and not in six months, what he is facing. He suggested each owner should choose one or two engineers to go through the 55 buildings thus cutting down the time. He stated each owner should be assessed after they know how much their building will cost; he did not agree that $1,000 arbitrarily assessed is right. Mr. Rod Simon, representing Marin Center for Independent Living, stated their building is located at 710 Fourth Street between two other buildings also impacted by the Ordinance. He stated they are concerned about safety within their building, indicating that after a walk-through of the building, it does not comply with the 1973 Standards. He agreed with Mr. DeNevers and Dr. Sorokin, that everyone sit down and discuss this further. Mr. Charles Grandi, representing some building owners, spoke on anchoring of the walls to the ceilings and floors and the diaphragm work. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES -pecial) 3/26/90 Page 6 Mr. John Westmoreland, representing the Episcopal Church in Glenwood, stated he supports the position stated by Mr. DeNevers. Mr. Richard Harris, co-owner of Macy's Housewares building on Fourth Street, stated they are aware of the seismic problems and have expressed a concern that if the floors have to be plywooded and their retail operation is grossly disturbed, Macy's may have to locate elsewhere. Mr. Larry Greer, property owner, said several buildings are over 100 years old and still intact. 6 stated there should be no over -reaction. Mr. DeNevers reminded Council that they are not mandated to adopt the State Ordinance. Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing, and stated staff is suggesting, in order to have the buildings repaired and what exact Standards will be followed, that a period of study be done and that it will cost some money. He said Council realizes that money is tight, and therefore should decide if the 1973 Standards or another one will be used to get right to it in a more practical or quicker way, including getting some of the safety measures done rather than spending money on more extensive studies. Councilmember Boro referred to the $1,000 deposit if the staff report is accepted, and stated a property owner and the City need to know what the conditions are in each of the 55 buildings. He said rather than the property owners doing the inspection and submitting it to the City, then having another party reviewing it, that possibly a list of criteria and Standards could be made, have the certified Engineers state how that building does or does not meet the criteria and that it be in one package to the property owner. Mr. Bernardi stated one of the provisions in the State's model Ordinance is that it recog- nizes to a high degree what is proposed by Mr. DeNevers in essence, which is to tie the buildings together sufficiently to allow occupants to exit the building even though the building will be damaged. He noted this would be done and bonuses given in the time line to repair a building because if the property owner were to take the initiative and repair the building by tying all the structural elements together, he would be given an additional year or 18 months to complete other repairs based on what the model Ordinance recommended. He stated there is a high degree of benefit by tying a building together. He stated Council could establish a Standard referring to preserving life safety; our Standard is to have the data support the building being tied adequately together to meet that life safety Standard. This would mean that some of the elements in Appendix A would be removed at this time so it is not compared to a diaphragm shear but would look instead to parapets, exterior walls pulling away, the store fronts of buildings where glass is that would need to be reinforced. He said these are the basic points to be looked at. Councilmember Breiner stated if they agreed on this route, she would want whoever is to sign off the analysis of the building, to actually have statements made regarding the value or the lack of necessity for installation of the plywood strenghtening the floors. Mr. Bernardi stated Council would not know this unless the analysis is done, explaining if the analysis is done and the provisions of plywood floors are reviewed on the design or strengthening of the building, then there would be enough information to indicate this is not necessary, because if the plywood floors are left out, the building is still strongly tied together. City Manager Nicolai stated originally when this was being proposed with the State's model Ordinance, objections were raised that it would be adopted without knowing what the impacts were. She said the point of coming back with this recommended process was that staff would at least know the trade-offs. She noted if a determination was made now on a lower Standard, Council would not know the incremental differences. She referred to Mr. DeNevers' comment on the EIR in San Francisco of the 150 potential lives saved on the State's model and 2,000 on the other, only he did not mention the number based on his approach. Ms. Nicolai said her concern is if Council adopts Mr. DeNevers Standards, that is what the Engineer will look at, not what that incremental difference was to achieve that higher Standard; and noted it is up to Council to judge once that information is available, whether that is an unreasonable incremental leap from this Standard to the 1973 Standard, and that is what staff is attempting to give to Council. Councilmember Thayer related to astringent 1973 Standards for analysis purposes, which might not be adhered to when the Ordinance is being done on repair. She asked what this would do to liability if these reports are returned, stating some things need to be done and a building is unsafe without them but she realizes the cost effect; then knowing this information, what is the City's liability under the State mandate? Mayor Mulryan stated the question is, does the staff's approach as suggested to Council, increase the City's liability to a degree of concern? SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES '-pecial) 3/26/90 Page 7 City Attorney Ragghianti responded he did not think so. He stated it is impossible to answer the question quickly, but noted there is always a concern if a public entity had knowledge that the building is unsafe and the City permitted it to be occupied. He said a lot would depend on the exact dates the information was known to the City at the time and the permitting authority the City has. He said it is not in the public entity's best interest to permit the continuous occupancy of a building that is unsafe. Therefore, if the City knew, without making these repairs it would be structurally unsafe, then it would be important and the City might well be exposed to continue to permit it to be occupied. Mr. Ragghianti stated the Government Code contains very clear dictates that when the City knows as a public entity that a public building or its use is dangerous, the City has to act to dissuade people from occupying the building or continuing to engage in the use. Councilmember Shippey stated Council is hearing the concerns of the property owners and on the other hand they have not had an independent expert testify to the validity of Mr. DeNevers' approach. He felt there should be an independent consultant when the Ordinance comes up for its first reading. Mayor Mulryan stated he understood that the reports would give Council the opportunity to have many facts and have it analyzed. After further discussion, Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to use the staff's approach, and that staff finalize the wording of the proposed Ordinance and bring same back to Council for a first reading. The public hearing was reopened and continued to meeting of April 16, 1990. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 10. PUBLIC HEARING - UP89-10; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR A SECOND DWELLING UNIT; 26 WILDWOOD WAY; ROBERT & CAROL BUTLER, OWNERS; STEVE KAY, ARCHITECT, REP.; FAIRHILLS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN., APPELLANT; AP 10-121-05 (P1) - File 10-5 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened, stating this item has previously been before Council, the Planning Commission and the subject of a number of meetings at various levels. Planning Director Pendoley stated on January 2, 1990, this item was referred back to the appellant and the property owners in an attempt to come to a compromise. He noted the issues most important are privacy, design compatiblity with the neighborhood and the stair- way location. Although the parties did not come to an agreement, several proposals from the neighbors were taken to the Design Review Board and two alternatives are a part of the staff report. The first alternative is to convert the existing garage to the second unit and in front of that in the driveway, either a garage or carport could be placed. He stated the property owner has objected, stating it would eliminate the use of guest parking which was required for the second unit and would not provide sufficient turn -around. The second alternative is having a single story addition to the rear of the garage. He stated there were several problems from the property owners, indicating it would put it in the side yard setback possibly requiring a variance; the bedrooms would be back-to-back; it would eliminate the only usable level area on that side of the house, the owner would have to rely on vents for the bathroom and there would be no windows available, also there would be problems with visibility from various parts of the house. Mr. Pendoley stated generally the Design Review Board seemed to concur with the opinions of the applicants as reflected in their Minutes; they also considered the issue of privacy; found that the Irwin residence is 290 feet away; that the Stickle's residence is 50 feet higher than the property in question and therefore advised that it does not see a privacy issue involved with the proposed second story addition. The Board's conclusion is that the proposal is not out of character, that the architecture is of good basic design, and did not find that this building will have a duplex appearance, felt the stairs were well screened and the views would not be blocked by the addition. In response to Councilmember Thayer's question if any concern was given to the privacy issue regarding the skylight window as opposed to windows looking toward certain properties, Mr. Pendoley replied negatively. He stated the Butler property is 60 feet lower than the Stickle property. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Mr. Michel Rousselin of 24 Twin Oaks stated on January 2, 1990, Council sent this project back to the Design Review Board, recommending that the project be redesigned and that both parties seek a solution. He stated at the Council meeting, Councilmember Boro spoke of other ways it could be designed, stating, "It could be brought down or flipped", and also noted that the applicant had a lot of room to move around. Councilmember Breiner SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES 'pecial) 3/26/90 Page 8 stated she was looking for an interior access. Councilmember Thayer stated the project was too high and that the applicant could go a long way toward alleviating neighborhood concerns. Councilmember Boro added, "I'm looking for a redesign, not a little tweaking of the design, not a few more bushes". Mr. Rousselin stated the day after the meeting they notified the Planning Director that they were ready to meet and present their sugges- tions to bring this project down to one story and the meeting took place two days later. He said when the Design Review Board date arrived, they got the report and were surprised that there was no mention of the design. They wrote to the Design Review Board, noting the letter was not read to them and therefore not considered. He indicated their two propo- sals were rejected and stated the Design Review Board never asked the applicant for his redesign, noting he had not done one. Mr. Rousselin then mentioned items the Design Review Board reviewed that were the same as at the first meeting. Mrs. Marie Stickle, owner of the property adjacent to Mr. Butler, stated she was not clear about the 50 vertical feet from the Stickle property. She indicated their southern border is in a common line with Mr. Butler's property which is only five feet above the level of his floor in the existing building. She said this determines the line of her property and not the building that is on it now, indicating this would restrict the use of that section of her land. Mrs. Stickle stated the proposed door would be in her direct line of vision into her master bedroom, indicating this to be a gross invasion of their privacy. Mr. Pendoley stated from residence to residence it is approximately floor level. Mrs. Marie Eifel, property owner next to Mr. Butler and in between the Irwins and the Butlers stated the glass structure added interferes with their privacy, noting the second structure will create more problems. She stated she is opposed to the second addition. Ms. Diane Neuhaus referred to R-1 zoning and asked how can the law be changed to allow second units? Mayor Mulryan responded a State law was passed 10 years ago, requiring cities to adopt second unit Ordinances, basically to allow mother-in-law units and making more extensive use of R-1 properties. Mayor Mulryan stated at that time Council adopted the Ordinance with a number of restrictions but in compliance with the State law, noting this law has been on the books for those 10 years and since then, approximately 40 units have been approved. Ms. Neuhaus asked if the law is changed, does Council not feel that this should be put before the citizens of San Rafael? Councilmember Breiner replied if San Rafael did not have something on the books passed for a Second Unit Ordinance, the State would impose their own Second Unit Ordinance upon the City. She noted there may be changes in the future, but for now the City is required to have a Second Unit Ordinance. Ms. Neuhaus was informed she could get a copy of the Second Unit Ordinance from the City Clerk's office. Mayor Mulryan stated the Second Unit Ordinance was adopted after a number of public hearings were held with a lot of citizen participation, and noted this is the first real controversy. Ms. Phyllis Zirinq, President of Fairhills Property Owners Association, mentioned the history of Fairhills is being working on, and an analysis of the neighborhood plan giving policy reasons for denying the permit, including a memo from Susan Angel for enforceability of the covenants. Mr. Alan Plissken, resident of Fairhills stated he is a believer of property rights but is appalled at the breach of the Covenants in the neighborhood. Mayor Mulryan stated Council is very aware of the Fairhills area; however, Council has no power to enforce Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's), only Ordinances. Councilmember Thayer stated it is the property owners who could enforce the CC&Rs in the courts. Mr. Ron Durand of 45 Wildwood Way, stated he does not agree with the second unit, stating the second unit would interfere with the neighbors' privacy. John Sharp, Attorney for applicant, asked Council to deny the appeal and approve the appli- cation. He noted that staff, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission have all stated the findings can be made to uphold this application, and that it complies with the Second Unit Ordinance. He noted there are certain conditions attached to the approval and noted they are willing to meet those conditions. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES `Special) 3/26/90 Page 9 Mr. Sharp stated he met with Mr. Steve Kay, the architect, and Susan Angel, the Attorney for the Fairhills Homeowners Association. He noted two alternatives were presented and Mr. Kay will address those alternatives. He said there are sound design reasons that state why those alternatives are not feasible. He also mentioned that reference was made and circulated that this Council mandated that this applicant create a one-story drawing, noting he did not believe that is the spirit of what this Council stated at the last meeting. Unfortunately, the applicant and neighbors could not achieve a compromise. Mr. Steve Kay, Architect for Robert Butler, stated they looked at the alternatives submitted by the neighbors, but indicated the design he is proposing is the best solution. He stated it preserves privacy for the neighbors and is within the design compatibility of the neigh- borhood as well. Mr. Kay submitted topographic studies of the property and the two adjacent properties. He referred to the location to Alternative No. 1 showing the two -car garage in front of the existing garage which was proposed to be converted to a second unit. He noted it would eliminate guest parking and have insufficient turn -around space for cars in the garage area and also create an over 20 feet long dark recess unattractive entry to the house. He stated in considering all the alternatives, they should not only consider the wishes of the neighborhood but a solution is needed that does not obliterate the desirability of the project for the applicant. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question if the architect had any changes as a result of the process, Mr. Kay responded negatively, stating the reason is that their alternative preserves the privacy. He noted they went through design review to cut across and not address the alternatives which are lacking. He referred to how they preserved privacy and design compatibility, stating the topography was taken from the City of San Rafael's maps. He referred to Section A showing a cut through the Stickle property and the Butler property. Another drawing showed the house at 26 Wildwood Way versus the house at 42 Oakmont Avenue, and noted that staff was incorrect on the elevation, indicating the elevation is not 50 feet but 32 feet difference which is greater than the height of Mr. Butler's proposed project. He stated the proximity and elevation Mrs. Stickle referred to occurs at the Stickle's property line which is far down the hill from the cut pad where the house and a pool would be located, noting no swimming pool would be located reasonably below the 532 foot elevation as indicated on the drawing. Therefore, the vertical separation between the two properties as'sures the Stickles of reasonable and almost complete privacy, noting that for someone standing on the second floor of the addition, their eye level would be far below the point of the crest of the hill and they could not see into the Stickles' master bedroom. Mr. Kay addressed the second sections showing the section between the Butler and Irwin residences, noting that the horizontal distance between the two homes from the greenhouse to the wall of the Irwin house is 270 feet. The proposed second story addition is 20 feet further away than the green house which makes it 290 feet, almost the length of a football field. He stated to infer there is a privacy problem at that distance is extreme. Mr. Kay pointed out a conditon imposed by the Design Review Board for approval of this project, that mature trees of at least 15 feet in height be included in the landscaping along the perimeter of Mr. Butler's driveway so the trees would block any view from the second story addition to the Irwin residence. He noted they specified a tree that will grow to 35 feet in height. Mr. Kay concluded that the Design Review Board found that the design is compatible with the neighborhood, noting there are many two story buildings in this area and many that sit on knolls, indicating their second story addition is set back from the knoll and is not at the edge of the hill where it would affect privacy of the downhill neighbors. Mr. Robert Butler, applicant, stated they have been in 100% compliance with the Ordinance. He noted the property enhancement is good for the area, indicating the issue brought up by the homeowners relates more to the matter of design. He stated they have been before the Design Review Board twice and complied fully with them. Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Thayer asked staff if the Design Review Board felt that there was no reason- able alternatives for a second story stucture? Mr. Pendoley responded they did, noting they considered the two reasonably available flat portions of the property that were left. He noted the present driveway where the new garage would be placed under Alternative One and the second Alternative is a small pad left at the rear of the property that begins to slope steeply. He said given that situation without a serious configuration of the existing building, there is no first story alternative available, other than the two he mentioned. Councilmember Boro stated he was a disappointed with the owners proposing the unit, noting they can build the addition without asking for a second unit permit, and they chose to ask for the permit. He noted at the January meeting, he asked the owners if they would SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES 'pecial) 3/26/90 Page 10 be willing to reverse this to a single family residence if sold and they responded nega- tively, stating they wanted to protect that right. Councilmember Boro stated on the other hand, the neighborhood has somewhat acquiesced to the owner's right under the City's Ordi- nance and they may challenge the owner privately. As a result of the discussion at the January meeting, Councilmember Boro's expectation was not only would the neighbors offer some ideas but that the owners would, too. He stated basically what did transpire, was that the owners did not offer any alternatives and this to him is disturbing from the point that at least if they had been offered and there were some points of view from the Design Review Board that they were not practical, or feasible, he would feel better about it. Councilmember Boro referred to the Minutes of the January meeting, noting the Mayor mentioned working out a compromise, and said it is a two-way street, but that it did not happen. Councilmember Boro stated he did not feel the applicant met the spirit of what he thought was worked out at the previous meeting. Councilmember Thayer agreed with Councilmember Boro that there did not appear to be an alternative offered at the Design Review Board by the applicant, however, she noted she asked Mr. Pendoley whether any alternative was available for a first story and he replied negatively, indicating there are only two areas upon which to build. After further discussion, Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the staff recommendation, to deny the appeal. Councilmember Boro stated he would vote against the project, stating the applicant could have returned with something better after all the Council and neighborhood have gone through and at least could have made an attempt. Councimember Breiner stated she was not convinced that with more work on alternative two something could have been brought forward that would work. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey & Thayer NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner & Mayor Mulryan ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Motion failed. After further discussion, Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, that the applicant work with staff and the neighbors on a compromise design to be submit- ted to the Design Review Board. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mr. Sharp stated he was not clear as to how they could submit to the process further, and referred to comments made by Councilmember Boro that they could not come up with any alternatives and they refused to cooperate. He said as an attorney, he believed they had the right as of the end of the last hearing to go to court and noted he had no doubt they would have gotten approval from the court, but did not want to do this. He noted, instead they went through the design review process again, asking what could they do in redesigning this, and they had no answers except for the alternatives proposed by the neighbors which were not viable alternatives. Mr. Sharp asked if the Council had some design ideas they would work with them. Mr. Butler asked Council if he should be penalized for telling Council the truth about an application which he did not have to do but chose to? He asked if he should be penalized for upholding the law which Council created? Mayor Mulryan continued the public hearing to Council meeting of April 16, 1990. 11. ADOPTION OF BUILDING PROGRAM FOR JOINT CITY/COUNTY LIBRARY (Lib) - File 4-13-68 City Manager Nicolai stated the staff report is an excerpt only of a detailed analysis of the Building Program rather than an architectural design, pointing out each functional area being recommended for the new library, i.e. square footage needed and how it interre- lates. She noted this then becomes a basic document to be used by the architect for the design of the building. Ms. Nicolai explained this process began in 1988, because of the interest in having a building program done just for the San Rafael library; however, when the opportunity arose for a joint facility, an amendment was made to Mr. Raymond Holt's contract, who has incorporated the concept into this program with a grant application being submitted to the State of California. Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt Resolution approving building program for City/County Library. Councilmember Breiner asked for discussion. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES -'-Special) 3/26/90 Page 11 Ms. Diane Neuhaus stated she did not understand why the City wants to use the Third and C Streets site, which should be used for affordable housing. She stated if some of the books are to be placed in Terra Linda, why not move some of the books from the Civic Center Library into the annex in Terra Linda. She said if the $58,000 from the State is not used that the money would be lost; she asked that a request for extension be submitted. Ms. Neuhaus also pointed out the traffic problems on Third and C Streets. Councilmember Thayer responded to Ms. Neuhaus, stating the reason the Third and C Streets site was selected was because of its proximity to the Downtown area. She mentioned the property is also one of the few City -owned sites large enough for a resource City/County joint venture; a branch is planned in the Terra Linda area but no site has yet been selected. Councilmember Thayer stated the Proposition 85 funding requires that a site be selected before the Letter of Intent can be filed, noting this is the first year in many years that the State has the money available for a library, adding this project would be totally impossible without this funding. She stated the proposed site is in the Redevelopment area and available for Redevelopment Agency funding. Councilmember Thayer explained further that several years ago, it was determined that the San Rafael Library, as presently constructed, is inadequate having approximately 13,500 square feet whereas a 73,000 square foot site is needed to serve the population, especially if it is to have the regional draw of the City/County Library. Ms. Neuhaus suggested that the money first be used for a site in Terra Linda rather than the City/County Library. City Manager Nicolai stated she would meet with Ms. Neuhaus to review the library project with her. Councilmember Breiner was concerned about too much square footage being used for conference rooms. Library Director Stratford stated conference rooms are used not only for internal purposes, but for use by the community. Councilmember Boro asked Ms. Nicolai what schedule was set up for the design of the library, and she responded the advisory group was meeting on April 11th, with the architects working on the conceptual design in the months of April and May that will be part of the grant proposal. She hoped it would be ready sometime in June. RESOLUTION NO. 8147 - ADOPTING LIBRARY BUILDING PROGRAM FOR JOINT CITY/COUNTY LIBRARY. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM COASTAL CONSERVANCY FOR CANALWAYS ACQUISI- TION AND MANAGEMENT PLANNING GRANT (CM) - File 4-10-243 City Manager Nicolai stated staff has been working with the Coastal Conservancy for the last year on the Shoreline Band, in which the Canalways property was discussed. She noted the Coastal Conservancy recommended Council have a Resolution presented tonight, authorizing Ms. Nicolai to negotiate on behalf of the City, so that if the Canalways property were to become available through a tax sale that might occur in June, this would authorize staff to submit a grant proposal to the Coastal Conservancy Board in April to purchase the Canalways property. She noted this would be beneficial to the environmental community as well as the City of San Rafael, and that the Fish and Game might be interested in an ongoing management with the City. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt Resolution Approving the Request for Grant Funds. RESOLUTION NO. 8148 - APPROVING REQUEST FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY FOR CANALWAYS ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT PLANNING GRANT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 13. REPORT ON COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AGENCY (P1) - File 191 Planning Director Pendoley stated two meetings are scheduled for this week, and that Council - member Boro, who attended the Planning Advisory meeting last week, suggested this item be on the agenda. He noted that the two meetings are a joint meeting of the Countywide Plan Advisory Committee and Transportation Authority, and a separate meeting of the Trans- portation Authority. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES 'Special) 3/26/90 Page 12 Mr. Pendoley referred to L„a Joint Powers Agreement and the .Makeup of the governing body as to what should be the minimum size. He stated the recommended size of 8 members may be a disadvantage to the City of San Rafael. He stated another issue is the Voting Formula, noting the City has endorsed a two-thirds majority, indicating that a dual two-thirds majority would be required to make a "negative finding"; i.e. if the General Plan was inconsistent with the Countywide Standards, or having a major project that is inconsistent or that the City should not receive its share of the local set-aside funds. Councilmember Boro thanked Planning staff for the job done in such a short time. He referred to the first item, that they may be looking at less than all the cities and still have the authority, and that it might be a shortfall for San Rafael. Councilmember Boro referred to the dual two-thirds issue and stated some of the cities are having a difficult time understanding the importance of this item, noting from the City of San Rafael's point of view, they are bringing more to the table and need to have some leverage. Councilmember Boro referred to page 3, to clear up a misunderstanding on the Powers of the Planning Authority versus the Transit Authority, stating he understood that the Planning Authority would have the full say on this. He noted that at a meeting held last week, that possibly the decision would be appealed to the Transit Board. Councilmember Boro stated he did not recommend that the decision be appealed, but that it would be self-con- tained at the Planning Board, explaining they would lose the advantage of voting when it goes to the Transit Board, even though two cities in the County have a vote, it is not structured in the way that it is at the Planning Authority. Councilmember Breiner stated the only problem is that it is the Authority that actually has the funding authority, and Councilmember Boro responded this was brought up that night, and an answer should be known by Thursday, that possibly the Transit Authority could vest that authority into the Planning Board. Governinq Body - Council agreed to having a 12 member vote; all Cities and County with a dual two-thirds vote of the majority. Modifyinq Standards - Council agreed to having some Standards they could review as opposed to adopting the principal of supporting whatever Standards are adopted at some later point. Time Frame for Reviewing Projects - Council agreed with setting a time frame, noting if any of San Rafael's projects come up before the Planning Agency, that the City can tell our proposers that there will be some reasonable time within which a decision will be made. Affordable Housinq - Council agreed with Councilmember Boro's statement it is time all cities start showing some real progress and that they start discussing achievements instead of good will, and that affordable housing must be provided for the community. Councilmember Thayer stated she did not think the Traffic Standards, if adopted, should be any lower than what the San Rafael General Plan states, noting this may encounter some difficulties, especially in the cities of Corte Madera and Larkspur, and asked to have a stringent Wetland Policy. Planning Director Pendoley referred to Traffic Standards and the Wetlands Policy, stating the Standards simply state that the City's General Plan should have a Standard. He noted San Rafael has the stiffest Standard regarding traffic, and next to that is Wetlands. Mayor Mulryan stated it is a matter of policy that Council would want all communities to adhere to traffic levels set by the City of San Rafael's minimum D. Councilmember Boro did not think imposing Level of Service D could be done, and Council - member Thayer stated these are valid points that should be discussed, with Mayor Mulryan noting Countywide, traffic levels should not be worse than D, and if it is, it should be "shut off". Mayor Mulryan stated the Countywide Plan in its present status, has 6 alternatives, and noted that Local Policy and Pedestrian Pocket are the only two that would be arguably consistent with San Rafael's General Plan; he stated their position should be that they support a Countywide Plan specifically under which San Rafael's General Plan would be legal. Planning Director Pendoley stated they do not know yet what the relationship is between these alternatives and the Countywide Planning Standards. He stated many of the Countywide Planning Standards are taken from San Rafael's General Plan, but they do not know if it will be interpreted in light of what San Rafael is used to, or they might be interpreted in the light of one of the alternatives listed, becoming part of the Countywide Plan; they have very different meanings. He stated it is not clear and the City should insist that it be made clear. (Councilmember Shippey left the meetinq). SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 12 SRCC MINUTE` special) 3/26/90 Page 13 ADD ITEM 1. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) - File 111 Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, that the need to take action on this item arose subsequent to the agenda being posted. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey Councilmember Breiner stated she would be attending an ABAG General Assembly this Sunday, and asked Council for approval of the 1990-1991 Budget. Councilmember Breiner moved and Mayor Mulryan seconded, to approve the 1990-1991 Budget, whereby the membership fees remain the same at $300, but that the per capita dues rates be increased by 4%. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. JEANNECLEONCINI, it , �U` y y Jerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1990 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Special) 3/26/90 Page 13