HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1998-05-18SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 18, 1998 AT 8:00
PM
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul M. Cohen,
Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION:
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items.
CLOSED SESSION:
la. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation
(Government Code Section 54956.9 (a))
Case Name: Anita Cressy v. City of San Rafael,
Worker's Compensation Appeals Board No. WCK 36481
lb. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation -
(Government Code Section 54956.9(a))
Case Name: Suzanne Golt v. City of San Rafael,
lc. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(Government Code Section 54956.9(a))
Case Name: Oungoulian, Semik, v. City of San Rafael,
Marin County Courts Case No. 171119
Mayor Boro announced no reportable action was taken on items la, lb or lc.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
PM
None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
8:15
Mayor Boro announced Councilmember Cohen would abstain from Item #11, as he had
not been present at the meeting of 5/4/98, when this Ordinance was first
introduced. In addition, he announced that item No. 14 would be removed from
the Consent Calendar, and addressed after the Public Hearings.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the
following Consent Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, Approved as
submitted.
May 4, 1998 (CC)
3. Call for Applications to Fill One
Term on the Design Review Board,
of Term of Larry Paul, Architect
- File 9-2-39
(1) Four -Year Approved staff
recommendation:
Due to Expiration Called for
applications to
(CC) fill one, four-year
term on
the Design Review Board,
due to the expiration of
term of Larry Paul,
Architect; set date for
interviews of applicants
at a Special City Council
meeting to be held on
Monday, June 15, 1998, at
6:00 PM; term to expire
end of June, 2002.
4. Call for Applications to Fill Two (2) Four -Year Approved staff
recommendation:
Terms on the Planning Commission Due to Expiration Called for
applications to
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 2
of Terms of Ann Batman and Bruce Scott (CC)
- File 9-2-6
fill two, four-year
terms on
the Planning Commission,
due to expiration of terms
of Ann Batman and Bruce
Scott; set date for
interviews of applicants
at a Special City Council
meeting to be held on
Monday, June 15, 1998 at
6:30 PM; terms to expire
end of June, 2002.
5. Report on Annual Filings - Fair Political Accepted report.
Practices Commission Form 700, Statement of
Economic Interests for Designated Employees,
Including Consultants, Geotechnical Review Board,
Design Review Board and Cultural Affairs Commission
(CC) - File 9-4-3
6. Request for Amicus Participation: (CA) Council consented for
Kobzoff v. Harbor/UCLA Medical Center City of San Rafael amicus
(California Supreme Court No. 5066874) participation.
- File 9-3-16
7. (a) Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 9604 (a)RESOLUTION NO. 10208
8
N
10
11
Denying the Application of Spirit RESOLUTION RESCINDING
THE
Enterprises for a Certificate of Public ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTION
Convenience and Necessity for the Issuance NO. 9604.
of an Off -Sale Liquor License
(b) Resolution Granting to Spirit Enterprises (b) RESOLUTION NO. 10209
a Certificate of Public Convenience and RESOLUTION GRANTING
TO
Necessity for the Issuance of an Off -Sale SPIRIT ENTERPRISES A
Liquor License at 981 Francisco Boulevard CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
(CA) CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
FOR
- File 9-3-30 x 9-3-16 x 13-8 x 3-1-1908
Resolution Opposing Elimination of Vehicle
License Fees (CM) - File 9-1 x 116
Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael
(CC) - File 9-1
Monthly Investment Report (Admin. Svcs.)
- File 8-18 x 8-9
THE ISSUANCE OF AN
OFF -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE
FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE
LOCATED AT 981 FRANCISCO
BOULEVARD, SAN RAFAEL.
RESOLUTION NO. 10210 -
RESOLUTION OPPOSING
REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION
OF VEHICLE LICENSE FEES.
Approved staff
recommendation:
AB 2471 (Brewer), Property
Tax Shift, Over and
Underequity Jurisdictions;
OPPOSE.
Accepted report.
SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE Approved final
adoption
NO. 1725 - An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael of Ordinance No.
1725.
Amending Zoning Ordinance Section 14.05.022,
Table 14.05.022, Land Use Regulations to Add
Theaters as a Conditional Use in the Second/Third
Mixed Use East (2/3MUE) Zoning District (RA)
- File 10-3
12. Resolution Designating the San Rafael Redevelopment RESOLUTION NO. 10211
Agency as the Responsible Agency and Designating RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE
the City as the Lead Agency for the Environmental SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 3
REDEVELOPMENT
Review Process for the Adoption of an Amended and AGENCY AS THE
RESPONSIBLE
Restated Central San Rafael Redevelopment Plan (RA) AGENCY AND
DESIGNATING THE
- File 140 x (SRRA) R-140 XVII CITY AS THE LEAD AGENCY
FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE
ADOPTION OF AN AMENDED AND
RESTATED CENTRAL SAN
RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
13. Resolution Authorizing Staff to Proceed With the RESOLUTION NO. 10212 -
Process for Adoption of an Amended and Restated RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING STAFF
Central San Rafael Redevelopment Plan and Directing TO PROCEED WITH THE
PROCESS
Actions Related to the Adoption Process (RA) FOR ADOPTION OF AN
AMENDED AND
- File 140 x (SRRA) R-140 XVII RESTATED CENTRAL SAN
RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND DIRECTING ACTIONS
RELATED TO THE ADOPTION
PROCESS.
15. Fair, Isaac Office Park - Closure of Lindaro Accepted report.
Street Between Second Street and Andersen Drive
From June 15, 1998 Until No Later Than August 31,
1998, During the Site Development and Construction
(PW) - File 11-19 x (SRRA) R-368
16. Park Street Drainage Improvements - Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 10213
Declaring Intent to Close, Abandon and Vacate a RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY
Storm Drain System Running Through the Properties COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF
Located on the East Side of Park Street From SAN RAFAEL DECLARING
ITS
Jewell Street to Mission Avenue (APNs: 014-032-19, INTENT TO CLOSE,
ABANDON
014-032-13, 014-032-12, 014-032-11, 014-032-10, AND VACATE A CERTAIN
DRAINAGE
014-032-09, 014-032-08, 014-062-13, 014-062-12, SYSTEM ON THE
AFFECTED
014-062-11, 014-062-08, 014-062-07, 014-065-22, PROPERTIES LOCATED ON
THE EAST
014-065-21, 014-065-20, 014-065-19, 014-065-16, SIDE OF PARK STREET
BETWEEN
and 014-065-03) (PW) - File 12-9 x 9-3-48 JEWELL STREET AND
MISSION AVENUE AS
SPECIFIED ON THE
ASSESSOR'S MAPS OF MARIN
COUNTY.
17. Award of Contract for Street Resurfacing 1997/98RESOLUTION NO. 10214 -
to Ghilotti Brothers Construction, Inc. in the RESOLUTION OF AWARD
OF
Amount of $876,824.70, and Authorize that CONTRACT FOR STREET
Additional Streets be Added to the List for RESURFACING 1997/98
TO
Resurfacing, Up To a Project Amount of $1,150,000 GHILOTTI BROTHERS
(PW) - File 4-1-493 x 11-15 CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN
18. Resolution Ratifying the July, 1997 Verbal
Agreement Between the City of San Rafael
Recreation Director and the San Rafael City
Elementary School District on Joint Use of
THE AMOUNT OF $876,824.70,
AND AUTHORIZE THAT
ADDITIONAL STREETS BE
ADDED TO THE LIST FOR
RESURFACING UP TO A
PROJECT AMOUNT OF
$1,150,000.
RESOLUTION NO. 10215 -
RESOLUTION RATIFYING
THE JULY,
1997 VERBAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 4
the Sun Valley Elementary School Multi -Use RECREATION DIRECTOR AND
THE
Room (Rec) - File 4-7-12 x 9-3-65 SAN RAFAEL CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT ON JOINT
USE OF THE SUN VALLEY
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MULTI-
USE ROOM.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Miller
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen (From approval of minutes of 5/4/98, due
to absence from meeting; and from Item #11, due
to absence from meeting of 5/4/98, at which the
Ordinance was introduced).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
19. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF USE PERMIT 98-4 FROM
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF MARCH 10, 1998, RE: MERIDIAN SPORTS CLUB, A
PROPOSED HEALTH CLUB AT 1299 FOURTH STREET; APN 011-255-25; JACK
KRYSTAL/DIVERSIFIED EQUITY HOLDINGS AND CHUCK GRIEVE/MERIDIAN SPORTS CLUB,
APPELLANTS; DIVERSIFIED EQUITY HOLDINGS, OWNER; CHARLES GRIEVE, APPLICANT
(CD) - File 10-5
Mayor Boro opened the public hearing and announced this item would be
continued to the meeting of 6/15/98, at the request of the appellant.
20. PUBLIC HEARING - RE: SHORELINE CENTER: (CD) - File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7
1. AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT AND MASTER USE
PERMIT FOR THE SHORELINE CENTER TO: (a) AMEND THE PD TEXT RELATING TO
TRIP GENERATION RATES; (b) PERMIT FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENTS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WITH A USE PERMIT, AND (c)
PERMIT RETAIL AND SPECIALTY RETAIL USES ON PARCELS 5 AND 6; AND
2. AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A NEW BMW AUTOMOBILE
DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 1615 E. FRANCISCO BOULEVARD; APN 09-320-40
THROUGH 45, CAL-PDX, INC., OWNER; TWM, ARCHITECTS.
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff
report.
Associate Planner Louise Patterson reported staff was proposing the Planned
District be amended in three sections. Specific trip generation rates
would be deleted in Section II, and replaced with text that would require
future development at the Shoreline Center to be analyzed utilizing the
most current available traffic data, including Traffic Impact Analysis, for
combinations of projects, to ensure the Level of Service standards, as set
in the General Plan, occur in available roadway capacity and intersection
capacity, and that all other City policies and requirements are met. She
stated this revision was consistent with the way in which the City was
reviewing current projects throughout the City.
Ms. Patterson reported Section III was proposed to be amended to permit
specialty retail use on Parcels 5 and 6 (this use had only been permitted
on Parcels 1 through 4 in the current Planned District), and also to permit
food and beverage service establishments with a Use Permit. Section IV was
proposed to delete specific square footage for the specific uses allocated
in the current Planned District. This would be replaced with text which
requires the uses to be consistent with those specified in the General
Plan. She noted this change would make the Planned District much easier to
implement. Ms. Patterson pointed out the Master Use Permit reflected those
changes for specialty uses, and food and beverage service uses.
Ms. Patterson stated the Environmental and Design Review Permit was for a
new 30,600 square foot BMW automobile dealership, which was proposed to be
located on Parcel 3 of the Center, near East Francisco Boulevard, Shoreline
Center Drive and Kerner Boulevard.
Ms. Patterson reported the Negative Declaration, as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act, was also before Council for adoption.
She stated potential impacts in the Negative Declaration were identified
in the areas of geology, water, animal life, noise, light and glare, and
traffic, and reported mitigation measures had been proposed to reduce
potential impacts to a level of insignificance. She stated proposed
mitigation measures included such things as installing grease traps and
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 5
basins in the parking areas of the BMW dealership, payment of Traffic
Mitigation Fees for the BMW project, and also that the BMW project submit
an application for, and receive, priority status from the City Council
prior to being issued a Building Permit.
Ms. Patterson stated the Planning Commission reviewed the project at their
meeting on April 28, 1998, and recommended one change to the proposed
Planned District Amendment, explaining the change was to include the
specific number of trips allocated to this parcel, as allocated in the
General Plan. In addition, Jean Starkweather, representing the Marin
Conservation League, submitted a letter to the Planning Commission
requesting specific requirements contained in the Shoreline Master Plan be
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the BMW dealership. Ms.
Patterson noted this had also been done, adding Conditions 77 through 79.
Councilmember Heller asked if the BMW project would still have to go
through the PPP (Priority Projects Procedure)? Ms. Patterson stated it
would, noting they had submitted an application. Ms. Heller asked when
this was scheduled for hearing, noting she understood there were several
other projects that would be applying for PPP status? Planning Manager
Sheila Delimont reported this would occur in July.
Robert Wright, Architect with TWM Architects, stated he represented
Shoreline Center, as well as the BMW dealership. He thanked staff for the
work they had done in preparing the staff report, noting it was very
thorough.
Mr. Wright stated they basically had no exceptions to any of the Conditions
being imposed on either the Shoreline Center or the BMW dealership,
although he did need clarification on one item. Referring to Conditions 2
and 75, concerning payment of the Traffic Mitigation Fees, he asked for
clarification of when those fees were due, as he wanted to make certain
those actually happen when traffic improvements are implemented, as opposed
to paying them up front. He stated, other than that, they had no
objections to anything that had been proposed to them, and felt staff had
been very good in processing everything.
Ms. Patterson reported Traffic Mitigation Fees are always collected at the
time the Building Permit is issued. Mr. Wright stated they had represented
a project in North San Rafael several years ago that had substantial
Traffic Mitigation Fees associated with it, and noted they had been
successful in having those fees paid at the time of the traffic
improvements. Public Works Director Bernardi stated they would have to pay
the Traffic Mitigation Fees prior to obtaining the Building Permit, because
the City was going to be constructing the improvements beginning
approximately July 1st. Mr. Wright stated if the improvements were going
to be installed prior to completion of their project, then they had no
objections. Mayor Boro explained the spirit and intent of the City was to
collect the fees at the time the permits are issued, and then the fees go
into a fund, and are disbursed as used.
Mayor Boro asked Mr. Wright to walk them through the drawings of the BMW
project, noting he was particularly interested in the treatment on the back
side of the project. Mr. Wright reported the BMW dealership would be
located along the front of Shoreline Center, immediately adjacent to where
the P.G.& E. access road is located, noting the building is set back
considerably from all property lines except the north property line, which
borders on the holding pond. He stated the building was 30,600 square
feet, and would be two stories, although from the elevations it appears to
be a single -story building. He reported the second level encompasses
offices, as well as space for storage and miscellaneous use.
Mr. Wright pointed out the back, which is the north side of the building,
was proposed to be concrete block, with some articulation along the wall,
and top and bottom bands of a foam material with a hard cover, similar to
the type of product used on the Smith Ranch Road project. He noted this
has been very successful, and they have used it on a number of similar
facilities. Mr. Wright reported the colors will be very light, with a
white band at the top and bottom, and gray concrete block that will be
"split -faced", with scores every third band. He stated there would also be
aluminum type materials used on the columns along the front and side. Mr.
Wright stated as one of the conditions, not only in the Master Plan, but
also as a condition of this project, they have included a five foot wooden
fence, adjacent to and within five to ten feet from the top of the berm,
which will be constructed to inhibit people, animals, or trash from getting
down into the marsh land area. He stated they would also be landscaping
from that location all the way down to the maintenance road. He pointed
out this was an item that had been raised by the Marin Conservation League,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 5
F1
c.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 6
noting his firm was very attuned to that, and it would be a strong part of
their project.
Mayor Boro pointed out the south elevation, which looked like the location
of the service area. Mr. Wright explained the service area was actually
the east elevation, noting the south elevation was the front of the
building. Mayor Boro asked if the front of the building was on West
Francisco Boulevard? Mr. Wright stated it was, noting that was also the
service bay entrance. Mayor Boro noted the building was set back quite a
bit, and asked if it would be screened along West Francisco Boulevard, and
how it would appear? Mr. Wright reported street trees would be required
along the frontage of Francisco Boulevard and Shoreline Center Drive,
noting the service bay would be located in the furthest corner away from
Francisco Boulevard, and would be set back from the facade. He noted that
while it may appear from the drawings that the service bay was in the
front, it was actually set twenty-five to thirty feet back, providing a
covered location for cars waiting for service, and people dropping off
their cars.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public
hearing.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration, based on the materials
presented.
RESOLUTION NO. 10216 - RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ( PD 1718 )
DISTRICT (ZC97-10) AND MASTER USE PERMIT (UP97-59)
TO: (1) PERMIT RETAIL USES ON PARCELS 5 & 6; (2)
PERMIT FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS; AND
(3) AMEND THE PD TEXT RELATING TO TRIP GENERATION
RATES AND USE SQUARE FOOTAGES; AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL
AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED97-131) FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP AT
SHORELINE CENTER; 1615 EAST FRANCISCO BOULEVARD; (APN
9-302-40 THROUGH 45).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Miller
The Title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY
OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY FROM THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD 1718) DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD 1726) DISTRICT TO ALLOW RETAIL USES ON PARCELS 5 AND 6 AND
FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS AND TO AMEND THE PD TEXT RELATING
TO TRIP GENERATION RATES AND USE SQUARE FOOTAGES (RE: ZC97-10, 1615 EAST
FRANCISCO BOULEVARD, AP NOS. 9-320-40 THROUGH 45) (SHORELINE CENTER)"
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety, and refer to it by title
only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1726 to print by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Miller
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution amending the Master Use Permit to permit retail uses on Parcels
5 and 6, to permit food and beverage service establishments, and
Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED97-131) for the development of a
new automobile dealership in Shoreline Center.
RESOLUTION NO. 10217 - RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO MASTER USE
PERMIT (UP97-59) TO PERMIT RETAIL USES ON PARCELS 5 &
6, AND TO PERMIT FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENTS AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW
PERMIT (ED97-131) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW
AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP AT SHORELINE CENTER; 1615 EAST
FRANCISCO BOULEVARD; (APN 9-302-40 THROUGH 45).
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 7
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Miller
21. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL BY JOAN McCUNE OF THE DENIAL OF AN ENCROACHMENT
PERMIT FOR IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 21 ALTA
VISTA WAY (PW)
- File 2-11 x 9-3-40
Mayor Boro announced this item would be continued to a date uncertain, at
the request of the appellant's Attorney, Peter Brekhus. This item will be
re -noticed.
The following item had been removed from the Consent Calendar for further
discussion:
14. RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT WHICH
REQUIRES AN EXCEPTION TO THE CITY'S HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,390 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 55
FAIR DRIVE; APN 11-032-25; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, OWNER; ROBERT
NOLAN, REPRESENTATIVE (CD)
- File 10-7 x 10-4
Planning Manager Sheila Delimont reported most single-family dwellings were
typically reviewed and approved by the City's Zoning Administrator;
however, this particular application was before Council because it requires
an exception to the Hillside Residential Development Standards. She noted
the guidelines contain the standard for a Natural State Area, which
mandates that 25% of the lot, plus the average cross -slope of the lot,
remain undisturbed. In this case, that would require that 67% of the lot
remain undisturbed; however, the applicant was proposing 42% of the lot
remain undisturbed. Ms. Delimont reported the Planning Commission and
Design Review Board had both reviewed the proposal, and recommended
Council's approval, because by locating the garage and parking area to the
rear of the lot, we would have a substantially better project. She pointed
out that although there would be more lot coverage, the lot is so steep
that to come into the lot from the front would require very high retaining
walls, and meeting the parking requirement would require digging into the
hill, causing severe grading and visual impacts for the neighbors.
Therefore, while slightly more of the lot would be disturbed, it would not
be visible to the general public, and the overall design would be far
superior.
Ms. Delimont noted that during the Planning Commission hearing a number of
concerns were raised. One issue concerned a drainage system above the
retaining wall, and she reported Condition 5 was added to mandate that
there be ongoing maintenance to the drainage system. She noted since
access would be through the adjacent lot, a condition was added to require
an access easement be dedicated. Ms. Delimont stated a number of neighbors
were concerned because there had been failure on an adjacent property in
1972; however, she reported that condition had been corrected, and pointed
out the City now has much higher standards for the property than it had in
1972. She reported the City now has a Geotechnical Review process, noting
a geotechnical report was required for this project, and all work would be
reviewed by a Soils Engineer. Therefore, she stated slope stability
problems would not exist on this particular lot, because of the City's much
more stringent requirements.
Ms. Delimont reported a number of other issues were raised which did not
really relate to the project, but were of some ongoing concern in the
neighborhood, and noted Associate Planner Bill Tuikka and staff had been
working on a number of these issues with the neighborhood. She stated one
of the issues was a concern regarding the number of vehicles parked up and
down this street. She noted this particular project, because it is under
the Hillside Guidelines, must provide four parking spaces, so there would
be adequate parking for this particular project; however, the neighbors
were still concerned about parking on the street. Ms. Delimont reported
there currently was no parking on one side of the street, and noted when
she had been to the location earlier, there had not seemed to be a problem.
She stated the City could not mandate that people park in their garages,
and this has become an ongoing problem in many of the City's neighborhoods.
She explained what staff had done in other cases was to ask the Fire
Department to drive a Fire Engine down the street to make sure it was
adequate, noting that if the neighbors were really concerned about
emergency access, they could refer the matter to the Traffic Coordinating
Committee for further review.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 8
Ms. Delimont stated there was also concern about maintenance of City
property at the end of Chula Vista. She reported staff had spoken with
Parks Maintenance Supervisor Tom Rothenberger, who indicated they make an
effort to get up there and empty the trash cans on an ongoing basis, and
noted that if the neighbors had a concern, they could call the Parks
Division, and they would respond on a more regular basis, as needed. Ms.
Delimont stated there was also some concern with this location being a
popular parking spot for teen-agers, noting the Police Department has
reported that whenever there is a complaint, they go out and speak to those
who are parking there.
Mayor Boro asked the difference in the percentage of the variance Council
was being asked to approve? Ms. Delimont stated that under current the
Conditions, the applicants would be required to have 67% of the lot
undisturbed, and they were proposing 42%. She acknowledged that was a
substantial difference, but noted the impacts were lessened by granting the
exception.
Richard Schneider, resident of 324 Coleman Drive, recalled that in 1972 his
home suffered a landslide that nearly took his house down, which was the
result of improper cuts done during construction of the home that will be
sharing the driveway access with the new home being proposed. He reported
that after litigation, a retaining wall was finally built, and his house
was still standing; however, his concern now had to do with maintenance of
the drainage. Mr. Schneider explained the problem was that the drainage
ditch, the v -ditch behind the retaining wall, and the outlet pipe for the
run-off that comes down by the v -ditch, have not been maintained. As a
result, there are cracks in the v -ditch, the water is going underneath the
wall, and water coming out from the drainage does not go out the way it was
engineered.
Mr. Schneider believed there was potential for the driveway to be
undermined unless the drainage is corrected, and asked that some
consideration be given to checking the drainage of the already existing
wall so it does not impact the driveway of the new property.
Ms. Delimont referred to Condition #5 which states, "A covenant running
with the land shall be recorded that outlines the property owner's
responsibility to maintain, in good condition, the on-site drainage system,
especially the drainage system serving the retaining wall. The covenant
shall be recorded prior to issuance of any permits for work on the site".
Ms. Delimont reported this Condition had been added after the public
hearing, to try to address this issue.
Matt Guthrie, Architect with Forster + Guthrie, stated they were assisting
Mr. Nolan with the design processing and permits for this single-family
home. Mr. Guthrie pointed out this was a unique situation, noting the
property was a legal vacant lot, with the potential to provide vehicular
access to the rear of the lot. He stated they chose the option that was
encouraged by the Hillside Design Guidelines, which was to try to put as
many single-family homes on a single driveway as possible, in areas of
existing lots. He pointed out this would help to reduce grading, and also
the site disturbance that would occur if they provided the four parking
stalls at the front of the lot, noting the retaining walls would be fifteen
to twenty feet high.
Mr. Guthrie stated the design of the house was formulated to comply with
both the R-5 and Hillside Development Overlay District requirements, with
the exception of the Natural State Area requirement. He noted there were
approximately a dozen different requirements they have complied with, and
exceeded in most areas, particularly the important ones, such as dealing
with significant trees, and building heights.
Regarding the drainage on this particular site, Mr. Guthrie stated there
was no question, as confirmed by the Public Works Department, that the
drainage would be handled through this site. Referring to the neighbor's
concern regarding the retaining wall built in 1972, Mr. Guthrie stated they
had looked at the wall, and it was perfectly straight. He noted he would
pass on to Mr. Nolan the desire to look at the wall, and make any repairs
that need to be done; however, Mr. Guthrie stated he was unaware of any way
that a Condition on this property could be applied to that property. Mayor
Boro asked who was to record the Covenant? Ms. Delimont stated it was to
be recorded on this property. Mayor Boro noted the Covenant states,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 9
"...especially the drainage system serving the retaining wall". Mr.
Guthrie stated there had been some concern in 1972, because there was some
difficulty when the grading took place for the adjacent lot; however, that
concern was resolved with the construction of a retaining wall. He noted
the retaining wall still stands, and he believed Mr. Schneider was
concerned that the v -ditch at the top of the wall had not been cleaned out.
Mayor Boro asked if this concern about the adjoining property had been
brought up at the Planning Commission? Ms. Delimont reported everyone
wanted to make certain this particular retaining wall was stable, and that
the drainage into the site was
maintained, so we did not have the same problem that occurred on the other
property. She stated that was why the additional Condition had been placed
on this project. Mayor Boro asked what we were doing about the adjoining
property, and whether it was a part of all this, or if the City had no
jurisdiction over it at this point? Ms. Delimont stated the City had no
jurisdiction over it unless there was some way in which it was a shared
system, or unless it created a dangerous situation and became a public
nuisance. Mayor Boro asked if his understanding was correct that this had
been discussed by the Planning Commission, and the neighbor had been
notified that there was nothing the City could do at this point? He noted
this item would ensure what happened on the old site would not happen on
the new site; however, at this point, we did not have an answer for the
neighbor regarding the effect of the development of the new project on his
other problem. Ms. Delimont stated that was a separate problem, which
could not be resolved with this particular application.
Mr. Guthrie stated if there were questions among Council regarding the
exception, those could be addressed, as well, noting that was the prime
point they were there to discuss with Council. He stated they were aware
of the requirements, noting the percentage of each parcel that must remain
in Natural State Area was 25%, plus an area equal to the slope, which in
this case would be a 67% requirement. He noted this was a lot of 7,100
square feet, and when applying the 67% requirement, it allowed for building
on an area of 2,369 square feet, However, he stated the City requirement
of four parking stalls on the site, as well as the back -out and all the
maneuvering area necessary for the required parking, would use
approximately 2,000 square feet of the 2,369 square feet possible for
building; therefore, complying with those requirements would mean a home of
approximately 369 square feet could be built on this site. He stated these
issues had been discussed with the Planning Commission and the Design
Review Board, and both concurred the Natural State Area reduction would not
be an issue.
Councilmember Phillips asked about the visual impact of the proposed
building. Ms. Delimont stated this proposal was actually a better design
solution, because if they had to put the parking in the front yard, there
would be some extremely high, visual retaining walls.
Councilmember Phillips noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
showed Commissioner Kirchmann had raised the issue of drainage, and asked
if Condition #5 had been included to address Mr. Kirchmann's concern? Ms.
Delimont stated that was correct, noting the Condition had been worked out
by Fred Vincenti, the City's Building and Safety Manager.
Councilmember Cohen noted Mr. Guthrie had stated the design, as proposed,
was consistent with the Hillside Design Standards, with the exception of
the Natural State Area requirement. He asked if an alternative design with
the parking in front and, therefore, with the higher retaining walls, would
also be consistent with the Hillside Design Standards? Ms. Delimont
reported retaining walls were actually supposed to be limited to a height
of four feet without requiring an exception, so there would be some real
design problems with that, because the Hillside Design standards require
that we try to minimize grading, tree removal, and the height of retaining
walls. She stated placing the driveway and parking in the front yard would
basically mean they would have to practically grade -out that entire side,
and have sixteen foot retaining walls. She pointed out this would not be a
very aesthetically pleasing solution, and would be going against what the
City was trying to achieve with the Hillside Guidelines, which is retaining
the appearance of a natural slope and as much vegetation as possible, and
reducing grading impacts. She noted the Hillside Guidelines also recommend
that in situations such as this we do take advantage of joint driveways,
because that would help in reducing site impacts.
Councilmember Cohen noted Mr. Guthrie had stated this was a legal,
buildable lot; therefore, Mr. Cohen felt the City had to find some way to
address this, and allow the development of a single-family home. Ms.
Delimont stated that was correct, pointing out this was an existing, very
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 10
small lot, with a very steep slope, and in order to allow reasonable
development on this site, it becomes necessary to grant this exception.
Mr. Cohen asked if this exception was clearly a better one than anything
else we would be faced with? Ms. Delimont stated it was.
Councilmember Cohen stated his only question concerned the drainage issue
on the adjacent lot. He asked, since access was being provided, if this
would be a new driveway across the adjacent lot? Ms. Delimont stated there
was an existing driveway, which runs in back of that house, and they would
be extending it and opening it up to the rear of the new home. Mr. Cohen
asked if there was any way, since we were agreeing to allow access across
there, that we could get to the issue of at least inspecting the drainage
on the adjacent retaining wall? Ms. Delimont stated the only way there
could be any linkage was if the retaining wall could potentially fail and
block the access, and she did not believe that was the situation. She
reported the City's Building Division indicated the issue had been resolved
as far as the previous landslides on the property.
Regarding the issue of potential problems with the drainage on the v -ditch,
Mr. Cohen asked if that was something the City would have the authority to
inspect, looking at it and addressing it from a Public Safety standpoint?
Public Works Director Bernardi stated the City could look at it to
determine if there might be safety issues involved, make recommendations,
and determine whether a potential public nuisance may or may not exist, and
then the City could advise the owner accordingly. Mr. Cohen stated he
appreciated the work that had gone into this Resolution, noting it was
clearly better than the alternative of putting the parking in front.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt
the Resolution approving the Environmental and Design Review Permit, and
approving an exception for the Natural State Area.
RESOLUTION NO. 10218 - RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN
REVIEW PERMIT AND APPROVING AN EXCEPTION FOR THE
NATURAL STATE AREA, 55 FAIR DRIVE, APN 11-032-25, SAN
RAFAEL.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Miller
MONTHLY REPORTS:
22. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT - File 9-3-11
City Manager Rod Gould presented Council with a brief update on the
progress made by the St. Vincent de Paul Dining Room Relocation Ad Hoc
Committee, which Council set in motion in March. Mr. Gould noted that
while the Committee may not be operating in quite the manner Council
envisioned at the time they put the Committee in place, he was happy to
report substantial progress had been made. Mr. Gould credited City
Attorney Ragghianti and his counterpart, Attorney Rollin Chippey of the
Brobeck, Phlager & Harrison law firm, representing St. Vincent's, reporting
the Ad Hoc Committee had met twice, under the auspices of the Honorable
Eugene Lynch, and although the Judge was very familiar with mediation and
arbitration, the idea of facilitating seventeen representatives of
stakeholders in the community, with thirty to forty members of the public
looking on, was a new experience for him.
Mr. Gould reported the second meeting, which occurred last week, focused on
the use of a Conditional Use Permit, pointing out there had been mixed
signals coming from the Dining Room as to whether or not they would accept
a Conditional Use Permit, and what was to be in such a Use Permit was even
more up in the air. Mr. Gould reported, based on discussions between the
attorneys over the past three or four weeks, a document had been drafted
which sets forth fifteen conditions staff could recommend to the Planning
Commission, and then to Council, for inclusion in a Conditional Use Permit
when the Dining Room relocates to a new location.
Mr. Gould stated there would be a meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Thursday evening, and the focus of that meeting would be Neighborhood
Outreach. He noted a neighborhood advisory committee would be put in
place, which would include members of the Dining Room's Board of Directors,
and representatives of businesses, residents, and the clergy, to oversee
the operations of the Dining Room and resolve complaints as they occur.
Mr. Gould stated the final meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee scheduled by
Judge Lynch would take place the first week in June, noting the subject of
that meeting will be the actual site for the newly reconstituted Dining
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 11
Room.
Mr. Gould stated he was very pleased with the way things were going, and
believed the people who had been following this issue through the
tumultuous hearings in February were surprised, and pleased, with the
progress being made. He stated he was much more optimistic than he had
been in the past about an amicable solution to this issue.
Councilmember Heller asked if there were two more scheduled meetings, and
then any additional meetings as needed? Mr. Gould stated that was correct,
and at that point it would be up to the Committee to report back to Council
at a regularly scheduled meeting as to its progress and recommendations.
Ms. Heller asked if they would be discussing specific sites at the last
meeting? Mr. Gould stated that was correct.
Councilmember Phillips noted this was a Committee of seventeen members, and
pointed out the attorneys had done a commendable job of bringing documents
to the Committee. He sensed there was some frustration by some of the
Committee members as to the degree of participation, or what their role
was. He asked if the City was comfortable that we had sent an adequate
message as to their role, if that role had changed, and if it was alright
to leave it as it was, or whether we should let it develop or redirect it
in some fashion? Mr. Gould stated perhaps the Ad Hoc Committee was
functioning a little differently than had originally been intended, but
noted the important thing was that it was working. He reported everything
had been made public at the last meeting, pointing out four or five memos
that had gone back and forth between the attorneys regarding the Conditions
were shared with the members of the Committee and members of the public,
and it was all right there for everyone to see how the discussion had gone.
In addition, there was plenty of discussion as to what those Conditions
meant, and what they would mean to the
facility. Therefore, while Mr. Gould agreed there were probably some
members of the Committee who would enjoy more meetings, and more in-depth
discussion, he would be hesitant to suggest Council make any changes at
this time, because it is working.
Mayor Boro noted once the third meeting was concluded, there was some
expectation a report would come back to Council. He stated he was
interested to know where St. Vincent's was at this point, in relationship
to where they were going to be. For example, if the Committee recommends a
Use Permit, a Code of Conduct, and a recommendation on the site, then he
assumed that at some point Council would approve those recommendations on
some level. He asked if those Conditions would then automatically apply to
the present "B" Street location, as well, or would the City wait until St.
Vincent's moved to the new location; or, if it was not legally possible to
apply them to the "B" Street location, could the spirit of them start to be
seen? He also asked if the entire planning process cycle would also begin
at that point, with Design Review, Use Permit, and a formal application to
the Planning Commission, and then come back to Council? Mr. Gould stated
he believed that was correct, noting in June, if Council accepts the report
from the Committee, and if it appears the Committee's recommendations are
similarly endorsed by St. Vincent's Board, the next step would likely be to
draft a Purchase and Sale Agreement to move the current site to the new
site, and then begin with the design and the hearings, setting forth a
timetable when all this would occur.
City Attorney Ragghianti agreed, stating they had not yet reached the point
where the specific questions Mayor Boro was asking had been addressed in
the public sessions; however, he believed the idea was that if they
achieved conceptual agreement on the Use Permit Conditions, that would be
put to the side, and then brought back, but in achieving conceptual
agreement, the City and the Dining Room Board would have bought into it, so
when it came before Council, staff would be presenting things the Council
had already seen, subject to public hearings where the public could say
whatever they want. Mayor Boro asked if that would be subsequent to the
Planning process, and if agreement was reached, in concept, would that
trigger the authority to go forward with the sale of one property and the
purchase of the other, and begin the Planning cycle? Mr. Ragghianti stated
that was correct.
Mayor Boro asked, in light of all the good work that has been done, and the
fact that this was not going to happen overnight, would it be possible to
think this Use Permit could be started at its present location, so the
diners and St. Vincent's would begin to have this working, and then when
they get to the new location it would already be in place? Mr. Ragghianti
stated he would ask that question, noting he believed it would be received
well by his counterpart, Mr. Chippey, and that Mr. Chippey would take it to
St. Vincent's, where Mr. Ragghianti felt it would also be received well.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 12
COUNCIL ER REPORTS:
23. None.
Mayor Boro stated Saturday had been Councilmember Heller's birthday, and wished
her Happy Birthday.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1998
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/18/98 Page 12