HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1998-07-20SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 20, 1998 AT 8:00
PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen,
Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary Ragghianti, City Attorney
Patricia J. Roberts, Deputy City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM:
Mayor Boro announced one Closed Session item would be heard at the conclusion of
the City Council meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00
PM
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE - File 9-3-40 x 9-3-65
Martin Peckins, 50 Belvedere Street, an avid volunteer with Trips for Kids and
the Canal Ministry, stated he would like to help the City of San Rafael in
establishing a Pedestrian/Bicycle Advisory Committee. He noted the North San
Rafael Vision had addressed starting a committee, and he and a few other
supportive people in the community would like to help the City in doing that.
He asked Council to agendize this issue for the next City Council meeting.
Mayor Boro asked City Manager Gould to review the information Mr. Peckins had
given the Councilmembers earlier in the week, and report back to Council with a
recommendation. Mayor Boro suggested, in addition to considering the formation
of a committee, the City might also look at the use of the Park and Recreation
Commission as a resource, and possibly come up with a committee structure as
part of that Commission, as well. Mr. Peckins stated this was not really a
Recreational issue, but more a Public Works issue, as it was actually a
transportation issue. Councilmember Heller noted that in reading the
information, it seemed Mr. Peckins was trying to set up twelve committees,
individual commissions in each of eleven cities and towns, plus one with the
County. She suggested a commission be established with members from each city
or town. Mr. Peckins stated that on the Countywide level, they do have a
commission of their own; however, each individual city can, on their own, lobby
for funds from the federal government, without going to the County. He reported
the City of Novato is currently the only city which has an official
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and during the last ten years they have
received more than half the funds the federal government has granted to this
County. Mayor Boro informed Mr. Peckins that City Manager Gould would review
this issue and contact Mr. Peckins.
FIELD OF DOGS - File 102
Mario De Palma, resident of San Rafael, formally announced the official grand
opening of San Rafael's much needed, long awaited, and much appreciated people's
park for dog owners, Field of Dogs, which opened July 11th. He noted those
attending the grand opening included Mayor Boro, Councilmembers Barbara Heller
and Cyr Miller, former Assistant City Manager Suzy Golt, Recreation Director
Carlene McCart, County Board of Supervisors Chairman John Kress, and Tom Obletz,
former President of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods. Mr. De Palma
reported there was a large turnout, and with fifty dogs and their owners the
park was off to a great success. He stated that while they always felt they
were doing the right thing, and this was the right idea at the right time, there
was always the fear they might not get it done; however, he noted that when
former Assistant City Manager Suzy Golt became more involved, and got Patty
Garbarino involved, who in turn got Supervisor Kress involved, they were very
successful. He stated that with the support of the City, and the others he
mentioned, the dream became a reality. He reported he had already received a
complaint that there is not enough seating in the park, and noted there were
more than thirty dogs in the park last night. He stated the committee Treasurer
had initially complained that he might have purchased too many picnic tables and
benches; however, it appears they may need to buy more. Mr. De Palma stated
their dreams have been realized, through the City's support, and the support of
so many dog lovers and dog owners, and the Field of Dogs is now open for use by
all people whose lives are made so much richer by their four -legged companions.
Mr. De Palma thanked everyone for their friendship and support. Mayor Boro
stated Mr. De Palma had really demonstrated perseverance, noting he had worked
very long and hard at this, working to a successful conclusion. He stated Mr.
De Palma was a great advocate of what he believed in, having come up with a
great solution, and raising the funds to build this park, which is located at
the Civic Center, next to the Jury parking lot. Mayor Boro congratulated Mr. De
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 2
Palma
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the
following Consent Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
1
2
3
Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday, Approved as
submitted.
July 6, 1998 (CC)
Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM)Accepted report.
Resolutions of Appreciation to Members of the
St. Vincent de Paul Ad Hoc Dining Room
Committee and to Judge Eugene Lynch (CM)
- File 102 x 9-2-49 x 233
RESOLUTION NO. 10250
RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION
TO JUDGE EUGENE
LYNCH,
FACILITATOR FOR THE ST.
VINCENT DE PAUL AD HOC
DINING ROOM COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10251 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO LINDA BELLATORRE,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT
DE PAUL AD HOC DINING ROOM
COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10252 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO FATHER BRUCE BRAMLETT,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT
DE PAUL AD HOC DINING ROOM
COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10253 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO SUE BROWN, MEMBER OF
THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL AD
HOC DINING ROOM COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10254 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO ROLLIN CHIPPEY, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL
AD HOC DINING ROOM
COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10255 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO TONY DARREN, MEMBER OF
THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL AD
HOC DINING ROOM COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10256 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO CHARLIE GARFINK, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL
AD HOC DINING ROOM
COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10257 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO MIKE GROZA, MEMBER OF
THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL AD
HOC DINING ROOM COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10258 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO BOB KING, MEMBER OF THE
ST. VINCENT DE PAUL AD HOC
DINING ROOM COMMITTEE.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 10259 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO JAN MAJOR, MEMBER OF
THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL AD
HOC DINING ROOM COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10260 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO ANDREW MARSHALL, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL
AD HOC DINING ROOM
COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10261 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO GARY RAGGHIANTI, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL
AD HOC DINING ROOM
COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10262 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO BOB ROBERTS, MEMBER OF
THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL AD
HOC DINING ROOM COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10263 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO FATHER PAUL J. ROSSI,
MEMBER OF THE ST. VINCENT
DE PAUL AD HOC DINING ROOM
COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10264 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO CAM SANCHEZ, MEMBER OF
THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL AD
HOC DINING ROOM COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10265 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO DAVID SHELTON, MEMBER
OF THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL
AD HOC DINING ROOM
COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10266 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO ROGER SMITH, MEMBER OF
THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL AD
HOC DINING ROOM COMMITTEE.
RESOLUTION NO. 10267 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO BRIAN SWARTZ, MEMBER OF
THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL AD
HOC DINING ROOM COMMITTEE.
4. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF APPROVED FINAL ADOPTION
ORDINANCE NO. 1727 - An Ordinance of the ORDINANCE NO. 1727.
the City of San Rafael Amending Ordinance
No. 1699 (Paramedic Service Special Tax)
and Setting the Paramedic Tax Rate, Commencing
With Fiscal Year 1998/99 for Residential and
Non -Residential Properties (MS) - File 9-3-31
5. Monthly Investment Report (MS) - File 8-18 x 8-9 Accepted report.
6. Resolution Authorizing an Agreement to Enter RESOLUTION NO. 10268
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
Power Purchasing Gas Program (MS) AN AGREEMENT TO ENTER
THE
- File 111 x 4-4 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA
GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) POWER
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 4
PURCHASING GAS PROGRAM.
7. Resolution Setting the Special Tax Rate for Year RESOLUTION NO. 10269 -
1998/99 on All Taxable Property Within Community RESOLUTION OF THE SAN
RAFAEL
Facilities District 1992-1 (Loch Lomond #10) CITY COUNCIL SETTING
THE
(MS) - File 6-50 x 5-1-297 SPECIAL DISTRICT TAX
FOR LOCH LOMOND #10 FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1998/99.
8.
0
Baypoint Lagoons Landscaping and Lighting
District (PW) - File 6-48
a. Resolution Directing Filing of Engineer's
Annual Report.
RESOLUTION NO. 10270 -
RESOLUTION DIRECTING
FILING
OF ENGINEER'S ANNUAL
REPORT.
BAYPOINT LAGOONS
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
DISTRICT.
b. Engineer's Annual Report 1998-99 - This is Engineer's Annual
Report
to be Filed. 1998-99 filed.
c. Resolution Approving Engineer's Annual Report. RESOLUTION NO. 10271
RESOLUTION APPROVING
ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORT.
BAYPOINT LAGOONS
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
DISTRICT.
d. Resolution of Intention to Order Improvements RESOLUTION NO. 10272 -
(and Setting Public Hearing for Meeting of RESOLUTION OF
INTENTION TO
8/3/98). ORDER IMPROVEMENTS
(AND SETTING PUBLIC
HEARING FOR MEETING OF
8/3/98). BAYPOINT LAGOONS
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
DISTRICT.
Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract for RESOLUTION NO. 10273
City Hall Boiler Replacement to Reliance RESOLUTION OF AWARD
OF
Enterprises in the Amount of $47,693.00 and CONTRACT FOR THE CITY
Reallocation of Additional $25,000.00 From
the Building Maintenance Fund (001-4427) Toward
the Project (PW) - File 4-1-492
HALL
BOILER REPLACEMENT TO
RELIANCE ENTERPRISES
IN THE
AMOUNT OF $47,693.00, AND
REALLOCATING AN ADDITIONAL
$25,000.00 FROM THE
BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND
(001-4427) TOWARD THE
PROJECT.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion:
10. RESOLUTION ADOPTING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY, 1122
FOURTH STREET, LINEXPRESS CAFE (PD) - File 9-3-30
City Manager Gould reported this item needed further analysis by staff
before being presented to the Council, stating it would be presented at the
Council meeting of August 17, 1998.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
11. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO MEMBERS OF THE ST. VINCENT
de PAUL AD HOC DINING ROOM COMMITTEE AND TO JUDGE EUGENE LYNCH (CM) - File
9-2-49 x 233
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 5
Mayor Boro reported approximately eleven days ago the Council held a
special meeting concerning the St. Vincent's Dining Room, and reached what
he believed was a very successful conclusion of the negotiations conducted
under the leadership of Judge Eugene Lynch and the citizens' committee,
which worked over several months to bring this item back to the Council.
Mayor Boro stated that on March 2, 1998, the San Rafael City Council
authorized the formation of the Ad Hoc Dining Room Relocation Committee,
and the Honorable Eugene F. Lynch was then selected as the facilitator of
that Committee. He explained the Committee was charged with reviewing and
discussing the specifics of a proposal to resolve the issues concerning the
relocation of the St. Vincent's Dining Room facility, and the conditions of
its operation. Mayor Boro noted that while these had been highly
contentious issues in the community for sixteen years, the Committee was
able to achieve a level of consensus that enabled it to move forward to the
resolution of the issue. After the final meeting on June 30th, a report
was prepared setting forth the Committee's recommendations to the City
Council, and on July 9, 1998, the Council accepted the report.
On behalf of the City Council, and the citizens of San Rafael, Mayor Boro
thanked everyone who worked on the Committee. He presented Resolutions of
Appreciation to Committee members Sue Brown, Ken Major, City Attorney Gary
Ragghianti, Father Paul J. Rossi, David Shelton, Roger Smith, and Mike
Groza. Mayor Boro noted he would be sending Resolutions of Appreciation to
Facilitator Judge Eugene Lynch, and Committee members Linda Bellatorre,
Father Bruce Bramlett, Rollin Chippey, Tony Darren, Charlie Garfink, Bob
King, Andrew Marshall, Bob Roberts, Police Chief Cam Sanchez and Robert
Smith, who were unable to attend this meeting.
12. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES:
a. FIRE DEPARTMENT - File 9-3-31
Fire Chief Robert Marcucci reported that after a Statewide
recruitment for a Division Chief, they found the Department already
had the right person in-house for the position, noting it was with a
great deal of pride that he was presenting new Division Chief Mike
Angeli.
Chief Marcucci also introduced Martin Sanford, Battalion Chief in
charge of Training, the Paramedic Program, and Hazardous Material;
Administrative Assistant Joanna Pallock; and the two newest members
of the Department, Paramedics Jim Keefer and Jim Gallagher, reporting
that after several weeks of training they would be running the
Paramedic ambulances.
b. LIBRARY - File 9-3-61
Library Director Vaughn Stratford introduced the Library's two newest
employees, Library Assistants Jennifer Islas and Connie Vallejo. He
reported Ms. Islas had graduated from Dartmouth College, and Ms.
Vallejo from the University of California at Berkeley, and both were
bilingual. He noted Library staff in the Circulation Department had
taken the opportunity to tell him that both of them were doing an
excellent job.
C. MANAGEMENT SERVICES - File 9-3-20
Management Services Director Kenneth Nordhoff introduced the newer
staff in the Management Services Department. He first introduced
Getty Ejigou, Information Services Technician, noting he had come to
the City from Africa, through Russia. He reported Mr. Ejigou has
been doing a fabulous job in Information Services, handling a lot of
technical day-to-day things that most of us realize become crisis
when they do not work. Introducing Dennis Shives, Assistant Director
of Financial Services, Mr. Nordhoff reported he had come to San
Rafael from Southern California, with over twenty years of government
and Transit District experience, and now had his hands full running
the Financial Services Division. Mr. Nordhoff introduced Van Bach,
Account Clerk II, reporting she had been with the City for
approximately three months, and was handling the Department's Parking
Citation desk, noting she had the happy, friendly demeanor to deal
with people who have to come to the City to pay their fines. He
stated she was doing a fantastic job, and had brought a lot of energy
to that desk. Mr. Nordhoff introduced Nena McNamara, who came to San
Rafael from the City of Tustin's Community Development Department,
where she ran their Business License operations, noting she was now
serving in that capacity, as our Revenue Collection Coordinator. He
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 6
reported her efforts this past year have allowed the City to bring in
over $90,000 extra Business License dollars, just in the short period
she has been here, noting she was working very hard, and the
Department was very proud of her.
d. PUBLIC WORKS - File 9-3-66
Public Works Director Dave Bernardi introduced Groundsworker Camilo
Bayot, Jr. Mr. Bernardi reported Mr. Bayot has had his own
landscaping business for several years, has worked with the
Gardeners' Guild, and spent six years with the Marin Golf and Country
Club as one of their Groundskeepers. Mr Bernardi stated the
Department was very glad to have Mr. Bayot, and looked forward to Mr.
Bayot's expertise, noting he has a degree in Landscape Design and
Maintenance from the College of Marin, and was very well qualified.
Joshua Crawford, Groundsworker - Parks Division, was unable to attend
the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
13. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, SECTIONS
12.04.010 AND 12.040.020, CREATING THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION IN THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND DESIGNATING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL
(CD) - 9-3-85 x 9-8
Community Development Director Bob Brown explained this Ordinance would
transfer responsibility for the Building Division to the Community
Development Department, and specifically to the Manager of Building and
Safety.
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened.
There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, SECTIONS 12.04.010 AND 12.04.020, CREATING
THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AND DESIGNATING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL".
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety, and refer to it by title
only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1728 to print, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
14. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR A ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION, MASTER USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIX SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AT THE END OF TWIN OAKS
DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CA;
APNs 10-142-24, 11-051-23, AND 11-115-29; RR&Q MANAGEMENT, OWNER; I.L.
SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC. AND FORSHER + GUTHRIE, REPRESENTATIVES ("ACADEMY
HEIGHTS") (CD) - File 5-1-336 x 10-2 x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff
report.
Associate Planner Louise Patterson reported this was a project consisting
of four applications: a Zone change to create development standards for a
Planned District; a tentative subdivision to divide the 30.67 acres into
six single-family residential lots; a Master Use Permit specifying the Uses
permitted for the project; and an Environmental Review Permit for the
design of the subdivision and improvements. Also before Council was a
Negative Declaration, which had been prepared for the project.
Ms. Patterson stated this project had been reviewed by the Design Review
Board and Planning Commission at numerous meetings, beginning in October,
1996. She reported that throughout these meetings the project has been
revised and conditioned, and additional information has been provided to
address many issues, including such things as building envelopes,
locations, road design, drainage, geotechnical issues, grading, tree
removal, and vegetation management. She stated eight issues were discussed
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 7
at the June 24th Planning Commission meeting, and were still being raised
by some Neighborhood Associations.
Ms. Patterson reported the Planning Commission focused on four issues:
slope stability, noise, size and visibility of the houses, and whether
there was substantial evidence that the project might have significant
adverse impact on the environment. She stated the Fairhills Property
Owners Association focused on three issues: the Fair Argument Standards
requiring an EIR (Environmental Impact Report), as opposed to a Negative
Declaration; the Geotechnical Review, geology, and the potential for
earthquake induced slope failure; and visual impacts of the single-family
houses. She stated the Culloden-Quarry-Twin Oaks Homeowners Association
had also expressed three areas of concern: the sizes of the houses; the
location of the Scenic Easements between the lower portions of Lots 4, 5,
and 6; and that Lot 3 may prove to be unbuildable.
Regarding the slope stability and geotechnical issues, she reported the
Planning Commission had reviewed the issues and stated the additional
analysis prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group provided answers to
the questions they had during the numerous meetings, and they concurred the
Negative Declaration adequately addressed the issues of slope stability and
potential earthquake movement, and that the mitigation measures were
appropriate. The Commission also stated they did not believe the Golder
report came to any conclusions different than the Miller Pacific report.
As far as noise was concerned, the Commission also stated it was a trade-
off between the additional noises that would be generated on a permanent
basis by the residential uses, as opposed to the noises that are being
generated on the open site as it is now, with people partying, and homeless
people roaming around the site. The Commission concluded the noise
generated by the single-family houses was not significant.
Referring to the Fair Argument issue, Ms. Patterson reported the Planning
Commission stated, in their opinion, the report prepared by Golder &
Associates did not come to any different conclusions than that of the
Miller Pacific analysis, and that their recommendation for additonal
analysis was not credible. She noted they weighed all the evidence
presented to them, visited the site several times, read all the reports,
and concurred they had not seen or heard any substantial evidence that this
project would have a significant adverse impact on the environment with
respect to slope stability, and that an EIR was not required.
Regarding visual impacts, the Planning Commission stated the proposed
Planned District specifies maximum house sizes, although the Planned
District also specifies that these sizes are not guaranteed. Through
Design Review process, they were comfortable that the visual impacts would
not be significant.
Addressing the issue of house sizes, Ms. Patterson pointed out the
Neighborhood 13/14 Neighborhood Plan was bounded on the north by the City
limits, on the east by Boyd Park, on the south by Mission and Scenic
Avenues, and on the west by County open space, and explained the project
was located on the eastern portion of the neighborhood plan area. She
noted that the majority of the neighborhood surrounding the project site is
zoned R20 -H, which requires 20,000 square foot minimum parcels, and limits
house sizes to 2,500 square feet, plus 10% of the lot area, for a maximum
of 4,500 square feet. Properties abutting the northwest portion of the
site are zoned Rla-H, which requires minimum 1 acre parcels, and house
sizes up to 6,500 square feet.
Regarding the Scenic Easement, she reported that as proposed, it covers a
minimum of 80 to 100 feet uphill from the building envelopes on Lots #1,
#2, #3, and #4, noting the property lines for Lots #4 and #5 are
approximately 160 feet down-slope from the building envelopes. She stated
the defensible space required for the Fire Department's Vegetation
Management Protection Plan requires a minimum distance of 50 feet up-slope,
50 foot cross -slope, and 100 foot down-slope be cleared for Vegetation
Management. She noted the Scenic Easement boundary could be modified to
either meet these Vegetation Management requirements, or could be modified
more, noting the project Fire Ecologist had recommended it be left as
proposed, so the Vegetation Management could be done, and work in the area
could be done without having the Scenic Easement restriction placed on it.
Regarding Lot #3, she stated the quarry slope was created by cutting into
the hillside to remove the red chert rock material. She noted that as the
hillside was cut into, more chert was removed, and more chert was exposed,
and reported the geotechnical mitigation measures would do the same,
stating they would remove more of the dirt and the chert at the top of the
quarry slope, and we would see more of the dirt and the chert. Ms.
Patterson reported staff did have an independent visual analysis done of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 8
the proposed geotechnical mitigation measures, and that analysis came to
the conclusion that it would not be a significant visual impact. She noted
the Geotechnical Review also came to the conclusion that those mitigation
measures were adequate for Lot #3.
Ms. Patterson stated the last issue concerned noticing. She reported it
had been brought to staff's attention that several members of the
neighborhood stated they had not received notice of tonight's meeting. She
stated notices of the June 24th Planning Commission meeting had been mailed
twenty days prior to that meeting, and notices were also posted at the
site, posted with the County of Marin, and published in the Marin IJ.
Notices for tonight's meeting were also mailed twenty days prior to this
evening's meeting, and the same mailing list was used as for the Planning
Commission meeting. Notices were also posted again at the site, and with
the County of Marin, and published in the Marin IJ. Ms. Patterson pointed
out copies of all these notifications were contained in the staff report.
She acknowledged staff did not have a clear answer as to why some notices
were received and some were not. However, she reiterated that notices were
sent, and the notice was posted and published. In addition, Planning
Manager Sheila Delimont had stated at an earlier Planning Commission
hearing that this project had been tentatively scheduled for tonight's City
Council meeting.
Mayor Boro noted when he had spoken with Ms. Patterson about the noticing,
she had indicated that in addition to the mail, posting, and newspaper
notice, certain packets had also been delivered. Ms. Patterson reported
that when two of the Homeowner Association Presidents indicated they had
not received the notices, a copy of the staff report was delivered to them
the same day it was delivered to the Councilmembers; in addition, another
active resident of the area was given the same staff report.
Community Development Director Bob Brown reported staff had received a
letter from Mr. Zischke, an attorney for members of the public, noting Mr.
Zischke took exception with the way the staff report characterized the
conclusions of the Golder report and, the Planning Commission's reaction.
Mr. Brown explained that at the Planning Commission meeting, the level of
analysis in the Miller Pacific report was questioned by Golder, who
questioned whether or not it adequately evaluated the slope stability of
the quarry face. He stated the Planning Commission determined that input
by Golder was not based on new evidence, and it was not credible, since it
was based on an analysis done for a very different set of quarry project
circumstances, and was not comparable to this project. Therefore, for that
reason, the Planning Commission felt the input was not credible, and a
Negative Declaration, and the analysis that led to that, was acceptable and
satisfactory.
Cecilia Bridges, Attorney, stated she was representing the applicant for
the development of this thirty -plus acres at the end of Twin Oaks Avenue, a
property known as the old Red Rock Quarry site. She explained the
application was for a six -lot, single-family subdivision, which is
consistent with the City's Hillside Design Guidelines, General Plan
Policies, and Neighborhood Plan Policies.
Ms. Bridges stated that after discussion with the City Attorney, they
determined this hearing was legally considered a "De Novo" hearing for
Council, which means they have received recommendation from the Planning
Commission, but must base their decision entirely upon all of the material
they have considered in their decision. Therefore, Ms. Bridges asked for
confirmation that the Councilmembers had received the entire public record,
and that the public record included all the documents upon which the
Planning Commission made their recommendation to Council, plus the minutes
of the Planning Commission's decision to do so. All of the Councilmembers
responded affirmatively.
Ms. Bridges introduced the applicant's representative, Richard Bullock, and
the presentation team consisting of Matt Guthrie from Forsher+Guthrie;
Irving Schwartz, the Civil Engineer who prepared the Tentative Map and Lot
Line Adjustment; Eugene
Miller, Miller Pacific Engineering Group, and James Joyce, Geologic
Consultant, both on Geotechnic issues; James MacNair, Arborist; and Ray
Moritz, Fire Protection and Fuel Reduction Specialist, whom Ms. Bridges
believed the Councilmembers were familiar with. She stated each of the
consultants had come prepared to present material the Planning Commission
received during their consideration, noting they had received much of this
material in multiple meetings, pointing out there had been five Design
Review Board meetings and five Planning Commission meetings on this
project.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 9
Matt Guthrie, of Forsher+Guthrie, summarized the overall General Plan and
Zoning considerations for this property, reporting the site was 30.76
acres, and the General Plan designation was Hillside Resource Residential,
which allows one-tenth to one-half dwelling units per acre, and provides
for the consideration of a range of dwelling units, from three to fifteen.
He explained the Neighborhood 13/14 Plan presented a methodology for
utilizing site resource information to establish density. The City
Environmental Assessment confirmed that this site, and those resources
considered, would permit up to sixteen homes on this site. He stated the
proposal was for six homes on this 30.76 acre site.
Mr. Guthrie presented a Neighborhood Conceptual Map delineating the
roadways, existing homes, and the Academy Heights property boundary, and
providing information relating to the size of the existing homes and
parcels in the immediate vicinity. He also referred to a large scale map,
which he described as a composite of the Tentative Map, showing the
property, existing terrain, and the improvements for the subdivision, as
well as the adjacent parcels and homes. Mr. Guthrie noted improved access
to the property was by way of Twin Oaks, explaining this was an existing,
graded accessway on the property itself, which was previously utilized for
the quarry operation, and provides for the alignment of the common driveway
to serve the new subdivision. He stated this provides access to the "bowl"
area of the quarry, as well as the "benched" quarry site, pointing out
these sites were surrounded by the face of the quarry itself, both at the
top and bottom of the slope. Mr. Guthrie stated the housing site locations
were selected to be clustered along this roadway to minimize the roadway
grading, to utilize the existing quarry benches, and to retain the riparian
areas on the site where significant healthy trees exist. Noting the site
locations where the building area is confined represented approximately 5%
of the total area of the site, he pointed out Lots #1 through #6 on the
map, highlighting the proposed property lines.
Mr. Guthrie stated the majority of the site was designated to be a scenic
easement, explaining that easement prohibits development, and prohibits
removal of significant vegetation, except as necessary to provide fire
protection around proposed homes, or existing homes around the periphery of
the property. He stated that in areas on each lot not in the Scenic
Easement, and outside of the building envelope, development other than
garden improvements, or removal of significant vegetation and trees other
than for the provision of defensible space, is prohibited. Mr. Guthrie
noted this design had been subject to the scrutiny of the Neighborhood.
Environmental Assessment in accordance with CEQA, staff review, Design
Review Board, and the Planning Commission. He stated they designed this
proposal to be a logical extension of that neighborhood, and to this end,
they had assessed the neighborhood development patterns, and prepared this
Conceptual Map for Council's review, noting existing property boundaries,
housing size, as reported in the Marin County Assessor's Office, and
calculated slope areas in areas of existing lots. He stated the review by
staff, independent consultants, Design Review Board and Planning Commission
had been quite positive.
Mr. Guthrie acknowledged there had been public comment regarding the size
of the homes, noting that comment had been prompted by reference to the
Neighborhood 13/14 Plan. Citing the complete statement of the Neighborhood
Plan, alluded to in correspondence, Mr. Guthrie quoted, "The scale
diversity in residential character of the neighborhood should be preserved,
1) to maintain housing as the dominant use; 2) to encourage upgrading of
housing and pride in neighborhood appearance; 3) to encourage development
which would enhance the neighborhood's image and residential quality; and
4) to preserve historic and architecturally significant structures". Mr.
Guthrie stated compliance with these goals did not, as had been indicated,
require the size of the proposed homes be limited in order to achieve some
arbitrarily defined scale, noting the diversity of this neighborhood
incudes a wide range of housing types.
Mr. Guthrie stated they were proposing six homes, ranging in size from
3,865 square feet to 5,581 square feet, noting these housing sizes, plus
the garage areas, did not exceed the allowable Zoning maximum of 6,500
square feet. He reported their review of the Marin County Assessor's
records indicated fourteen homes in the immediate area that are as large as
their smallest house, and range in size from 3,927 square feet to 8,885
square feet. He pointed out those were the sizes for the homes only, as
the Assessor's Office does not maintain records of garages. He noted they
had also shown those homes on the Conceptual Map. Mr. Guthrie reported
their proposal included larger homes on large lots at the terminus of
neighborhood streets, consistent with the neighborhood pattern established
on Culloden Park Road, E1 Cerrito Avenue, Wildwood, and Edgewood Way. He
stated they believed this housing proposal complied with the Neighborhood
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 10
13/14 Plan Policy as it encourages pride, and enhances image and
residential quality, which is the true test of compliance with the stated
and complete Neighborhood 13/14 objective. Mr. Guthrie stated the Design
Review Board review had underscored that compliance, noting the DRB minutes
of October 22nd indicate staff briefed the Board on the proposal, and the
application of the Hillside Design Guidelines and Neighborhood 13/14 Plan.
In addition, staff reports for that and subsequent meetings clearly
outlined General Plan and Zoning parameters, of which the Design Review
Board is intimately familiar. He reported the minutes of the DRB meeting
of October 22nd meeting also stated that Chairman Olmsted and Members
McLeod and Pedersen, all specifically made comment that the project was
appropriately in scale with the area, noting the Design Review Board was
clearly aware of the Neighborhood 13/14 requirements, and made an
evaluation that the project design was consistent with the neighborhood.
Mr. Guthrie pointed out the recommendation now before the Council was not
to approve a specific house size or design. He stated the plan establishes
a maximum size, and it reiterates the requirement that individual homes are
subject to review and compliance with the Hillside Development Overlay
Zoning and Guidelines, a review not previously required. He noted the
adoption of the "H" District was the means by which the Council secured
neighborhood involvement in these types of design decisions. He stated
that arbitrarily reducing the potential house size on these six lots at
this time was both unnecessary, not in accordance with staff, DRB, and
Planning Commission recommendations, and it was also unfair, not only to
the property owner, but also to the twenty-five or thirty other property
owners in the immediate vicinity whose lots are large enough to allow them
to at least apply to the City for residences in excess of 6,000 square
feet. Mr. Guthrie stated they had also previously responded to questions
concerning home size by agreeing not to pursue the maximum 6,500 square
feet, noting they had agreed to reduce residences on each lot, on Lot #1 by
18%, on Lot #4 by 22%, on Lot #5 by 15%, and on Lot #6 by 30%.
In summary, Mr. Guthrie stated they were proposing six houses on 30 acres,
pointing out that on thirty acres of potential property, they had building
sites totally 5% of the total site area. He reported DRB review and staff
recommendation clearly indicate the project is in keeping with the intent
of the General Plan, the Neighborhood Plan, and the Hillside Design
Guidelines. In addition, there were significant neighborhood benefits, in
terms of property maintenance and fire protection on this site, noting they
had heard this from immediate neighbors. Mr. Guthrie stated they were
keenly aware that this was a change, but believed it was one well in
keeping with the Neighborhood Plan that was adopted. He noted throughout
this process they had responded to public comments to refine the project,
noting they believed, in total, it was a positive one, deserving Council's
support.
Mayor Boro noted there were currently fourteen homes as large as the
smallest house being proposed, ranging from 3,800 square feet to 8,000
square feet, and there were also twenty-five additional houses on Mr.
Guthrie's map that had the potential to go up to 6,000 square feet in the
surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Guthrie explained there were other parcels
adjacent to this map, and clearly more parcels in the area, that would be
allowed the 6,500 square feet. Mayor Boro asked if all of those homes
would be in the Neighborhood 13/14, as defined? Mr. Guthrie stated that
was correct.
Irving Schwartz, of I. L. Schwartz Associates, Inc., Civil Engineers who
prepared the Tentative Subdivision Map, noted he would summarize four
points included in the various pieces of correspondence and maps.
Referring to the subdivision design, Mr. Schwartz reported they had, in
consultation with all the other members of the design team, prepared the
Tentative Subdivision Map now before the Council, and noted that due to the
fact a portion of the property had previously been damaged by the quarrying
operation, it was their goal to develop a realistic plan for residential
development of the site, taking into account the various constraints and
conditions of the project team members, while using the already damaged
portions of the site for the development. Mr. Schwartz explained the goal
was to not further impact the site by adversely affecting any of the
remaining natural areas of the site. As an example, he reported the access
road, as proposed, uses the existing graded access road, and a new road was
not created. Mr. Schwartz noted there appeared to be two ways of accessing
the site, Quarry Road and Twin Oaks Drive. He reported they had found the
existing portions of Twin Oaks Drive, as compared to Quarry Road, had
superior alignment, grade, and pavement width, noting Twin Oaks Drive was a
public street, while there was some question regarding the status of the
easement over Quarry Road. He also reported they found the existing Quarry
Road had a graded "bench", which goes up Quarry Road beyond the pavement,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 11
and this would require considerable grading and tree removal, and would
impact quite adversely on a number of residents who are quite close to that
right-of-way.
Addressing the issue of drainage, Mr. Schwartz reported drainage currently
flows through this site in a relatively uncontrolled manner, because when
the Quarry operation ceased, whoever was operating the Quarry basically
just walked away from it, leaving it for nature to do what nature felt like
doing. He pointed out, as shown on the Conceptual Drainage Plan, all of
the drainage from the site would be controlled using various culverts,
ditches, and drainage structures; additionally, ongoing erosion and
siltation of the site would be controlled, so as to eliminate both onsite
and offsite problems. Regarding offsite issues, Mr. Schwartz reported it
was being proposed to replace the existing substandard culvert at the end
of Culloden Park Road with an adequately sized culvert, even though the
development of this project would not have a calculable effect on this
culvert.
Mr. Schwartz stated this project was designed to have a balance of earth
work, noting all the excavated material, including that generated by the
Geotechnical Mitigation items, would be placed onsite. He stated there
would be no import of fill, nor off -haul of excavated material.
Eugene Miller, Miller Pacific Engineering Group, reported his company had
done the Geotechnical studies on this project, stating their first studies
had been done in 1990, and they updated those in 1997 for the present six -
lot plan. He noted they used air photo analysis, detailed onsite mapping,
and a certain amount of exploration in test pits. To explain the geology,
he stated the feature that is of significance is a central band of chert,
flanked by greenstone, a very hard, basaltic -type rock of volcanic origin,
and melange, a sheared -up, smashed -up shale. Mr. Miller stated the chert
formation was unique in that its color is distinctive, pointing out that in
Marin County there were not many shale formations. He reported it is also
very hard, so early uses were made of the quarry, using the material for
roadbase and fill. He noted most of the streets in San Rafael probably
have some of that material under them. Mr. Miller stated there were two
other geologic features of note, the first being a series of colluvial -
filled swale. He explained colluvium is a dried-up accumulation of rock
and soil, pointing out areas on the map where there are swales filled with
colluvium, and reporting mitigation would be necessary. Mr. Miller stated
the second feature was talus, which he described as the accumulation of
dry, blocky rock that has fallen off the quarry slopes, also noting its
location on the map. In addition, he reported and pointed out areas of
shallow landslides, one above and one below the Twin Oaks Drive access; a
small, swimming pool -sized concrete -lined reservoir; an area with a small
slough on the slopes; and as mentioned previously, the quarry slopes.
Mr. Miller explained that in their study, they go through the menu of all
the geological hazards and evaluate them, noting they had considered fault
rupture, seismic shaking, liquefaction potential, lurching and ground
cracking, debris flow, the quarry slope rockfalls, ordinary landslides,
Tsunami, flooding, and expansive soil, and all of these were dealt with,
discussed, and evaluated in their report of February 4, 1997. Mr. Miller
reported the two most significant hazards were seismic shaking, which is
addressed by the Uniform Building Code, and the way the structures are
built on the site. He stated the site had favorable conditions, in that it
was a rock site, rather than a soft ground site. The other hazard of
significance is the rockfall potential for the high, steep quarry slopes,
which Mr. Miller noted bore further discussion, for which he asked Jim
Joyce, Certified Engineering Geologist and sub -consultant on this issue, to
explain the mechanism of the way those slopes behave and degrade.
Jim Joyce, Certified Engineering Geologist, stated he was the geologist who
performed the geologic evaluation for the project, noting his work covered
the entire site, making him responsible for the geologic mass that appeared
in Miller Pacific's report. Discussing the area above Lot #3, which is the
area where slope performance is considered critical to the project, Mr.
Joyce reported this slope gave them a unique opportunity and provides
beautiful geologic exposures, because it has been in existence for
approximately thirty years, and during that time it has had slope failures;
therefore, they do not have to drill borings or do test pits to get a good
look at it. In fact, he stated it was a considerable advantage to have a
slope that has performed for thirty years, as opposed to some hill they
have to make a cut in.
Mr. Joyce noted they did two types of evaluations. One was a detailed
geologic observation of the slope, which was a detailed examination of all
the outcrops to look at such things as the various bedding and shear
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 12
planes. The second thing they did was to go through a rather extensive set
of historical aerial photographs, beginning all the way back in the 1940's,
up through the present. He explained this gave them an idea of when the
slopes were cut, and what sorts of performance problems had occurred on the
slopes of the quarry, throughout that time.
Mr. Joyce reported the slope in question above Lot #3 was cut mainly in the
late 19601s, and probably as late as 1971, and since that time, there have
been no further excavation of the slope, and all of the failures that have
occurred have accumulated on the slope. He explained nothing has been
removed, so the debris that is seen today on the slope is basically twenty-
six years of slope accumulation.
Mr. Joyce reported the second thing they found was that slope failures
tended to occur immediately after cutting in the upper thirty feet of what
they call the "weathered zone", so these were occurring at the top of the
cut slope. He noted one failure occurred while they were cutting it, and
in response to that, they flattened the slope a little, trying to solve the
problem, since it was a nuisance for quarry operators. He noted subsequent
to that, a couple of additional small slope failures were observed, and
those failures formed a rather large scarp which looks like one failure,
directly above the house site, but which is really three failures that
occurred over time. Mr. Joyce reported since the 1970's there have not
been any significant slope failures, noting that while there have been some
small things that have come down, the large failures occurred within a
couple of years of the grading, and they were all high on the slope.
Mr. Joyce stated the types of failure mechanisms were important to
geologists, noting there seemed to be two mechanisms to slope failures; one
is called a "wedge" failure, where there are two intersecting plains, and
the block in between slides out. He noted that at the quarry, you can see
what they call the "molds" for these failures, explaining that as you look
up you can see two intersecting plains, which is a place where a failure
has occurred. He stated these tended to be relatively small failures, on
the order of approximately a couple of hundred cubic yards of material, and
they also tend to occur only in the steeper upper, and more weathered, part
of the slope. Mr. Joyce stated there had been no failures observable in
the lower part of the slope, although some debris had run out into that
area. He explained the second type of failure was a simple toppling
failure, where an over- steepened bank of rocks rotates and collapses the
top, resulting in an accumulation of rocks that comes down the slope. He
reported these types of failures have resulted in a runout of rocks down
into the setback areas that are being established for this project. He
noted all the failures that have occurred in twenty-six years have not come
close to filling the catch area they propose to include in the project.
Mr. Joyce stated they did recognize slope failures would continue to occur
throughout time, noting they were taking some measures in the project to
reduce the number of failures; however, they did acknowledge there would be
additional rock failures in the area above Lot #3. He reported the
expected failures should be less numerous than those that have occurred
previously, noting they expect the failures to range from a few tens of
cubic yards to perhaps a few hundred cubic yards, per individual event.
Mr. Joyce stated the risk of very large failures of the slope appeared to
be negligible, in his view. He noted the proposed mitigation was
conservative, and would easily contain all the failures that had occurred
in the past twenty-six years, as well as future failures, although some
maintenance was being recommended to periodically remove debris.
Councilmember Phillips asked what had caused the failures that occurred in
the recent history of the site, and if construction on the site would, in
any way, cause an increase in failure? Mr. Joyce stated the project would
not result in any steepening of slopes, which would increase the risk of
slope failure, noting the project would actually do the opposite,
incorporating some flattening of the upper slope, which is the source of
the rock failures that are occurring. Therefore, the idea is to shave that
slope off a little flatter, and give it a chance to at least produce a
smaller number of rock failures, and perhaps even establish some
vegetation. Mr. Phillips asked if the cause of these failures was just a
natural occurrence? Mr. Joyce stated it was, pointing out that as a rule
of thumb in Engineering Geology in this area, any slope that is cut 1:1 or
steeper will have rockfalls, explaining they may be individual rocks that
get loose and roll down, or larger rockslides that occur, usually as a
result of geologic structure. Mr. Joyce reported the geologic structure in
the slope there, and the failures they have observed, suggested a
significant risk of additional wedge failures, and he fully expected there
would be more of those in the next fifty years, and that they would be
small. He stated there would also be toppling failures, individual
rockfalls that would come down, but noted the project mitigation was
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 13
designed to reduce the frequency and size of those.
Councilmember Phillips noted at times, when there were controversial
issues, Mr. Joyce had asked for a second opinion, and Mr. Phillips asked if
a second opinion had been requested with regard to Lot #3? Mr. Joyce
stated the City had a reviewer employed to review projects such as this,
noting it was an excellent policy, which many of the cities in this area
have. Therefore, the project did go through a third party review, and the
reviewing team included a Geotechnical Engineer, and a very experienced
Engineering Geologist, both of whom agreed with Miller Pacific's
conclusions.
Councilmember Cohen noted there seemed to be a lot of focus on whether or
not the stability of the slope in the event of an earthquake had been
sufficiently studied, and asked if Mr. Joyce had any additional comments
regarding this issue? Mr. Joyce stated he believed this issue had been
adequately addressed, noting the general rule is that if there is no
adverse geologic structure, and the slopes are not steeper than .50 to 1.0
for earthquake induced landsliding, you would not expect to have earthquake
induced landslides that exceed what he has already described. He stated he
did fully expect there would be rocks that would come down during an
earthquake, and probably a large nearby earthquake, such as one on the
Rogers Creek Fault, would generate failures similar to, or smaller than,
those that have occurred over the past 26 years. However, he stated it did
not seem that there was geological structure available to generate deeper
failures, which is why the City's reviewer agreed that additional
evaluation was not required. He noted that having the thirty-year
performance history, and the beautiful exposures that could be studied, it
was his view that further analysis was not required, and the City's
reviewers agreed. Mr. Cohen asked if Mr. Joyce was satisfied as far as the
methodology questions, and confident in his analysis? Mr. Joyce responded
that he was, noting he believed the methodology was thorough.
Describing the mitigation measures, Mr. Miller referred to the two shallow
landslides at the entrance, which he stated would be repaired, by
rebuilding the lower portion, and by a retaining wall on the upper portion.
He stated there was a small, shallow area that would excavated and
rockpacked; a colluvial -filled swale that will have a gavian debris barrier
placed in front of it to catch any materials coming down the drainageway,
with a structure that would allow water through, but hold the rock debris
behind, noting that while this was actually well removed from any of the
construction on the subdivision site, this was a projection they felt was
necessary to protect offsite structures. Mayor Boro asked who would be
responsible for maintaining these? Mr. Miller stated they had recommended
some kind of maintenance entity be created, noting a Homeowners Association
was being proposed to do this. Councilmember Cohen asked about the issue
of access, noting when this became a topic of a fair amount of discussion
for Loch Lomond #10, a similar approach was proposed, and the issue was
raised of the possibility of minor amounts of debris collecting over time,
and preventing the water from flowing through, which might lead to even
greater problems. He reported it had been suggested that periodically,
over a period of years, someone would have to go up and make sure that kind
of debris was cleared out, and asked if there would be access in this case?
Mr. Miller stated there was, reporting that just past Lot #4, there is an
access between Lots #3 and #4, and there is presently a road that comes up
around the nose of the hill, which will provide access. He noted a second
barrier was not likely to require maintenance, because the materials
getting to it were going to be rocky, and once there is an accumulation
behind the debris barrier, the slope is flatter, and it catches even more;
therefore, it is not likely to need maintenance, although it would be more
difficult if it were to require it.
Mr. Miller referred to the high quarry slope, noting the mitigation that
had been recommend had four elements, beginning at the top, where the top
edge would be flattened to remove the overhangs, and the flattened portion
of the slope; the second element is to create a catchment bench at the top
of the talus pile; the third was to clean-up some of the existing talus,
and re-establish some of those locations as catchment areas; and the fourth
element is to construct a debris barrier, a low timber wall twenty feet out
from the cut slope, to cut any rolling rock, and prevent them from going
any further. Councilmember Cohen noted that after this work is done, there
would still be a significant amount of talus above the existing,
intermediate bench. Mr. Miller explained that talus would be left there,
noting it would provide support for the old cut face, and was also an
energy supporting surface for any new talus that rolls down. He stated if
any new talus rolls down the slope, the slope is such a coarse texture, it
slows the tumbling rock and takes the energy out of it.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 14
Councilmember Heller noted the mitigation appeared to be expensive and
perhaps not easy to do, asking if the owner of Lot #3 decided not to sell
the lot because of this expense, would this mitigation still have to be
done for the safety of the other lots, or was the mitigation only for Lot
#3? Mr. Miller stated that if the subdivision was going to be constructed,
these mitigation measures would be constructed, regardless of whether Lot
#3 is sold or not, noting that was a condition of the subdivision approval,
and would be included in the Improvement Plans.
Mr. Miller stated that during this process, their findings were subjected
to the City's Peer Review Process, in which another firm reviewed their
findings. He reported Kleinfelder was retained to do that, and in their
letter of October 22, 1997, they stated that on the basis of their
meetings, and the Geotechnical Review, it was their opinion that the Miller
Pacific Engineering Group provided sufficient data to reach the conclusions
contained in their reports, and that the Standard of Care for Engineering
Practices had been met. They also stated it was their opinion that the
design changes proposed by Miller Pacific would improve the stability of
the slope above the building envelopes on Lot #3 during a large seismic
event.
Mr. Miller noted there had been several other supplementary letters and
documents. He referred to supplemental letters of May 27, May 30, June 19.
August 8, August 21, August 22, August 26, September 19, and October 2,
1997, all of which he noted for inclusion into the public record.
Councilmember Cohen note one of the major questions has been about slope
stability, and one of the points that has been raised was a reference to
the analysis of Miller Pacific's analysis, by the firm of Golder &
Associates. Mr. Cohen referred to a letter of June 23, 1998 from Mr.
Zischke, noting he did not see anything in the letter that raised a
challenge to Miller Pacific's analysis, only that it did not seem that
enough data had been studied to have come to the conclusions they reached.
Mr. Miller stated Mr. Zischke had suggested it was necessary to do a
Numerical Dynamic Analysis to properly understand that slope. Mr. Miller
stated there are a number of ways to conduct slope analyses; one of them is
by direct observations, using actual performance data, and he noted they
had relied heavily on that. He stated there were also numerical methods
which can be used, noting some are more, and some are less applicable. Mr.
Miller stated the Numerical Dynamic Analysis Mr. Zischke had suggested
would have been suitable if they did not know what the conditions were, and
could not examine them, although they would have to make assumptions as to
strength, planes of weakness, and depths at which the landsliding would
occur. However, in this case, they had direct, observational data upon
which to base their judgement.
Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated the additional discussion of Lot
#3, and noted an area of potential concern to uphill neighbors was the area
on the curve of the quarry, where the rock slope face is cut much more
steeply. Mr. Miller pointed out that on Lot #2 there is a series of
benches, and the overall slope is actually flatter, and even though there
are some areas that are steeper, the overall slope is flatter, and the
condition is similar, but less severe on Lot #2. He stated they were still
suggesting similar mitigation for that location, including the trimming of
the loose talus to provide catchment, and a debris barrier in back of the
building setback. Mr. Miller stated that hill was so raw and bare, there
was nothing to scrape off at the top. Mr. Cohen noted some of the concern
seemed to be about the potential failure of that face in the event of an
earthquake. Mr. Miller stated there would be no deep-seated failure, as
that was not the mechanism in this type of formation.
Councilmember Heller noted Mr. Miller was suggesting they trim off twenty
feet at the top, and asked if they would be replanting any trees. Mr.
Miller stated the first few trees that are presently hanging over would be
removed, either by them or by Mother Nature. He explained that once those
trees are removed, the next row of trees would provide the visual backdrop,
and he did not believe they would notice much of a difference in silhouette
there. However, Mr. Miller stated there would not be any planting up
there.
James MacNair, Consulting Arborist, reported his task was to evaluate all
the trees designated for removal, or potentially impacted by the proposed
project construction. He stated the trees impacted by the project were
within the proposed roadways, building envelopes, areas requiring landslide
repair, and the quarry cliff stabilization zone. He reported a total
number of 86 trees were evaluated and described in the various tree reports
and memoranda prepared since July, 1996, noting these reports included the
original report dated July 17, 1996, an addendum dated May 23, 1997, and a
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 15
November 10, 1997 memorandum regarding the geotechnical work on the quarry.
Mr. MacNair reported tree species occurring within the project were
primarily Coastal Live Oak, Bay Laurel, Madrone, and various introduced or
naturalized species, and all of the trees were described and rated for
health and structural condition. He explained the City's Hillside Design
Guidelines state significant trees were defined as having a twelve inch
trunk diameter, and that they be in good health and form, and the Oak
species are considered significant when they have a six inch trunk
diameter. He stated a majority of the trees occurring in the construction
zones are in poor to marginal health and structural condition, due to past
fire damage. He reported that of the 86 trees evaluated, approximately 24
meet the criteria as significant trees, as defined by the Hillside Design
Guidelines, noting these trees were generally smaller Live Oaks in clusters
and, therefore, relatively easy to mitigate with replacement trees. Mr.
MacNair reported the other important site management issues included the
control and eradication of non-native pyrothetic trees and shrub species,
including Acacia, Ailanthus, and Broom. He pointed out these species were
discussed in the Fire Management Study, and did represent a significant
fire hazard on the site.
Mr. MacNair stated a May 23, 1997 addendum was issued to address trees
affected by the slide repairs, trees near an old reservoir at the lower
portion of the site that needs to be filled, trees growing on the cliff
edge of the quarry, and certain trees growing within building envelopes
that were not previously identified. Additionally, Lot #4 was readjusted
to retain significant Oaks growing on the slope portion of the lot, so
there were adjustments to save additional trees. Mr. MacNair stated few of
the trees evaluated as part of the addendum report were considered
significant, as most were also significantly damaged by past wildfires.
Regarding the slope at the top of the quarry, fifteen additional trees were
evaluated at the top of the quarry, in response to the new stabilization
requirements, and seven trees were designated for removal, due to the
trimming of the upper edge. He noted there were additional trees
relatively close to that edge, and there may possibly be more tree
removals, depending upon how their root structures are intertwined among
the rock mass. He stated all the trees on the upper edge of the quarry
have significant fire damage and decay, and are of low vigor; therefore,
they are not considered significant within the Hillside Guidelines
criteria. Mr. MacNair noted the area above the quarry edge slopes upward,
and there are successive areas of trees behind that, so from a visual
standpoint, the loss of those seven plus or minus trees probably will not
have significant visual impact.
Councilmember Miller asked, when they eradicate the fire safety trees down
below the intrusive new growth, how much disturbance that would be to the
canopy? Mr. MacNair stated it would be a very small area, noting most of
it was between Lots #2 and #3, comprised mainly of groves of Acacia. He
felt the replanting of perhaps a dozen new Live Oaks would likely replace
all the loss of that area. Councilmember Miller asked if that was part of
their plan? Mr. MacNair responded that it was, noting part of the
mitigation was the replacement of the trees.
Mayor Boro noted the Councilmembers had received a letter from John
Collette, President of the Culloden-Quarry-Twin Oaks Homeowners
Association, in which he specifically referred to Lots #4, #5, and #6. His
two main issues were the removal of trees within a 100 foot parameter
because of fire needs, and the question of whether what is removed will be
replaced. Mr. MacNair explained they needed to look at the areas
individually. He stated that in terms of fire management, it was not
necessary to remove healthy trees, noting they would basically be "limbing
up". Mayor Boro asked, in the event there were some trees that needed to
be removed because they could cause a fire, would they be replaced? Mr.
MacNair stated they certainly could be, as long as the environment was
appropriate, explaining that if an area is already crowded, it would not
make sense to remove dead or dying trees and put more trees in, if the
conditions were not appropriate for their health and vigor in the future.
He pointed out that as a mitigation measure in those situations, often
those would be placed in another part of the site, noting this would
provide more benefit than new tree planting. Therefore, if it were
appropriate, there would be no reason why they could not replace those
trees. However, he did point out that some of these areas had been
overgrown to the point where it would not necessarily be to the benefit or
the health of the environment to necessarily replant in certain locations.
Mayor Boro noted there had been a second question concerning trees beyond
the 100 foot area, which go approximately another 50 or 60 feet, and
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 16
whether or not they could be included or protected. Mr. MacNair stated
this could better be addressed as a site planning issue.
Councilmember Heller stated she felt that putting a home on the site, and
having nothing grow in this red soil, would not be very attractive, and she
wondered if they would be bringing in any top soil, so these homes can be
landscaped? Mr. MacNair agreed that, certainly within the quarry area,
they were going to need top soil to grow plants; however, he explained a
couple of feet of imported fill would be ample to support most trees. Ms.
Heller asked if five years after a home is in place, we would see a well
landscaped home, with different trees and plants growing around it, just
like the other homes on the hill? Mr. MacNair felt certain the owners
would demand that, noting that although it would be technically challenging
in some of the areas because of the lack of top soil from the quarrying
operations, it was certainly feasible to do it, and he agreed it should be
done.
Ray Moritz, Urban Forester and Fire Ecologist, stated he had been delighted
when he was first called to consult on this project, noting he has done a
lot of work here in San Rafael, and is intimately knowledgeable with the
quarry area. He reported he has worked with the people in the Fairhills
Homeowners Association, in their Fire Management planning, noting that to
the credit of the City of San Rafael, the Fairhills Homeowners Association,
and the Fire Department, they had done a fine job.
Mr. Moritz reported one of the major concerns mentioned over and over again
since 1993, in terms of fire hazard, was the potential for an ignition in
the quarry site, and the potential for a major conflagration coming out of
the quarry site. He explained the problem, in terms of ignition, was
almost always related to the partying going on at the quarry site, and also
the homeless encampments. He felt the project would help tremendously to
mitigate the ignition potential on the site, because simply having people
living there, overseeing the wellbeing of themselves and their property,
would serve to mitigate hazard potential for the surrounding properties.
The second point was that development of the site could also include a
number of Vegetation Management actions that would help to compartmentalize
and mitigate the spread, in terms of rate of spread and intensity, of any
potential fire at this site, and he noted he had written a fairly concise
report on Fire Hazard Mitigation for this project. Mr. Moritz stated he
had conducted at least ten Firescape classes in the Council Chamber, noting
his report, and the attached documents, specified that the type of
Firescaping and Vegetation Management that would be done, would be in
complete harmony with all the programs he had conducted at City Hall, and
throughout the area. He reported one of the things they discovered in
recent years, in studying fire behavior, was that the term "clearing" was
really not necessary, or even desirable, noting it was possible to maintain
beautiful canopies and vegetation, and even make it more beautiful and
healthy, and still significantly mitigate fire behavior. Mr. Moritz
believed that was what they had done here.
Councilmember Heller stated it had taken her some time to understand that
when they talked about clearing around the homes, they were not talking
about taking out all the trees, but rather going up a few feet and cutting
off limbs, and being sure that vegetation is cleared from around the homes
by a few feet. Mr. Moritz stated he does not even use the term "clearing",
except in the case where there are Acacia thickets, noting that with the
amount of fire hazard presented by that, and the potential for that very
invasive, aggressive species to invade the native woodland and damage it,
he believed the Acacia thickets should be removed and eradicated. In the
case of creation of defensible space, and in the case where the project
would allow surrounding homeowners who have already taking advantage of the
site to create defensible space for their properties, he reported they were
not recommending "clearing", only the removal of trees that are sick or
dying, not the removal of mature trees, other than exotics that create a
clear and immediate hazard, such as some of the decadent Monterrey Cypress
and Pine around the power line. He stated the maintenance, such as
thinning and deadwooding, removing sick and crossing branches from trees,
and the limbing-up of trees, was only going to make the trees healthier,
and improve the overall canopy structure, and this was the type of
Vegetation Management he had recommended in his report.
Councilmember Heller asked who was responsible for implementing Mr. Moritz'
report, and whether it would be the land owner, who would be doing the
implementation, or if they would be waiting until there were six
homeowners, who would then become the legal Homeowners Association? Mr.
Moritz stated the City of San Rafael had adopted Ordinances that state all
citizens are required to maintain defensible space around their homes,
explaining it would be the responsibility of individual homeowners to
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 17
maintain the immediate defensible space around their homes. He reported
the documents he had submitted outlining his plan for this were documents
that had already been used by the San Rafael Fire Department, and had been
adopted by the County Fire Chiefs' Association, to be utilized through the
County by homeowners in maintaining defensible space on their property.
Regarding Fire Apparatus Clear Zone, referring to vegetation management
along roads, he felt that seemed to be more the responsibility of the
Homeowners Association, except in cases where the home has frontage right
down to the road. In his report he mentioned that if a home needed a
Defensible Space zone that actually extended beyond the road to the other
side, then it would be the responsibility of that person to create the full
Defensible Space required. Mayor Boro asked, initially, with the
construction of these six homes, would the 100 foot defensible space around
them be done as part of the development of the property, or would the
houses be built, and then the Defensible Space would be up to the property
owners? Mr. Moritz stated the initial installation of the Defensible Space
would be done prior to the development and construction of the homes,
noting the Fire Apparatus Clear Zone and Defensible Space would be done
prior to the grading permits; however, he pointed out that vegetation was
not static, and continuing maintenance would be required.
Ms. Bridges stated a helpful addition to the original comments and
information given to the Planning Commission concerning defensible space
was a copy of the Marin County Fire Department's handout, which clearly
states what is to be done 30 to 100 feet from a structure, and which to
remove and not to remove. She stated it made very clear that you do not
have to remove healthy trees, and that you certainly do not remove
significant trees, you remove what creates a danger to the structures.
Referring to the letter received from Mr. Collette, Ms. Bridges addressed
the issue of house size. She noted Mr. Guthrie had taken Council through
the facts about the house sizes in the neighborhood, and the house sizes in
this application, and pointed out DRB Member Pedersen had summed it up very
well by stating, "These are single-family homes on large lots, with small
building envelopes; that's what we do in the Hillside". Ms. Bridges
reported that after the first DRB meeting, the Members felt the house sizes
were appropriate for these six lots, and noted staff's statements to the
Planning Commission at their last meeting were also very clear, reporting
they had stated that since the City had the Hillside Design Guidelines,
they felt comfortable with the standards that were in them. She reported
actual house sizes of the building envelopes, and the location envelopes,
had been discussed at length at the DRB, and in fact, one of the building
envelopes was changed. She reported Commissioner Kirchmann stated what she
felt became, in the vote, the consensus of the Commission when he stated,
"I'm comfortable that within the Design Review Board Process these new
homes will be made compatible with their surroundings".
Addressing how they had arrived at this point with the Hillside Design
Guidelines, Ms. Bridges reported that in February, 1989, the City Council
stated it was concerned about the City's Slope Ordinance, feeling it was
inadequate. She noted at that time Council took several measures,
including putting a freeze on all Hillside Design applications while they
decided what to do. She reported Council began a process of review, held
workshops, hired a Consultant to prepare a plan, and had staff prepare new
regulations for development of the City's hillsides. She reported the new
regulations came before the Council in October, 1991, and Council adopted
the new Hillside Design Guidelines, and the Hillside Zoning Overlay
District to accompany it. Ms. Bridges stated those Hillside Guidelines and
Zoning subsequently won a Statewide award, and the Planning Department and
the City were very proud of the work that had gone into and resulted in
these Guidelines. Ms. Bridges stated she believed the question now before
Council, about house size, was not about these six houses; she felt the
question before Council was, after spending the time and effort to develop
and adopt Hillside Zoning and Hillside Design Guidelines, why would they
arbitrarily select not to apply those Design Guidelines to this hillside
property, or, one step further, if they did that, they why would they not
also change the other thirty plus lots that are in the area and presently
developed, which are in the Rla-H zoning, and have a zoning maximum of
6,500 square foot, subject to the Hillside Design Guidelines?
Ms. Bridges stated the purpose of advance planning is to plan in advance,
explaining you get the facts, take time, and thoroughly analyze; you do not
recreate, at a single meeting, something that you have determined during a
two year process that involved the entire community. With all due respect
to Mr. Collette, Ms. Bridges stated she believed what he was asking Council
to do was throw out that two -plus years worth of work, and apply an
arbitrary number of square feet, which happens to be applicable to the
smaller lots located nearer Forbes Avenue, further down on the hill, which
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 18
are not within the Hillside Overlay Zoning District. She pointed out that
was not to say they were not in the neighborhood; however, they do not fit
into any of the categories which Council has determined these properties
fit in. Ms. Bridges asked Council to look at this and determine, as the
Planning Commission did, that the existing Hillside Guidelines, when
applied in the City's review process, would result in new homes that would
be compatible with their surroundings. She noted, in some ways, this was a
vote of confidence in the process the City had developed. She acknowledged
this process had created some difficulties, reporting it requires that
each Hillside single-family home go through Design Review, and that means
people have to come to meetings, which is a kind of difficulty, noting it
was also a kind of difficulty to think there would be six that would have
to be done that way. However, she pointed out they call it "advance
planning" because they plan in advance, and in this process, Council
decided that what the people wanted was a community process to be able to
look at, and participate in, the design of homes on the hillside.
Therefore, while it was difficult, and it would be inconvenient to have to
go to the meetings, Council decided that was what the process was.
Addressing the Scenic Easements, Ms. Bridges highlighted those areas on the
map, pointing out that everyone continues to refer to the Scenic Easement
as being only on Lots #1, #2, #3, and #4; however, it is actually on Lots
#1, #2, #3, #4, and #6, everything except Lot #5. She stated this
confusion had been created because Lot #6 is split, having a split on one
side of the roadway, with upper and lower portions, noting the upper
portion is entirely within the Scenic Easement. Ms. Bridges explained the
Scenic Easement is not commonly owned property, it is private property, and
these six lots are all going to be privately owned. Five of the six lots
will have a Scenic Easement on their private property, which limits part of
their rights to that portion which the easement is on. She noted that
within the Scenic Easement areas the owner of a lot in the subdivision, one
of these six, or the owner of any immediately adjacent lot, such as one of
the lots off of Wildwood, which is adjacent to, but not in, the
subdivision, those people will have a recorded right, under this Scenic
Easement, to take action within the definition of "defensible space" of
their home, to protect their property from wildfire. Therefore, as an
example, if there is a property off Wildwood, which is adjacent, and its
structure is located such that in order to create its Defensible Space it
needs to go into the Scenic Easement that is on Lot #1, it will have the
recorded right to do that, and there will be transferrable rights.
Ms. Bridges stated fire protection was allowed and encouraged within the
Scenic Easement areas, and there is no Homeowners Plan, or total plan, for
that to happen, it will be done by the owners of the individual lot, and
the adjacent lot owners, in their creation of Defensible Space. Other than
that which is defined as "Defensible Space", no removal of significant
trees is allowed within the Scenic Easement designated area. She stated
one of the burdens a property owner would have if he owned Lot #1 on the
Scenic Easement, would be that he could not just go up and clear, and could
not cut any significant trees, and that would be specified in the recorded
easement. Therefore, while the property owner would have the right to
create his Defensible Space, he would not have the right to clear the site.
Referring to Lots #4 and #5, Ms. Bridges pointed out their locations on the
map, noting Lot #4 had two portions, a portion that is in the Scenic
Easement, and a portion that is not, while Lot #5 was the only lot that did
not have any portion in the Scenic Easement area. She stated Lots #4 and
#5 each have areas that are very heavily wooded, explaining those heavily
wooded areas were not within the Scenic Easement, because the owner would
like to be able to use those areas in other ways, to create garden -type
activities, such as pathways and gazebos. As in the Scenic Easement area,
if the owners of Lot #4 or #5 choose to use the "Defensible Space"
definition, they can remove materials that are within that Defensible
Space, so they have the same right the others do, and they can clear for
fire protection in the Defensible Space area. She reported the applicant
had agreed, and the Plan Development Standards before Council provide, that
as in the Scenic Easement areas, no removal of significant trees is allowed
within the wooded lot areas of Lots #4 and #5, so even though they do not
have the Scenic Easement on those lots, they have, through zoning, the same
restriction that they cannot remove any significant trees. Mayor Boro
noted she had referred to the gazebos and other garden -type activities, and
had implied they could remove trees for that. Ms. Bridges stated they
could not remove "significant" trees for that, explaining there was
actually a layer of restrictions, and the layer was that you cannot remove
significant trees, but if you can figure out a way to construct a gazebo
without removing any significant trees, you can do so. She noted the
distinction was that the property owner cannot build any type of structure,
even a gazebo, in the Scenic Easement Designated Area. Therefore, she
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 19
stated they believed the request Mr. Collette was making about adding
additional restrictions on Lots #4, the area that is not in the Scenic
Easement, and Lot #5, was already addressed in Section 2-d of the Plan
Development Standards, because it already states you have the same
restriction as in the Scenic Easement, and you cannot remove any
significant trees.
Mayor Boro noted Mr. Collette had also discussed extending the Scenic
Easement beyond 100 feet, and beyond the Defensible Space. He clarified
there was the 100 foot issue, which is defensible space, but there is
apparently another 60 feet that is in question, going down in front of Lots
#4 and #5, which could be included in the Scenic Easement. Ms. Bridges
stated it was her understanding that since all of Lots #4 and #5 had the
restriction against removing significant trees, this was addressed. Mayor
Boro asked if that would take care of everything within the area that Mr.
Collette was referring to, and Ms. Bridges stated that was correct, noting
that unless Mr. Collette wanted to restrict gazebos, or other garden -type
activities, then everything was already covered.
Councilmember Cohen asked how specific that definition was, noting what
gave him pause was the term "garden -type uses", such as pathways, or a
gazebo among the trees, although it was certainly understandable that the
property owner of a place like this would want to have an arbor. He stated
he had seen plenty of gardens that included terraces, and then they get
retaining walls, and pretty soon you get farther afield from what we are
talking about here, and trees are put at risk, and even though people did
not intentionally take them out, the drip zones and roots get covered up,
and they die and have to be removed. He stated there had been other
examples in San Rafael where some of these restrictions had not been as
tightly crafted as they could have been, and then that opening has been
taken advantage of. He noted that even though, when the subdivision was
put in place, it was everyone's intention that the kind of restrictions Ms.
Bridges was talking about would be the intention, once the lot becomes the
property of the individual, they are looking very narrowly at this and
saying, "This is my property, I spent a lot of money, I want to have a
little flat place, I want to have a little lawn", so they start to work
toward that. Mr. Cohen stated that might be part of the concern that the
idea of the Scenic Easement was intended to address; however, he felt this
would be a concern if the wooded nature of these areas changed
significantly. Mr. Guthrie stated they had indicated that no structures
requiring a building permit would be allowed, including retaining walls.
Councilmember Heller noted brush could be removed on these two lots, and
also insignificant trees, meaning those smaller than would be classified as
significant trees, so if someone wanted to put in a garden they could
clear, as long as they did it away from the Oak tree that is significant.
Ms. Bridges stated this was correct, noting this was also true in the
Scenic Easement area. She explained that in the Scenic Easement area you
cannot remove significant trees, but it does not state that you cannot
remove underbrush, which is how they arrived at the definition of
"significant tree". She explained significant trees are the trees that
provide cover and canopy, and that is why they are singled out as being
more important. However, the lower brush is not restricted in either the
Scenic Easement, nor the area on Lots #4 and #5 that is not within the
Scenic Easement.
Mr. Guthrie noted the distinction of this easement goes beyond Lots #4 and
#5, pointing out that on the flat spots of Lots #2 and #3, where it is
quite logical that someone could build a garden structure outside of the
building envelope, he felt it made all the sense in the world that someone
should be allowed to do that. He stated there was a real purpose of mind
in doing this, pointing out there were flatter areas outside the building
envelopes.
Referring to the geologic mitigation in the project above Lot #3, Ms.
Bridges noted that had been described very clearly by Mr. Miller and Mr.
Joyce, who noted the professionals had written seventeen reports concerning
this, and the City had hired an independent consultant for the Geotechnical
Review, and they reviewed these measures and the development of the six
homes. She reported the City also hired an independent consultant, Matthew
Brockway, to review visual impacts of this mitigation measure, and the
development of the six homes. She noted Page 11 of the Planning Commission
minutes was actually a full page showing the presentation given to the
Planning Commission by the representative for Mr. Brockway's firm. She
reported that at the end of that presentation, Commissioner Atchison asked
the consultant, "You mean, it will basically look the same?", and the
consultant answered, "Yes"; then, Commissioner Scott asked, "You mean, it
is now red rock, and the fresh rock which is under that, that is going to
be knocked off, is the same color rock that is there now?", and the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 20
consultant answered, "Yes". Ms. Bridges stated they believed the record
was very clear; the old red rock quarry face, after the geotechnical
measures are done, will continue to be the old red rock quarry face. She
stated it was going to be no more different a scar than exists today, and
the argument being made that to allow this project will result in a
scarring of the red rock quarry face has been shown, by the record, to be
quite disingenuous, at least she believed two of the Planning Commissioners
believed that it was.
Addressing the Environmental Review of the project, Ms. Bridges stated she
gave a presentation before the Planning Commission about the standard that
has to be met to adopt a Negative Declaration, explaining that to make that
decision, the decision had to be based on substantial evidence in the
record. She noted the key was that this was a "facts" decision, meaning
substantial evidence in the record. She pointed out, "You don't just get
to raise the question, you have to have some facts in the record". She
referred to the comment made by Commissioner Kirchmann when the
Commissioners started discussing this. Paraphrasing from the minutes, she
reported Commissioner Kirchmann stated that after visiting the site four
times during the past year, and having read all of the reports, some of
them more than once, and having weighed the discussions and the
presentations made to the Commission, he had not heard or seen any
substantial evidence that would cause him to believe that this project
might have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Ms. Bridges
stated the Commission then voted to recommend that Council adopt a Negative
Declaration for the project.
Referring to the issue of noticing, Ms. Bridges stated the reason this
issue had to be addressed was because there were allegations being made
that notices were not received from the City's process. She noted the
action the Council takes tonight was governed by the Municipal Code, and
under each of the Municipal Code provisions for a Use Permit, Design Review
Permit, and Zoning Amendment, there are provisions about what kind of
notice has to be done, pointing out staff knows those provisions, and had
done them. She explained the City had to mail the notice to property
owners within 300 feet, mail the notice to affected neighborhood, business
and homeowner associations; post the notice in at least three public
places, including the property; for zoning actions, the City also has to
give notice 10 days prior to the hearing, and in addition, the notice also
has to be published. Ms. Bridges stated staff had provided all of these
notifications. She reported the last thing the Municipal Code states, in
every one of these actions, is that no action regarding any development
shall be held void, invalid, or set aside, by reason of any error
pertaining to the notices, unless a court determines both: 1) that the
error was prejudicial and that the party complaining suffered substantial
injury; and 2) that a different result would have been probable if the
error had not occurred. Ms. Bridges noted the first hearing at the DRB
regarding this project was on October 22, 1996, and she believed everyone
has had enough time to be aware of the project, and she did not believe
there was a valid argument that a different result would have been probable
if two or three people had gotten a notice they did not get. She
acknowledged she did not know what could be done about the noticing
problems, but noted the City does meet the law. She also noted CEQA does
not require multiple hearings, although it does require that if there are
public hearings, the Environmental Review be included, and that notice is
given for those hearings, in the same manner given for other hearing
notices. She pointed out the only substantive statement it makes about
notice is that adequate time must be provided for members of the public to
review and comment, and once again, she noted it had
been over ten months since the first Planning Commission meeting at which
this Negative Declaration was considered, and she felt there had been
adequate notice, as shown by the record.
Ms. Bridges reported the City had an independent peer review, the standard
of care for engineering practice has been met, the City hired independent
consultants on the questions of visibility, and as seen from the project
team, the issues have been covered. Therefore, she stated they were
requesting Council allow the Developer to proceed with this six lot
subdivision. She pointed out this was not, as Commissioner O'Brien stated,
a forty lot subdivision, this was a six lot subdivision. She stated they
believed the record was complete, and asked that Council approve the
Negative Declaration, the Ordinance for the zoning, and the Resolution for
the permits.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the geotechnical issue, noting it did not
appear that there had been any raising of fact that challenged the analysis
provided by the consultants retained by the applicant, noting at most,
there appeared to be a challenge to the methodology; therefore, he assumed
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 21
the argument was that since they did not agree with the methodology, they
might believe that if a different methodology had been used, that might
have produced a different set of facts, then there would have been facts in
contention, and substantial questioning as to whether there needed to be an
EIR. He stated that seemed to be a bit of a reach, and asked if that had
been tested in court, in terms of the application of CEQA? He noted that
to this point, he had not seen anything so far that provided any factual
challenge to the technical analysis that had been presented, or to the
further review by the City's Geotechnical Review Board. Ms. Bridges stated
that was the same conclusion reached by Commissioner Kirchmann and the
Planning Commission in voting on recommending the Negative Declaration to
Council, noting it had been made very clear to them that this was the
standard they were dealing with, and they concluded there were no facts.
She believed Mr. Joyce and Mr. Miller had very clearly stated to Council
what they had seen to be shown by the facts, and she pointed out there was
plenty of case law on what is not substantial evidence. Mr. Cohen stated
his specific point was that there was a challenge to the methodology used
by the Engineering Consultants, and while he was personally satisfied with
the answers to his questions, and was satisfied the City's Geotechnical
Review process did its work, as well as an independent analysis of that,
still, he was trying to respond to the issues that had been raised in front
of the Council by the neighbors, and the attorney retained by those
neighbors, on the issue of methodology. He stated his question was whether
or not there was case law that dealt with analyses at that level? Ms.
Bridges stated she was not aware of a case that specifically dealt with
geotechnical methodology, although she noted Mr. Zischke, if he had been
present, might have told them something differently, and the City Attorney
might tell them something differently. She noted sometimes Council should
consider the things that are not said, as well as the things that are said,
reiterating there was no question being raised by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
John Collette, long time resident of San Rafael, and President of the
Culloden-Quarry-Twin Oaks Homeowners Association, stated he and many of his
neighbors had been actively involved in the Development Plan for
Neighborhood 13/14, and many of his comments related to that Plan, because
the Plan had been drafted with a very specific awareness of the potential
for the development of the quarry site, and many of the concerns they had
were reflected or incorporated in that Plan.
Mr. Collette noted his letter basically raised three points, and
essentially those points had to do with house sizes, which they felt were
too big, and essentially inconsistent with what they believed should be up
there, based upon what was reflected in the Neighborhood Plan; a question
about the Scenic Easement and the tree canopy below Lots #4, #5, and #6, as
well as the question about the advisability, not the engineering or
technical feasibility of the mitigation relating to Lot #3, but rather the
advisability of creating a buildable lot, from the standpoint of the affect
on the Hillside, and its consistence with the Hillside Design Guidelines
and the Neighborhood Plan.
Referring to the issue of the house sizes, Mr. Collette stated, as
indicated in his letter, they essentially believed the houses were too big,
in the sense that they are inconsistent with what is there in the
neighborhood, they are way out of scale with the adjacent neighbors, and
even though Mr. Guthrie indicated they had reviewed the design as a logical
extension of the Twin Oaks neighborhood, and the houses that are in that
area, they strongly disagreed with that. He acknowledged that while it is
true there are houses in the area that are 4,000 square feet to 5,000
square feet, and even the old Babcock Mansion, which is 8,000 square feet,
there was no place in the neighborhood where there is a concentration of
houses clustered together, as they will be here, of the size that is now
being proposed. He stated it simply could not be argued that there would
not be a significant visual impact, and inconsistency with the scale of the
neighborhood as it now exists. He noted these houses, when viewed from
almost any perspective, would essentially create a great deal of mass and
bulk in a very concentrated area, unlike the Twin Oaks extension where the
houses are spread out on relatively large lots, with all of the houses
being much smaller. He pointed out these houses were all clustered
together, and when viewed from almost anywhere in the neighborhood, one
would be overwhelmed by the bulk of the houses. Mayor Boro asked for
clarification on this point, noting that, obviously, once someone goes down
Twin Oaks Drive they are going to see those houses, but from where in
Neighborhood 13/14 was this going to have what Mr. Collette considered to
be a mass visual impact? He stated it was his understanding some of these
homes were going to be in the "bowl". Mr. Collette stated Lot #2 would be
in the bowl, and would only be seen from up above; however, he stated the
impacts of Lots #1, #3, #4 and #5 would be very significant, noting #3, #4,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 21
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 22
and #5 would be easily viewable and observable from almost anywhere in the
neighborhood, and when viewed from any distance, it was going to look like
just a solid mass of housing. He acknowledged it was true that with good
architecture and good design, some of this could be mitigated; however, he
stated they were very concerned, and simply did not want to have to deal
with this on six different occasions on six different houses, although they
did agree they should all go through Design Review, which was a requirement
of both the Hillside Design Guidelines and the Neighborhood Plan. However,
they believed that at the outset there should be some limitation imposed,
noting the Council clearly had the discretion to impose such a limitation
because of the approvals they are requesting, which includes a zoning
change.
Mr. Collette stated one of the reasons they did not want to have to deal
with this on six different occasions was because it was very difficult for
the neighbors to understand the architectural aspects of the presentations,
such as discussions of size, mass, and bulk, and someone not trained in
architecture really cannot understand what the mass of the house is going
to be, or what the appearance of the house is going to be, based upon one
stick in the air, which was essentially the type of thing that would be
given, apart from renderings and other architectural drawings that make it
very difficult for people not trained in Land Use Planning to really
understand; therefore, they were asking, at the outset, for Council to
impose some reasonable limitation. Mr. Collette pointed out a 4,500 square
foot house was still a very large house, noting it was not as though they
were making the project unfeasible from a financial standpoint, as the
houses would still be substantially bigger than the vast majority of the
houses in the neighborhood. Again, he stated they believed the mass and
the bulk of houses of the magnitude being proposed would be totally out of
scale with the neighborhood. He stated the Neighborhood Plan was
absolutely clear one of the goals of the plan was that the scale and
diversity residential character of the neighborhood should be preserved.
Mr. Collette noted "scale" was a word that was deliberately inserted into
the Neighborhood Plan to assure that whatever was built in this particular
area, or anywhere in Neighborhood 13/14, would be consistent with the
houses that were already there, but with some latitude. He noted they were
not saying the houses all had to be exactly the same size; however, they
should be roughly to the scale of the houses in the neighborhood.
Mr. Collette noted both Mr. Guthrie and Ms. Bridges had made statements
that the other existing and undeveloped lots in Neighborhood 13/14, under
the Hillside Design Guidelines, could be increased, or have a house on them
of up to 6,500 square feet, and the only limitations would be the Hillside
Design Guidelines. He stated that was simply not correct, pointing out
that Policy #4 of the Land Use section of the Neighborhood Plan states,
"Development approval in hilly areas shall be conditioned carefully, with
respect to road design, grading, structural foundations...", and then
continues, "...All new residential development, including development of
existing single-family lots, will be subjected to the Environmental Design
Review by the Planning Commission (not DRB, but the Planning Commission),
at a scheduled public hearing. Positive Findings shall be made using the
following criteria as a guide: 1) Setbacks and siting of new structures
will be adequate to protect views from existing and proposed structures.
Variations from normal setback requirements may be permitted to preserve
natural resources; 2) All feasible means of mitigating visual impacts will
be utilized. Landscaping will be required, consistent with geotechnical
and drainage requirements to help soften the visual impact of buildings and
grading; and 3) Existing trees will be retained to the greatest extent
possible".
Mr. Collette stated his point was that the statement, "all feasible means
of mitigating visual impacts will be utilized", meant not only to this
project, but to any development of any lot in Neighborhood 13/14.
Therefore, he did not believe they were asking for any limitation on this
project that did not apply to any other lot in Neighborhood 13/14, which he
believed was contrary to what Mr.Guthrie and Ms. Bridges both implied.
Councilmember Cohen stated the concepts of the Neighborhood 13/14 Plan had
been expanded upon and improved in the Hillside Design Guidelines, which
came subsequent to the Plan, and actually put even further restrictions on
development potential. However, taking the language just read by Mr.
Collette, Mr. Cohen stated he did not hear anything that stated there was a
limitation on the lots identified by Mr. Guthrie, within the surrounding
area, that would, upfront, preclude them from reaching, say, 6,000 square
feet. Mr. Cohen acknowledged they would have to meet and address all of
those impacts, as these sites will have to do, but there was nothing that
stated a home within this area shall be limited to 4,500 square feet. Mr.
Collette stated it did state the homes had to be to scale, and his point
was that the scale in this particular neighborhood was well below 4,500
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 22
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 23
square feet, because all the houses immediately adjacent to the project
were well below that number. He noted by that he was referring to the
houses that were really visible, because they are up on the hillside and
can be seen by the rest of the neighborhood. Referring to the area on the
map, Mr. Collette explained, rather than being an actual ridge, this was a
sub -ridge, which made it very visible to the surrounding area, noting that
was one of the reasons he felt they should be concerned about this.
Highlighting the houses at the base of the hill, he noted those houses were
visible from almost nowhere, because they are very low to the ground. He
stated any house in Neighborhood 13/14 that seeks any kind of development
approval must meet the scale requirement, so if someone wants to build a
6,500 square foot house, and all the houses around it are in the
neighborhood of 2,000 square feet, it would not meet the scale requirement,
and that was a consideration the DRB or the Planning Commission would need
to take into account in deciding what was appropriate on that lot.
Mr. Collette referred to Mr. Cohen's earlier comment that the Hillside
Design Guidelines, in effect, superseded the Neighborhood Plan. Mayor Boro
clarified that Mr. Cohen had not stated the Hillside Design Guidelines
"superseded" the Neighborhood Plan, he stated it had "improved" it. Mr.
Collette stated that while that could well be in many cases, he quoted from
Page 9 of the Hillside Design Guidelines, noting they do specifically
state, "It is the City's responsibility to implement the Neighborhood
Plans, and when adopted Neighborhood Plan Standards are different than the
Citywide Standards, (which Mr. Collette explained would be the Hillside
Design Guidelines) the City shall enforce the more restrictive standard".
Mr. Cohen stated he would tend to believe that in most cases, the Hillside
Design Guidelines were actually more restrictive than the Neighborhood
13/14 Plan. Mr. Collette stated that in the particular instance of house
sizes, on this particular site, he did not believe so, because of the scale
requirement. He acknowledged it may be that in many instances the Hillside
Design Guidelines would be more restrictive than a Neighborhood Plan;
however, in this situation we were dealing with a scale requirement, and he
believed this project, with these house sizes, was simply out of scale.
Mr. Collette reported staff had responded, in response to his comments on
this particular point, indicating that perhaps the Council might want to
look to other comparable subdivisions as guidelines for appropriate sizes;
however, the Neighborhood Association disagreed with that, and felt the
Council should look at the Neighborhood Plan, which he stated addressed
this specific point, this specific neighborhood, and this specific
location, and states whatever is built up there should be consistent with
the existing scale.
Mr. Collette stated another point they made with regard to the house sizes
was that the garages were extremely large, as proposed, noting they range
from 792 square feet, to 960 square feet. He stated their concern was that
this was really very large, and was simply an invitation to create second
units, which they did not want to encourage, for obvious reasons, most
notably the impact of traffic on Twin Oaks.
Referring to the Scenic Easement, Mr. Collette stated that in listening to
the presentation by the applicant's consultants, he did not feel they were
really that far apart, and he was having difficulty understanding why they
were resisting this particular point. He stated, as he understood the
comments from Mr. Moritz, Mr. MacNair, and Ms. Bridges, it was possible to
have Defensible Space without removing the tree canopy, pointing out it was
the tree canopy in the woodlands that they were trying to protect, because
they believed that particular feature was probably the most valuable
community resource on the entire site. He noted there is a beautiful tree
canopy below the face of the quarry, and he believed there was clearly
going to be some intrusion upon that, due to the construction of the
houses. He stated they wanted to limit the impact on that canopy to the
extent they could, consistent with good fire protection practices. He
noted he had understood Mr. Moritz and Mr. MacNair state dead and dying
trees could be removed, and Mr. Collette noted they had no objection to
that, stating it was a primary concern to be able to remove underbrush,
low-lying limbs; however, it was not necessary to remove healthy trees. He
stated Ms. Bridges agreed to a restriction for significant trees, but noted
that left untouched and unprotected anything less than a "significant"
tree, pointing out it could still be a very healthy tree, and it could
still be contributing very significantly to the tree canopy and the
woodlands affect, but it would still not be a "significant" tree, because a
significant tree is defined as being a tree of a certain size, 6 inches in
diameter for a Live Oak and 12 inches in diameter for anything else.
Mr. Collette stated much of the hillside canopy today consists of trees
which, by that definition, are insignificant trees, but they are still
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 23
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 24
significant in the sense that they contribute, collectively, to the canopy.
Mr. Collette noted they did not seem to resist the idea that the canopy is
valuable, and could remain consistent with good fire protection practices,
and it seemed to the Association that perhaps with some additional work on
this, between staff, the applicant, the Neighborhood Association, and
anyone else who may wish to participate in the process, they should be able
to fashion a Scenic Easement that makes sure this tree canopy remains, but
still the work necessary to protect it from forest fires is done. Mr.
Collette stated they did not have any objection to that; what they did
object to were the conditions that do not really provide adequate
protection for the canopy, as such. He noted Ms. Bridges had made the
comment she believed it was fully protected under Section 2-d; however,
Section 2-d addresses only significant trees, and he pointed out there were
probably twenty trees contributing to the canopy for every significant tree
that is there. He stated they were asking for protection for those other
trees.
Mr. Collette stated his last point had to do with Lot #3. He acknowledged
he did not know who was right or who was wrong concerning the geotechnical
mitigation, explaining he and the Association were not arguing about the
feasibility of what they were trying to do, in terms of making it safe;
what they were saying was that this was a lot of grading, excavating, and
scarring of the hillside to basically protect one lot that is otherwise
unsafe. He stated they believed it was inconsistent with the spirit and
intent expressed in the policies of the Neighborhood Plan, the Hillside
Design Guidelines, and the General Plan, which basically state there should
not be excessive scarring or excavating of the hillside in order to make a
lot safe. He stated, unfortunately, all of the analyses that had been
presented had to do with engineering feasibility, and that was not really
their issue. He noted they believed the applicant could have a very
financially successful and profitable subdivision with five lots, and that
the removal of Lot #5 was in no way critical to the subdivision, and they
could still put in all the other improvements they needed to put in.
In response to Councilmember Heller's question to Mr. Miller, concerning
whether they would still do all the mitigation if they chose not to build
on the lot, he pointed out Mr. Miller had stated, "Yes, they would";
however, Mr. Collette believed that assumed the lot would be approved, and
be part of the subdivision. He felt the question should be asked that if
this lot were not part of the subdivision, and the lot was disallowed,
would they still do all of this mitigation work? He stated he expected the
answer to that question would be "No", and that they would not want to
incur the expense of it. Mr. Collette stated that to the best of his
knowledge, it was not necessary to remove the hazard for the other lots,
because they are so far away from it. He stated that while they might do
some other tinkering with the site, they would not have to cut off the top
of the quarry face. He stated that when all is said and done, and they cut
through all the technical analysis, all they are doing is making the scar
bigger, removing what is now grasslands and woodlands on the top of the
quarry face, and making another big scar, and while he acknowledged this
was a scar that was already there, he did not see the justification for
making it larger.
Mr. Collette noted Mr. Schwartz had indicated that after all the work is
done, the site would balance, and there would be no off-loading of material
on the site. Mr. Collette stated that was a major concern because of the
magnitude of the work that was going to be done here, and they would like
to see that made absolutely clear in the Development Standards. He noted
Mr. Schwartz had made this point several times during the course of the
meetings, but each time they asked to have this confirmed, it did not quite
come out that way in the Development Standards. He noted what it now
stated in Paragraph 2-k was, "Cut and fill required for the subdivision
shall be balanced to the maximum extent feasible. Should balancing not be
possible, the amount of import/export material shall be reviewed, and
approved by the City". Mr. Collette noted Mr. Schwartz had stated,
categorically, that it would balance, and they would like to see that
reflected in the Development Standards. He asked that it be changed to
read, "Cut and fill required for the subdivision shall be balanced",
meaning no import or export of material on the site. He noted that would
not mean they could not import top soil for landscaping purposes for each
of the individual houses, but stated it should be absolutely clear there
will be no exporting of material off the site resulting from the
excavation.
Mr. Collette thanked staff for their diligent work on this project, stating
his Association had received very good attention from them, and noting they
had been highly professional.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 24
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 25
Ron Duran, resident of Wildwood Way, referred to the question of scale. He
stated the homes being proposed came nowhere near the scale of the
surrounding homes, noting he was very familiar with eight homes in the
Wildwood area. He stated his home was two -stories and 2,900 square feet,
and he had a two -car, 400 square foot garage. He noted what they are
proposing was, basically, four -car garages, and he did not know of a four -
car garage in Fairhills. As far as the size of the houses, of the eight
homes he was familiar with, there was a possibility that two homes were
larger than his, noting both those homes had recently been remodeled, with
additions put on; however, he knew the rest of the homes were smaller than
his. He stated the two homes that had been remodeled were, at the maximum,
4,500 square feet, although he did not believe they were even 4,000 square
feet.
Mr. Duran also stated, for the record, he had not received a notice, having
only found out about tonight's meeting a couple of hours prior to the
meeting.
Regarding the issue of fires, Mr. Duran stated he had been coming to
meetings for years, and had raised this issue several times. He reported
he had been through two major fires in this area, and noted neither of
those fires had started down in the quarry bowl. He acknowledged there had
been fires in the quarry bowl, caused by such things as people starting
camp fires; however, the two major fires started up above, toward where the
tower and water tank are. He stated the people living down below could
clear their fifty or one hundred feet around their property, but they were
going to get clobbered when those fires come over the hill. He believed we
were missing the whole point of where the fires were coming from,
reiterating they come from over the hill. He stated they were very
concerned with keeping that area cleared of scotch broom and other
vegetation, and he had not heard how that was going to be addressed. He
noted Ms. Bridges had stated he could go down his gully, which he is
already working very hard to clear, and go further down and start clearing
brush on the adjacent property. Mr. Duran stated he had no intention of
doing that, but noted that was the threat to his property. He believed
whoever purchases and develops these properties had to take the
responsibility for the whole thing, not just the footprint, because that
was what was threatening them.
Mr. Duran stated there were other issues that should be discussed, such as
noise pollution and visual problems, pointing out no one had even mentioned
the wildlife. Therefore, he believed an Environmental Impact Report should
be done.
Larry Kaplan, 40 Wildwood Way, stated he had voiced his concern at the
Planning Commission meeting regarding geological concerns, and in reviewing
the disclosures regarding the geological survey that had been done, he
pointed out they were in a Number 3 Hazardous Zone, based upon the
stability of the bedrock. He noted he had not heard anything addressing
mitigation measures that would be taken on Lot #6, which was directly
adjacent to his property. Mr. Kaplan stated he also had concerns regarding
the tree canopies, because it seemed there has been some beetle
investigations of the trees in that scenic zone. He stated he was affected
by this project geologically, and in other ways, and he believed there were
some definite environmental studies that needed to take place. He noted if
the Councilmembers were to come onto his deck, they would see the visual
impact quite clearly.
Mary Ellen Irwin, 34 Wildwood Way, stated the Fairhills Homeowners
Association Board of Directors had voted unanimously to support those who
were coming before the Council, and asking them to do a complete
environmental study, noting a number of things had not been touched upon.
She pointed out this was an area next to an Open Space, with 179 homes
nearby in Fairhills, plus those in Culloden and Quarry. She stated one of
the things that had not been studied was the wildlife, noting there are
endangered species there, and all kinds of animals coming in and out of
these properties, both those they see, and those they do not see. Ms.
Irwin stated it was absolutely necessary that this be reviewed before
houses are put down there.
Ms. Irwin stated no one had studied solar radiation, the differing slopes,
the heat/air circulation, including the reflectivity of the ground's
surface, and the effects on the construction materials and the landscaping
materials that are to be used. She noted there had been no analysis of
wind, yet they live with the wind everyday in Fairhills, reporting wind
during the storm two years ago was 103 miles per hour. She noted there was
a wind gauge on San Rafael Hill, which could be looked at and used. She
stated the wind was one of the reasons they had such a problem with fire,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 25
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 26
because the winds are tremendous, and they carry fire, and affect the
buildings, slopes, and trees. Referring to the fire danger, Ms. Irwin
stated it was not until tonight that she felt a little better, believing
there was a little better understanding of what fire protection could be
done. She noted Vegetation Management had very clear laws, and clearing
was very tightly governed. She stated initially they had understood that
the lots were going to be divided, and the homeowners would be required to
maintain the entire property; however, she stated they could not be
required to do that, although they might do it out of the goodness of their
hearts, as some of the Fairhills residents do. She stated this needed to
be understood by the neighborhood residents.
Ms. Irwin reported there had been no noise analysis done, stating they had
seen no one going up and testing. She stated she had just returned from
Red Rocks in Denver, noting she had gone on the back side of it, up to the
top. She stated someone down on the stage, 69 rows ahead of her, dropped
a book, and the noise reverberated all the way up to the top. She stated
the immediate response was that this was going to be like the Red Rock
Quarry, because the sound was amplified. She noted they were not talking
about small sounds, such as conversations wafting up, they were talking
about the amplification of sound that is natural in an amphitheater,
pointing out the sounds that will come from the homes, and during
construction, are a tremendous worry. She stated this had not been studied
or looked at seriously, noting they certainly had not appreciated being
laughed at by the members of the Planning Commission. Ms. Irwin stated
part of the problem was the construction phase. She pointed out that in
Fairhills they have lived with the four -lot subdivision, reporting the
first home was completed and lived in, the second was almost finished, and
the third was applied for last week. She noted this meant those people had
gone through three years of construction, so they knew that with six
houses, they have six years ahead of them, with the constant beep -beep -beep
of the bulldozer as it backs -up, and the constant pounding of the nails,
which will be tremendous noise. She noted the noise would be constant, as
this was not like a development, where everything is done at once and it is
done, this will be six years of hell for the people who bought homes, which
were very expensive, and who try to maintain them well, and who bought up
there for the peace, the quiet, and the beauty of the place. She stated
the City was giving them, on a tray, six years of hell, and she believed
the Council needed to know how strongly they felt about this.
Ms. Irwin stated issues of water in the quarry had not been addressed
fairly or completely. She noted she had submitted a picture to the
Planning Commission of the eight waterfalls coming out of the hillside.
She reported their feeling about the water was not the same as the
Developer, who stated it was a great thing to have the water come out of
the middle of the hill because, therefore, the pressure would be released.
She stated the residents' concern about the water was the landslides it
causes by the water coming down onto the property below and washing out the
dirt, and the dirt coming down. She reported the County Board of
Supervisors was currently dealing with Partridge Knolls in Novato, and the
Fairhills residents felt the City Council was setting itself up if they
allow these homes to be built on the flat of the quarry, because they have
watched the land come down, even though the Developer might state that it
is insignificant. She reported much of it had been bulldozed away four or
five years ago when they were drilling for wells, and more land has come
down since. She reiterated this land does come down, and now the Developer
is talking about putting up a berm, or a catchment, for the rolling rocks,
noting they must be expecting the rolling rocks, otherwise a catchment
would not be placed there. She asked if the Councilmembers would purchase
a house where they knew this? She stated the residents have watched the
earth come down, and she asked Council to think of the danger, noting she
believed that when the rocks really come down, the City will have to be
held liable and accountable. She reported she had watched the earth come
down for the past twelve years, and other people have lived in the area
much longer, and have seen more earth movement.
Ms. Irwin stated they felt these were definitely issues that required a
full EIR, stating it was irresponsible not to have it, and pleading with
Council to do that. She reported they felt this project was badly
designed, that some of the homes were vulnerable to great danger, and that
the sizes of several of the homes were too large, noting people actually
laughed when they first saw the scale, thinking it must have been a
mistake. Ms. Irwin stated this particular group of six homes was part of
Fairhills, and although they had not heard that tonight, she pointed out
the deeds all state they are part of Fairhills. Ms. Irwin noted there had
not been much to try to make them feel this was a part of them, either in
the scale, the design, or their specific concerns about the water and the
noise.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 26
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 27
Ms. Irwin stated there were a number of other issues regarding accuracy
which they felt needed to be addressed. First was the comment made earlier
that the visual impact was not significant. She urged Council to accept
the invitation of Mr. Kaplan, at 40 Wildwood Way, noting they would be able
to clearly see the visual impact. She pointed out the statement had been
made that this could not be seen from Mt. Tamalpais; however, she stated it
could be seen from the fire tower on Mt. Tamalpais, noting she had been
there a number of times on Fire Commission visits, and located her home by
looking for the quarry.
Ms. Irwin stated there were a number of other concerns to the neighbors,
and as this was her City, she worried about the liability issues. She
noted she felt confident Council would do the right thing for Fairhills-
Culloden-Quarry, and doing a full EIR would certainly be of help. She
stated an EIR, with the requirements for the things she listed, plus
suggestions for the amelioration of other issues that arise, could help all
of us.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public
hearing.
Mayor Boro asked staff to respond to the questions and comments from the
members of the public who had addressed the Council.
Community Development Director Brown referred to Mr. Collette's comments
regarding limits on the scale of the proposed new homes, stating staff
would suggest that the scale did not necessarily equate entirely with the
square footage of a home, noting there were other factors, such as the
design of the structure, and its siting on the property, which were factors
the Hillside Design Guidelines tried to take into account. Mr. Brown
stated that in the Neighborhood 13/14 Plan, properties are included in more
than one Zoning District, and those Zoning Districts have different
maximums for the square footage of the homes, based on the different lot
sizes that are there. Therefore, that is a factor, and larger lots mean
more surrounding Open Space, which also has to do with siting and
compatibility issues. In addition, there has been no attempt, elsewhere in
the City, to legislate home sizes on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis,
based on the size of existing homes. Therefore, that has been the
rationale for staff not recommending anything different than what we have,
in terms of zoning limits, and what would be accomplished through the
Design Review Process with the Hillside Design Guidelines.
Addressing the issue of tree protection, Mr. Brown noted, as stated in the
staff report, there would be the ability to remove non-significant trees
from the areas that are outside the Scenic Easement. He stated the
applicant had also addressed this issue, and there were ways to modify the
conditions that would allow for restrictions on such tree removal.
However, as stated in the staff report, there needs to be some criteria for
the ability to remove trees that are in an over -concentration, or in an
unhealthy condition. Therefore, from staff's standpoint, if there were
such criteria, such as suggested in the staff report, they would feel
comfortable with such a restriction. Mayor Boro stated Mr. Collette was
asking how to protect the canopy? Associate Planner Louise Patterson
stated, as has been referred to in the Planned District Development
Standards, Sub -section 2-d, which deals with this area, that potentially
they could add a fourth statement which would state that the overall tree
canopy would be maintained, whether it be replaced with a replacement Oak
tree that fits in better with what is being removed, or fits in with the
overall plan the property owners are proposing. She stated if the intent
is to maintain the tree canopy, that could be made a Performance Standard
for development.
Discussing the developability of Lot #3, Mr. Brown stated that in previous
discussion and material submitted to the Council, it had been found that
the paring back of the top twenty feet above Lot #3 did not result in a
significant visual impact, since it would expose rock of similar character,
and the vegetation that would appear on the crest would simply be the same
type and quality of vegetation, only moved back a few feet. In addition,
it had been determined that this would not create any geotechnical peril.
Therefore, staff concluded, and the Planning Commission agreed, that Lot #3
was indeed buildable, with the mitigations required by the Conditions of
Approval. Regarding the request for the balanced cut and fill, and the
precluding of the export of soil material, Mr. Brown deferred to the
applicant for comment, noting this was really a question for their Civil
Engineer.
Mr. Brown noted Mr. Duran had raised the question of fire potential in the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 27
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 28
Scenic Easement; however, as pointed out earlier, Mr. Brown stated the plan
did provide for the ability of the homeowner of the property, and adjacent
homeowners, to maintain a Defensible Space, and staff believed this issue
was covered. Ms. Patterson noted the question had been asked earlier today
whether the Fire Department or the City could enforce defensibility of
vegetation, should this project not be built, and the land stayed as it is.
She reported, after discussion with Fire Chief Marcucci, she found the
City did not have any way of doing that, explaining defensible fire
maintenance was around structures, not in Open Spaces.
Referring to Mr. Kaplan's statements regarding the visual impact of new
homes from his dwelling, Mr. Brown stated neither the Neighborhood Plan
nor the Hillside Guidelines anticipated precluding new development in areas
that are already developed, and although there is an attempt to make sure
the development that occurs is compatible, in terms of scale, there is no
anticipation that there will not be any development in these areas that
would be visible.
Addressing Mr. Kaplan's questions concerning geotechnical issues on Lot #6,
Ms. Patterson stated there were some recommended mitigation measures for
Lot #6 in the Geotechnical Report, to repair certain slide areas. In
addition, the remaining upper portions of Lot #6 would have no development,
and there would be no change from what exists there now. Ms. Patterson
explained Lot #6 would not cause any change in that area, so there was no
geotechnical mitigation for the upper portion of Lot #6, other than where
the slides were, which is down around the area where the dirt roadway
currently exists.
Mr. Brown noted Ms. Irwin raised a number of environmental issues.
Referring to the comment concerning visual impacts of the site to neighbors
in the area, and from Mt. Tamalpais, Mr. Brown noted that at the Planning
Commission meeting they had an extensive discussion concerning the fact
that the visual impact needed to be based on the context of the area. He
pointed out this was an area that was already significantly developed with
single-family residences, and so for that reason, it was not found that the
addition of six more homes would be a very significant change in the
character of the area, as viewed from offsite.
Addressing her concerns regarding rockfall, Mr. Brown noted this issue had
been addressed very extensively in the geotechnical studies, and he stated
it was not believed, even in a seismic event, there would be rockfall that
would go beyond the proposed construction barrier that would be installed.
He noted water drainage from the quarry slope was also an issue that had
been discussed by the Planning Commission, and in paraphrasing the
consultants, he reported they had indicated the drainage from the slope was
actually a positive, in that it released water pressure that might
otherwise build up and create a more significant soil slumping. Ms.
Patterson also noted that with the development of the road, the drainage
coming from the quarry slope would be directed into the culverts going
downhill, pointing out that at the bottom of Culloden Park the culvert had
been upgraded, so it will improve the downhill drainage system.
Regarding the issue of noise, Ms. Patterson stated the Noise Analysis did
acknowledge there would be some short-term construction noise, hopefully
not as long as the other subdivision on Fairhills Drive has taken. She
reported the mitigation and Conditions of Approval require that
construction occur only between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, which is generally when the neighborhood is awake. She
noted it would also require the development to have a staging site on the
property, so trucks do not go up and down the adjacent streets and create
additional noise, and that everything be done onsite. In addition, as
pointed out earlier, the cut and fill is to be closely retained onsite,
noting the provision in the Planned District is to give some exception if
an unknown comes up, and something needs to be trucked up or brought off
the property, explaining this had happened in other projects, where
something has had to be done. She reported that when the homes have been
constructed and occupied, and the landscaping is in, that should reduce the
reverberation from what exists there now.
Concerning the issue of wildlife impacts, Ms. Patterson stated a Biological
Impacts Report had been completed, which did identify wildlife corridors
and wildlife on the site. However, it was not concluded in that report
that they were endangered species, or that any additional mitigation needed
to be done, pointing out most of it was in the Scenic Easement Area, not in
the areas proposed for development, although the report did acknowledge
deer and other animals travel through.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 28
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 29
Addressing the concern about solar radiation, Ms. Patterson stated this
would be similar to the homes that are already there, noting that while
specific building materials had not been proposed for the roofs or walls,
they were typically either woodframe or stucco, with composition roofs,
similar to what is out there. Concerning the wind, Mr. Brown stated he was
not certain how this development would either change wind patterns in the
area, or necessarily be affected by the wind. He stated that, clearly, for
all the properties in the hillside areas that are vegetated, the fire
danger was greatly exacerbated by wind, and that had been addressed through
the Vegetation Management Plan.
Mayor Boro asked City Attorney Ragghianti to comment on the issue of the
City assuming liability by approving this project. City Attorney
Ragghianti stated the City had multiple immunities available to it in the
Government Code, chief among them was the immunity that attaches when a
public agency engages in an exercise, such as this, where it is vested with
discretion, and takes facts, listens to testimony, and then makes a
decision in connection with the grant of a development or entitlement. Mr.
Ragghianti stated he had no concern that the City would be exposing itself
to any liability, should the Council approve this project, on the basis of
this record.
Mayor Boro asked Ms. Bridges to address the question regarding balanced cut
and fill, in response to Mr. Schwartz' statement that everything be
transferred onsite, and the request to have the wording changed to reflect
this.
Ms. Bridges stated they believed the cut and fill would balance on the
site, and that the exception, as explained by Ms. Patterson, was only to
cover any unknown situation. She assumed that if an unknown were to arise,
they would have to figure out how to deal with it; however, at the present
time, they believed the cut and fill would balance.
Councilmember Cohen noted Council had received several letters questioning
the adequacy of the Negative Declaration with regard to the Geotechnical
Analysis. He stated he was completely satisfied that the record was
complete on this, noting even the letter he had referred to earlier, from
Golder Associates, in its conclusion stated, "The recommended slope
stability mitigation measures may ultimately be appropriate and adequate to
mitigate the impacts of future rockfalls or landslides". Mr. Cohen stated
this consultant was merely saying he would have done the analysis
differently, and that was the only argument they were making, noting they
were not making any factual basis to claim that this was inadequate, they
were only stating they would have approached the analysis differently. Mr.
Cohen stated he was satisfied, with the professional credentials of the
people who were coming before Council, and with the City's Geotechnical
Review Process, that the issue had been adequately studied. Mr. Cohen
stated that with the development of Lot #3, unless we were going to come at
this from some other angle, like the visual impact of allowing a house to
be built there, the question was, under the Environmental Review, whether
or not the impacts could be mitigated. He believed the facts before
Council were very clear that from a geotechnical standpoint, the impacts
for potential dangers could be mitigated, and were addressed by the
proposal before them and, therefore, it was feasible to permit construction
on Lot #3.
Councilmember Cohen stated he was concerned about the potential for visual
impact, and felt there might be a little more the City could do to address
that. He noted, as staff pointed out, and as Council had found throughout
the previous years, "scale" was a difficult term. He did not believe one
could state that because immediately adjacent houses are currently smaller
that what is being proposed here that they were necessarily out of scale.
Mr Cohen felt, with the information Mr. Guthrie provided concerning the
range and diversity of the sizes of houses throughout the neighborhood, and
the number of lots that would have the potential, to expand to the sizes
contemplated here, they could meet the criteria, was a fairly telling
point. He believed it would have to come down to an arbitrary decision by
the Councilmembers that they were going to cut it off at a certain number,
whatever that number might be, noting it was going to have to come down to
an analysis on a case by case basis on each of these lots. He acknowledged
that was probably more of a difficulty for the neighbors who were
concerned, although it appeared to him that it was not six, but likely
three of the houses that were going to have the greatest potential for
impact.
Mr. Cohen stated there were two issues he believed had to be considered
regarding visual impacts. One had to do with the significant trees below
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 29
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 30
the proposed subdivision. He stated he was not satisfied with the language
in front of them,
noting he was still concerned that if someone were to go in and remove so-
called "insignificant" trees, the impact of that would not be
insignificant. He did not know whether the language proposed by staff to
preserve the canopy addressed this or not. He also did not know if the
Scenic Easement was the appropriate measure, stating we had, in other
subdivision in San Rafael in recent years, put that kind of limitation on
up-slope and down-slope, and noting they would get a building envelope, and
everything outside of that had to stay undisturbed. He felt that whether
we got to it through a Scenic Easement or through the protection of the
canopy, the neighbors raised a valid concern about the potential for impact
if there is a lot of removal of the vegetation, and the thinning out of the
canopy below those lots. Mr. Cohen stated this needed to be strengthened,
and he was not satisfied the language currently being proposed adequately
addressed this issue.
Mr. Cohen also noted that in the testimony addressing visual impacts, Mr.
Collette raised a point that had also occurred to him, concerning the
difficulty of analyzing the visual impact of some of these houses, noting
that given the siting and size, traditional methods may not be sufficient.
He stated Mayor Boro had previously discussed existence of new
technologies allowing us to analyze the potential visual impact of
buildings, particularly using computer generated techniques, noting it was
now possible to do modeling, as they had seen in recent months on larger
projects. Mr. Cohen stated that if we went forward with the possible sizes
of these houses, they were going to be significant in cost, and could
reasonably bear the expense required to do a sufficient design study, so we
could really see what the house was going to look like once it is sited,
and the neighbors with non-technical backgrounds could understand the
impact. He stated he would like to see something like that written into
the guidelines, although he did not believe we could require that now,
since there were no house designs. However, when we get to the level of
the individual analysis of each one of these lots, and the house that is
going to go on it, he wanted to be able to understand what the impact was
going to be, and he felt it was appropriate to require that either the
Developer, or the individual owner of the lot, use those kinds of design
techniques.
Mayor Boro stated the Developer could have six 4,500 square foot homes, and
they could have a bigger impact than six larger homes, depending on how
they were designed, not only on the lot, but in relation to points from
throughout the community. He noted the City had used computer aided
designs on some of its major buildings in town, allowing us to see the
impacts, not only on the site, but between the houses on the site, as well
as from distant points within the City. He believed we could do the same
here, and see how to adjust the size to adjust the impact. Mayor Boro
stated that although it could be a burden in one sense, on the part of the
neighborhood, to have to come to the meetings, he noted the City initiated
these individual design reviews for each home so people would have the
opportunity to comment, and he believed that with techniques such as these,
the City could make the requirement, as part of Design Review, that this
technology be used. He stated the neighborhood would get a better sense,
not only on the site, but from other locations in the surrounding area, of
what this was going to look like and what the impact will be, noting with
different sizes and different models they would be able to see that, and
have a better understanding of what it is going to look like than from
trying to read architectural diagrams and drawings, and just trying to
envision it. Mayor Boro stated this would make very clear what was
happening, noting the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission would
be able to use this technique, and the public would be able to see it,
interact with it, and make comments accordingly.
Councilmember Cohen stated that, overall, on the issue of the Negative
Declaration, one of the problems with having over 600 pages in the record
in front of them, was that it was difficult to go back and find all the
references. However, he noted Ms. Bridges had given an excellent
discussion of what was required for an Environmental Impact Report. He
noted it came down to substantial evidence, and while there had been a
number of issues raised by the speakers, and additional testimony,
regarding the geotechnical issues, he did not believe any of them rose to
the level of substantial evidence. He stated he believed, as staff had
recommended, that of the concerns that had been addressed, those that had
any substance to them had been adequately identified, and could be
mitigated to a level where they were not significant within the context of
the Negative Declaration. He believed Council needed to address those
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 30
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 31
issues regarding visual impact that had been discussed; however, beyond
that, he did not believe visual impact was merely the fact that someone was
going to be able to see the development. He pointed out most of San Rafael
was visible from Mt. Tamalpais, and while most of us would rather look at
Open Space than immediately adjacent buildings, unless we owned the land or
were prepared the buy it, we do not always get to do that.
Mr. Cohen stated there was one additional issue he wanted to touch upon,
which had been in the most recent communication from Ms. Bridges, and
referred to in the map, noting he wanted to be very clear on the issue of
public access. Mr. Cohen pointed out that on the map, running through the
Scenic Easement across Lot #3 and Lot #2, there was a Pubic Pedestrian
Easement, which is intended to remain open. He noted
there was a letter and a Condition concerning Public Pedestrian Easement
across the roadway within the subdivision, and he noted it should be
understood there is no connection between that roadway and the Scenic
Easement. He asked if there had been any consideration whether or not it
would be possible to connect this proposed Pedestrian Easement along the
pathway with the private roadway? He noted it appeared difficult,
explaining the reason he asked was because currently, and over the years,
it had been possible to go up either Quarry or Twin Oaks, into the site,
and make your way around it, up to what is being proposed as the Pedestrian
Easement into the San Rafael Open Space. He wondered if there had been any
consideration of access? Mr. Guthrie stated the Public Pedestrian trail
shown running along the property generally followed an old pipeline, was
relatively level following the contour, and was a safe trail. He explained
the Ad Hoc Pedestrian Access, from that location down through the Quarry
and through Twin Oaks or Quarry Road was what the Developer considered to
be somewhat of an unsafe situation. He stated they had looked at it
seriously, and ultimately decided not to propose any pedestrian connection
there, purely from a safety standpoint, noting they assumed, even if they
had proposed it, someone at the City would have stated the City did not
want the liability, because if it was a public trail, it would be the
City's public trail, and it is just too steep and too dangerous.
Councilmember Phillips stated he had been impressed by the presentation and
its thoroughness, noting he, too, was satisfied that Council had sufficient
evidence to draw a conclusion, noting staff and the Planning Commission had
done a thorough job and reached consensus at each step. He noted that
while the neighbors may have some understandable concerns, nevertheless, he
was content the project did meet the standards the City had established.
He noted some concerns had been expressed, and he tended to agree that size
should be mitigated if at all possible, and although he did not believe
there were sufficient grounds to restrict the houses to a lesser size, he
did believe we should do whatever we could to reduce the visual impact of
the permitted size. Referring to the issue of the canopy, he agreed this
was an issue that should be looked at, and hoped we would do that.
However, he stated he was generally in favor of moving forward as proposed
by staff.
Councilmember Heller stated her main concerns regarding this project had
been fire safety for the entire neighborhood, and the slope safety of the
quarry, and she felt those issues had been adequately addressed. Regarding
the view obstruction, she noted she lived at the end of Sun Valley, and
when she drives up and down Fifth Avenue, she sees the backside of the
homes up on this hill, noting some were not very pretty, while some were
very lovely. She felt this was a chance to have a very lovely and
desirable home for the neighbors to look at. Ms. Heller stated she would
like to put a condition on the project, to be sure the owner clears the
site, and gets rid of all or a lot of the brush that needs to be cleared,
noting this request was for the fire protection of all of the Fairhills
neighborhood. She noted she did not know when they were proposing to begin
the project, and while they may hope to begin tomorrow, it could be two
more dry summers from now, and she would like to see if there was a way to
protect the neighbors with some kind of Fire Mitigation. Mayor Boro stated
the Fire Chief had the authority, if there is a hazard, to go in and
request the property owner to solve the problem, and if the property owner
did not, Chief Marcucci had the authority of the Council to go ahead and
take the action, and put a lien on the property. City Manager Gould stated
the Fire Chief could also close the entire area to pedestrian access if he
felt there was a fire threat. Mayor Boro clarified Ms. Heller was
requesting, independent of whatever happens in the interim, that the
property owners do something with respect to the existing fire danger on
that site, with respect to the overgrowth that is currently there, and to
work with the Fire Chief to minimize that. Ms. Heller stated that could
also be part of the applicant's plan, because that was very valuable
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 31
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 32
property, and it certainly needed to be protected.
Councilmember Heller agreed the canopy needed to be protected. She also
noted that in looking at this proposal, it did not seem that six homes were
too much on a thirty acre parcel of land, and she believed the project
would look good, and would benefit Fairhills in the future, because it has
been a very hazardous site, and an attractive nuisance for their
neighborhood. She believed that by beginning to get some development on
this property, it would enhance the entire neighborhood.
Councilmember Miller stated that as the hearing progressed, the argument
that prevailed was the one presented by Ms. Bridges concerning the Hillside
Standards, and its community-based process. He noted it was those
Standards he had seen in action and in operation from the West -end
Neighborhood in which he lives, as the Felton properties were developed
along Spring Grove Avenue and along the top of Terrace Avenue and Terrace
Lane sections. Councilmember Miller agreed with Ms. Irwin, noting there
had been one year when there was constant construction and hammering;
however, he stated that process lent a real neighborhood cohesion, noting
that cohesion had been led by the President of their Neighborhood
Association, Mr. Harry Winters. Councilmember Miller noted as each house
went through Design Review it was held to the standards, and people changed
windows, they changed painting after they had already painted, trees were
looked at, the hillside was protected, as was the openness into the Open
Space, and even a problem with Pedestrian Access has been resolved.
Councilmember Miller assured the residents, from one who has gone through
the efforts of his community, that his neighborhood ended up with a
development that brought forth to them, particularly along Terrace Avenue,
a real re -invigoration of their entire neighborhood. He stated many of the
problems they are foreseeing were the same kinds of problems he had seen
and felt very strong about in his own neighborhood; however, his
neighborhood found that through the Design Review Process, and the Hillside
Standards, it worked out very nicely, and he was confident it would do so
in this neighborhood.
Mayor Boro addressed what he felt were the three main issues before the
Council. First, referring to the Negative Declaration, he stated he
believed Council could do this, noting there had been nothing to point out
they should not, and he felt it was not only defensible, but valid that
they do so. He reported he had spent some time earlier with Mr. Collette
discussing the issue of visual impact, and also had discussion with Ms.
Patterson and Councilmember Cohen. He stated not only did he truly feel an
arbitrary number was not the way to go, he did not feel it was fair to go
that way, noting he believed the issue of scale was more than just a
number. He stated they should be more interested with, when it is all over
with, no matter what the size of the building, how does it look, and how
does it impact the neighborhood. He truly believed the technology was
there, that when a project of this size, with the cost of these homes that
could certainly support the added cost to do this type of analysis, we
could assure the people who are buying the homes, as well as the people who
are going to live with these homes, what they are going to look like. He
noted it would give everyone an opportunity to look at this not only from
the site, but also from throughout the community, within a reasonable area,
such as other parts of Fairhills and Culloden. He stated he truly felt we
could achieve a good design, and not have it be achieved through size, but
through design, and he believed this technology would assure that.
Regarding the issue of the trees and the canopy, Mayor Boro believed we had
the answer, noting as someone had stated earlier, we are almost there, it
is just a matter of wording. He noted we had also resolved the issue of
everything being balanced on the site.
Mayor Boro noted it appeared Council could adopt the Resolution certifying
the Negative Declaration this evening. However, as far as the next two
items, unless the Community Development Director had other wording, it
might be well to bring those two items back to Council at a later date,
with wording reflecting the will of the Council with respect to the
vegetation, the issue of using computer aided design, and with respect to
the issue of balance of materials on and off the site. He asked City
Attorney Ragghianti for his comments.
City Attorney Ragghianti asked if Mayor Boro was asking if staff was
directed to return at the next Council meeting with a Resolution, should it
be the sense of the Council to approve the project, ought they, tonight,
certify the Negative Declaration? Mayor Boro asked if they could certify
the Negative Declaration, close the public hearing, and then all they would
have before them would be the items that are open. City Attorney
Ragghianti stated normally the Negative Declaration is acted upon at the
same time as the project, noting he believed that was what CEQA provided.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 32
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 33
Therefore, it was his suggestion that Mayor Boro close the public hearing,
take the vote, give direction to staff, and bring all of the items back at
a another meeting; or, close the public hearing, direct staff to prepare a
Resolution, and simply vote on it at the next meeting.
Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Ragghianti was stating it would not make sense to
certify the Negative Declaration this evening? Mr. Ragghianti stated he
did not believe that should be done until Council was prepared to act upon
the project itself. Mayor Boro stated he had a sense that the
Councilmembers, from the comments they have made, were supporting what was
being proposed. However, he believed they wanted to see some of the ideas
that had been brought out tonight, not with respect to the Negative
Declaration but with respect to the merits of the project, be incorporated
into something Council could see, and the public could see, and something
so Developers could make sure they understand what they are buying into,
and the public could understand what the City is requesting, and we all see
it in writing.
Community Development Director Brown submitted revisions he believed would
satisfy the changes. Regarding the issue of computer modeling for Design
Review of future homes, he referred to "handwritten" Page 28, which is
actually Page 6 of "Conditions of Approval for the Environmental and Design
Review Permit". He called attention to Condition 107, which now states,
"Each individual house is required to obtain a Design Review Permit",
stating staff would add, "...and shall include submittal of a computer
aided photographic modeling analysis, from vantage points in the
surrounding neighborhood, to assist in visualization of building impacts".
Mr. Brown referred to the issue of the tree canopy in the area outside of
the Scenic Easement. Mayor Boro stated, as Councilmember Cohen had pointed
out, it was not only the issue of the tree canopy, it was also the visual
impact, as one is looking
up. Mr. Brown referred to "handwritten" Page 13, "Conditions of the
Planned Development District". He stated it had been suggested that
Section D-2 be changed, and instead of reading, "Significant trees within
this area shall be retained", it would now read, "All trees....".
Councilmember Cohen noted this would merely allow for removal of dead or
dying trees, asking if the exception for tree removal, Section 2-I.1, was
only for the removal of dead or dying trees, and Section 2-I.2 referred
only to that area within the building envelopes themselves? Mr. Brown
stated that was correct. Ms. Patterson noted the only issue not covered
was the removal of trees required by the Vegetation Management, such as the
Acacia they do not want to retain. She suggested, rather than the wording,
"All trees shall be retained...", the wording should be, "All trees not
required to be removed by the Vegetation Management Plan should be
retained". Mr. Collette referred to the changes to Section 2-I.1, stating
they would like to see that changed to read, "Removal of dead or dying
trees in any area of the site shall be permitted only upon the
recommendation of a certified arborist.....". Mayor Boro stated there
would need to be a further change to Section 2-D, to read, "All trees shall
be retained, with the exception of those required for Vegetation
Management".
Mr. Brown referred to "handwritten" Page 15, Section 2-K.1, "Fill Import",
stating this would be changed to read "Soil Import/Export", and this
condition would be changed to read, "Import or export of soil is not
permitted for the subdivision improvements. Cut and fill required for the
subdivision shall be balanced". The wording, "To the maximum extend
feasible" would be deleted. Condition K would continue, "Should soil
import or export be necessary, the amount of imported/exported material
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission". Section 2-K.2
would be eliminated. Mr. Brown stated the intent was certainly not to have
any soil brought onto or off the site, but if it should turn out to be
necessary, the Planning Commission would have to grant that approval. Mr.
Schwartz felt the last sentence did not seem to be consistent with what had
been stated earlier. Mr. Brown stated essentially it was prohibiting it,
but it allowed an opportunity for the Planning Commission to modify the
Condition, and allow soil import or export, which would require
modification at a public hearing. Mr. Schwartz asked how they would be
dealing with landscaping soil and top soil for individual houses, discussed
in the second sentence? Mayor Boro noted that when Mr. Schwartz originally
discussed the issue of top soil for landscaping, he had stated he was not
interested in that, he was concerned about the cut and fill. Mayor Boro
stated he understood that with the wording Mr. Brown was proposing, they
would definitely not move anything on or off the site, as far as cut and
fill, or in the event that something comes about that would cause them to
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 33
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 34
do that, they were going to have to go before the Planning Commission, and
have a hearing. Mr. Cohen stated there was an important distinction that
had been raised, which might be missed if they eliminated Section 2-K.2.
Mr. Cohen explained the prohibition on import or export of soil for the
subdivision improvements is different that the import or export of soil for
individual houses, and he believed they still wanted to be able to do that.
Mr. Brown stated they could further modify Section 2-K.1, having the first
sentence read, "Import or export of soil is not permitted for the
subdivision improvements, with the exception of imported top soil..".
Councilmember Cohen stated the subdivision improvements were going to be
distinct from the development of individual houses; therefore, he believed
Section 2-K.2 had to be left in. He noted he did not know if it made
sense, for the development of each single-family, to require that this come
before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schwartz felt Section 2-K.2 was fine
the way it was originally written, and Councilmember Cohen agreed, as it
was a separate issue.
Mr. Collette referred to Page 15, Section 2-J.1, asking if this could be
changed at the end, to read, "Design of the residential buildings shall be
consistent with the requirements of the Hillside Overlay District, Hillside
Design Guidelines and with the Neighborhood 13/14 Neighborhood Plan", as
opposed to referring to Appendix C? Mr. Collette stated the reference to
scale, as he understood it, was something that was still going to be
addressed later on, with the review of the individual designs of the
individual houses. He pointed out the scale was not referred to in
Appendix C, it appears in the Neighborhood Plan itself, and if only
reference Appendix C is included, this element will be lost track of. Mr.
Collette stated he understood from the previous comments that it was not
the intent to remove the element of scale, but to simply address it at the
time the houses are presented for individual review. Ms. Patterson agreed
the words, "Appendix C" could be eliminated, because the Neighborhood Plan
does contain the Appendix, and referring to the Plan itself would refer to
everything. Mr. Collette noted that same correction should be made at
Paragraph 2 on Page 13, again taking out the words, "Appendix C".
Councilmember Cohen referred once more to the issue of scale, noting staff
had expressed it quite well by stating scale was not necessarily something
that was measured in terms of square footage, it was an impact that could
be mitigated through design criteria. He stated that as long as we had
that understanding, he was perfectly willing to have scale be something
that will be discussed, but not by opposing every individual house based
merely on its size.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the
Resolution, as presented, certifying the Negative Declaration.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 10274 - RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
(ZC96-3), TENTATIVE MAP (TS96-1), MASTER USE
PERMIT (UP96-16) AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN
REVIEW PERMIT (ED96-19) FOR SIX SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS (ACADEMY HEIGHTS); END OF TWIN
OAKS AVENUE; (APN 10-142-24, 11-051-23, AND 11-
115-29) .
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor
Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
b. 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
DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD ORDINANCE NO. 1729) DISTRICT
(RE: ZC96-3, END OF TWIN OAKS AVENUE, AP NOS. 10-142-24, 11-051-23,
AND 11-115-29) (ACADEMY HEIGHTS)".
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to
dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety, and refer
to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance 1729 to print, (as
amended to include the following changes: 1) Exhibit "A", Item 2 -
Remove the words "Appendix of" in reference to the Neighborhood 13/14
Neighborhood Plan; 2) Exhibit "A", Item 2-D2 changed to read, "All
trees within this area not required to be removed by the Vegetation
Management Plan shall be retained"; 3) Exhibit "A", Item 2-I.1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 34
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 35
changed to read, "Removal of dead or dying trees in any area of the
site shall be permitted only upon the recommendation of a Certified
Arborist and approval of the Planning Department; 4) Exhibit "A",
Item 2-K.1, Title changed to "Soil Import/Export", and condition
changed to read, "Import or Export of soil is not permitted for the
subdivision improvements. Cut and Fill required for the subdivision
shall be balanced. Should soil import or export be necessary, the
amount of imported/exported material shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Commission"; 5) Exhibit "A", Item 2J, to delete
reference to Appendix "C". Item to read, "Design of the residential
buildings shall be consistent with the requirements of the Hillside
Overlay District, Hillside Design Guidelines, and with the
Neighborhood 13/14 Neighborhood Plan; 6) Exhibit "A", Item 2, also
changed to eliminate reference to Appendix "C". Item to read, "The
single-family residential Planned Development shall be developed in
conformance with the Hillside Design Guidelines, the Neighborhood
13/14 Neighborhood Plan, and the Development Plans, and associated
drawings and reports submitted with the PD as listed in the exhibits
and reports sections and the Development Standards set forth below"),
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor
Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt
the Resolution approving a tentative Subdivision Map, Master Use
Permit, and an Environmental and Design Review Permit for six single-
family residential lots, as amended.
RESOLUTION NO. 10275 - RESOLUTION APPROVING A TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP (TS96-1), MASTER USE PERMIT
(UP96-16), AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN
REVIEW PERMIT (ED96-19) FOR SIX SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS (ACADEMY HEIGHTS) END OF TWIN
OAKS AVENUE (AP NOS. 10-142-24; 11-041-23; AND
11-115-29), (As Amended to Include the Following
Changes: Additional Wording Added to Condition
#107, to read, "Each Individual House Is
Required To Obtain a Design Review Permit, and
Shall Include Submittal of a Computerized
Photographic Modeling Analysis From Vantage
Points in the Surrounding Neighborhood to Assist
in Visualization of Building Impacts").
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
15. APPOINTMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA ADVISORY TASK FORCE
(CD)
- File 9-2-45 x 10-2 x 4-13-103
Mayor Boro reported this issue had been referred to the Marin County Board
of Supervisors last Tuesday, at which time they approved the following
members for the St. Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Task Force: Marie Gaynor -
Murphy, Public Relations, P.G.& E.; Sandy Greenblatt, Commercial Real
Estate Broker; Fred Divine, Architect; Stephen Roulac, Management and Real
Estate Consultant; Jerry Corda, Rancher; Nona Dennis, Environmental
Consultant; Marge Macris, Planning Consultant; Joe Walsh, Publisher; Patsy
White, Retired; Judy Binsacca, Attorney; Frank Nelson, Attorney; and Larry
Paul, Architect. In addition, two positions are reserved for
representatives from of property owners.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to accept
the recommendation, and approve the appointments of those members to serve
on the St. Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Task Force.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 35
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 36
16. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
None.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 PM.
CLOSED SESSION:
lb. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code Section 54957)
Title: City Manager
Mayor Boro announced no reportable action was taken.
There being no further business, the Closed Session meeting adjourned at 12:31
AM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1998
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/98 Page 36