Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2002-05-06SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 1 Revised IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:00 PM: Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items. Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Vice -Mayor Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — HELD AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 1. A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(a) a) Feingold, Stanley v. City of San Rafael, et al. Marin County Superior Court Case No. CV014764 b) MHC Financing, et al. v. City of San Rafael, et al. U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. of Calif., Case No. C003785 C) Margaret L. Zitek, Trustee, et al. v. City of San Rafael Marin County Superior Court Case No. CV005119 (Now pending in the First District Court of Appeal) City of San Rafael v. Margaret L. Zitek, Trustee, et al. Marin County Superior Court Case No. CV010768 B. a) Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6) Negotiators' Names: Ken Nordhoff, Lydia Romero, Daryl Chandler Employee Organizations: San Rafael Fire Chief Officers' Association San Rafael Fire Association San Rafael Police Mid -Management Association San Rafael Police Association Marin Association of Public Employees, Supervisory Unit, SEIU Local 949 Marin Association of Public Employees, Miscellaneous Unit, SEIU Local 949 Marin Association of Public Employees, Childcare Unit, SEIU Local 949 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:10 PM RE: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN: -FILE 261 X9 -2-55X 11-1 Noble "Rocky" Birdsey, 201 Belle Avenue, San Rafael, stated he approached Council in August 2001 concerning three roadway construction projects and would like to briefly address two of these this evening. With regard to the Civic Center/North San Pedro Road Construction Project, Mr. Birdsey indicated it was his understanding from staff that bike lanes would, in fact, be installed for 600 -feet in that area, and for this he expressed his appreciation to all involved, including the County of Marin Public Works Department, San Rafael Public Works, Supervisors Kinsey and Kress and Councilmember Cohen. Regarding Freitas Parkway, Mr. Birdsey indicated having learned of a decision by Public Works not to install a bike lane, and he respectfully requested that Council reconsider this decision. Public Works Director Dave Bernardi confirmed that paving had been completed and there is insufficient width to stripe a Class II bike lane without taking parking on Freitas Parkway in the eastbound direction. Staff had, therefore, chosen to stripe a "fog line" which delineates the edge of the lane, and he explained there is a space of approximately 8 -feet between the edge of the lane and the face of curb. It will be striped a Class III bicycle route with signage, and staff believes this meets the needs of the community in terms of biking, unless Council wishes staff to evaluate the removal of parking on that section of Freitas Parkway. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 2 City Manager Rod Gould added that to staff's knowledge, the current level of parking is generally limited during the work week to those who park on Freitas and ride Golden Gate Transit into the City to work. Having driven this section over the weekend and noting a good "fog line" on the north side, Councilmember Cohen, confirming this would be signed, inquired whether it was permissible to indicate this on the pavement also. Mr. Bernardi clarified that an indication on the pavement would denote a bike lane, which, therefore, would have to be legal width. Councilmember Cohen inquired as to how far from face of curb the T indicators are located. Mr. Bernardi confirmed this to be 8 -feet, and the "fog line" would basically be similar. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Liaison Dinner Minutes approved as submitted. Meetings with School Districts held on April 24, 2001 and March 6, 2002, and Regular Meeting of Monday, April 15, 2002 (CC) 3. Report on Fair Political Practices Commission Accepted report on Fair Political ("FPPC") Annual Filings (CC) — File 9-4-3 Practices Commission ("FPPC") Annual Filings. 4. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) - Approved staff recommendation: File 116 x9-1 AB 2251 Sudden Oak Death. Assembly Member Nation — SUPPORT SB 1521 State Model Land Use Zoning Ordinances. Senator Kuehl — OPPOSE SB 1262 Local Transportation Capital Improvement Projects. Senator Torlakson — OPPOSE AB 2224 Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit District. Assembly Member Nation - SUPPORT 5. Resolution of Appreciation to Kay Noguchi, RESOLUTION NO. 11072 — Employee of the Quarter for First Quarter Ending RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO March 2002 (CM) — File 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-61 KAY NOGUCHI, REFERENCE LIBRARIAN, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER FOR FIRST QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2002 6. Resolution Proclaiming May 5— May 11, 2002 as RESOLUTION NO. 11073 — Arson Awareness Week (FD) — File 9-3-31 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MAY 5-11, 2002, AS ARSON AWARENESS WEEK 7. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending March, Accepted Monthly Investment Report 2002 (MS) — File 8-18 x 8-9 for the month ending March, 2002, as presented. 8. Resolution Authorizing and Approving the Borrowing RESOLUTION NO. 11074 — of Funds for Fiscal Year 2002-2003; the Issuance RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND and Sale of a 2002-2003 Tax and Revenue APPROVING THE BORROWING OF Anticipation Note Therefor and Participation in the FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003; California Communities Cash Flow Financing THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A Program (MS) — File 8-13-9 x 8-14 2002-2003 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE THEREFOR AND PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES CASH FLOW FINANCING PROGRAM 9. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF Approved final adoption of Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 11070 - Resolution of the San No. 11070. Rafael City Council Approving an Amendment to the San Rafael General Plan 2000 to: A) Amend the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element Redesignating Property Located at 1125 "B" Street from Park/Open Space/Conservation to SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 2 Public/Quasi-Public (APN 011-131-03); B) Amend the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element Redesignating 16+ Acres of Land Located at North San Pedro Road and Los Ranchitos Road from Public/Quasi-Public and High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and Park/Open Space/Conservation Land Use Designations for the Ranchitos Park Development (APN 179-131-01 and a Portion of 179-142-30); and C) Amend Appendix B — Land Use Traffic Allocations to Return Surplus PM Peak Hour Trips from Fully Developed Sites to the General Trip Reserve (GPA 00-02 and GPA 00-05) (CD) —File 115 (2000) x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 10. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1778 — "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 Parks/Open Space (P/OS) to Public/Quasi Public (P/QP) Re: ZC01-11, 1125 B Street; APN: 011-131-03 [Ptn.] (Re: Marin History Museum)" (CD) — File 115 (2000)x2 -10x 10-2x 10-3 x 236 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-66 11. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1779 — "An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael Amending the Zoning Map to Reclassify Certain Real Property from Public/Quasi- Public — Wetland Overlay (P/Q-P — WO) and High Density Residential (HR -1.8) Districts to Planned Development (PD) and Parks/Open Space (P/OS) Districts to Allow the Development of Detached Single-family and Attached Townhome Residential Units, a Creek and Wetland Mitigation Area, a PG&E Gas Pressure Station and a Three -acre Neighborhood Park at North San Pedro Road and Los Ranchitos Road (APN 179-131-01 and a Portion of 179-142-30) (ZC 00-02) (Re: Ranchitos Park Development)" (CD) — File 115 (2000) x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 12. Resolution Authorizing Waiver of Building Permit Fees Re 302 Fourth Street (San Rafael Commons (CD) — File 9-10-2 x 10-2 x (SRRA) R-442 x R-173 13. Resolution Declining to Directly Accept Funds through the JAIBG (Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant) Program and Authorizing the Funds to be Expended by the County of Marin for the Maintenance of a Juvenile Drug Court (PD) — File 9-3-30 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 3 Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1778. Approved final adoption of Ordinance No. 1779. RESOLUTION NO. 11075 — RESOLUTION WAIVING PAYMENT OF FEES FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR SANRAF ASSOCIATES TO MAKE RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FACILITY AT 302 FOURTH STREET; APN 014-092-22 IN AMOUNT OF $4,258.97 (San Rafael Commons) RESOLUTION NO. 11076 — RESOLUTION DECLINING TO DIRECTLY ACCEPT FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT (JAIBG) PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING AND AUTHORIZING THE FUNDS TO BE EXPENDED BY THE COUNTY OF MARIN FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF BOTH UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY MAINTAINING A JUVENILE DRUG COURT SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 3 14. Resolution Accepting Grant Deed of Easement for Construction and Maintenance of Storm Drain from the San Rafael City School District (280 Woodland Avenue, APN 13-071-44) (PW)— File 2-4-30 x 9-3-40 15. Resolution Summarily Vacating an Existing Drainage Easement on Davidson Middle School's Property at 280 Woodland Avenue (PW) — File 2-4-28 x 9-3-40 16. Resolution Accepting Resignation of Geotechnical Review Board Member (Eugene Miller, Miller Pacific Engineering Group) and Appointing a Replacement Member to the Geotechnical Review Board (Scott Stephens, Miller Pacific Engineering Group) (PW) — File 9-2-26 x 9-3-40 17. Report on Selection of Witten keller/Powell, Consultants, for the North San Rafael Vision Promenade and Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director to Sign an Agreement (PW) — File 4-3-404 x 9-2-52 x 238 18. Selection of Nelson/Nygaard, Consultant, to Manage Safe Routes to Schools Program in Marin County (PW) — File 4-3-405 x 11-1 x 11-11 20. Resolution Amending Resolution No. 11060 Authorizing Street Closures for the 15th Annual May Madness Classic Car Parade on Saturday, May 18, 2002, to add Julia Street (RA) — File 11-19 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 11077 — RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GRANT DEED OF EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAIN — SAN RAFAEL CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT (280 WOODLAND AVENUE, APN: 13-071- 44) RESOLUTION NO. 11078 — RESOLUTION TO SUMMARILY VACATE AN EXISTING DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON DAVIDSON SCHOOL'S PROPERTY AT 280 WOODLAND AVENUE (APN: 13-071- 44) RESOLUTION NO. 11079 — RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD MEMBER (EUGENE MILLER, MILLER PACIFIC ENGINEERING GROUP) AND APPOINTING A REPLACEMENT MEMBER TO THE GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD — (SCOTT STEPHENS, MILLER PACIFIC ENGINEERING GROUP) RESOLUTION NO. 11080 — RESOLUTION SELECTING THE FIRMS OF BRIAN WITTENKELLER AND ASSOCIATES AND BRIAN POWELL AND ASSOCIATES TO PREPARE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE NORTH SAN RAFAEL PROMENADE, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT AND TO ALLOCATE AN ADDITIONAL $4,800 TO FULLY FUND THIS PROPOSAL RESOLUTION NO. 11081 — RESOLUTION SELECTING THE FIRM OF NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES TO CONDUCT THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS PROGRAM IN MARIN COUNTY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 11082 — RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 11060 AUTHORIZING STREET CLOSURES FOR THE 15TH ANNUAL GREG BORRELLI'S MAY MADNESS CLASSIC CAR PARADE ON MAY 18, 2002, TO ADD JULIA STREET AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINING/ DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (from items 9 and 11, due to potential conflict of interest.) The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion, at the request of Councilmember Cohen: SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 5 19. REPORT ON MEETING WITH BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND EXTENSION OF TERMS FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS (PW) — FILE 9-2-55 Councilmember Cohen announced that Mr. Noble "Rocky" Birdsey, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee member, had requested an opportunity to make a brief comment. With regard to Grand Avenue and a comment in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of April 2, 2002, Mr. Birdsey requested clarification on whether this was one or two-way vehicle traffic. Mr. Bernardi confirmed that vehicle traffic under the freeway would remain one-way and bicycle traffic would be two-way. With regard to the recent BPAC (Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee) meeting, Mr. Birdsey stated the HOV project and Bellam Boulevard were discussed. Also, regarding bike pockets, he stated Public Works Director Bernardi indicated he would evaluate this at a later date. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to accept the report and extend the terms for the three existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee members, Noble "Rocky" Birdsey, Kristin Nute and Richard Schneider to November 1, 2002, and the youth members, Ashley Bettini and Christopher Goff to January 1, 2003. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATION: 21. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO KAY NOGUCHI, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER FOR QUARTER ENDING MARCH 2002 (CM) — FILE 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-61 Mayor Boro explained that each quarter the employees in the City select an Employee of the Quarter who receives a $100 bill. On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Boro congratulated and thanked Ms. Kay Noguchi, Reference Librarian, for the great job she has done for the City. Referring to the Resolution of Appreciation, Mayor Boro stated it addresses her many accomplishments, explaining that Kay has been a Reference Librarian for the City of San Rafael since 1996. She has been involved in many community programs and was one of only one hundred and sixty Librarians from throughout the world selected to participate in the California State Library Institute on 21s' Century Librarianship at Stanford University in 1999. Mayor Boro stated that in addition to her professional work for the City, Ms. Noguchi has also been very involved in community activities, particularly being a member of the North San Rafael Vision group and currently working on the General Plan Steering Committee, of which she is Co -Chair. For all her accomplishments and the great job she does for the City, Mayor Boro presented Ms. Noguchi with the Resolution of Appreciation for being selected Employee of the Quarter for quarter ending March, 2002. Accepting the Resolution, Ms. Noguchi stated she was honored to join the distinguished company of the previous recipients and expressed pleasure at being recognized. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 22. PUBLIC HEARING — RE: 89 SAN MARINO DRIVE: (CD) — FILE 10-7 A. APPEAL BY MANOOCHEHR AND FARY FONOONI OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED01-98) FOR A 1,313 SQUARE -FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT 89 SAN MARINO DRIVE (APN 184-151-17 B. APPEAL BY LAURA AND FERGUS HENEHAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED01-98) FOR A 1,313 SQUARE -FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT 89 SAN MARINO DRIVE (APN 184-151-17 Mayor Boro announced he had been handed a letter from Appellants Fergus and Laura Henehan requesting the item be continued, for the following reasons: 1) Insufficient notice by the City of new placement of the stairwell story poles; and 2) A missed visit by City Council representative, Councilmember Cyr Miller. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 6 Laura Henehan, 93 San Marino Drive, confirmed these were the basic reasons for requesting the continuance. She stated that in view of the fact that the City had two months to review the situation with the story poles and their mentioning the fact of the short distance of 5' 9" at the Planning Commission meeting, they should be granted time for their solar panel person to evaluate the shading effect. She indicated a few days' notice would be required for this purpose. With regard to the missed visit by Councilmember Miller, Ms. Henehan stated it would be beneficial to have someone stand in their back yard to observe the situation with regard to the proposed large picture window. Having confirmed that the owners and both appellants were present, Mayor Boro requested Community Development Director Bob Brown to comment on the situation with regard to the story poles. Mr. Brown explained that based upon comments from the Henehans and their measurement of the location of the story poles from the common property line, staff realized the story poles and the proposed line of the stairwell could not have been accurate; therefore, it was requested they be re- measured and relocated. He indicated they were moved back approximately 2 -feet from the common property line; therefore, whatever shading was depicted originally, is less, and in fact, it was ascertained that the only shading which would occur would be in the middle of winter when the Henehans have indicated they do not use the solar panels or the pool. Staff, therefore, does not believe there is any material difference and, in fact, moving the story poles back further lessens any impact. Mayor Boro confirmed the movement of the story poles to be to the advantage of the Henehans Should there be consideration on a continuance, Mr. Brown indicated the applicant at 89 San Marino Drive had been deferred in terms of the ability to schedule this evening's hearing, to accommodate the appellants. He noted the proposed addition has been under review for over six months. Confirming that initially the story poles were wrongly located and have since been moved, Councilmember Cohen inquired as to their present location. Ulla -Britt Jonsson, Planning Technician, stated they are currently approximately 6 -feet from the common property line. She explained that the approved plans show the wall and stairwell at 7 -feet from the property line; therefore, in essence, they are currently 6' 3" from the common property line. Councilmember Cohen inquired whether staff's calculation of the shading was carried out at the previous or present location. Community Development Director Brown confirmed this to be the previous location. He explained that staff observed the solar shading, which occurred in January. Councilmember Cohen confirmed with Mr. Brown that staff had not done calculations based on where they should have been located. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, stating Appeals A and B would be heard separately, and requested the staff presentation. Planning Technician Ulla -Britt Jonsson explained that the Planning Division received an application for a 2,027 square -foot second -story addition for 89 San Marino Drive on August 17, 2001. Pursuant to Neighborhood Association approval and two revisions responding to the neighbors' concerns, the project received administrative approval for a 1,313 square -foot second -story addition, on December 19, 2001. Appeals 1 and 2 were received on December 20, 2001 and denied by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2002, and on February 20, 2002, Appeals A and B were received and are the subject of this evening's hearing. Referring to the site plan representing 85, 89 and 93 San Marino Drive, Ms. Jonsson stated that the hatched area depicts the initial submittal, with the yellow representing the architect and applicant's response to the request from the neighbors. She identified a privacy wall for the bathroom to prevent viewing the Fonooni's backyard (Appeal A). Ms. Jonsson also identified a photograph taken from the roof of the applicant's residence depicting the restricted view of the Fonooni's bedrooms because of vegetation and a fence. Another photograph, taken from the Fonooni's rear yard, identified the master bedroom wall story poles. She indicated windows would be raised high, approximately 5' 9" at the lowest point, to prevent views into the Fonooni rear yard. On Appeal B, (Henehans) rear yard privacy, Ms. Jonsson referred to a picture with a view of where the master bedroom window would be and identified the Fonooni (Appeal A) and Henehan (Appeal B) fences. Further pictures of the solar panels indicated no shading, or shading way down the wall. Councilmember Phillips requested staff return to a slide relating to a chimney height. Ms. Jonsson explained this is well under the 30 -foot height limit; she recalled the roofline to be 25 -feet above grade and the chimney is approximately 2 -feet above this. Manoochehr Fonooni (Appeal A), 85 San Marino Drive, stated there are several problems with the approved plan. He referred to Sheet #3 on display and identified the location of his bedroom windows. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 7 He indicated that a deck, which he believed to have been added, together with five windows from the proposed addition, compromise his bedrooms. He noted that although Ms. Jonsson and the architect observed the story poles from one of his bedrooms, this fact was not articulated in Ms. Jonsson's presentation. Mr. Fonooni explained that when his window shutters are open at night, these windows are visible and it is also possible to walk on the deck at 89 San Marino Drive and face his windows. With regard to the backyard, Mr. Fonooni identified the wall covering the bathroom windows; however, he inquired as to the balcony or raised area on the plan. He indicated that the master bedroom window is large enough to be viewed from any area of his back yard and requested this be reduced. He further requested, if Mr. Molinari were to pay, the addition of mature plants in his backyard to alleviate some of the problems should the project receive approval. Mr. Fonooni noted his satellite dish passes over the property line of 89 San Marino Drive, at 25 degrees, and the addition of a second floor will preclude him from receiving a signal. He was not sure how an easement would operate and noted that because of the width of the proposed property, he is unable to place the dish on any part of his roof. Referring to the plans on display, Councilmember Phillips inquired how the large window relates to Mr. Fonooni's property. Responding, Mr. Fonooni identified his home and backyard with a view of the window. Mayor Boro noted from the staff report that the master bedroom is 32 -feet from Mr. Fonooni's property line and would be oriented northerly toward the view of the hills and open space, not facing the house or rear yard of the Fonooni property, and provides an oblique, rather than a direct view into the yard. Mr. Fonooni stated he could see it clearly and was requesting the property owner fund the cost of planting trees at least, if not reduce the windows. There being no further comment from the audience on Appeal A (Fonooni), Mayor Boro invited the appellants for Appeal B (Henehans) to address Council. Laura Henehan indicated her first point concerning being notified only last Thursday regarding the difference in the placement of the story poles, the subject of their request for a continuance, had been covered. She stated that although the story poles had been moved back, they had no way of ascertaining the result on their solar panels. She reported that when first checked, (presented to the Planning Commission at the February 20, 2002 meeting), at 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon, half of the bottom row was shaded and by 4:00 p.m. the entire bottom row was shaded. The reason for their request for extra time to carry out an evaluation was due to the fact that the story poles have been moved back. With regard to the photographs distributed by the applicant, Ms. Henehan commented that some appeared misleading as it was difficult to ascertain, without a horizontal bar across the story poles, where the shading is occurring, and the fact that the solar panels are black precludes vision of the line of the story poles. She indicated that perhaps Council should not take these pictures at face value as they were not very clear. With regard to the issue of privacy and the large window in the backyard, from the pictures supplied by the applicant, specifically the view of "side property between Molinari and Hehehan," Ms. Henehan stated that in her opinion, the picture appeared to have been taken from the ground, and obviously from this aspect, the height of the current vegetation provides screening. Referring to the photograph taken from her side of the yard, she identified the area of the proposed picture window and explained that even with some spring growth on the trees there is visibility, and when the leaves drop, this very large area would be quite visible, ruining their privacy. Returning to the issue of the stairwell story poles, Ms. Henehan stated that the fact this came to light two months later makes them skeptical with regard to the placement of all the story poles. She noted that no one from the City had taken measurements to confirm the story poles are located in the correct position or that they indeed match the plans submitted to the City. She indicated that had she not raised the issue of the 5' 9" difference, the City might not have noticed the incorrect placement. In conclusion, Ms. Hehehan respectfully requested that the issue be continued to permit further measurements to be taken. She indicated they favored the City having someone independent check these measurements, as they were not entirely comfortable with the accuracy of the applicant's architect's measurements. Since staff has indicated the City does not take measurements, she questioned how the plans could be approved by the City if no independent person is conducting these calculations. With regard to the window, Ms. Henehan stated someone should visit to make a determination as she believed the pictures presented to be incorrect. Jerry Frate, San Rafael, architect for the applicant, stated his client wished to add an addition to his recently purchased home, due to an expanding family. He explained that the existing house does not have a family room, den or sitting room that could be used for a nursery, rather it has three small SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 8 bedrooms, a small kitchen and living room. The site contains a backyard with pool and a small front courtyard, which is used for light and ventilation for the front bedrooms. As no usable space is available at the ground level, it is necessary to expand with a second floor. He noted there are many two-story homes in the neighborhood, including a large one right across the street; therefore, it appeared a two-story addition would fit right in. Continuing, Mr. Frate stated the initial plan submitted for approximately 2,000 square -feet consisted of a family room, master bedroom with bath, and a sitting room for the new baby, to be turned into a den later. He reported they were reviewed by Planning who made some recommendations, mostly concerning the size of the floor plan. He redesigned the plans, at approximately 1,700 square -feet, and erected story poles, subsequently meeting with the neighbors and Ulla Jonsson, Planning Technician, to review the plans at the site. At this meeting, Mr. Frate stated they listened to the neighbors and viewed their property from the roof, noticing: • Some shading on the Henehan's solar panels; • The east and west views along the side property lines were mostly blocked by tall vegetation; and • The neighbors were very concerned concerning visual privacy. Mr. Frate reported that having gone back to the drawing board, the following modifications were made: • All walls were pulled in -board on the east side, except for the stair area, where the roof was lowered to assist with any shadow casting on the solar panels; • The plans were reduced to 1,300 square -feet by shrinking the family room and eliminating the nursery; • The sills of the side elevation windows were raised above sight line where the windows were near the neighbors' rear yards; and • An outside deck facing the back yard was removed and a privacy wall erected near the new master bathroom. He further reported the story poles were shifted to reflect the latest revisions, and consequently, the Planning Department approved the project. Mr. Frate stated it was his belief the concerns of neighbors regarding privacy and light had been responded to and mitigated. He also believed this addition would transform the existing house into a home the Molinari family would enjoy for years to come. Mr. Frate stated that a packet he had for distribution to Council this evening contained: • An article written by Leo Isotalo, President of the Peacock Gap Homeowners Association, which appeared in the Peacock Gap Homeowners newspaper, where Mr. Isotalo states the second floor addition has been approved by the Association; • Some views of the site from ground level and from the roof, which show hardly any view of the two neighbors' back yards; • A recent photograph showing no shading on the solar panels during the months of the pool use; and • Pictures of two-story homes in the area, depicting side elevation windows looking right into their neighbors' back yards. This, stated Mr. Frate, is what he is attempting to eliminate by raising the side elevation windows above the view plane. With respect to the question on the privacy wall location asked by Mr. Fonooni, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether the area inside of that was a roof or was intended to be decking. Responding, Mr. Frate stated it was a roof, and explained that originally, a deck was to have been in this location. The potential for seeing out of the corner of the master bathroom window was the reason for the erection of a privacy wall. He confirmed it was not outside space. Mr. Frate stated the deck is on the driveway side of the house and was not new. He confirmed this to be the small square area at the bottom of the drawing. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether any portion of the other home was visible from this deck. Referring to the site plan, Mr. Frate identified three visual directions: towards the driveway at 93 San Marino Drive; front yard of 85 San Marino Drive; and the street. He confirmed all windows are up above sightline on both sides of the house. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 9 With regard to the large bedroom window, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether it was flush with the back wall of the house. Mr. Frate responded affirmatively and explained the entire wall comes straight up. Councilmember Cohen stated there appeared to be somewhat of a view impact into 93 San Marino Drive. Mr. Frate stated that with the curve of the street in the original subdivision, the houses were staggered; therefore, there are some obtuse angles as not all line up. He agreed that with a lack of vegetation, there is at a certain point a possibility of seeing a portion of the backyard down in the corner. Noting Mr. Frate's comment that the vegetation adequately screens this, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether it could be further screened. Mr. Frate indicated that an architectural screen would need to consist of a two-story element; therefore, he favored vegetation in the hope it would remain green. Mr. Frate stated the Conditions of Approval contain basics to maintain the vegetation as it is presently, the City realizing vegetation to be an important element. Mayor Boro inquired whether the Planning Commission had evaluated adding vegetation. Responding, Ms. Jonsson stated the Planning Commission requested that the existing vegetation be protected during construction. She explained that when working with applicants and neighbors and there is concern regarding privacy, she sometimes suggests adding vegetation. She reported having been informed by the neighbors in question they did not wish to have vegetation added as they liked the sunlight in their yards. Mayor Boro noted Mr. Fonooni had intimated he would like some vegetation. Mr. Frate clarified that Mr. Fonooni had requested vegetation to be put on his property and while the applicant could put some on his own property as a Condition of Approval, he did not believe it was permissible for Mr. Molinari, applicant, to install vegetation on Mr. Fonooni's property. Mr. Frate responded affirmatively to Mayor Boro's question on whether vegetation could be installed on the applicant's property to further enhance the screening. Jim Finley, owner of 97 San Marino Drive, two houses removed from the applicant's, stated that the president of the homeowners association gave a courtesy carte blanche approval without contacting any neighbor or visiting their property. Also, the architect referred to a large house across the street; however, the house next door lost all of its privacy and when the owners attempted to sell, the value plummeted and the home is still on the market. Kevin Molinari, owner, 89 San Marino Drive, refuted Mr. Finley's argument and explained that the home in question has sold and he has a letter from the realtor, Mr. Bruno Albini, who resides next door to this particular house, who stated that the large house took no value from the existing home, which is approximately 1,400 square -feet and in its complete original condition. Mr. Molinari indicated that Mr. Fonooni had stated at the Planning Commission meeting in February that his realtor, Mr. Albini, verified the large house had taken away value; however, Mr. Albini indicated he had not made such a statement. Mr. Molinari stated that Ms. Henehan indicated the pictures shown were taken from ground level; he confirmed they were taken from the roof, i.e., the middle of the picture window. This, he stated, could be proved by a picture of the architect standing next to the story pole, with all the vegetation visible. He confirmed the pictures were taken from the roof in the area of the second -story and the large picture window. Ms. Henehan distributed photographs to Council. Mr. Fonooni clarified that he stated additional plants could be planted in his back yard area; however, there was insufficient space. His bedrooms are already dark; therefore, the addition of further plants would preclude the sun. His request was for no windows in this position. Further, should he wish to construct a second floor and position windows opposite that of the applicant, he inquired whether the City would permit this or whether the applicant would infer his view was being impacted. Mr. Frate clarified that the picture referred to by Mr. Molinari was contained in the packet submitted. Councilmember Phillips requested Mr. Frate comment on a rendition of the window placement. Mr. Frate indicated he visited the Henehan home to view the story poles and agreed it was a type of graphical representation. He explained that in observing the story poles there could be a perception of all window; however, the wall is also included. He indicated he could not verify the picture; however, agreed with Councilmember Phillips' comment that it was a reasonable approximation from a certain portion of the Henehan property, and reiterated it was further away from the house and into the lower corner. On the line of sight from the window, Councilmember Heller inquired whether the view was into the back yard of the neighbor or directly into their bedroom. Responding, Mr. Frate stated that both neighbors were really concerned with regard to their back yards. He indicated that the oblique angle to 85 San Marino Drive is very small; however, another angle was somewhat more because of the SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 10 geometry of the subdivision. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing Community Development Director Bob Brown pointed out that when Council added the language concerning the upper story design review in 1994, it specifically added verbiage to this stating, "limited design review of upper story additions and lift and fill constructions included to assure better design of such structures and modifications and not to preclude such construction." He indicated that the section relating to windows facing rear yards speaks to such windows "not looking directly onto private patios or back yards." Mr. Brown stated that when constructing a second -story addition, the expectation is that it will not be possible to include windows that will not have some measure of visibility into the neighboring properties. It would be a rarity for this to occur. This, he stated, is the basis for the staff and Planning Commission's recommendation. Mayor Boro indicated that one of the allegations concerned the number of two-story homes in this area, explaining that according to the staff report, there are approximately forty-five single -story and forty-one split-level homes in the immediate area. He stated the staff report also indicates the existing house is 1,778 square -feet and with the addition would be 3,174 square -feet; however, as the applicant's lot is larger than most in the neighborhood, the addition would still keep it less than the average. Responding, Ms. Jonsson stated it would not be less than the average; however, it would be similar to a lot of other larger homes on San Marino Drive. While confirming it to be one of the larger lots, she indicated there are several homes on smaller lots, which would be of similar size to this home with the second -story addition. On the question of side windows, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether there was anything in the City Ordinances prohibiting side -facing windows. Community Development Director Bob Brown responded that the specific language states "windows, balconies or similar openings above the first floor shall be oriented so as not to have direct line of sight into windows, balconies or similar openings of adjacent structures." To address Mr. Fonooni's question to the effect that should he decide to build a second -story addition, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether he would be precluded by this language from having any side facing windows. Responding, Ms. Jonsson stated he would not be precluded. Councilmember Miller stated that his normal pattern is to visit sites to have a first-hand view and understanding, and his only opportunity of doing this was Saturday morning. He explained that as a courtesy he visits the neighbors to ascertain their viewpoint; however, he was unable to make contact with the Henehans. Councilmember Miller reported he had the opportunity to view the entire site, including observing their backyards from the roof from both sides, and could absolutely confirm that the pictures submitted by the architect represented a true depiction. He stated he could not see the homes to the side, the vegetation was very effective with regard to the back view window, and the only yard visible to him was approximately three houses over and down the hill. He did not observe any disruption or violation of privacy because of shrubbery, trees, etc. Councilmember Miller stated he was impressed with the addition as it was not a monster home type, rather it cradled itself into the existing roofing and the privacy was very effective. Being a proponent of solar panels, Councilmember Miller stated from his observance at approximately 12 -noon, there was no shadowing. With regard to the technology of satellite dishes, Councilmember Miller stated he was not familiar with this technology and could not address this question. Councilmember Miller stated he was very impressed at the diligence of Mr. Molinari, owner, in attempting to accommodate his neighbors in every way possible, noting the reduction in size, etc. He noted that Mr. Molinari's view from the back would be opened up to the hills, the front would allow a view of the Bay and Councilmember Miller believed it to be a graceful addition to the home. Councilmember Cohen indicated his concern related to the potential for viewing into the back yards and the issue of landscape screening, and questioned whether there could be a way to review this with the project architect to ascertain what could be done to add some landscaping which would increase the screening over time, as there did not appear to be an appropriate architectural detail to remedy this. Noting a second story on this house would be visible from the neighbors' yards, Councilmember Cohen stated there was nothing to preclude the right to build one. He stated that perhaps there could be a way to address the privacy issue either through landscape screening, or possibly through an architectural feature, and believed it reasonable to request that a little more effort be expended to ascertain what could be accomplished. Community Development Director Brown stated it was difficult to ascertain from the plans as they do not depict any of the back yard improvements on either property; therefore, in terms of location, it was SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 11 difficult to say. He indicated that in terms of the Fonooni residence, staff agrees there is a very slight angle into the back yard. From the Henehan's perspective, he noted there is more, although any significant vegetation which would screen views, would also shade their side yard or portion of their rear yard as a consequence, as it is to the north. Mr. Brown stated that should it be the desire of the City Council, he would suggest that staff be directed to work with the applicant and the Henehans to explore a solution which could provide some landscape screening. Mayor Boro noted the Henehans were not requesting landscaping. Addressing the Henehans, should the project be approved, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether they would prefer Council to direct staff to ascertain whether privacy screening could be added without creating too much shade, or not pursue it at all. Ms. Henehan stated that should it be approved, she would respectfully request something be done. Addressing Councilmember Cohen, Mr. Molinari displayed a picture and questioned how it could be improved upon as it was not possible to view any of the Henehan's back yard. Councilmember Cohen stated he was not entirely satisfied he could tell from the material presented that it would be impossible to provide some additional privacy screening. He favored requesting the Community Development Director, at his discretion, to evaluate whether or not some landscape feature could add some additional privacy to the backyard of the Henehans. Agreeing, Mr. Brown stated it should be added as a Condition of Approval. He commented that it does not guarantee a mutually agreeable solution. Mayor Boro stated he assumed that should the project be approved this evening, the applicant could move forward, and confirmed that Mr. Brown would work with both neighbors to ascertain, at his discretion, what could be done. Councilmember Cohen stated that should Mr. Brown devise a reasonable solution, he favored granting him the authority to require implementation. Mr. Brown reiterated that it should be a Condition of Approval. Councilmember Heller reported having driven the neighborhood today and although not climbing up on any roofs, she did get a flavor of the neighborhood with some beautiful huge homes, together with smaller equally nice ones. She commented that in evaluating the plans she did not get a sense that the visual bulk would be too much or overpowering, rather believed it fit quite well on the site, and she would vote to deny the appeals. Councilmember Phillips commented that it was his hope there would be a healing process between the neighbors. From personal experience, owning a two-story home, he stated he could easily view down upon his neighbors; however, out of common courtesy refrains from doing so. He believed there was sufficient shielding to avoid this in the subject project. Councilmember Phillips stated he believed the architect had done an outstanding job in terms of the visual presence and it would add to the neighborhood. He indicated he would vote to deny the appeals. Mayor Boro commented that the architect had more than met the spirit and intent of the ordinance and zoning requirements. He believed the Molinaris had attempted to minimize the impact on their neighbors while at the same time developing their property to serve their purpose. Should Councilmember Cohen's suggestion on screening materialize, Mayor Boro believed this would help. Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution (re: Appeal A), amending it to add an additional Condition of Approval authorizing the Community Development Director to evaluate the issue of landscape screening and should he deem it appropriate, to require the installation of same. Councilmember Cohen indicated this evaluation should be conducted on site, rather than making a judgment from xerox photographs. APPEAL A) RESOLUTION NO. 11083— RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL BY MANOOCHEHR AND FARY FONOONI AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED01-98) FORA 1,313 SQUARE -FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT 89 SAN MARINO DRIVE (APN: 184-151-17) (as amended to add an additional Condition of Approval authorizing Community Development Director to evaluate the issue of landscape screening and if the Community Development Director deems it appropriate, to require the installation of landscaping.) SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 12 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution (re: Appeal B), with the addition of a condition authorizing the Community Development Director to investigate the issue of potential landscape screening protecting backyard privacy. APPEAL B) RESOLUTION NO. 11084— RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL BY LAURA AND FERGUS HENEHAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED01-98) FOR A 1,313 SQUARE -FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY HOME AT 89 SAN MARINO DRIVE (APN: 184-151-17) (as amended to add an additional Condition of Approval authorizing the Community Development Director to investigate the issue of potential landscape screening and if the Community Development Director deems it appropriate, to require the installation of landscaping.) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 23. Public Hearing — (CD) 900 C STREET (C STREET PARKING STRUCTURE): (CD) CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR A PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE WITH 400 SPACES LOCATED ON THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF THIRD AND C STREETS (APN: 11-255-06, 07, 09, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18 AND PART OF 26); FILE NOS. GP01-02, CZ01-08, UP01-61 AND ED00-144— FILE 115 (2000) x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Economic Development Coordinator Katie Korzun stated copies of all the elevations were available. Referring to the Materials Board, she identified the parking structure on the corner of Third and C Streets. Ms. Korzun stated this has been the subject of some discussion at Council for almost three years and to complete the discretionary permit approval portion of this project, staff was bringing forward the Negative Declaration, a General Plan Amendment to increase the height limit in the area, a Zone Change to implement the height increase, the Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review Permit on the structure. Ms. Korzun indicated it is a five -story structure with a half basement and 400 spaces, of which approximately 300 will be new. Its main access points will be from both C and B Streets. She indicated there will be an automated entry/exit system; therefore, while there will be attendants in the facility, they will not be at the booth, as at the current A Street structure, rather in a separate attendant area. In the Environmental Review, Ms. Korzun stated it was found there were no environmental impacts that were not reduced to an adequate level. The General Plan change would allow the height increase only for a public parking structure and would take it to 60 -feet in height, which is the height of this particular structure. The Zone change implements the General Plan height increase, taking it into the Zoning Ordinance, as both are required to be consistent. Ms. Korzun stated the project was reviewed and recommended for approval by both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. She indicated that since the project has been under review for so long, she would not make further detailed comments; however, would be pleased to respond to questions. With regard to the color scheme, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether the Romanesque Gold color indicated on the Material Board to be up along the top edge, was similar to that at the lower elevations. Ms. Korzun confirmed it to be a similar color, albeit depicted in shade. Mayor Boro stated that one of the directions at the outset was to build a garage that did not look SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 13 like one and this had been accomplished. He commented that it was a great looking structure and complimented Ms. Korzun on her efforts. He invited her to further expand on B Street. Ms. Korzun explained that the negotiations had not been completed and the rendition on display demonstrated the ATM lane and entry and exit lanes to the structure. There will be a trellis treatment for screening, the actual entrance door is back 80 -feet from the street; therefore, rather than having three long, exposed lanes, the trellis will cover this. This, she indicated, is technically not part of the main structure, rather a decorative element leading up to it. There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Miller stated it was a great job, enhances the surrounding environment and is very functional. He complimented everyone involved, noting it was something the community would be delighted with. Ms. Korzun pointed out it was designed by Watry Design and staff is most pleased with their work. Councilmember Cohen inquired as to the status on consideration of a restroom in the structure. Responding, Mr. Korzun stated there would be a restroom in the structure, noting it does not appear on this particular rendition; however, it will be open to the public and also used by the attendants. She explained it would be one unisex bathroom and handicap accessible. She confirmed that the present floor plan has it located immediately adjacent to the attendant booth and very close to the stairwell on the B Street side. She confirmed for Councilmember Cohen there is a walkway extending from B to C Street, which goes right by the lobby area of the structure where the attendant and bathroom are located. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. a) RESOLUTION NO. 11085— RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 400 -SPACE PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE AT 900 C STREET (APN: 011-255-06, 07, 09, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18 and part of 26) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. b) RESOLUTION NO. 11086 — RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000 TO AMEND POLICY LU -21 BUILDING HEIGHTS TO ADD A PROVISION FOR AN 18 - FOOT HEIGHT BONUS FOR PUBLIC PARKING TO THE PORTION OF THE SECOND/THIRD MIXED USE WEST DISTRICT LOCATED NORTH OF THIRD STREET AND EAST OF C STREET (APN: 011-255-09, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18 and part of 26) (GPA01-02) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: The title of the Ordinance was read: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro None None c) "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 14.16.190 TO ADD A PROVISION FOR AN 18 -FOOT HEIGHT BONUS FOR PUBLIC PARKING TO THE PORTION OF THE SECOND/THIRD MIXED USE WEST DISTRICT LOCATED NORTH OF THIRD STREET AND EAST OF C STREET (APN: 011- 255-09, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18 and part of 26)" Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1780 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 14 d) RESOLUTION NO. 11087 — RESOLUTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT (UP01-61) AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED01-144) FOR A PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE WITH 400 SPACES AND AN 18 -FOOT HEIGHT BONUS AT 900 C STREET (APN: 011-255-06, 07, 09, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18 and part of 26) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 24. Public Hearing — CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 5.12.010, 5.12.030, 5.12.050, 5.12.090, 5.40.010, 5.40.030, 5.40.045 AND 5.60.100 REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND TRAFFIC DIRECTION BY MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED SUCH DUTIES (MS) — FILE 9-3-87 x 9-3-30 X 11-1 x 11-8 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Chad Lynn, Parking Services Manager, stated that as a matter of organizational structure it has been decided to remove Parking from the Police Department and include it in Management Services. Organizationally, this could be accomplished in July of this year; however, the Municipal Code specifically calls out the Police Department and names employees of the Police Department as those empowered to enforce those laws. This, he stated, is the technical aspect of this organizational change permitting Management Services employees to enforce parking laws or traffic direction. Although Parking is being moved to a different department, Councilmember Heller inquired whether the Police Department retained police powers of enforcement, if necessary. Mr. Lynn responded affirmatively. There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. The title of the ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 5.12.010, 5.12.030, 5.12.050, 5.12.090, 5.40.010, 5.40.030, 5.40.045 and 5.60.100 REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND TRAFFIC DIRECTION BY MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED SUCH DUTIES" Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1781 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 25. a) Citizen of the Year: - File 262 x 109 x 102 x 9-2-6 x 10-2 (Verbal) Councilmember Phillips reported that he and Councilmember Heller had been requested to serve with five — six others to select the Citizen of the Year, and to date, only two viable nominations had been received. He, therefore, favored Council's suggesting to Community Development Director Bob Brown granting discretion to the committee to investigate further nominees. After discussion, Mayor Boro stated the committee should meet and decide on whether to re - solicit, thereafter, evaluate how best this process could be carried out in the future. b) ABAG General Meeting: - File 111 (Verbal) Councilmember Heller reported on having attended the ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) General Meeting last month. The Budget for the coming year was voted on and she requested an update on the legislation regarding MTC. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 15 There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m. to Closed Session. At the conclusion of the Closed Session at 11:10 p.m., Mayor Boro announced that no reportable action was taken. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12002 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/06/2002 Page 15