HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1990-01-02SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/�, J Page 1
IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1990 AT 7:00 PM.
Regular Meeting:
CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a
No. 90-1(a) - (#1) Elizabeth Maloney vs. City of San Rafael. Postponed to meeting
of January 16, 1990.
No. 90-1(b) - (#7).
No reportable action was taken.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1990 AT 8:00 PM.
Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Albert J. Boro, Councilmember
Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember
Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember
Joan Thayer, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney;
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to approve the recommended action
on the following Consent Calendar items:
Item
Recommended Action
3. Resolution Approving the 1990/1991 RESOLUTION NO. 8100 - APPROVING THE 1990/91 TO
to 1996/1997 Major Transportation 1996/97 MAJOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN MARIN
Projects in Marin County as Recommended COUNTY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MARIN COUNTY
by the Marin County Urban System URBAN SYSTEM COMMITTEE
Committee (PW) - File 221 x 9-3-40
4. Claims for Damages:
a. Julie Stiles (Rec)
Claim No. 3-1-1433
b. San Rafael Sanitation District (PW)
Claim No. 3-1-1452
Approved Insurance Consulting Associates, Inc.
recommendation for denial of claims a & b.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion:
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 4 AND 18, 1989 (CC) - File 1-4
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve Minutes of Decem-
ber 4 and 18, 1989, as amended by Councilmember Breiner:
Minutes of December 4, 1989: Page 10, Item 12, Public Hearing on Fairhills Drive, paragraph
after vote,..."a public hearing could be scheduled (excluding this property but Fairhills
in general) regarding the rezoning configurations," should read, "to consider rezoning_
to freeze current lot configurations."
Minutes of December 18, 1989: Page 9, Item 14, Report on Marin County Transportation Improv-
ement and Growth Management Plan, 6th paragraph..."Councilmember Thayer inquired about
apportionment of tax monies, should read..."possible different percentage apportionment
for local set aside monies,..." ...and Councilmember Breiner responded that at the last
meeting the "Committee" should be "Authority voted not to consider it".
Delete "at this time".
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/2/90 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Reg, ar) 1/2/90 Page 2
5. PUBLIC HEARING - UP89-10; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A USE
PERMIT FOR A SECOND DWELLING UNIT; 26 WILDWOOD WAY; ROBERT & CAROL BUTLER, OWNERS; STEVE
KAY, ARCHITECT, REP.; FAIRHILLS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT; AP 10-121-05
(P1) - File 10-5
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Pendoley stated this property consists of 2.6 acres, developed with
a residence of 2,530 square feet with attached two -car garage. The proposal is for construc-
tion of a second story, 525 square foot studio unit above the garage with a living and
bedroom area, kitchen, closet and bathroom. Mr. Pendoley stated that Planning Commission
held a public hearing on July 25, 1989 and referred the proposal to the Design Review
Board for comment on the series of issues, who then sent the proposal back to the Planning
Commission with recommended changes which were then incorporated into the application.
On November 14, 1989, Planning Commission approved the project.
Mr. Pendoley stated the appeal has three bases:
(1) "Violation of the character of the neighborhood." Mr. Pendoley stated concerns were
of the architectural style (Neo-classical) of the building; the building resembling a
duplex and an increase of density on the property in a single family neighborhood.
Mr. Pendoley stated Design Review recommended changes and the Planning Commission accepted
them. He noted in order to mitigate any appearance of a duplex, Design Review Board sug-
gested an access stairway be partially screened with a solid wall and landscaping, and
this has also been incorporated into the plan and the Planning Commission accepted it.
Mr. Pendoley referred to the density issue and stated the proposed density is consistent
with the proposed density shown on the General Plan for this neighborhood.
(2) "Violation of the City's Second Unit Ordinance restricting the purposes of such uses."
Mr. Pendoley stated this refers to a particular point in the Second Unit Ordinance, "These
units may only be rented or leased." He stated the appellant's concern is that this will
be made available to family members, therefore it is not consistent. He noted the Ordinance
says this unit, if approved, must be rented or leased and may, however, be rented or leased
to family members, and that price is not specified. Mr. Pendoley indicated Council might
want to qualify the intent of this portion of the Ordinance by adding another condition
with suggested language.
(3) "Violation of the Fairhills CC&Rs (Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions)."
On advice of City Attorney Ragghianti, Mr. Pendoley stated the City is not a party to
the CC&Rs and therefore not in a position to enforce them. He indicated that the property
owners have the option of initiating their own legal action to enforce the CC&Rs.
In response to question by Mayor Mulryan on the CC&Rs, if the City Council could enforce
them or make decisions, City Attorney Ragghianti responded negatively, indicating these
legally are irrelevant from the standpoint of the City addressing whether or not a permit
should be issued for this unit. He stated the findings necessary to be made are set forth
in the ordinance and that the City of San Rafael is not a party to the conditions which
restrict this property. He referred to a similar situation in the Pt. San Pedro area near
Seastrand.
Councilmember Shippey asked if Council could take action to adopt, as its own, certain
portions of the CC&Rs, and Mr. Ragghianti stated this could not be done tonight, explaining
that any applicant is entitled to have his or her application heard on the basis of the
Ordinance and rules that are in effect at the time the application is being heard. He
noted that is what this Council is required to do and the Council is to make findings
to grant approval or deny the project. New conditions cannot be imposed, nor can other
conditions be adopted this evening.
Councilmember Breiner asked Mr. Pendoley if this had come before the City as an addition
to the single family home without the application for a second unit, would the property
owner have the ability to add the second story as large as 525 square feet? Mr. Pendoley
responded affirmatively, stating addition of the kitchen makes this proposal a second
unit under the ordinance.
Councilmember Thayer referred to the Second Unit Ordinance, asking if it in no way preempts
a cause of action under the CC&Rs, and Mr. Ragghianti responded that is correct, stating
that is exactly what happened in the Seastrand project.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/2/90 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regula, 1/2/90 Page 3
Councilmember Thayer referred to a statement on page 3 of the staff report, which refers
to .5-2 units/acre on a hillside residential area and then refers to the density on the
site ranging from 1.3 to 5.2 units, and asked if this was correct. Mr. Pendoley responded
affirmatively, noting it has to be subdivided to accomplish that, but that theoretically
it is the density allowed.
APPELLANTS
Mr. Michel Rousselin, President of Fairhills Property Owners Association, spoke on the
characteristics of Fairhills, stating they have no quarrel with the Second Unit Ordinance,
but do with this application, indicating this unit is not suitable. He stated this project
is a threat to their neighborhood. He referred to Planning Department's staff report,
stating they are slanting the facts to find precedents (Exhibit A).
Mr. Rousselin made known his disagreement with the staff report, and stated the process
should be stopped now, stating they need to have permanent protection for their neighbor-
hood, indicating the Ordinance is clearly inadequate.
Susan Marchant -Angel, Attorney for the Fairhills Property Owners Association, stated her
legal advice to the Association has been mostly with the CC&Rs stating she understood
the City Council is not in the business of enforcing private property rights. She stated
she brought this to the attention of Council not to enforce them in place of the courts,
but as evidence of the characteristics of the neighborhood.
Ms. Marchant stated there seemed to be a belief that the homeowners object to Mr. Butler's
family living there, noting it is to the contrary. She asked if this unit was to be used
by family only, and Mr. Pendoley replied it is not a condition of the permit, noting that
the applicant stated it is his intention to build it for his children's use, and that
it is not conditional.
Mr. John Boeschen of 25 Valley View Avenue, Fairhills, spoke against the project, stating
the second dwelling unit will not enhance the character of Fairhills nor minimize the
traffic the troubles they presently have there.
Ms. Ginger Clark resident at Fairhills, spoke on traffic problems, stating they have asked
to have dividing lines on their roads and have been refused because the roads are too
narrow. She noted they are concerned with the second unit being approved thus opening
up for more second units to be built in their neighborhood, and fear for the safety of
their children and elderly residents.
Col.John Stickle of 42 Oakmont Avenue, spoke against the project, stating more dwellings
would mean more people, causing more traffic which would endanger pedestrians.
Ms. Mary Ellen Irwin of 34 Wildwood Way, spoke against the project, stating this will
cause many new rental units. She stated privacy has been impeded upon, indicating the
renovation of a two -room wide solarium window looks directly into their home, and that
the second story would add several more windows with four large bay windows looking right
into their home. She stated they now have to have the blinds drawn all the time, noting
it has changed their lives. She spoke at length concerning fire safety protection in their
neighborhood involving water pressure/fire flow, as well as traffic hazards and environ-
mental concerns regarding wildlife. She mentioned a structure fire on Oakmont where she
felt the Fire Department did not respond in a timely manner.
Ms. I'lee Bart, Realtor in Marin County who once lived in the Fairhills area for eight
years, stated this area is similar to the Kent Woodlands area and is unique. She noted
buyers would feel differently about purchasing a home in this area if it was going to
be filled with multi -unit dwellings.
Ms. Diane Neuhaus resident at 95 Oakmont Avenue, spoke against the project, and stated
the second unit being discussed and the subdivision below on Idlewood are both precedent
setting.
Mr. John Sharp, Attorney for the applicant, stated there is no precedent setting value
to the approval of this application. He noted if another use permit for another unit is
applied for in this City it will go before the Planning Commission who will be required
to make findings and may submit it to the Design Review Board as was done in this instance.
Mr. Sharp stated findings were made by the Planning Commission when the application was
granted, and stated as part of the findings..."The second dwelling unit is consistent
with all code requirements and provisions of the Second Unit Ordinance. The accessory
dwelling is contained within an existing single family structure, does not exceed 40 percent
of the main dwelling unit and necessary parking is provided and the primary dwelling is
owner occupied".
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/2/90 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/2/9 Page 4
Mr. Sharp focused on the character of the neighborhood which evolves around traffic and
circulation, as well as parking. He referred to Councilmember Breiner's question earlier,
that if the exact same square footage could be created without the use permit (i.e. without
the kitchen), and the answer was "yes", it could and that it could accommodate the same
number of vehicles. He submitted that the impact will not be any different from granting
this second unit application.
Mr. Sharp stated the City has in place the planning process and design review process to
make certain that the character of the neighborhood is not disturbed.
Councilmember Boro asked Mr. Sharp if the intent of the second dwelling is for Mr. Butler's
family, and Mr. Sharp replied affirmatively. He stated the attorney representing the home-
owners spoke of the possibility that at some point in time if the property was sold, that
the unit would go back to a single family residence, and asked Mr. Sharp if this was dis-
cussed with the neighbors. Mr. Sharp replied negatively.
Councilmember Breiner referred to page 3 of the Planning Commission report under Findings,
..."Accessory dwelling is contained within an existing single family structure", and asked
for an explanation. Mr. Pendoley responded by stating the Ordinance addresses this in
two ways; first, in the case of new construction being done to have the second unit there,
that it must be attached to the existing structure. Second, there can be an exception
if there is a detached accessory structure that already exists. He noted what they are
speaking to in the Ordinance's criteria is that it must be attached.
Councilmember Thayer stated several people complained about privacy and asked if this
unit is any higher than the current dwelling, and Mr. Pendoley responded in will be a
little higher than the second dwelling, making it 22 feet in total height.
Councilmember Thayer asked Fire Chief Marcucci if there is a fire safety issue with respect
to water volume, and Chief Marcucci stated before he answered this question, he wanted
to correct an earlier comment made, that the Fire Department did not know where the fire
was at the end of Oakmont. He stated when the phone call was received, the message was
that there was smoke coming from the top of Fairhills. He stated he was the first one
on the scene, noting he was on his way home and had seen the smoke. He said the message
did not state the address or was specific as to where the fire was.
Chief Marcucci stated the water mains were installed when the development was put in many
years ago, noting the water mains are 4 and 6 inches. He indicated in some areas, there
is not sufficient water and therefore, the Fire Department required additional sprinklers
for this unit because they felt although the volume of water is sufficient for the structure
as it is now, but with the addition on the structure requiring fire -flow, the amount of
water needed to extinquish a fire in this structure of a certain size, exceeded what they
thought is in the water main. He stated the pressure is there but not the volume.
In response to Councilmember Thayer's question if a hillside fire occurred on a hillside
involving several homes, if this particular unit and the extra water needed have an adverse
impact, Chief Marcucci responded he would need to know the fire involvement of the struc-
ture, how many structures are burning and what area on the hillside is the structure on.
He stated Fairhills is split into two water systems; one supplies the lower end and the
other system supplies the upper portion, therefore, it would depend where the fire is,
etc.
Councilmember Shippey was concerned about the ability of the residents to help fight fires
in Fairhills, and Chief Marcucci responded the reason they prefer not to have people on
their roofs fighting fires is because in several cases the roofs are shingle types and
slippery, causing people to fall from their roofs. He stated many people have not been
on roofs for a number of years and therefore, it is treacherous. The Fire Department does
not recommend that people sprinkle their roofs by getting onto it.
Chief Marcucci stated they could check the fire hydrants to determine the flow coming
from the hydrant, indicating this was done in this case. He stated they also checked the
size of the building, flow of the hydrant and made a determination that the hydrant at
that location was providing water that would meet the conditions of a fire in the structure
at it now exists, but with the addition it would not. He stated that is why his department
required the sprinkler system to be installed.
Councilmember Shippey commented that some of the Councilmembers are uncomfortable with
the restraints the law places upon them, indicating they cannot always vote the way they
would want to because of legal restrictions.
Councilmember Boro commented that Council is looking at what the neighbors want but need
to look at the individual's property rights as well. He noted when the Fairhills Homeowners'
President spoke, he almost implied that it was the Council bringing this development upon
the community, when in reality it is one of their own residents who is asking to develop
his own property. He said Council has to deal with the Ordinance as it currently is and
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/2/90 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regu ) 1/2/90 Page 5
not what they would like it to be, and also Council has to realize that when this Ordinance
was enacted it was promulgated throughout the City, and went to every Homeowners Association.
He mentioned if it is appropriate to put a freeze on second unit developments and to take
another look at this Ordinance, he is willing to do that; however, tonight Council has
to deal with what facts they have. Councilmember Boro stated they have a neighborhood
whose desires are very strong, but they also have an applicant who has an interesting
application, being for his personal family's use and yet at the same time wants to retain
his particular rights and does not want to be bound. Councilmember Boro stated the issues
they have to deal with are not the CC&Rs or the use, but the design and privacy of the
neighbors. He said in this case, he would prefer to review the design because of the neigh-
bors concerns, noting it should be reviewed so the surrounding neighbors do not lose their
privacy.
Councilmember Breiner stated the privacy of the neighbors and overall appearance seem
to be very important to the neighbors, and agreed with Councilmember Boro.
Councilmember Thayer commented that this project conforms basically with all the standards
regarding zoning in the General Plan and to the Second Unit Ordinance. She stated she
is concerned about the design, but more so of the cumulative impact in the area should
there be a proliferation of second units, which may not come about within the next 10
years. She stated she would be willing to look at Fairhills separately for a different
type of standards, but said she would also like to see a comprehensive set of hillside
development standards, and the Council could perhaps adopt portions of various neighborhood
CC&Rs. She concurred with Councilmember Boro's suggestion that the design of the second
unit be considered. Councilmember Thayer stated she also was concerned about the water
flow in Fairhills having an adverse affect on the City's firefighters, and would like
to have this bought up when the Zoning is being worked on. She concluded a compromise
could be worked out with the architect and homeowner regarding design.
Mayor Mulryan stated this is a difficult situation when the Second Unit Ordinance needs
to be complied with, noting he agrees with Councilmember Boro on the design. He said the
principal concern is the precedent setting or potential change over the years, but noted
this also can be dealt with in terms of looking at the Second Unit Ordinance for prospective
use as to what may need to be changed. He stated up to this point, Council has felt that
it has been working well in that a relatively small number of units have been applied
for and are spread throughout the whole community, therefore it has not had a major effect.
However, there also is a limit on the so called capacity of "infill", a term meaning adding
into existing territories. Mayor Mulryan noted these are the issues to be looked at on
a prospective basis and not necessarily Fairhills but Citywide.
Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to have the proposal sent
back to Planning staff to have a meeting scheduled with the proponent, homeowner and neigh-
bors. She emphasized that the construction, as proposed, if the kitchen were to be elimi-
nated, could proceed without any further review by the City, and pointed out the neighbors
and homeowners' representative who were concerned about the second unit aspect, have to
consider this. The question is, what do the neighbors want to end up with? A second unit
or having a two story addition to a house?
Mr. Robert Butler, Applicant, stated the neighbors have valid concerns regarding the second
unit. He stated, however, that from the beginning the only thing he thought he was doing
was complying with the law. He stated if he had wanted to create a duplex he would have
done it somewhere else and to the maximum.
Planning Director Pendoley clarified with Council if they are asking staff to work with
the people involved in this project to come up with a design and that it go back to the
Design Review Board and whether it includes the Planning Commission in this process? He
noted the last time Council had a similar issue on Biscayne Drive, Council decided to
handle the design issue itself, and kept it more focused with the people who were in dis-
agreement.
Mayor Mulryan felt Council should do as they did in the Biscayne matter; Council agreed.
Mr. Pendoley stated he had recommended to the Design Review Board, City Council and Planning
Commission that the Design Review Board not act as a hearing body; that it would simply
respond to a design to take input from the staff and applicants.
Mayor Mulryan reopened the public hearing and it was agreed that this item would come
back to Council on February 20, 1990 , after Design Review Board has reviewed design.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/2/90 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regula.] 1/2/90 Page 6
6. REPORT ON CERUTTI HOUSE AT 602 "B" STREET (PW) - File 2-7-1
Public Works Director Bernardi stated the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed and
discussed the validity of the Albert Park Master Plan as it related to the City -owned
structure at 602 "B" Street. He stated the Commission reviewed the details of the Master
Plan on December 20, 1989, heard testimoney from representatives of Marin Heritage and
the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association; heard testimoney from individuals supporting
the implementation of the Master Plan and deliberated amongst themselves concerning the
merit of the information presented. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend to
Council that the Albert Park Master Plan continue to be implemented and, consequently,
that the structure at 602 "B" Street be demolished.
Mr. Bernardi recommended that Council accept the recommendation made by the Park and Recrea-
tion Commission, that the structure be declared dangerous and that Council direct staff
to seek three informal bids to demolish the structure.
Recreation Director Sharon McNamee stated in front of the park is a large parking lot
which will be developed in two phases, and this would be considered the third phase.
She stated it also implements an entrance to the whole Recreation Center and the park,
noting it now has a very narrow entry where one drives in and out close together, citing
the circle to turn around in is also very narrow and not sufficient for emergency vehicles.
She stated this allows improvement of the entry and to finish the landscape frontage along
"B" Street, noting Albert Park is to the south, the house in the middle and the rest of
the Community Center. She stated the parking is needed for the Community Center which
has been in existence for 15 years and has exceeded its expectation of use, noting it
is busy all the time. The parking also serves for the park, which has a busy ballfield
and tennis courts.
Ms. McNamee stated other portions of the Master Plan call for a brick building which is
now used for City storage, to be renovated and reused as a teen center which was devel-
oped in 1978 and needs to be reevaluated. She noted either way, the plan talks about having
a building type of use on the site which would warrant additional parking.
Ms. McNamee stated much of the Master Plan has already been implemented, with the tennis
courts and frontage redone, including the ballfield.
Mr. Bernardi stated the parking design creates 20 new parking spaces on the site.
Ms. McNamee stated in discussions with management from the Safeway Store next door, she
noted they have been very cooperative over the years in terms of having large functions
causing an overflow into their parking lot. She mentioned that Safeway is aware of their
parking problems and would like to see this resolved so it does not impact them.
Mr. Lionel Ashcroft, Chairman of the Cultural Affairs Commission, stated staff is working
under guidelines set forth by the Master Plan of Albert Park created in 1978. He said
now, 12 years later, a different set of rules apply, noting Cultural Affairs have taken
a vote on the issue and recommend that the Cerutti House not be torn down, citing it is
representative of a working man's cottage and style of house that is now limited in San
Rafael. He stated it also represents a point of the small town character of San Rafael.
Mr. Ashcroft pointed out the house was originally placed there as a buffer and the area
is designated as a commercial/residential mix. He stated at the present time, the whole
block only has 3 houses on it.
Mr. Ashcroft stated the City bought the house in 1978 at a price which is less than what
the current market value is, noting there are numerous people who are willing to buy what
is "affordable housing". He noted in this sense, it is a shame to have this house destroyed.
He stated roughly, the house is worth $75,000 as is, knowing it has to be upgraded, etc.
The cost of tearing it down, repaving and striping 20 parking spaces would probably cost
$25,000, therefore, the City would be paying $100,000 for 20 parking spaces.
Mr. Ashcroft stated rehabilitation funds from Proposition 77 are possibly available for
this house, qualifying it for up to $120,000. He noted one agency has expressed some in-
terest in this home. Mr. Ashcroft urged the Council to reconsider tearing down the house.
Mr. Ralph Mihan, Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission, stated they reviewed
the Albert Park Master Plan in October 1989, and recognized the need for additional parking,
the final phase of landscaping, the entrance to the park and for improved traffic entrance
to the center. He stated they also made a recommendation that the house be razed and the
Master Plan implemented. Points raised by the Cultural Affairs Commission and Gerstle
Park representatives were considered by the Park and Recreation Commission, noting the
house provided a buffer in the neighborhood. He said the difficulty with the buffer in
this situation is that it sits right in the middle of the park and therefore from a buffer
standpoint, is not practical.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/2/90 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regui,,•) 1/2/90 Page 7
Mr. Mihan stated another point raised is that the house represents the housing situation
years ago in the neighborhood but noted there are many houses throughout the City having
similar architecture; he indicated this building is not historic or unique in architecture.
He stated the difficulty with many of the suggestions and ideas is the cost factor, and
the time frame in getting the funding. Meanwhile, the house sits there causing a problem
with vagrants and being in a dangerous situation. He stated that Council should be aware
of the need to improve the traffic entrance solution, noting Traffic Engineer has said
that the entrance to the Community Center does pose a problem as it is now with respect
to emergency vehicles. He said additional parking is desperately needed in the area,
noting the senior citizens, the Goldenaires have many activities held there with 40 or
more in need of parking, spilling out to other areas, including parking needed for the
many ball activities that take place in the park.
Mr. Mihan concluded as a result of all issues considered, the Park and Recreation Commission
recommends to the Council that they approve razing the building and implementing the plan.
Ms. Linda Bellatore representing Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, stated they do
recognize the need for additional parking and the new entrance to the community center;
however, she said in the past, the Association has been in favor of affordable housing
and continues to stress preserving the neighborhood character and adjacent areas. She
stated they had hoped there would be funds to provide an affordable housing unit. She
noted if someone were to come forward to rehabilitate the house with a new foundation
there is a possibility that the house could be repositioned on the site to provide some
additional parking.
Councilmember Shippey referred to a letter from the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association
speaking of relocating the structure as an infill building, and asked what their thoughts
are on that now. Ms. Bellatore responded they found out it is not economically feasible.
She stated the Ceruttis had tried to find someone to move the house off the site but
could not get it done.
Mayor Mulryan stated he personally has a difficult time with the City keeping the house
in the middle of a park; he asked staff to refresh his recollection of when they worked
with the Ceruttis in relocating the house, if in staff's opinion they exhausted that
possibility, noting the only way it could work is that they had to find some funding to
make this possible.
Mr. Bernardi responded in the search to relocate the house to a different site, when the
Ceruttis were investigating this there were a number of sites within a reasonable distance
of the property, but it turned out to be very expensive to move it.
City Manager Nicolai responded they initially wanted to make it available to the Ceruttis
as a gesture of sentiment on their part. But once it became known that they could not
afford to move it the City would need to become involved in having it go out for public
bid to make it available to the general public. She felt two decisions were made by the
Council. One, at the time the park was being developed, that out of courtesy they let
Mrs. Cerruti have a life estate and therefore leave the house there while the rest of
the park was being developed; and two, out of courtesy to the Cerutti family, the family
would have the opportunity to relocate it. She noted it made it look like the City was
tearing it down to build a parking lot when it was actually part of a major Master Plan.
Councilmember Thayer asked if the house had to be brought up to code to sell, and Mr.
Bernardi replied in a situation such as this, it would be very clear to anyone wanting
to purchase the house that there would be definite requirements to bring it up to code.
The sales price would have to be discounted to accommodate the renovation costs of the
building. He gave an example, stating if the house was worth $200,000 but would take $100,000
for renovation, the City would have to accept an offer of $100,000 as a sales price.
Ms. Jennifer Greenstein, resident in San Rafael stated she is concerned about affordable
housing.
Mr. Dan Druckerman, 30 year businessman in San Rafael stated he has seen changes in San
Rafael that were supposed to enhance the City of San Rafael, some of which were not such good
ones. He noted many parking lots have been built to bring people into the downtown area
to shop, but said he has also seen businesses move out of San Rafael. He concluded the
City should not sell short the fabric of the town by eating away at it simply because
it does not look symmetrical to have an old house sitting on the edge of a park.
Ms. Nicki Simons from Marin Heritage explained the word buffer and stated it means that
the house itself is a buffer between the park, commercial and neighborhood. She referred
to McLarren Lodge which is a beautiful lodge in the middle of a park in Golden Gate Park.
She referred to parking, noting 20 parking spaces is not enough and before long, more
parking spaces will be needed. In conclusion, Ms. Simons stated in case they do find someone
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/2/90 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regul 1/2/90 Page 8
to move the house without purchasing the property, how would it be to have a caretaker's
lodge behind Falkirk where there once was one but it had burned down.
Ms. Carlene McCart, member of the Park and Recreation Commission stressed that during
their meeting with the community leaders and Commission, a consensus was reached that
parking is a problem around Albert Park and the Community Center but that parking is not
the entire issue. She stated when you consider a family event at the Community Center,
that could allow possibly 80 more people to park closer to the Center. She noted the house
has no value to City operations as it is only 1,100 square feet and is too small to accommo-
date the types of groups the City's Recreation Department would be housing as well as
other City departments. Staff has spent a number of hours trying to identify additional
sites and/or individuals who would move the house and take on the costs and no one has
volunteered to do this. She noted it seemed unfair to create a private residence knowing
late night affairs do happen. Ms. McCart urged Council to go forward with the Master Plan.
Mr. Elmo Rossi, President of the Goldenaires stated they have 1,900 members, noting that
although everyone does not attend their functions, they do have quite a lot who do. He
said additional parking would be very helpful. He urged Council to tear the house down.
Mr. Arthur Cousins, member of Marin Heritage, stated in order to keep Downtown viable
you need to have people and housing in that area. He said if affordable housing is destroyed
you would have a park with no people.
Councilmember Breiner stated she and Mayor Mulryan have shown their interest many times
in the preservation of Falkirk, and wished the City had the money for preservation of
other buildings, citing the Boyd House. She said other than giving much time and thought
to the Cerutti house, they had hoped someone would come forward to move the house at minimal
cost if there was land available, but it has not happened. She noted she would feel bad
if someone got hurt on the property.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the recommendation
made by the staff to:
1. Accept recommendation of Park and Recreation Commission to continue to implement the
Albert Park Master Plan;
2. Declare the structure a dangerous building; and
3. Direct staff to secure three informal bids to demolish the structure.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Breiner referred to a letter dated December 19, 1989 from the Gerstle Park
Neighborhood Association, stating the Albert Park Master Plan is 12 years old and suggested
the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association and the Design Review Board review the Plan
and bring their comments back to staff.
7. CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT OF SISTER -CITY RELATIONSHIP WITH CHIANG MAI, THAILAND
(VERBAL) - File 128
Mayor Mulryan stated some people from the community recently visited Thailand, and noted
it is a City of 100,000 people and is a market community similar to the City of San Rafael
with a heritage of logging, also similar to San Rafael. He said the Mayor and citizens
of Chiang Mai are interested in beginning a friendship with San Rafael because of the
number of ties with Southeast Asians in our community. Mayor Mulryan stated this would
be of no cost to the City and suggested the City of San Rafael "open its arms" to such
a relationship.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to have a Resolution brought
to Council establishing a Sister -City Relationship between Chiang Mai, Thailand and San
Rafael.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
8. ADOPTION OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR 1990 (Fin) - File 8-14 x 9-3-20
Finance Director Coleman stated approximately four years ago, the State of California
required Cities to adopt an Investment Policy. He noted he has made some changes to the
current Investment Policy, stating it is much more restrictive than what State law provides.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/2/90 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regul 1/2/90 Page 9
He noted the changes he is concerned about are as follows:
Increasing his authority to replace collaterized certificates of deposit from a million
dollar limit to $1.5 million; to increase purchases of Bankers Acceptances from a million
dollar limit to $2 million and to increase the percentage of the portfolio that could
be invested in Medium Term Notes from 15% to 20%.
After further discussion, Councilmember Boro requested Mr. Coleman to come back to Council
in the future with information as to the top Japanese Banks and institutions monies are
invested in and the amount of monies.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the adoption of
the Investment Policy for 1990, with changes as noted in the staff report.
AYES: COUNCILMEMEERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
9. UP89-68; REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR ISSUANCE OF A USE PERMIT FOR POOL ROOM;
555 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST; DIANA SCHERER, OWNER; DON DESURVILLE, REP.; AP 14-152-28
(P1) - File 10-5
Planning Director Pendoley referred to Section 10.28 of the Municipal Code requiring that
billiard rooms and pool rooms may only be allowed by a permit granted by the City Council.
He stated the Planning Commission granted a use permit for a pool room at 555 Francisco
Boulevard, Harbor Center on December 12, 1989, and among the provisions of that permit
were that food services were limited to a 500 square foot area and no alcohol may be served
during hours of operation, 12 PM to 2 AM, seven days a week. The Planning Commission found
that there was more than adequate parking as required by the Zoning Ordinance and the
Commission applied a condition that would have the operator provide security the same as
TKO (Three Klicks Out), the adjoining establishment is required to do.
Mr. Pendoley stated only the operator was at the hearing, and the Planning Commission
unanimously voted approval of the use permit.
Mayor Mulryan asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak against the proposal
for the pool room. There was none.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Mulryan seconded, to approve UP89-68 for
a pool room in the Harbor Center area for a 6 month period.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
10. REQUEST FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - END OF ESMEYER DRIVE (PW) - File 2-11 x 9-3-40
Public Works Director Bernardi stated they received a request from Dr. Janice Joseph for
an encroachment permit to construct a railroad tie and masonry block stairway in the unim-
proved portion of Esmeyer Drive. In the past, the residents raised a concern on Esmeyer
Drive regarding parking and the use of the unimproved strip which was referred to the
City Attorney's Office. Based upon the City Attorney's investigation, parking on the
City's streets is "okay" and the use of the unimproved strip at the end of Esmeyer Drive
for pedestrian access is also "okay". The neighborhood had concerns that guests of Dr.
Joseph also parked on Esmeyer Drive, causing a problem to the residents living on Esmeyer
Drive.
Mr. Bernardi stated that a petition is attached to the staff report, signed by residents
who live on Esmeyer Drive. He noted the issue is whether or not Council wants to issue
the encroachment permit which deals with indemnity in terms of slipping and falling on
the unimproved portion of the right-of-way. He indicated this can be supplemented by
requiring limits of insurance and having the City specifically insured for any injuries
that might occur with regard to the stairway. If Council decides to deny the permit, the
basis would be that the impact to the residents on Esmeyer Drive is such that the Council
does not feel it is appropriate.
Mr. Bernardi stated there is a portion of unimproved road right-of-way with the street
not going all the way to San Rafael City's property line, therefore there is a 10 foot
strip of dirt that is crossed over to get to the improved portion of the street. Behind
the fence are private property backyards. He added that it was brought to his attention
today, that nearly 19 years ago, the City Council issued an encroachment permit to the
neighbor of Dr. Joseph for the construction of a driveway from the end of Esmeyer Drive
onto the property and no action was taken. He noted at that time the City Attorney had
staff halt any further action with regard to the granting of an easement for access across
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/2/90 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regula 1/2/90 Page 10
that 10 foot strip. Therefore, there are no easements currently from Esmeyer to the County
properties.
David Freitas, Attorney representing Dr. Joseph stated it is incorrect that there is no
easement. He stated that Esmeyer Drive as it exists on Terra Linda 21 is a public road
to its terminus but not paved. He said up to and past the one foot non -access is a public
easement on Terra Linda 21, paved about 10 feet short. He said technically there is an
easement and it is a public easement on a public road. Mr. Freitas explained that Dr.
Joseph's address is Fox Lane and her roadway vehicular access is up through Sleepy Hollow.
Her office is at 750 Las Gallinas. If she were to go down and around through Ross Valley
and out Highway 101 and through Northgate, it would take a while. What she does now is
park on Esmeyer, walks through her gate down Esmeyer Drive, the unimproved portion, gets
into her car and leaves. She parks in front of the McGoverns who have agreed to allow
her to park there, who also use this access.
Mr. Freitas stated anyone has a right to park on Esmeyer Drive. He stated there has been
no violation of parking regulations in the City of San Rafael by Dr. Joseph or anyone
else visiting her or otherwise. He said at the end of each public street at least in Terra
Linda there is a one foot non -access so no one can come in and attach a non-public street
to your public street. He said sometime ago, the City Attorney researched this and came
up with a basic conclusion that it is for vehicular non -access and has never been used
to prohibit pedestrian access. Therefore, this issue is not the right to use the property;
not the right to park on the street nor drive down the street, because Dr. Joseph has
those rights. Whether it should be improved or stay in what the neighbors call a "dangerous
state" so that the City may incur liability, Dr. Joseph is exercising her rights over
public property. When Dr. Joseph and Mr. Bernardi were trying to work something out,
it was suggested that the unimproved slanted 10 feet might be dangerous, and Dr. Joseph
said she would fix it. He noted this is what caused this issue to come before Council,
and the question is whether she will be allowed to improve it, by the Council granting
the encroachment permit and allowing her to indemnify the City from what some of her neigh-
bors consider to be a dangerous area.
Ms. Freitas noted that mention had been made about improving the area by adding a driveway
and thereby alleviating parking, access, etc., noting he had mentioned this to his client
and did not meet with any great resistance to exploring that possibilty.
Mr. Douglas Colbert, resident on Esmeyer Drive referred to the staff report which stated
the depth of the City property is 10 feet. If the eight foot high fence of the Sleepy
Hollow household has not encroached on City property, then the depth is around 25 feet.
The encroachment permit is for steps only, however, when City staff halted the project,
the contractor appeared to be in the process of installing walkways as well as steps.
He noted there are flat portions at the beginning and at the top of the hill; excavation
has been done and there is still evidence that a sidewalk was going to be placed there.
Behind the City property are the two Sleepy Hollow households that are accessing Esmeyer.
Next door is Mr. Bohanec, who applied to the County to subdivide and build some houses.
One of the proposals was to have access to those houses, with a driveway from Esmeyer
through City property to the new houses. This was opposed by the two Sleepy Hollow resi-
dents; however, they now wish to access Esmeyer for their own use. The question is should
the City approve the encroachment permit, it would open the door to additional traffic
problems in the future, including Mr. Bohanec's new houses should he try to build again
and gets approval. He noted the parking on Esmeyer is for the convenience of the Sleepy
Hollow residents; however, they have other options, citing the parking problem has escalated
over time. He urged Council to approve the option to install a fence, or instruct staff
to find a way to solve the parking problems, noting applicant has another access by Freitas
Parkway.
Mr. Jeffrey Moss, resident at 184 Esmeyer Drive clarified that one of the City Attorney's
opinions stated this is an issue between two neighbors. Mr. Moss disagreed, stating parking
is a serious problem regardless of Dr. Joseph's right to park on the street, indicating
Council has the right to regulate parking or passage on City property.
Mr. Val Balaski, resident at 10 Fox Lane stated one of the reasons he bought in this area
was because it had a fence with a back gate with pedestrian access to Terra Linda, onto
Esmeyer Drive. He stated the previous owner had applied for a permit to extend the driveway
from Esmeyer up to Fox Lane which was approved and signed by the City Engineer but was
never built. In response to a question asked if there was access from San Anselmo up to
Esmeyer, Mr. Balaski stated Dr. Joseph's property is fenced on all four sides as is his.
The only people who will use the path would be his family or guests or some people who
live on Esmeyer or Lea Drive who may call him and ask to pass through his property to
hike in the unimproved open space area. He stated the guests who use Esmeyer Drive and
the back gate are residents of Terra Linda, therefore it is academic as to who has the
right to park. Mr. Balaski felt this is a vendetta by one person trying to limit the use
of this property, and that a fence is ludicrous.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/2/90 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regul 1/2/90 Page 11
Ms. Donna Borak Moss, resident at 184 Esmeyer Drive stated people are using their street
and neighborhood for access into San Anselmo, and she disagreed with this. She urged Council
to deny the encroachment permit and to return the "No Trespassing" signs, including the
construction of a chain-link Fence to prevent further parking and trespassing problems.
Councilmember Shippey stated it has been a long-standing policy with Council and the County
not to permit east -west commuting across the ridgeline between Sleepy Hollow and Terra
Linda. He said although he did not like the idea of constructing a chain-link fence, that
if they denied the permit and re -erected signs, they would be back to where they are now.
Councilmember Shippey said the permit request is inequitable because it would not benefit
the public, who cannot use this pathway because it travels from private property to a
public street; therefore, Council has been asked to subsidize in terms of liability insur-
ance, a private access path for private citizens of Sleepy Hollow.
Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to direct staff to deny the
Encroachment Permit based on liability concerns, parking concerns and equity; to construct
a chain-link fence, per staff's recommendation at a minimum of 6 feet high at the western
boundary of the non -access property; to erect prominent signs visible from both east and
west, indicating "No Trespassing," therefore limiting City liability for anyone who does
trespass on the property.
Mayor Mulryan stated he is in favor of the motion to deny the encroachment permit but
asked Councilmember Shippey to give staff flexibility in suggesting ways that might more
permanently solve this issue.
Councilmember Shippey suggested if they do not have the fence erected, they leave themselves
open to liability, and noted that the fence is a part of staff's recommendation.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated any member of the public has the right to use the area
behind the barricade. The problem is whether or not a dangerous condition of public property
exists, noting he does not believe one exists now but that there always is the possibility
that if large numbers of people go there, someone could get hurt. He indicated "No Trespass-
ing" signs are prudent, and to erect a gate is up to the Council. Mr. Ragghianti stated
he did not recommend that a fence be approved or a gate structure, noting it is unnecessary,
indicating it relates only to an application to improve public property and if that motion
carries, that application will be denied.
Councilmember Boro stated if the fence is not put up, the trespassing will continue. He
noted Attorney Freitas says there is a right for people to use the public access but he
indicated it is really a public access to private property. He stated he looked at the
site yesterday, noting it is wet and slippery, and whoever uses that area could slip and
hurt himself, therefore, the City would be open to liability. He agreed that the fence
should be constructed.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ADD ITEM
1. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S LETTER TO THE COUNTY REGARDING THE MARIN COUNTY JAIL EIR
(P1) - File 10-2
Both Councilmember Boro and Mayor Mulryan commended Planning Director Pendoley for his
letter to the County regarding the Marin County jail EIR. Mayor Mulryan asked staff to
make sure that the County involves the City in the decision making process with regard
to the jail and obtain a response to the concerns raised in Mr. Pendoley's letter.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 PM.
h►.
JEA. E0NCINIqiV try Ce r
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1990
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/2/90 Page 11