Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1990-04-02SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 2, 1990, AT 7:00 PM. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION - File 1.4.1.a 1. No. 90-8(a) - #2. No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 2, 1990, at 8:00 PM. Regular Meeting San Rafael City Council Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor 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 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM SISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP WITH LONATE POZZOLO, ITALY - File 128 Mary Ferrario O'Brien presented Mayor Mulryan and the City Council with a plaque formally commemorating the Sister City relationship between the City of San Rafael and Lonate Pozzolo, Italy. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: Item 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Workshop Meeting of March 6, 1990 and Regular Meeting of March 19, 1990 (CC) 3. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with BOOR/A Architects and County of Marin for Architectural Services for the City/ County Library (Lib) - File 4-13-79 x 9-3-61 Recommended Action Approved as submitted. RESOLUTION NO. 8149 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE, OR AGREEMENT (W/BOOR/A and the County of Marin for Architectural Services for City/County Library). 6. Agreement with Dr. Michael Sexton, RESOLUTION NO. 8150 - AUTHORIZING Liaison Physician for the EMT -D Program THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT (FD) - File 4-3-228 x 9-3-31 WITH DOCTOR MICHAEL SEXTON FOR SERVICES AS LIAISON PHYSICIAN FOR THE EMT -DEFIBRILLATION PROGRAM (One year, from 4/2/90 - 4/2/91). 7. Claim for Damages: Approved City Attorney's recommendation for denial of Claim. Marin Abused Women's Services (PW) Claim No. 3-1-1475 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 4. APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-14AY CERTIFICATION SERVICES WITH COUNTY OF MARIN FOR MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING (PW) - File 4-13-80 x 4-3-216 x 9-3-40 Councilmember Thayer inquired how would this approval affect further analysis of the Merrydale Overcrossing, noting that it is beginning to generate more interest with regard to the traffic studies done in the past, particularly with North San Rafael residents. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 1 SRCC MT "TES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 2 City Manager Nicolai explained that this is a ministerial action, so the County can represent the City, in the role of a State certified agency. She added that this is required because it is a Federal Aid project. Ms. Nicolai further stated that she has had a meeting with two representatives of the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents, and there is no reason to defer this action. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to adopt the Resolution as recommended. RESOLUTION NO. 8151 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MARIN AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR THE MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 5. RESOLUTION CONVEYING EASEMENT TO PG&E AND PACIFIC BELL FOR UTILITY SERVICES TO 70 BLOSSOM DRIVE EXTENSION (PW) - File 2-5-30 Councilmembers Boro and Breiner announced that they would abstain from voting on this item, due to potential conflict of interest. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 8152 - AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT OF EASEMENT TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND PACIFIC BELL TO PROVIDE UNDER- GROUND UTILITY SERVICES TO 70 BLOSSOM DRIVE EXTENSION, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro & Breiner (Due to potential conflict of interest). 8. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ADDING TITLE 21 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED, "OBSTRUCTION OF VIEWS BY TREES" (P1) - File 115 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council, stating that at the March 5, 1990 Council meeting staff had been directed to examine five issues: 1) Effective date of the Ordinance; several options were discussed; 2) The issue of Private Litigation - should parties have the right to litigate in lieu of mediation and binding arbitration; 3) Preparation of a Comprehensive Tree Program - staff was asked to prepare a draft work program; 4) Exempt Species - several citizens expressed a desire to allow professional pruning and maintenance of exempt species; and 5) Economic Considerations - there was interest in adding economic burdens to tree owners who must be responsible for continued maintenance. Mr. Pendoley stated that staff is recommending appropriate language on this item, for Council consideration. Mayor Mulryan inquired if the pruning or trimming of Oak trees would be illegal, and Mr. Pendoley responded that it would not be illegal if the language is left the way it is in the proposed ordinance. He stated it would be at the option of the owner. Councilmember Thayer inquired, should litigation be incurred, as requested by several proponents, on the side of the tree owner, would that create a cause of action not previously existing. City Attorney Ragghianti responded that if private litigation would be permitted the lawsuit would rely on that portion of the Ordinance, and they would be entitled to do so. Councilmember Shippey noted that one version of the Ordinance would have binding arbitration required, with very limited possibility of litigation thereafter, and the other would have possibility of private litigation but only optional and nonmandatory arbitration. He stated he interprets that to mean that you cannot have forcing arbitration and then, as an appeal, litigation thereafter. He inquired if that is the meaning and, if so, why? Mr. Ragghianti responded that the way the present Ordinance is worded compels participation in both the mediation and the arbitration procedure, and it is conceivable that a tree owner could simply refuse to cooperate, and the view SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 3 complainant could take the matter all the way through arbitration to an award. He added they could then file a petition to confirm that award in Superior Court. He stated that the bases for attempting to set aside such an arbitration award are extremely limited. He added that the alternative procedure, which is in the packet at this meeting, makes the mediation and arbitration voluntary. He stated that this type of procedure is in effect in many tree ordinances, and this type of procedure provides that if mediation does not work and arbitration fails to resolve it, either party involved may initiate litigation for the purpose of determining whether the obstruction of the view is reasonable. Mr. Ragghianti stated that he believes both procedures are valid, and this is a determination which Council should make. He added that many cities in the Bay Area have the exact type of alternative language which is in this meeting's packets, namely voluntary participation in mediation, voluntary participation in arbitration, and litigation. He added that the Council's determination will be based on what they feel is in the best interest of the community and of the people involved. Mayor Mulryan stated that what we are saying ahead of time is that we would be passing an Ordinance which makes the arbitration binding which would limit the scope of review by civil courts, and that if the Council does not agree to that then when people go through the voluntary aspect and do not agree and are back where they started from, then they would base whatever they do in civil action on whatever rights or obligations are set up in the Ordinance. He stated that there are two aspects to the tree issue which should be discussed, one being the View aspect and the other being the Heritage Tree study which would include a definition of what is a Heritage Tree. He stated that with San Rafael being a Tree City, that is a very critical part of the issue. He then asked Mr. Pendoley what would be the result regarding timing, if this were rounded out and the Heritage Tree aspect was included within this Ordinance along with the View aspect. Mr. Pendoley responded that the Heritage Tree aspect would include identifying the types/groves of particular trees, permits for taking down some or all trees, and in some cases, for pruning. He added that a more elaborate program would include solar access protection as well as light and shade issues. He stated that such a program would probably take at least 800 hours to cover all of the issues, and would take six months to get through the program which would include six to twelve months, with citizen participation at meetings with a representative committee. He noted that the problem is the limited hours available in the Planning Department at this time. Mayor Mulryan inquired if the scope would include the right to privacy, and the wind screening issues. Mr. Pendoley replied it would. Ms. Thayer inquired if this Ordinance as written would affect new projects, and Mr. Pendoley responded that he does not think so. He stated he feels that developers are aware of the situation and would avoid new plantings which might cause view blockage. Councilmember Boro commented that there are a number of issues, based on conversa- tions with many people recently: The need for this Ordinance, and the issue of voluntary versus nonvoluntary. Also, who pays the fees, initially and ongoing; the effective date is another key issue; and how this can be tied into an overall tree ordinance and should one come ahead of the other. Mr. Boro added that there has been some feeling in the community that this Ordinance has been "railroaded through" and he would like staff to speak about the process and how the Ordinance evolved. Mayor Mulryan stated that the Council did ask staff to get as much done as possible, and it did turn out that some neighborhood groups have been bypassed. Mr. Pendoley stated that during the General Plan process a number of people in the community, as well as the Planning Commission and Council, expressed interest in an Ordinance and program dealing with the preservation of trees and abating view blockage problems. He stated this was in the General Plan when it was approved. He added that the Planning Department had asked that this be postponed for six months or so, because of a change in Planning Directors. He stated that in May of 1989 staff met with citizens' groups, and were asked to discuss the issue at the budget hearings. He noted that the Department made quarterly reports on their Work Program, and in January of 1990 the City Council approved a revised work program to provide Planning staff with a six-week program for the Tree Ordinance, with a citizen participation component, with the Ordinance to cover a View Protection Program. He noted that an Advisory Committee, made up of a number of environmental groups in the community, neighbor- hood groups, as well as representatives of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, and Cultural Affairs Commission, had been formed for this purpose. SRCC MINUTES (Regular 4/2/90 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 4 Mayor Mulryan opened the nearing for public comment. Ned Turkinqton, a member of the 1987 Tree Committee, stated there is a definite need for a tree ordinance in the City. He stated that the need is for a view protection and maintenance ordinance, not for tree removal. He stated his committee feels that "reasonableness" as administered by the Mediation Services would be equitable. He stated that neighbors should try to come to an amicable agreement but, when this fails, guidelines are needed. He added that it had been decided by the Council that view protection came first, and heritage trees could follow. He stated he strongly encourages passing this Ordinance. Fieldinq Greaves stated he is opposed to this Ordinance, that it is flawed. He stated it should not compel binding arbitration, and that publicly -owned trees should not be exempted. He stated that the cost of any tree pruning or removal should be borne by the complainant, and not the property owner. He stated that citizens already have the right to voluntary mediation and arbitra- tion, and the right to go to court. Harry Winters stated that the only way you can have binding arbitration with an unwilling party is where such legislation would cause a severe loss or hardship to a party or to public welfare. He stated this Ordinance does not speak of severe loss or hardship. He stated we have the option of litigation right now. He expressed the opinion that the Advisory Committee was overloaded with City staff and City groups, and not the general public. Ann Untermann of West End Nursery spoke on behalf of tree preservation. She stated the City should not be planning to cut trees, but should be planning to plant trees. She noted their value in open space, and asked that the Council give some serious thought before making judgment on cutting trees instead of planting more. Don Dickinson stated that he lives at the base of a hill in the Dominican area, and could be adversely affected by the provisions of this Ordinance. He stated that uphill trees block the light of the downhill owner, and noted that houses on level ground block views. He stated he feels the Ordinance should be effective at the date of adoption or the date the person purchased the property, whichever is later. Dr. Mosier of Peacock Gap urged that the City make certain that people take care of their property, and keep their trees trimmed and their property free of weeds. He stated trees should be trimmed or windowed, but not removed. Ra .y Moritz, Forest Ecologist and Arboreal Consultant, stated he has problems with the Ordinance and the process. He stated there was not one professional tree expert on the Advisory Committee. He added that he feels this Ordinance is in conflict with the California Reforestry Act, and he does not understand why the Advisory Committee did not take advantage of the information in that Act when developing the Ordinance. He noted that if this Ordinance is passed, a tree owner should have the right to have an arborist prior to mediation or arbitration. Jim Bitken, a San Rafael resident, stated there is the matter of the right of the view owner versus an owner's right to privacy. He stated he lives below a massive house, and needs the trees on his property to partially screen that house which looms over his patio. Arthur Nichols of 30 Graceland Drive, stated that a view is a privilege and not a right. He stated that there is aesthetic and economic value to views, but also to trees and shrubs, and that anyone who buys property should realize that it is natural for trees to grow. He noted that a property owner has the ongoing cost of maintaining trees and shrubs, such as watering, spraying, fer- tilizing and trimming, and that the neighbors benefit from it but do not bear the cost. He stated that all costs should be borne by the person benefiting, and the owner should not have to pay. Alice Vipiana of the Dominican area stated that she has looked further into the matter and has decided that this Ordinance should not be passed. Sandra Lollini, representing the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, stated there is a letter in the packets from the GPNA, and noted that this Ordinance is only a part of the complete Tree Ordinance, and is not a priority, and that the Ordinance to protect trees should come before an Ordinance to cut them down. Julie Ann Madow of West End Neighborhood Association spoke of citizens' rights to plant, and rights to privacy. She stated that continuous windowing and pruning can threaten the life of a tree. She noted there is no inherent right to a view, but there is a right to privacy. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 4 SRCC MT -`'TES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 5 Steve Miller of 129 Greenfield Avenue stated he opposes this and other ordinances until hillside design standards and tree preservation are prepared. He stated that once the hillside and tree preservation ordinances are done the West End Neighborhood Association will help with the development of a view protection ordinance. Leslie Simons of Scenic Avenue stated she agrees with the concept of a tree ordinance, but the purpose of this one is somewhat superficial. She stated that some redwoods and pines grow to 80 feet, and can deprive residents of warmth and sunlight in their gardens. Dora Knell of Peacock Gap stated that the citizens' committee should have been made up of a less biased group, and she hopes the Council will stay out of this situation, which is really between two residents. Ray Weiqel stated that views should be protected, but the Council must be extremely careful in the wording of the ordinance so that it will be fair to everyone. He stated trees should be trimmed by an expert, as his trees are. He stated a view is important, but trees are also. He stated that a 50 -year-old tree should not be cut down in order for a new home to be built. Fran Donlan stated that she thinks the people against this ordinance do not understand it. She quoted from her letter of March 8, which was in the packets, stating that she lost two clients recently because the homes they wanted to purchase did not have views, and she feels that the view protection ordinance is necessary for the growth of the City. Gil Deane stated he is opposed to the ordinance for all of the basic reasons stated by other people. He stated the government is interfering in other peoples' business, and the City cannot tell him that he has to go to mediation and not to court. He stated it is the City's business to not encourage the lopping of tree branches. Victoria DeWitt of West End stated only one person on the board of their Neighborhood Association was in favor of the ordinance. She noted there was not sufficient neighborhood association representation on the Advisory Board. Ruth Beckner stated that her yard was dying for lack of sun, and when she mentioned it to her neighbors they cut their 30 -foot hedge and she now has sun in her garden. She urged that solar energy be added to the ordinance. Maria Del Santina of Dunfries Terrace stated that view lots should be kept as view lots. She added that people are just asking to have the trees cut to preserve their views. Bob Marx stated he would like to have the word "must" omitted and "will" put in, and the words "suggest" and "would like to see" and "in our opinion". He stated that San Rafael needs an ordinance, but he is against this one since it is unconstitutional. He stated he is upset that his taxes are being used for the preparation of this ordinance. Jim Madow stated he is the litigation attorney who defended Hugh Campbell, which started the tree ordinance issue. He added that the Council has the option to pass or refute the ordinance. He stated the Council has the option of making this ordinance a part of a comprehensive tree preservation ordinance. He noted another option open to the Council, which is to place this matter on the ballot. He stated it would not have to be binding, but advisory only. He stated the majority of the people of San Rafael have probably never heard of this ordinance, and they would be very surprised to learn of it. He stated he does not like to see special interests in Peacock Gap dictating City policy, and that this is one issue for all of the people to decide. Dr. Julian Lifschitz stated people have been talking about cutting down trees, and this ordinance is not for that purpose. He stated a private lawsuit should not cloud the issue. He stated that this ordinance will satisfy most people, and he feels that most people will respond to a request by a neighbor. Mary Carpou of Peacock Gap Homeowners Association stated that this is a single issue, and involves subdivisions in San Rafael. She stated that the CC&R's govern the subdivisions within the Peacock Gap neighborhood, and she is appealing for all of their subdivisions, as well as Loch Lomond, Dominican and West End. She stressed that this ordinance is not for cutting down trees, noting support of the Ordinance. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 5 SRCC M'NUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 6 Sue Campbell noted that Eucalyptus and Pines, about which there are complaints regarding height, are about the only trees which are drought resistant. Bill Gallaqher of 128 Tamal Vista noted that there was no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), since City staff determined that it was categorically exempt. He added that under existing State laws a private owner does not have an inherent right to a view. He stated that a categorical exemption is a misapplication. He stated that if this ordinance was not proposed he would have no say about the removal of trees in his area, and that if this ordinance is enacted for the benefit of the public then he should be allowed as an interested party, in any arbitration case which affects trees within his view area. He added that Section 21.10.050 of the proposed ordinance should be modified with the addition of the following criteria: "Benefits to a third party attributable to the continued presence of the trees in status quo conditions should be considered". He also suggested that the arbitrator or tree owner be allowed to contact or notify possible third parties who may wish to enter the arbitration process. The expense of locating third parties through public notice and newspaper, handbills posted on neighborhood posts, notification of neighborhood associations, etc., should be paid by the complaining party. He stated there are other points, which are included in his letter to the Council. He urged that the Council reject the proposed ordinance as currently written until such time as a comprehensive, balanced tree management ordinance can be enacted. Mrs. Henry Smith of 29 Dorian Way stated she has been on both sides of this issue. She stated she moved a tree which would eventually have blocked a neighbor's view, and had paid half the cost when another neighbor had his Monterey Pines trimmed in favor of her view. She stated that most of the people present this evening live on the hills, and she feels there is no reason neighbors cannot work together. Mrs. Lois Goodall of 27 McNear Drive spoke in favor of the View Protection Ordinance and urged the Council to adopt it. There being no further public input, Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Mulryan remarked that the Council has a very sensitive and divisive issue. He noted staff has recommended changes which could be added, and pointed out that the issue is views as opposed to preservation, and expressed the opinion that you cannot enact an ordinance of this type without the heritage tree issue. He stated he feels it would be appropriate to "start from scratch" and keep in mind the comments heard tonight, and ask a broad-based Community group for comments, with staff to come back later with recommendations. He added he does not think that going to the voters with anything which has not been thought out is appropriate. Councilmember Thayer stated that policy LU -0 of the General Plan reference to the tree preservation ordinance included "if such can be included without cost to the City". She stated that she feels that the complainant should always pay. Ms. Thayer stated that with regard to priorities, the hillside development standards are critical and the tree preservation ordinance should encompass all aspects of the tree issues. She noted there was no botanist on the Committee. She added that at a later point in time the Council may want to consider the distance issue on complaints. She stated at this point she feels the ordinance should be deferred. Councilmember Breiner stated she can understand the Council's position, but she is disappointed when so much time has been spent already, and when with some amendment staff could come up with an ordinance for Heritage Trees. She stated there is enough of value in this ordinance, and added she would like to have the Council consider Section 21.10.050, page 5, under "Benefits to the Tree Owner", to add "or the community or third party". She stated that other neighbors who might suffer should be part of the process. Ms. Breiner added that, following "g", a new wording for "h" should be included, which would consider privacy provided by the trees to the tree owner and to neighbors. She noted that no change would be made in the current "h" and "i". Under "Restorative Actions", page 6, the point is not made clearly enough under 3d, that tree removal shall be stronqly discouraged, and shall only be considered, etc. Ms. Breiner stated that under the cost of restorative action, from what the Council has heard tonight, that to put the burden of the cost on the complaining party will probably decrease claims by 75%. Ms. Breiner added that she had wanted to see in this ordinance a provision where trees over a certain size would be protected, and urged that be included. She stated she sees the two ordinances as separate issues. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 6 SRCC MI-11TES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 7 Councilmember Boro stated that from all of the information he has studied, and from many conversations during the past weeks, he has a few observations. First, the question of whether the City needs a view protection ordinance, and he feels that it does. Also, should it be voluntary or non -voluntary? He stated that to make it mandatory will not work. He also feels that the person getting the benefit should pay the fees. Regarding the effective date, it should be the date of purchase of the property or the date of adoption of the ordinance, whichever is later. Mr. Boro added that on reflection, the Council has voted 5-0 on all of the directives to the staff, but the process has become flawed. He stated that at the appropriate time the Council needs to look at the overall tree preser- vation and the view issue, which should be done together. Councilmember Shippey stated that on March 5th he had recommended waiting for a comprehensive tree ordinance and he feels the Council should not rush at this point. He added that, as for the effective date, if the date of purchase is adopted there is very little reason to rush this ordinance, but should wait for a comprehensive one. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to defer this matter until the Council considers it in the context of the entire tree preser- vation ordinance, and that the process at that time involve the entire community. Under question, Councilmember Boro stated he feels that although there are many priorities in the City, based on the amount of time and effort which has been invested by the City, and the interest of the community, that when the Council gets into the budget process for 1990/1991 there will be an option for completing the tree ordinance, including the view ordinance. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.40.120 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE REMOVAL OF VEHICLES PARKED IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION (PD) - File 11-8 x 11-5 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Councilmember Breiner inquired how much notice would be given, so that someone who had left their car a couple of hours ago would not be in the position of finding it towed because of a Police emergency. Chief of Police Ingwersen responded that would not happen, but that according to State law, there would be twenty-four hours notice. He stated that this Ordinance would preclude his having to come before the Council every time there was such a necessity. There being no public input the public hearing was closed. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SECTION 5.40.120 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD SECTION 5.40.120(c) AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF VEHICLES LEFT PARKED OR STANDING IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 5.40.120". Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1586 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None REPORT ON APPOINTMENTS TO FIRE COMMISSION - File 9-2-5 Mayor Mulryan reported that earlier in the evening the Council had conducted interviews to fill two vacancies on the Fire Commission, and had reappointed Roger O'Donnell, and had appointed Charles Daniels to fill the late Rusty Ghilotti's unexpired term. 10. GENERAL PLAN EVALUATION (P1) - File 115 Mayor Mulryan asked Senior Planner Jean Freitas to explain what specific actions are being suggested to the Council at this meeting, and if the Council takes those actions what will be the result. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 8 Ms. Freitas stated there are some staff recommendations included, one of which is implementing and replacing the Priorities Table, some relatively minor Plan changes which are identified as numbers 2, 3, 4, and 12 on the Summary pages in the staff report. They are simply updating language in the Plan consistent with changed circumstances or they better reflect City practices and procedures. She added that the recommended General Plan changes 13 and up are General Plan issues which have been raised as potential General Plan ammendments over the past year by Council or by neighborhood groups, and an additional one raised by the Planning Commission at their last meeting, and one was raised by staff. She added that if the Council wishes to have General Plan amendments they would be taken up at public hearings and heard as a group, as one General Plan amendment. Ms. Freitas added the first issue is a Fairhills General Plan amendment to identify ways to limit or even preclude further subdivision in that neighborhood. She noted that there are three options offered by the Fairhills representatives, but no written confirmation has yet been received. Ms. Freitas stated that the second issue is whether Brookdale Avenue should be redesignated from High Density to Medium Density residential. She stated there was much neighborhood support for that amendment. The third issue was whether certain exemption language should be extended to allow exemptions to Mr. Dalecio's property in San Rafael from the Priority Projects Procedure. The next item was a West End Neighborhood Association request for a one -parcel land use revision from Low Density to Hillside Residential. Ms. Freitas stated that the fifth amendment involves a parcel which was previously considered part of the Northgate East Office Complex and was therefore not provided a traffic allocation in the General Plan. She stated the City Attorney and staff have reviewed the request for a trip allocation because this is a separate parcel, and are recommending that it receive a traffic allocation. She added that the details will be discussed at the General Plan Amendment hearing. The last item was that the Planning Commission recommended that the Council consider redesignating 157 Woodland Avenue, which was a General Plan issue at the time it was adopted, from Medium Density to a lower density designation, after reviewing a project which was previously proposed but is no longer active. She added that the Commission felt that a lower density would better respond to site constraints. Ms. Freitas asked consideration of the proposed amendments, and whether staff should be considering them or not, also the staff recommendations for the minor updating amendments. Councilmember Boro noted that the Council had taken action on the property at 157 Woodland recently, on the need for an EIR. Mr. Pendoley responded that the application was denied without prejudice and at present there is no application pending. Councilmember Thayer inquired how would including the Dalecio property in the Priority Projects Procedure (PPP) reflect upon other projects in the area. Ms. Freitas responded that it would use up 3 Critical Moves (CM's). Mr. Pendoley noted that the Planning Commission had recommended PPP allocations at Bellam which would leave a one -trip reserve, and that would probably take CM's away from Dalecio. She added that if this project is determined to be exempt, then the CM's would have to be reserved for that project. Attorney Joseph Lemon, a principal in the Northgate East parcel, showed the Council pictures of the site, and stated that he and Mr. William Bielser had purchased the property with the intention of putting a small office building on the site. He stated it is important that they use every square foot they can, since the property is small. He added that the City Attorney and former Principal Planner Curt Johnston had agreed that they should be allocated trips. He stated that based on eyeball judgment, six trips should be adequate. Mr. Lemon added that there is a policy decision needed, since the retaining wall breach was filled in some areas and not in others. He stated that if the back- filling which was required to be done had been finished it would give the property more square footage, and they would like the benefit of that. He noted that would be an arbitrary decision on the part of the Council. Ms. Freitas stated that the first part of Mr. Lemon's report is consistent with what Mr. Johnston said, but on the other issue staff will respond at a later time. Mr. Johnston had said that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was based on existing contours. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 9 Fred-Etzel, representing Darcy McDonnell, requested that 157 Woodland Avenue be down -zoned pointing out the many signatures of neighbors who are lending strong support. He stated that medium density would be consistent with the General Plan. Mayor Mulryan assured Mr. Etzel that this issue will be considered at a later time. Mr. Pendoley added that it can be included in the study. Mr. Bob Copple, one of the owners of 157 Woodland Avenue, informed the Council that they are trying to design a project which will be acceptable to the neighbors and the City. He stated they want to cooperate, and feel that the medium density is proper. He added that the present proposal is suspended. Councilmember Boro noted that on the opening pages of the staff report there is mention of the Circulation Committee, and he inquired if there is anything else on that. Ms. Freitas replied there is nothing further, but she had talked with the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission had felt that the Circulation Committee could publicize circulation improvements to inform the public. Mr. Boro responded that his recollection of the purpose of that committee was not to publicize, but to get together with developers, property owners and residents who were involved with the three intersections, and see if they could get some solutions to the problems, and not necessarily to publish it but to work toward the solutions. Ms. Freitas stated that would be a great help to staff. She added that would be a budget consideration and would come up at budget time. Mr. Boro then questioned page S-4, where it says "Revise" rather than "Evaluate" McInnis Parkway and St. Vincents/Silveira. He suggested the hearings should be held before anything is revised. Mr. Boro stated his only concern about Fairhills is their expectations. He noted there has been much discussion about the need for a Montecito Plan, and he feels the residents should be made to realize that there is another plan ahead of theirs. Ms. Freitas stated that this amendment would not be a Fairhills Plan, but would simply be a statement in the General Plan that until the rezoning is completed consistent with the General Plan, that staff would use the map which is included in the staff report as the basis for evaluating subdivision proposals. Councilmember Thayer inquired if this would in any way affect future hillside development standards. Ms. Freitas responded that Fairhills is largely a developed neighborhood, and this would make sure that the lot sizes for new development are consistent with the lot sizes of the existing properties. She stated there are only four lots in the entire area which are large enough that they would have subdivision potential. Ms. Thayer noted that a correction should be made, in reference to bonuses for affordable housing, which are shown as 5%, and should be 8%, as stipulated in the General Plan. Councilmember Breiner noted that on page 16, regarding Drainage System Master Plans, S -e, the first sentence should have inserted, "prior to consideration for" development of St. Vincents/Silveira. Ms. Breiner inquired, regarding Fairhills, which alternative is staff suggesting. Ms. Freitas responded it is the first alternative. She explained that they could do it by rezoning, but in lieu of all of the rezoning it is easier to include this plan amendment as part of the General Plan amendment, and provide more definition to what is the existing development pattern in Fairhills. Councilmember Boro inquired about what the Fairhills people want, and Ms. Freitas explained that they have said all the alternatives are preliminarily acceptable. Mayor Mulryan inquired how the numbers came about on the Quarry site, and Ms. Freitas explained that is the lowest density in the hillside resource residential category, which allows one unit per ten acres, which would be three units, and one acre - one residence, and one per two acres. Mr. Shippey said he noted that in priorities the tree preservation ordinance is ahead of the hillside design standards, and he would like to see the tree preservation ordinance come behind the hillside ordinance. The Councilmembers agreed. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 9 SRCC ' `IUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 10 Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to direct staff to go forward with their general recommendations. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ADD ITEM FIRE SAFETY IN OPEN SPACE AREAS - File 13-14-1 x 9-3-40 Councilmember Breiner requested that a report be brought back to the Council at their meeting of April 16, 1990, regarding the mowing procedures in open space lands, and the date for start-up of the program. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Mulryan adjourned the meeting in memory of the late Dino Ghilotti, partner in Ghilotti Bros., Inc., who was active in the community for many years and was instrumental in the upgrading of Albert Park. Mayor Mulryan also adjourned the meeting in memory of Marian Barbier, whose late husband, Harry Barbier, had been a Councilmember. Mayor Mulryan noted that Mrs. Barbier was a life-long resident of San Rafael, and that her son, Harry Barbier, is with the City's Police Department, and that she had another son, Alan. JEA LE CINI, C ty Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1990 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/2/90 Page 10