HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1990-06-04SRCC MINUTES (Regular) '4/90 Page 1
IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JUNE 4, 1990 AT 7:00 PM.
Regular Meeting:
CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a
1. No. 90-12 (a) - #1 - Elaine Smith vs. City of San Rafael.
No. 90-12 (b) - V.
No reportable action was taken.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JUNE 4, 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;
Rose Lola Sniffen, Deputy City Clerk
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
LAND FILL AT MARIN RANCH AIRPORT - File 12-7 x 9-3-40
Ms. Frances Nunez, resident of Santa Venetia, submitted a letter signed by 20 residents in
her neighborhood who live adjacent to the Marin Ranch Airport owned by Bill Bielser and Joe
Shekou, and leased to Bauman Landscaping Company where fill -like material is being placed.
She submitted pictures dating from March, April, May and June, 1990, showing landfill, including
large concrete slabs, taking place and stated they are concerned of hazardous materials leeching
into the Las Gallinas Creek and wetlands, and that there may be a motive for future development.
Council directed Public Works Department to contact Bauman Landscaping Company to ascertain
if they are operating within the confines of the use permit for the top soil operation. Results
of the investigation will be brought back to meeting of June 18, 1990.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Boro moved and Mayor Mulryan seconded, to approve the Recommended Action on
the following Consent Calendar items:
Item
2. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting
of May 21, 1990 (CC)
3. S89-7; ED89-57 - Resolution Certifying
a Negative Declaration and Tentative Map
of a Two Lot Subdivision Located at 1
Highland Avenue at Hubbell Court;
AP #15-202-38; Kenneth Massa, Owner;
Perry Litchfield, Attorney, Rep. (P1) -
File 3-2-69 x 5-1-311
4. Resolution of Denial with Findings Re
UP89-47/ED-59 & Environmental Assessment;
Appeal of the Planning Commission's
Conditional Approval of Use Permit,
Design Review Permit for Smith Ranch
Parcel Three and Certification of
Negative Declaration for a 25,500 Sq. Ft.
Office Building and a 5,000 Sq. Ft. Retail
Building; 101 and 111 Smith Ranch Road,
Smith Ranch Partners, Owners, Forsher +
Guthrie, Reps.; Robert B. Marx, Appellant,
AP 155-251-04 (P1) - File 10-5 x 10-3 x 115
Recommended Action
Approved as submitted.
RESOLUTION NO. 8177 - ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVING A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION
AT HIGHLAND AVENUE AND HUBBELL COURT (KENNETH
MASSA, OWNER)
RESOLUTION NO. 8178 - DENYING AN APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO CERTIFY A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR AND CONDITONAL APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS
UP89-47 AND ED 89-59, USE PERMIT AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR SMITH RANCH PARCEL THREE (ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL 155-251-04)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/4/90 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) e/4/90 Page 2
5. UP89-108 - Resolution Denying Appeal of
Planning Commission Conditional Approval
of Design Review and Use Permit
Applications for the Construction of Two
Additional Apartment Units; 261 Union
Street; Mr. & Mrs. Fred Eberts, Owners;
Richard Heglund, Rep.; AP #14-024-08 (P1)
File 10-5
6. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Regional Land Use Policy Framework (P1) -
File 111
7. Resolution Amending Resolution No. 7553,
the Master Fee Schedule by Reducing the
Transportation Permit Fee (PW) - File
9-10-2 x 9-3-40
8. Second Readinq and Final Adoption -
Ordinance No. 1592 - Amending Title 12
of the Municipal Code of the City of
San Rafael by Amending and Adopting
Chapter 12.12 "Uniform Building Code"
(1988 ed.), Chapter 12.14 "Uniform
Mechanical Code" (1988 ed.), Chapter
12.16 "Uniform Plumbing Code" (1988 ed.),
Chapter 12.20 "Electrical Code" (National
Electrical Code, 1987 ed. and Uniform
Electrical Code, 1971 ed.), Chapter
12.26 "Uniform Housing Code" (1988 ed.),
Chapter 12.28 "Uniform Code for Abatement
of Dangerous Buildings" (1988 ed.),
Chapter 12.32 "Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa
and Hot Tub Code" (1988 ed.), and Chapter
12.38 "Uniform Solar Energy Code" (1988 ed.)
(PW) - File 1-6-1 x 1-6-2 x 1-6-3 x 1-6-5 x
1-6-6 x 1-6-7 x 1-6-8 x D-3-40
9. Authorization to Solicit RFP's (Request
for Proposals) for Worker's Compensation
Administration and Authorize Monthly
Extension of Agreement with SIS (Self -
Insurers Service, Inc.) (CM) - File
7-1-31 x 9-6-3
10. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (Ch1) -
File 9-1
RESOLUTION NO. 8179 - DENYING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
OF UP89-77/ED89-108 FOR A TWO
BUILDING AT 261 UNION STREET
Accepted report.
THE APPEAL
APPROVAL
UNIT APARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 8180 - AMENDING CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE BY REDUCING
THE TRANSPORTATION PERMIT FEE
Approved final adoption of
Ordinance No. 1592.
Approved staff recommendation.
RESOLUTION NO. 8181 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING
OF MONTHLY EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH SIS
(SELF -INSURERS SERVICE, INC.)
Approved staff recommendation to:
OPPOSE AB 3458 (Friedman) Attorneys Fees.
Settlement Offers.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer, Shippey & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer (from Item No. 5 only)
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner (from Special Minutes of May 21, 1990 due to absence
from meeting and Item No. 5 due to absence from public hearing).
Shippey (from Item No. 4 due to absence from public hearing).
11. PUBLIC HEARING - S89-14 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF
A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION ON FAIRHILLS DRIVE AT IDLEWOOD PLACE; LAUREL PROPERTIES, OWNER;
CRAIKER ASSOCIATES, REP.; AP #10-154-26 & 29 (P1) - File 5-1-316
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Pendoley stated this item was approved by the Planning Commission on
September 26, 1989, and heard by City Council on December 4, 1989. Council referred the
Negative Declaration and the Geotechnical Review back to the Commission for further consi-
deration. In response, the Public Works Department referred the geotech study that was
done by the Applicant's consultant to Mr. Eugene Miller, a member of the Geotechnical
Review Board. On January 16, 1990, Mr. Miller's report indicated that the studies done
for the Applicant were adequate for Tentative Map purposes. Mr. Miller made eight sug-
gestions, as listed in the staff report, noting the first six dealt with minor supplementary
studies that should be done before the building permits are issued. The last two were
very specific studies relating to foundation and the design that had to be done at the
time building permits were submitted for review.
Mr. Pendoley stated Public Works Department asked Applicant's consultant to perform the
first six tasks requiring additional soils analysis, which was done. The follow up
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/4/90 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /4/90 Page 3
report was received on February 26, 1990 and referred to Mr. Miller who reviewed it.
He concluded that individual foundations should be subject to geotechnic review.
Mr. Pendoley stated based on this input, a new Negative Declaration was prepared, circulated
and heard before the Commission and that Public Works Department recommended four conditions
which are minor elaborations of all of the previous geotech review.
In response to a number of questions from Council since the report was published, Mr.
Pendoley recommended a final condition if this project should be approved, to be included
in the Resolution. He referred to the private driveway providing access to three of the
lots, indicating it be installed with all attendant drainage facilities prior to the issu-
ance of any building permits.
In response to Councilmember Breiner's inquiry on slope calculations, Mr. Pendoley replied
that several maps verified slopes from a number of different angles. In using the standard
methods as noted in the Subdivision Ordinance, he stated the slopes range from 26% on
Lot 2 up to 39% on Lot 3, and that they are all consistent with the Subdivision Map.
Mr. Pendoley cleared up some confusion in the report, stating the various maps calculated
slopes in portions of lots, noting as an example that calculation of slopes might be done
on two different cross-sections of the lot that could end up being two different slopes
per lot. He stated this is not what the Subdivision Ordinance requires. In most cases,
staff is required to measure perpendicular to the predominant direction of topo across
the widest point to get the slope.
Regarding drainage on Forbes Avenue, Public Works Director Bernardi responded that part
of the storm drain system is old and corroded. He stated once the downstream system is
reviewed, they will require the Applicant to repair and/or replace part of the downstream
system, in addition to the headwall.
Regarding each lot being subjected to a separate geotechnical review process, Councilmember
Thayer asked why a Negative Declaration is given to a parcel that could have potential
adverse impact upon further investigation. Mr. Pendoley responded that the geotech review
that was done indicated the project will not have adverse impact and that potential impacts
have been mitigated. He noted the purpose for requiring additional review is for foundation
design and the design of retaining walls. He said Council has passed the level where they
have already finalized all design and safety questions on slides, etc., and are now to
the foundations.
Councilmember Boro referred to Mr. Miller's recommendation that additional geotechnical
work be done before approval of the Final Map, and asked if in the planning process this
would mean before title transfers on any of the lots before the Final Map is approved.
He also asked if all geotechnical improvements would be completed while the parcel is
under one ownership.
Mr. Pendoley responded what is required is that eight additional pieces of work have been
recomrended by Mr. Miller and six have been done. The two remaining essentially city speci-
fic studies when actual homes are proposed to properly design their foundations. He stated
the most important geotechnical mitigation work is with the drain system and the comRon
driveway to be installed. The significance of the drain system assures that the slopes
remaining to be watered, not pose any landslide hazard. The importance of the driveway
is that some of the earlier slide repair will be redone to present a different angle to
accomRodate the driveway. The drain work and driveway compliment each other to assure
that the site does not build up too much moisture or experience too much erosion. Because
these are keys to the geotechnical safety of the site, staff recomRends that they be accom-
plished before the public improvements are accepted as complete or before any bonds are
released, and must be satisfied before building permits are issued. Technically, title
could be transferred in that interim.
Mr. Bernardi stated when the map is recorded, there are four parcels that can be bought
and sold pursuant to real estate law, but buildings cannot be placed on them until all
requirements are satisfied.
Councilmember Boro referred to the additional Public Works Conditions of Approval and
CC&R's, stating this is a result of earlier discussions held with people from the neighbor-
hood and their representatives regarding the CC&R's and the Council's ability or inability
to enforce them. He stated many of the issues they asked Council to enforce on the CC&R's
are matters agreed to between themselves and the people they purchased their property
from. He noted the City was no party to the CC&R's and has told them they cannot enforce
any of them. He stated although in this case Council is recommending that some wording
be put into the CC&R's, there should be a better way to accomplish this rather than Council
recomRending additional wording into the CC&R's, then having it not happen.
Mr. Pendoley responded that the restrictions would be recorded in the City's favor, explain-
ing that in this case they would become a party to the CC&R's and can enforce it.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/4/90 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) x/4/90 Page 4
City Attorney Ragghianti clarified that it becomes Conditions of Approval to the Subdivision
and to that extent the City is capable of enforcing them; however, from a legal standpoint,
he stated he did not believe that they become a part of the CC&R's which burden the property
at this time. Those can only be enforced by owners of property already in the subdivision
burdened by the restrictions, noting the City is not a party to the CC&R's.
Mayor Mulryan suggested rather than call them CC&R's that it be called Conditions of Appro-
val. Mr. Ragghianti agreed, noting it would probably appear on the map when recorded.
Mr. Michel Rousselin, 24 Twin oaks, stated he is concerned about the Neighborhood Plan
13/14, stating they thought the plan would give them protection from over -development,
noting they consider this project to be over -development. He stated there were six separate
items in the plan which he felt sufficient to deny the application.
Mr. Boyd Jacobsen, 23 Idlewood Place, stated Council should not grant the exception of
the comffon driveway.
Mr. John Stickle, 42 Oakmont Avenue, spoke on behalf of a neighbor, Mrs. Mary Ellen Irwin,
Vice President of Fairhills Property Owners, stating the existing lots should not be sub-
divided based on the General Plan, but if done, she asked that an Environmental Impact
Study be done immediately.
Mrs. Maxim Zigmond, 12 Beryl Lane, spoke of her concern on the drainage problem, and asked
Council not to approve this project.
Mr. John Chittick, Twin Oaks, spoke against the project, noting the driveway at Fairhills
Drive being dangerous, ar,d his concern of traffic safety.
Mr. Ron Moran, 45 Wildwood, opposed the development for the previous reasons stated, and
also said he was concerned about traffic safety. He stated construction drivers have caused
nearly head-on collisions caused by speeding, and asked Council to have private patrols
in the area paid by the developer.
Mr. Robert Neuhouse, Fairhills resident, spoke on fire safety in their neighborhood regard-
ing the two-inch fire lines through most of Fairhills. He stated if the plan is approved,
that consideration be made that six-inch fire lines be put into the entire Fairhills area.
Mr. Winston Coke, 176 Edgewood, who lives directly across from the project spoke on the
danger of traffic, noting the hill is very steep.
Mr. John Boschin, 25 Valley View Avenue, spoke on the drainage, stating in 1986 a landslide
occurred next to his home which has been in court since. He said similar mitigation measures
are being taken on this project as was on the homes built on his street, noting there
is enough controversy for the Council to be concerned about it.
Mr. Richard Wright, 24 Idlewood Pl., stated the people subdividing the lot are not developers
and suggested to Council that they walk the area and tell him if they feel this property
is developable for people. He mentioned when people bought their lots, the Covenant stated,
one lot, one house and asked, what's changed?
Mrs. Diane Neuhouse, 95 Oakmont, stated she was here to attempt to stop things from happen-
ing that will amount to worry after the fact. She stated the house on Oakmont has a lot
that is legally buildable, noting the driveway is the maximum degree allowable by law,
indicating this is a liability the City should consider.
Peter Breckhus, Attorney, on behalf of the Applicant, stated there have been a number of
meetings held on this project, noting many of the statements heard tonight were repeated
in early September. He said it is difficult to be a Councilmember, referring to projects
causing the remarks made tonight where Council is threatened with liability and responsi-
bility should there be another automobile accident, slide, flood or animal problems. Then
the City Attorney informs Council that because of a recent court decision, they cannot
tell a property owner that because there is neighborhood opposition, it cannot be developed,
indicating Council would then face a liability from the property owner. Mr. Breckhus noted
the professional staff Council has at hand who have studied the project, including having
experts with engineering experience.
Mr. Breckhus stated two engineering reports have been made on this project, an environmental
review made by the staff who have been educated and taught how to analyze these things
and who have looked at the potential impacts and manner of the issues made; and that in
staff's opinion they do not see a problem. He noted the applicants do not want future
problems in building and developing this site,and have studied, repaired, prepared this
site and provided the City with all the information needed. In addition, he noted the
City has also hired an engineering firm who also has studied the site and submitted a
report to the City, stating they do not see a problem with developing the site if certain
recommendations they made are carried out, and that the applicants are in agreement, includ-
ing that the driveway be built first and those improvements be constructed first. He stated
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/4/90 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) _/4/90 Page 5
if Public Works had conditions or suggestions to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood
during the construction, such as the operation of construction vehicles, the applicant
will follow through.
Mr. Breckhus referred to open space, noting that 71 percent of the area being developed
is left to open space. He noted the four parcels to be constructed are larger or the same
size as its surrounding parcels, indicating he was puzzled with the unfavorable comparison
and suggestions of density when the parcels are all larger or as large as the immediate
parcels. In regard to the one-way driveway and the common driveway suggested, he is in
concurrence with staff who feel this is the safest way. He stated his client indicated
if Council felt it appropriate to make this a right -turn only driveway, there would be
no objection.
Mr. Breckhus concluded they do not feel there is any problem with the stability, but empha-
sized that as part of the conditions, that each home to be constructed would require its
own geotechnical report.
Councilmember Breiner asked Mr. Miller about the special fabric installed in the pipe
and if over the years there have been any malfunctions. Mr. Miller responded she was perhaps
referring to the design detail of the subdrains composed of a perforated pipe and aggregate
put into an envelope of filter fabric. He stated filter fabric has proved satisfactorily
in all of its applications, and that he was not aware of any failures, noting it is a
generally accepted tool. Mr. Miller said in the past subdrains were difficult to monitor
because they did not have clean -outs and risers on them; however, in the past several
years they are constructed with them, noting the upstream end riser has a cap pinned on
it so that a flushing tool can be put in the upper end and worked through it, and where
there are bends and changes in directions, additional risers and clean -outs are put in
as well. He noted this is recommended on the project.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Mayor Mulryan asked staff to review the safety consideration in this alignment, and why
the private common driveway is recommended over individual drives.
Mr. Bernardi explained the reasons from the board,showing the drawing.
In response to Councilmember Breiner's question relating to parking if four parking spaces
are provided per house, and if they were tandem. Mr. Pendoley stated in most cases three
non -tandem spaces are provided in the garage with parking behind, noting the driveway
space would be tandem.
In response to Councilmember Thayer's question concerning the status on the two-inch line,
Fire Chief Marcucci stated the Fire Department submitted Conditions of Approval in the
staff report, mentioning although Idlewood has a two inch main, the hydrant that services
that particular area is off Fairhills which is a larger main, four/six. He indicated the
importance of one of the Conditions, that if the required fire flow (amount of water deter-
mined to extinquish a home fully involved), and if the quantity of water is not available
from the water main, then the total home must have an automatic sprinkler installed. He
stated this is an advantage in fire protection because the fire would extinquish with
a minimum of water. It is stated if sufficient water is not available, the property owner
will have to install automatic sprinkler systems in the four structures. The flow is
tested by opening several hydrants in the area, and with a meter, checking the outcoming
water. He noted if the project is approved this will be done to determine what the flow
is, and if less than stipulated, the homes would have to be sprinklered.
Councilmember Boro asked Chief Marcucci if sprinklers could outrightly be required, and
he responded it could be done.
Councilmember Boro stated that Council has been accused of aiding and abetting a developer,
and noted it is important to have people know that the purpose of the Council and the
planning process of the City is to assure that both the people who live here and people
who own property here are treated fairly. He said the unfortunate issue is that in the
minds of people in Fairhills there are covenants that call for certain things, and noted
the City cannot enforce those convenants, indicating there are zoning laws that override
those covenants. He stated he is very concerned about the issues raised from the peoples'
personal point of view, but wanted them to also understand that the Council cannot enforce
the covenants. He stated as the Applicant's attorney pointed out, if Council tried to
enforce the covenants and not the Zoning Ordinance, Council would be in court. He stated
it is not that Council does not want to enforce the Covenants but that it cannot legally
be done.
Councilmember Boro referred to the Beryl Lane drainage problem, and asked staff to explain
the situation. Mr. Bernardi responded that one of the Conditions references the reconstruc-
tion of the headwall, having proper devices to control the headwall from being plugged
with debris, which then provides positive protection to the downhill properties regarding
runoff.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/4/90 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /4/90 Page 6
In addition, the Applicant is required to repair and/or replace part of the downstream
system that is inadequate; that in itself would mitigate the additional runoff that will
come from the site, with the homeowners being responsible for maintaining it.
Councilmember Boro referred to the quality of life as brought up by the neighbors, stating
in looking at the size of the lots on the map he noticed five parcels adjoining this that
are smaller than the smallest lot. He realized the impact of having homes built in the
area, but did not feel they are bringing in a type of home or size lot that would degrade
the existing neighborhood, noting most of the lots are larger than what is in the existing
neighborhood.
Councilmember Thayer commented for the record on Hillside Development Standards, stating
in some jurisdictions there is no building over a 30 percent slope, and asked that the
standards be tightened up. She mentioned a committee is in the process of formation to
work on Hillside Standards, and asked to have a volunteer from the Fairhills area to serve
on the committee.
Councilmember Breiner referred to the Sinking Fund and asked staff what amount of monies
would be required. Mr. Pendoley stated this will be determined by the engineers in the
Public Works Department when the Final Map approval is in process.
Councilmember Breiner referred to the availability of water for more than one lot, (lot
3) and asked if wording could be built into the Conditions to prevent additional building
or provide time for additional review of the project, to ascertain if the improvements
are in working order.
Mr. Pendoley stated both the Tentative and Final Maps are approved subject to the Conditions.
He noted the first set of Conditions is the condition of the property at the outset of
the project and then the condition that would be established with grading. He explained
if for instance the property had been standing without construction for a number of years
and the configuration of the property changed substantially due to erosion, there would
be grounds not to approve a building permit until land was returned to the configuration
that was approved at the time of Tentative and Final Maps.
In response to Councilmember Thayer's concern of having an engineer on site to monitor
the subdrain and drainage system, Mr. Bernardi replied it is required that the Soils Engineer
who is the preparer of the Soils Report and who has done all the analysis, be on site
to ensure that his design is being accomplished. Also, the City's Geotechnical Review
person, Mr. Miller, will review all plans to insure they comply with the original set
of recommendations. He stated it was not required that Mr. Miller be on the site to "look
over the shoulder" of the Soils Engineer for the Applicant who would be supervising the
work, but noted that is Council choice.
Councilmember Shippey stated the major concerns being heard tonight are unstable earth
conditions, fire protection, water runoff in storm drainage, deterioration to wildlife
habitat and an increase in traffic due to the common driveway. He stated he is uncomfortable
with the overall conclusion of the Environmental Checklist, and suggested that Council
consider having an (EIR) Environmental Impact Report done on this site.
Regarding Hillside Development Standards, Councilmember Shippey stated Lot 3 should be
constrained because of the greatest slope severity and also having a landslide history,
noting there is a failing here by the lack of proper Hillside Development Standards.
Mr. Pendoley responded, stating of the four proposed lots, Lot 3 is the most stable because
it has had all of the unstable soils removed down to bedrock. He indicated soil has been
replaced and compacted, making it more stable than natural slopes of that percentage of
slope. He referred to the unresolved issues in the initial study, stating they are resolved
and trying to be mitigated in the project, noting the specific issue is drainage which
has been fully mitigated. He explained all drainage from hard surfaces will be collected
to underground drains and to energy dissipaters before it is passed on to the public drain
system, noting this is an acceptable mitigation under San Rafael's Standards and also
well proven in subdivisions that have been designed this way.
Mr. Pendoley added that testimoney has been received on the traffic issue regarding the
driveway, stating it is not a blind curve but to the contrary a converse curve has more
exposure than it would have with a straight -of -way.
Mr. Pendoley referred to wildlife habitat, stating the project establishes a conservation
easement on 71 percent of the property, noting it would be in the development envelopes
with the least amount of vegetation on it of the entire 2.7 acre parcel. He stated the
deer issue in the neighborhood is one of which there are a variety of opinions, where
some people regard the deer to be good neighbors and others as nuisances, noting it is
not uncommon to see them in broad daylight on Fifth and Mission. Mr. Pendoley stated he
sometimes sees deer through his office window, noting they do not seem to be unduly threat-
ened with the urban development in the Downtown Area, and with Fairhills having lesser
densities it would be less than significant.
SRCC MINUTES (regular) 6/4/90 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) j/4/90 Page 7
Councilmember Breiner asked Mr. Miller about subdrains that are currently in or to be
installed, and he responded a subdrain is now under Lot 3 and under part of Lot 1, noting
the new subdrain will be largely in Lot 1 and partly in Lot 2. Their concern is that on
those two lots, that special care be made in the foundation design of the structures so
it does not impair the subdrains. Mr. Miller stated Lot 3 is probably the safest because
it is on a rocky slab, noting in regard to the other 3 lots, if he had any concerns about
stability or suitability of the building site, he would not make the recommendations as
he has in the report.
Councilmember Boro stated there now is an existing temporary Hillside Ordinance in place,
and that if a new Ordinance were to be made, it could not be retroactive, noting all Council
can deal with is with what they have on hand. He stated at the time the process was filed
and brought to the attention of Council, the Applicant was dealing with the existing Slope
Ordinance, therefore, changing the ordinance would not impact this site.
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to direct staff to prepare
a Resolution Denying the Appeal with Conditions as follows:
1.
that
the
common driveway intersecting Idlewood be marked "Right Turn Only";
2.
that
the
provisions for the "Sinking Fund", including cost, be fully developed and
reviewed
by the City Council prior to approval of the final map;
3.
that
the
common driveway and attendant drainage facilities be installed prior to
issuance
of building permits for homes;
4.
that
the
four residential units be sprinklered for fire suppression; and,
5.
that
pertinent
provisions of the CC&R's, including the Sinking Fund and maintenance
of common
drainage and driveways shall be made conditions of the Tentative Map.
Councilmember Breiner asked staff if they considered requiring a Performance Bond in terms
of the improvements, and Mr. Bernardi responded what they require in this situation is
having a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with security to insure that the approved infra-
structure is constructed according to the Conditions of Approval and approved plans.
He referred to the improvements, stating it is required that the improvement plans be
reviewed by the Geotechnical consultant, Mr. Miller, to insure that what is on paper will
work. He noted it is up to the Geologist to prepare the original report to insure that
it gets done in the field. He suggested that Council might want to add in the Conditions,
that the City's Geotechnical Consultant make periodic visits on the site to insure that
those conditions are complied with. He added none of the improvements are accepted for
one year after the construction is deemed complete.
Councilmember Boro referred to Public Works Conditions of Approval (1), stating Council -
member Breiner was looking for something stronger than a "Sinking Fund". Mr. Bernardi
stated they require the Sinking Fund to be established immediately, but also require the
developer to maintain it for three years. He noted the wording will be worked out with
the City Attorney's Office. Councilmember Breiner asked that this too, be a part of the
Conditions, and Councilmember Thayer agreed.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
12. PRESENTATION OF REVENUE OPTIONS COMMITTEE REPORT (CM) - File 9-2-42 x 9-4
Mayor Mulryan called upon Mr. Maynard Willms, Chairman of the Revenue Options Committee
to present the report.
Mr. Willms stated in November, 1988, Council appointed a Revenue Options Committee to
review the state of the City's revenue situation compared to the needs of the City to
provide adequate service levels. The Committee also reviewed the alternate sources of
revenue, making recommendations that the City seek a new revenue source, the amount and
the alternatives.
Mr. Willms stated 10 scheduled meetings took place along with a number of sub -committee
meetings with the recommendation made that the City Council consider placing before the
voters at the earliest opportunity, a propostion to have a 6% Utility Users Tax on telephone,
gas and electrical services, accepting a base -line usage of residential billing, set funds
to be used for deferred maintenance and capital improvements and that the tax be for a
period of 4 years with voter reapproval required at the end of that period.
Councilmember Shippey referred to the Utility Users Tax, stating the major point on the
con side is that it would impact the Gann Limit, and asked how this would be affected.
Mr. Willms stated the City has to have a vote every four years to increase spending of
the Gann Limit which would then increase the revenue the City would have, and this would
need to be included with the vote on the Gann Initiative, noting it would increase the
Gann spending monies.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/4/90 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 1/4/90 Page 8
Mayor Mulryan stated when Council goes through the budgetary process that will be the
time to make decisions as to the means of having the revenue and expenses match up closer.
City Manager Nicolai stated the City is facing a long-term situation as the committee
focused on the capital improvements and deferred maintenance which become capital improve-
ments when the City is not able to budget every year. She stated Item 13 on the Agenda
is the Report on the Capital Improvement Program which was added on as information for
this Item 12, and will be continually brought up to date. She stated if Council wanted
any information on the options reviewed by the committee or to pursue this,that this be
done early to allow staff time to work on them. The issue of having this be placed on
a ballot, requires having a ballot measure with some not requiring a ballot measure, noting
this is a policy decision the committee is recommending, that the Utility Users Tax be
placed on a ballot but which is not required by law. However, she noted that any revenue
from that source would require that it go on the ballot for a Gann Limit increase in order
to keep that revenue.
Councilmember Boro stated this addresses what people have been asking Council to do, that
is to find a way to lessen the dependency on Sales Tax, and this will be their choice.
He stated whatever is placed on the ballot needs to be extremely specific as to what the
voters will get if they approve this, project by project. He stated once this is decided
upon and once the budget process is done, it will be critical that the committee be augment-
ed and that the support be built in the community.
Mr. Willms stated the committee felt strongly about the deferred maintenance aspect, noting
the City of San Rafael had done an excellent job in providing services to people in the
City. He stated that there are many people who do not understand that the City has provided
the services but that a lot of the infrastructure is getting old, such as storm drains,
indicating the City is slowly losing on the repaving of streets and not keeping up with
what should be kept up. He concluded it will have to be sold to the people, and emphasized
it can be done.
After further discussion, Council commended Mr. Willms and the committee for their report
and made the following recommendations:
1) That the committee create a 6% Utility Users Tax as a ballot measure to fund deferred
maintenance items and capital improvements;
2) Have information as to what a Municipal Services Tax would be as to what the pros
and cons would be compared to a Utility Users Tax;
3) Research the City of Palo Alto regarding consideration of San Rafael becoming a Munici-
pal Utility City;
4) Have an independent assessment and evaluation of the current operations as to user
fees being raised; instituting new user fees (example: Red Zone fees - San Rafael
charges $12, same as an expired meter, and Mill Valley charges $30) - Staff to seek
comparisons. (These suggestions were presented by Ms. Victoria DeWitt, who spoke
at the end of New Business. Ms. DeWitt was asked to be on the Campaign Committee).
13. REPORT ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (PW) - File 8-5
Councilmember Shippey stated there is no cut-off point for what will make the "magic list"
of funding in the 1990/91 budget. He was concerned about the Del Ganado Fire Station remodel-
ing which is in need of being done and is severely underfunded in the present year's budget.
He asked if there will be funds for this project.
City Manager Nicolai responded there will be funds available for the Fire Station, noting
she has been working with Fire Chief Marcucci throughout the year on having remodeling
done or rebuilding the station with the amount budgeted this year. She noted, however,
when looking at various alternatives with the architect there is not nearly enough money,
but it is her intent that this budget will fund that project.
Council accepted the report.
14. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING DATES FOR 1990/91 CITY BUDGET HEARINGS (CM) - File 8-5
Council set the Special Meeting Dates for the 1990/91 Budget Hearings to be held on Monday,
June 25 and Tuesday, June 26, 1990, with a contingency date set for Wednesday, June 27
1990. A place and time will be set at a later date.
15. ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT PROGRAM (CM) - File 13-9
Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to endorse a letter from
the County describing the Abandoned Vehicle program for July 14, 1990, noting staff will
contact the Marin Independent Journal to publicize the flyer, including sending the informa-
tion out to all Homeowners Groups.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/4/90 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) ,4/90 Page 9
Ms. Linda Bellatorre stated she would have the flyer placed on abandoned cars in her Gerstle
Park neighborhood, indicating this is a chance to have the cars removed.
ADD ITEM
1. COUNTYWIDE PLAN - File 191
Councilmember Boro gave a brief report on the Countywide Planning process. He stated with
the exception of Ross it was a unanimous decision to adopt the Countywide Planning proposals
which speak to voting and housing. He said the Marin Conservation League added additional
recommendations, intending to see if they can be put into the Plan before it goes to ballot,
which means the City's Plan would be subject to the new Countywide Plan. He noted more
information will be forthcoming as discussed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
By:-��
VFEN, Depu ity Clerk
APPROVED ON DAY OF 1990
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/4/90 Page 9