Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1990-07-02SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/90 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 2, 1990, AT 7:00 PM. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a 1. No. 90-14 (a) - #1 - Dr. Janice Joseph, V.E. Balazki & Marve I. Balazki vs. City of San Rafael, et al. No. 90-14 (b) - V. No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 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: Suzanne Golt, Assistant City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: Item 3. Resolution Approving City Budget for 1990/91 (Fin) - File 8-5 4. Authorization to Call for Bids - Traffic Signal Installation and Improvements at Various Locations (PW) - File 4-1-437 5. Agreement to Purchase Tax -Defaulted Property - AP 9-010-20 (Murphy Rock) (PW) - File 2-15 8. Resolutions of Appreciation to: (PD) - File 102 x 9-3-30 a. Gerald R. Souza, Retiring from San Rafael Police Department b. Ruth E. Easom, Retiring from San Rafael Police Department 9. Renewal of Contract with Assured Health Systems (Formerly Life Care Systems) for City Employees (Per) - File 4-3-199 10. Report on Insurance Broker for City's Dental, Life and Disability Insurance Coverage (Per) - File 4-3-124 Recommended Action RESOLUTION NO. 8193 - APPROVING THE BUDGET OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 1990 - JUNE 30, 1991 AND PROVID- ING FOR THE APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURE OF ALL SUMS SET FORTH IN SAID BUDGET (IN AMOUNT OF $28,713,827) Approved staff recommendation to call for bids for traffic signal installations at: North San Pedro and Los Ranchitos Roads; Redwood Hwy. and Professional Center Parkway, and Redwood Hwy. and Mitchell Blvd. (Est. cost $300,000, funds from Mitigation Fees from Northgate Activity Center Area) RESOLUTION NO. 8194 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE TAX -DEFAULTED PROPERTY; AP 9-010-20 (MURPHY ROCK), SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 8195 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO GERALD R. SOUZA (Retiring Police Captain after 31 years' service) RESOLUTION NO. 8196 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RUTH E. EASOM (Retiring after 10 years' service with City of San Rafael) RESOLUTION NO. 8197 - AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF CONTRACT WITH ASSURED HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. (formerly Lifecare Systems) FOR CONTINUATION OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (EAP) FOR CITY EMPLOYEES (For one year from 7/1/90 to 6/30/91, fee not to exceed $10,000) Approved staff recommendation for additional two years, to July, 1992 (with Ulf Hamilton) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2 /90 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) / 2/90 Page 2 12. Release of Business Improvement District Approved staff recommendation to accept (BID) Funds to Downtown Merchants Associa- BID financial statements and authorize release tion (Fin) - File 183 of $10,289.27 in BID funds 13. Release of Second Phase ($50,000) of RESOLUTION NO. 8198 - AUTHORIZING THE MAKING $100,000 Loan to Marin Housing Development OF AN ACQUISITION LOAN TO THE MARIN HOUSING Corporation, Originally Approved May, 1989 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN CONNECTION WITH for Sundance Apartments, 95 Medway Road, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 95 MEDWAY ROAD IN SAN San Rafael (RA) - File R-173 x (SRCC) 187 RAFAEL, CA., AP 14-193-03 ($50,000) 14. Modification of Contract with Insurance Consulting Associates, Inc. (CA) - File 4-10-184 15. Resolution of Appreciation for Ross L. Cobb, Planning Commission (P1) - File 102 x 9-2-6 17. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) - File 9-1 18. Claim for Damages: Levester Jackson Claim No. 3-1-1499 RESOLUTION NO. 8199 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT (w/Insurance Consulting Associates, Inc., Contract Modifi- cation Agreement, for 3 mos., or until 9/9/901 cost increase of $100.00) RESOLUTION NO. 8200 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ROSS COBB (Retiring from Planning Commission after more than 3 years' service) Item removed from agenda. Approved City Attorney's recommendation for denial of claim. 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: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS OF JUNE 18, 1990 (CC) - File 1-4 Attorney Cecilia Bridges informed the Council that she feels there is an error in the wording of the minutes of the regular meeting of June 18, 1990. She pointed out that at the top of the second page of the revised minutes there is a statement that "The Council agreed that the operation should be shut down until the investigation is made". She feels that is a mistake since shutting down the business operation at that site requires revoca- tion of the Use Permit, and that can be done only after a required public hearing. Mayor Mulryan stated that the minutes indicated what the Council did, and Ms. Bridges responded that the City Attorney should be asked if the Council could legally have done SO. Mayor Mulryan asked City Attorney Ragghianti for an opinion, and the City Attorney stated that the revocation of a Use Permit requires notice to the individual who is the operator, and an opportunity to address it. He stated that to revoke a Use Permit requires a public hearing. Mayor Mulryan stated that the operator was at the meeting, and the Council told him they wanted no more filling because it was not in conformance with the previous guidelines, and we wanted the filling shut down, and that he was not to bring in any more fill. Ms. Bridges suggested that the wording in the minutes should be changed, since they read that the operation was to be shut down. Planning Director Pendoley noted that staff had received evidence that there were two types of import going on at the site, and one was for construction of a berm and staff had advised the Council that that was not allowed under the provisions of the Use Permit. He added that a grading permit would be required for that. He stated he had understood Mr. Bauman, the contractor, to say at the meeting that he had agreed to stop that part of the operation and, in fact, it had already stopped. Mr. Pendoley added that the other import is materials consisting of wood shavings and dirt which are mixed together to create soil additives and they are exported back out as part of the business. He stated that is within the scope of the Use Permit as it is right now, but the distinction should be made. Mayor Mulryan stated that, as discussed at the last meeting, there was concern about toxics and unauthorized fill in the area. Mr. Pendoley stated he feels it was clear to staff that the Council's directive was to continue the landscape operation per se. Mayor Mulryan agreed, and added there was also a height problem with the fill, and also a toxic problem. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2/90 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) '2/90 Page 3 Mr. Pendoley added that, unfortunately, this is an older permit and does not go into any specificity, but that the height of the fill is an issue to be dealt with. Mayor Mulryan recommended that the Council should direct that there be no further erection of the berm. Councilmember Breiner agreed, and stated she had thought the Council's direction was clear. Councilmember Boro expressed concern about the monitoring of the operation, and Public Works Director Bernardi responded that there are not many controls on the existing Use Permit but staff can physically check out there serveral times a week to see what has been done. Mr. Pendoley added that staff had received the application for the renewed Use Permit three weeks ago, and it is being circulated now and will be before the Planning Commission in late August. Councilmember Boro recommended controlling the operation by only permitting importing when there is a staff person there. Mayor Mulryan asked for the City Attorney's advice on this issue, and Mr. Ragghianti stated that what Ms. Bridges is asking is a clarification of the directive by the Council regarding the operation, since there seems to be a difference between the way the minutes were recorded and the intent of the council. Counclimember Thayer stated that she feels that all activities outside of the Use Permit should stop, including the construction of the berm, and she feels that is what the Council meant. Councilmember Breiner stated there are the other concerns, too, and she would not feel comfortable having the activity without supervision, and monitoring. Mr. Ragghianti informed the Council that they could instruct staff to monitor the operation. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 18, 1990 as amended, and to approve the minutes of the special meeting of June 18, 1990 as submitted. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 6. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS DENYING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP FOR 28 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT SUBDIVISION LOCH LOMOND #10; LOCH LOMOND HOMEOWNERS ASSN., APPELLANT; AP 186-031-02 & 06, 186-520-17 & 18 (Pl) - File 5-1-297 Councilmember Thayer noted this item was to be removed from the agenda, and asked why the applicant is requesting time to review the proposed language amending the conditions of approval. Planning Director Pendoley responded that the condition in question is the Council's require- ment that the subdivision underwrite the City's self-insurance program. This means that the subdivision has to put up one-half million dollars. He added this had been referred back to staff for a solution as to what would be the most appropriate timing. He noted that some Councilmembers indicated they would like a fairly rapid accrual, and other Council - members seemed to agree with the staff recommendation for a 10 year accrual. He stated that staff had attempted to negotiate a fairly rapid accrual, and the applicant is now trying to determine whether he can get private insurance to cover it, or if it would be more appropriate to finance it with cash, or over a phased period. Councilmember Thayer inquired if there was any request that this requirement not be carried out, and Mr. Pendoley replied in the negative. 7. ADOPTON OF RESOLUTION DENYING 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 Councilmember Breiner referred to conditions (a) and (b) of Exhibit "A" to the proposed Resolution, and recommended the following revisions: On condition (a), "Upon recordation of the Final Map, an annual amount of $135.00 per parcel, from the beginning, shall be required..." On condition (b), she recommended that in the last sentence the word "and" be deleted after the word "driveway", and a comma inserted; and after the word "year", add "and shall be paid by the developer annually until the lots are sold". Councilmember Breiner then inquired about the Fire Department condition (i) regarding sprinklers, and whether fire-retardent roof materials could also be required. Mr. Bernardi responded that the City had just recently adopted an Ordinance which prohibits non-fire-re- tardent roof materials. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, that with the revised condi- tions as noted, the Negative Declaration be adopted and the Subdivision approved. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2/90 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/90 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 8201 - ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION AT FAIRHILLS DRIVE AND IDLEWOOD PLACE AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 11. RENEWAL OF PROPERTY INSURANCE AND EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE (Fin) - File 9-6-3 x 4-10-202 x 7-1-31 Councilmember Boro stated that there should be clarification of a statement in the staff report, and it should be reflected in the minutes, that where the Finance Director states, "I have rejected the lower rate because, in my opinion, it came in too late." Councilmember Boro clarified that it came in after all of the bidders were told of the date. He also noted that when the current carrier found he was higher he came back and offered a lower rate. Finance Director Coleman agreed. Councilmember Breiner inquired if Mr. Coleman had checked with other agencies to see how theycompare with the rates, and Mr. Coleman responded that the rates range from 16% to 23%, and we are at the high end of the range. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to adopt the Resolution author- izing a contract with the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority for Property Insurance and Frank Hall for Excess Workers' Compensation Insurance. RESOLUTION NO. 8202 - AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO CONTRACT FOR PROPERTY INSURANCE AND EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE (through June 30, 1991) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 16. REPORT ON AC UISITION OF CONTEMPO MARIN MOBILEHOME PARK BY THEIR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (CA) - File -7-1 Mayor Mulryan noted the report from the City Attorney regarding the fact that the City had turned over regulatory authority on Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park to the State of California in 1981, and that the Homeowners Association would like the City to consider rescinding Resolution No. 6098 by which they relinquished the authority. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that he has not yet received a formal request in this regard from Contempo Marin, but will look into the matter and report back to the Council at the next meeting. Councilmember Thayer stated she is very interested in this issue, and hopes it can be pursued without delay. 19. 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 opened the public hearing and continued it to the meeting of August 6, 1990, as requested by the applicant. 20. PUBLIC HEARING - UP89-36 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT FOR SECOND DWELLING UNIT; 7 & 9 ALVINA AVENUE; FINBAR O'DRISCOLL, OWNER; MORRIS FINISY, AIA, REP.; AP 12-234-25 (P1) - File 10-5 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council, stating that in June of 1989 the applicant submitted a use permit application to demolish an existing duplex and replace it with a single family residence. At that time staff determined that the proposal was inconsistent with the City's Housing Conserva- tion Ordinance, since any building used and originally constructed for residential purposes could not be demolished without approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission. Mr. Pendoley stated that one of the four exemptions is that unsafe structures declared by the building official to present an imminent danger with corrective repair unfeasible would qualify. Mr. Pendoley stated that a survey by Building Inspection staff determined that the existing structure was safe and any necessary corrective repair was feasible. For this reason, staff informed the applicant that the proposal could not be exempt from the Ordinance, and that possible modifications included constructing a duplex, paying a housing in -lieu fee of over $100,000, or constructing a single family dwelling with a second dwelling unit. The applicant resubmitted a use permit application for construction of a single family residence with a second unit, and the proposal was reviewed by the Design Review Board on three separate occasions, and approval was recommended in March of 1990. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2/90 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) -/2/90 Page 5 Mr. Pendoley stated that on April 24, 1990, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the Use Permit application for the second dwelling unit, and continued the hearing and directed staff to consider further whether the duplex is definitely a legal pre-existing use. The building was reinspected at the Planning Department's request in early May, and the Public Works Department concluded that the structure was unsafe and the cost of rehabilitating would exceed the replacement value of the building. Based on this new inspection, Planning staff recommended the demolition of the existing duplex and reconstruction of a single family residence, exempt from the Housing Conservation Ordinance. However, the applicant stated that he will not withdraw the application, and requested that the Planning Commission approve his Use Permit application for the second dwelling unit. The Planning Commission determined that the size of the proposal was incon- sistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood and too large for the substandard lot. They denied the application by a vote of 6-0. Mr. Pendoley stated that staff stands by their earlier analysis of the merits of the second unit proposal and recommends that it is well designed and can be accommodated on this lot. Staff recommends that the appeal be upheld. Mr. Pendoley stated that the Council may find that the lot is crowded, and it is discre- tionary on their part. He noted that the building is well designed. Councilmember Shippey inquired how does this plan compare with the size of the single family structure originally proposed. Mr. Pendoley responded that the two -unit structure has more square footage, but covers less of the lot. Councilmember Thayer noted that the owner is a resident of Novato, and a second dwelling unit building must be owner -occupied. Mr. Pendoley responded that land use is the same either way, whether the owner occupies the main unit or the second unit. Councilmember Breiner stated she is troubled by the speculative aspect to second units. She stated she would like staff to look at a revision of the ordinance so that this could not be done by a non-resident owner. Councilmember Boro stated that the bottom line is that the applicant had a duplex which he wanted to destroy and put in only one unit, and we told him he had to put in two units. Then we determined that he only needed to put in one unit, and now he has come back to say he wants the two units. Finbar O'Driscoll, owner of the property, reviewed its history, and stated that the approxi- mate coverage of the new home would be only 36.4% of the lot, and the old one was almost 40%. He noted that the project has come through Design Review, and that Mr. Pendoley has adequately stated the facts as they occurred. Judy Yanez read a letter opposing the project, noting that it will not be owner -occupied. Tina Yesson of 19 Oak Avenue objected strongly to the multi -unit proposal, noting this is an R-1 district and a substandard lot, and that all of the houses in the neighborhood are one story bungalows. She called attention to the narrow street, and the on -street parking which is a problem. Sandra Lollini, Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association President, stated she would like to see a single family house built on the property, and that the GPNA would like the R-1 zoning to remain. She asked that the appeal be denied. Aileen Treadwell stated that there have been some mistakes made within the City, and this is one which could be avoided. Grace Vernacci of 1 Alvina concurred with her neighbor and noted a curve on Alvina which actually shortens the block. Joel Schwartz of 5 Alvina opposed the second unit, and asked that the R-1 zoning be main- tained. He also stated this will be a "spec" house, and he does not believe it would be low income housing. There being no further public input, the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Breiner stated that to have a second unit would result in unreasonable inten- sification, and owners of substandard lots should not be encouraged to make application for second units. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to deny the appeal on the basis just outlined, and to direct staff to prepare a Resolution with findings. Under question, Councilmember Thayer noted that if a second unit does not have a kitchen it does not have to go through the Use Permit process, and there could be any number of cars added to a neighborhood. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2/90 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/90 Page 6 Mayor Mulryan stated the Council can deal with the lot coverage, and noted that without a kitchen a unit is less rentable. Councilmember Thayer stated she would like to explore the possibility of defining what is a second unit, and Mayor Mulryan asked staff to report back on this issue. Councilmember Boro said he is supporting the motion because this is a substandard lot. He stated he understands the neighbors' concerns about cultural issues; and in this case it is not appropriate to put a second unit on that lot. Mayor Mulryan agreed. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 21. PUBLIC HEARING - GPA90-2 - MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS (P1) - File 115 x 10-2 x 10-6 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. He noted that there is a total of 15 items to be considered, and as Items 1 through 9 are not going to be controversial, he recommended that they be considered together, and then take Items 10 through 15 individually. Councilmember Shippey stated that he would like discussion on Item 5. Planning Director Pendoley reviewed the process of the General Plan Amendments, and Princi- pal Planner Freitas then discussed Item 10, Fairhills. She stated that the proposed amend- ment would clarify lot sizes compatible with existing development to limit further subdivi- sions in this area. She stated that in the Fairhills General Plan there are four lots indicated for subdivision, which are much larger than the average. She stated that in what is considered the traditional Fairhills neighborhood the proposed amendment would allow the potential for two lots to subdivide in the future. She added that it is possible that slope provisions which will be developed within the next year would preclude further subdivision on one of these lots, but that is uncertain at this time. Mayor Mulryan stated he supports what the staff is doing, and questioned whether recom- mending no subdivision of lots was one of the alternatives. Ms. Freitas responded that actually there are four lots in the Fairhills neighborhood, which are much larger than the lots surrounding them, and the General Plan states that the planning and land use designations are consistent with existing development patterns. She stated that these properties are not significantly different in terms of slope or access from the properties surrounding them, they are just larger in size. Mayor Mulryan stated that staff would accede to the desires of the neighborhood and approach it legally. City Attorney Ragghianti agreed, stating that substantial problems would be involved in adopting a policy which would preclude the development of an already existing legal lot of record. Councilmember Breiner inquired if there would be a legal problem if they were to pass the Planning staff's recommendation but add to it that no further subdivision would take place on those lots which have potential for subdivision until the Slope Ordinance is complete. Mr. Ragghianti clarified: The staff recommendation, which would permit development of already existing lots, would preclude any further development of those lots until the slope policy has been adopted. He stated this would be permissible. Councilmember Boro inquired if this can be done in just one neighborhood, and Mr. Ragghianti responded it can be done in just one neighborhood or throughout the City. Councilmember Boro stated that if the Council does something like this it should be done Citywide. Councilmember Breiner stated we should identify at this time similar lots and not let them be subdivided until we have our Hillside Residential Standards. Mayor Mulryan agreed. Phyllis Zirinq, President of Fairhills Property Owners Association stated she did not receive notice of the Planning Commission hearing, and that her association is strongly opposed to additional home sites in their neighborhood. She noted the possibility of in- creased traffic, danger to joggers, antiquated water lines and danger to wildlife. Mayor Mulryan inquired if Ms. Ziring supports the staff recommendation, and she said she does, but not for the flat parcel. Ginger Clark, longtime resident of Fairhills, spoke against the increased traffic, and the need for their children to have respect for wildlife and nature, which should not be destroyed. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2/90 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/90 Page 7 Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the staff recommen- dation, but add that until the Hillside Residential Standards are complete no further subdivision of lots will be permitted. Mr. Ragghianti stated that the City previously adopted a moratorium precluding subdivisions throughout the City pending the implementation of the interim Hillside Development policies, which we now have. He stated that this might be considered another moratorium, and that there is only one way that the Government Code 64585 permits that for the cities, and he is concerned about that type of action. Councilmember Breiner stated that she feels there would be an effect on this area if the new Hillside Standards come in tighter than before. She stated if there are limitations on this, she would withdraw that issue. Mr. Ragghianti said he feels it would be a problem and it would be difficult to undo after it has been done. Councilmember Breiner stated that she will withdraw that part on her motion, and Councilmember Shippey seconded the amendment. Councilmember Boro stated he does not think there is a deadline for adopting the General Plan Amendments, and would rather have this issue researched and brought back to Council. Councilmember Breiner inquired if it would be possible to have her language stay in, if it is legal, and Mr. Ragghianti stated he will get back to the Council on this very shortly. Mary Ellen Irwin addressed the Council, stating that Fairhills is fully developed as it is, and expressed concern regarding increased traffic. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ms. Freitas then discussed Item 11, Brookdale Avenue, stating that the request to consider redesignation of the Brookdale neighborhood from "High Density Residential" to "Medium Density Residential" occurred during an appeal of a proposed apartment project at 27/33 Brookdale Avenue. She noted that the Council had reduced the density of the proposed project from 10 units to 8, and recommended that this area be considered for a change to Medium Density. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to adopt the staff recommen- dation which would give Medium Density and eventually R-2 zoning. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ms. Freitas next explained Item 12, Expansion of an East San Rafael Exemption Policy to Permit Exemption from Priority Processinq as well as FAR/Peak Trip Limits. She quoted from the General Plan regarding an exemption which read: "ESR -33. Exemption. Projects which have a valid approval for a specific building square footage exceeding the FAR/peak hour trips allowed by the Plan shall be exempt from proposed FAR/trip limits". Ms. Freitas stated that this language was included in the Draft Plan in June, 1987, and applied to property owned by Mr. Dalecio, who had existing approvals for a building larger and more intensive in use than that which would be permitted by the General Plan. She noted that this exemption did not include an exemption from Priority Processing, as there was no Priority Project Procedure in the draft plan at that time. She added that the issue is whether the exemption language should be modified to additionally exempt the proposed project from the Priority Project Procedure. Ms. Freitas then outlined the history of the site, and noted that Council had granted approval for a more intensive building and use than otherwise permitted by the General Plan due to a prior taking of right-of-way for Kerner Boulevard construction. She added that if the Priority Projects Procedure had been in place when exemption was discussed, the exempton may have been worded to include a timing exemption. Ms. Freitas noted that no action has been taken to construct a project on this site in 52 years. She added that three critical moves would need to be reserved for the project until the Bellam improvements are constructed, limiting the number of trips which could be allocated to other high priority projects. She added that this type of reservation is not consistent with the Priority Projects Procedure approach and, also, there are no critical moves currently available as a result of the 1990 Priority Projects process. However, it is quite likely that all of the projects which were approved will not be built, and trips could be reserved the next time the Priority Projects Procedure comes up. Mayor Mulryan noted that in order to approve this we would have to come up with three critical move (CM) peak trips. He suggested that this project could be put at the top of the list the next time the Priority Projects Procedure comes up for decisions. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2/90 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/90 Page 8 Ms. Freitas noted that staff has no recommendation on this issue, and that the Planning ComRission did not make a recommendation either. Mr. Pendoley stated that this is a very unusual case, and policy has changed since approval of this project, with the adoption of the Priority Projects Procedure. He stated that this has become a policy matter, since all CM's were allocated in the last Priority Projects discussions. Councilmember Breiner stated that she feels Mr. Dalecio should have the CM's available to him when they become available, but since he has waited this long to pursue them it does not seem fair, because there could be other projects which could, in fact, go forward if they had the CM's. She wondered if there could be a way to give Mr. Dalecio those CM's when they become available, for a period of one year. Mayor Mulryan responded that if the Council gave Mr. Dalecio the trips under the Priority Projects Procedure he would have to move within a year or drop off the list. He noted that if Mr. Dalecio is not subject to the PPP he would still have to get trips at the time his project comes before the Council, and inquired if those trips would be allocated in perpetuity. Mr. Pendoley responded that would depend on how the Council wishes to handle it. He stated that would be within the purview of the Council, on the basis of an equity matter. Councilmember Boro stated he understands staff to be saying that Mr. Dalecio has a vested right to develop this land, based on a consideration which he gave the City a number of years ago. He noted that staff has stated that this is the only parcel they know of, of this type, in the entire City, and this would not be setting a precedent. He added it seems the City is obligated, and he is willing to grant an exemption, noting that this only involves 3 trips. Councilmember Thayer questioned the necessity for making this decision tonight, and not waiting for the next PPP meetings. Mr. Pendoley responded that the occurrence being discussed was in 1987, before the PPP, and no one thought to go back and look at this project for an exemption. He stated it is strictly an equity question at this point. Councilmember Boro noted that the only way the Level of Service (LOS) could be exceeded is if everything went forward, and Mr. Dalecio also went forward. Mayor Mulryan responded that we will not go below Mid-level D. Councilmember Shippey inquired if Mr. Dalecio would have to wait for the next PPP to get approval, stating it is not clear to him that he should be granted CM's when he has not done anything for five years. Ms. Freitas responded that this project would not come out very high in the PPP. Mr. Dalecio addressed the Council, explaining about the taking of his land for the Kerner Boulevard right-of-way. He stated that in 1971 he granted the City a right-of-way, and they took the north side of the property and abandoned their right to the east side. Then, in 1984, the City put in Kerner Boulevard and forgot about the east side being abandoned, and took it also. He added that he had negotiated the matter and, for the City taking both sides of the property he would be exempt and would be given the right to develop and would not be subject to any ordinance which would prohibit or take away his right. He then referred to a letter dated october 13, 1989 from the Planning Department, stating that in order to clarify the intent, the Planning Department will recommend to the City Council amendment of ESR -33 to include a PPP exemption, and that this amendment would be processed with the annual General Plan update. Mr. Dalecio stated he gave the City what they wanted and he is asking for the City to give him what was agreed to. He noted there are no deadlines for development, and the three CM's should be reserved for him. Councilmember Breiner stated that it seems as though from the beginning Mr. Dalecio had the right to these CM's, so the calculations for the CM's should have been plugged in from the beginning. Ms. Freitas responded that is a matter of interpretation. Councilmember Boro noted that what the Council is doing is updating the General Plan. He stated the City was negligent in the calculations and Mr. Dalecio is asking the City to rectify their mistake. He added that the Council should honor their past commitment, and that Mr. Dalecio has an entitlement. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to grant a Priority Projects Procedure exemption for this property. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Item 13, 45 Fremont Road was discussed by Ms. Freitas, in connection with expansion of the "Hillside Residential" land use designation in the West End neighborhood. She stated SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2/90 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) -?/90 Page 9 that this property was originally divided into 4 parcels in 1913, but was held in contiguous ownership since 1929. She added that through the Doctrine of Merger these lo'.s were held to be one lot and the City upheld this Doctrine by issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for one parcel in August, 1982. She added that John Ploss bought this property as a single lot in October, 1985, built a single family home on it and so'd the property in 1987. She noted that if this property had been identified as one assessor's parcel it would have been included in the "Hillside Residential" designation, for which it clearly meets the criteria. She noted, however, that at the Planning Commission meeting Chris Craiker stated that he and John Ploss had retained the development rights to this property when the house they had constructed on it was sold, and that both he and Mr. Ploss object to the redesignation. She added that the property owners of record have also submitted a letter stating their objection to the redesignation. Chris Craiker addressed the Council, and stated that the Planning Commission should not take the objections of the neighbors into account when debating the merits of the subdivi- sion, and he added it should not be down -zoned to Hillside Residential, that it would be creating an island of low density residential. Councilmember Boro inquired of Mr. Craiker whether he had, retained the development rights, and Mr. Craiker replied in the affirmative. Victoria DeWitt of the WEst End Neighborhood Association stated there is property contiguous to this, and it would not be an island. She also stated she has a letter from a former City planner, stating that part of this slope is as high as 60%. She added that access is very difficult and the road is extremely narrow, and should there be a fire any cars coming down would prohibit fire trucks going up. She added that she could not find recorded documents involving John Ploss and Chris Craiker. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to uphold the Planning Commis- sion's recommendation for redesignation to "Hillside Residential". AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Breiner stated she is concerned about the parcel map being misleading since it shows four lots in spite of the merger. Ms. Freitas stated it has to be researched to see if it is a legal lot, and added that the Assessor shculd havE shown it as one legal lot. Item 14, Provision of Traffic Allocations to AP 155-200-03, was outlined by Ms. Freitas, who stated that this parcel is part of the NortLgate EEst office complex, and is the most steeply sloping parcel of the complex. It had originally been planned for a gas station under the master development plan, but the P -C zoning in 1973, (Ord. 1112) was revised to eliminate the proposed gas station. She stated that later that year the former gas station site was subdivided off as a separate 18,340 square foot parte' from the main office site. She stated that the parcel is designated as "Office" in General Plan 2000. She stated that consis�.ent with the earlier Northgate Plan, the site was considered fully developed and had no peak trips allocated to it. She added that staff had reviewed the history of the parcel with the City Attorney. She noted that the City Attorney concluded that not providing this separate parcel with any development potential could be considered a "taking", and that in order to fully develop the site traffic allocations are needed. She stated that based on existing site conditions the property owner's engineer calculated that a 3,275 square foot office building could be built, based on lot square footage/slope requirements, which would require an allocation of 7 peak trips. Contrary to an earlier grading plan Ms. Freitas stated that the applicar.t contended, in writing and at the Planning Commisson meeting, that unlike other non-residential hillside properties this site had an approved 1973 grading plan which called for backfill of an existing wall along Civic Center Drive. She stated that staff had reviewed the approved as built plan in the Building Department files and contrary to an earlier grading plan woich showed extensive retaining walls, the approved as built plan shows a sloped 2:1 fill bank down to Civic Center Drive and shows no retaining wall along this parcel. She added that the flat pad shown in the as built plans is approximately 9,200 square feet, nearly 1,500 square feet less than the existing graded flat pad. However, any future developnen, of the site is subject to future approvals and permits, and staff discussions with the City Attorney concluded that the owner has no current approved grading or other approvals for this site. She stated that the issue is whether any hillside site should be permittee: to cut or fill the site to create larger flat building pads to construct larger buildings. She noted it is staff's position, supported by the Planning Commission, that the Hillside FAR policy recognizes site conditions/slopes in place at the time: of General Plan adoption. Ms. Freitas noted that the Planning Commission's recommendation is to allocate 7 PM peak trips to the site and emphasize that the Hillside FAR policy recognizes the conditions/ slopes in place at the time of General Plan adoption. Ms. Freitas noted that trips could be reallocated from the Northgate East area "specialty retail" trip reserve. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2/90 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) -1/90 Page 10 Attorney Perry Litchfield, representing the developers of the site, referred to his letter to City Attorney Ragghianti, dated June 29, 1990, and briefed the information it contained. He traced the history of the project, which was initially approved to be built in three phases. He stated that the developer acquired a vested right at the time of approval of the project, which was not affected by the adoption of the General Plan, and this would allow construction of a building up to 5,900 square feet, requiring an allocation of 12.4 trips. He then contended that the condition of the site after completion of approved grad- ing, if the General Plan is to be applied, would allow a building up to 4,963 square feet, requiring an allocation of 10.9 trips. Mr. Litchfield stated that at an absolute minimum, the site should be measured after the partially constructed retaining wall is completed and properly backfilled, which would allow the construction of a building up to 3,681 square feet, requiring an allocation of 8.1 trips. Councilmember Breiner inquired if it was considered that the project was commenced because the retaining wall was built, and Mr. Litchfield responded that the old development plan included Phases 1, 2 and 3. This lot was graded and the retaining wall was started. Mayor Mulryan noted that staff had pointed out that there was no viable project. Councilmember Boro explained, in connection with the backfilling of the wall, that the Council can only consider the site with the existing fill. Mr. Boro then inquired of the City Attorney whether he is proposing anything different as a result of his meeting with Mr. Litchfield, and Mr. Ragghianti responded that he supports the staff recommendation. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the staff recommend- ation and approve 7 trips, with emphasis on City policy regarding the fill and the FAR. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Item 15, 157 Woodland Avenue, was then briefed by Ms. Freitas. She stated that in 1990 the Planning Commission had reviewed a proposal for 34 apartment units and one single family residence, and recommended that the City reconsider a lower density residential land use designation for this property. She stated that discussion of the site during General Plan proceedings identified that a previously approved Medium Density 25 unit condominimum proposal, if it had been built, would have resulted in extensive grading and significant visual impacts with 17 foot high retaining walls and 40 foot high buildings. Ms. Freitas noted there is no buildable level portion of the site near the road, or even a portion of the site particularly suitable for development. She noted that the Planning Commission had recommended "Low Density" for the site, but the Council had revised the land use designation to "Medium Density". Ms. Freitas noted that the nearby residents now favor a "Hillside Residential" designation, which would permit 1-4 units. She noted that the Planning Commission is recommending a "Hillside Residential" designation. One of the property owners, Robert Coppple, addressed the Council, requesting a continuance on the item so he can be represented by legal counsel. He stated that would be the meeting of July 16th. He stated he is not prepared to speak without legal counsel and his attorney could not be present this evening. Also, he would have had people present who favor afford- able housing to speak on his behalf. Mr. Pendoley informed the Council that this would be a matter for their discretion. He noted that the neighborhood was told of the meeting the same time the date was set, and this was scheduled for a full Council. Mayor Mulryan suggested that the neighbors be allowed to make their comments, and then the Council could make a final decision after they have heard the legal counsel. Mr. Copple disputed some statements in the staff report, and stated he would like the density as previously proposed. He stated staff did not have him take his plans for Design Review. Mayor Mulryan stated the Council is trying to put a designation on this property with which they feel comfortable. Mr. Pendoley informed the Council that the 34 unit proposal was before the Planning Commis- sion with a recommendation for denial because Mr. Copple refused to pay for an EIR. He stated the reason for the delay was the refusal to pay for the EIR. He stated that Planning Department had consistently recommended that Mr. Copple have a plan with the low end of the Medium Density designation. He stated the Design Review Board reviewed the 15 unit proposal, and the delays were due to lack of responsiveness of the applicant. Darcy McDonnell informed the Council that Mr. Copple has already decided to go ahead and represent himself without legal counsel. He stated that the Hillside Residential designation is appropriate, and he filled a petition with over 300 residents' signatures from Bret SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2/90 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/90 Page 11 Harte area to that effect. He noted that at the Planning Commission meeting on June 12th there were between 60 and 70 people, and he would like the Council to confirm the unanimous decision of the Planning Commission. He asked the Council to please consider that Mr. Copple has already represented himself. Councilmember Shippey asked Mr. Ragghianti what is the legal basis for requiring legal counsel to be here. Mr. Ragghianti responded that this is discretionary for the Council, that there is no legal requirement that the attorney be present, nor that the Council could continue the hearing. Councilmember Breiner stated that as a courtesy the hearing should be continued. Duane Love, a sixth -generation resident of the area, spoke of the steepness of the site, the poor access, and the fact that 34 units and a single family residence would take the last open space area. Gene Farmer of 40 Irwin stated that with the history of the project he does not feel that the developer's request for continuance should be accepted, but should be denied. Shirley McClung stated that part of Woodland Avenue is extremely dangerous and she no longer rides her bicycle there. She noted that the 6th and 7th grades of Davidson Middle Schools are right there, and since there is not sidewalk her concern is for the safety of the children. Fred Harker of 48 Harte Avenue requested that if this item is continued please bring it up at the beginning of the agenda so they will not have to wait so long. Aileen Treadwell of Southern Heights Boulevard stated she is concerned about the item being put off again, stating that the developer had said he would keep delaying it so the neighbors would stop coming, and that he had been successful with this in the past. She urged Hillside Residential density. Mayor Mulryan stated that the issue is that the Council understands what the neighbors want and what the property owners want. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to continue the public hearing to July 16, 1990. Councilmember Boro noted that the neighbors are asking for a full Council, and there will not be one on July 16, 1990. Councilmember Breiner amended her motion, seconded by Councilmember Thayer, to continue the hearing to August 6, 1990. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The Council then considered Item 16, Revisions to City Trails Plan Consistent with Adopted, Updated County Trails Element. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the staff recommen- dation to approve the revisions. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Item 17, Consideration of a Limited FAR Amendment for Regency Center, Smith Ranch Road, was then considered, and Ms. Freitas informed the Council that an application has been received from Joseph Pell, owner of the Regency Center Office building, to amend LU -14b, to permit the calculation of a parking easement among the parcels benefited by such easement for the purpose of determining the FAR of such parcels. She noted that the amendment would recognize a circumstance which occurred in Smith Ranch as a result of prior trip transfer policies. She explained it involves the area of an existing parking easement being allocated among the parcels. Councilmember Breiner inquired if this would present a problem when the Regency Theater had a matinee, after the building has been built. Ms. Freitas responded that issue would be pert of the approval of the project, involving the allocation of the parking. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the Planning Commis- sion's recomRendations to approve the General Plan amendment with findings about the special and unique circumstances applying to this site, including the Northgate Activity Center Plan rules applicable to Smith Ranch parcels, the reliance of the City on the parking easement when the City approved Phase I of the Regency Center project, and that the overall SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2/90 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) ,2/90 Page 12 FAR for the properties subject to the parking easement would not exceed the Northgate FAR. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILNEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Shippey then referred to Item 5 - Revise the Priority of the St. Vincents/ Silveira Advisory Committee from a Priority 1 to a Priority 2. He stated there are many citizens who feel they have no alternatives other than the plan being publicized. He stated he feels the language in the General Plan should be clarified and strengthened with regard to review of land uses within the St. Vincents/Silveira property. Councilmember Thayer stated that the North San Rafael Coalitior. of Residents is concerned at the mention of 2,100 homes in that area and the rigidity of that position with no alter- natives offered. Mayor Mulryan pointed out that the issue in Item 5 is only going to Priority 2 from Priority 1 as far as the Advisory Committee is concerned. Councilmember Thayer stated that people should know the City is monitoring the plan, and added that it is probable that no development would start for from 5 to 7 years. Councilmember Breiner stated that it should be very clear that the Advisory Committee would have as part of its purview recommendation as to numbers. She stated perhaps that is an amendment which could be made to clarify the issue for the public. Councilmember Boro recommended deciding on the priority for the Committee and not to decide the scope of the Committee until later. Mayor Mulryan inquired about the rationale behind the recommendation, and Mr. Pendoley responded that changing the priority would mean it might be done in five years. He stated it would be an advisory committee to be formfd within a certain set of parameters. He added that the wording in this section of the General Plan could be clarified. Mayor Mulryar; stated that because the Council will be bringing back the amendments at the August 6th meeting, staff can at that time come back with some alternate language. Mr. Pendoley stated he will bring back the Resolution for a Negative Declaration End the Resolution amending the General Plan, along with the additional information requested. The public hearing was continued to the meeting of August 6, 1990. 22. DISCUSSION OF RESTRICTIONS OF CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINES - File 13-1 Councilmember Breiner asked Council if they would consider having an Ordinance banning cigarette vending machines, or designating certain locations. Mayor Mulryan stated he would not try to prevent restaurants from having vending machines. He then asked staff to prepare a report as to methods other cities have taken in this regard, and also the legality involved. 23. REQQUEST FROM THE FRIENDS OF THE MARIN ISLANDS TO APPLY FOR STATE GRANT FUNDS (PW) - File 4-10-247 Public Works Director Bernardi informed the Council that the City has been requested by the Friends of Marin Islands to apply for a grant in the amount of $1 million to the State of California. He added that the grant is administered through the Public Resources Code. Fees collected from Environmental License Plates purchased in the State of California go into a special fund governed by this Code. He listed the projects, environmentally related, on which the funds could be spent, and recommended that the City approve author- izing the City Manager to sign the application for grant funds. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to approve the staff recom- mendation. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2/90 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) ?/2/90 Page 13 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 PM. JEANN� LEONCIN�G I N I, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1990 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/2/90 Page 13