Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1990-11-19SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION - File 1.4.1.a 1. No. 90-23(a) - #2 No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1990, AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meet- ing of October 15, 1990 (CC) 3. Partial Closure of Downtown Streets for Annual Parade of Lights and Snow Party on Friday, November 30, 1990 (RA) - File 11-19 RECOMMENDED ACTION Approved as submitted. Approved staff recommendation. 4. Declaration of Parking Meter Holiday Approved staff recommendation. Beginning Wednesday, November 21, 1990, through Sunday, December 30, 1990 (RA) File 11-18 5. Approval of Memoranda of Understanding with Miscellaneous Employees: (CM) File 7-8-1 x 7-3 a. Resolution Between City and Marin RESOLUTION NO. 8292 - AMENDING RESOLUTION Association of Public Employees NO. 7838 PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION (MAPE), S.E.I.U. - Local 949, AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR MISCELLANEOUS Supervisory Unit SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL (2 -year agreement from 7/1/90 through 6/30/92) b. Resolution Between City and Marin RESOLUTION NO. 8293 - AMENDING RESOLUTION Association of Public Employees NO. 7839 PERTAINING TO •THE COMPENSATION (MAPE), S.E.I.U. - Local 949, AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR MISCELLANEOUS Miscellaneous Employees PERSONNEL (2 -year agreement from 7/1/90 through 6/30/92) 6. Resolution Rescinding Approval of the Disposition and Development Agreement Providing for the Agency's Sublease of Property at Second and Lindaro Streets in the City of San Rafael to Lindaro Associates and Rescinding Approval of Revisions to Such Dis- position and Development Agreement (RA) - File (SRRA) R-254 RESOLUTION NO. 8294 - RESCINDING APPROVAL APPROVAL OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE AGENCY'S SUBLEASE OF PROPERTY AT SECOND AND LINDARO STREETS IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO LINDARO ASSOCIATES AND RESCINDING APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO SUCH DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 8. Resolution Declaring Canvass of RESOLUTION NO. 8295 - DECLARING CANVASS Returns and Results of Special Muni- OF RETURNS AND RESULTS OF SPECIAL MUNICIPAL cipal Election (Consolidated with the ELECTION (CONSOLIDATED WITH THE GENERAL General Election) Held on November 6, ELECTION) HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 1990 1990 (CC) - File 9-4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 2 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan abstained from voting on the minutes of October 15, 1990 due to absence from meeting. Councilmembers Boro and Breiner abstained from voting on Item 6, due to conflict of interest. The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 7. SERVICE AGREEMENTS RE CITY'S OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PROVIDERS (Pers) - file 7-1-35 a. Resolution Authorizing Mayor and City Clerk to Sign Service Agreement with METS as the City's Medical Provider; b. Resolution Authorizing Mayor and City Clerk to Sign Service Agreement with PHARMCHEM for Drug Sample Analyses Councilmember Breiner recommended that comparable costs be provided in matters such as this, to aid in the determination. Also, she questioned whether other cities who use this service have been consulted with regard to their experience with METS. Personnel Officer Chandler responded that he has checked with other cities and found that this is the provider most frequently used. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to adopt the Resolutions as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 8296 - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH MEDICAL, ERGONOMIC AND THERAPUTIC SERVICES, INC. (METS) TO FUNCTION AS THE CITY'S OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PROVIDER RESOLUTION NO. 8297 - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH PHARMCHEM LABORATORIES, INC. TO PROVIDE LABORATORY DRUG TESTING SERVICES FOR THE CITY AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9. STATUS REPORT ON SHEEP GRAZING (PW) - File 4-10-158 x 13-14-1 Councilmember Breiner stated that it appears from the staff report that there will be no grazing this coming year. Public Works Director Bernardi responded that staff is recommending at this point in time that they only continue with the perimeter mowing and that the grazing program be looked at in the context of next year's budget, with the rest of the Management Plan. Councilmember Boro expressed disappointment in the timing, noting that it has been close to two years that the City has been attempting to resolve the problem and while a consultant has been hired and staff has been working with the County, there have been fires up there. He stated it now appears that this issue will be pushed all the way out to next April, and if we have the heavy rains expected in the meantime, we will have tall grass on the hills and then attempt to adopt a plan. He stated his concern about why this has taken so long when we have had the consultant's report for six or eight months. Mr. Bernardi stated that the consultant has said that whether you have grazing or not, you still have to mow the perimeter, primarily because the animals do not come down close to the property. He added that the grazing on the rest of the open space is more of a land management program where the grazing eliminates the non-native species and allows the native species to grow. He stated it is more environmental than fire protection. Mr. Bernardi notes that staff has been working with the County with regard to patrolling and fire protection, and who had first response if the County were to take over the entire open space land under contract with the City. He stated this was time-consuming, and added that they have also been working with the consultant on some of the costs to make sure they were reflected accurately. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to accept the staff report. AYES: COUNCILMEMEERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 3 10. PUBLIC HEARING - RECONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION OF AUGUST 28, 1990, RE DENIAL OF V90-12 VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FIVE-FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE• 506 "C" STREET; VENKATESWARA/PARAMESWARI LAKIREDDY, OWNERS: AP 12-155-02 �P1) - File 10-4 Mayor Mulryan declared the Public Hearing opened. He then announced that this item is on the agenda for reconsideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of August 28, 1990. Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council, stating that on October 1, 1990 the Council considered an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of August 28, 1990, regarding a wall in excess of three feet in the front yard setback at 506 "C" Street. He noted that the Council did not act on the variance issue, but rather found that the design of the wall was consistent with the three-foot height limit in that it featured a solid base at three feet, with approximately two feet of ornamentation. On October 15, 1990 the Council voted to reconsider the matter. Mr. Pendoley noted the memo from the Code Enforcement Officer which describes a sequence of events leading to the issuance of a Notice of Violation prior to completion of the wall. He then reviewed the necessary findings in order to grant a variance: Unusual and extraordinary circumstances relative to the site which do not apply generally to other sites in the vicinity; is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the owner; and the granting of the requested variance would be materially deterimental to the public welfare. He stated that the granting of an after -the -fact variance based on inadequate findings would establish an undesirable precedent which could interfere with future enforcement of the City's Zoning Ordinance. He noted that enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance is necessary to preserve, maintain, and protect the public welfare. Mayor Mulryan stated that what is before the Council is whether or not to reconsider their finding that this was not a fence exceeding the legal limits. Mr. Pendoley stated that what is also before the Council is whether or not they will grant the appeal of the variance. Mayor Mulryan stated he believes the first step would be to reconsider the technical aspect. City Attorney Ragghianti stated Mayor Mulryan is correct that this is the matter for the Council to take up first. If the Council determines to reconsider its previous determination, then and only then if it determines that the structure is a fence and that it exceeds the required height limitations in the front yard setback, the next issue of whether to grant a variance would arise. Mayor Mulryan inquired if it would be appropriate to take a vote on the first item, and leave the hearing open for discussion on the variance. Mr. Ragghianti stated it would be appropriate, since it is a matter for the Council and not the public. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to bring the matter back before the Council for reconsideration. Mayor Mulryan stated that the motion for which he was asking for was specifically that the Council make a determination that, in fact, this is a fence exceeding the limits. Then the Council would decide on the variance. Mr. Ragghianti agreed, stating that in reading the minutes of the October 1st meeting he noted that the Council's motion was that the Council found that the fence was three feet high and the rest of the fence was ornamentation, and thus no variance was required. He stated that the proper motion would be to reverse that determination, which passed 5-0. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to move that the Council's determination on October 1, 1990 regarding the fence height be reversed. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Thayer noted a discrepancy between Attorney Litchfield's letter and Code Enforcement Officer Butts' memo, that Mr. Butts had stated in his report that he had spoken to the workers building the fence on July 6 and informed them that the fence was too high and they should stop work. She noted that in Mr. Litchfield's letter he indicates that the fence was 90% complete when they were told that they would have to get a variance. She asked if Mr. Butts could speak to this issue. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 4 While Mr. Butts was approaching the podium, City Attorney Ragghianti pointed out that this question is legally irrelevant, that once the Council moved and approved a reconsideration, this matter comes back for the Council to make a decision to grant the appeal or uphold the Planning Commission, with all of of the findings. Mayor Mulryan noted that when this matter was before the Council previously, the Council felt the owner of the property had not become aware of the requirements of the City before the fence was essentialy complete. Code Enforcement Officer Butts informed the Council that he had been by the fence a number of times but at that point could not tell it was going to exceed the height limit. When he did notice that it was going to excee.d the height limit he did stop and talk to the workers, that actually he was waiting for them when they came to work. He stated that as to the percentage of completion he could not be certain, but perhaps 70% or 80%, because he had no idea where they were going to stop. He advised the workers verbally, and then came back with a Notice of Violation in writing. He noted he cannot stop workers, but can only advise them that if they continue, and the variance is denied, they may have to cut it back down to the three feet, which would be costly. He told them they should stop until the proper paper work is done. He stated he talked to the workers on two separate occasions, once in writing with the Notice of Violation. Attorney Perry Litchfield, representing the appellants, stated he would have preferred that the Council took public testimony before making their decision to reverse their decision. He stated there seems to be a feeling that the applicant was aware of the violation and ignored it, when, in fact, the fence was substantially completed before they knew of it. He stated that had they stopped with a concrete uncompleted fence, it would have been unsightly and there would have been many neighborhood complaints. He said they painted it to make it complete, and he does not feel the applicant should be punished for finishing off the last portion of the fence after he was informed it was in violation. He stated he does not understand about the change in the Council's decision since the October 1st meeting, without any public testimony. He stated he does not know what the reconsideration at this point is truly based on. He stated this is an attractive structure which compliments the home, and there have been numerous expressions of approval from the neighbors. He added that he does not believe a finding can be made that the ordinance in question defines a fence appropriately enough to suggest that this is in violation of that Ordinance. He noted that in reviewing the tape of October 1st, staff had stated that the Ordinance is vague in this area, and is being worked on so these problems will not arise in the future. He stated the Ordinance should be clear and convincing, and the present Ordinance should be updated. Mr. Litchfield stated that he feels the Council's previous determination was correct•, and that this is a three-foot fence with ornamentation on top, and not a solid five-foot wall. Mr. Litchfield noted that there are a number of fences throughout the City which are over three feet high in 15 -foot front yard setbacks, and no doubt some of them are grandfathered, but not all of them. He stated this Ordinance should be applied across the board. Alice Vipiana, a Dominican area resident, expressed her displeasure with the present action of the Council, and stated it is discriminatory. She stated most of the neighbors are very happy with the fence. She raised the question of a high fence in Bradcliff Court, which was recently completed, and a solid cement wall on Linden Lane, and on Locust. She said when she complained, the explanations were unsatisfactory. She noted a six-foot fence on the property next to Mayor Mulyran's home, and he explained he lives on a private road and he could do nothing about it. She stated that until a better code is in place, the old one should not be enforced. A neighbor from 215 "C" Street stated she feels the house would be unfit to look at without the ornamentation on top of the fence. Mr. Bob Soldavini, next door neighbor, stated he likes the fence very much, and noted there are many violations in the neighborhood. He noted that it is within the boundaries of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Plan, and he asked that the appeal be denied. Dan Simonson of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association noted that the appellant had prior knowledge from the City that he was in potential violation for the fence he was constructing. He stated this is a five-foot fence, and he urged denial of the appeal, citing the tremendous precedent it would set, not only for the City of San Rafael, but for the Gerstle Park neighborhood. SRCC MINUTE.3 (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 5 Linda Bellatorre, Planning Commissioner and member of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, stated that this is clearly a five-foot fence with a cap on top, and she urged that the Council deny the appeal. Councilmember Shippey inquired if the plans submitted to the City included the fence, and Mr. Pendoley replied they did not. Matt Sessi stated he had done some work on the house for the owners, and feels that the fence is very nice and looks good in the neighborhood, and compliments the house. There being no further input, the Public Hearing was closed. Mayor Mulyan stated that when the Council heard this issue before, it was not aware that the owner had been notified it was in violation. He stated that this is a case where, despite the fact that the fence may or may not be architecturally beautiful, it was done against the Ordinance, and the question for the Council's consideration is whether to uphold the laws of our City or not. Councilmember Breiner stated that when this issue was first in front of the Council she would have liked to have had Mr. Butts' memo at that time, and feels if that were so the outcome of the meeting would have been much different. She stated she feels at this time it would be appropriate to deny the variance. Mr. Ragghianti stated that the findings in order to deny the variance should be noted. They are a part of the packet insofar as the August 28 Planning Commission meeting is concerned, and it is necessary that they be made by the Council. Councilmember Breiner read the findings, that there are no unusual or extraordinary circumstances relative to the site which do not apply generally to other sites in the vicinity, the lot is slightly smaller than required in a R-1 district which is 5,000 square feet but this condition is common throughout the Gerstle Park Neighborhood; the subject site is one of 22 parcels comprising the block bounded by C, Treanor, B and Taylor streets; of these 22 parcels, only three meet lot area and width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, staff recommends that the non -conforming size of the parcel does not produce any hardship which might be alleviated by construction of a five-foot high wall within the front yard setback. The requested variance is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the owner. The site is zoned for single family development. A single family home exists on the site. Substantial property rights have been exercised, and the granting of the required variance is not necessary to preserve such rights. The granting of the requested variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare. Ms. Breiner stated she feels this would set a dangerous precedent in one of our most charming parts of the City and, although the house itself may not have historical value, the type of front yards have a historical basis which needs to be adhered to. Ms. Breiner noted that both she and Mr. Boro have made complaints about some construction in the Dominican area, but they were issues which the present Zoning Ordinance cannot take care of. She noted that Mr. Butts' memo makes it very clear that there was a warning on this fence, and it could have been stopped. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to deny the appeal, citing the findings listed above. Mr. Boro added that the fence being discussed is this one, and no other. He stated he supports the motion on the basis that the three findings required by law cannot be met in this case. He stated that granting a variance would set a bad precedent. Under question, Councilmember Shippey inquired if the beauty of the fence could enter into the findings as an exception. Mr. Ragghianti responded that the exception or extraordinary circumstances have nothing to do with architecture. They have to do with topography and the particular circumstances of the site. He stated that type of finding he does not believe would be sustained by a court. He noted that the findings are not local, they are -in the Government Code. Councilmember Thayer inquired of the City Attorney about the definition of "fence" in the Ordinance. Mr. Ragghianti responded that the word "fence" is not defined per se, and Mrs. Thayer inquired if it is clear on the issue of three versus five feet, and Mr. Ragghianti replied that it is very clear, and if it is in the front yard setback you would need a variance. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 6 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ms. Thayer added that her vote was with the proviso that the Ordinance come back to be looked at carefully, to make it more specific as to other instances in the City. 11. PUBLIC HEARING- Z90-3 - PROPOSED PREZONING FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL- FROM BFC -RSP -7.36 DU AC DISTRICT, COUNTY OF MARIN TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEATIAL) DISTRICT, CITY OF SAN RAFAEL; OAK DRIVE ANNEXATION PROPERTY LOCATEb AT 183 OAK 6RIVE, AP 186-153-37; MICHAEL J. SMITH, APPLICANT (P1) - File 5-2-89 x 10-1 Mayor Mulryan declared the Public Hearing opened. Planing Director Pendoley briefed the Council, stating that on March 18, 1989, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) had reviewed this proposal and approved the annexation as proposed by the owner, subject to resolving an outstanding Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit. He stated that this permit was resolved and all conditions met by July 16, 1990. Under the Government Code Section 57075 provisions, the City must approve the annexation since no protests were filed and it has been approved by LAFCO. Mr. Pendoley added that the property in question is 7,100 square feet, it is General Planned for single family density, and accordingly the staff is recommending that it be prezoned to low density residential. Councilmember Breiner noted that the Planning Commission minutes of October 9, 1990 indicate that the owner, Michael Smith, had indicated that, with regard to further development on the parcel, he does intend to add a bedroom and bath in the future. Councilmember Breiner inquired if the restriction on further development would refer to a second unit. Mr. Pendoley stated that restriction would preclude a lot split, which was the question at the time. Ms. Skyuna, who lives next door to the Smith property, stated she has a problem with encroachment on property lines. She was advised that this is a civil matter between two property owners, and is not a code violation. Mr. Pendoley stated that the County had been aware of problems, and had stated that the encroachments had been corrected. City Attorney Ragghianti informed the neighbor that if any encroachments still exist, they should be remedied through an attorney, and that the City does not have jurisdiction. There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Pendoley informed the Council that it would be necessary, in addition to the Resolution being adopted, that a Negative Declaration be adopted. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Boro seconded to adopt the Resolution approving the annexation and prezoning of the property at 183 Oak Drive, and adopt the Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION NO. 8298 - CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING THE ANNEXATION AND PREZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 183 OAK DRIVE (Oak Drive Annexation - A.P. #186-153-37) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PREZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM THE COUNTY OF MARIN ZONE BFC -RSP 7.26 DU/AC (BAY FRONT CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY PLANNED DISTRICT 6,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT SIZE) DISTRICT TO THE CITY R-1 DISTRICT (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 5,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT SIZE) (183 Oak Drive, A.P. #186-153-37)" Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1599 to print, by the following vote, to -wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Re ar) 11/19/90 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Re_..Iar) 11/19/90 Page 7 12. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO ORDINANCE NO. 1597 PROHIBITING ANCHORING AND MOORING IN THE SAN RAFAEL BAY AND CANAL (CA) - File 144 x 12-10 x 10-2 Mayor Mulryan declared the Public Hearing opened. City Attorney Ragghianti explained the delay in finalizing this Ordinance. He stated that when the first Ordinance was passed to print he was away, and on reviewing it he found language with which he did not agree. He stated the Ordinance before the Council tonight is substantially different from the original Ordinance, and therefore the Public Hearing is necessary. Mr. Ragghianti stated that on November 8, 1990 he attended a tour of the waterways within the City limits, others attending being representatives of the Police and Planning departments and the State Department of Boating and Waterways. He stated that the Department of Boating and Waterways was concerned that the original Ordinance did not allow for any anchoring, and asked the City to designate some area as a General Anchorage. He noted that the present Ordinance designates the area of San Pablo Bay off McNear's Beach, within the City limits, where anchoring/mooring would be allowed for up to 48 hours. However, this area is too shallow to permit anchoring except for very shallow draft boats. He cited that another possible anchorage area is that area bounded by the San Rafael bridge on the south, the sewerline on the north, and the shipping channel on the east. He noted that this area is deeper and will allow a more realistic anchorage for most boats. He stated that this Ordinance is very clear in the provision that any vessel anchored or moored in violation of the Ordinance may be cited and if any such vessel is not moved within 72 hours it may be towed and impounded at the owner's expense. He added that any abandoned vessel or any vessel not reclaimed by the owner following impounding may be disposed of pursuant to the California Boaters Lien Laws. He noted that this Ordinance may result in costs to the City if the value of the vessel is less than towing and storage charges. However, this should not happen frequently. Mr. Ragghianti then reviewed the allowance for anchoring/mooring in emergency situations, and the provision that any disabled or dangerous vessel must be reported and shall be subject to the orders and directions of the Police Department. He noted that violations of the Ordinance are misdemeanors with fines of $200 per day, or an alternative civil proceeding which may be undertaken. Mr. Ragghianti added that Officer Mark Hedeen of the Police boat "Mission City" had recommended eliminating the designated anchor/mooring areas and allowing anyone to anchor anywhere for a designated 48-hour period. His reason was that people anchor in certain areas for fishing, and this might be a problem for the Police to confront. He stated that staff has no concern on this issue. Mayor Mulryan stated that the Ordinance is well-written, and he feels the fishing issue can be dealt with in the administrative process. Councilmember Shippey inquired as to where the boats would go when they are towed. Laura Sheedy, Deputy City Attorney, stated that a licensed towing operator will come and tow the vessel to their facility in Sausalito. Councilmember Breiner expressed concern about the City being reimbursed for the towing costs. Ms. Sheedy said it would be very unlikely that a boat would not be redeemed. Councilmember Thayer inquired if this Ordinance would prohibit anyone anchoring in one part of the General Anchorage for 48 hours and then moving to another part of it for another 48 hours, and Mr. Ragghianti stated the Ordinance prohibits that. Adm. Tom Patterson noted that on page 3 or the Ordinance, 17.20.030, subparagraph (c), where it states "The provisions of this Ordinance do not apply to vessels which are secured at a dock with the permission of the owner thereof." He expressed concern about the liveaboards in this connection. Mr. Ragghianti explained that this Ordinance specifically does not address liveaboards, which is being treated as a separate issue. Mayor Mulryan added that the City is working with the County on this issue. John Ford, representing the Marin Yacht Club, recommended adding the word "seaworthy" in front of the word "vessels" in subparagraph (c) of 17.20.030. Mr. Ragghianti stated that with the Council's permission he will add the word "seaworthy". Jim Bondoux, a resident of San Rafael, and immediate Past Commodore of the Marin Yacht Club, complimented the Council and staff on the fine Ordinance. He noted that two anchorages were discussed, and only one is shown in Exhibit A to the Ordinance. Mr. Ragghianti stated that is because it will be up to the Council to decide on which of the alternate areas should be used. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 7 13. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 8 There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Ragghianti stated that because of the substantial revisions the Ordinance would go back for first reading, or be passed to print, if acceptable to the Council. The Council discussed the anchorages, and Councilmember Shippey questioned why both areas under discussion could not be used. Councilmember Boro pointed out that in the staff report it states that the area off McNear's Beach which was designated in the first Ordinance is too shallow to permit anchoring except for very shallow draft boats. Then the staff came up with the second alternative. Councilmember Boro inquired if staff thinks they will need accommodations over and above what can be accommodated at McNear's. Ms. Sheedy stated that she does not know what kind of boats use the Bay, but for practical purposes many boats cannot use McNear's within the City limits; they use San Pablo Bay, which is outside the City limits. That is why a second alternative was suggested. Mr. Ragghianti, in response to a question by Councilmember Shippey, stated there will be absolutely no anchoring outside of those areas. Councilmember Breiner stated she would be inclined to use both areas, and, if there is a problem, it could be changed. Councilmember Shippey noted that the second one could be added later. Councilmember Thayer asked if by choosing two it might be more difficult to patrol, and stated perhaps they should start with one. Councilmember Boro stated it would seem from the staff report that if there is to be only one it should be the one by the San Rafael bridge which can accommodate more boats. Councilmember Breiner said she feels McNear's should be designated. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADDING CHAPTER 17.20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR ANCHORING AND MOORING OF BOATS IN DESIGNATED AREAS WITHIN CITY LIMITS (San Pablo Bay off McNear's Beach)" Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety, make the revision to 17.20.030 (c) to add the word "seaworthy", and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1597 to print, as amended, by the following vote, to -wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None REPORT ON IMPACT OF CITY TAKING OVER REGULATORY AUTHORITY FROM THE STATE FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY PURPOSES RE CONTEMPO MARIN MOBILEHOME PARK (P1) - File 13-7-1 Planning Director Pendoley informed the Council that some time ago they had asked staff to study the feasibility and desirability of the City taking over enforcement of the Mobilehome Parks Act. He stated that in California the regulation of mobilehome parks is covered by the Mobilehome Parks Act, which substantially preempts the local enforcement of local zoning ordinance and Uniform Building Code enforcement. He stated that the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has been given the responsibility of establishing specific requirements relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy, use and design of mobilehome parks. He noted that provisions of this part of the Act apply to all parts of the State and supersede any ordinance enacted by any city or county, whether general law or chartered. However, the legislation provides that cities or counties, by a simple resolution, may take over the implementation and enforcement of the Act. He stated that one important exception to the preemption rule is that we still retain substantial jurisdiction over the setting and adjusting of lot lines within the mobilehome park. He stated that those are not property lines but define the areas rented by residents of the mobilehomes. He noted that if regulatory control is assumed it must also be for the B -Bar -A Park, which is the only other park besides Contempo Marin within the City limits. Mr. Pendoley stated that AB 925 which was just enacted specifies that all mobilehomes within the parks must be inspected every five years beginning in 1991. The responsible agency must inspect at least 20% of the park each year. He stated that when he and the Public Works Director looked into the problems at Contempo, they found violations which were not picked up by the State Inspector. He stated that one issue concerning staff is that of unmet expectations. He stated that from conversations with residents at Contempo, and his inspections with Public SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 9 Works Director Bernardi, it is felt that some things viewed as code violations by residents may not be. One question is the subject of illegal setbacks. He noted that there have been changes in the State regulations since this park was approved. He stated that it is clear to him, from conversations with the State, that they do not strictly enforce the Mobilehome Parks Act, basically because they do not have enough staff. He stated that if the City took over regulatory control they could enforce the Act more strictly, which would address the concerns of some residents. Mr. Pendoley stated he is sure the City could administer the lot lines issue, and if the City would budget accordingly they could provide a more responsive service than the State does. Mr. Pendoley stated that perhaps not all residents of Contempo would be happy to have strict enforcement of the Code, since they may have to have decks or awnings moved or redesigned. Mr. Pendoley stated he would expect it to take a year for the City to make inspections and take appropriate enforcement action, most of which would be done by Public Works, for all 396 units. He stated that the inspection is not the hard part - it is the follow-up which is very time-consuming and expensive. However, routine implementation of the law, just handling day-to-day permits and the like, will involve much less activity, and be very difficult to project without experience factors. He recommended budgeting at least 25% of the fulltime equivalent. Mr. Pendoley concluded by stating this would be providing a service to an important affordable housing resource in the City, and with a better permit service. He stated that if the Council decides to take over the control it be treated as a budget proposal, and one approach may be to budget for a fulltime position for one year, which could take care of the permits and inspections and at the end of the year the City would have a less expensive program for the future. Mayor Mulryan inquired if part of the cost could be recovered from the park, and Mr. Pendoley stated that the State charges fees for their services, but much lower than San Rafael's. Councilmember Breiner inquired if there could be a fine levied if violations were found and not corrected. Mr. Pendoley responded that they had not looked into that issue. Councilmember Boro stated one issue to be decided upon is whether this is a way to preserve affordable housing stock. He recommended that over the next few months the staff work with the homeowners to determine what level of enforcement should be considered. That would have an impact on the funding. He recommended that this be done with contractual help on a one-time basis to get the program started, and then it could be folded into the ongoing operation of the City. Counclmember Shippey asked if there could be a voluntary contribution from the owners to offset the costs, and Mr. Pendoley stated that has not been considered. Councilmember Shippey noted that the inspections have to occur within five years, and asked what happens after that. Mr. Pendoley responded that the legislation only covers the five years, and at State level they thought that if it is successful it will be renewed. Councilmember Shippey noted that he has heard from park residents about their concern over the large units being moved in, and the increasing rents for the spaces, and he noted that this legislation does not address that. Mr. Pendoley stated that if a unit fits in, within the lot lines allowed, it simply goes in. He stated he will research the issue, but he is fairly certain that they must allow the larger units as long as they meet the setback requirements. He stated an owner has a legal right to move it and the park owner has the legal right to invite a new tenant in. Mayor Mulryan stated that, after hearing from residents tonight, he feels the appropriate way would be as staff recommended, and bring the issue back at budget hearings. Councilmember Thayer stated she feels it is unfortunate that a different set of rules is applied for mobilehomes by the State, and she feels that the people of Contempo are an important part of the City. She feels that the least the City can do is to enforce these regulations. She agreed that they should be taken up at budget time, and ask the residents of Contempo what it is they want enforced which is under the City's jurisdiction. She stated that if the City does not take over the regulation of Contempo, the City is in danger of losing its housing stock, and also might convey the impression that the citizens living in Contempo are not on an equal footing with the other citizens of San Rafael. Stan Yates, President of the Contempo Marin Homeowners Corporation, cited the difficulties of getting inspections done by the State inspectors not only with the time lag, but also the fact that State inspectors only look at whatever item they were sent to inspect and will not deal with any others. He recommended SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 10 that many of the discrepancies could be worked out at the management level, with the City in the regulatory role. This may reduce the cost. He stated most homes, at least two thirds, would take only a visual inspection. He noted that we take care of our own roads and water, and have very little demand on the police. He projected that the inspection fees, over a period of five years, would amount to about $12,000. He then thanked the Council and staff for their consideration. Mayor Mulryan stated he hopes the staff and homeowners can work on this between now and budget time. Phil MacArthur thanked the Council for their consideration, and for passing the rent stabilization ordinance. He noted the high prices of the homes being moved into the park as compared to the existing. He also noted that the owners are not concerned with the appearance of the park and feels the inspection process will improve the upkeep. Mr. Pendoley stated that is an expectation which cannot be fulfilled, and while he noticed certain run-down areas in the park, unless it is a health or safety hazard, the City cannot step in. Wilfred Clausen of Contempo inquired if the Council would be interested in paying an honorarium to a Contempo resident who is a qualified building inpsector. He was asked to communicate with staff. Mr. Clausen then mentioned that many single -wide homes are being replaced by double -wide, and when the homes are too close together there is a very real fire danger. Dorothy Skufca of Contempo cited errors in permits by the State which resulted in unnecesary expenditures by residents. She stated that local enforcement would help. 14. DISCUSSION OF REVENUE OPTIONS (CM) - File 9-2-42 x 9-4 The Council discussed dates and times for revenue options discussion, and decided on a workshop meeting on December 4, 1990, at 5:30 p.m. Councilmember Boro stated he does not feel the matter should be pushed for the March ballot, and it would be advisable to have several meetings and possibly aim for the June ballot. The Council agreed. 15. DISCUSSION OF MAKE-UP OF ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA SPECIFIC AREA PLAN COMMITTEE (P1) - File 115 x 10-1 x 10-2 Mr. Pendoley requested that the Council consider the make-up of the Committee, noting that it now has fifteen people and could become cumbersome. He also recommended that the Council might wish to look at the scope of the project and decide whether it is appropriate. He offered three options: 1) Do a full Specific Area Plan now; 2) Prepare a General Plan amendment to establish the final development capacity of the property; and 3) Develop a General Plan amendment and/or a Specific Area Plan as a joint project with the County. Councilmember Thayer recommended lowering the density in the analysis, and giving the Committee a broader base, extending it to people outside the City limits but within the County. She stated the Board of Realtors might have a very good representative who is not a San Rafael resident. She noted that the Sierra Club was omitted from the suggested list of environmental representatives, although they must have a member who is a resident. Mayor Mulryan inquired of Mr. Pendoley about the possiblity of deleting the numbers entirely, since it is not within the City limits nor is it subject to immediate development now. Councilmember Breiner agreed. Councilmember Boro recommended having a member of the Board of Supervisors on the Committee, as well as a member of the County Planning staff and possibly a member of the County Planning Commission, so it can be worked on collectively and coordinated. He agreed that the scope must be decided first, and what the expectations are. Councilmember Breiner suggested that the Committee should be broad enough to handle all of the issues, but not so broad that it becomes unwieldy. She said perhaps an ideal size for the Committe should be decided upon. Councilmember Shippey said that while he is in favor of including County representatives to the Committee, he would not be in favor of adding a Supervisor since the City would lose control. He stated he supports having the Sierra Club represented, and also not restricting the Committee to San Rafael residents as he had suggested previously. He said the Council should appoint the groups and let them suggest their members. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 11 Mayor Mulryan stated we would not relinquish control by having a Supervisor. He feels there should be two Councilmembers. Councilmember Breiner recommended leaving it up to the Board of Supervisors if they want to be represented, or have their Planning staff attend. Mr. Pendoley recommended bringing the matter back in January 1991 for decision. Meanwhile staff will be contacting homeowners groups and organizations. Councilmember Boro said he would prefer it to be a workshop meeting early in the evening, rather than at the end of a Council meeting. Robert Marx, a San Rafael resident, stated that his group of residents would be willing to assist. 16. RESOLUTIONS ACCEPTING A CONSULTANT PROPOSAL FROM GERALD GAST AND DANIEL HILLMER AND ESTABLISHING AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE PREPARATION OF HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (P1) - File 4-10-249 x 115 x 10-2 Principal Planner Delimont briefed the Council, stating that on September 17, 1990, the Council had approved a work program for the preparation of hillside design standards to implement design policies contained in the General Plan. She noted that the Council also approved the establishment of an Advisory Committee to provide technical and public input with representatives from the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, one to three members from architectural, landscaping, and/or engineering firms, and three to five members from various neighborhood associations. She stated that the Council had also requested that the names of proposed committee members be brought back for Council's consideration and appointment. She stated that the proposed Committee represents a broad cross-section of the community with an emphasis on neighborhood organizations. Ms. Delimont stated that four proposals were received from consulting firms, and Gast and Hillmer have excellent recommendations which were checked. Ms. Delimont noted that the Landscape Architects Association did not have a recommendation as yet, but they will provide one. Councilmember Breiner stated she was disappointed that the list did not include a Soils Engineer, due to the nature of the issue, and that kind of expertise should be included. She also recommended a revision in the document from Gast & Hillmer, the paragraph on page 4, "Architecture - Scale and Character", the first sentence to be revised to include "minimize or eliminate high..." Also, in the last sentence of that paragraph, there is far too much emphasis on the aesthetics and not on the actual soil and slope stability. Ms. Delimont stated that this firm has done considerable work on hillside standards and she determined that they understand the types of environmental contraints. Mr. Pendoley stated they will add a Soils Engineer to the Advisory Committee. He noted that the City's General Plan has very strict standards regarding slope stability and geologic studies. He stated the basic safety factors are stringent, but it would be a help to have a Soils Engineer on the Committee. Councilmember Breiner stated she would like the paragraph revised as she worded it. Councilmember Thayer stated she would like to make certain that the Civil Engineer on the Committee is not involved in any current proejcts. Mr. Pendoley stated he will ask the City Attorney to prepare an affidavit to that effect. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded,to adopt the Resolution Accepting the Proposal from Gerald Gast and Daniel Hillmer, with revisions as recommended by Councilmember Breiner. RESOLUTION NO. 8299 - ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL FROM GERALD GAST AND DANIEL HILLMER FOR PREPARATION OF HILLSIDE DESIGN STANDARDS AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded,to adopt the Resolution Establishing an Advisory Committee for Preparation of Hillside Design Standards, with the names of the Landscape Architect and Soils Engineer to be added. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 11 17. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 12 RESOLUTION NO. 8300 - ESTABLISHING AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE PREPARATION OF HILLSIDE DESIGN STANDARDS AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE TO THE 101 CORRIDOR ACTION COMMITTEE (CM) - File 170 Mayor Mulryan stated that the staff report is self-explanatory, that the previous Council representative was Gary Frugoli, and since the Committee is reconvening, it is necessary to appoint a representative. Councilmember Breiner moved and Mayor Mulryan seconded, that Councilmember Boro be appointed to the 101 Corridor Action Comffittee. Councilmember Thayer stated she knows Councilmember Boro would do a wonderful job on the Committee, but she noted that in Mr. Roumiguiere's letter he said he would welcome both the opposition and the proponents of Measure A. She said she feels it is extremely important to have a well-balanced Action Committee for the 101 Corridor, and she would ask the two members who just made the motion to reconsider a motion which would allow Councilmember Shippey to be the City's representative. Mayor Mulryan pointed out that Councilmember Shippey had taken opposition to the City's position, and he will not withdraw his second to the motion. He stated Councilmember Shippey was free to take a position as an individual on the measure, but as far as the City is concerned he does not feel it would be appropriate. Councilmember Shippey informed the Council that the "No on Measure A" Committee is being reconstituted, and it was recommended that he be appointed by the Council to serve on the 101 Corridor Committee. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey & Thayer ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Thayer will continue as Alternate. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGNATION OF COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AGENCY AS AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CM) - File 191 x 10-2 x 170 City Manager Nicolai informed the Council that she is presenting for consideration and discussion a request to designate the Countywide Planning Agency as the agency responsible for preparing a Congestion Management Program. She added that Proposition 111 which was approved by the voters in June of 1990 required that counties develop a Countywide Congestion Management Program. The time line for the program is very short. It has to be submitted and approved by June of next year, to the MTC. Given the short time frame, there needs to be a County Joint Powers Authority to authorize the creation and delegation of this project to a consultant in the development of that plan. She stated there is an existing JPA (Joint Powers Agreement) with the Countywide Planning Agency. She stated that staff feels considerable money is at stake and if this plan is not developed, at jeopardy are our future funds from Proposition 108 and 111, and also the STIP Program is a compeonent of this. If it is planned and developed and is not accepted, the City will not be receiving those funds in the future. Ms. Nicolai asked that the Council consider the Marin Transportation Agency be retained as a local appeals board from the Countywide Planning Agency, since MTC has always been available to appeal to for STIP projects. She stated that San Rafael would probably be in the least jeopardy under the Congestion Management Plan, since our levels of service (LOS) are probably the lowest in the County. Mayor Mulryan said he feels this is a good product, and the use of the Countywide Planning Agency with all the structure we worked so hard to build into it, we would still have basically the same voting weight and procedure as we had before. Mark Reisenfeld, Marin County Planning Director, representing the County Administrator, stated that the plan before the Council is a result of discussions with the City Managers on working out the process. He stated that this process has been spelled out in a sort of formula fashion, in the legislation which accompanied Proposition 111. He stated they do not have a lot of choice with it. Basically, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 13 Proposition 111 increased the gas tax initially at 5�, going up to 9� over time, providing for a portion of that revenue to come back to the counties and the cities, on a road mileage/population basis. He stated that the only way the cities and the County can get that money is that they prepare and adopt a Congestion Management Plan in accordance with the rules set forth in a series of statutes. He stated that an agency has to be designated, a public entity agreed to by a dual majority of the cities and County; it is their responsibility to prepare a Congestion Management Plan that has contained in it certain components. Once it is adopted by the Countywide Planning Agency it goes to MTC and MTC reviews it for consistency with the legislative requirements. He noted there is an annual review plan and monitoring report. He stated the statute does not contain an appeal process. Ms. Nicolai informed the Council that the legislation created by Proposition 111 specifically does not allow using revenues from Proposition 111 to pay for this plan, and the plan we are now looking at is estimated to cost between $250,000 and $400,000. So, San Rafael's share would be from $41,500 to $66,400, and we have no choice. Councilmember Breiner suggested the City could see if our local legislator could help in that regard. She then noted in the JPA on page 3, it refers to a five-year capital improvement program, whereas earlier it mentioned a seven-year program. Mr. Reisenfeld replied that determination of eligibility is not operative with Measure A having failed. Therefore, anything in the JPA with reference to eligiblity requirements of administration of the taxation expenditure plan is not operative. He noted that the seven years was specified in Proposition 111, and they do not want to change the old wording at this time. Councilmember Thayer inquired about the standards for the Congestion Management Plan, and Mr. Reisenfeld stated they are minimal, and we can adopt more stringent ones if we choose. Councilmember Boro inquired if all cities would have to comply in order to receive the funds, and Mr. Reisenfeld responded that any one city which is eligible will receive the funds, even if it is the only one eligible. Councilmember Shippey stated he wished to make the point that he would adopt the County's proposal and not the staff proposal which includes the MTA as a local appeals board. Councilmember Shippey moved to bring the Congestion Management Program into the Countywide Planning Agency without the staff recommendation for MTA as an appeals board. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to bring the Congestion Management Plan into the Countywide Planning Agency, and accept the staff recommendation regarding the Marin Transportation Authority being retained as a local appeals board. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ms. Nicolai stated that if it is determined that setting up the Marin Transportation Authority as the local appeals board is not feasible, she will bring back the Resolu- tion to the Council with an amendment, and authorizing the expenditure of funds. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. JE NE M. LEONCINI, Ci y . erk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1991 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/19/90 Page 13