HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1989-10-16SRCC MINUTES (Regular 10/16/89 Page 1
IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1989
AT 7:00 PM.
Regular Meeting:
CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a
1. 89-18(a) - #1 - Juan Manuel Morales vs. City of San Rafael.
89-18(b) - #1 - Diane A. Catorc vs. City of San Rafael.
89-18(c) - #7.
No reportable action was taken.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 16,
1989, AT 8:00 PM.
Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Albert J. Boro, Councilmember
Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember
Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember
Joan Thayer, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti,
City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
RE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION'S GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
OF ED89-62 - TS80-4(c) - DESIGN REVIEW OF TWELVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (BAYWOOD
TERRACE); IRWIN ST. AT HAZEL CT.; NORTH BAY PROPERTIES, OWNER; CRAIKER
ASSOCIATES, REP.; AP 13-271-29 (Pl) - File 10-2
Celeste DiGiovanni stated she was an adjacent property owner and was not
formally notified of the public hearing on the Baywood Terrace project
by the Planning Department, and asked Council for a time extension to submit
an appeal regarding the construction noise during working hours, from 7:00
AM to 7:00 PM, which has been going on for a few months.
Principal Planner Johnston said staff attempted to contact the developer
today to find out if they would agree to restrict construction on weekends,
by stopping work at 5:00 PM or 6:00 PM.
Council approved the extension of time to 5:00 PM, Friday, October 20,
1989, in order for Ms. DiGiovanni to be able to submit her appeal and granted
a waiver of the appeal fee regarding the Planning Commission decision of
October 10, 1989, granting approval of Baywood Subdivision. Staff to meet
with Ms. DiGiovanni to try to work out her concerns.
Councilmember Breiner stated she has received many complaints regarding
construction starting at 7:00 AM on weekends, and suggested revising any
permits that are out, noting construction should not start that early on
weekends.
Mr. Johnston responded staff could apply a standard of approval on limitation
of time that could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and as an alternative,
the Ordinance would meed to be amended.
Staff was asked to review this issue and bring information back to Council.
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 Special
Meeting of October 2, 1989;
Special Joint Meeting of
October 2, 1989 and Regular
Meeting of October 2, 1989 (CC)
Recommended Action
Minutes approved as submitted.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 10/16/89 Page 2
3. SECOND READING AND FINAL
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1572 -
An Ordinance of the City of San
Rafael Approving and Adopting the
Amended and Restated Central
San Rafael Redevelopment Plan
("Amended Plan"), Approving the
Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") Prepared for the City of
San Rafael General Plan as a
Program EIR for the Amended Plan,
and Making Certain Findings
Pursuant to the Community Redevelop-
ment Law of the State of California
(RA) - (SRRA) 140 XII
5. SECOND READING AND FINAL
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1574 -
An Ordinance of the City of
San Rafael Authorizing the
Second Amendment to the Smith
Ranch Hills Development
Agreement (Pl) - File 5-1-290 x
10-3
6. Appeal of Planning Commission
Decision of September 26, 1989,
RE 589-14 - Four Lot Subdivision;
Fairhills Dr. at Idlewood P1.;
Laurel Properties, Owner;
Craiker Associates, Rep.;
AP 10-154-26 & 29 (Pl) -
File 5-1- 316 x 10-2
Approved final adoption of
Ordinance No. 1572.
Approved final adoption of
Ordinance No. 1574.
City Council set Public Hearing
for November 20, 1989.
8. Resolution of Findings - Appeal RESOLUTION NO. 8066 - GRANTING
of Handicapped Access Require- APPEAL FROM STATE MANDATED ACCESS
ments - 1409 Fourth Street REQUIREMENTS - 1409 FOURTH ST.
(Hair Heaven), AP 11-251-04 (PW) - (Hair Heaven)
File 13-1-1
9. Report on Bid Opening and Award
of Bid for Replacement of Three
(3) Pick-up Trucks for Use by
Public Works Department (Gen.
Svcs.) - File 4-2-240
11. Award of Contract to Wyatt
Company for San Rafael Child
Care Task Force Needs Assessment
Study (Rec) - File 4-10-235
RESOLUTION NO. 8067 - AUTHORIZING
THE PURCHASE OF THREE (3) PICK-UP
TRUCKS FOR USE BY THE PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT, FROM STEVE
SNYDER CHEVROLET, (lowest
responsible bidder in amount of
$15,082.18).
RESOLUTION NO. 8068 - AUTHORIZING
SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE OR
AGREEMENT WITH THE WYATT CO. FOR
SAN RAFAEL CHILD CARE TASK FORCE
NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY. (TOTAL NOT
TO EXCEED $40,000. AGREEMENT TO
EXPIRE SEPTEMBER 30, 1990).
12. Consideration of Appointment Approved staff recommendation to
of Three Members to the Personnel defer item to November 6, 1989
Board of Review to Serve for Six meeting, to allow staff more time
Months, as an Interim Measure to to locate applicants.
Fill Vacancies (CM) - File 9-2-12
13. Resolution Authorizing Approval
of Training Agreements, in Favor
of the State of California,
of California Highway
Training - File 9-3-30
RESOLUTION NO. 8069 - AUTHORIZING
APPROVAL OF TRAINING AGREEMENTS
IN FAVOR OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY
PATROL, RE TRAINING. (Resolution
to be "open ended" allowing Chief
of Police to sign Training Agreements)
All training costs covered by P.O.S.T.
(Police Officers' Standards and
Training).
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 10/16/89 Page 3
15. Claim for Damages:
Daran Moghadam (PD)
Claim No. 3-1-1429
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Approved City Attorney's
recommendation for denial of claim.
Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion:
4. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1573 - AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REZONING FROM P -D -NG (R-84) (PLANNED DEVELOP-
MENT AND NORTHGATE OVERLAY DISTRICTS 84 PEAK HOUR RESIDENTIAL TRIPS)
to P -D -NG (R-84) and AMENDING CERTAIN ZONING SETBACK STANDARDS ESTAB-
LISHED BY EXHIBIT C-1 OF ORDINANCE 1507, SMITH RANCH HOMES PERSONAL
CARE FACILITIES, SILVEIRA PARKWAY (Pl) - File 5-1-290 x 10-3
Councilmember Boro stated at the previous Council meeting, a discussion
was held regarding the Developer putting up a bond to cover the costs
in the event the road was widened in the future, and asked staff to
clarify this.
Principal Planner Johnston stated a new Condition was added to the
Use Permit, (shown in handout as Item 1-a) to be renumbered as new
Condition No. 35, as reflected in the Minutes.
The Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REZONING FROM P -D -NG (R-84)
(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND NORTHGATE OVERLAY DISTRICTS 84 PEAK HOUR RESI-
DENTIAL TRIPS) to P -D -NG (R-84) and AMENDING CERTAIN ZONING SETBACK
STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY EXHIBIT C-1 OF ORDINANCE 1507, SMITH RANCH
HOMES PERSONAL CARE FACILITIES, SILVEIRA PARKWAY"
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by
the Title only and adopt Charter Ordinance No. 1573, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer, & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
7. REPORT ON SHEEP GRAZING (PW) - File 4-10-158 x 9-3-40 x 13-14-1 x
4-10-212 (PW)
Councilmember Frugoli stated he and Public Works Director Bernardi
have spoken to some shepards, indicating people in the Terra Linda
area are concerned about having the sheep graze in that area. He suggested
the Sheep Grazing Program be put back into the Management Plan, and
be implemented before the whole Management Plan is adopted.
Mayor Mulryan responded their top priority is to determine the best way
to keep fire hazards at a minimum, noting early indications show unless
the sheep graze next to the houses, they do, not do the safety job that
should be done, indicating the study is to determine the best way to
create safety.
Councilmember Frugoli agreed, however, he stated Council should look
at the fire safety aspect first.
Councilmember Boro stated if staff could get a report back to Council
in piecemeal, the fire safety portion could be pursued as quickly as
possible; Council agreed.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
accept staff's report on Sheep Grazing.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 10/16/89 Page 4
10. REPORT ON ORDINANCE RE EARTHQUAKE HAZARD REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR UNREIN-
FORCED MASONRY BUILDING (PW) - File 13-11 x 9-3-40 x 1-6-1
Councilmember Thayer stated she received several phone calls from people
who have masonry buildings, and asked staff if the owners had been
contacted about meetings on this topic.
Public Works Director Bernardi responded staff has not contacted anyone
as yet, noting they are in the process of finalizing their list, but
stated they will be contacted prior to Council having a scheduled meeting.
He indicated it is their intention to have an informational meeting
for all the building owners on the final list, prior to the list coming
to Council, and staff will inform them regarding what the program is
about and what staff's recommendation will be to the Council.
Councilmember Thayer asked if the building owners' suggestions will
be included in the Ordinance, noting the Ordinance is severe and may
have a harsh impact on the building owners. She indicated she did not
want to see an economic upheaval in the downtown area and suggested
Council contact Assemblyman Bill Filante to ask for an extension if
necessary, before Council implements the Ordinance.
City Manager Nicolai stated there is a preliminary list of what Engineers
will approve or disapprove on some buildings and the list will include
the scope of work to be done to bring the buildings into compliance.
She said when there is a dollar figure attached to specific buildings,
that would be the opportune time to realize if extra time or assistance
will be needed, adding they do not know what the magnitude of the repair
costs will be on any particular building because only buildings affected
by the ordinance have been identified.
Councilmember Thayer was concerned about timing of passage of the Ordinance
and Ms. Nicolai stated the law requires the city to have a process
period; the Ordinance and procedure need to be adopted by the end of
the year; the Ordinance itself can provide some latitude, depending
on results of the investigation, and that the degree of enforcement
is wide open, depending on the building owner posting a notice of full
compliance. There can be some flexibility built into the Ordinance
depending on what the circumstances are. A concern on amending the
Legislation at this time is knowing the kind of liability this would
bring back to the City once the building owners have due notice that
there is a hazardous situation; that a building is not earthquake safe,
and if the City initiated modifications, whether it would leave the
City with the liability.
Councilmember Boro inquired who was on the Advisory Committee, and
Public Works Director Bernardi said they planned to work with Warren
Robinson, a downtown property owner, Herb Nienstedt, who represents
the Marin Builders Exchange, Harold Engle, a Structural Engineer in
Marin County; Liz Walker, representing the Marin Property Owners Associ-
ation, Gimi Sessi, downtown property owner, Dirk Brinckerhoff who repre-
sents the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, Gregg Borelli of BID, and
Bill Doyle, staff person for the County Office of Emergency Services.
Council accepted report without motion.
14. LEGISLATION AFFECTING SAN RAFAEL (CM) - File 9-1
Mayor Mulryan asked staff if the deadline had already passed on AB
2372 (Hannigan), Gives Counties the Penalties on Delinquent Property
Taxes and AB 1441 (Clute), Abandoned Vehicles. Library Director Stratford
replied he did not know the answer, but noted Council had taken a position
on the bills and that the staff report was only an update.
Councilmember Breiner referred to AB 1441 (Clute), Abandoned Vehicles,
and asked if the $1.00 one-time surcharge is per car, and Mr. Stratford
stated it is only a one-time charge, indicating the term originated
from the League of California Cities.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to accept
staff's recommendation as follows:
AB 2372 (Hannigan) - Gives Counties the Penalties on Delinquent Property
Taxes. Request Veto.
AB 1441 (flute) - Abandoned Vehicles. Request Signature.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regula 10/16/89 Page 5
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Mulryan asked staff to inform Council as to the action taken
on the two bills.
16. PUBLIC HEARING - TS86-4 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP FOR 28 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION - LOCH LOMOND #10; LAS CASAS & INVERNESS DRIVES; ROBERT
B. HAM, INC., OWNER; OBERKAMPER & ASSOC., REP.; MEL CRONER FOR THE
LOCH LOMOND HOMEOWNERS' ASSOC., APPELLANT; AP 186-031-02 & 06, 186-
520-17 & 18 (Pl) - File 5-1-297 x 10-2
Mayor Mulryan declared the Public Hearing opened, and stated the Appli-
cant, Robert B. Ham, Inc., requested this item be continued to Council
meeting of November 20, 1989.
There being no objection, the public hearing was continued to meeting
of November 20, 1989.
17. PUBLIC HEARING - Z89-11, REZONING FROM PCM to P -D DISTRICT FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF 19,400 SQ. FT. BUILDING & STORAGE YARD FOR WHOLESALE
LUMBER YARD (GOLDEN STATE LUMBER); 1100 ANDERSEN DRIVE; PG&E, OWNER;
CAPITAL INVESTMENT RESOURCES, REP.; AP 18-180-31 & 49 (Pl) - File
10-1
Mayor Mulryan declared the Public Hearing opened.
Principal Planner Johnston stated the project is to rezone approximately
5 acres, from PCM (Planned Commercial and Light Industrial) to PD (Planned
Development). The change will be consistent with the General Plan and
allow the project to also be consistent with the on-site zoning. A
Negative Declaration was prepared for the entire project, including
Zone Change, Use Permit and ED (Environmental Design Review Permit).
Planning Commission on September 26, 1989 recommended approval to the
Council. The entire site is paved, the building is 19,400 square feet
with one-third to be an indoor retail area and another area to be indoor
storage and office. It will have 60 parking spaces with 21 spaces
for service in front of the building, and over 40 parking spaces on
the site.
Mr. Bob Wright, Architect for the project stated his client found no
objections to any of the conditions.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt
the Resolution Certifying a Negative Declaration.
RESOLUTION NO. 8070 - CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND TITLE 14 (ZONING) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 ANDERSEN
DRIVE TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF A WHOLESALE LUMBER YARD (GOLDEN
STATE LUMBER) (AP 18-180-49 and 31) (Z89-11)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro & Breiner (Due to Potential Conflict
of Interest).
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL, AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY
SECTION 14.15.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA,
SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM PCM (PLANNED
COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT
(1100 ANDERSEN DRIVE) (Z89-11) (GOLDEN STATE LUMBER)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 5.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 10/16/89 Page 6
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by
title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1575 to print by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro & Breiner (Due to Conflict of Interest)
18. PUBLIC HEARING - ED89-27 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING; 5 BISCAYNE COURT;
LARRY KAPLAN, OWNER; R.J. HUNTSBERRY & ASSOC.; REP.; ADAMS, SADLER
& HOVIS, REP.; JULIA AND MICHAEL FRANCO, DEBRA AND GIDEON MANN AND
MARIE & MARTIN SOOPER, APPELLANTS; AP 184-133-25 (P1) - File 10-7
Mayor Mulryan declared the Public Hearing opened, and stated this item
had been before the Council once before, and at that time Council asked
parties involved to work out a compromise. He stated a number of meetings
have taken place and alterations on landscaping have been made.
John Wild, Attorney representing Appellants, announced all parties
have arrived at an acceptable compromise just this evening, stating
they agreed on the new landscaping proposed by Design Review that deed
restrictions will be put in place to require that landscaping be maintained
over time; that landscaping will be extended to cover the south lawn
area to provide screening to homeowners below; deck outside the dining
room will be eliminated in its entirety, and the deck off the living
room will be reduced in size down to 5 feet.
City Attorney Ragghianti suggested that the Appellants orally indicate
for the record, that they have listened to the compromise, that it
is accurate and acceptable to them, and that the homeowners do the
same, and that the appeal then be withdrawn.
Mr. Wild stated other than Marie and Martin Sooper being present; Debra
and Gideon Mann were out of the Country, and Julia and Michael Franco
were unable to attend. He indicated however, that he has settlement
authority from them, and so stated their agreement to the revisions.
Cecelia Bridqes, Attorney for Applicant, Larry Kaplan, stated it is
her understanding that Mr. Kaplan would be withdrawing the appeal on
the conditions as stated, and that they are in agreement with those
conditions as stated.
Mayor Mulryan thanked all participants for reaching a compromise.
19. PUBLIC HEARING - Z89-13 - ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ALLOWING
NEW CAR ADVERTISEMENTS ON SECONDARY FREESTANDING SIGNS FOR AUTO DEALER-
SHIPS (Pl) - File 10-1 x 10-11
Mayor Mulryan declared the Public Hearing opened.
Principal Planner Johnston stated this item came up during Planning
Commission review of the next two items on the agenda, which are both
for approval of Secondary Freestanding Signs. The amendment was recommended
for approval by the Planning Commission on September 16, 1989, and
only changes the wording context of freestanding secondary signs. The
proposed amendment would not allow any larger signs, would not increase
the number of signs already allowed and would not provide for a greater
total sign area that is currently permissable under the Ordinance.
Auto dealerships under the Ordinance are allowed one primary identifica-
tion sign at 72 square feet. They are allowed a secondary freestanding
sign which, under the present conditions, can only be used for used
car sales and service. The words, "For Used Car Sales and Service"
would be eliminated from the Ordinance which would allow any auto dealer
having over 250 linear frontage feet on a freeway, to have two primary
identification signs; one would be 72 square feet and the other, 36
square feet.
George Silvestri, Jr., Attorney representing RAB Motors, asked Council
to consider refining the Ordinance. He stated the amendment involving
secondary signs originated from RAB Motors and John Irish. In the case
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regulaz 10/16/89 Page 7
of RAB Motors, the existing sign is 72 square feet and the proposed
Rolls Royce/Bentley sign is 55 square feet, and he understands they
would need to reduce the sign from 55 square feet to 36 square feet.
He indicated some reduction in size is appropriate but did not agree
with the proposed reduction, noting it is not appropriate from an archi-
tectural symmetry standpoint, and stating there are limits as to how
far one maker can consider itself to be in a secondary position.
Mayor Mulryan referred to the staff report for item 20, stating Associate
Planner Wolfe outlined the conditions needed to grant an exception
and addresses the points Mr. Silvestri was referring to. He mentioned
the exception findings necessary under the current Ordinance will be
the same under the proposed, and asked staff if this were true.
Mr. Johnston responded there is specific criteria that the Ordinance
says must be met to grant an exception and includes overcoming a disad-
vantage from an exceptional setback or to achieve an architectural
affect, to permit combining sign areas on one sign but less than the
total allowed. The Ordinance also mentions a sign must be in proper
scale and compatible with other conforming signs within the vicinity,
and that Planning Commission felt they could not make those findings.
Mr. John Irish of John Irish Auto Plaza asked if circumstances such
as a significant setback, and multiple franchises would allow adjustments.
Mayor Mulryan responded it would have the same findings as necessary
in today's Statute and that could be used to plead the case for acceptance
under the proposed Ordinance.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Breiner stated she was not certain if they could allow
a second sign if a primary sign already exists for someone starting
from scratch to amalgamate it in one sign, citing proliferation.
In response to Councilmember Thayer's comment on the number of dealer-
ships who will be affected by this, Mr. Johnston stated there are five
dealerships in town with more than the 250 linear feet of frontage;
Dexter Toyota/Volvo, John Irish, RAB Motors, the Ford Dealershp and
Marin Dodge. He stated this amendment would only affect three of those
dealerships, noting Dexter Toyota already has its sign limitations.
John Irish and RAB Motors could still apply for signs, and Ford Dealership
already has its main sign which is located on the tower of the building
and a Used Car sign, noting that sign could be changed in face; that
would not be a new sign. Marin Dodge has only one free-standing sign
that is small, but noted they do have many building signs. The amendment
would only add three signs, noting Marin Dodge could do this if they
removed some of their wall signs because they still have the 200 square
feet sign cap.
Mr. Johnston stated there are provisions in the Ordinance for combining
signs and recalled when John Irish's Auto Dealership was to be located
outside of the San Quentin dump site, it actually had an adjustment
approved which combined signage into one.
In response to Councilmember Breiner's question if auto dealerships
would need to come before any group for approval of secondary signs,
Mr. Johnston replied that with the amendment, the secondary sign could
have staff approval, but if adjustments went beyond that, it would
need to come before the Planning Commission.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14, THE MUNICIPAL
CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, ELIMINATING RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONTENT OF SECONDARY
FREESTANDING SIGNS FOR FREEWAY ORIENTED NEW CAR DEALERSHIPS HAVING
STREET FRONTAGE OF 250 SQUARE FEET OR MORE (CHART 1, SECTION 14.12.02A
THEREOF)".
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dis-
pense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to
it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1576 to print by the
following vote, to wit:
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 10/16/89 Page 8
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
20. PUBLIC HEARING - SR89-23 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF
A SIGN ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW TWO PRIMARY IDENTIFICATION FREESTANDING
SIGNS FOR AUTO DEALERSHIP; 540 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD WEST; GEORGE J.
SILVESTRI, JR., ESQ., SILVESTRI & HOCHMAN, FOR ROLAND BACCI, OWNER
AND APPELLANT; AP 13-051-23 (PI) - File 10-11
Mayor Mulryan declared the Public Hearing opened, stating this item
is an appeal of a Planning Commission denial without prejudice, stating
that the amended Ordinance was not enacted at that time.
Principal Planner Johnston stated the vote on this item was 7-0 for
denial for request of a 55 square foot, 21 foot high freestanding sign
for Bentley and Rolls Royce automobiles. He referred to page two of
the Planning Commission's staff report dated August 29, 1989, stating
a chart lists what is permitted and proposed by the Ordinance. Two
adjustments are required for this sign; one - at the time it was submitted
it was necessary to have an adjustment for a secondary freestanding
sign that could be dealt with by approval of the adjustment; Two -the
second adjustment is for the total sign area. With the proposal the
dealership would have 245 square feet of signage where the maximum
is 200 square feet. If the Ordinance Amendment is adopted, and the
applicant wants to proceed with the 36 square foot secondary sign that
would be allowed if the business meets the 200 square foot provision;
that would require some changes to the existing signage. Two 16 square
foot directional signs were approved with the original Environmental
Design for RAB Motors. If those signs were five feet or less they would
be exempt. Also, if those signs were removed (as an example) Mr. Johnston
stated Mr. Bacci could get staff approval for a 36 square foot secondary
freestanding sign because the site would have less than 200 square
feet total sign area.
Mr. Johnston stated the reason the application was denied is that even
with the amendment, the applicant still would not be consistent with
the Ordinance - 55 feet versus 36 feet, and he is also over the 200
square foot limitation, including height, noting Mr. Bacci now has
190 square feet.
Georqe J. Silvestri, Jr., Attorney representing RAB Motors, stated
the architect, Joseph Esherick, is one of 42 recipients in this century
of the distinguished "Gold Award" given to prominent architects in
the world. He noted that he had designed the Monterey Aquarium and
another in Naples, Italy, and is currently designing the American Embassy
in Bolivia and has been Dean for the School of Architecture at the
University of California, Berkeley. He stated the sign is 7 feet taller
than what is the proposed height by the new Ordinance, totalling 21
feet, rather than 14 feet. If necessary, Mr. Bacci would remove the
two existing 16 square foot signs at ground level, one indicating the
service area and the other indicating entrance to the sales area.
Mr. Silvestri stated they were troubled with the Planning Commission
process when applying for the sign approval and with the Ordinance
having a curious distinction between adjustments and variances which
states, "If the sign cannot be processed as an adjustment it should
be processed as a variance". He felt they were not given that opportunity
by the Planning Commission and should have been. There are findings
that could be made concerning scale and architectural symmetry referred
to in the existing Ordinance as to why this sign should be allowed,
and is an improvement in comparison to other signs in the area. He
noted a number of colored photographs had been submitted to the Planning
Commission, showing auto dealers with prolific signing, and Mr. Bacci
does not want to take advantage of existing opportunities under the
Ordinance where 25 percent of his windows could be covered with signs.
Mr. Silvestri stated Mr. Bacci should be respected for this and not
penalized.
Mr. Silvestri concluded that the City generally would like to encourage
opportunities to enhance City revenues, noting this is a way to make
more people aware of the fact that the new car lines, Rolls Royce and
Bentley, will be available, which is a first in Marin County.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regula. 10/16/89 Page 9
Councilmember Thayer stated the question is, could not the architectural
integrity of the site be preserved by having only one freestanding
sign with the additional manufacturers' names on it? Mr. Silvestri
replied in this instance, he did not think it to be practical, noting
the existing sign was not designed in anticipation of adding other
lines, but rather that opportunity arose much later.
Councilmember Boro referred to height with the second sign being higher
than 14 feet; if they subtracted the 32 feet from the directional sign
it would be down to 158 with 55 square feet; about 210 or 213 feet.
The question, within the parameters of 36 and 45 feet, could the designer
come back with something 14 feet high, even a few feet over 36 feet
within reason as long as it blends with the building?
Mayor Mulryan also had a problem with the sign being higher than 14
feet, mentioning the first problem is height and second, going far
over the Ordinance just passed with a 36 foot limit.
Mr. Johnston pointed out there is an adjustment requirement in the
Ordinance and Council has the ability to grant that, but out of those
six findings one has to be found that applies to the site which was
discussed briefly at the previous hearing regarding exceptional setback
or to achieve an architectural form.
Mr. Johnston noted he thought the sign details could be worked out
but referred to the Ordinance and said one of the issues staff looks
at is, how does any one action create a precedent for future actions?
Council agreed.
Mr. Silvestri stated if height is the question, they are prepared to
compromise on that as well as removing the two existing directional
signs; but said 13 feet over the 200_foot cap is not out of scale with
the site.
After further discussion on architectural sign designs, Councilmember
Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, that the Council agree
to a 14 foot height limit and ask Messrs. Bacci and Silvestri to discuss
a redesign of the second sign with their architect. They also stated
that the sign would not necessarily be limited to the 36 foot requirement,
due to the elimination of the 16 square foot directional signs.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Mulryan continued the Public Hearing to November 6, 1989.
21. PUBLIC HEARING - SR89-19 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF
A SIGN ADJUSTMENT FOR TWO PRIMARY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS AND SIGN SIZE;
475 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST; H. VIGLIENZONE, OWNER; JOHN IRISH, REP.,
AND APPELLANT; AP 14-152-23 (Pl) - File 10-11
Mayor Mulryan declared the Public Hearing opened.
Principal Planner Johnston stated this item is for a second sign size
at 80 square feet and 23 feet in height. Two adjustments from the Sign
Ordinance would be necessary to approve the requested sign. The first,
one would no longer be necessary with the Ordinance revision and the
second deals with the fact that the proposed sign is 80 square feet,
well over the 36 square feet in size for a secondary sign. He referred
to Planning Commission staff report of August 29, 1989, page 4, where
the chart lists the existing freestanding signs (Nissan) at 60 square
feet which is under the maximum 72 square feet allowed. The new sign
which would advertise Jeep/Eagle cars is requested to be 80 square
feet. With respect to adjustment for additional area, the facts remain
basically the same; special findings would need to be made, and in
this case the total square footage being requested is 176 square feet,
under the 200 limit. He pointed out this building does not have a high
standard of architectural quality, so exceptional design is not a consid-
eration for an adjustment.
Mr. John Irish, owner and applicant, stated his building sits way back
from the freeway and coming North from Highway 101, one cannot see
the building until you are even with it on the freeway, noting the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 10/16/89 Page 10
front signage is most important so people can see the location. Mr.
Irish requested to have the Jeep/Eagle sign as the primary sign, noting
the four franchises at his dealership and stated it would be eight
feet larger than what is allowed. His total signage on the whole dealer-
ship is 161 square feet, stating when he measured the Nissan sign it
measures at 45 square feet and staff reads it as 60 square feet, still
below 200 square feet.
Mr. Irish stated out of the six adjustments provided for under the
Ordinance, he qualifies for four; his building is set back at 200 feet.
Item 3 - to permit more sign area in a single sign than is allowed
but less than the total sign allowed at the site where a more orderly
and concise pattern of signing will result. Item 4 - to allow a sign
in proper scale to its building or use. Item 5 - to allow a sign compatible
with other conforming signs within the vicinity. He noted the dealership
next to him has three freestanding signs, stating he is applying for
two signs but for four franchises.
Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Irish if one freestanding sign can be 21 square
feet high and the other 14 square feet high, and Mr. Irish responded
he could lower the Jeep/Eagle sign but did not want the sign too low
so people walking down the street could jump up and hit it; he was
willing to drop it down some.
After further discussion, Mr. Johnston pointed out there is a 75 foot
separation requirement between freeway signs, and Mr. Irish said that
is not a problem.
In response to question from Councilmember Boro, concerning statement
that because of the sign's 10 foot street setback, it's height may
be increased from a 21 to 23 foot height, Mr. Johnston stated for each
five foot setback a sign is allowed one additional foot in height up
to a maximum of 25 feet in height, so the applicant has that option
if he so chooses. He noted this is in the section of Freeway Visibility
Signs. In view of the Sign Ordinance, Mr. Johnston said 21 feet is
the maximum height for any signs when you have more than 100 feet of
linear frontage; the section states, "Add one foot height per five
feet of sign setback. Maximum height of 25 feet". He indicated the
site bonus is not granted for any sign which is 36 square feet or smaller
so it would not apply to a secondary sign, just the primary sign.
Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Mr. Irish asked if Council would approve an 80 square foot sign, noting
it is a standard Chrysler size, and Council replied 72 square feet
would be the maximum for the primary sign.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, that Mr.
Irish consider redesigning the Jeep/Eagle sign and to change the height
of his Nissan sign.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Mulryan reopened the Public Hearing and continued the Public
Hearing to November 6, 1989.
22. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISIONS TO THE PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE
(Pl) - File 115
Mayor Mulryan declared the Public Hearing opened.
Principal Planner Johnston stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the amendments at their meeting of October 10, 1989. He
said it has been one year since the PPP (Priority Projects Procedure)
Resolution was approved, noting it is an annual process. In early November,
a Notice of Invitation to Submit Applications will be sent. The revisions
to the Priority Projects Procedure recommended -by staff are as follows:
1. Time extension requests would require full PPP application. He
stated the developers will provide staff full and updated informa-
tion so staff does not have to evaluate projects based on last
year's information.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regula 10/16/89 Page 11
2. The Planning Director will be allowed to adjust the PPP submittal
requirements. He stated based on experience from last year, staff
can simplify and streamline them.
3. Notice of Invitation will state this would be done yearly, going
out the first business day of November, versus 10 days follow-
ing the adoption of the Resolution.
4. The submittal deadline will be moved back from the beginning of
December to Janaury 15th of each year. He stated this would give
staff more time to get the review done, noting staff will have
45 days to review the submittals, which is not to be changed from
the original PPP Resolution and will not affect staff time.
5. Evaluation criteria has been revised to eliminate the word "each"
General Plan 2000 Goal and Policy.
6. Clarifying what actually vests a PPP application, noting the PPP
Resolution requires that a project has to be "substantially con-
structed", and that language left a lot to be interpreted with
concerns by developers asking for a definition. Staff prefers
to have this turned into a more "black and white" requirement;
requiring all planning approvals and that a building permit be
issued.
7. Clarify that within 60 days following PPP approval, "all required"
planning permit applications must be filed and "kept valid" if
a project has not had the planning applications approved yet (e.g.:
rezoning, subdivision, use permit, design review, etc.). In addition,
the resolution will be revised to specify that "all phases" of
a project must be submitted for planning applications within the
60 day period. He explained the phrase "kept valid" and mentioned
Costco's application as an example; they were concerned that "kept
valid" would not cause the PPP approval to be lost if they withdrew
an application and resubmitted it concurrently in order to comply
with AB884. He stated if this happens it is not the intent, noting
the application is still valid. He indicated they do have applica-
tions in the Planning Department that are submitted and never
made complete which is a major concern to staff, noting there
are over two dozen incomplete applications which have been submitted.
The Planning Department plans to establish an administrative policy
that will allow staff to deem those applications withdrawn.
8. The addition of required findings for projects without PPP approval,
that the Commission make findings stating a project is in substan-
tial compliance with the received PPP approval. He stated any
changes to the project must not affect its PPP status.
Mayor Mulryan stated these were improved changes.
Councilmember Boro referred to Item 6 and the analysis on page two
of the staff report regarding the approval being vested, and asked
if all building permits will have expiration dates, and Mr. Johnston
answered affirmatively, stating he understood the existing procedures
in the City and throughout most of California have building permits
valid for 180 days, and as long as inspections occur, this continues.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Breiner referred to Item 8 and asked who has the determina-
tion authority, and Mr. Johnston stated it generally would be the Planning
Commission or if it is a rezoning or appeal, the City Council. He
spoke of the Northview project which was approved through PPP as a
multi -family attached project which was resubmitted with zero lot line
townhouses. The question is, how is it consistent with the criteria
by which it was approved through PPP. Also, the Smith Ranch parcel
which included a Fire Station on Smith Ranch Road, has been amended
so the Fire Station, instead of being on Smith Ranch Road, is on a
side street. Staff worked with the applicant on the FAR issue as to
the size of the building, but the project is somewhat different from
Council's PPP approval, noting the main part is still the Fire Station.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 10/16/89 Page 12
City Manager Nicolai stated when speaking to Planning Director Pendoley
about what staff felt could be done to make the original process clearer,
he indicated aspects they felt strongly about that initiated the approval;
therefore, if they get modified, they get "red flagged". She noted
there are times when one does not know of major amendments. Councilmember
Breiner stated another "red flag" would be any generation of more peak
trips and Ms. Nicolai agreed.
Councilmember Frugoli referred to the Northview project and asked if
this would be coming back to Council, and Mr. Johnston answered affirma-
tively, stating they would need to submit a time extension. He stated
this was not the Lincoln property as Councilmember Frugoli thought,
noting the property is behind, south, and east of the Costco site off
Professional Center Parkway. Mr. Frugoli suggested the Lincoln property
be reviewed because of the number of problems it has. Mr. Johnston
gave an update, stating this property was before the Planning Commission
on October 10, 1989 for an EIR scoping.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt
the amended PPP Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 8071 - RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 7853 ESTBLISHING
PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTING THE
SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
23. REPORT ON CERUTTI HOUSE AT 602 "B" STREET (PW) - File 2-7-1
Public Works Director Bernardi stated he met with Mr. & Mrs. Cerutti
last Thursday to discuss Council's direction and also invited the poten-
tial purchaser to attend, but she was unable to make it. The Cerutti's
stated they did not have the funds to move the house and that the only
way would be to involve the third party; otherwise, they would try
their best to relocate the house. Subsequent to the meeting, Mr. Bernardi
noted he contacted the purchaser who said she had leads on other lots
and had no firm commitments. This included properties on Clayton Street
and "H" and Center Streets but that some issues had to be worked out
with the property owners. Mr. Bernardi stated he asked how long it
would take for the purchaser to bring a firm commitment to Council
and move the structure, and she said it would be a minimum of 60 days.
Mr. Bernardi stated the City Attorney's office looked at the process
of disposing of this property, explaining if the City sold it for one
dollar and they in turn sold it to someone else for $10, it would be
considered a gift of public funds. The Attorney's office recommends
if Council does not have it demolished but rather decided to sell it,
that the Council's adopted policy be followed with respect to disposing
of public property, which would be to seek bids at a public auction.
Mr. Bernardi stated the house is a liability for the City, noting various
complaints have been received about people breaking into the building,
transients attempting to live in there, doors being kicked in a number
of times, vandalism and staff putting up plywood a number of times.
Staff feels the Cerutti's have given a valiant effort in trying to
relocate the building, but lacking any firm potential purchaser, the
building should be demolished. If not, staff recommends Council begin
the procedure of disposing of public property.
Councilmember Thayer stated this sounds as if there is a legal problem,
and asked about the time frame on the process to dispose of the property.
Mr. Bernardi responded that Council would need to adopt a Resolution
declaring the property as surplus; there is a time period during which
certain public agencies are notified of the availability of the property;
then the bidding process which could take 30 days, and the final process.
He noted in the interim, the City could be subjected to liability.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated other public agencies must be notified
that the City has surplus property available and the Statutes list
these, which does take time. He noted it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to conclude the whole process in 30 days, but if this were
to be accomplished in 60 days even that would be very quick.
SRCC MINUTEES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Rgular; 10/16/89 Page 13
City Manager Nicolai stated she was informed by Redevelopment Agency
Assistant Executive Ours that the notification period to the State
is 60 days alone and if no public agency wants it after that, then
the public notification would be posted requesting bids for a certain
period of time and another period of time for the structure to be removed
from the property.
In response to Councilmember Breiner's question on demolition, Mr.
Bernardi stated it would have to go to bid if the cost is more than
$5,000, or have an informal bid. Mr. Ragghianti stated if there is
an emergency situation the City might be able to be exempted from the
public bidding process if it constitutes a threat to the public health
or safety.
Mrs. Denise Cerutti, wife of Ray Cerutti, stated they covered everything
with Mr. Bernardi and had hoped to have a purchaser who would restore
the building to its original state but that it fell through. At this
time, she stated unless someone comes forward to buy the house, they
would have to abide by the Council's decision. She thanked staff and
Council for their consideration on the property.
After further discussion, Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember
Thayer seconded, to take all necessary steps as quickly as possible
and move toward offering the house for sale, and that staff bring back
a report on time frames at the November 6, 1989 meeting.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
24. DISCUSSION OF INTERSECTION OF LAS GALLINAS AVENUE AND DEL PRESIDIO
BOULEVARD - 11-5 x 11-1
Councilmember Breiner stated there are parking problems at the inter-
section of Las Gallinas Avenue and Del Presidio Boulevard, partly because
of the lack of stacking room adjacent to the Exxon Service Station
for people unable to get to the right hand lane because some street
parking does not permit the two-lane through traffic. She asked staff
if a sign could be placed stating, "Right Turn Yield on Red" for a
trial period at the intersection.
After further discussion, Council referred this issue to Traffic Engineer
Rumsey and Traffic Committee for study, with a report to be brought
back to Council at the November 6, 1989 meeting.
ADD ITEMS:
1. NORTHGATE ONE SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT - File 5-1-138
Councilmember Breiner referred to the Northgate One Shopping Center
parking lot, stating some of the driving aisles between the newly land-
scaped areas are too narrow between parking stalls, and asked staff
to have this looked at.
2. REGULATION PARKING ON SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BOULEVARD OVERCROSSING, ON
OCTOBER 22, 1989 - File 11-8
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, that
the need to take action on the following item arose subsequent to the
agenda being posted.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Police Chief Ingwersen stated this Sunday, October 22, 1989, they are
expecting a large group of people marching from Sacramento to San Quentin
from 7 AM to 7 PM. He indicated the march will enter the overcrossing
from Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, along the bike path onto Francisco
Boulevard. It will continue eastbound on Francisco Boulevard, under
the freeway onto the East Gate area of San Quentin Prison. He noted
the area is already posted with "No Parking" or is "Red Zoned"; however,
because people have in the past disregarded the signs, he asked Council
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 10/16/89 Page 14
to allow the Police Department to not only enforce no parking, but
to establish a tow -away zone from Morphew Street along Francisco Boulevard
to the extension of Main Street, where the freeway offramp comes in,
near the Rod and Gun Club, as a safety measure.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded,
granting authorization to the Police Department to establish a tow -away
zone from Morphew Street along Francisco Boulevard to the extension
of Main Street where the freeway offramp comes in, near the Rod and
Gun Club.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
3. SAN RAFAEL FIRE DEPARTMENT - 9-3-31
Councilmember Frugoli stated San Rafael Fire Station No. 5 had an open
house this past weekend, indicating it had an excellent turnout, and
he would like to have this type of public relations continue.
Councilmember Boro thanked Fire Chief Marcucci and Forrest Craig of
Fire Prevention for reports on the startup on Hazardous Materials.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM.
JEANW M. LEONCINI, ity Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1989
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/16/89 Page 14