Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1989-12-04C MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 , a 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1989 AT 7:00 PM. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 89-21(a) - V. No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1989 AT 8:00 PM. Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor San Rafael City Council Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk SPECIAL PRESENTATION a. SWEARING IN OF NEWLY ELECTED COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL A. SHIPPEY. Newly elected Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, was sworn into office by City Clerk Leoncini. b. ACCEPTANCE OF AFFIRMATION OATH RE CONFIDENTIALITY OF CLOSED SESSIONS. City Clerk Leoncini announced that Councilmember Shippey had signed the Affirmation Oath of Confidentiality of Closed Sessions. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: Item Recommended Action 2. Approval of Mintues of Special Approved as submitted. Meeting of November 14, 1989 and Regular Meetings of August 21, and November 20, 1989 (CC) 3. Resolution Authorizing Execution RESOLUTION NO. 8092 - AUTHORIZING EXECUTION of License Agreement for Emergency OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH RODERICK P. Access Across Martinelli Property MARTINELLI FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ACROSS (AP #15-061-13) (PW) - File A.P. NO. 15-061-13 BETWEEN SIENNA WAY AND 4-10-237 x 2-11-1 LINDEN LANE 4. Evaluation of Proposals and RESOLUTION NO. 8093 - AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR Award of Contract for Design and DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR Construction Services for Relight- RELIGHTING ALBERT PARK PLAYING FIELD ing Albert Park Playing Field and AND TENNIS COURTS TO CANTARUTTI ELECTRIC CO. Tennis Courts (PW) - File 4-1-432 (lowest responsible bidder) IN AMOUNT OF $67,460. 6. Report on Results of Measure B Election - Appropriations Limit: Ordinance No. 1579 - An Ordinance of the People of the City of San Rafael Adjusting the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 1989/90 Through 1992/1993 (Fin) - File 9-4 x 8-5 7. Acceptance of Financial State- ments and Authorization to Release Business Improvement District (BID) Funds (Fin) - File 183 x 9-3-20 a Accepted report. Approved staff recommendation. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/4/89 Page 2 8. Approval of Closure of San Approved staff recommendation. Rafael Public Library on Saturday, December 23, and Saturday, December 30, 1989 due to Christmas and New Year's Holidays (Lib) - File 9-3-61 9. Authorization of Library Fine Approved staff recommendation. Free Week and Canned Food Drive to Benefit the Marin Community Food Bank - December 11th through December 16, 1989 (Lib) - File 9-3-61 10. Acceptance of Statement of Disclosure - Councilmember Michael A. Shippey - File 9-1 11. Claim for Damage: Cleto & Enrico Datello (PW) Claim No. 3-1-1417 Accepted report. Approved Insurance Consulting Associates' recommendation for denial of claim. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey & Mayor Mulryan Councilmembers Breiner and Shippey (From voting on Minutes of November 20, 1989 only, due to absence from meeting.) Mayor Mulryan (From voting on Minutes of August 21, 1989 only, due to absence from meeting.) 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF NOVEMBER 14, 1989 RE S89-15 & ED89-45 - APPEAL OF DENIAL OF TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT; ONE HIGHLAND AVENUE: JIM SKAAR OWNER/APPELLANT; AP15-202-37 (P1) - File 10-8 Mayor Mulryan asked if anyone objected to having this item scheduled for a public hearing on February 5, 1990 as requested by the Appellant's Attorney, Terrel Mason, rathern than the previous date of January 2, 1990. There being no objection, Council set the public hearing for February 5, 1990, without motion. 12. PUBLIC HEARING - Z87-3; CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR AND REZONING FROM "U" TO P -D (PLAN- NED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT FOR 21 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES (THE HIGHLANDS); EXTENSION OF ORCHID DRIVE; TFC DEVELOPMENT, OWNER; CHRIS CRAIKER, AIA, REP., AP 178-061-01 (P1) - File 10-3 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Mr. Dwight Winther, Planning Consultant stated THE HIGHLANDS is a 23 lot subdivision located northerly of Freitas Parkway in Terra Linda. The project would involve 21 single family residences with two attached units for Below Market Rate (BMR) ownership. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the project and, through the process, has been modified in response to issues raised during the EIR. The primary issues were the visibility of the units and as a result 3 lots were removed from the subdivision. Changes were made to the grading plan, reducing the amount of overall grading on the site. The project would generate 23 peak hour trips through the Highway 101 Intersection. The 23 peak hour trips are within the allocation for the site under the General Plan. Councilmember Thayer asked why the responsibility of checking the basins is in the hands of the homeowners as opposed to requiring something more. Mr. Winther responded it is a private retention basin. He stated most of the time the basin functions more as a creek except when there is heavy rainfall, then the amount of water will exceed that capacity in the pipe and will back up and be stored on-site until the rainfall diminishes and is slowly discharged. Councilmember Thayer asked if there is other protection to take care of excess water. Mr. Winther replied this project will not in itself cure the downstream drainage problem, but has been designed so it does not make it any worse because the amount of flow after development will not exceed the amount that exists today. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) .2/4/89 Page 3 Councilmember Thayer referred to the use of retaining walls and Mr. Winther stated the walls are on the site where the road starts to climb the hill, wrapping up the hillside and leading up to a ridge line. He then spoke on the grading work that will take place on the site in relationship to the slope. Councilmember Shippey asked about slides in this area and Mr. Winther responded there are a number of areas on the map showing unstable soils. He noted both the EIR and the project approval are based upon a soils report for which mitigation for the slides is incorporated. He stated in some cases it will involve removing the existing soil and replacing it with compacted fill; in other places it would require putting buttresses over the foot or toe of some of the slides and covering those areas with top soil so it appears as natural ground. Councilmember Shippey referred to an intersection in an existing development below the site which has repeated flooding history. Mr. Winther stated the purpose of the retention basin is to keep the off-site flow less than the existing conditions so it would not make the flooding any worse than it is today. Councilmember Shipey stated one of the required mitigations is to fence the basin to avoid vandalism, etc. and asked if this will be effective in the long run, noting there is no City maintenance of the basin. Mr. Winther stated as effective as fencing is in a place to protect any kind of retention basin, the purpose is to keep children out of the basin and to help reduce the likelihood that tree limbs or other obstructions would fall into the basin and cause blockage. Councilmember Breiner referred to page 53 of the staff report, No. 38..."The basin should be inspected once a week during the winter months and any debris removed on an as needed basis..." then referred to page 27, No. 17..."Cost of preparing and implementing an EIR Mitigation Monitoring program...". She asked who will be responsible for the EIR Monitoring program? Mr. Winther responded the program is set up to imple- ment State Law requirements to keep track of the mitigation measures, making sure they are implemented. The final CC&R's for the project will establish the responsibi- lities, and the program will come back to Council at the time the final Subdivision Map is ready. Councilmember Thayer asked about the Bond Maintenance status. Mr. Winther responded that the bond is to protect the downhill property owners from potential slide problems. He noted it is not typical to the developer provide an insurance policy for the adjoin- ing properties with respect to slides. He said maintenance of the retention basin has a provision for the Homeowners' Association and is part of the CC&R's established for the project. Mr. Winther stated rezoning is required, noting the property is currently zoned U (Unclassified) and would be rezoned to P -D (Planned Development) to allow the project to be built in accordance with the map. He added that the streets were widened to accommodate additional parking originally proposed; essentially, two-lane streets with parking on one side in a number of locations. In addition, there are four parking spaces for each unit in the garage and driveway. A number of refinements have been incorporated to mitigate the view of the units, especially the ridgeline units as seen from adjoning properties. Councilmember Boro returned to the Bond Maintenance issue and stated he was concerned about the bond being for a period of two years. He referred to Mr. Winther's explana- tion that in the event that this particular feature should fail, the downhill resi- dents will suffer. He felt as part of the CC&R's and approval of this project, it would be more prudent to have the bonding on a permanent basis. Mayor Mulyran called for public input. Mr. Paul Jensen, representing TFC and Monihan Pacific, property owners of THE HIGHLANDS Subdivision, made some corrections. He noted Mr. Winther explained the three ridge lots eliminated, but Mr. Jensen stated the project density is now 21 units in total, with 19 single family dwellings and 2 Below Market Rate (BMR) units. He noted the BMR units are proposed for sale through the Marin County Housing Authority at 90% of the median (moderate income) consistent with the City's Housing Element policies. In response to Councilmember Thayer's question regarding an 8 foot retaining wall adjacent to Lot No. 7, Mr. Jensen stated a wall that high was proposed at one time for an access road to the retention basin, but has since been relocated, therefore the wall has been eliminated. Mr. Jensen referred to visual impacts along the lower ridge where the lots are lined along the upper cul de sac and stated in addition to the landscaping, those homes are limited to one-story building heights on the Western side. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) _/4/89 Page 4 Mr. Jensen concluded, stating they feel the project is consistent with the General Plan, particularly with the Site Specific Policy pertaining to clustering and the fact that the project is exempt from the City's Priority Project Procedures because it generates less than one critical move. Ms, Cecelia Martz, resident of 274 Oleander Drive, submitted pictures of the area, stating she does not oppose the development and that she once served on the Open Space Committee who worked to save the open space ridgelands in Terra Linda. She stated she is concerned about the road on the hillside above Oleander Drive and ex- plained that the original plan gave no barrier between the road and the steep hillside, indicating there should be a barrier that is more substantial than a few shrubs. She referred to the pictures showing erosion on the hillside above Oleander Drive directly above her house with soil that washes down on the cut halfway up the hillside, which has never been cleaned out. She stated a home located 3 houses down suffered a severe mudslide from the cut into their backyard and up against their house costing thousands of dollars to repair the slide. Ms. Martz requested that the City, developers and homeowners look at the cut now to see what can be done to renovate it to prevent further damage. She referred to the amount of turf accumulated on the cut and an old oak tree located near the entry to Orchid Drive, suggesting the City may want to retain it. Ms. Martz stated if this area is developed, she hoped the hilltop that has been scraped barren could be artistically landscaped to be a benefit to the City. Mr. Jensen stated the oak tree, along with a number of other trees, would be preserved, and further explained the grading of the land. Ms. Susan Gargiulo, resident on Orris Terrace around the corner from the development, stated she opposed the development. She did not agree there is a clear-cut answer to the drainage problem, stating it is a problem during the heavy rain season, and questioned what would happen if an earthquake struck the unstable land. She added that she did not agree with the traffic study. Mr. Winther responded to the concerns of an earthquake, and stated a geotechnical report has been prepared for the project and is incorporated within the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which maps the known areas of unstable soils, including recommenda- tions for the repair of these areas. Councilmember Shippey referred to the EIR, stating siltation will be a result of this development which ties in with flooding, noting it was judged "Not significant" in the EIR. He said he had seen previous examples where years down the road (farther North in Miller Creek) where siltation over large areas is b_e.coming sizable, He asked if there is security where siltation will be significant as a result of this. Mr. Winther replied the bulk of siltation and erosion from the site will probably result from the grading on the site, noting grading is regulated to the time of year by the issuance of the grading permit, and would not substantially occur during the rainy season. In addition, he said the City has Standard Practices for erosion control for areas that are being graded, to catch water before it runs off and retains it on site allowing siltation to drop out. After the project is constructed, all the graded slopes are to be hydroseeded and planted and/or the construction of new build- ings will reduce the off-site erosion. He added the siltation of the basin will be taken care of by the periodic maintenance of the basin and will be cleared out so the capacity of the basin is not reduced nor the outfall obstructed. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulyran closed the pubic hearing. Councilmember Breiner asked that the motion include the recommendations of Cecelia Martz and be included in any Resolution. Planning Director Pendoley referred to the bond, and recommended Council direct staff to add a Condition to the Development Standards to require that the CC&R's include a provision for a "sinking fund" adequate to cover at least two years 'worth of mainte- nance with the amount of that fund to be determined at the time of Final Map approval by the Public Works Department. Councilmember Boro referred to the Conditions on Page 25 - Storm Drainage, and asked that at least two years'worth of maintenance funding be secured by a bond or other appropriate device satisfactory to the City Engineer. Planning Director Pendoley responded that an appropriate condition could be added to the Development Standards section of the Rezoning Conditions, (Exhibit B). Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt Resolution Certifying the EIR. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /4/89 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 8094 - CERTIFYING AN EIR REGARDING A PROPOSED REZONING FROM U (UNCLASSI- FIED) TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) (Z 87-3), A USE PERMIT (ED 89-40) A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (TS 89-3) AND A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED 89-50) FOR A 21 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (THE PROJECT) TO BE LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF ORCHID DRIVE, APN178-061-01 (THE HIGHLANDS) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Breiner referred to page 53 and asked for the record, that corrections be made under Planning Department, Item 2, Parcel a, that "a" should be capitalized; and "record and open space" should be "record an open space"; Page 53, Item 39, "Drain Titles" should read "Drain Tiles". The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 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, PROPERTY FROM U (UNCLASSIFIED) DISTRICT TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT. (THE HIGHLANDS) (As amended, Exhibit B.) 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. 1581 to print by the following vote, to wit: (as amended). AYES: COUNCILMEBMERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 13. PUBLIC HEARING - S89-14 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION; FAIRHILLS DRIVE AT IDLEWOOD PLACE; RICHARD C. WRIGHT, APPEAL- LANT: LAUREL PROPERTIES, OWNER: CRAIKER ASSOCIATES, REP.; AP 10-154-26 & 29 (P1) - File 10-8 Mayor Mulyran declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley stated this subdivision was approved by the Planning Commis- sion on September 26, 1989 by a unanimous vote of 5 members present; a Negative Decla- ration was then issued and also approved. The most controversial issue is the geolo- gical conditions. Mr. Pendoley stated this property was subject to a number of geologi- cal reviews, the original happening in 1981 when a project engineer did a geologic study subject to the City's Geologic Review Board process. After a slide activity happened on the property, additional geologic studies were contracted for along with a slide repair. He noted that recently the project engineer, who has a property interest in this proposal, prepared a study as required by the City's Subdivision Submittal Standards, which was a preliminary geologic review. Based on the extensive background on this item, Mr. Pendoley stated the Public Works Department determined there was no need to subject the property at this time to a Geologic Review Board, and the Planning Department concurs in that opinion. Mr. Pendoley stated this appeal is within the Council's discretion to require additional geologic review before Council acts on this appeal. If Council wants to have an additional review, it should be referred to the Public Works Department for submittal to the Geologic Review Board and Council might want to have the testimoney on this matter also before final action is taken. Mr. Pendoley stated if Council opened the appeal tonight to take public testimony, Council will stop the appeal clock and thus meet all of the obligations to the applicant and appellants under State law regarding the Permits Streamlining Act and the Subdivision Map Act. Principal Planner Curt Johnston stated this is a 2.7 acre site having frontage on both Idlewood Place and Fairhills Drive, and the slope is approximately 25 to 45%. Access from Lot 3 would be taken off from Idlewood Place where the 3 lots would come off Fairhills Drive. The driveway is to be 20 feet wide with a maximum slope of 18%. He pointed out there are exceptions to the Subdivision, given the 3 lower lots would take access directly off a private right-of-way, requiring an exception. Another exception would be that the lots have no frontage on a public street. These are the most common exceptions the City grants for subdivision of infill property such as this. The development establishes specific building envelopes and through the process these envelopes have been designed to avoid the majority of the vegetated areas of the site. The remainder of the site outside of the envelopes will consist of an open space easement that takes approximately 71% of the site area. Within that easement, which will be preserved by deed for passive uses and native landscaping, only open type fences are permitted. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) '?/4/89 Page 6 Mr. Johnston stated the project was reviewed by the Design Review Board and was the first case under the new Ordinance Council adopted requiring design review. Under the Planning Department's Conditions of Approval, (page 14 of the original Planning Department staff report) starting with Condition (ss) through the next few pages, there are a number of detailed Conditions of Approval which control ultimate develop- ment on the property. Condition (yy) on page 15, speaks of the type of design controls that would be maintained in terms of material, etc. Mr. Johnston stated over 20 letters were submitted, that the staff report summarizes the major points, and pointed out to members of the audience who may not have seen the staff report that there were concerns regarding splitting up one of the last open spaces in Fairhills and the impact this would create on the character of the area; comments that the subdivision was not in compliance with the Fairhills CC&R's (addressed in the Planning Commission staff report and in previous subdivisions in this area). He stated there were concerns that the project was not consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood (Exhibit A in the staff report provides the proposed lot size in relation to adjoining lots); Concerns of the adverse visual impacts (addressed through the Design Review Conditions). He noted there is no specific home development proposed at this time, but would come at a later date should the subdivision be approved. Mr. Johnston spoke on traffic increase and stated a major concern with staff was a potential poor sight distance given the property is located at a curve in Fairhills Drive; after design review the driveway location was improved and staff recommended approval. Mr. Johnston said other concerns are the loss of wildlife habitat, noting the majority of the site (71%) of the most vegetated portions will be preserved. Regarding increase of drainage on adjoining lands beginning on page 13 - Storm Drainage, he stated there are extensive conditions with respect to inspecting existing facilities and upgrading to the point that the Public Works Department feels, and the project engineer feels that the conditions will actually be improved. Mayor Mulryan asked if Council decided the exceptions not be granted, would the alter- natives require public roads be put into the project? Mr. Johnston replied that would be one way of doing it, and the other would be to only allow development with direct access off the public streets. He stated as an example, instead of one lot off Idlewood Place there could be two houses with direct access. He noted the exceptions require direct access from a street and direct frontage from a street, therefore, to achieve compliance the interior lots within a subdivision would be removed. Councilmember Boro stated he understands that if the so-called private driveway was widened to a certain distance, it would then become a public street and the residences would have access and there would be no need for an exemption. Mr. Johnston responded that is one example, adding the minimum street width in the Subdivision Ordinance for a hillside street is 24 feet; that it would need a minimum right-of-way width (40 feet), noting this would impact the lot sizes but would still be well within the subdivision requirements. Councilmember Boro referred to Findings in the Map Act and was concerned with neighbor- hood concerns regarding the physical suitability of that land. He indicated some work has been done and there is contention as to whether or not it is complete or current or accurate or some undue influence has been made. He asked what other type of evidence could come before the Council regarding the physical suitability of the land? He stated he wants to know Planning's assessment of the cumulative development as presented on the four sites as the earth starts to move uphill and downhill, and its impacts from a geological standpoint. Mr. Pendoley stated under the authority of several different Ordinances and the General Plan, Planning requires a preliminary geological assessment prepared either by a certified or registered Engineer/Geologist. The purpose of the preliminary review is to determine whether the site overall is suited to the subdivision proposed or any other activities proposed. The point of the review is to look at the project as a whole and determine what the cumulative effects would be, and whether those effects could be mitigated (to insure the required degree of safety to protect human life and health). After this, the usual condition applied is to have a Soils Report prepared on each of the lots created by the subdivision before construction takes place or a Final Map is recorded. Mr. Pendoley stated the purpose of a more detailed review is as follows: 1. A double check of the accuracy of the overall study to be certain it holds true in detail of the smaller parcels. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) '/4/89 Page 7 2. To guide the final design of the subdivision overall and lots in particular; such as the height and placement of the retaining walls and design and location of foundations. Mr. Pendoley stated another type of review could be conducted at this stage which has already been done in this case called, "A Geologic Review Board". In this case, the study prepared by the project's geologist is submitted to an independent board which reviews it for accuracy and completeness and may from time to time require that supplementary work be done. Councilmember Shippey stated he is concerned about the geotechnic review being adequate, stating one was done and came back "clean" but then later a slide happened. He under- stood another approach could be done with a focused EIR and asked for the advantages and disadvantages of having this done on this site. Mr. Pendoley referred to the technical aspects, stating the review would be identical using the same people with engineering qualifications conducting the same types of geologic studies in order to do the next level of investigation. Therefore, in terms of the technical information, one would get, it would be identical either way. Mr. Pendoley then explained the EIR process for public .review. Mr. Pendoley stated it is his professional advice to go with the Negative Declaration, because it allows people to review the same information sooner. Councilmember Shippey stated an earlier staff recommendation to the Design Review Board was concerned with one of the lots due to its potential environmental impacts because of natural habitation providing habitats for deer, birds and other animals. He stated the memo was issued one month ago, and asked if staff has taken steps to miti- gate this issue. Mr. Pendoley recalled this to be Lot 1 and stated as the subdivision was orignally proposed, staff recommended to the Design Review Board that Lot 1 would be more difficult to deal with drainage problems on the site, and would take out natural vegetation. He indicated one way to deal with this is to delete the lot; however,the Design Review Board concluded a better way would be to redesign Lot 1 to change the configurations slightly, change the location of the driveway to allow for a different grading configuration and to require an easement for both open space protection and drainage. Mayor Mulryan called for anyone appealing this item. Mr. Michel Rousselin, President of Fairhills Property Owners Association, stated there are 178 households within Fairhills, noting their covenants must have some relevance, indicating the Planning Commission has had them researched. He noted that lots are required with deed restrictions, stating even if the City ignored the covenants themselves, it cannot ignore what the covenants have brought about - a neighborhood of one family per lot without further subdivisions. He stated they did not want Fair - hills to be "chopped up", and gave background on how Fairhills was started by Mr. Grandi. Mr. Rousselin referred to the work done by Mr. Arthur Knutson, Civil and Geotechnical Engineer, and stated while respecting Mr. Knutson and his many years of experience, they feel the City would be safeguarded by having an impartial expert examine the site. In conclusion, Mr. Rousselin agreed property owners should develop their land, but noted the project has to conform with the City's standards and fit into the existing neighborhood. Mr. John Boschen, resident in Fairhills questioned the proposed drainage system of the Idlewood property and its impact on the landowners directly below it on Elizabeth Way and Beryl lane. He referred to a property owner on Elizabeth Way who has named the City in a lawsuit involving drainage issues, which caused a landslide in 1986. He then submitted photographs of the Idlewood property and noted the similarities in the slope characteristics as related to the property on Elizabeth Way and stated the drainage system for the Idlewood subdivision is inadequate and proposed further and more intensive study. Ms. Maxine Zigmond, resident at 12 Beryl Lane, stated they are concerned about the waterfall that comes down their property, indicating if homes are put in with drive- ways, they will cause flooding below. Mr. Melvin Mitchell, resident at 331 Fairhills Drive, stated he is a Civil Engineer, and has been in the construction business for 41 years. He noted he is familiar with soils that create slides and pointed out that it is not just this particular lot SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/4/89 Page 8 that is unstable, but,in fact, the whole Idlewood roadway, and then gave examples of homes in the area that were affected. Ms. Diane Allison, resident at Idlewood Place directly across from the property in question stated each time there is movement on that property, she sees the results in her home. She noted thus far, the movements have only caused minor problems to her home but is concerned about invasion of the hillside causing major problems. Ms. Mary Ellen Irwin, resident at Wildwood Way stated two years ago they requested that Council resurface their road at Wildwood Way but were sent a letter informing them there was no money available, but that they were on a waiting list. She stated the roads are continuing to break up and faulted the Planning Commission in attempting to break up their neighborhood, by adding more homes in an area that cannot withstand them. She stated the neighborhood is stating the granting of the exception will be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other properties in the vicinity. Mr. Boyd Jacobsen, resident at 22 Idlewood Place stated he moved to this area three years ago and is having problems from the proposed subdivision, noting his sewer pipes had been crushed by heavy equipment needed to fix the previous landslide, causing his sewer to leech down the side of the hill for about two years. He said this caused erosion on his retaining wall and much expense to have it repaired. He stated when he bought his property it was one house and one lot and he did not expect to have a subdivision put in, otherwise he would not have bought the property. Mr. Peter Brekhus, representing the Applicants, stated he could not think of a land use application he had seen that had so much support from a technical standpoint from the staff as this one. He noted just about every issue raised has been answered by the Planning staff, which explains the Planning Commission's vote in favor of this project. Mr. Brekhus stated it is always easier to oppose a project than to obtain approval. He referred to the principals involved, one being a Geotechnical Engineer, who insisted that this work be done and that the project sit for five years to be sure there were no problems. For some reason, rather than this being viewed as a plus, the project is being looked at as a minus and has brought up questions of conflict of interest. Mr. Brekhus pointed out that Council has the ability to order a geotechnical review to have experts look at the project and monitor it, indicating the Applicant would not oppose it, but that it would be redundant. He pointed out that under the Ordinance, each home can be subject to its own soils report. Mr. Brekhus noted a project that is approved and subject to the Department of Public Works and Engineering review, generally improves the drainage that exists on a natural hillside. He stressed that there was adequate documentation in the staff report which covered all aspects of the project. Mr. Arthur Knutson, licensed Engineer for 45 years, Civil Engineer for 47 years and a Soils Engineer for the last 24 years, stated he has repaired many slides, some bigger than this one, and has not had a failure. He explained when he does a buttress fill he takes special care to remove all slide debris, going down into bedrock, making the drainage well below that. He referred to the concern of water falling down and soaking the drains, stating that engineered fill is impervious to the nature of this kind of soil mix. He then explained his comments by pointing to a drawing on the board, showing where the bedrock was found and how any water would be intercepted by the drains coming out through the drain pipe. He noted this process ensures its stability, and that all has been done to make this more stable than it was originally, noting he plans to build a home in this area in the future. Mr. Knutson concluded they had four Soils Engineering Geologists on this project; first, Harding Lawson Associates; then Herzog, then himself with his work reviewed by Harold Goldman, an Engineering Geologist. He noted this was done on his own because he felt there was a question of his involvement and should be answered by an impartial observer. In response to a question by Councilmember Shippey as to why Harding Lawson's repair failed in the second slide, Mr. Knutson mentioned they built an expensive wall in front of Mr. Vernon's house to prevent it from sliding. This was done when they were repairing the slide and the reason was they found in front of his house, a slide plain about 25 feet deep with about 15 feet of fill about 20 feet of soil. In exca- vating the slide repair, they found that the Harding repair had gone down only 5 feet above the slide plain. The reason the slide moved was when they excavated downward there was no wall up by the house or underpinning. In order to save the house, they filled it up and this proved to be wrong. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 8 SRCC MINUTDS (Regular) 2/4/89 Page 9 Councilmember Shippey asked if this is the same Harding firm as Harding Lawson and Associates who did the only geotechnic review of the site, and Mr. Knutson responded the individual who did the original repair has long since left the firm. Mr. Dave Mariani, with Laurel Properties, stated they had the same set of conditions in 1982 and 1984 when they did the repair, reducing all liability to the City of San Rafael. He noted the roadway in Idlewood Place was sliding down endangering some of the people here tonight, particularly the people on Bell Court. He stated had they not stepped in, a similar situation would have occurred as to what is occurring at Elizabeth Way, having ongoing litigation and winterization. He commented on the drainage, stating it is classic, noting when the site improvements are completed, it will truly enhance the situation. Mr. Mariani stated they did wait five years to ensure the stability of the slide and have monitored it. It has not moved one inch. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Me. Pendoley stated the point in their reliance of Harding Lawson's original work is that their geotechnical investigation of conditions on the site was accurate and well done. The subsequent failure was due to their failure to follow their own report and execution. Councilmember Thayer believed there should be further geotechnical studies because of the conflicting testimony with regard to reports, and the issue of cumulative impacts. She would like to see people from each and every neighborhood where there are hillsides get involved in the planning process, perhaps form a committee as was done on other projects that are very controversial to develop a comprehensive set of hillside standards in San Rafael; and asked if this was possible, noting this is something the Planning Department is working on. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question in having a committee such as one developed with the Center Point project, City Attorney Ragghianti responded there is a provision in the Map Act called the "Map Freezing Rule" which indicates we must decide this particular subdivision map application on the basis of the rules in effect at the time the application became complete. Councilmember Shippey stated there should be more review, noting the last time a geotechnical reivew was done it was a failure, and would like to have some assurance that somehow it would be different from the last review from the sense it would give more assurance than the last one did. Another concern is that it does not address the environmental aspects and that it should. He said both the siting and environmental concerns done through a focused EIR should be addressed. Councilmember Breiner asked if they could get more information, who would they get it from and what would their credentials be? Public Works Director Bernardi responded it would be someone such as Dames and Moore who is a widely respected engineering firm, does very large projects, and having someone completely new having the expertise to address these issues. Councilmember Breiner asked if some hydrology would be a part of this work, and Mr. Bernardi replied the Soils Engineers would look at the water part in terms of slope stability. He said if you are looking at the disposition of the water from the site and how it gets off the site and on down the downstream properties, someone else would do this work. Councilmember Boro said it is important that, although he is sympathetic to the commu- nity, they have to understand that at the same time the Council is governed by certain rules and regulations and it is not a matter of trying to interpret them strictly but knowing that they are liable if they violate the rules. He stated he is concerned that in the end result that engineering wise this might come out as a positive point of view, and agreed with Councilmember Thayer that they should look at this in the long term because the people in Fairhills are concerned about the future as well as the present. He said they cannot be a party to the community's CC&R's in trying to enforce them tonight. Mayor Mulryan stated he is concerned with the technical aspects on which this should be reviewed to assure its safety. He suggested that this be done to include hydrology and other engineering issues a geotechnic review includes. In response to having Councilmember Shippey's suggestions included with the geotechnic review, Mr. Pendoley stated when environmental issues are being considered in and EIR or Negative Declaration, it needs to be decided whether the presence of deer SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regualr) 12/4/89 Page10 has been adequately documented; he noted it has been. Also, the next question is if Council feels the proposal to put 71% of the lot into an open space easement is adequate? If Council feels it does not adequately mitigate the impact of this project on deer, it may be appropriate to require an EIR. Mr. Pendoley suggested that conclu- sion could be challenged given the presence of deer, which are all over the neighbor- hood, including the Downtown area. Mr. Pendoley stated if limiting the development of this property to only 29% does not reduce the impact to an acceptable level, Council could require an EIR; however, he felt in a built-up area such as this project, the facts weigh the other way. In response to Councilmember Shippey's question of having public review of a geotechnic review, Mr. Pendoley stated negatively, indicating there would be a good deal of discretionary control, and if Council were to require a geotechnic review, specific comments would be made. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to have the following done: 1. Public Hearing be continued not to a date certain and will need to be renoticed. 2. Refer the Negative Declaration back to the Planning Commission for further consi- deration. 3. That a part of the consideration be a Geotechnical Review, including hydrology. 4. That the Planning Commission develop their recommendation on the Negative Decla- ration based on a Public Hearing, to afford the public the same opportunity to participate as people would have in an Environmental Impact Report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Breiner asked staff to see if in the future, a public hearing could be scheduled (excluding this property but Fairhills in general) regarding the rezoning configurations, thus eliminating future problems of having the issue come back to Council. Planning Director Pendoley stated he will bring this proposal back to the Council on how this may be addressed, at a future date. 14. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE 1988 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE AND AMENDMENTS (FD) - File 1-6-4 x 9-3-31 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. After briefing by Fire Chief Marcucci, Councilmember Shippey asked Fire Chief Marcucci to expound on elimination of the requirements of having fire alarm systems and build- ings not having sprinkler systems, and not proposing that sprinkler systems be installed retroactively in public storage facilities. Fire Chief Marcucci stated if there is a required flow of zero to 1,399 gallons (of water) which equates to a building of 7,500 square feet, you have no requirements whatsoever. Only when you get to 1,500 gallons permitted to 2,250 is an alarm system required. Staff is proposing that sprinklers should be installed in all buildings of 7,500 square feet or 1,500 gallons permitted upward, so there is no need to have the alarm system, noting the alarm system is part of the sprinkler system which is monitored on a 24-hour basis, thereby increasing the level of protection. Regarding storage facilities, Fire Chief Marcucci stated the impact of retroactive sprinkler systems is costly for the developers of existing structures, noting retro- activity is unfair to the developer who built his structure under a specific set of requirements proposed by the City. To now impose the regulations in a non -life safety situation for the occupants (of which there are none) would be a hardship for the owner. He concluded by stating they feel the sprinkler system is the necessary level of protection. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, ADOPTING A UNIFORM FIRE CODE AND PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE, EXPLOSION AND OTHER DANGERS, AND ESTABLISHING A FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU AND PROVIDING OFFICERS THEREFORE, AND DEFINING THEIR DUTIES AND POWERS (1988 EDITION)" SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) ./4/89 Page 11 Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1582 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to adopt resoluton making findings pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections relative to the adoption of the 1988 Uniform Fire Code. RESOLUTION NO. 8095 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 17958.5 AND 17958.7 RELATIVE TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 1988 UNIFORM FIRE CODE AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulyran NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 15. REPORT ON MARIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (Pl) - File i70 Mayor Mulryan commended Senior Planner Jean Freitas for the detailed report on the Marin County Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Plan. He stated he used this report as a City representative for a forum held last week on this issue. He stated as an individual, he felt there is a need for more stringent Countywide planning, but noted the most constraining part to allow a veto and requiring State Legislation to enact, was not the proper approach for this Council to endorse but a.more moderate approach should be taken with changes in the configuration of the bodies who determine whether or not a particular project conforms or not. Mayor Mulryan stated he will be attending a meeting this Thursday and suggested to staff and Council to give their directions to him to take to the meeting. Councilmember Thayer referred to the Plan, stating it was excellent and noted this is something she could endorse; she asked Council to consider this item at a future meeting. Councilmember Shippey commented he was dismayed that there is no effective alternative option for eliminating the proposal for McInnis Parkway from the Corridor Study, noting funds are not available to run the computer study that is necessary to model the traffic. Councilmember Thayer stated she also was perturbed by not having another alternative to amend the General Plan by cutting down on the development which enables McInnis Parkway. Councilmember Breiner responded that the County Planning staff will come back with some alternative land uses that could affect the McInnis Parkway. She noted this could delay the goal until February, so the Planning staff could have time to review this item. She also asked Mayor Mulryan to mention at the meeting that the City needs increased representation on this committee. Councilmember Boro cited the public opinion survey on the sales tax which supports the position that a majority of the people do not favor an Agency having veto power over local cities, noting he fully supports this, including a need for coordinated planning and a way to put some "teeth" in that. Senior Planner Freitas stated from City staff viewpoint, the County staff comes up with recommendations and lets the City staff know later, noting by the time a staff report is completed the County is ahead of them. She suggested it would be wise to have more staff time spent on this project. Council asked staff to have this item brought back to the meeting of December 18, 1989. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/4/89 PAGE 12 16. PROGRESS REPORT RE CITY/COUNTY LIBRARY PROJECT (Lib) - File 9-3-61 Library Director Stratford stated the planning study made three recommendations: 1. Resource Libraries - Having one in San Rafael, one in Novato and the County Library to have a Resource Library. The City/County project combines two of the Resource Libraries into one facility which would be in Downtown San Rafael. 2. Branch Library in the Terra Linda area - This project incorporates a branch in the Northern part of San Rafael that is accessible to the community in that area. 3. Replacement of San Rafael's current library - This library is too small, poorly designed to have efficient service and is in a deteriorating condition. Mr. Stratford stated library service is provided by six jurisdictions in the County. Terra Linda residents use the Civic Center Library which is the County Library. Resi- dents of Ross Valley use San Rafael's Library. The Countywide study was to have an overall plan of library service that related to library users without regard to the jurisdiction providing the service. City Manager Nicolai stated they are forging ahead by having the opportunity of receiv- ing a substantial grant fund from the State. One of the main issues is selection of the site; she noted part of the grant application will be having a design plan but stated the architects cannot begin until a site is chosen. Ms. Nicolai stated in a previous meeting in August, the preferable site was the PG&E office building because of the potential link between the PG&E retail project in the Downtown area. She indicated PG&E was reluctant. Given the time frame, she decided to look at other alternatives. Ms. Nicolai stated the site for serious consideration is between Second and Third on "C" Street. She noted the Redevelopment Agency for the past two years has recommended putting affordable housing on that site which is across the street from the "Centertown" project. This site is close to the Downtown area, major arterials and closer to residential areas, West End and Gerstle Park. This site is large and parking could be built on the lower level of the building without the structure being too massive. The -trade-off would be finding alternatives for housing projects in the Downtown area that would make up for that having been a goal. She felt having a Regional Library in the Downtown area is comparable to the Cultural Performing Arts Center and housing, noting it is all part of the mix and would become a major draw to the Downtown area, being a service oriented draw instead of only retail. Ms. Nicolai stated other sites have relocation problems, but suggested having these sites looked at for housing. After further discussion, CouncilmemberThayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, that staff pursue the site at Second and "C" Street; and that this site be reviewed by the Redevelopment Citizens Advisory Committee and neighborhoods in the Downtown basin area, for their input. Also, regarding travelling to Oregon, Council approved funding travel expenses for Library Director Stratford. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 17. REPORT ON WHETHER MOBILEHOME ORDINANCE RENT CONTROL APPLIES TO LEASE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AT B -BAR -A TRAILER RANCH (CA) - File 13-7-1 (VERBAL REPORT) City Attorney Ragghianti stated a request was made at the previous Council meeting to continue this matter so Mr. Timmer and his Attorney could contact the City Attorney's office to discuss a letter sent by Mr. Ragghianti dated November 16, 1989, indicating he did not believe that the Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance applied to leased property. He stated since then he has not had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Timmer because Mr. Timmer was away and had just returned, but had been contacted by an attorney representing the tenants at the Park, Colette Brooks of the Legal Aid Society, who wrote stating the ordinance should apply to the leased property, indicating it was the intention of the "drafters" of the ordinance that it apply. Also, she stated in a conversation with Richard Bornholdt, who was retained by the City to draft the Ordinance, that he concurs it whould apply to leased property. Mr. Ragghianti stated he had not spoken with Mr. Bornholdt as yet. In addition, Ms. Brooks stated there are only 10 mobilehome coaches that relate to the Ordinance and that half are physically located on the Timmer property and half located on the leased property, creating a curious situation. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/4/89 Page 13 Mr. Ragghianti stated they have no reason to retract from the previous opinion but believe it would be wise to meet with representatives of the tenants, including Mr. Timmer and his Attorney and Mr. Bornholdt. Council agreed with Mr. Ragghianti's suggestion and continued the item. 18. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1580 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY 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, PROPERTY FROM "U" UNCLASSIFIED DISTRICT TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT (MARIN SANITARY SER CE) (P1) - File 115 x 10-3 Councilmember Boro stated at the previous meeting, he raised a question regarding future use of the property, noting the replaced wording in the Ordinance is satisfac- tory. Attorney Albert Bianchi, representing Marin Sanitary Service, stated they needed clarification, and referred to the staff report. "The P -D (Planned Development) Permitted Uses shall be 'Open Space' and 'Industrial Uses' as specified by a use permit approved by the Planning Commission for the portions of the property so designated on Exhibit 'B'..." He stated they had no problem with this, but questioned the part that states, "...because the use permit is a condition of the zone, any new use permit will require a rezone which must be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council". He stated they do not agree with a rezoning action requiring an Ordinance and hearing by Council, first and second reading and a 30 -day period simply to modify the use within the property that is already designated for either open space or industrial use. He then gave an example of the length of time it would take to process. Mr. Bianchi suggested Council consider Exhibit "C", the Conditions of Approval, and referred to the Ordinance that cites, "Any development of this property shall be subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibits "B" and "C". He asked to have added, "Future uses within said P -D Zoning may be authorized by the Planning Commission, subject to the process and approval of the use permit applied for by the Applicant". He felt this a simpler action. Planning Director Pendoley stated he and City Attorney Ragghianti discussed this and Mr. Ragghianti agreed with Mr. Bianchi that this would be legal. He felt this was a simpler action. Councilmember Boro stated this concern was the possibility of a light industrial use in the future since once the zoning is changed it goes with the land. He noted this was not to cause a modification in an existing use to come back for a rezoning, but in the event that Mr. Garbarino or a future landowner wants to come in with other types of industrial use, that is not to be allowed. He noted Council is only changing this to industrial to accompany recycling. The concern is once Council changes the zone it goes with the land, and asked how this could be avoided. After further discussion, Council agreed to the following Revision to "Exhibit C" Conditions of Approval - Add 4th Condition: "New and/or additional solid waste manage- ment uses may be allowed subject to the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission." City Clerk Leoncini asked if the new Condition to the Ordinance would necessitate republishing the Ordinance and Mr. Ragghianti responded, it need not, noting what is being done is having the Ordinance elaborate what the Condition means and is not a substantial change, but actually, beneficial. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY 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, PROPERTY FROM "U" (UNCLASSIFIED) DISTRICT TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT (MARIN SANITARY SERVICE)" Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense with the reading, to refer to it by title only, and adopt Charter Ordinance No. 1580 (as amended) by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner & Shippey (Due to absence from previous meeting on first reading of Ordinance). 19. REQUEST FOR ALL -WAY STOP AT GREENFIELD AND SPRING GROVE AVENUES (PW) - File 11-9 Traffic Engineer John Rumsey stated this item is before the Council on appeal from SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Reuglar) 12/4/89 Page 14 an action taken by the City Traffic Coordinating Committee. When the request was reviewed, the Committee found that none of the warrants established in the California Traffic Manual were met nor were there unusual physical features to the intersection; therefore, they found no reason to subject over 1,000 drivers per day with additional stop signs, and recommended that Council deny the request. Mayor Mulryan asked if the basic reason residents wanted the all -way stop sign was for speed control. M:. Victoria DeWitt, President of West End Neighborhood Association, responded negatively. She stated the reason was for safety purposes. In reviewing the findings made by the City Traffic Coordinating Committee, Ms. DeWitt felt it does not always tell the whole story. She stated Greenfield is a narrow street with parked cars on both sides of the street, making visibility from Spring Grove risky. Chances of a serious accident occurring at the intersection are compounded by the fact that over 50% of the cars going through the intersection exceed the speed limit. Also, there is no safe place for children to cross the street to board the school bus at this inter- section. She mentioned that plans for additional new homes in this area have been approved and will result in further increased traffic. She asked Council to install the stop signs now, before a serious accident occurs. Ms. Claire Anspach, Treasurer of the West End Neighborhood Association, who circulated the petition that is part of the staff report, stated every person she approached in their neighborhood thanked her for starting the petition. She informed Council of cars speeding down the middle of the road because of its narrowness, causing near misses, and mentioned this has not been recorded. She noted that the criteria on safety in the traffic report states that in order to meet that criteria, there has to be 12 accidents in one year; she stated this is ridiculous. Mr. Cyril Miller, resident on Greenfield Avenue, stated there is unanimous consent in the West End Neighborhood area, wanting the all -way stop signs. Ms. Margaret McCann, resident at 111 Terrace Avenue, spoke on behalf of the all -way stop signs. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to have the all -way stop signs placed at the intersection at Greenfield and Spring Grove Avenue. AYES: COUNCLIMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Shippey suggested that Council look to a way of slowing down speeders, noting stop signs cannot always be placed as a means of diversion. In response to Councilmember Breiner's suggestion of having Mr. Rumsey investigate the possibility of red curbing some areas to aide in the visibility at the interchange, Mr. Rumsey stated a proposed Ordinance has been sent out to all neighborhoods for their comments. He noted staff is looking at having an Ordinance similar to the City of San Francisco, where the Vehicle Code prohibits vehicles 6 feet in height from parking near intersections. He noted when the comments are returned, the Ordinance will be brought to Council for consideration. 20. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1541 TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE IN COMPENSATION FOR CITY COUNCIL - File 7-3-2 The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1541 TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE IN COMPENSATION FOR CITY COUNCIL" Councilmember Breiner suggested having the increase at 4% per year as opposed to 5% per year, making it a total of 8% over a period of two years. 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. 1583 to print by the following vote, to wit: City Manager Nicolai stated for the record, that it is only legally possible for the Council to take this action every other year, after an election. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) '/4/89 Page 15 21. REPORT ON LEVEL OF LIABILITY COVERAGE THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY (CJPIA) (Fin) - File 4-10-202 Mayor Mulryan explained the report recommends an increase in the deductible up to $500,000 due to the Pool being changed to $350,000 deductible and the cost of maintain- ing the extra $150,000 coverage is approximately $33,000. He stated it is recommended that Council drop Pool A and absorb the risk up to $500,000, noting by doing this, the insurance cost is reduced, including the exposure of participants in the Pool. After further discussion, Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing participation in Pools B through D. RESOLUTION NO. 8096 - RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 7352 AND AUTHORIZING PARTICI- PATION IN POOLS B THROUGH D IN THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY (CJPIA). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ADD ITEMS Boro, Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan None None 1. RED ZONING AREA AT NORTHGATE ADJACENT TO BANKS AND EXXON SERVICE STATION - File 11-11 Councilmember Boro referred to a previuus meeting where the issue of red zoning the area of Northgate adjacent to the banks and the Exxon Service Station was discussed, indicating notice has been given to the property owners. He stated if red zoning is to be done it should be done immediately due to the Chirstmas Season. Council directed the Public Works Department to perform the red zoning painting in this area. Councilmember Breiner mentioned a trailer parked in this area, and recalled discussion on having a sign placed designating no parking over "x" amount of hours. Public Works Director Bernardi stated he will work on this with Police Chief Ingwersen. 2. PETITION FROM MR. WILLIAM MILLAR RE INCREASED POLICE PROTECTION IN THE CANAL AREA - File 9-3-30 x 101 Councilmember Boro referred to a petition sent from Mr. William Millar requesting increased police protection in the Canal area, and asked Police Chief Ingwersen to come back to Council with a report on a future Council meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. JEANNE V tONCINI, CityJerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL .;. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 12/4/89 Page 15