Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1988-07-18SRCC MINUTES (Regula, 7/18/88 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 18, 1988 AT 7:00 PM. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION 1. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 88-16(a) - (#7). No. 88-16(b) - (#2). No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 18, 1988 AT 8:00 PM. Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor 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 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: 2. 3. 4. W 7. x Item Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of July 5, 1988 and Regular Meetings of June 20 and July 5, 1988 (CC) Resolution of Intention Re Underground Utility District in the Vicinity of Montecito Shopping Center and Adjoining Areas (PW) - File 6-47 x (SRRA) R-267 Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract - Pickleweed Park Improvements (Child Care Portables) - Phase I (PW) - File 4-1-419 Acceptance of Street Right -of -Way on San Pedro Road Near Biscayne Drive (PW) - File 2-5-27 Resolution Approving Parcel Map of Lot Line Adjustment - End of Clorinda Avenue (PW) - File 5-6-5 x 5-1-244 Recommended Action Approved Minutes as submitted. RESOLUTION NO. 7758 - CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER PUBLIC NECESSITY, HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE REQUIRES THE FORMATION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY OF MONTECITO SHOPPING CENTER, SAD' RAFAEL CREEK, GRAND AVENUE AND SECOND STREET RESOLUTION NO. 7759 - AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR "PICKLEWEED PARK IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I" TO MAGGIORA AND GHILOTTI (Low Bidder, in amount of $118,950) RESOLUTION NO. 7760 - ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF PARCELS "D" AND "E", ADJACENT TO SAN PEDRO ROAD AT BISCAYNE DRIVE, FROM N.Y. CAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, AS SHOWN ON MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF MARIN BAY UNIT ONE", SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, AP #184-132-05 AND 06 RESOLUTION NO. 7761 - APPROVING PARCEL MAP S87-7 (SHOWING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS OF LOTS 16, 15, 10 & 11 OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION UNIT 1) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regula 7/18/88 Page 2 9. UP82-75(b), UP86-101 and ED86- 110 - Negative Declaration and Revised Conditions to Reflect Council Action Upholding Appeal of Planning Commission Action to Deny Project Without Prejudice; 100 Windward Way; Exogan Holding N.V. Owner; David Mathew, Appellant; AP 9-330-03 (Pl) - File 5-1-295 x 10-5 x 10-7 RESOLUTION NO. 7762 - UPHOLDING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR A 17,160 SQ. FT. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE BUILDING AT 100 WINDWARD WAY 10. Addendum to Contract with Moore, RESOLUTION NO. 7763 - ADOPTING Iacofano, Goltsman to Prepare AN ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT OF Final General Plan Maps (Pl) - MOORE, IACOFANO, GOLTSMAN File 4-3-161 (hereinafter, Consultant) EXHIBIT H (Estimated cost not to exceed $11,155) 13. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Bid for One (1) Mailing Machine (GS) - File 4-2-228 14. 15. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Bids for One (1) Mini -Van and One 1 Pick-up Truck for Public Works Department (GS) - File 4-2-227 Report on Bid Opening and Award of Bid for One (1) Portable Radio, Receiver & Accessories for Police Department (GS) - File 4-2-229 16. Resolution Creating Position of Parttime Law Clerk in the City Attorney's Office (CA) - File 7-3 x 9-3-16 17. Claim for Damages: a. Joyce Marie Dufficy (RA) Claim No. 3-1-1347 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer RESOLUTION NO. 7764 - AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A MAILING MACHINE SYSTEM FOR USE BY THE GENERAL SERVICES DEPARZMENT FROM DIVERSIFIED BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC. (for amount of $8,534.80, low bidder) RESOLUTION NO. 7765 - AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF ONE 1 TON PICK-UP TRUCK (in amount of $19,448.86) ONE MINIVAN (in amount of $13,716.40, from S & C Ford, San Francisco, lowest responsible bidder that meets specifications) Item pulled off Agenda prior to meeting; to be placed on agenda for meeting of August 1, 1988. RESOLUTION NO. 7766 - CREATING POSITION OF LAW CLERK (Parttime, salary range between $12 and $15 per hour - Total appropriation $13,000) Approved City Attorney's recommendation for denial of claim. Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan (from Minutes of Special and Regular Meetings of July 5, 1988 only, due to absence from meetings). 5. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO VACATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT - AP #9-290-16 (HELIPORT SITE) (PW) - File 2-12 x 211 Councilmember Breiner asked to have this item held over to the next meeting so that Mrs. Jean Starkweather would be able to look at the area to check if there is wildlife habitat value to the drainage ease- ment. Public Works Director Bernardi stated the action tonight is to adopt the Resolution of Intention and set a Public Hearing for August 15, 1988 to take public testimony regarding the abandonment of the easement and will not affect Mrs. Starkweather's investigation of the area. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 2 SRCC MINTUES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 7767 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO VACATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN EAST SAN RAFAEL, PART OF KERNER BOULEVARD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, AP #9-290-16, (Heliport Site) (and set a public hearing on the matter for August 15, 1988) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 8. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MARIN, CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND CITY OF NOVATO CONCERNING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR EASTSIDE ARTERIAL (McINNIS DRIVE) (PW) - File 4-13-74 Councilmember Thayer stated the wetlands should be considered in the study and be a high priority item, including the Northwest Pacific Right -of -Way, and asked staff if citizens would be involved with this study. Traffic Engineer Rumsey stated an Overview Committee has been estab- lished and the Marin Conservation League is a part of that committee. In discussion of a two-lane roadway, Councilmember Frugoli stated the study would dictate the alignment of the road and not the lanes, noting it does not interfere with wetlands and the railroad rights-of-way, and where the alignment between the roads would lead from the City to the County, including the City of Novato. City Manager Nicolai stated this is a technical report evaluating the environmental issues, alignment alternatives, pros and cons and its relationship to the Northwest Pacific Railroad Right -of -Way. Once the document (feasibility study) has been completed, meetings will be scheduled and citizens can then participate in the meetings. Councilmember Thayer was concerned that citizens be involved from inception. She indicated there are valid concerns about McInnis Parkway because of wetlands. The roadway is proposed for the Eastside of the railroad tracks, and noted it might interfere with the Northwest Pacific Railroad Right -of -Way, including particular neighborhoods. Suggestion was made to inform groups interested in the alternative alignments early on to submit their written comments to the Committee and to make the meetings open with notice to the public. City Manager Nicolai stated if Councilmember Thayer felt the Consultant responsible for assessing the scope of work has something missing, it might be critical to have that included so the scope of work outlines all of the issues which should be addressed. Responding to Councilmember Breiner's concern whether two alternative alignments connecting the easterly end of the Merrydale overcrossing would imply a west of the railroad right-of-way alternative alignment, Mr. Rumsey stated it would not, noting they would look at connecting to the Merrydale overcrossing, but stated their preliminary studies show it would be very difficult. He noted the easterly alignment would much better serve the Civic Center North projects and Marin Ranch Airport. Planning Director Moore noted on the westside there are topography difficulties on the Scettrini property, indicating it is very steep immediately north of the railroad tracks, and if the roadway continued on the westside, it would mean taking a substantial portion of Contempo Marin Mobile Home Park. RESOLUTION NO. 7768 - AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MARIN, CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AND THE CITY OF NOVATO CONCERNING A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR McINNIS DRIVE (Eastside Arterial). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 4 Staff to investigate possibility of a westside arterial. Roadway proposed for 2 -lanes with a 100 foot take for the future. 11. REPORT ON NORTHGATE MALL SPACE FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME PREVENTION OFFICE, DONATED BY MACE RICH COMPANY (PD) - File 4-10-221 x 9-3-30 Councilmember Frugoli emphasized the fact that this office in the Northgate Mall Shopping Center is not a manned 24-hour sub -station, and also commended Mace Rich Company for its donation. RESOLUTION NO. 7769 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH MACE RICH COMPANY (for donation of office to the San Rafael Police Department at the North - gate Mall for a ten (10) year period for $1.00 per year) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF BEACH PARK CONCESSION PROPOSAL (Rec) - File 9-3-66 Councilmember Frugoli suggested that in the proposal by Irvin and Andrea Boyle of Bayshore Sternwheeler Company, staff include a type of food booth people can utilize while waiting for the sternwheeler cruises, as well as having seating for the public. Recreation Director McNamee stated this suggestion is in the long range plan of having lunches and perhaps dinners served, indicating food and beverage would be served in a package in the initial short term plan. Council accepted the staff report, without motion. 18. PUBLIC HEARING - ED87-112 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL UNIT ON R-3 LOT WITH NEW PARKING; 279 UNION STREET; DAN AND SEAN NOWELL, OWNERS; JEFF MULANAX, APPELLANT; AP 14-024-06 (P1) - File 10-7 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened, stating this item was continued from the meeting of July 5, 1988. Parking - Planning Director Moore stated staff checked the dimensions of the existing conditions and that plans submitted by the Applicant are accurate and to scale. Staff also concluded that the proposed parking layout would work in terms of size and maneuverability. She noted the staff report summarizes the parking requirement rationale utilized by staff and the Planning Commission, and City Traffic Engineer Rumsey has looked at the area. The difficulty with the proposal for red curbing is that much of the area most needing such designation have no curbs. Typically, before signs indicating that persons are not to park within six feet of the center line are posted, there is some notification to the neighborhood, because for every person who feels such a restriction is a benefit, there is someone else who feels that on -street parking is being diminished in the neighborhood and therefore this needs to be looked at and evaluated prior to a signing program. She noted Mr. Rumsey will be doing a study on this. Accidents - Mr. Rumsey, reporting on incidents of accidents in the area on Jewell and Union Street intersections, stated there was only one accident reported in the last three years by a person who was under the influence and who hit a parked vehicle. Two other minor accidents on Union Street were reported. Water Pressure Problems - Staff noted that the Marin Municipal Water District indicates there are no water pressure problems at this location but noted two people who discussed water pressure problems at a previous meeting have homes at higher elevations on streets above Union Street. Alleged Illegal Unit A visual survey by the Code Enforcement Officer did not indicate a situation of an illegal unit as reported. Ms. Moore stated staff is SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regula) 7/18/88 Page 5 only authorized to survey properties from public property and noted there were no obvious signs such as mailboxes or converted garages present. She stated throughout the neighborhood numerous properties do not have garages, but there obviously are garages converted into living areas. Whether or not these were done with planning permits is unknown and Ms. Moore said it would be a major undertaking to do a property by property analysis in the neighborhood, but that this is expected to be done with the Neighborhood Plan as was done in Gerstle Park. Ms. Moore stated when Gerstle Park was found to have so many converted units, a special zoning district was adopted to "grandfather" the situation. Responses to Questions by Councilmembers In response to a question by Councilmember Breiner whether the curb to curb width of Union Street at the project site which is between 29 and 29Z feet is standard, Ms. Moore stated it is not standard today, noting 40 feet is now typically standard and sometimes it is narrower in hillside areas. Councilmember Boro stated he looked at the site this morning, noting the weeds are still in front of the detached garage indicating that the garage is not being used. He asked how the City could enforce use of the garage? Ms. Moore responded automatic garage door openers could be a condition, as well as periodic inspections, noting it is not illegal to park in front of one's garage, but it is illegal to convert the garage to any other kind of use. She stated two parking spaces could be used in front of the garage but staff strives not to have a driveway or open parking area across that much frontage of a piece of property. Ms. Moore indicated when the Fire Department needs to get their vehicle to the proposed unit, it would utilize Union Street but stated the unit will be sprinklered because it is situated in back of the lot. Public Comments Mr. John Mahoney, resident at 22 Broadview Dr. did not agree with the time of day staff studied Union Street, noting people work during the day, leaving the street partially empty. Ms. Moore responded they looked at the street during the day but pro- vided Council with dimensions of the street taking into account parked cars on the street. Mr. Mahoney stated there are houses behind Union Street where people return home from work between 9:00 PM and 10:00 PM. He felt staff should look at this area during late hours and on weekends when people are home. Mayor Mulryan stated this property is zoned for 15 units and the pro- perty owner is proposing half or less units. There are questions on safety and narrowness and a neighborhood plan, and Council urges staff to enter into a neighborhood plan to address the issues. The question is how do you justify the owner of the property who is asking to develop the property with half of the legal density? Mr. Mahoney stated there are no curbs in the area that can be marked and Mayor Mulyran stated, where there are no curbs, signs will be put up, but only when the neighborhood is comfortable knowing that if it is in front of your house, one cannot park in front of it. Mr. Jeff Mulanax, Appellant, submitted a letter to the Council (letter is part of the record on file) which responds to a letter from Senior Planner Jean Freitas on the General Plan, and a letter from Planning Director Anne Moore covering several sections of the appeal. Mr. Mulanax urged the Council to consider having a neighborhood plan for the Montecito neighborhood, and asked that development be halted until such a plan is conceived. Ms. Moore noted the area was probably zoned R-3 since the 1950's and that she was not aware of any rezoning within the last 15 or 20 years. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 6 Mr. Dan Nowell, Applicant, stated the removal of the garage structure would create uncovered parking and from a design viewpoint does nothing for the neighborhood. Mr. Nowell referred to staff visiting the site from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, noting he met with a staff member at 7:00 PM in February to survey the parking situation. He read his letter submitted to Council which covered the parking plan proposed, noting his parcel is almost twice as large as the majority of neighboring parcels which creates more on -street parking from his curb frontage. Mr. Nowell stated the garage in question is not being used for storage now and will be used as a garage for the proposed structure. He then submitted pictures he took of the neighboring parcels where people are using their driveways instead of their garages, as his tenants have chosen to do. Mr. Nowell stated he cannot solve the problems of the neighborhood, noting the plan proposed is sensitive to the neighborhood, and indicated he has a long list of conditions the Planning Commission and Planning Department have required of him. He noted he could not afford to meet additional conditions to accommodate major revisions to the parking without completely changing the complexity of the entire project. Mr. Nowell indicated that the intersection of Jewell and Union Streets above and beyond his property, is a potentially dangerous intersection, and suggested having stop signs installed at the intersection of Jewell and Union Streets. Mr. Nowell concluded he has never been contacted by the neighborhood association that has just been formed, indicating they are vocal in opposition to his proposal but have not asked for his input into the neighborhood. Mr. Clifford Elbing of 17 Broadview Court, stated he disagreed with the staff report on the water pressure issue. Mr. Steve Levin of 51 Broadview Court, referred to the Minutes of July 5, 1988 which did not include a fire truck attempting to get up the road two years ago and could not because of parking at the corner, causing the truck to ram its way up the street. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hear- ing. Councilmember Frugoli asked for a change of priority in the list of neighborhood plans and asked that Montecito be pushed up. Councilmember Thayer stated this neighborhood has been designated as high density in the General Plan but noted because of the parking situation it should not be. She suggested it be changed to medium density, and agreed that Montecito should be pushed up on the priority list. Councilmember Thayer stated, as a Council they should be doing something with people putting up illegal units on their premises that may or may not be non -conforming in terms of size, and later wanting them automatically legalized with variances. She suggested that staff work on this and a fine be attached when people in violation come forward. Councilmember Breiner suggested that the newly formed neighborhood association help by informing the City when they feel there are second units in violation. Councilmember Boro indicated there is a need for a neighborhood plan and felt that it would be the neighbors who would have to police the area such as notifiying the Police Department when they notice illegal parking. He also stated the use on the site is justified, the zoning is more than reasonable and parking adequate. Councilmember Boro moved that the appeal be denied and the Planning Commission decision be upheld, and, in addition, staff come back to Council within one month with an indication as to priority for the Montecito neighborhood plan. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 7 City Manager Nicolai stated the Montecito Neighborhood Plan is now listed priority 2, and asked what Council's specific instruction is on this item. Councilmember Boro stated this would mean that something else would need to be put off to get this done. City Manager Nicolai noted if this is moved up on the priority list, it would mean a modification to the General Plan, but would not be accomplished in the first year because staff is now involved in zoning and finishing up the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan. As priority 2, the Montecito Neighborhood Plan is proposed for the third or fourth year and could be "rolled over" in the General Plan at some future date if the list of priorities were changed. Councilmember Breiner noted if Council wanted to change a priority 3 to a priority 2, it would require an amendment to the General Plan and that would preclude the Council from taking action on something that could be far more important in the long run. Mayor Mulryan suggested rather than asking staff to bring this item back in one month with specific funding, that staff continue to work with the neighborhood in taking care with some of the traffic, signing, curbing and safety problems and come back to Council in due time with funding suggestions, if any, to bring this higher up on the priority list regarding adoption of the neighborhood plan. After further discussion, Mayor Mulryan seconded the motion. Councilmember Breiner noted she did not believe the parking as shown would be utilized in the neighborhood and stated she would support the motion if there were an inclusion to allow it to be brought back requiring a different configuration if the parking is not utilized, such as tearing down the garage and adding more landscaping and more parking in front, noting there should be six spaces. City Clerk Leoncini asked Councilmember Thayer due to her absence when this item was originally brought to Council, whether she had read all the previous material on this matter, and she responded affirmatively, stating she has also visited the property. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli & Thayer ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Motion failed. Councilmember Breiner moved to hold the public hearing over for two weeks with Planning staff to try to resolve the parking issue with the neighborhood, property owner and staff to see if an acceptable solution could be achieved. After discussion, Councilmember Frugoli seconded the motion. At the request of Councilmember Frugoli, Councilmember Breiner amended her motion to include that staff come back to discuss the possibility of moving up the neighborhood plan, with costs and time frame to be presented at a later date. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19. PUBLIC HEARING - U82 -91(d) - AND ED85-17(c) - RECONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW TIME EXTENSIONS FOR A 63 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (CENTERTOWN); 855 "C" STREET; UNITED SAVINGS BANK, OWNER; JOHN CONNOLLY IV BROTHERS REALTY GROUP, INC., APPELLANTS AND REP.; AP 11-254-18 (P1) - File 5-1-286 x 10-5 x 10-7 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Mr. Michael McKaig, Consultant to United Savings Bank, spoke indicating agreement with staff's recommendation that the Council not approve SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 8 the appeal but continue the matter to such time as requested by Applicant for a public hearing. There being no other public comments from the audience, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to continue consideration of appeal to such time requested by Applicant for a public hearing. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Mulryan asked to have Item 20, Crest Marin II, heard after Item 22 involving the General Plan is completed. 21. DISCUSSION RE SEASTRAND SUBDIVISON PARCEL "B", AP #16-301-21 (CA) - File 5-1-242 x 9-3-16 City Attorney Ragghianti stated that at the last Council meeting, Council asked that certain members of the Planning and Public Works Department be present to address the Council on their recollection of the manner in which Parcel "B" came into existence in the Seastrand Subdivision. Pursuant to the Council's direction, Attorney Ragghianti indicated he wrote to the former Director of Public Works, Ely Caillouette noting he was present tonight. He also spoke to Mr. Dominic Selmi, the Engineer who prepared the Tentative Map and Final Map. As Mr. Selmi, was going to be on vacation, Ms. Judy Waller was asked to appear before the Council. Mr. Ray Meador, former Planning Director wrote a letter which is included in the packet. He also spoke to Dwight Winther, Consultant with the City, and Mr. Art Brook, former Senior Planner, who is also present tonight. Mr. Ely Caillouette stated he reviewed the material in the file and indicated he did not recall the initial meetings and tried to recon- struct what happened from the material in the file. In response to Mayor Mulryan's questioning, he stated that the difference between the Final Map and the Tentative Map and the reason for not showing the private recreation area,which was shown on the Tentative Map is that the Final Map comes under the jurisdiction of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Both the Map Act and the Ordinance spell out what is required to be on the Final Map and in no case does it refer to anything involving zoning or use of planning of the parcel. He stated it is his opinion, based on legal advice received, that you do not use the Final Map for any kind of zoning or any kind of use designation, noting that is the reason they recommend that the Final Map be approved. It is a basic Subdivision Map showing parcels of land and survey information. Mayor Mulryan noted that the Tentative Map showed a private recreation area and the Final Map did not, and asked if Mr. Caillouette interpreted this as even though it did not, it had no affect on it, and was still private recreation as set out on the Tentative Map. Mr. Caillouette indicated he attested it (Final Map) was substantially the same as the Tentative Map. He noted that parcel had the same configuration as the Final Map with the only difference being it was designated as a Parcel "B", instead of having a zoning on the parcel. The zoning and what transpired with a Tentative Map approval is a matter of record and can be traced by anyone by checking with the Planning Department. He noted it was never a policy to put a zoning or use on a Final Map, stating one looks at the Tentative Map to spell the uses out and the Final Map is strictly a Subdivision Map. Ms. Judy Waller stated she represented the Purdy Company in presenting this project to the City through the Planning Commisson and City Council. She said the designation on the Tentative Map as a private recreation area was in no way an attempt to rezone. When the application was submitted to the City, it was submitted as a Tentative Map, subdividing property under an existing zoning which was R-1, B-1. There was no request for a rezoning to a PUD which at that time would have given the City and the developer an opportunity to specifically change the use on SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regul, ) 7/18/88 Page 9 that property. The fact that it was designated as private recreation was a suggestion of the intended ultimate use; the property owner at that time was the Purdy Company and she believed they represented to the Planning Commission, that (the developer) was contemplating, perhaps, a tennis facility and that is the way it was left, with no specificity as to what would ultimately be the resolution of that property. Councilmember Boro stated at one point the City was offered that prop- erty as open space and turned it down. It was then offered for poten- tial use by the homeowners association for something similar. He asked if Ms. Waller could recall why the City turned it down? Ms. Waller indicated she could not. There were some physical constraints on several different parts of the property having to do with drainage on the property. There was an interest within the City and private parties to see that a portion of the property, most of which now is known as Parcel "A", be returned to a viable marsh. As a part of this, a secondary levee was required to be built so that when the tidal action came in over Parcel "A", it would not inundate Parcel "B" or the area adjacent to Sea Way. This essentially formed a division in a way the properties were to be used. At the time the property was developed, Parcel "B" was graded only to the extent to provide drainage to the existing drainage channel adjacent to Seaway. Councilmember Breiner noted she asked staff for information similar to an Environmental Impact Report but none was done, instead there was a Negative Declaration and a Marshland study. She referred to a report by Harding -Lawson which speaks to a portion of filled marshland along the westside of the site to be set aside for recreational use. She asked Ms. Waller if the parcel map came in with Parcel "B" showing the initial recreational use because of the knowledge if it were filled marshlands there would be potential problems. Ms. Waller stated there always existed a potential for some adverse affects to the people on the west side of Seaway if that property were to be filled. The Seaway area is low and periodically the channel has to be dredged. Councilmember Breiner stated the report refers to several erosion gullys and seepage zones in the hillside area at the north end of the site and asked Ms. Waller if this was the same property. Ms. Waller responded negatively, that the property Mrs. Breiner spoke of was northeast of the existing Bay Way, which is probably the second or third lot in and perhaps underneath a portion of the first hillside lot. Art Brook, former Senior Planner with the City, recalled a discussion when the Tentative Map was discussed at a staff level before it was presented for the final Planning Commission approval. He stated at that time, then Planning Director Herb Hotchner discussed the possibility of requiring that Parcel "B" be integrated into the other parcels that adjoined Bay Way or possibly restricting it with some kind of covenant, but those suggestions were rejected based on an expectation that it would be either privately developed as a recreational facility as an independent parcel or the possibility that a home might be developed on the northern end of the parcel where the utility line veers away from Sea Way. Mayor Mulryan noted the property currently has four large mounds of debris and it does not look like the large tractor on that site is being used to simply pick up vegetation. Mrs. Jan Able, resident of Sea Way pointed out that the sewer pump station is located outside of her home,indicating she inquired of the workers if the sewer system could handle two more homes she was told that upgrading of the sewer system would need to take place first. She mentioned no building should be allowed on Parcel "B". She also mentioned the General Plan, stating that Parcel "B" should be considered as Wetlands only and requested the sewer be checked before anything is built on the property. Terrel Mason, Attorney for Seastrand Homeowners Association, referred to Councilmember Frugoli's alternative brought out at a previous meeting SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 10 on Seastrand, that the City consider acquiring Seastrand Parcel "B" as a Wetlands designation or having it converted to a Wetlands desig- nation. Mr. Mason indicated that residents of Seastrand were disturbed by the grading of the property over the July 4th weekend, that disrupted the habitat and environment. He stated the City had issued a recommenda- tion to the Building Department that any further application of a building permit be "stayed" pending further hearing, yet Mr. Len Nibbi or one of his associates felt that the grading was not part of that process, and Mr. Mason noted this is a violation of the intent or the spirit of that order by the Council. Referring to Mr. Nibbi's letter dated July 5, 1988, Mr. Mason stated it indicated that a four week delay is highly unusual. Mr. Mason stated because the legality of the lot is in question, four weeks time to look at the circumstances is not unreasonable. He pointed out that the current property owner, Mrs. Townley -Peeler, was originally an investor with the Innisfree Companies as a limited partner in obtaining this property in exchange for a portion of her investment with the original subdivider. He commented at best she cannot be painted as a bonafide purchaser for value whose rights on this property would dictate that she is not in an "arm's length trans- action" with the original subdivider. They still contend there has been a violation of the Subdivision Map Act insofar as the creation of that lot. Referring to a memorandum provided by City Attorney Ragghianti on May 12, 1988 regarding discussions with various individuals, including members of the Innisfree Companies who stated the parcel had always been zoned for single residential properties, Mr. Mason indicated he had several residents of Seastrand development present tonight who could testify to exact opposite status and that it was represented that Parcel "B" was to be maintained as an open space area. They are, Basso family, George Mueller, Sandy Greenblatt and the Lupe's. Regarding the status of the Notice of Violation procedure, Mr. Mason believed there is a basis upon which the violation procedure can be invoked. Mr. Caillouette spoke about the Final Map not intending what the use or zoning might be on a particular parcel, which may be true, but Mr. Mason believed it is possible that Final Maps do and can include restrictions such as easements if they are set forth on the Final Map. Granted, Mr. Mason indicated the actual designation on the Tenta- tive Map was not shown as a restriction. He stated the intent at the time of the presentation of the plan appeared (to be) that the property was to be restricted and mentioned that certain members of the Council, who at that time served on the Planning Commission, understood that property was to be restricted and not to be developed as a residential parcel. Mr. Mason stated the Notice of Violation procedure is applicable in this case, although he does have a professional disagreement with City Attorney Ragghianti as to whether or not this is applicable. He believed the procedure does allow the Council to again look at this situation during the Notice of Procedure hearing that allows Mrs. Townley, the current owner or her representative, to come before the Council and produce evidence at that time that surrounded develop- ment of the lot in 1981. Otherwise, Mr. Mason stated the building permit issues, the remedies available to the Seastrand Homeowners Association, a legal remedy involving an injunction, puts the burden on the homeowners which they feel should not be placed on them. He indicated the mistake was done through the Planning process involving the City and this is the opportunity for the City Council to remedy this particular mistake. Mr. Leo Andrade, President of Afco Developments, one of two corporate partners that initially developed the Seastrand project with the other called the Innisfree Corporation located in Sausalito who divided their responsibilities, indicated he was involved with the initial acquisition of the project and was manager for the development. The Innisfree Corporation for the most part, was responsible for marketing of the project. He stated they bought the project after the map was recorded and therefore cannot shed any light as to what transpired in the map process. Since the Seastrand joint venture intended to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 11 sell lots as opposed to building houses and selling houses, they were required by the State of California to get a public report as a condi- tion to offering the lots for sale to the public. He referred to one of the provisions in the public report obtained, which was given to every prospective buyer, and the buyer must sign a receipt that he has received the Public Report, noting the following under "Uses and Zoning":'The City of San Rafael advises as follows: The property is zoned R-1, B-1. This designation permits single family residential uses, accessory uses and limited care facilities that function as a single family use. The adjacent properties are also zoned for single family uses, R-1 to the North and the West; R-1, B-1 to the East. There is one exception, a 4.4 acre parcel at the end of Bay Way is zoned U- Unclassified. This area is designated for residential use in the General Plan and any development proposal would be subject to public review through the Use Permit procedure." He indicated this refers to Parcel "B". Mr. Andrade stated that everyone who sold for them was aware that Parcel "A" was a private parcel not dedicated for public uses. He said they had no plan at that time and contemplated the possibility of a private recreational facility tennis court complex and anticipated as a last possibility, the parcel be sold as residential use. Mayor Mulryan questioned term "Parcel A" and Mr. Andrade then submitted flyers to Council which were used at that time, noting the flyer must have had the parcel designation reversed, and indicating the parcel in question,whether it was shown as "A" or "B", was a private parcel which was their intention at that time. He indicated he did not recall having any direct conversation with any of the purchasers of lots at Seastrand so he could not testify what was said to people. Mr. Barney McCarthy, associated with Innisfree Companies, submitted letters from the four agents who sold properties at Seastrand. Attorney Cecelia Bridges, stated the Tentative Map approved by the Planning Commission did not include a condition concerning Parcel "B". The graphic Tentative Map itself, the physical graphic, showed Parcel "B" as private recreation. Parcel "B" was never designated on the Tentative Map adopted by the Planning Commission as open space. Unfortunately, it appears that it was represented to many area residents as public open space. The Planning Commission Minutes show that it was not intended to be public open space. The Tentative Map did not require a rezoning of Parcel "B" and the lot was and is zoned R-1. Ms. Bridges stated Mr. Dominic Selmi recalled in a conversation held with City Attorney Ragghianti, that when he prepared the Final Map he noted there were no conditions restricting Parcel "B" to other than single family residential use, and thus knowing a property cannot be effectively rezoned from residential to recreation by two words on the Tentative Map, he removed the words "private recreation" from the Final Map that he prepared. That Final Map was then certified by the City Engineer and adopted by the Planning Commission. Ms. Bridges noted the approval of the Subdivision Map is a discretionary act of the City which was taken by the City 10 years ago. Issuance of this building permit is a ministerial act. Denial of issuance of this building permit or issuance of it with an invalid condition, are acts of the City which are appropriately challenged and can be compelled by a Writ Action. That Writ would additionally seek recovery for both damages and costs on the basis of an arbitrary and capricious action as supported by the record. In such an action, the Court would be presented with a record that shows that the Council received advice from its City Attorney, that this is a legal R-1 lot for which there are no conditions on the Final Map; that there is a Final Map which the City found complied with the State and local law and which was the basis for the sale of all the lots in the Seastrand Subdivision which has been built upon and that the Statute of Limitations for challenging the approval of that Final Map has long since run. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 12 Ms. Bridges asked the Council to consider the following: If Council does not direct issuance of the building permit for this R-1 lot on the basis that the lot was intended to be used for private recreation, will the Council then direct the lot be rezoned to commer- cial recreation district so that development can proceed with that zoning? Has Council considered the status of this property on the City's list of priorities of vacant parcels which could possibly be acquired for open space? She asked if the City did not choose to accept the dedication of this property when it could have obtained it free, why would the City choose to acquire it now? In summary, Ms. Bridges stated the record, in her opinion, makes clear this property was not intended to be public open space; it was not conditioned for private recreation; the Statute of Limitations on the Final Map has run almost 10 years ago and the City has a ministerial duty to issue the building permit for this R-1 lot. Mr. Robert Basso, President of Seastrand Homeowners Association, stated in addition to the environmental and safety considerations, the sales literature Council received tonight leaves some confusion in the prepa- ration of that literature between Parcel "A" and Parcel "B" and the size of the properties. He asked to have the names of the four indivi- duals of the letters submitted earlier to Council, stating that he could attest to a Barbara LaMastis, who stated on more than one occasion, that that property was open space and that the only thing that could be done would be to develop it for private recreational use at the discretion of the homeowners. Mr. Harry Rodriquez, 18 Sea Way, stated he bought lot number 44 in Seastrand in 1980. When he purchased the lot he questioned what would happen at the end of the property by Woodson's Gates and was told a cul-de-sac would be put in. Later when the streets were put in, no cul-de-sac was in place and he then uncovered that he was sold a lot that was not included in Seastrand nor on the Final Map. He indicated after they got the Final Map they bought the lot from a private party and tacked it on to their marketing promotion and sold it to him as a lot in the Seastrand Subdivision. In talking to some salespeople, he was told that Parcel "B" was to be open space because of high voltage wires in that area and that no one could ever build there. Comments by Councilmembers Councilmember Breiner stated she was not certain the original proposal had a Negative Declaration based on Parcel "B" which is filled, low lying marshland having as its maximum use, private recreation. She asked to hear from the City Attorney as to the Council's obligation, if in fact, the Planning Commission and the City Council wanted something done and the Planning Director at that time conciously did not put it into effect. Mayor Mulryan stated what he understood was that the basic zoning was R-1, B-1 and there was talk of using this parcel for private recrea- tional use that was never done with no zoning change, so the Final Map was without designation which would have left it at its preexisting zoning. Councilmember Frugoli agreed and stated it seemed no one wanted the property and the original owner, Innisfree Corporation did not want it and the property owner stated they were probably mistaken that it would be open space for the residents, but it caused a situation where the map was signed with the category of R-1 Zoning. He indicated that the City work with the Innisfree Corporation, the people who represented the clients and existing property owners to try to purchase that property through an open space fund. He stated it (the Final Map) was signed by the Planning Commission Chairman, the City Clerk and the City Engineer, and indicated if the City did not know what they were signing how can the City blame the person who buys the property. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 13 Councilmember Boro read the letter from City Attorney Ragghianti which states that Innisfree disputes the fact that this was open space and that they always represented the parcel to be zoned for single family residential use. He stated in checking the Assessor's roll, prior to the sale and transfer of the property in 1985, it was taxed at the rate of $1.00. His understanding is that the County Assessor thought it was open space. If the City acquired the property, the Assessor's roll has it at $52,000. Mr. Boro found some inconsistency that the property was intended to be R-1, B-1 and at the same time the property tax was $1.00. Councilmember Breiner moved to take a Notice of Violation, stating that the intention was clear. Councilmember Frugoli stated this could be considered a "taking" and noted that the City Attorney feels the City has no case. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Boro explained he did not second the motion referring to the City Attorney's advice that legally, the position cannot be substantiated and there is a concern that it could be construed as a "taking" and that the City Attorney has said no matter what happens the Seastrand Homeowners Association will get involved in a lawsuit whether the City goes ahead or not, or the property owner will. He did not think the City should take the lead. Mayor Mulryan stated the parcel seems to be a continuation of the obvious marsh he has called "A" out toward the water, stating it has lines over the property, does not look like it is buildable, can easily see how it could be viewed as open space and has a creekbed alongside. On the other hand, there is the very northerly portion of the property, near where the house is currently being built, where it would seem very easy to tuck in one unit next to the house being built. He stated it would be a good solution and leave a great majority of the lot open and have it revert to Wetlands. He encouraged the owner or optionee to consider his suggestion. Councilmember Thayer stated from a legal standpoint, City Attorney Ragghianti's advice is correct regarding the Notice of Violation and the Statute of Limitations. She could see equities on both sides, stating people who bought into the project believed the property to be open space. She agreed with Mayor Mulryan's suggestion that only one residence be built on that property. Mayor Mulryan stated they could ask that the owner, the optionee and the Planning Staff work toward a Restrictive Covenant for all the land except for one single residence on the northern end of the parcel. He indicated this might be a good overall solution for all concerned. A woman spoke from the audience, noting the property is an incredible dust bowl and something should be done about it. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to hold this item over to the next meeting and encourage the owner/optionee of Parcel "B" and the Planning staff work toward a Restrictive Covenant on all the land except for one single residence on the northern end of the parcel. That the northerly portion of the property adjacent to where the house is currently being built seems possible in having one unit, leaving the majority of that lot open and revert it to wetlands. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner and Frugoli ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Attorney Mason asked Mayor Mulryan since the matter is being continued, is the status of the building permit being "stayed?" Mayor Mulryan answered affirmatively. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 14 22. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR AND ADOPTION OF SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000: (P1) - File 115 A. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT B. RESOLUTION ADOPTING SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000, AS AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL Senior Planner Jean Freitas gave an overview of the staff report stating there are two resolutions, one for Certifying the EIR and one for the adoption of the General Plan. The Plan adoption resolution contains two attachments, first, a compilation of all of the proposed General Plan revisions which resulted from public input during the City Council review and the final EIR summary table which is referenced in the General Plan adoption Resolution. The remaining attachments are part of the final EIR documents. Copies of the draft EIR and responses to written comments on the draft EIR were previously distributed to the Council and the public. These along with the Resolution and the EIR attachments contained in the staff report comprise the final EIR. The final EIR includes a brief addendum to the EIR outlining where the EIR would be revised through such changes proposed by the Council. Then following is a summary of the EIR modification contained in the previously published Responses to Comments documents The third attachment annotates the changes summarized in the EIR Addendum and the summary of EIR modifications. The last three attachments to the EIR are new draft Canal/Child Care Task Force Report; the April 4, 1988 report on Critical Intersections and proposed General Plan Map Revisions. Ms. Freitas then referred to page 1 of the General Plan which outlines the major proposed Council revisions to the Plan. These include a reduction from high to medium density on vacant residential parcels in East San Rafael. Include potential for a new shopping center in East San Rafael. A reduction in overall residential development on the St. Vincents/Silveira Property from 10 units to the acre to 6 units to the acre with a limited amount of new office development potential on that site. Page 2 of the staff report shows revisions to the Density Bonus Policy to make inclusionary units more affordable and to limit them to medium and high density areas of the City, as well as more definitive wetlands and diked baylands protection Policies and additional water conservation and supply policies. Highlighted are the St. Vincents/Silveira Urban Service area, the St. Vincents/Silveira Advisory Committee and proposed Wetlands Fill Policies. Regarding the Urban Service Area item, this matter is proposed only for clarification and it asks whether the Urban Service Area should include the area west of the railroad tracks or the entire property. Staff recommends that the Urban Service Area encompass the entire property as proposed. The advantage to having the entire property within the Urban Service Area and annexing the entire site at once is that the property could be treated as a whole and would provide the City with greater control over future land uses east of the tracks even though that portion of the property is not proposed for any urban development during the time frame of the General Plan. The St. Vincents/Silveira Advisory Committee language is consistent with Council's direction and is shown on pages 11 and 12, to the attach- ment "A" to the General Plan Resolution. Regarding Wetlands Fill language and a possible exclusion for fill of certain wetlands near Auburn Street, staff concluded that such an exception could apply to many potential infill projects, including the Andersen Drive Extension project and others that are listed in the staff report. It did not appear appropriate to allow an exception for one project involving wetlands and not others in similar situations. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) //18/88 Page 15 City staff met with State Fish & Game staff to identify how a Waiver could be worded which would not significantly weaken the Wetlands Fill Policy. Staff would not recommend that wetlands fill be allowed in exchange for enchancment only, but instead proposed a reduced mitiga- tion of a minimum one-for-one, one acre of new wetlands for any acre of filled wetlands. This recognizes that many of the small isolated wetlands in urbanized neighborhoods generally provide less valuable wildlife habitat than the larger regionally significant wetlands, that is, they may well be remnants of drainageways or manmade drainage ditches with minimal wetland vegetation. Staff has been contacted by the Marin Audubon Society, the Lomitas Park Homeowners Association and by Supervisor Hal Brown's office, all recommending against a potential exclusion of this property from the Wetlands Fill Policy. Staff met with Sierra Club representatives to go over the draft Plan, and the Sierra Club had two additional wetlands recommendations. Staff concluded the first recommendation is consistent with the intent of the proposed Wetlands Fill Policy and can be added. The City Attorney has some revised language in response to the second request. The Sierra Club recommended that the language stating "there could be a waiver if the owner can demonstrate the implementation of this policy would substantially interfere with any reasonable economic use of the property", be changed to state"that it would substantially interfere with a viable use of the property." City Attorney Ragghianti reviewed the request made by the Sierra Club and recommended the following: "If the property owner can demonstrate that implementation of this policy would substanially interfere with economically viable use of the property, they could seek a waiver." Last sentence on NE -20. The wording "any reasonable economic use" or "viable use" is replaced with "economically viable use". The Marin Audubon Society submitted correspondence on July 14, 1988 regarding the wetland policies and staff supports the language modifying the approval statement located at the end of both of the policies to state, "to the satisfaction of the City after consultation with Department of Fish and Game and the public", rather than "to the satis- faction of the Department of Fish and Game". Three other proposed changes recommended to the Wetlands Fill and Wetlands Buffer Policy are not recommended. The Marin Audubon Society recommends that the two-for-one mitigation be retained for all wetland areas filled and that the 50 foot setback policy be modified to not only require a 50 foot setback for structures (buildings), but also for fences, paths, roads and other identified items. Such language would interfere with desired projects such as the Shoreline Park Band where there are paths within 50 feet of wetlands. Marin Audubon Society also recommends that a clause deleted by the Council in NE -2 be reinstated. Staff believes their concerns with this policy are responded to by the City Council proposed addition of a program which requires that private open space deed limitations and other restrictions be required as part of any private open space transaction. Two other issues received by staff include the possible marina addi- tion to the Marin Ranch Airport site and modification to Housing Policies. Regarding the marina addition, the County Parks Department submitted a recent Marina Feasibility Study which concluded there was marginal feasibility for such a use at a nearby location. Sierra Club represen- tatives also recommended a deletion of a marina possibility at the Marin Ranch Airport site because of impacts of boat traffic on sensitive wildlife habitat areas and endangered species and levee erosion in the Gallinas Creek area. Regarding the proposed Housing Modifications, staff had several con- versations with the Ecumenical Association for Housing, concluding that the proposed low income McGucken House Senior project could be accomplished without any additional modifications to housing policies. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 16 There are no density bonuses currently being proposed for either the Civic Center Plaza project or the Pell Hill project as a result of the McGucken House project, therefore, H-20 does not apply to those two projects. EAH is attempting to negotiate a purchase of a portion of the Civic Center Plaza site and if they are successful in securing an option on that portion of the site, they would be requesting a density bonus on their site for a low income senior housing project and this would be consistent with H-20. In further discussion with EAH staff, they are interested in keeping options open for potential future projects. Ms. Freitas said if Council wishes to broaden the H-20 language to allow greater flexibility for senior projects, staff recommends that the language in the new staff report handout be proposed. She stated the main difference would state, "To achieve a density bonus, units must be constructed on site and generally only if the main project is age -restricted can the density bonus units be age -restricted". Reduced Densities on Vacant Residential Parcels - East San Rafael Councilmember Frugoli referred to a letter from the Seaport Company and mentioned when this project was brought to Council, the density was dropped from high to medium. He indicated this project was approved by Council prior to the General Plan going into effect. He stated Seaport Company was the only one having an approved project for the higher density because of the cost of keeping the waterways in place and the two islands. Councilmember Frugoli felt Seaport Company should remain with the higher density. Councilmember Frugoli moved that the project proposed by Seaport Company be at high density instead of medium density. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Breiner referred to the potential for a new shopping center in East San Rafael and mentioned they were speaking to neighbor- hood serving shopping development and indicated a distinction needs to be made because a new shopping center development implies a grander scale. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to change the wording to state, "local serving commercial". AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Breiner mentioned neighborhood meetings and referred to LU-jj, and suggested from page 6 to transfer H -e as a substitute to achieve the same goal. She explained under the Land Use, as an overall concept, Council would want developers to have neighborhood meetings as part of any major development application. She mentioned the point of Mr. Irwin Williams' letter, is that it should not only be under "housing" but under "development" as a whole. Ms. Freitas noted it is under development as a whole and also is discussed in the Housing Section. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, that H-20 be revised to include only the additional word "generally" but not the fully underlined sentence which starts out with "If age restricted units..and ends with family units." AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Referring to page 15, under the revision to ESR -27 on page 107, Council - member Breiner referred to the deletion of the phrase, "Create automobile accessible bay and wetlands vista points" and asked staff if this was carried over. Staff replied it was. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 17 Councilmember Thayer, referring to NE -20, asked for clarification in replacing "any reasonable economic use" with "any viable use". City Attorney Ragghianti responded that the suggestion was made by him because it tracks the language from the United States Supreme Court's decisions on the definition of "over regulation" (takings), stating the actual language is "economically viable use". He noted it is more beneficial to the City than the language previously suggested. Councilmember Boro asked if the Marina Smith Ranch issue is to be left in, and Mayor Mulryan responded this is only an alternative and the City is a long way before they can get a marina there, but that one of the issues would be the effect on the wildlife, the replacement of the mud levees with permanent types, etc. He suggested this be left in. RESOLUTION NO. 7770 - RESOLUTION CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None RESOLUTION NO. 7771 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000, AS AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Thayer asked if any of their objections are to be noted, stating she was extremely opposed to development of the St. Vincents/ Silveira property and the Level of Service "D" as opposed to Level of Service "C" and that she did propose a modification to this with several lesser portions of the Plan. Planning Director Moore responded that all objections will be included in the Minutes from meetings when the Plan was considered. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 20. PUBLIC HEARING - Z85-16 - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND REZONING FOR 220 UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX, CREST MARIN II; CRESTA DRIVE; PAUL SADE, OWNER; DANIEL ROSS, REP.; AP 155-251-20, 21, 24 & 25 (Pl) - File 10-3 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Moore stated the Final Environmental Impact Report, consideration of the project as a priority consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2000 and a conditional approval of zoning were to be considered tonight. The project is a 220 rental residential project situated on the remaining graded portion of the site which over 20 years ago was developed with Crest Marin I. The Applicant has proposed that 15 percent be affordable to low and moderate income households for a 40 year period. The Applicant had proposed that the low income units be made available to households not exceeding 80 percent of the median income. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project with the affordability limit at 75 percent of the median income. Through the years, in conjunction with the Housing Authority, staff found if they established the upper limit of one of the affordability ranges, for example, low income is below 80 percent and moderate income is 80 - 120 percent, it would be diffi- cult to find qualified buyers and in this case, qualified renters. Staff's practice has been to use more middle range in the household figures. The initial environmental study done for the project had one significant effect, traffic, and only cumulative traffic effects for the project. Draft EIR was done showing with construction of all existing approved projects and factoring in traffic for several possible County projects which the City has no planning or zoning authority over, there would not be any exceedings over adopted Level of Service Standards and would not reach midpoint "D". The environmental review findings regard- ing traffic, coupled with the housing proposal becomes a basis for SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 18 consideration as to whether this project should be considered as a priority project. Staff is in the process and has submitted a preliminary staff report to the Planning Commission on the priority project procedure. Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on this at their next meeting next week, and it is expected to have one or two additional meetings to complete its review and be able to make a recommendation to the Council. The Council would then consider the recommendation in August or September and conduct a public hearing on the implementing program. It is likely the way the priority projects procedure would work if it is opened up for applications, that a time in the future, after the City Council's action, would be chosen and property owners would be given that amount of time to submit application materials for priority project procedure. There would then be necessary time for staff review, Planning Commission review and recommendation to the Council and Council consideration. Ms. Moore noted this is an unusual project, stating they have not had large scale rental housing projects that are non -age restricted proposed in the City for a very long time and she could not recall any having 15 percent of the units affordable to low and moderate income. The Applicant presented their case to the Planning Commission that they be considered as a priority project at this time. Staff has some concerns about this, and reported to the Planning Commission on the nature of all pending and known possible development applications that are tributary to the Smith Ranch Road/Lucas Valley Road Interchange. It is a situation that is very different from that they are facing in the Bellam Boulevard Interchange area where they have scores of pending or identified potential projects all tributary to those inter- sections to that interchange. They have a limited number of properties that are tributary to the critical intersections at Lucas Valley Road/ Smith Ranch Road Interchange. To date, staff and the Planning Commis- sion have not been aware of any pending projects or proposals they expect to be forthcoming in the near future that are likely to be priority projects, and this is not to say that some property owners will not develop proposals between now and the time when a first pri- ority project procedure is gone through by the City for this area. But at the present time, parcels such as Daphne/Bacciocco, Regency Center II, Parcel 3 at Smith Ranch and the Marin Ranch Airport have not had proposals that are clearly priority projects as is this one. The only reason why the Planning Commission made the recommendation as a priority project now is because of its large scale of 220 units, totally rental residential, non -age restricted and with the 15 percent low and moderate income affordable. Councilmember Breiner asked staff how the County Housing Authority certifies work in terms of the income level, and Ms. Moore responded they require a submittal of documentation which is typically tax returns and other information concerning income and assets. Consultant Matthew Guthrie stated there is an interest for involvement and there is a staffing problem right now at the County Housing Authority as to how they would certify the income. They suggested that the City and County staff and Applicant get together when the agreement is prepared as to exactly how the certification procedure would take place. Ms. Moore stated the Below Market Rate Agreement would be finalized subsequent to the actions recommended to the Council this evening. Councilmember Frugoli indicated although the project has a priority designation for the reasons mentioned, there are housing projects in East San Rafael that should also be considered as priority projects when it comes to residential, and noted traffic concerns are the same in both areas. Ms. Moore responded the first draft of the priority project procedure is before the Planning Commission for review that typically, staff would recommend if there is competition among priority projects, that residential projects be considered of highest priority. She stressed SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 19 ideally, they would like to see all the projects be reviewed for priority project consideration after formal adoption of that procedure. The Applicant has made information available to the Planning Commission indicating that they simply may not be able to continue to be involved in this property through the next few to several months that it would take the City to adopt that procedure. This is a special request. Councilmember Boro mentioned that some wording be worked out on the agreement that some preference be given to City employees on the 33 units. He also was concerned with going ahead with this prior to having the procedure in place, noting once this gets going, similar requests will come up elsewhere in the City. He believed that the priorities were not housing first, but sales tax and housing were equal and each individual case would be looked at based on the circumstances at the time. He asked to have a performance criteria be put into this, so they do not find out sometime later that the developers walked away from it. He noted he wanted a guaranty that if this project does not begin at a certain time, it would be null and void. Ms. Moore mentioned revising the second Resolution... after "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED" on the second page "would establish that priority project determination for a period of one year", and it could include something to the effect that this Applicant proceeds ahead with the project within that period of time. Mr. Dan Ross of Northbay Properties gave background of the project and stated the landowner has been extremely patient with his firm which started in 1985 with six extensions of the option and will now extend it to another five days from tonight. The landowner indicated he needs to close the property for tax purposes and if he does not, he will take it off the market, put it in trust, and it will probably be lost forever to the rental housing pool for the City of San Rafael. Mr. Ross noted Council charged the Planning Department to see if there was any way they could proceed in the planning process. He noted they eventually received unanimous approval from the Planning Commission. He asked Council to allow them to be a priority project and proceed with the project. Commissioner Paul Cohen, Member of the Planning Commission referred to Councilmember Boro's comments and stated the Planning Commission held tentative discussions regarding priority procedures and a one year time limit on those allocations has been discussed. He noted in Conditions of Approval - Zoning, Z85-16 Condition D, states... "Building permits may be issued if all conditions of approval are met and the City Council has determined Crest Marin II as a priority project". The Planning Commission interpreted this to mean that building permits could only be issued as long as that determination is in effect. He noted the one year time limit was thought to be effective as worded. Mr. Sidney Hendricks stated the Crest Marin II project should go ahead but disagrees with staff that this is the only project trying to go ahead, noting he has been waiting since 1983, and adding he got an approval for 165 units no matter what the traffic was three years ago. He indicated he has been struggling to get approval now and does not understand why he cannot come before the Council to get an approval. He stated he has been trying to provide housing for five years. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 7772 - CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR CREST MARIN II AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ms. Moore indicated City Attorney Ragghianti suggested the following wording to the second Resolution: "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby establish this Priority Project determinaton for a period of one year or until July 18, 1989. Failure to secure building permits within that time frame unless a time extension(s) is granted by the City Council will render the Priority Project determi- nation null and void". SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 7/18/88 Page 20 Council agreed with the above wording. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to adopt the Resolution, as amended, on the Priority Project Designation. RESOLUTION NO. 7773 - DETERMINING THAT THE PRIORITY PROJECT DESIGNATION FOR CREST MARIN II IS A PRIORITY PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2000 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 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, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM U -NG (R-179) (UNCLASSIFIED NORTH - GATE ACTIVITY CENTER OVERLAY - RESIDENTIAL - 179 PEAK TRIPS) DISTRICT TO P-DNG (R-187) (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - NORTHGATE ACTIVITY CENTER OVERLAY) - (RESIDENTIAL - 187 PEAK TRIPS) DISTRICT. (Cresta Drive)" 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. 1547 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 23. SELECTION OF CONSULTANT TO PERFORM RATE STUDY OF MARIN SANITARY SERVICE (Fin) - File 4-3-32 Finance Director Coleman stated last February, as part of the condition of a rate increase for Marin Sanitary Service, the City requested that an independent study be done before the next rate increase was heard by the Council. Two proposals were received, Price Waterhouse and Touche Ross who are equally fine firms having experience in the Bay Area. He stated that the Marin Sanitary Service prefers Touche Ross, and Mr. Coleman indicated he would agree with that firm as long as the City awards and administers the contract and that the scope of the contract include the question raised by the Recycling Committee. Attorney Albert Bianchi representing the Marin Sanitary Service asked the Council to select the firm of Touche Ross. RESOLUTION NO. 7774 —AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH TOUCHE ROSS TO DO RATE STUDY OF MARIN SANITARY SERVICE. (Price $32,000). Under discussion, Mr. William Bielser of 55 Bellvue Avenue, San Rafael, stated he made a parallel request before the San Rafael Sanitation District two weeks ago that the City consider taking jurisdiction in this matter away from the Las Gallinas Sanitary District. He indicated that the Charter states the Council sets garbage and sanitation rates in San Rafael but the City is not doing this in half of the community. He mentioned that the Terra Linda area rates are set by the Las Gallinas Sanitary District, and requested that the Council add to the study presented tonight, whether or not the Council should be setting those rates as well. He stated it is particularly important if there is a five percent franchise tax placed on garbage collection. This would mean the City would only get five percent on the southern half of San Rafael and not the other half of the town, creating a disparity in rates, and suggested the five percent could be cut to two and one half percent if the whole community were considered. Finance Director Coleman stated he would ask Touche Ross if the inclu- sion of the northern part of the City would have any economic impact on the situation. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 7/18/88 Page 21 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 24. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE NO. 1546 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, SECTION 14.08.090H "DEFINITIONS: SO AS TO STANDARIZE THE METHOD USED TO DETERMINE BUILDING HEIGHT (Pl) - File 10-3 The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, SECTION 14.08.090H "DEFINITIONS" SO AS TO STANDARDIZE THE METHOD USED TO DETERMINE BUILDING HEIGHT" Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to dispense with the reading, to refer to it by title only, and adopt Charter Ordinance No. 1546 by the following vote, to wit: City Clerk Leoncini asked Councilmember Thayer, due to her absence when this item was originally brought to Council, whether she had read all the previous material on this matter, and she responded affirm- atively. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 25. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1433 (PARAMEDIC SERVICE SPECIAL TAX) AND SETTING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (Fin) - File 9-3-31X8-5 The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ORDINANCE 1433 (PARA- MEDIC SERVICE SPECIAL TAX) AND SETTING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988/89 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES" Councilmember Boro 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. 1548 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. �r JEA . LEON IN City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/18/88 Page 21