HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1988-09-06SRCC MINUTES (Regula_) 9/6/88 Page 1
IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6,
1988 AT 7:00 PM.
Regular Meeting:
CLOSED SESSION
1. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File
1.4.1.a
No. 88-20 (a)
- (#1)
Bonnie Cooke Adams vs. City of San
Rafael.
No. 88-20 (b)
- (#1)
Edward J. and Joan C. Wishovich vs.
City of San
Rafael.
No. 88-20 (c)
- (#1)
Marin Food Specialties, Inc. et al
vs. City of
San Rafael.
No. 88-20 (d) - (#7).
No reportable action was taken.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER
6, 1988 AT 8:00 PM.
Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Albert J. Boro, Councilmember
Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember
Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember
Joan Thayer, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti,
City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve
the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items:
Item
Recommended Action
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meetings Approved as submitted.
of August 1 and 15, 1988 and Special
Meeting (Closed Session) of August 22,
1988 (CC)
8. Authorization for Sale of City -Owned
Property - 335 Forbes Avenue (RA) -
File 2-7 x 2-5-18
9. Adoption of Resolution of Findings Re
Denial of Appeal of Additional Unit on
R-3 Lot with New Parking; 279 Union
Street; AP #14-024-06; Jeff Mulanax,
Appellant (Pl) - File 10-7
10. TS87-4 - Appeals of Tentative Map for
Five Lot Subdivision; 21 Madrona Street
at Clorinda Avenue; Jim Turrini et al,
Owner; Oberkamper & Associates, Rep.;
Peter and Kathleen Lambert and Bill
McCluskey, Appellants; AP #12-161-10
(Pl) - File 5-1-310 x 10-6
Approved staff recommendation
to have item rescheduled
to Meeting of September 19,
1988.
RESOLUTION NO. 7804 - UPHOLDING
PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF ED 87-112, APPROVAL
OF ADDITIONAL UNIT ON R-3
LOT WITH NEW PARKING AT 279
UNION STREET, WITH AMENDED
CONDITIONS
City Council set Public
Hearing for both Appeals
for Monday, October 3, 1988.
12. Resolution Setting the 1988/89 RESOLUTION NO. 7805 - FIXING
Property Tax Rate (Fin) - File 9-12-1 THE RATE OF TAXES FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1988/89 (For payment
of Principal and Interest
on General Obligation Open
Space Bonds and Payment of
Principal and Interest on
Terra Linda Recreation
District Bonds Assumed by
City of San Rafael, January
1, 1973, the sum of $.007
for each $100 of Full Valuation)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regula. ) 9/6/88 Page 2
13. Centennial Garden on Falkirk Grounds:
(Cult.Affs.) - File 4-3-201 x 9-3-84
a. Authorization of Expenditure of
Falkirk Membership Funds
to Develop a Landscape Plan
b. Resolution Authorizing Execution
of Agreement for Professional
Services between City of San Rafael
and Brian Wittenkeller
Approved staff recommendation
authorizing Expenditure
of Falkirk Membership Funds
to Develop a Landscape Plan.
RESOLUTION NO. 7806 - AUTHORIZING
THE EXPENDITURE OF FALKIRK
MEMBERSHIP FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT (IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3,900) WITH BRIAN WITTENKELLER
FOR PROFFESSIONAL SERVICES TO
DEVELOP A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A NEI
CENTENNIAL GARDEN ON FALKIRK
GROUNDS
14. Authorization to Apply to the Marin RESOLUTION NO. 7807 - AUTHORIZING
Community Foundation for Grant to FALKIRK STAFF TO APPLY TO
Support Falkirk Capital Renovation and THE MARIN COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
Programs (Cult.Affs.) - File 9-3-84 x FOR GRANT FUNDS IN SUPPORT
202 OF FALKIRK CENTENNIAL
RENOVATION AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS
16. Resolutions of Appreciation for:
(CM) - File 102 x 9-3-11
a. Richard Zoellner, Construction
Industry Man of the Year - 1988
b. Anne DeChenne, Former Secretary,
City Manager's Office
17. Claims for Damages:
a. Marin Municipal Water District (PW)
Claim No. 3-1-1341
b. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PW)
Claim No. 3-1-1343
c. Ted C. Lindquist (Rec)
Claim No. 3-1-1356
RESOLUTION NO. 7808 - RESOLUTION
OF APPRECIATION FOR RICHARD
ZOELLNER, CONSTRUCTION MAN
OF THE YEAR - 1988
RESOLUTION NO. 7809 - RESOLUTION
OF APPRECIATION FOR ANNE
DECHENNE, FORMER SECRETARY,
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Approved Insurance Consulting
Associates, Inc. recommendations
to deny claims a and b.
Approved City Attorney's
recommendation to deny
claim c.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli (from voting on the Minutes of
August 1, 1988 only, due to absence from
meeting).
3. ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL PARCEL AND EASEMENT, AP #10-041-40 - SUN
VALLEY OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (PW) - File 6-36
a. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF FOURTH MODIFICATION TO JOINT
POWERS AGREEMENT WITH MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
b. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH HOWARD
AND KAREN FOSTER
Mayor Mulryan asked staff if they had advised the leaders who were
against the Assessment District that the acquisition of this
parcel was in their best interest, and Public Works Director noted
that letters will be sent out to them.
RESOLUTION NO. 7810 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF THE FOURTH MODIFICATION
TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MARIN
COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF SAN
RAFAEL FOR SUN VALLEY OPEN SPACE
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regula. 9/6/88 Page 3
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
RESOLUTION NO. 7811 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A PURCHASE AGREEMENT
WITH HOWARD AND KAREN FOSTER
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
4. REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT - 346 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVENUE
IMPROVEMENTS (PW) - File 4-1-423 x 2-5-19
Councilmember Boro asked staff for the completion date of the improve-
ments and Public Works Director responded the end of October, 1988.
He also stated if the work is being diligently pursued and for some
reason some materials are not delivered and it is not the company's
problem, the time could be extended on the contract.
RESOLUTION NO. 7812 - AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR 346 MOUNTAIN VIEW
AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS TO GHILOTTI BROS., INC.
(low bidder) IN THE AMOUNT OF $113,050
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
5. REPORT ON BID OPENING - TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION - NORTHGATE ACTIVITY
CENTER (INTERSECTIONS AT DEL PRESIDIO/LAS GALLINAS AND SMITH RANCH/
REDWOOD HIGHWAY) (PW) - File 4-1-420 x 11-10
Mayor Mulryan asked if this item was to be awarded to Steiny & Co.,
Inc., as low bidder, and Public Works Director Bernardi responded
affirmatively.
RESOLUTION NO. 7813 - RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL
INSTALLATION - NORTHGATE ACTIVITY CENTER AREA
TO STEINY & CO., INC. (low bidder in amount
of $157,393)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
6. REPORT ON TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS - LUCAS VALLEY ROAD/LOS GAMOS DRIVE
(PW) - File 11-10- x 11-15
Mayor Mulryan asked staff why the County is not paying for this item,
and Traffic Engineer Rumsey stated this improvement was identified
in the Northgate Activity Center Plan with the recommendation that
the City work with the County with the County to contribute. He stated
several developments have been completed along Lucas Valley Road and
the County has not collected mitigation fees in accordance with the
Northgate Activity Center Plan.
Planning Director Moore stated after the City's adoption of the North -
gate Activity Center Plan they officially referred The Plan to the
County and they essentially adopted it. She noted special findings
were made by the County at the time of approving some of the residential
developments that are now under construction at Lucas Valley Road
that because of the County requirements they did substantial improvements
on Lucas Valley Road and the Northgate Activity Center Plan and Traffic
Mitigation Fees on top of that would have been too great. She indicated
it was only a matter of time that this situation would come up and
felt there should have been some substantial County contributions,
especially since this intersection is under the County's control.
She indicated the City will refer the General Plan to the County asking
for the same coordination but noted they are not bound by the City's
or Planning's Zoning regulations.
In response to Councilmember Thayer's question regarding the new south-
bound ramp,asking if this was in lieu of the old southbound ramp,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 4
Mr. Rumsey replied this will replace the existing off -ramp, adding
they will be eliminating the old off -ramp and on -ramps will be on
either side.
After further discussion, Council accepted the staff report and directed
staff to contact the County to collect money for the traffic signal
installations and to remind the County of their decision not to charge
developers in the Lucas Valley Road area traffic mitigation fees for
improvements, as those funds would have been used for projects such
as this.
7. AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS - SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON RE WORK PROGRAM (CM) - File
4-10-224
Councilmember Frugoli wanted to make it clear to staff that using
the prisoners from San Quentin State Prison on a work program is a
good idea but that they should not be hired on a bid or contract basis.
Public Works Director Bernardi stated one of the ways they would use
the inmates from San Quentin would be to hand sweep the Canal area.
RESOLUTION NO. 7814 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS - SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON RE
WORK PROGRAM FOR ONE YEAR (Initial contribution
of $792 for City's share of purchase and
maintenance of a van to transport inmates, and
a $35 monthly charge for City's share of a
portable toilet facility)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
11. RENEWAL OF CONTRACT WITH INSURANCE CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION (CA) - File 4-10-184
Mayor Mulryan asked staff why an additional consultant is needed and
City Manager Nicolai explained that Insurance Consulting Associates
(ICA) is the Claims Administrator for the Liability area. She noted
Bruce Codding of UNIRISK is evaluating the overall Risk Management
Program including auditing the Workers Compensation Claims and studying
the Safety Program as well as how public liability claims are reviewed
before they are turned over to ICA. She added it is having someone
come in from the outside to see how ICA is serving the City and how
the other firm is servicing the City on Workers Compensation claims.
Councilmember Thayer suggested having one firm do all the work, and
Ms. Nicolai responded that is possible, however, most of the firms
she is familiar with are specialized, and firms who were doing both
have spun off, noting this is becoming very technical. She noted
the City is planning to look at what the umbrella should be, whether
it should be handled in-house versus contracting out.
RESOLUTION NO. 7815 - AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH
INSURANCE CONSULTING ASSOCIATES, INC. -
CONTRACT EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR ONE YEAR
FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 1988 AND TERMINATING AT
MIDNIGHT, SEPTEMBER 9, 1989
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
15. RESOLUTION GRANTING WAIVER OF BIDDING PROCEDURE AND AUTHORIZING
PURCHASE OF PORTABLE RESTROOMS FOR PICKLEWEED CHILD CARE
PROGRAM - File 4-1-419
Mayor Mulyran asked staff why they did not know about the State Require-
ments before, and Recreation Director McNamee responded they were
not aware that pre -fabricated buildings came under different State
Codes until they were two to three weeks into the contract
process.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 9/6/88 Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. 7816 - GRANTING WAIVER OF THE BID PROCEDURE AND
AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF A PORTABLE RESTROOM
BUILDING FOR THE PICKLEWEED PARK CHILD CARE
CENTER
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
18. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ANNE DECHENNE, FORMER
SECRETARY, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE - File 102 x 9-3-11
Mayor Mulryan presented the Resolution of Appreciation to Anne DeChenne,
former Secretary with the City Manager's Office, thanking her for
her excellent work for five years.
19. PUBLIC HEARING - UP88-35 and ED88-26 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR 26,700 SQUARE
FOOT AUTO DEALERSHIP IN PCM DISTRICT; NORTHEAST CORNER FRANCISCO
BOULEVARD AND SHORELINE PARKWAY, JOHN IRISH, OWNER AND APPELLANT;
PAUL IACONO AND FREDERICK F. PETERSON, ATTORNEY, REPS.; AP #9-320-34
& 35 (P1) - File 10-5 x 10-7
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Principal Planner Curt Johnston stated on August 23, 1988, Planning
Commission approved the John Irish Auto Dealership development of
26,700 square feet on 2.5 acres. The dealership includes six makes
of automobiles, Jeep, Eagle, Maserati, Lincoln, Mercury and Merkur.
Following Planning Commission's approval, the Applicant appealed four
Conditions of Approval; Kerner Boulevard fascia band, Kerner Boulevard
freestanding sign, number of p.m. peak trips allotted for the project,
and the landscaping plan.
Kerner Boulevard Facade
Mr. Johnston stated the Design Review Board reviewed this project
on three occasions, discussing a number of significant issues. This
specific concern regarding the Kerner Boulevard elevation is that
in the future, Kerner Boulevard will be extended across the wetland
area making it a major arterial through the East San Rafael area,
and should the Shoreline Industrial Park develop as an auto center,
the corner at Shoreline and Kerner will become a focal point. For
those reasons, the project was approved with a condition requiring
a minor upgrade to a higher visible elevation (6 foot high facade
projecting 4 feet out from the building wall wrapping around both
the north and south corners of the building).
There were a number of alternatives discussed between the Planning
Commission and Applicant who stated that providing a higher visibility
or quality elevation may tend to distract customers from the main
showroom area. The Planning Commission felt the simplistic facade
with a rollup door would not conflict with the front of the building
which faces the freeway with a 12 foot high showroom glass.
Kerner Boulevard Freestanding Sign
Mr. Johnston stated that Planning Commission approved a 96 square
foot freestanding sign on Francisco Boulevard (a freeway oriented
sign). The Planning Commission approved a 48 square foot freestanding
sign on Kerner Boulevard, indicating this is the sign in question
but that the Applicant was requesting 72 square feet.
The Planning Commission recognized that a larger freestanding sign
is necessary on Kerner Boulevard because there are six automobile
makes that need to be advertised; however, they also felt that a 72
square foot sign was an undesirable precedent and that it would allow
the Applicant the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance for a
freeway oriented sign.
P.M. Peak Trips
Mr. Johnston stated the project was approved with a transfer of 67
PM peak trips from 300 historic trips assigned to the Shoreline Indus-
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 6
trial Park. This is an issue the City feels is indirectly involved
under the General Plan; basically the historic trips are exempted
from traffic mitigation fees but in this case 67 of those historic
trips are being transferred. He noted there is an agreement based
on the value of those transfer trips between the auto dealer and the
property owner, therefore, although City fees are not involved there
is a value assigned to the trips.
Early in the project, the Applicant had discussions with staff that
initially the project was 22,000 square feet versus the 26,700 square
feet approved by the Planning Commission. He stated there is a difference
when trip generation rates are involved and the fees are based on
discount for retail projects which take only 40 percent of the normal
fee for non -retail projects.
Mr. Johnston stated if this project were approved as an auto dealer
in a plaza it would be assigned 43 trips and the fee would be based
on 14 trips, but this is not an auto plaza. He noted that stand alone
dealers have a higher trip generation than one in an auto plaza.
Based on this, the Planning Commission did not feel it could approve
the lower trip rate.
Landscape Plan
Mr. Johnston stated after the Design Review Board completed its discus-
sion and recommendation on the project, a revised design concept for
the landscaping was submitted. The difference is having a turf
cover area versus juniper shrubs. Staff was concerned about the juniper
shrubs but referred the issue to the Design Review Board. Staff's
opinion is that, given the clean,straight line architecture with the
white stucco facade and white painted block the cleaner look would
be with turf.
In response to Councilmember Thayer's question regarding several makes
of cars sold by a solo dealership, Mr. Johnston replied that trip
rates are based on the fact that one shopper will go to that dealership,
shop only at that dealership and leave. It was felt if there were
more than two or three separate businesses, someone may park at one
location and walk or take a short drive to another location but it
would not increase traffic through the critical intersections or create any
p.m. peak traffic, noting this is the concept behind the trips.
Mr. Johnston responded to a question posed by Councilmember Frugoli
regarding the facade, stating when staff reviewed the sign program,
a comment was made as to why the Kerner Boulevard sign should be built.
He noted at this point it is a "dead end" street but from the Applicant's
point of view, he is looking for approval of the ultimate development
and it includes the sign.
William Bernstein, Attorney with Mulholland, Bernstein & Peterson,
representing Mr. John Irish, Applicant, stated he concurred with staff
regarding the landscape policy, as long as it is understood that there
will be no added costs involved.
Trips - Mr. Bernstein asked that the trips be credited as an auto
center; he noted it is not entirely accurate that Mr. Irish is the
only dealer in that area, indicating there is nobody out there and
Mr. Irish is to be the first. He said if the City has a commitment
to make this a true auto center, the way to fulfill that commitment
is to declare that this is going to be an auto center and that Mr.
Irish be given the trip allotment based on an auto center and the
way it is calculated.
Fascia - Mr. Bernstein stated they do not have a problem building
a 4 foot fascia on the rear of the building, but that the problem
stems in wrapping the fascia around the sides of the building. He
noted Mr. Irish is adamant that it would look better and cleaner if
the fascia butts straight into the building and does not wrap around
the building, and is concerned about the "bubble" effect. He added
they want to draw attention to the front of the building, stating
the front facade is 6 feet tall and wraps around and architecturally
that would draw attention to people in front of the building. If the
rear of the building is treated similarly it might create some confusion
and they do not see the point of wrapping the fascia around the building.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 7
Sign - Mr. Bernstein noted it is true that Kerner Boulevard is not
scheduled to happen for a few more years but stated they would like
to have approval for a 72 square foot sign as opposed to the 48 square
foot sign which the Planning Commission has approved. He stated 248
square feet of total signage was approved, and noted they are requesting
236 square feet and that it be reconfigured so more information can
be added on the freestanding sign. Their reasons are: The number of
makes of automobiles and information that needs to be conveyed; the
building itself is set back 65 feet from the traveled way. He noted
having information on the wall would be too far away and people would
not be able to see it, therefore, they would prefer to have the infor-
mation closer to the street where it can be seen.
Mr. John Irish, Applicant, stated many of the design changes going
through the Planning Commission were based on his dealership being
a "Role Model" for a future auto center, noting he has incurred much
landscaping expense. He stated if he is to be treated as an auto center
then the trip permit should be based as such.
Councilmember Breiner referred to comparisons of signs with other
dealerships on Francisco Boulevard, and Mr. Johnston indicated the
problem with comparing this sign to an existing dealership is that
signs today primarily advertise one make of automobile, but staff
provided a survey and photographs of signs along Francisco Boulevard
and noted they range greatly, and basically the sign Mr. Irish is
asking for is in the "ball park" of what they are talking about and
which the Planning Commission has approved; he added it is important
to note that they are freeway oriented signs, but in terms of relating
them to this sign is the fact that it advertises one dealer.
Mayor Mulryan asked if trips were calculated as part of an auto center,
what would the difference be, and Mr. Johnston responded 67 trips
versus 43 trips. He also pointed out that the sign information was
a field survey by the City's Code Enforcement Officers.
Councilmember Boro referred to the first freestanding sign, where
the Planning Commission had gone 24 feet over what is allowed; in
the second, they allowed 48 feet where none is permitted and noted
some concessions had been made, stating he is supporting the signing
as approved by the Planning Commission.
Regarding the trips, Councilmember Boro felt they should deal with
the single dealership although in the future there may be an auto
park and when the auto park happens a refund should be made to the
Applicant at that time.
Mr. Johnston pointed out what Councilmember Boro spoke to regarding
an auto center being developed in the future was recognized in
the Planning Commission staff report and that the difference be redis-
tributed back to the Shoreline Industrial Park.
Attorney Bernstein pointed out to Section 14.12.060, part of the Sign
Ordinance allows additional area for several reasons; To overcome
a disadvantage because of an exceptional setback between the street
and the sign orientation sign location; To permit more sign area in
a single sign than is allowed but less than the total allowed for
the site for a more orderly and concise pattern of signing will result;
To allow a sign to be in proper scale with the building's use. He
noted any one of those exceptions would permit the increased size
of the sign under the Ordinance.
Councilmember Frugoli noted there are six dealerships in one agency
and although they are with one owner, if each one of those agencies
tried to put up a sign similar to Nissan, Datsun and Volvo, it would
be 1200 square feet across, but Mr. Irish wants to put up only one
sign for the six dealerships. He mentioned that Mr. Irish should be
allowed to have the sign he is requesting.
Mayor Mulryan responded to Councilmember Frugoli by stating there
have been some concessions made by the Planning Commission and staff
by agreeing with the 48 square feet on Kerner which is 10 or 15 feet
away from the street, and although the numbers may not be agreed upon,
the concept was addressed.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 7
SRCC MINUTF (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 8
Councilmember Breiner added that staff and the Planning Commission
were very liberal in the interpretation of site and granted it as
being two sites although it is only one.
Councilmember Thayer agreed with Councilmember Frugoli on the sign
but also agreed with the Planning Commission on the facade being wrapped
around the building. Regarding the sign, she noted this dealership
is unique because of the mix of vehicles and she agreed with this,
but indicated that does not mean she agrees with the extension of
Kerner Boulevard.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Council Decisions
Landscaping Plan - Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner
seconded, to accept staff's recommendation and go with the original
landscape plan that turf be utilized.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
PM Peak Trips - Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer
seconded, to modify trips consistent with auto center trip generation
rates.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli & Thayer
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro & Mayor Mulryan
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Free Standing Sign on Kerner Boulevard - Councilmember Frugoli moved
and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to allow the 72 foot sign that
shows all five dealerships, with the total square footage being 236
rather than 248.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli & Thayer
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner & Mayor Mulryan
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Motion failed.
Facade - Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded,
agreeing with the Applicant that the fascia band not be wrapped around
the building, and also agreed with a 4 foot facade.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Staff to come back to Council with Resolution of Findings at meeting of
September 19, 1988.
20. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, REPEALING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.12
ENTITLED "MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC OFFENSES", SECTIONS 8.12.050 THROUGH
8.12.060 ENTITLED "FORTUNE-TELLING", AND RENUMBERING SECTION 8.12.080;
AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.20 ENTITLED "INTRUSION, DETECTION AND/OR
BURGLAR ALARM AND FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS", SECTIONS 8.20.160, 8.20.190
AND 8.20.210, AND ADDING SECTION 8.20.165 ENTITLED "REINSTATEMENT
FEE"; AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.34 ENTITLED "REGULATIONS FOR MASSAGE
ESTABLISHMENTS, MASSAGE SERVICES AND PUBLIC BATHHOUSES", SECTIONS
8.34.010, 8.34.020, 8.34.030, 8.34.040, 8.34.050, 8.34.060, 8.34.080,
8.34.090, 8.34.150, 8.34.160, 8.34.170, 8.34.180, AND 8.34.210;
REPEALING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.60 ENTITLED "VEHICLES FOR HIRE",
SECTIONS 10.60.100, 10.60.110, 10.60.120, 10.60.121 AND 10.60.130,
AMENDING SECTIONS 10.60.010, AND 10.60.090, AND RENUMBERING SECTIONS
10.60.140, 10.60.150, 10.60.152, 10.60.160 THROUGH 10.60.190; REPEALING
TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.84 ENTITLED "TOW CAR BUSINESS AND OPERATIONS",
SECTIONS 10.84.040 AND 10.84.050, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 10.84.060,
10.84.081, AND 10.84.130, AND RENUMBERING SECTIONS 10.84.060, 10.84.070,
10.84.080, 10.84.081, 10.84.090, 10.84.100, 10.84.110, AND 10.84.120
OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE - File 9-10-2 x 9-10-3 x 9-9 x 13-8 x
146 x 9-3-30 x 9-3-31-
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 9
City Manager Nicolai stated they hope to have a constant vigilant
review of how staff and allocation of manpower will be handled. Staff
decided to amend some of the existing ordinances that require permitting
activities handled in the Police Department, taking a fresh look at
them and questioning some of them. She requested that Council eliminate
some of the regulations that relate primarily to tow truck operator
permitting, and rather than permitting individual drivers that the
City permit the company itself; the same is true with massage parlor
technicians; taxicab drivers and fortune-tellers. She indicated the
businesses would be accountable for their own employees.
Driver Permits - Ms. Nicolai stated this would dramatically reduce
a "paperwork" process, noting staff has done a survey of other jurisdic-
tions to see what functions they handle and found that many do not
undertake these types of activities. She indicated this also creates
a reliance on the City, noting when the City does permit them the
City really does not know anymore whether or not they actually have
been convicted of some crime in the past.
False Alarms - Ms. Nicolai mentioned with the advent of electronic
alarm systems in residences and businesses, it is to the point where
10 percent of the workload in the Patrol Division is spent dealing
with responses to false alarms, noting 95 percent are false alarms.
She noted this is an area where some responsibility needs to be placed
back on the individual alarm, because the City is getting between
the owner, the alarm company and the phone company as to whose fault
it is, but it is the Police Department who is the one to respond and
it is taking up a significant amount of manpower.
Ms. Nicolai stated many jurisdictions do not respond at all, noting
it is the responsibility of the alarm company to determine first,
whether or not there is an issue to deal with and if so, follow it
up by contacting the Police Department. Therefore, the department
does provide a high level of service in San Rafael in being the first
responder to alarms, and is proposing having some constraints as to
the number of false alarms the department will respond to in any 12
month period before they notify the alarm owner that they will no
longer respond to that call. They would still be giving them an oppor-
tunity to reinstate that service, but with a fee involved that staff
feels represents manpower allocation in dealing with that number of
false alarms.
Ms. Nicolai recommended they be limited to 4 false alarms in any one
12 month period before they are notified that the Police Department
will no longer be responding to an alarm. She noted this means that
if someone called them saying there is something wrong and there was
an eye witness to a situation, they would respond, but she made it
clear that they would not respond to an alarm per se without
verification that there is an issue going_on. The_property owner
could then come in to reinstate their ability to receive calls by
paying a fee of $200 and the 12 month period would start again.
In response to Mayor Mulryan's question if this affects typical residen-
tial alarms that go off and are not hooked up to the Police Department;
and the alarm is not shut off within a certain time, the alarm company
calls the Police Department to notify them that the alarm is on, Police
Chief Ingwersen responded that is correct. He stated all alarms are
diverted to a central alarm station and that station makes the determi-
nation according with their electronics whether it is a valid alarm
or not, and it is only at the time they actually call the Police Depart-
ment that the Department will dispatch a unit. Chief Ingwersen stated
the Department is proposing doing this 4 times in a given year and
after that they are to resolve their problem.
Councilmember Breiner stated she could understand the administrative
workload to track and monitor the alarms, but felt if, in fact, the
Police do respond whether it is a false alarm or not, there should
be something left at the property to indicate to the homeowner that
the Police have been there.
Police Chief Ingwersen stated his Department will leave a note that
they have responded, especially with those alarms that are audible
and do not go to a central alarm station whereby they have no contact
and may not even know that their alarm has gone off.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 9/6/88 Page 10
In response to Councilmember Frugoli's question if the Department
will send letters to owners stating that the first false alarm has
taken place, Chief Ingwersen stated if it is an alarm going to a central
station it will be kept track of at that station, and the Department
also will have a record of it. He also indicated that notification
is done between the owner and the alarm company.
Chief Ingwersen stated many times they do not reset the alarm, and
asked Council to pass the provision, that uncommitted alarms also
have a fine associated with them because those are generally the alarms
that have been placed without permits and the Department has difficulty
in shutting them down, noting many times they have to physically discon-
nect them.
Assistant City Attorney Casey responded to a reference made by Council -
member Breiner on Section 10.84.041, regarding Taxi Companies, stating
that the text makes it clear that the operator is the owner of the
business and not a driver of the car, and that they are licensing
the owner of the business.
Councilmember Boro complimented Police Chief Ingwersen on the re-evalua-
tion that prompted the Ordinance, stating he does not see this as
a cutback but as what the role of the City is and the role of the
individuals and the community.
Mayor Mulryan called upon anyone wishing to speak on False Alarms.
Mr. Steve Blumenthal, owner of Rafael Jewelers in San Rafael, stated
he has had excessive numbers of alarms which go off in the middle
of the night and Sundays when the store is closed. Mr. Blumenthal
was not in agreement with the change having to do with False Alarms
and felt that the alarm company should be penalized rather than the
owner, and objected to the increase in cost.
Mr. Blumenthal asked for clarification by stating, if he paid the
$200 fine after four false alarms, would he continue to have services
from the Police Department, and the Council assured him he would.
Attorney Rudolph P. Rentzel, appearing on behalf of himself and the
Downtown Merchants Association referred to the Fortune -Telling portion
of the Ordinance, and asked for a delay so he may have time to study
the issue.
Council agreed to have the second reading and consideration of final
adoption of the Ordinance delayed until the meeting of October 3,
1988.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, REPEALING
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.12 ENTITLED "MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC OFFENSES", SECTIONS
8.12.050 THROUGH 8.12.060 ENTITLED "FORTUNE-TELLING", AND RENUMBERING
SECTION 8.12.080; AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.20 ENTITLED "INTRUSION,
DETECTION AND/OR BURGLAR ALARM AND FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS", SECTIONS
8.20.160, 8.20.190 AND 8.20.210, AND ADDING SECTION 8.20.165 ENTITLED
"REINSTATEMENT FEE"; AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.34 ENTITLED "REGULATIONS
FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, MASSAGE SERVICES AND PUBLIC BATHHOUSES",
SECTIONS 8.34.010, 8.34.020, 8.34.030, 8.34.040, 8.34.050, 8.34.060,
8.34.080, 8.34.090, 8.34.150, 8.34.160, 8.34.170, 8.34.180, AND
8.34.210; REPEALING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.60 ENTITLED "VEHICLES FOR
HIRE", SECTIONS 10.60.100, 10.60.110, 10.60.120, 10.60.121 AND 10.60.130,
AMENDING SECTIONS 10.60.010, AND 10.60.090, AND RENUMBERING SECTIONS
10.60.140, 10.60.150, 10.60.152, 10.60.160 THROUGH 10.60.190; REPEALING
TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.84 ENTITLED "TOW CAR BUSINESS AND OPERATIONS",
SECTIONS 10.84.040 AND 10.84.050, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 10.84.060,
10.84.081, AND 10.84.130, AND RENUMBERING SECTIONS 10.84.060, 10.84.070,
10.84.080, 10.84.081, 10.84.090, 10.84.100, 10.84.110, AND 10.84.120
OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE".
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 9/6/88 Page 11
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer
to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1549 to print by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
21. STATUS REPORT ON INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR SEASTRAND SUBDIVISION
PARCEL "B", AP #16-301-21 (P1) (VERBAL) - File 5-1-242 x 9-3-16
Mayor Mulryan stated at the previous meeting, staff was asked to explore
whether Parcel "B" should be the subject of a particular environmental
study which is not usually imposed on a single family residence.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated he understood Council to direct staff
to coordinate preparation of an Initial Study to determine if an excep-
tion to the usual categorical exemption for construction of single
family homes was warranted and appropriate under CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15300.2. In discussions with Planning Director Moore, it is
their opinion as well as his legal opinion, that it is not appropriate
that the City undertake an Environmental Impact Report in connection
with the construction of a single family home on this site. He noted
subjects of drainage, flooding, wetlands, grading, etc. were all discussed
not only in connection with this matter but also with the Public Works
Department, and they are advised that in connection with the siting
of the single family home and the impact with respect to drainage
and reduction of the flood plain there, that appropriate conditions
can be attached to the issuance of the Building Permit which would
mitigate any concerns, particularly with reference to soils stability
and hydrology.
In summary, Mr. Ragghianti stated the issues of concern to the neighbor-
hood will be addressed by the Public Works Department.
Public Works Director Bernardi referred to geology, stating there
are a number of issues that need to be resolved prior to the issuance
of the Building Permit; 1) The effect of the fill on the houses within
the Seastrand Subdivision as well as the effect of the fill on the
houses on Sea Way. 2) The effect of any potential settlement on the
existing Sanitation District sewer lines in the immediate area. There
are some sewer lines that run parallel to the wires and the sewer
line that runs across to Sea Way, and any fill that gets placed over
those would need to have some analyses on the effect of any new fill.
Regarding hydrology, Mr. Bernardi stated one of their concerns is
the effect of placing fill within a potential flood plain and how
this would affect properties on Sea Way. He noted that the properties
within the Seastrand Subdivision are high enough to be able to deal
with those kinds of issues but the Sea Way homes are much lower. They
would need to be sure that the fill placed does not affect any water
surface elevations. He said, realistically, changes are very minimal
but they would need to have the Applicant's engineers state this in
writing.
Mr. Bernardi noted that Mr. Len Nibbi, the Applicant, has a letter
on file with the Corps' jurisdiction regarding hydrology which will
be supplied to the City.
Councilmember Breiner referred to the habitat issue and Mr. Bernardi
stated when the original subdivision went before the Planning Commission
for the Tentative Map, the dividing line was essentially where the
storm drain pipe goes out into the canal. East of that and basically
Parcel "A" that the City now owns, was considered to be the most valuable
and restorable in regard to habitat. He recalled a pipe placed through
the levee that allowed that area to be subject to tidal action. Parcel
"B", as he recalled, was not considered as valuable and therefore
was to be left as, "Not City owned".
Regarding soil borings, Mr. Bernardi stated there are existing borings
that are within the vicinity of the location where the house is proposed
to be built. In looking at some of the boring maps done for the original
Seastrand Subdivision, it appears there is a boring within about 25
to 30 feet away from where they are proposing to build a residence.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 9/6/88 Page 12
Mr. Nibbi's Soils Engineer could use the information to interpolate
settlement data. He added the City will review Mr. Nibbi's Soils Engineer's
information.
In reference to a "fail safe" drainage system, Mr. Bernardi stated
any drainage system, including facilities the City is responsible
for maintaining, is only as good as the maintenance provided. He stated
a certain amount of "fail safeness" could be designed into a system
but it still requires maintenance, and the property owner is required
to maintain the onsite drainage.
Councilmember Breiner suggested that staff, in addition to the hydrology,
drainage, fill and settlement issues, explore a provision regarding
maintenance, noting it is the City who carries the greatest risk in
terms of future liability.
Mayor Mulryan stated that the Applicant has voluntarily agreed to
impose a condition on the property in terms of a Covenant, to restrict
this property to one house only.
Attorney Cecelia Bridges, representing Mr. Len Nibbi, stated for the
record they have submitted for the Council's future consideration
a voluntary Declaration of Restrictions which would limit development
of this site to a single family dwelling with no future subdivision
of the property.
Terrell Mason, Attorney for Seastrand Homeowners Association stated
at the last meeting there was an impression left with the homeowners
that there was to be a preliminary or initial study made by staff
to determine whether or not an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would
be done, or if a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. He stated
he now understands that City Attorney Ragghianti's understanding is
that the Council was directing staff to make a preliminary study for
the purpose of what special circumstances existed as to whether or
not CEQA applied or not. He indicated he understood that the Council
directed there had been a finding of special circumstances and staff
was directed to undertake initial studies for the EIR.
For clarification, Mr. Mason asked staff for an explanation of conflict
or understanding, and as a followup, if Council is satisfied with
the staff report as to whether or not the special circumstances exist,
whether or not City Attorney Ragghianti is convinced there are no
special circumstances within CEQA or the guidelines that would be
applicable to the unusual circumstances found in this case.
Mr. Mason stated the single family residence issue, whether or not
the EIR will be done in a single family residence under the general
proposition, is very unusual and is potentially exempted under the
categorical exemptions, but he noted there is an understanding from
the City's standpoint, not wanting to create some kind of precedent
in the future whether or not single family dwellings are always going
to be subject to an EIR study or program. He noted this parcel has
had such a questionable background in its development and there was
a Negative Declaration issued back in 1981 or so, noting there was a
comment in the staff report that there be a future study made. He
referred to Minutes of April 25, 1978 and asked whether or not in
the Council's mind, the preliminary study that was done by staff fills
that requirement.
Mr. Mason stated that although Mr. Nibbi has made a statement that
he will restrict the 4. plus acres of the parcel for a single family
residence, he asked if there will be a similar restriction or requirement
made by the City that will require the new property owner, should
this property be sold, to be required to maintain that 4.acre parcel,
consistent with staff's finding whether or not there is appropriate
mitigation measures for the habitat.
Mayor Mulryan stated there is no question that as part of the condition
of mitigation, whatever is necessary, hydrology and other reasons,
would have to be maintained, and that it would be applicable to subsequent
owners, noting it is a Covenant running with the land.
Mr. Mason noted the Homeowners' concern is that the 4 acre parcel
is currently not maintained by anybody and if there is a single family
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 9/6/88 Page 13
residence placed on the property, with landscaping, whether or not
there will be natural habitat left.
Public Works Director Bernardi referred to property maintenance and
stated the Municipal Code has a law that deals with property maintenance,
requiring property owners to maintain their property in a manner consis-
tent with what is going on around them.
In response to Councilmember Breiner's concern if there will be a
certain quantifiable amount of land around the house, if it will be
fenced or not fenced and what will happen to the rest of the land
and whether there will be habitat restoration, City Attorney Ragghianti
stated this should be asked of the Applicant, to see if he is willing
in the Declaration of Covenants, to also include reference to the
maintenance issues being discussed and the habitat.
Attorney Bridges stated Mr. Nibbi is willing to include this in the
Declaration of Restrictions to provide maintenance and noted the wording
would be worked out. Mr. Ragghianti noted he would work with Ms. Bridges
on the language and that it would be brought back to Council for approval.
In summary, Mr. Ragghianti stated what lies ahead is for the Declaration
of Covenants to be prepared in a form acceptable to the property owner
and also to the City; to include the maintenance provisions, and have
the appropriate hydrological and geologic work done before a Building
Permit is issued on the site.
22. UP86-102, ED86-112, TS86-1 - REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION TO EXEMPT
THE SPINNAKER POINT UNIT #5 TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT FROM THE DRAFT PRIORITY
PROJECTS PROCEDURE, IMPLEMENTING ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN 2000 POLICY
C-7 AND PROGRAM C -b; PROJECT ADDRESS; EAST CANAL STREET AT BEDFORD
COVE; AP NOS. 9-081-07, 08, 09 & 48 AND 9-082-06 (P1) - File 5-1-263 x 10-2
x 10-7
Mr. Paul Jensen, Consultant, stated on August 9, 1988, the Planning
Commission certified a Negative Declaration and conditionally approved
permits for Spinnaker Point Unit No. 5. The 48 unit residential town-
house development is proposed at the far east end of Canal Street
and is the fifth and last phase of Spinnaker Point. Unit No. 5 was
approved by the Planning Commission in 1983 but because of market
conditions the project was never built and consequently the previous
approvals had expired. In the recent review by the Planning Commission,
it was found that Unit No. 5 is consistent with the Spinnaker Point
Master Plan originally adopted in 1977 and also concluded the project
is compatible and consistent with other constructed phases of Spinnaker
Point.
He noted there were a number of changes in circumstances with regard
to the General Plan and environmental issues since 1983, but the Plan-
ning Commission found it appropriate to certify a Negative Declaration.
The prime environmental impact associated with the project and prime
General Plan issue is traffic. Mr. Jensen stated the project would
generate 48 additional PM peak hour trips, adding 13 critical moves
to the Bellam intersections. This constitutes a little more than one
percent of the existing traffic that presently occurs through the
Bellam intersection during the PM peak hours and would also constitute
about 17 percent of the remaining traffic capacity to maintain mid
point Level of Service "D" operational standards.
Mr. Jensen stated with Spinnaker Point located in East San Rafael,
a traffic sensitive area, the Planning Commission found that the project
is directly impacted by Circulation Timing of Development Policies
in the General Plan, and is also subject to the priority projects
procedure, an implementation measure identified in the General Plan.
This priority project procedure is to be used in assessing and determin-
ing priority development projects for the purpose of alloting the
limited amount of traffic capacity through critical intersections
and so as to maintain an acceptable traffic condition.
With this in mind, the Planning Commission approved the permits with
a condition requiring that the project be referred to the City Council
for an exemption or priority project determination. Staff has drafted
a priority project procedure which has been reviewed by the Planning
Commission in several hearings, but has not as yet been brought forth
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 9/6/88 Page 14
to the City Council for review and adoption. However, the draft proce-
dures would include a list of development project types that would
typically be exempt from priority determination. The Planning Commission
found that Spinnaker Point Unit No. 5 qualifies for one of the exemptions
recommended as follows: "Residential subdivisions that are a part
of a previously authorized and presently valid planned development
or similar zone, are more than 75 percent constructed and contained
or provide in -lieu fees for a minimum of 10 percent of the units,
affordable to low or moderate income households". He noted Spinnaker
Point Unit No. 5 is the last phase of Spinnaker Point, 79 percent
of the development is constructed and occupied and there are conditions
in the approval to require payment of in -lieu affordable housing fees.
Mr. Jensen mentioned that allowing the development to proceed would
also eliminate a public nuisance that presently exists in this neighbor-
hood. There continues to be loitering and garbage dumping in that
area.
He noted staff is recommending adoption of a Resolution with Findings
which are identical to those made by the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Thayer referred to the list of development projects
to be exempted from the priority process and asked if these are to
be tailored to meet the needs of development projects which are already
"in the mill".
Planning Director Moore responded typically "No", and stated there
was concern for situations such as this one where a Master Plan develop-
ment was substantially completed and occupied and there were real
problems resulting from the possible lack of the last component going
ahead. In this regard, she noted this exemption is close to being
tailored made for this project. She indicated the exemptions will
be primarily based on traffic impact, mentioning this is an unusual
situation.
RESOLUTION NO. 7817 - DEEMING THE SPINNAKER POINT UNIT NO. 5 DEVELOPMENT,
A 48 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 'EXEMPT' FROM
THE DRAFT PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTING
ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN 2000 POLICY C-7 AND PROGRAM
C -b
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ADD ITEM
1. STATUS ON PROPOSED PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE - File 115
Councilmember Boro asked staff to prepare a status on the priority
projects process and procedures for the next Council meeting of September
19, 1988.
After discussion, Council agreed to hold a Special Workshop Meeting
at 6:00 PM on September 19, 1988, to discuss the Priority Projects
Procedure, possibly with the Planning Commission if they have not
completed their public hearing.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
JEANN LEONCINI, City C erk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/6/88 Page 14