HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1988-10-03SRCC MINUTES (Regular 10/3/88 Page 2
5. Acceptance of Grant of Pedes- RESOLUTION NO. 7831 - ACCEPTING
trian Easement - Spring Grove A GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN
Lane (PW) - File 2-5-28 AND WALKWAY PURPOSES, 224 SPRING
GROVE LANE (From Smith, Smith
& Smith)
6. Approval of Final Map - Brick
Barn (Townhouse Subdivision)
(PW) - File 5-1-308
8. Adoption of Resolution Estab-
lishing Sister City Relation-
ship with Falkirk, Scotland
(Lib/Cult.Affs) - File 128
9. Agreement With County of Marin
Re Grant -Funded Adult Literacy
Program (Lib/Cult.Affs) -
File 4-13-75
10. Creation of Wage Class for
Falkirk Marketing/Rental
Coordinator Contract Position
(Pers) - File 7-3 x 9-3-84
RESOLUTION NO. 7832 - APPROVING
FINAL MAP OF SUBDIVISION ENTITLED,
"BRICK BARN TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION"
RESOLUTION NO. 7833 - EXTENDING
AN INVITATION TO FALKIRK, SCOTLAND,
TO BECOME A SISTER CITY AND INVITING
THE PEOPLE OF THEIR CITY TO PARTICIPATE
IN SAID PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO. 7834 - AUTHORIZING
SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE OR
AGREEMENT (W/County of Marin for
services of adult literacy "Project
Coordinator" to coordinate the
San Rafael Public Library's Adult
Literacy Program.)
RESOLUTION NO. 7835 - CREATING
A WAGE CLASS FOR THE POSITION
OF MARKETING/RENTAL COORDINATOR,
FALKIRK CULTURAL CENTER
11. Call for Applications re Expir- a) Called for applications to
ation of Terms of Two Park and fill two four-year terms, with
Recreation Commission Members; deadline of Tuesday, 10/25/88,
Patrick Webb and Dr. Richard 12 Noon, in City Clerk's Office.
Wolfe (CC) - File 9-2-4 Terms to expire end of October
1992.
12. Resolution Ratifying Amendment
to the Joint Powers Agreement
Creating the California Joint
Powers Insurance Authority
(Fin) - File 4-10-202
13. Implementation of Public Works
Classification Study (CM) -
File 4-3-160 x 7-3 x 7-4
14. Approval of Memoranda of Under-
standing (MOUs) With Miscellan-
eous Employees: (CM) - File
7-8-1 x 7-3
a. Resolution Between City and
Marin Association of Public
Employees (MAPE), S.E.I.U. -
Local 949, Supervisory Unit
b. Resolution Between City and
Marin Association of Public
Employees (MAPE) S.E.I.U. -
Local 949, Miscellaneous
Employees
b) Set date of Monday, 11/7/88,
at 6:30 PM in City Manager's Con-
ference Room, to interview appli-
cants, including incumbents.
RESOLUTION NO. 7836 - RATIFYING
AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT CREATING THE CALIFORNIA
JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY
(2 changes - each party to partici-
pate in Liability Program; also
provides a 2 -yr. renewal period
after initial 3 -yr. commitment.)
RESOLUTION NO. 7837 - AUTHORIZING
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PUBLIC
WORKS MAINTENANCE CLASSIFICATION
STUDY
RESOLUTION NO. 7838 - AMENDING
RESOLUTION NOS. 7219 AND 7407
PERTAINING TO THE COMPENSATION
AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR
MISCELLENEOUS SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
(2 -Yr. Agreement)
RESOLUTION NO. 7839 - AMENDING
RESOLUTION NOS. 6360, 6454, 6690,
7220 AND 7408 PERTAINING TO THE
COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS
FOR MISCELLANEOUS PERSONNEL
(2 Yr. Agreement)
15. Resolution of Appreciation Re RESOLUTION NO. 7840 - RESOLUTION
Restoration of the San Rafael OF APPRECIATION TO SAN RAFAEL
High School Swimming Pool (CM) - HIGH SCHOOL ALUMNI ASSOCIATION
File 102 x 9-2-1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regula. 10/3/88 Page 3
16. Resolution Accepting Donation of RESOLUTION NO. 7841 - ACCEPTING
$10,000 from AMEX Life Assurance DONATION OF $10,000 FROM AMEX
Company for Child Care Scholar- LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY FOR CHILD
ships at Pickleweed Children's CARE SCHOLARSHIPS AT PICKLEWEED
Center (Rec) - File 105 x CHILDREN'S CENTER
4-10-188a x 9-3-65
17. Renewal of Lease With First
Congregational Church for Pooh
Corner Pre -School Program (Rec) -
File 2-9-15 x 9-3-65
18. Claim for Damages:
Rosa Adela Dimas (PD) -
Claim No. 3-1-1359
RESOLUTION NO. 7842 - AUTHORIZING
THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE
OR AGREEMENT (W/First Congregational
Church, renewal from 9/1/88
8/31/89 @ $400/mo. for first six
mos., and $430/mo. for second
6 mos.)
Approved City Attorney's recommend-
ation for denial of claim.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Vice -Mayor Breiner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion:
3. AUTHORIZATION TO ENGAGE CH2MHILL FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR LUCAS
VALLEY INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PW) - File 4-3-203
Councilmember Frugoli inquired of Public Works Director Bernardi if
the fees were to be paid entirely from mitigation fees, and Mr. Bernardi
replied in the affirmative. He said it is essentially a loan from
the mitigation fees, and that when the assessment district is formed
for construction of the on and off ramps, the funds will be reimbursed
to the assessment district.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to approve
the report and adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 7843 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH
CH2MHILL, CALIFORNIA, INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF THE LUCAS VALLEY
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (Estimated fee
of $243,000)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Vice -Mayor Breiner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan
7. SHORELINE INDUSTRIAL PARK (SAN QUENTIN DUMP SITE): (PW) - File 5-1-241
a. Approval of Miscellaneous Encroachment Permit - Vice -Mayor Breiner
questioned the second paragraph, first page of the staff report, regarding
a gas monitoring system being installed on the property. Public Works
Director Bernardi responded that the owner is required to monitor.
They are supposed to collect data and send it to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, the Solid Waste Management Board, and others.
The purpose of the monitoring is to determine whether there is any
migration of materials off-site. Vice -Mayor Breiner expressed concern
that the same situation may occur as at Fairchild, where the monitoring
was not successful. City Manager Nicolai responded that the City's
consultants will be receiving the reports and following the monitoring
closely, so they would be aware of any problem. Mr. Bernardi stated
that the property owner has been very willing to supply any data which
has been requested.
b. Report of Filling Operations.
The Council approved the Miscellaneous Encroachment Permit and accepted
report of filling operations, without motion.
19. PUBLIC HEARING TS87-4 - TWO (2) APPEALS OF TENTATIVE MAP FOR FIVE -
LOT SUBDIVISION; 21 MADRONA STREET AT CLORINDA AVENUE; JIM TURRINI
ET AL, OWNERS; OBERKAMPER & ASSOCIATES, REP.; PETER AND KATHLEEN LAMBERT
AND BILL McCLUSKEY, APPELLANTS; AP 12-161-10 (Pl) - File 5-1-310
x lU-b
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88
SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 10/3/88 Page 4
Vice -Mayor Breiner opened the public hearing.
Principal Planner Curt Johnston briefed the Council, stating that
the staff recommendation is to uphold the Planning Commission's deci-
sion. He then described the proposed subdivision as being on a 1.3
acre site, with one single family home and a small barn on the property.
He stated that on August 9, 1988 the Planning Commission conditionally
approved the five -lot subdivision and certified a Negative Declaration.
However, because of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision
by several residents, the matter is now before the City Council.
Mr. Johnston said there are a number of points brought up in the appeals,
and that Mr. McCluskey states that the Negative Declaration was approved
on inadequate information. The initial study was, however, based
on factual information from a variety of sources, including a geo-
technical report. In addition, other information was required to
address the historic preservation and traffic impact, and with that
information supplied by staff the Planning Commission did adopt the
Negative Declaration. Mr. Johnston said the second point in Mr.
McCluskey's appeal relates to the recommended variance for Lot 1 being
contrary to Planning Department criteria adopted in the General Plan
and Slope Ordinance. As proposed by the applicant and approved by
the Planning Commission, Lot 1 measures 45 feet in width and 151 feet
in depth, producing a 6,795 square foot parcel. Because of the lot's
16% slope, the City's Slope Ordinance would require that the lot be
a minimum of 72 feet in width and 7,200 square feet in size. The
Planning Commission approved this lot based on the fact that it is
consistent with the general pattern in the neighborhood and also the
fact that there are two lots on either side of Lot 1, which basically
preclude it from being any wider. It could obviously be increased
in depth, but in staff's and Planning Commission's opinion this would
not create a more developable lot and, therefore, it was approved.
Mr. Johnston pointed out, in connection with Mr. McCluskey's reference
to the General Plan and the Slope Ordinance, that his reference to
General Plan policies is related to the designation of hillside areas
for lower density residential development. The Slope Ordinance, in
conjunction with General Plan land use designations such as "Hillside
Resource" (.1 to .5 units per acre) and "Hillside Residential" (.5
to 2.0 units per acre) accomplish the hillside preservation objectives
of the General Plan. The subject site, however, is designated for
low density residential development at a density of 2-6.5 units per
gross acre. The density of this project as a whole is approximately
3.4 units per acre. Mr. Johnston stated that the Planning Commission
took note of Mr. McCluskey's recommendation of eliminating Lot 1.
However, the major issues of tree preservation, historic preservation,
traffic impact, view and other issues would not be significantly involved
by removing that lot. For example, the proposed driveway would still
be necessary to serve a four -lot subdivision.
Mr. Johnston then discussed Mr. McCluskey's claim of traffic impact,
and stated that the City's Traffic Engineer has made a survey and
has concluded that the projected traffic volumes are wholly consistent
with a low volume residential street, and will not create congestion.
Also, there was an issue of adequate sight distance and, given the
design of the new driveway, the City Engineer has determined that
it will not create a problem.
Mr. Johnston then explained Mr. McCluskey's objection to the removal
of the old barn. The Cultural Affairs Commission on August 4, 1988
had determined that they would not designate the barn as an historic
landmark in compliance with their criteria for such determinations.
Mr. McCluskey did not concur with this determination.
Mr. Johnston then went over the points in the Lambert appeal, one
of which was concern with the lots immediately below their property.
Mr. Johnston explained that even if one of these was eliminated it
would not solve the situation as they see it.
With regard to the Lamberts' request for design review of single family
homes, Mr. Johnston stated it is in the Conditions of Approval that
these homes go before the Design Review Board. He noted that this
Condition of Approval would allow for notification of surrounding
residents so they would be aware of the designs.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regulai, 10/3/88 Page 5
Mr. Johnston then read from page 6 of the Planning staff report of
August 5, 1988, which listed the Conditions of Approval and included
a predominance of natural exterior materials, such as wood, stone,
brick, etc., exterior colors being limited to medium to dark shades
from the City's official earthtone color board. Also, obstruction
of views from upslope homes shall be minimized, homes shall not exceed
two stories in height and 30 feet in height as approved by the Zoning
Ordinance. The erection of story poles shall be required as part
of the design review process for Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 (the uphill lots).
Also, all homes shall be constructed in a manner which minimizes grading
and preserves on-site trees in a healthy and thriving condition when-
ever possible. Mr. Johnston said there is also a provision that land-
scaping shall be provided at the time of development of each lot to
buffer adjacent existing homes on surrounding lots, screen views from
uphill and maintain privacy of downhill parcels. A complete and pro-
fessionally done landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of
design review by applicant and shall be installed before issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Johnston said there is also a
condition that as many trees be saved as possible.
Regarding the Lamberts' appeal, Mr. Johnston stated they are concerned
about the safety of the retaining wall on the downslope boundary of
their property. According to the plans, the grading will not affect
their retaining wall at all. Mr. Johnston pointed out that the Commission
is requiring maximizing the number of trees preserved and, also, at
the design review the landscape plans will show the exact number of
trees on each lot.
Mr. Johnston stated that the project has undergone considerable review
by various City departments, the Cultural Affairs Commission and the
Planning Department, and the Commission has determined that the project
is compatible with surrounding development and is consistent with
the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Slope Ordinance, the Gerstle
Park Neighborhood Plan, and all applicable City codes related to historic
preservation.
Vice -Mayor Breiner then called for public comment.
Mr. Bill McCluskey addressed the Council, stating he still contends
that part of the Negative Declaration is incomplete, and that the
report is inadequate. He presented a drawing showing the footprints
of the housing as planned, and stated that the net result would be
a wall of two-story houses as seen from below. He felt this would
set a precedent for the future, and likened it to the Oakwood Sub-
division which gives the same effect. He stated that the present
plan would result in significant grading, far more than should be
allowed in a small subdivision such as this. Mr. McCluskey stated
he does not agree with the Traffic Engineer's report that there would
not be a traffic problem, and cited the 90 -degree slope, substandard
street, blocked by a stone wall. He stated he felt this should be
given serious consideration. He also did not agree with the Planning
Commission's opinion that reducing the subdivision by one lot would
solve the problem, while agreeing it would make it better. He then
addressed the subject of the barn on the site, stating that the final
decision made on the barn was done by a committee without the necessary
expertise. In closing, he said he felt that this was a very bad project.
Vice -Mayor Breiner then called on the Lamberts, the other appellants,
for comment.
Mr. Peter Lambert, of 29 Los Robles Drive, stated that his property
is directly uphill from the southwesterly section of the proposed
subdivision. He enumerated his four main points of appeal, the first
being a request to reduce the number of lots in the upper buildable
portion of the parcel from four to three, which would make the site
more compatible with the area. He stated that the grading issue and
the height issue are very important to him, with regard to the lots
directly below his property. He conducted tests which indicate that
the planned building on Lot 3, which is an upslope lot, would interfere
with the view from his pool and patio area. He stated he is very
concerned about the retention of the mature trees which are needed
for screening, and fears that some may be lost if the house on Lot
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regulau: 10/3/88 Page 6
3 is constructed near the property line. He is also concerned regarding
the design review process and will be anxious to give input once that
has been approved.
Vice -Mayor Breiner then called upon the owner of the property,
Mr. Lou Turrini of Santa Ana, California, who went through a chrono-
logical listing of events surrounding the development of this project.
He stated the property has been in his family for approximately 75
years. They lived in a small house on the property which was then
the only house at the end of the road. Since then, development has
surrounded the area. They have gone through all of the necessary
procedures in developing the property and were obliged to wait until
the drafting of the City's General Plan 2000 before they could proceed.
They then submitted their plan, and the Planning staff urged them
to work with the neighbors to acquaint them with the proposal. Mr.
Turrini said they did this, and worked very closely with the Gerstle
Park Neighborhood Association. This occurred in late 1986. In December
of 1986 they handed out invitations to the entire neighborhood to
meet with them at the old house, to review the project and all of
the plans which had been developed at that time. He said that also
in December of 1986 they met with the Board of Directors of the Gerstle
Park Neighborhood Association. He said they went over all facets
of the plans and discussed the tree preservation, lot placement and
other items being discussed this evening. He said that unfortunately,
neither Mr. McCluskey not Mr. Lambert were neighbors at that time,
but subsequently moved into the neighborhood. Mr. Turrini said he
felt this is really unfortunate because they had worked closely with
the neighbors in 1986, and pointed out the fact that although 18 people
had been at the meeting in December of 1986, only the two appellants
are here this evening should indicate that he does have the support
of the neighborhood. He pointed out that all City departments concerned
are in favor of the subdivision, and that the Planning Commission
has recommended approval. He stated he supports all Conditions of
Approval, and would welcome an opportunity to respond to any comments
from the Council.
Ms. Linda Bellatorre, representing the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Asso-
ciation, addressed the Council, stated that the Turrini family had
been most cooperative in keeping the neighbors informed regarding
their plans, and there was genuine concern regarding the traffic impact,
but she pointed out that the issue at this hearing is upholding the
Planning Commission's approval of the subdivision and that the fine-
tuning can be worked out in the design review process. She stated
if the Council feels that all issues have been addressed, then in
fairness to the Turrini family, they should be allowed to proceed.
Next to address the Council was resident of 236 Clorinda Avenue.
She said her home is not adjacent to the Turrini property, but is
right down the road from it. She said she moved into her home in
January of 1987 and thus missed the meetings with the Turrini family.
Her objection is to the Environmental Impact Report stating that there
would not be a significant impact on the wildlife in the area, because
there would be a significant one. She also stated that she supports
the remarks by Mr. McCluskey. She stated that five homes are too
many.
Ms. Lee Gillin then addressed the Council, stating she lives at 21
Los Robles, between Mr. McCluskey and Mr. Lambert. She stated the
Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association does not speak for the immediate
neighbors, noting she has belonged to the Gerstle Park Neighborhood
Association for 20 years, and had attended the meeting in December
of 1986. She said the consensus at that time was that there should
not be five lots and she still feels very strongly in that regard.
She said she was not approached again regarding this development until
June of 1988, that she did not receive a notice. Ms. Gillin said
she feels the traffic is an impact, that there are zoning restrictions,
and she does not see approving the illegal lot.
Mr. Lambert again addressed the Council, stating that the crowding
of the five lots results in the home on Lot 3 being built on the upward
slope, and he requested that a building envelope be required preventing
any building in that area.
There being no further public input, the hearing was closed and Vice -
Mayor Breiner asked for Council comment.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 7
Councilmember Boro stated he feels the Gerstle Park Neighborhood
Association has done a very thorough job of analyzing this project.
He stated he would like to hear from staff later on, regarding the
traffic impact and the grading, and by what means they reached their
conclusions. Also, he said he would like to hear if there are any
alternatives on Lot 3.
Principal Planner Johnston referred the Council to the memo from John
Rumsey, Traffic Engineer, dated July 6, 1988, which summarized projected
traffic volumes. Mr. Johnston pointed out that the Turrini property
would generate only 40 daily trips, as against the 170 generated by
the Oakwood Subdivision. He stated that a requested 15 mile per hour
speed limit which had been requested for Clorinda was not necessary
and would be extremely difficult to enforce. Mr. Johnston stated
the issue regarding grading was one which was reviewed considerably
and that there are options available. The proposed plan, however,
was determined to be the best balance between preserving existing
vegetation and limiting the amount of grading. He stated that one
option which had been considered originally in order to preserve the
barn, was to move the driveway which goes up to the top of the slope
to the left. That, however, because of the upslope, would require
substantially more grading and higher retaining walls.
With regard to Lot 3, about which the Lamberts are concerned, Mr.
Johnston stated the building envelope which is required as part of
the conditions shows a two-story of 3,000 square feet, but could
accommodate a larger footprint and could conceivably become a single
family, one-story residence. He said that at this time it is not
known if this will, in fact, be done, but it is possible. It will
be known at the time of the ED application for single family homes.
Councilmember Thayer inquired about the Lamberts' retaining wall,
and the potential danger to it caused by the grading. She inquired
would there be trees below, to shore up the wall, and is there any
actual danger. Mr. Johnston replied that the Planning staff checked
with Public Works because of the concern mentioned in the appeal,
and Senior Engineer Fred Vincenti had stated that the small amount
of grading which would occur 25 feet from the wall would not have
an affect on it. This was based upon his inspection, and a study
of the geotechnical aspects. Also, there are a number of trees in
that area which most likely will be preserved through the design review
process. A number of them are fruit trees, and their value is really
in question, but there is an oak and a eucalyptus tree along the property
line which there will be no reason to remove. Mr. Johnston referred
to Exhibit 3 on display, which showed the location of the most signifi-
cant trees on the site as determined by the Planning staff. He pointed
out that in the Planning Commission conditions it is stated that an
attempt will be made to save as many trees as possible.
Mr. Johnston stated the other element he wished to address is the
requirement that a landscape plan be prepared by a professional land-
scape architect, which will ultimately go a long way toward screening
the houses from one another.
Councilmember Frugoli verified that the roadway will be 25 feet from
the Lambert and McCluskey properties and will be screened by trees.
He then referred to the allowable density for the area, and noted
that the density as planned is far below. He also pointed out that
the Turrini family are not developers, but longtime residents of the
City of San Rafael.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to deny
the appeals and direct staff to prepare a Resolution upholding the
Planning Commission's decision on the five -lot subdivision.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Vice -Mayor Breiner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan
Vice -Mayor Breiner commented that she is sure the neighborhood will
continue to be involved and that there will be design review by the
Design Review Board and not merely by Zoning Administrator, in terms
of design of each house.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 8
Councilmember Thayer added that she would like to have direction given
to the Design Review Board to preserve the maximum number of trees
possible, especially where people's privacy is concerned.
20. PUBLIC HEARING - P88-5 - PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE (Pl) - File
115
Vice -Mayor Breiner declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Moore stated that the recommendation before the
Council this evening is to continue the public hearing to October
17th. She noted this was discussed at the workshop on September 19th,
when the Mayor asked that the matter be continued due to his absence
from this meeting. She noted that with the staff report there is
also additional correspondence from potential developers. Ms. Moore
stated the mailing to all property owners in the City of San Rafael
will be received by them between this date and the continued public
hearing on October 17th. In this way, prior to any final action every
single property owner in the City of San Rafael will be notified of
this pending action.
Ms. Moore pointed out that the draft Resolution presented this evening
for review has mostly stylistic and grammar revisions, but there are
a few substantial revisions which she will point out later. One ad-
dition is a two-tiered alternative, whereby the Council would first
consider Priority Projects Procedure for projects with pending complete
applications, and then Council would have a second round for other
applications. Ms. Moore then listed the ten pending complete applications,
and noted that the list will be available to the public. She noted
that four of the ten are not consistent with the San Rafael General
Plan at the current time. Ms. Moore stated that they are contributory
to the Bellam Interchange. They are: Spinnaker on the Bay project,
which is not consistent with the General Plan at the present time.
Staff has met with the applicant and reviewed preliminary changed
plans which would be consistent with the General Plan, but the new
applications have not yet been submitted. The Canalways project is
complete but it, too, is not consistent with the General Plan; however,
there have been no meetings and no information from the applicant.
They informed the staff several months ago that they would decide
what to do after the General Plan was adopted. To date, although
they have been monitoring the Priority Projects Procedure, staff does
not know what their intentions are.
Ms. Moore stated that the Bayview Business Park, Building H, which
was approved by the Planning Commission last week subject to the Priority
Projects Procedure, has been appealed to the City Council. The Nolan
project at 1555 Francisco is scheduled for Planning Commission approval,
which approval would be subject to the PPP. The Planning Commission
will consider it this month.
Ms. Moore stated that the proposed expansion of Dexter Toyota/Volvo
is consistent with the General Plan and was complete prior to the
General Plan adoption. The applicant is striving to revise the project
so it is exempt from the Priority Projects Procedure. The conversion
of storage space to retail area for a Mini -Mart, the Customer Company
at 141 Bellam, would be subject to the Priority Projects Procedure.
Ms. Moore stated that contributory projects to the Lucas Valley Road/
Smith Ranch Road Interchange include Mr. Pell's Regency Center II,
which has over 100,000 square feet of office space, a restaurant and
mini storage at 110 Smith Ranch Road, is currently inconsistent with
the San Rafael General Plan and exceeds the allowable floor area ratio
(FAR). It is possible that the project could be revised consistent
with the General Plan, but that has not yet occurred and staff does
not know if, in fact, that will be done by the applicant. The Costco
project at 4300 Redwood Highway would be the conversion of industrial
use to a wholesale/discount retail store of approximately 130,000
square feet, at the former Fairchild site. There is a significant
amount of environmental review work which is ongoing and needs to
continue, but the project applications are complete and the project
is consistent with the General Plan.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 10/3/88 Page 9
Ms. Moore added that the Daphne Bacciocco proposal for 117 residential
units and 200,000 square feet of office space at the northwest corner
of Lucas Valley Road and Highway 101, is inconsistent with the San
Rafael General Plan. Staff has been advised by the owners' attorney
that the project will be revised and will be consistent with the General
Plan.
Ms. Moore stated that contibutary to the Freitas Parkway Interchange
are two of the projects just discussed, Regency Center II and Costco
because their traffic distribution is such that they affect both of
the interchanges. She stated that the third project affecting Freitas
is Kaiser Hospital. Their proposed Phase I is consistent with the
General Plan, but it is somewhat unclear as to whether their ultimate
Master Plan would be consistent with the General Plan. In the process,
there may be some modifications to the Master Plan.
Ms. Moore added that there are three pending applications in the Civic
Center North area which are exempt from the PPP based on participation
in the Merrydale Overcrossing Assessment District. They are the 236
room Embassy Suites Hotel, Mr. Shekou's 110,000 square foot office
building proposal at Civic Center North, and "The Gables" residential
project on the Civic Center Plaza property. Ms. Moore noted that
Orchard Supply Hardware application for a 37,200 square foot retail
store at 1111 Andersen Drive was submitted to the Planning Department,
but is incomplete and, therefore, is not on the list. When complete,
the application will be subject to PPP at the Bellam Interchange.
Ms. Moore further noted that there are two additional applications
which may be subject to the Priority Projects Procedure, but that
will not be known until there has been some additional traffic analysis.
One is "The Highlands", formerly known as Pell Hill, a development
of 23 single family residences at the end of Orchid Drive north of
Freitas Parkway. An EIR will be prepared for this project and until
the traffic analysis is done, staff will not know how many critical
moves will be involved.
Ms. Moore stated that a week and a half ago an application was sub-
mitted by Marin Sanitary Service for a Master Use Permit for their
lands at the end of Jacoby Street and a portion of what is known as
San Quentin Ridge. Staff does not yet know if the applications are
complete, and what the traffic implications will be.
Ms. Moore noted that, as the Council can see, there are not many appli-
cations which are complete and are pending at the present time.
Ms. Moore, with the aid of a chart, discussed at length the various
time frames for submittal, processing and review, and an outline of
the two-tier process.
Councilmember Frugoli remarked that there are a number of applications
which are in compliance with the General Plan and are complete and
have been in the process for three to five years, and he feels it
is not fair to have new projects which are high sales tax generators
put in front of them. He said he realizes there are not that many,
but he feels that the first time they should take the applications
which are consistent and complete. He cited Spinnaker on the Bay
and Canalways which have to adjust densities, but could probably make
the adjustment easily. Vice -Mayor Breiner stated that this will not
be a decision-making meeting. She then called upon members of the
public who wished to make comment.
Mr. Oliver Strotz, architect for Kaiser Foundation Hospital addressed
the Council, stating they had submitted their proposal in July of
1987. They had heard it was complete, and six months later they received
a letter stating it was incomplete. They are now in the process of
re -completing. He stated he is a little puzzled about the two-tier
system. He understands it as a speeding up of the process for the
applications which are complete. He stated that Kaiser is an acute
care facility, and is also an emergency facility, and it is in the
public welfare and health field. He stated they feel that Kaiser
ought to be exempt as it is a public -serving institution.
Mr. Bob Nolan, who has a project under consideration at 1555 East
Francisco Boulevard, also asked for an exemption from the PPP, stating
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 10/3/88 Page 10
the project has been under way for a long time on the basis that other
exemptions have already been granted, such as FAR. He stated they
are on the brink of building, having been through Planning and Design
Review.
Attorney Jay Paxton, representing Costco, stated he continues to be
concerned about the length of time the Priority Project Processing
will take to complete. He stated that with the volume of projects
which will be considered, it will be a monumental task to sift through
and determine which few can go forward. He feels it will take the
Planning Commission, despite their best efforts, at least a couple
of months to do that, and take the Council perhaps a couple of months
after. He said it will be a long and arduous process and conceivably
could take nine months to a year for the final process. He said this
will be extremely burdensome, particularly on those projects who have
had applications in for many months and, in some cases, for years.
This results in tremendous added costs for the developers for each
month of delay. Mr. Paxton stated that this will not be the case,
however, for projects being dreamed up at this time for the purpose
of getting into the competition, many of which will be hypothetical,
but will delay the processing of the realistic, long-time projects.
He said for that reason he is urging adoption of the two-tier process.
He does not feel it would take six months to complete that, since
everyone with a pending application has given the City all the infor-
mation the City would ordinarily require to decide on whether or not
a project would be approved consistent with the General Plan and all
of the Ordinances of the City.
Mr. Paxton had five suggestions which he felt would make the Zoning
Ordinance more workable. He stated that with respect to Section 3.0
of the proposed Resolution, the application requirements listed are
ones which an already processed application would have and there should
be no need for a duplication. He stated that as to the requirement
for the information required by Sections 14.51.030, 040 and 050 of
the Zoning Ordinance, he feels it would be useless and perhaps counter-
productive. He stated that with regard to the requirement for a "p.m.
peak -hour analysis as specified by the City Traffic Engineer", it
would seem that that information has already been ascertained and
analyzed with respect to pending projects before the adoption of General
Plan 2000. Mr. Paxton further recommended that three weeks would
be adequate for staff review, since the projects already submitted
have been reviewed, and there are perhaps only six of them. He stated
that the Planning Commission should have at least a couple of meetings
to sort out a half-dozen projects, so 15 days could be sufficient.
Mr. Paxton felt that the Council perhaps could take three weeks to
make their final decision. If it is done that way, he said the process
could be finished by the end of the year.
Mr. Paxton stated that in Section 4.1, where it says, "The City Council
shall make final determinations regarding Priority Project Determinations
and shall allocate all or a portion of available traffic capacity
in circulation impacted areas", he would like to see added in there,
"or the City Council may defer determination with respect to a particular
application until the consideration of other applications in accordance
with Section 4.1". He said if the Council finds a project which they
think well may be entitled to priority but are not comfortable about
putting it ahead of all the other applications, you are not faced
with the choice of saying, "No, this project cannot proceed" and it
will be left hanging for another year. You could say, "We don't feel
comfortable about letting this one go forward, but let's look at
it in the context of other projects." Mr. Paxton said he thought
that would provide desirable flexibility for the Council and does
not put the Council in the position of making a much harder choice
than needs to be made in the context of this procedure.
Mr. Paxton said the last suggestion he has with regard to the Resolution,
under the Excellent rating, would be to amend it to read, "A rating
of Excellent means the project will on balance make an outstanding
contribution..." and delete "and has no significant conflicts with
those goals and policies". He said that this way, taken as a whole,
the project will be an outstanding project. He said he would make
similar changes in the Good and the Fair categories, and leave Poor
as it is.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regulai_ 10/3/88 Page 11
Vice -Mayor Breiner asked Mr. Paxton to please put his recommended
changes in writing so Mayor Mulryan could have a copy. Mr. Paxton
agreed, saying he intended to have copies for the Council tonight
but was unable to do so.
Mr. Paxton said he agreed with Councilmember Frugoli that those projects
with "money in the ground" should be heard first instead of having
to wait.
Mr. Bob Wright, architect, said he would like to thank Mr. Paxton
for his comments and would like to echo the same considerations.
He said he is representing two clients, first the Spinnaker on the
Bay project, and cited a letter sent to the Council supporting the
two-tiered process, and cited their changing their application from
high to medium density. Secondly, he stated he is representing the
Pell Development Company for the Regency Center II project, a letter
also having been sent to the Council asking that their project be
considered because of the long-term process they have been going through,
and their efforts to acquire the Regency Theater property so their
FAR (Floor Area Ratio) will be complete, and in compliance with the
General Plan. He asked that both these projects be considered as
long term projects which have put forth good faith efforts toward
the City to comply with the General Plan.
Attorney Cecilia Bridges then addressed the Council, stating that
she has followed this plan from the beginning and has agreed with
the changes, but still has one major concern: The interim use of
an overlay zone will be brought before the Council to address the
question of the interim use for those properties that have land use
designations which, for all practical purposes, preclude their being
granted a priority status under this system. She said she has two
further general comments, the first one concerning the uniqueness
of this procedure. Ms. Bridges stated that this growth management
procedure is in this form a new "animal". It has not been tried in
other places in this form as far as she is aware, and the Council
should be very aware that they are breaking new ground with this.
Ms. Bridges stated that her second comment regards determining the
active versus non -presently active projects. Ms. Bridges stated it
is her understanding that the City's need for this Priority Projects
Procedure has two bases. The first basis is the initial traffic capacity
of the roadway in these three areas of the City is severely limited,
and that if the City is to maintain a Level of Service D they have
to be able to give out these trips in some way. The second basis
is acknowledging that there is this limitation in traffic, and the
City chooses not to give up the limited capacity on a first come,
first served basis. Ms. Bridges stated that in some areas the trip
capacity is so limited that the active projects will take all, or
almost all, of the available trip capacities and the effect of the
Priority Projects Procedure would be the same as first come, first
served basis. She stated if this is done, it will become the most
complicated first come, first served planning basis in this State.
David Coldoff, representing Canalways then addressed the Council,
stating he is in favor of some form of two-tier processing. He said
the area he would like the Council to consider in their discussions,
is the subject of realistic projects. He stated that the projects
which the Planning Director read have, in addition to the time they
have spent, both waiting and being processed, a high level of information
that the Planning staff has looked at, and the Planning Commission
also; they have completed EIR's, environmental analysis, and in many
cases have gone through many changes in order to come up with a realistic
project. He said it will be difficult to look at a project which
has that body of information that the staff has spent so much time
on, versus a project which was newly put together, in any one of these
time periods of 30 to 60 days. He said that is where the question
of priorities is going to be a difficult choice. 'He pointed out that
the ten projects listed are realistic projects which are much more
ready to be built, and much more of a possible contribution to the
economy and to the housing stock of San Rafael.
Mike LaTourette from Orchard Supply Hardware stated that they have
an application in the process which should be completed by the end
of the week, and the final traffic analysis is nearly done. He said
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 12
they are looking forward to coming to San Rafael, and would like to
be open for business at the end of 1989. To do this they will need
to have an expeditious processing for construction in early Spring.
There being no further public input, Vice -Mayor Breiner declared the
public hearing continued until October 17, 1988, and asked for comment
from the Council to give direction to staff.
Councilmember Boro stated the information he would like from staff
regards the ten projects on the list, and if they were approved what
would be the capacity left at the intersections they would affect.
Ms. Moore said that information is being worked on by the Traffic
Engineer John Rumsey, and will be available for the meeting on October
17th. She said it is significant in some cases.
Councilmember Boro said, with regard to the two-tier process being
discussed, the issue of fairness is important; however, the other
side of the coin is that he feels the list of projects presented is
somewhat optimistic, and he finds it hard to believe that they would
get through six projects in about five to six months, and 50 to 100
projects in eight months. He stated he is not challenging it, but
saying it is a bit optimistic.
Councilmember Frugoli said he had a question for the City Attorney,
regarding the housing mandates by the State of California, and he
wondered what would happen if the city does not come forth with any
approved housing projects within the following year. He stated he
does not expect an answer at this time, but would like a report on
that aspect.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated that every City has an obligation
to encourage housing for all segments of the community. He said it
is arguable as to whether this occurs in any city, that one need only
look at the type of housing constructed in Marin County to know that
there is a significant portion of the community which may not be able
to afford to live here. He stated he thinks that is a separate con-
sideration from the one being faced here, and it makes it difficult
to give a definitive answer. He then stated that one of the principal
reasons for the existence of the Priority Projects Procedure is the
fact that it is called out as a necessary mitigation measure as a
result of the adoption of the development called for in the San Rafael
General Plan 2000. In order to mitigate the development that is allowed,
and the City having indicated that it wants to maintain Level of Traffic
Service "D", the timing policies were written into it and were the
subject of a great deal of discussion and the Environmental Impact
Reports. Mr. Ragghianti stated the City is embarking on basically
uncharted waters, and the City is not unaware of that fact. They
have known that since the Plan was in its embryonic stages and it
was understood that this is progressive and innovative and controversial.
The City determined that it wished to manage and have a say in the
allocation of the available traffic capacity in these impacted areas.
For that reason it is necessary to adopt this Procedure. The alloca-
tions will not always be easy, but it is necessary that it be done.
Ms. Moore added that regarding the effect this could have on the City's
good faith efforts to achieve fair share housing numbers, the Procedure
does not apply to all areas of the City, only to the circulation impacted
areas, and the downtown and vicinity areas will yield a large number
of affordable housing units. Additionally, the City achieves 100
BMR units with all of the market rate housing, and there will be a
fair amount of that occurring outside the circulation impacted areas.
Ms. Moore stated that 100% low income housing projects are proposed
to be exempt and, lastly, affordable housing projects are defined
as being a high priority type of project.
Councilmember Thayer questioned whether it would be fair to the projects
which have been around for a long time, to make them wait and not
be taken on a first come, first served basis. However, she questioned
whether by this means the City would be getting the very best projects,
without allowing the books to remain open for the additional projects.
She asked for consideration of Mr. Paxton's comments regarding stream-
lining the process overall.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 13
Vice -Mayor Breiner stated she is very strongly in favor of the two-tiered
system, feeling that it is the most fair under the circumstances.
Ms. Breiner stated she concurs with some of Mr. Paxton's comments,
and feels that one way the Planning Department might be relieved of
some of the stress of having a two-tiered system which she would like
Council and staff to consider, would be having the next round, after
those discussed this evening, having the second tier starting somewhat
later in the year 1989. This way they would not all be starting here
at the same time. This would allow more time to be given to the first
group. Ms. Breiner added there would have to be a reserve capacity
built in. If there is an interim use being considered, and every
last PM peak trip has been allocated, then the City has not done its
job. She stated that to avoid this there would have to be a built-in
capacity reserve right from the start.
Vice -Mayor Breiner then reiterated to the Council that this matter
is continued to the Council meeting of October 17, 1988, for a decision.
21. APPROVAL OF COVENANT OF RESTRICTIONS, SEASTRAND SUBDIVISION PARCEL
"B", AP 16-301-21 (CA) - File 5-1-242 x 9-3-16
Vice -Mayor Breiner stated that this item had been continued from the
Council meeting of September 6, 1988, and asked if Council has any
questions.
Councilmember Boro had a question regarding the "Limitations on Use"
paragraph of the document in question. It states in subparagraph
(b) that "Undeveloped portions of the site shall be seeded or land-
scaped", and he wanted to be assured that they would also be maintained.
Attorney Cecilia Bridges, representing the applicant, assured the
Council that they would be maintained.
Vice -Mayor Breiner asked about maintenance of drainage improvements
installed for the single family residence. Ms. Bridges assured her
that any drainage improvements on site would be maintained in perpetuity
if they were installed for that particular site.
Vice -Mayor Breiner inquired if there is any time frame or limit on
the seeding of the undeveloped portions of the site, since the area
has been scraped free of weeds, and there would be danger of erosion.
Ms. Bridges replied that it would be in the best interest of the property
owner to have this done before the rainy season, and she is sure it
will be.
Vice -Mayor Breiner mentioned that this is not a public hearing, but
inquired if any members of the audience wished to speak.
Terril Mason, attorney appearing on behalf of the Seastrand Homeowners'
Association, stated he had received a revised copy of the CC&R's and
has one general comment. Because of the process of this development,
it is not under the Seastrand Subdivision CC&R's, and he stated the
Homeowners' Association would prefer that it would be, but Mr. Nibbi
has not elected to do so. They are concerned about the Limitations
of Use section, as to just which areas will be landscaped and which
will be left undeveloped. He stated that the Homeowners' Association
is also concerned about the statement at the bottom of the first page
of the proposed Resolution, the last sentence, which states that "The
applicant shall be entitled to modify the design of the house, prior
to or after completion of the structure..." which would potentially
be a redesign after the fact, which could possibly change the building
from one story to two story and impact views from the remaining home-
owners along Bay Way.
Ms. Bridges asked for a statement to be read into the record: "Mr.
(Len) Nibbi intends to voluntarily present to the Homeowners' Association
the design and the landscape plan for this site." She stated that
he will, in fact, incorporate the good ideas they have provided for
him in the design and landscape plans. He will not agree to be subject
to the CC&R's, but he will state for the record that he will voluntarily
submit the plans.
Sarah Bervatto spoke as a homeowner who is impacted by this development,
but is not represented by the Homeowners' Association. She said she
had just received the packet this evening and has not had a chance
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 10/3/88 Page 14
to review the restrictions. She stated that before any action is
taken she would request at least one week to review them. Vice -Mayor
Breiner responded that she regrets that it would not be appropriate
to delay this item any further, since it has been on the Council agenda
for many weeks. She stated that at this time the restrictions are
probably as much as the City can impose, and she hoped that Ms. Bervatto
would have a chance to talk with Mr. Mason and some of the other people
who have been involved for a long time.
Councilmember Boro said he would like some assurance that City Attorney
Ragghianti and Ms. Bridges will work out acceptable wording regarding
the Limitations on Use paragraph, to reflect the discussion this evening,
about the seeding and landscaping of the undeveloped parcel and how
that would be maintained.
Vice -Mayor Breiner confirmed with Mr. Boro that he is looking not
only for the long-term landscaping but also for the winterization
as an interim measure, for everyone's protection. He stated also
that he would like to make certain that whoever is the ultimate owner
of that site would be responsible for maintaining that parcel in its
entirety, and that is what he would like that paragraph to reflect.
He stated he thinks that is also what the homeowners are looking for.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve
the Declaration of Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions for 10 Bay
Way, and also to adopt the Resolution Authorizing Issuance of a Building
Permit for 10 Bay Way.
RESOLUTION NO. 7844 - AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR
10 BAY WAY (SEASTRAND PARCEL B)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Thayer & Vice Mayor Breiner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan
22. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE NO. 1549, "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" (PD) File
- 9-10-2 x 10-3 x 9-9 x 13-8 x 146 x 9-3-30 x 9-3-31
Vice -Mayor Breiner asked City Manager Nicolai to go into some of the
detail regarding the burglar alarm portion of the Ordinance. Ms.
Nicolai stated that since the first reading of the Ordinance there
had been an incredible amount of correspondence and telephone calls
as a result primarily of letters to alarm users from the alarm companies.
She stated that there has been a very high percentage of false alarms,
and this is an attempt to make the alarm companies act more responsibly.
She stated that this change would not affect most of the people in
San Rafael who do have alarm systems. She cited one case of an office
building which had many false alarms, and it developed the system
was being set off by trucks going by. Ms. Nicolai stated this was
the sort of situation they are trying to correct. She said that in
almost every case where she explained the entire situation to alarm
holders, she felt they were satisfied with the wording in the proposed
Ordinance.
Attorney Jean Chrysler, representing the Acme Alarm Company addressed
the Council, stating that Acme has been doing business in San Rafael
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regulaz) 10/3/88 Page 15
for 40 years and was satisfied with the Ordinance as it was worded,
without the changes proposed in this Ordinance. She cited Chief Ingwersen'E
memo of September 6th to the City Council where he says that only
100 of his department calls were from alarms. She said that is surprisingly
low considering the great number of alarm systems in the City. She
asked whether the loo includes an increase in the number of false
alarms which were occurring when the existing Ordinance was printed.
She objected to the severe reinstatement fee in the new Ordinance,
and stated that she did not feel the noticing of the reading of the
proposed Ordinance was sufficient. She stated that the proposed amendment
goes too far, and that the most successful Ordinances across the country
have been those framed by the law enforcement officials and security
company personnel. She cited the many different ways in which unintentional
false alarms are activated. In conclusion, she recommended that there
be a temporary advisory board created, comprised of equal numbers
of Police Department and alarm industry personnel, to advise the Council
on an appropriate amendment.
Ms. Nicolai responded that even 10% response to false alarms is a
10% waste of time, and she feels that is a significant amount of time
being diverted.
Mr. John Soden, president of American Sentry Systems, addressed the
Council, stating his firm has been in San Rafael for about 20 years.
He distributed a paper to the Councilmembers, and then stated that
he is distressed that neither his nor other alarm systems in the area
were made aware of problems that would result in a change in the alarm
Ordinance. He stated he had helped frame the present Ordinance, and
supports the concept of having law enforcement and security systems
people prepare any amendments. He stated that by having the alarm
systems throughout the City, the Police Department is saving manpower.
He explained his check -list system for investigating false alarms
in detail.
Mr. John Sargent, with National Guardian Alarm Company, also the Marin
County Director for the Golden Gate Alarm Association, addressed the
subject of companies not knowing of this Ordinance until very recently.
He urged that they be kept informed in any such cases in the future.
Attorney Rudolf Rentzel asked to address the fortune-telling portion
of the Ordinance. He stated he is an attorney in a downtown law firm.
He stated that the Azusa Ordinance recently passed regarding fortune-
tellers was very successful, and included posting of fees, allowing
clients to tape the sessions or take notes, and provided for always
giving a receipt for services. He felt that if funds were a problem,
there could be a more expensive permit fee.
Mr. Curtis Bickett then addressed the Council, stating he is a long-time
resident and feels the number of fortune-tellers should be curtailed.
Mr. Frank Gertz, a merchant in San Rafael, then addressed the Council,
addressing the fraudulent nature of fortune tellers. He stated that
the International Brotherhood of Magicians is a policing organization
which polices activities of professional magicians, fortune-tellers,
psychics and things of that nature. He said they have identified
seven techniques fortune-tellers and psychics use to bilk their cus-
tomers into thinking they are psychic. He said his organization has
two well-known individuals studying psychics over the years and has
never found one that was not fraudulent. He said he feels the City
of San Rafael should maintain an Ordinance which is based upon the
character of an individual. He said he does not want to affect anyone's
First Amendment rights, but the issue of fraudulent fortune-tellers
needs to be looked at, and he thinks the City should not place itself
in the position of supporting a fraudulent activity.
Ms. Blanca Underhill then addressed the Council, stating that she
does not want fortune-telling in her City at all. She feels it lowers
the quality of the City.
Mr. Stan Kubu, president of the Downtown Merchants Association, stated
he would like to recommend that the City retain the present Ordinance.
He said he can understand and sympathize with the desire to reduce
administrative costs of investigating the applicants, but feels that
the former administrators of the City found it necessary in the past
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regulai 10/3/88 Page 16
to regulate this activity because of the fraudulent aspect. He felt
the elimination of the current regulation would be counter-productive.
Chief Ingwersen stated, by way of clarification, that the Ordinance
as it is presently worded does not prevent fortune-telling in the
City of San Rafael. Because of California Supreme Court decision,
that is why this was changed from a complete prohibition to this Ordinance.
He stated his power is not discretionary with regard to whether he
thinks an applicant has a good character or not, to be able to tell
your fortune. Basically, he said he has to issue a permit unless
the person has had a conviction for certain ennumerated crimes over
the past five years. The only way he can get that information is
through State criminal history files, and they no longer contain arrest
information unless they have been arrested, fingerprinted and convicted.
Without the information, issuing a permit can result in liability
as a licensing agent, falling upon the City.
Vice -Mayor Breiner asked City Attorney Ragghianti about the liability
factor. He replied that he has not studied that aspect, but that
it is possible to file a lawsuit, but whether they can effectively
state a cause of action he was not prepared to say.
Councilmember Frugoli asked about a public agency being exempt from
liability for permit processing. Mr. Ragghianti responded that the
City has an immunity in the Government Code under Section 818, which
provides that public agencies are immune when there is a discretionary
permit issued. He pointed out that Chief Ingwersen was indicating
he has no discretion since he must issue the permit unless he finds
that the applicant has been convicted of certain named crimes.
Councilmember Frugoli asked would they have a simple business license,
and Chief Ingwersen responded that unless he can, through a bona fide
criminal history file in California or some other State, show that
they have been convicted of one of the enumerated crimes within the
last five years, he must issue a license. He added that is not dis-
cretionary. Councilmember Thayer asked how many fortune-tellers does
San Rafael have, and was told there are two.
Councilmember Boro asked would not the check done by the Police, even
though it was not complete, still be a deterrent. Chief Ingwersen
indicated that there are six or seven fortune-tellers in Santa Rosa,
with no Ordinance whatever.
Vice -Mayor Breiner asked for Council discussion, and Councilmember
Boro recommended that the fortune-teller segment of the Ordinance
be pulled at this time, because it should be studied more. He stated
he would like more information from Chief Ingwersen, and would like
a report from Mr. Ragghianti on the City's liability.
Mr. Boro stated that he believes the burglar alarm portion of the
Ordinance has merit and should be passed.
Councilmember Thayer supported the elimination of the fortune-teller
segment of the Ordinance. With regard to the burglar alarms, she
said she would raise the number to six calls, and would give a new
alarm customer a grace period of one month or six weeks to see how
their alarm system is working. It was pointed out that there is a
30 -day grace period in the new Ordinance.
Councilmember Frugoli supported raising the number of calls to 6.
During discussion, Chief Ingwersen pointed out the fact that the fees
for the alarms all go to the service companies and not to the City,
and that it costs the Police Department $50 for each alarm. Chief
Ingwersen noted that a limit of 6 false alarms would permit a person
to have 12 within a year, paying two fines. If it is left at 4, the
person's maximum would be only 8 per year, with two fines.
Councilmember Frugoli then moved to adopt the Ordinance as written,
and Councilmember Boro agreed, with the elimination of Chapter 8.12
regarding fortune-tellers which would come back at another time for
decision after further study.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regula 10/3/88 Page 17
City Clerk Leoncini stated she was of the opinion that the Ordinance
would have to be rewritten in that case, and go through the process
of first and second readings. She deferred to the City Attorney for
an opinion.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated that you can pull out a section.
He said if you added something that substantively changed it since
the first time, then you would have to go back to a first reading.
In other words, you cannot add, but you can subtract.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Rafael, 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 Re-
number 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"
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to dispense
with the reading, to refer to it by title only, and to adopt Charter
Ordinance No. 1549, with the deletion of Section 8.12, regarding Fortune-
telling, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Vice -Mayor Breiner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan
23. EXCEPTION REQUEST TO ALLOW A SECOND DWELLING UNIT WHICH EXCEEDS 40
PERCENT OF THE SIZE OF THE MAIN DWELLING WITHIN 100 FEET OF A RIDGE -
LINE: 267 BRET HARTE ROAD: SUSAN MASON, OWNER: PAUL DUNNING, REP.;
AP 13-185-07 (Pl) - File 10-13
Principal Planner Johnston informed the Council this was a very straight-
forward project and that when it came before the Planning Commission
there were no objections from neighbors. He stated that basically
the second dwelling unit equals 53% of the main house as proposed.
The main house is about 1300 square feet over the maximum. Vice -Mayor
Breiner asked if anyone in the audience had an objection, and there
were none.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to grant
the exception for UP88-38 and ED88-30.
RESOLUTION NO. 7845 - GRANTING AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A SECOND DWELLING
UNIT WHICH EXCEEDS 40% OF THE SIZE OF THE MAIN
DWELLING UNIT - 267 BRET HARTE ROAD
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Vice -Mayor Breiner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan
ADD ITEMS
1. CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE - File 115 (Verbal)
Councilmember Boro requested a report from staff within one month
to six weeks on setting up a Circulation Improvement Committee to
implement the General Plan.
2. CONCERN FROM MACY'S RE TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURES - File 11-19 (Verbal)
Councilmember Boro addressed the subject of the temporary closing
of Fourth Street during the Street Fair, stating that Macy's Manager
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 18
had called him regarding the decrease in sales on that Saturday and
Sunday. He recommended staff have a calendar for such events and
that they not fall close together. In the future, the Chamber of
Commerce should be notified, and nothing should be done to adversely
affect a major retailer in the City.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 PM.
/� .
JEANNE &LEONCINI, City Clerc
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1988
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/3/88 Page 18