HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1988-11-21SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 11/21/88 Page 1
IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21,
1988 AT 7:00 PM.
Regular Meeting:
CLOSED SESSION
1. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION, LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AND
PERSONNEL MATTERS - File 1.4.1a
No. 88-26(a) - (#7); No. 88-26(b) - (#2); No. 88-26(c) - (#6)
No reportable action was taken.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21,
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
John Thayer, Councilmember
Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti,
City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE
RE: APPEAL OF VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED TWO -CAR GARAGE
WITHIN SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS: 227 JEWELL STREET - File 10-4
Behzad Mohit, owner of the 227 Jewell Street property, addressed
the Council, requesting rescheduling of the public hearing since
he claimed he had not received notification of the hearing. Staff
informed the Council that all notices had been mailed according to
established time schedules.
Since no member of the Council requested that this item (No. 4) be
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion, the request for
a new public hearing was, in fact, declined.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to approve
the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items:
Ttam
4. Resolution With Findings Grant-
ing Appeal of Variance for Con-
struction of a Detached Two -Car
Garage Within Side and Front Yard
Setbacks; 227 Jewell Street;
B. Mohit, Owner; Daryl Oldenkamp,
Rep.; Montecito Neighborhood
Assn., Represented by Clifford
P. Elbing, Appellant; AP 14-031-23
(P1) - File 10-4 x 227
Recommended Action
RESOLUTION NO. 7861 - UPHOLDING
THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COM-
MISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
OF V88-19, DENYING A VARIANCE
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED
TWO -CAR GARAGE WITHIN SIDE AND
FRONT YARD SETBACKS AT 227 JEWELL
STREET
6. Request From Downtown Merchants Approved staff recommendation.
Association re Closure of Portion
of Fourth Street, Between A and
Court Streets, for Annual Parade
of Lights, Friday, December 2,
1988 (PD) - File 11-19
8. Lease Agreement With Interarts
of Marin (Lib./Cult.Affs) -
File 2-8-27
RESOLUTION NO. 7862 - AUTHORIZING
THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE
OR AGREEMENT (W/Interarts of Marin
for Use of Falkirk Cultural Center,
5 Yrs. 1/1/89 - 12/31/94, $200/Mo.)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/21/88 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 11/21/88 Page 2
9. Authorization to Apply to
California State Office of
Historic Preservation for
Capital Grant for Falkirk
Cultural Center (Lib/Cult.
Affs) - File 4-10-226
10. Authorization to Apply to
California State Office of
Historic Preservation for
Capital Grant for Boyd House
(Lib/Cult.Affs) -
File 4-10-227
12. Claims for Damages:
a. John McHaney (PW) -
Claim No. 3-1-1366
b. Joyce Levine (PW) -
Claim No. 3-1-1370
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
RESOLUTION NO. 7863 - APPROVING
THE APPLICATION AND THE PROJECT
AGREEMENT FOR HISTORY AND ARCHE-
OLOGY GRANT FUNDS FOR THE FALKIRK
CULTURAL CENTER PROJECT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE, COASTAL,
AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION ACT
OF 1988
RESOLUTION NO. 7864 - APPROVING
THE APPLICATION AND THE PROJECT
AGREEMENT FOR HISTORY AND ARCHE-
OLOGY GRANT FUNDS FOR THE BOYD
HOUSE PROJECT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
WILDLIFE, COASTAL, AND PARK LAND
CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988
Approved City Attorney's
recommendations for denial of
claims a. and b.
Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 1988 AND
SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 1988 (CC)
Councilmember Boro asked for an amendment to the minutes of October
17, 1988, on page 5, Item 12, first line, last paragraph, requesting
that after the word "about", the words "no capacity going to the build-
ing" should be deleted, and the words "capacity be assigned at the
outset for the building..." be inserted.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting of October 17, 1988 as amended,
and to approve the minutes of the special meeting of November 7, 1988,
as submitted.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner (From minutes of October 17,
1988 only due to absence from meeting)
3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE
AND ASSIGNMENT OF FEDERAL AID URBAN (FAU) APPORTIONMENTS FROM THE
CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY (PW) - File 4-10-228
In response to a question from Councilmember Breiner, Public Works
Director Bernardi explained that CALTRANS' initial estimate for the
northbound on-ramp at the Manuel T. Freitas Interchange, which was
merged with the Merrydale Overcrossing, had been $900,000, and after
the consultant got into the design the estimate was refined and will
be about $400,000. Therefore, the Federal participation in the project
is $500,000 less. In order to meet the 50o rule from the Federal
Highway Administration, the City needs more FAU funds, and this is
why they have negotiated to purchase them from the City of Scotts
Valley. Mr. Bernardi pointed out this would represent a savings of
$63,300 to the Merrydale Project.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to
adopt the Resolution regarding purchase of funds.
RESOLUTION NO. 7865 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT FOR
THE PURCHASE AND ASSIGNMENT OF FEDERAL AID URBAN
(FAU) APPORTIONMENTS FROM THE CITY OF SCOTTS
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/21/88 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 11/21/88 Page 3
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
5. P88-9 - ABAG HOUSING NEEDS NUMBERS (Pl) - File 111
Mayor Mulryan stated that apparently ABAG considered that the City
has a higher housing need than the City's own numbers indicate. He
asked Acting Planning Director Johnston for a brief explanation.
Mr. Johnston stated that the ABAG figures did not take into account
many of the local issues and constraints, for instance, in the zoning.
ABAG's alternative zoning considers that the needs can be met through
higher density. Mr. Johnston said the idea of the housing needs numbers
is basically that they represent a theoretical need, whereas the General
Plan numbers which the City has, and the historic numbers, reflect
more what is developed on the ground. Mayor Mulryan questioned the
theoretical need, and City Attorney Ragghianti responded that ABAG
is a council of governments and they are required by law to project
these figures. It is not necessary for a local agency to agree with
them and in many, or most, instances the local agencies do not. A
negotiation process is set up in the hopes that realistic numbers
can be achieved. He stated that is what happened in this instance.
These negotiations are to be completed and entered into by the 13th
of December. Mr. Ragghianti added that court decisions seem to be
pointing in the direction of regional housing, and Environmental Impact
Reports in some instances had to be redone when slow growth or no
growth policies are instituted, because of the regional impact. He
stated that it is ABAG which seeks by these numbers to address that
regional impact.
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
adopt the Resolution regarding Housing Needs Determination.
RESOLUTION NO. 7866 - REVISING THE CITY'S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING
NEED AS CONTAINED IN THE SEPTEMBER 15, 1988
"HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION" REPORT PUBLISHED
BY THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
7. AUTHORIZATION TO GO TO BID FOR ONE MULTI -CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS
RECORDING SYSTEM FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS CENTER (PD)
- File 4-2-231
Councilmember Thayer asked about the approximate cost of the system,
and Police Chief Ingwersen replied it would be between $12,000 and
$15,000.
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
approve the staff recommendation to go to bid for the multi -channel
communications recording system.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
11. REPORT RE JOINT CITY/COUNTY LIBRARY PROJECT (Lib/Cult.Affs) -
File 12-8
Councilmember Boro stated he would like to be assured that what happens
in the long term for City library systems is not going to weaken San
Rafael's system. He stated he would like to make sure that the City's
system is strengthened, as well as perhaps improving other systems.
He noted that the Library Board was not mentioned in the staff report,
and wondered if they are participating in the project.
Mayor Mulryan agreed with Councilmember Boro's concerns, and asked
Library Director Stratford for input. Mr. Stratford stated he shares
those same concerns, as does the Library Board. He said he would
not be participating in this project if he did not feel they could
provide better service in the downtown area.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/21/88 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 11/21/88 Page 4
Councilmember Boro expressed concern with the use of "downtown", since
the San Rafael Library is meant to serve all citizens of San Rafael,
in every part of the City.
Councilmember Thayer stated that the gist of the meetings she has
attended at the Civic Center has been toward strengthening the library
system, and giving us better resources and pooling those resources
into two facilities which are needed.
Councilmember Breiner suggested that perhaps the minutes of some of
the recent meetings could be distributed so the Council would be aware
of what was discussed.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to accept
report and approve in concept the hiring of consultant, Raymond Holt,
for an amount not to exceed $5,600 to conduct a feasibility and planning
study of the proposed joint City/County Library Project - staff to
bring back an agreement for Council consideration in the near future.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
13. PUBLIC HEARING - UP87-23 & V87-30 - CONTINUATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A SECOND DWELLING UNIT WITH VARIANCE
TO ALLOW 18 FOOT HEIGHT AND REQUEST FOR "EXCEPTION" TO ALLOW SECOND
UNIT TO EXCEED 1,000 SQUARE FEET IN AREA; DESIGN REVIEW FOR CONVERSION
OF EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO SECOND DWELLING UNIT; 333 DuBOIS STREET;
JOHN & CECI SIMONTACCHI, APPLICANTS; PHILIP & HELEN KEENE, APPELLANTS;
AP 13-153-05 (P1 - File 10-5 x 10-4
Mayor Mulryan declared the Public Hearing opened.
Acting Planning Director Johnston briefed the Council, stating that
the staff recommendation is to deny the appeal of the variance and
use permit of the second dwelling unit; grant an exception for square
footage in excess of 1,000 square feet; and conditionally approve
the environmental and design review permit. He stated that the site
in question is zoned R-1, is approximately 10,000 square feet in area,
and has an existing single family home on it, with a detached garage
and workshop. He noted that the property is relatively flat, with
no slope. Mr. Johnston stated that on December 15, 1987, the Planning
Commission approved use permit and height variance applications.
The use permit approval contained a condition that the second unit
receive design review approval prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The use permit and variance approvals were appealed to the
City Council by concerned neighbors. The concerns discussed in the
letter of appeal were: Noise, exhaust and headlight glow from increased
use of the driveway leading to the second unit; impacts on privacy;
and potential reduction of property values.
Mr. Johnston stated that, since this is an existing garage, there
should not be additional traffic for a single dwelling unit. Also,
on the subject of privacy, this has been addressed by locating the
second floor windows so they will be toward the rear yard area of
the lot. The subject of massing of the building will be addressed
by planting of trees along the south and east sides of the property.
Mr. Johnston added that the design has been substantially upgraded
since the Council last saw it, and has a hip roof for the second story
portion of the building. The exterior has been enhanced by horizontal
rather than vertical siding. Also, there is brick veneer on the base,
at the north and eastern elevations.
Mr. Johnston stated that the Planning Commission felt the project
was substantially upgraded from the original design and that the second
unit was appropriate.
Councilmember Breiner stated that two bedrooms and two baths has a
potential for four people and possibly two cars or more. She stated
she had mentioned this before, and noted that it was not included
in the minutes of the recent meeting. Mr. Johnston responded that
that factor had not been listed in the staff report, but that the
Commission had been given copies of the old minutes of the Council
meeting.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/21/88 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 11/21/88 Page 5
John Simontacchi then addressed the Council, stating he has no in-
tention of renting to four people with four cars. He stated the people
most affected by this project are himself and his wife, and they will
be very careful in renting it. He stated he has hired a landscaper,
and pointed out that there will be planting to act as a buffer.
Councilmember Breiner asked Mr. Simontacchi if he would be amenable
to having the use permit state that there would be no more than two
adults allowed, and he replied in the affirmative.
Helen Keene addressed the Council, stating that parking in the area
is impossible and there would be no way for emergency vehicles to
get through. She expressed concern regarding headlight glare and
gas pollution. Mrs. Keene's daughter spoke to confirm her mother's
concerns, and asked if the Council would be willing to approve second
dwelling units in all unattached garages in the area.
There being no further input, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Mayor Mulryan remarked that Mr. Simontacchi has agreed not to rent
to more than two adults. Councilmember Breiner stated she could not
support two bedrooms and two baths. She said she could support one
bedroom, and noted that while the Ordinance states the second unit
cannot be more than 400 of the main dwelling, this is 53%. She
recommended this could possibly be scaled down to one bedroom and
one bath, and perhaps a studio below.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that the Simontacchis have done more
than their share on this project, and they do have their offstreet
parking.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to direct
staff to prepare a Resolution for the meeting of December 5th, denying
the appeal of Variance and Use Permit of the second dwelling unit,
adding to the use permit that it will not be rented to more than two
adult people; granting an exception for square footage in excess of
1,000 square feet and greater than 40% of the size of the main dwell-
ing; and conditionally approving the Environmental and Design Review
Permit.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
14. PUBLIC HEARING - ED87-95; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION
OF APPROVAL REQUIRING PRIORITY PROJECTS PROCEDURE APPROVAL PRIOR TO
DEVELOPMENT OF A 10,011 SQ. FT. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE BUILDING;
1555 FRANCISCO BLVD. EAST: ROBERT NOLAN, OWNER & APPELLANT:
AP 9-132-21 (Pl) - File 10-7
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Acting Planning Director Johnston briefed the Council, stating staff
recommendation is that the Council direct them to prepare a Resolution
denying the appeal. He stated that on October 11, 1988, the Planning
Commission conditionally approved the environmental and design review
application for this project. The owner has filed an appeal of con-
dition (q), which requires the project to receive a Priority Projects
Procedure (PPP) prior to the issuance of building permits. Mr. Johnston
stated that the appellant believes the project should be exempt from
the PPP as cited in his letter of appeal.
Mr. Johnston stated that the appellant has in part based his appeal
on precedent City Council actions relative to this project which allowed
a higher FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for the site than otherwise permitted
in the General Plan 2000. The Planning Commission, in approving the
project, determined that although the project was allowed to proceed
through the development review process with an FAR of .437, a specific
exemption from the PPP was not appropriate. General Plan Policy ESR -3R
Nolan still requires the applicant to meet design review and other
City standards. Since the project would generate five critical moves
at the 101/Bellam/I-580 intersection, the Commission felt the proposal
should be subject to PPP. Mr. Johnston reviewed for the Council the
chronological history of this project since 1978.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/21/88 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regulaz 11/21/88 Page 6
Robert Nolan, owner and appellant, addressed the Council, stating
that he had purchased the property specifically for his own use.
He said he had started to get building permits to commence the project,
when he had a major illness. He stated this is the identical building
which was previously approved. He stated that the Design Review Board
recommendations were implemented and the result is a far better looking
building. Mr. Nolan pointed out that this project was started long
before the General Plan and he is asking for exemption from the Priority
Projects Procedure. Mr. Nolan stated that his building will not add
much to the traffic load in the area.
There being no further input, Mayor mulryan closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that since the Council had approved the
project in 1987, he thought it should be allowed to be built as an
infill project.
Councilmember Boro mentioned a list of exceptions from the PPP, such
as hospitals, and asked Mr. Johnston if there were any other exceptions
added. Mr. Johnston replied that, not having the list with him, the
premise on exceptions is that they relate to traffic, one or less
critical moves. The exceptions would include child care facilities,
for instance, but not this type of project.
Councilmember Breiner remarked that the bigger projects absorb so
many more critical moves, and that in the processing, the major projects
should look toward phasing.
Councilmember Thayer stated she is very sorry for Mr. Nolan, but in
order to preserve the integrity of the General Plan she does not see
that the Council has any choice but to deny the appeal.
Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
direct staff to prepare a Resolution denying the appeal.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
15. PUBLIC HEARING - UP88-24/ED88-15; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL FIRE
DAMAGED BUILDING; 1301-1311 FOURTH STREET; JOE ZABANEH, OWNER &
APPELLANT, REPRESENTED BY PERRY D. LITCHFIELD, ATTORNEY; AP 11 -253 -10 -
File 10-5 x 10-7
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Acting Planning Director Johnston briefed the Council on the background
of this project, and stated that at the October 25th Planning Commission
meeting, it was voted 5-0, with Commissioners O'Brien and Rifkind
abstaining, to adopt a Resolution conditionally approving use permit
and design review applications for this project. This was based on
testimony given at the October 11th Planning Commission meeting at
which the appellant's attorney stated that the high cost of the project
as recommended for approval by the Design Review Board was beyond
his client's capacity, given the amount of the insurance proceeds.
Mr. Johnston stated the appellant's attorney, Perry Litchfield, informed
the Planning Department on October 28th that a new designer, Forsher
& Guthrie, has been retained to do an economic analysis of the project
and assist in achieving a more economical design which is acceptable
to the City. Mr. Johnston added that the appeal letter from Mr.
Litchfield is primarily based on the contention that the applicant
is entitled to repair the existing structure along the same design
criteria as previously existed before the building was destroyed by
fire in July of 1987.
Mr. Johnston referred the Council to the City Attorney's response,
which supports the Planning Commission approval. The City Attorney
has determined that the City does have the authority, under the Down-
town Review District and Design Review Guidelines, to require an upgraded
design, one which basically is consistent with the historical context
of the building. Mr. Johnston stated that staff is recommending that
the Council direct them to prepare a Resolution denying the appeal.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/21/88 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 11/21/88 Page 7
Councilmember Boro inquired if the Council is not going to get into
the design issues at this meeting, but strictly talk about the con-
ditions put on by the Planning Commission. Mayor Mulryan stated that
is correct. City Attorney Ragghianti stated he also has a process
question, that if the applicant is proposing a new design, does that
not render moot the appeal for the time being?
Mr. Johnston stated that condition (uu) actually assumes that there
will be design changes to the structure, and allows Design Review
and staff certain latitudes to approve that design with the intent
of actually lowering construction costs of the building. However,
staff at this point has not had an opportunity to see any revised
designs. He, therefore, has no idea whether it is a new design or
whether it is simply a more cost-effective design with modifictions
which can be approved by staff. He stated that if it is the latter
case, a design which is substantially the same as the original approval,
then the issue can be handled by Design Review and staff and there
will be no need to amend the conditions. If, however, it is a new
design which has not yet been seen by staff or the Commission, there
are two options. The first is to approve the project as amended,
with the special conditions by the Commission, in which case the old
design is approved. Second, if a whole new design is presented, there
should be a new application.
Mayor Mulryan summarized that what is before the Council is whether
they approve the Planning Commission's decision which is a concept
decision without having final engineered plans presented. The concept
would be to bring the building up to drawings which would be closer
to the original building before the modifications in the fifties.
Mr. Johnston agreed. Attorney Perry Litchfield, representing the
owners, addressed the Council, stating he is here to preserve the
legal rights of his clients, and also to set forth a reasonable solution
which he feels is substantially the same as Design Review came up
with. He stated his clients are anxious to make money off the building.
Mr. Litchfield agreed that the design presented is a very good one,
but it is much too expensive.
Mr. Litchfield then showed sketches of the building as it was first
presented before the Design Review Board, and also the second drawing.
He said he feels his clients were denied their legal rights, and took
issue with the legal issues in the Assistant City Attorney's letter
of November 17, 1988.
Mr. Johnston stated that through the design review process, the applicant
willingly provided revised designs. However, the concern of staff
was that there was actually a building designer who was a registered
engineer and not an architect.
Mr. Litchfield showed a design by Forsher + Guthrie, which he felt
addressed many of the issues.
In response to question from Mayor Mulryan concerning the new design,
Mr. Johnston replied that until staff has an opportunity to review
the new design he does not have an opinion.
Councilmember Thayer stated that the building as it is presently is
a hazard, and she regrets the many delays. She stated they cannot
decide at this meeting on the design.
Councilmember Boro stated that the record should reflect both sides,
and that Matt Guthrie's plan should go back to the Planning Department
for comment.
Mr. Johnston said it would go through staff review, Design Review,
and Cultural Affairs. Those entities have been kept involved, and
staff can report back quickly if the Council desires.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated that on any appeal, the Council has
an absolute right to disagree with the Planning Commission. He stated
that the appeal can be continued, including condition (uu), and have
the applicant meet with staff in the meantime and come back to Council.
The Council may, if it wishes, modify Commission approval.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/21/88 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regula; 11/21/88 Page 8
Mayor Mulryan stated that, based on that information, he would suggest
to the Council that this matter go back to the Planning staff and
come back to the Council at the next meeting, if possible, with their
analysis.
Councilmember Frugoli agreed, and stated that the two latest designs
be considered in relation to the economics.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to continue
the public hearing to the Council meeting of December 5, 1988, with
staff meanwhile reviewing the new design presented by Forsher + Guthrie
and bringing recommendations back to the City Council on that date.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
16. REPORT ON 346 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVENUE (PW) - File 2-5-19 x 2-7 x 9-3-40
Public Works Director Bernardi briefed the Council on the project,
stating that the contract for drainage improvements to this property
was awarded on September 6, 1988. The work consisted of removing
the existing garage, repairing and repainting that side of the house,
and providing drainage and debris channelization improvements to protect
the neighboring houses as well as the City -owned structure. Mr. Bernardi
reported that the drainage improvements are now essentially complete
and the debris flow channelization structures are in the process of
being constructed.
Mr. Bernardi informed the Council that there are two issues which
need to be addressed: The first is to consider the concerns of the
neighborhood with regard to various improvements to the property.
He stated that Councilmembers Boro and Frugoli met with Mrs. Bowser
and Mrs. Vipiana to discuss the items, which he listed for the Council
together with their costs. They are:
1. Install sprinkler system -and front lawn $3,500
2. Construct 3 skylights (hallway, kitchen, living room) 5,500
3. Plants and irrigation system for backyard slope and 5,500
planter to screen concrete drainage channel
4. Construct 2 vehicle removable carport 12,150
5. Paint remainder of exterior of residence 2,600
6. Construct storage shed, 6' x 10' 4,000
7. Paint interior 5,300
8. Replace living room window w/sliding door 3,500
9. Strengthen roof rafters (existing not in conformance 2,395
with Building Code)
10. Construct double swing gate at front of residence in 3,485
lieu of removable fence
Mayor Mulryan inquired about the cost of the improvements, and Mr.
Bernardi responded when the home is sold the cost will be recovered.
Councilmember Frugoli stated he was in favor of doing Nos. 6 and 9.
Councilmember Boro stated he does not feel the interior should be
done, and favors doing items 3, 4, 5 and 9.
Mrs. Alice Vipiana addressed the Council, stating that the design
presented in the spring was beautiful and now it is ugly. She pre-
sented photographs to the Council to illustrate her position. She
stated that not having a storage shed is unacceptable, and favors
a sliding glass door at the rear for access to the garden.
After discussion of the listed improvements, the Council reached a
consensus.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councimember Boro seconded, to approve
items 3, 4, 5 and 9.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/21/88 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 11/21/88 Page 9
Mr. Bernardi informed the Council that there was the second issue
which is the disposition of the house once the improvements are con-
structed. He stated that the Soils Engineer basically says that the
improvements as they will be installed will render the house, which
the City owns, adequately protected and will reduce the risk to the
houses on either side virtually to zero. Mr. Bernardi said if the
Council wishes, they can direct staff now to proceed with the process
which would declare the property surplus. He stated that would take
about three months. He pointed out there will be a Resolution for
the Council to adopt, and other procedures to be followed.
Councilmember Boro stated the process should not be completed until
after the first winter, to make sure that everything holds together,
before it is put up for sale.
Councilmember Boro then moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded,
to direct staff to prepare the necessary documents to declare the
property surplus and to call for bids, but also recognizing the time
line to span the winter before the point of sale is reached.
Councilmember Breiner added that the Council would have review again
to see if things are stable.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
17. REPORT ON CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REVENUE OPTIONS (CM) - File
9-2-42
Mayor Mulryan announced that each Councilmember has recommended the
three people whom they would like to have -as their contribution to
the 15 person committee.
They are:
Mary Carpou
Gene Dyer
Bill Bielser
Harry Winters
John Govi
Terri DeMartini
Gary Phillips
Jim King
Dr. Joseph Fink
Linda Bellatore
Fred Kirschner
Bob Hoffmann
Maynard Willms
Angelo Colombo
Michael J. Smith
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt
the list as the constituted Citizens Advisory Committee on Revenue
Options.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
18. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE NO. 1551, AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.12 OF THE SAN
RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE RE DISCLOSURE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (FD) -
File 9-3-31
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael, Amending Title 4, Chapter
4.12 of the San Rafael Municipal Code re Disclosure of Hazardous Materials"
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
dispense with the reading, to refer to it by title only, and to adopt
Charter Ordinance No. 1551 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
19. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE NO. 1552, AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, RE SALE OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 335 FORBES AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, AP 10-074-11, TO GERRY
K. ROBERTSON OF 3020 BRIDGEWAY, SAUSALITO, CALIFORNIA 94965, AS REQUIRED
BY ARTICLE VII, SECTION 7, OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (RA)
- File 2-7 x 2-5-18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/21/88 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regula_ 11/21/88 Page 10
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael, re Sale of City -Owned Property
Located at 335 Forbes Avenue, San Rafael, California, AP 10-074-11,
to Gerry K. Robertson of 3020 Bridgeway, Sausalito, California 94965,
as Required by Article VII, Section 7, 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. 1552 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
20. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE NO. 1553, AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, AMENDING SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE
2, CHAPTER 2.12, SECTIONS 2.12.041 AND 2.12.042 AND ACCEPTING THE
REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 13522 OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE RELATING
TO THE TRAINING OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL (DISPATCHERS) (PD)
- File 9-3-30
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael, Amending San Rafael Municipal
Code Title 2, Chapter 2.12, Sections 2.12.041 and 2.12.042 and Accepting
the Requirement of Section 13522 of the California Penal Code Relating
to the Training of the Law Enforcement Personnel (Dispatchers)"
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
dispense with the reading, to refer to it by title only, and to adopt
Charter Ordinance No. 1553 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
21. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SECTION
5.04.020 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD MARTIN LUTHER KING
HOLIDAY TO THE LIST OF PARKING METER HOLIDAYS (CA) - File 11-18
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SECTION 5.04.020
OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD MARTIN LUTHER KING HOLIDAY
TO THE LIST OF PARKING METER HOLIDAYS"
Concilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it
by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1554 to print by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM.
JEANNE M ONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1988
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/21/88 Page 10