Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1992-04-06IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1992, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No Closed Session was held. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1992, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Councilmember Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Also Present:Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Suzanne M. Drake, Deputy City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Dorothy L. Breiner, Absent: None DANGEROUS ANIMAL BOARD HEARING, COUNTY OF MARIN - File 13-3 I Sanford Gossman of 21 Cottonwood Drive, stated he had expected to receive a letter from the City Attorney's Office regarding his dogs which are being held by the Marin County Humane Society as dangerous animals. City Attorney Ragghianti responded that this is a legal issue and should be discussed in Closed Session, not at the Council meeting. Mayor Boro assured Mr. Gossman that he would receive the letter as soon as possible. I I CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION I 2.Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of February 5, Approved as submitted. 1992 (CC) 3.Approval of Extension of Time - Oakwood Subdivision ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8633 INo. 5 (PW) - File 5-1-244 EXTENDING TIME FOR THE ICOMPLETION OF SUBDIVISION (IMPROVEMENT WORK - OAKWOOD (UNIT 5 (Ext. to & including 9/11/93) 6.Report on Bid Opening and Award of Bid for Riding RESOLUTION NO. 8634 - Turf Mower for Parks Department (Gen.Svcs) - File PURCHASE OF 4-2-260 MOWER (from (West Cal Tractor, lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $10,949) 8.Resolution Amending Resolution No. 8110 Pertaining to 8635 - The Compensation and Working Conditions for Child Care COMPENSA- Program Personnel (PERS) - File 7-8-4 x 4-10-188 x CONDITIONS 9-3-65 PERSONNEL (18 Month Agreement I- 1/1/92 thru & including 6/30/93) 10.Request for Support for Restoration of Adequate recommend - Funding in Fiscal Year 1991/92 and Thereafter for the (State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (CM) - File 13-19 x 9-3-11 11.Resolutions of Appreciation for Police Officers: (CM) File 102 x 9-3-30 a. Michael Fielding 8636 - IRESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO OFFICER MICHAEL FIELDING FOR COURAGEOUS ACTIONS IN THE (LINE OF DUTY b. James Cook RESOLUTION NO. 8637 IRESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION ITO OFFICER JAMES COOK FOR ICOURAGEOUS ACTIONS IN THE ILINE OF DUTY 12.Status Report on Street Sweeping Plan and Code Enforcement Components for Canal Area (CM) - File 231 x 9-2-43 x 218 x 9-1 ADOPTED AUTHORIZING THE A RIDING TURF ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. PERTAINING TO THE TION AND WORKING FOR CHILD CARE PROGRAM Approved staff ation. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTED Accepted report 13.Resolution of Appreciation to Daniel Hulett, 1991 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8638 - San Rafael City Employee of the Year (CM) - APPRECIATION File 102 x 9-3-30 HULETT IAS EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR 1991 14.Resolution of Appreciation to the Marin Child Care 8639 - Council (CM) - File 102 APPRECIATION ITO THE MARIN CHILD CARE ICOUNCIL (and designating Ithe week of April 6, 1992, las "The Week of the Young IChild") RESOLUTION OFI DESIGNATING DANIEL ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF 15.Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) - File 9-1 Approved staff recommend - tion to SUPPORT SB 1861 (BEVERLY), Commercial Vehicles/Local Authorities. 16.Claim for Damages: a. Howard Properties (PW) Approved Insurance Consult - Claim No. 3-1-1611 ing Associates', Inc., recommendation for denial of Claim a. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion 4.AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR EMERGENCY INFORMAL BID FOR "D" STREET DRAINAGE REPLACEMENT AT SAN RAFAEL AVENUE (PW) - File 4-1-451 x 9-3-40 Councilmember Breiner stated she would like staff to bring back to the Council all of the information they would receive if this were not an emergency, informal bid, so the Council will be aware of how the numbers came in. Public Works Director Bernardi stated he would furnish the report. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to accept the staff recommendation. I (AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro (NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None (ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None I IS.SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES - ZONING ORDINANCE (Pl) - File 10-2 x 10-1 The Council reviewed a recommendation from staff that the initial Special Public Hearing on the draft Zoning Ordinance be held on Tuesday, May 5, 1992, with either the regular Monday, June 1st Council meeting or Tuesday, June 2nd being the followup hearing dates. Councilmember Cohen stated that he would prefer not to have back-to-back meetings at this particular time. Mayor Boro asked that staff poll the Council and see if another mutually agreeable date can be set. 7.STATUS REPORT ON AB1600 - DEVELOPER FEES (Fin) - File 9-10-2 x 8-9 x 9-3-20 The Council considered a report from Finance Director Coleman regarding expenditure of developer fees on various traffic mitigation measures. Councilmember Breiner pointed out that coming into the City from Highway 101, there is a right turn lane at the Second Street intersection, creating a volume problem therefore indicating this intersection is not functioning very well. She stated there is a wide area at the side where it could be widened and improved. Also, eastbound on Third Street, in front of the entrance to Montecito Plaza, there is a left turn lane travelling toward the Fire Station, which is being hampered by a cement island in that area. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to accept the staff report. (AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro (NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None (ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9.AUTHORIZE THE ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE TO RESTRICT OR CLOSE THE LISTED STREETS IN THE AREA OF SAN QUENTIN PRISON BETWEEN TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1992 AND TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1992 (PD) - File 9-3-30 Councilmember Breiner stated it is important that the general public know that this action to be taken by the City in closing off certain streets is not meant to hamper any demonstrations, but is for the safety of the public, since there are no sidewalks in the area. She recommended that any notices to businesses in the affected areas include wording to the effect that, "Due to lack of sidewalks, we will have to address the pedestrian issues". Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to accept the report and approve staff recommendation. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 17.PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO POLICE OFFICERS MICHAEL FIELDING IAND JAMES COOK (CM) - File 9-3-30 x 102 Mayor Boro presented Resolutions of Appreciation to Police Officers Michael Fielding and James Cook for their courageous actions on January 24, 1991, when apprehending a criminal, and cited the fact that the Officers have been honored as Peace Officers of the Year by the Marin County Peace Officers' Association. 18.PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO THE MARIN CHILD CARE COUNCIL (CM) - File 102 Mayor Boro presented a Resolution of Appreciation to a representative of the Marin Child Care Council, and proclaimed the week of April 6 to 10, 1992 as, "The Week of the Young Child", in the City of San Rafael. IADD ITEM PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DANIEL HULETT, 1991 SAN RAFAEL CITY EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR (CM) - File 9-3-30 x 102 Mayor Boro stated that for the last couple of years the City has recognized outstanding employees by designating them the Employee of the Quarter, one of whom is designated as Employee of the Year. He then presented Daniel Hulett, Investigations Bureau Sergeant, with a Resolution of Appreciation as Employee of the Year for 1991, and $500. He noted that Officer Hulett will be honored again at the annual State of the City dinner on April 24th. Officer Hulett acknowledged the honor, and thanked the Council and City Manager Nicolai. 19.PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION OF JANUARY 28, 1992 RE: APPROVAL OF UP74-6(g) - USE PERMIT EXTENSION FOR THE MARIN RANCH AIRPORT WITH REVISED CONDITIONS WHICH LIMIT THE NON -AVIATION RELATED USES; END OF SMITH RANCH ROAD; AP #155-230-10, 11, 12, 13; WILLIAM J. BIELSER, J. SHEKOU, OWNERS; CAPITAL INVESTMENT RESOURCES, REP. (Pl) - File 10-5 x 10-2 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing, pointing out the issues which have been appealed are eight conditions in the Use Permit. He noted the Use Permit was approved on January 28, 1992, by the Planning Commission. Planning Director Pendoley verified that the Use Permit itself has not been appealed, but the permit holder has appealed eight of the conditions. He pointed out that the staff report gives an analysis of the conditions and the specific points of the Appeal, and then makes a recommendation. He added that some of the information in the staff report is different than the Planning Commission had, either in terms of facts or significance. He then asked Principal Planner Delimont to discuss the analyses and particularly the soils report. Ms. Delimont first explained about the Appellants' request for modification of Condition 8, to allow retention of historic containers and additional time to relocate the other containers. The Appellants are requesting that six containers, consisting of two which have been used by Linscott Engineering, one by Lyle Reed Striping, and three which are used by pilots, be allowed to remain. The Appellants have also requested that 180 days from date of the Appeal Hearing be granted for removal of the other containers. Accordingly, staff is recommending amendment to Condition 8, to change the date for removal to August 6, 1992, and adding, "...if an application is filed to relocate the containers to another site, a 60 -day extension to this time period will be granted. Three containers located adjacent to the hangars, one container used by Lyle Reed, and two containers used by Linscott Engineering are recognized as historic uses and may be retained on site. They shall not be used by anyone other than airport tenants". Ms. Delimont then addressed Condition 9, which relates to storage use on the Bauman site. She stated that there was some discussion at the Planning Commission of re- creational vehicle storage on that site, but the Planning Commission agreed that any storage use on that site should be prohibited, because of the impact on the neighborhood. She added that the Applicant has approached the City, and is looking at preparing a master plan for the entire site, and processing a General Plan amend- ment, as well, which would limit all future uses of the site, and would include potentially some RV storage on the site and expansion of the airport and development of a driving range. Ms. Delimont stated that if that package were to come forward, staff is proposing that some language be proposed which would allow flexibility concerning its merits. She stated that staff recognizes there are some real concerns related to RVs on the site, but the Applicant could present a plan and if it should happen the merits could be considered at that time. For that reason, instead of prohibiting any use of the Bauman site, staff is recommending the wording on Condition 9, "Any use of the area previously occupied by a landscape and topsoil contractor (Bauman Landscaping) requires the approval of a separate use permit". In this way, nothing could happen on that site under the current Use Permit, but potentially the owners could file an application. Ms. Delimont then discussed Condition 10, in which the Appellant is requesting that the 1986 date be used instead of 1974, as the base year for removal of fill material. She explained that after the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission, at which they had agreed that all fill after 1974 should be removed, a letter was received from Joe Pirtz stating that the 1974 drawing on which the Public Works calculations were based were only schematic and that any quantification based upon his elevation would be erroneous. He also cautioned against removing any earth which might support the levee. Ms. Delimont added that the Public Works' Department does not have any other topographic information for the site and, based on Mr. Pirtz' letter, cannot verify the accuracy of the 1974 topographic information used in establishing a base for the fill removal. Ms. Delimont stated she had also contacted the Corps of Engineers and they did not have any topographic information which could be of use. Based on that, staff is recommending that the date be modified from 1974 to 1986 with regard to restoration of the contours, and that Condition 10 be further modified to state: "All fill must be removed by October 6, 1992. An extension for removal of fill material potentially needed for flood elevations may be granted by the Planning Director if an application is filed for an RV Park". Condition 11, regarding hours of operation, presently calls for non -aviation hours of business to be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no operation being permitted on Sundays. The Appellants request that Linscott Engine- ering and Lyle Reed Striping be allowed to continue to operate at 6:00 AM and on weekends. They request that the use of heavy equipment and trucks in excess of one-half ton be prohibited outside the suggested hours, but that other uses be allowed to operate. Staff is recommending modification of Condition 11 to read, "Operation of these businesses, other than routine office work or other non -noise generating interior work, is not permitted on Sundays or outside the prescribed hours". Ms. Delimont explained that, in connection with Condition 12, the Appellants are requesting additional time to install the parking improvements. The Condition pr- esently reads that they must be installed within six months or by July 14, 1992. Ms. Delimont noted that proposed equipment storage locations may be modified by applications for RV storage and the driving range. She added that they propose to provide improved parking areas for employees within six months while allowing for additional time to improve equipment storage areas and landscaping. Staff is proposing that Condition 12 be modified to read, "All such areas shall, at a minimum, be covered with six inches of crushed rock or material approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments and maintained". With reference to Condition 14, regarding which businesses must secure business licenses, Ms. Delimont stated that the Appellants are asking that the Condition be updated to indicate which businesses require licenses. Staff is recommending that the Condition, which reads as follows, not be changed: "Applications for all necessary business licenses, Certificates of Use and Occupancy, electrical and plumbing permits, and Environmental and Design Review Permits shall be filed within 90 days or by April 14, 1992". Ms. Delimont added that the only change recommended would be to change the date to July 6, 1992. Condition 15, regarding fences to protect sensitive habitat areas, was discussed, with Ms. Delimont explaining that the Appellant wanted to revise the condition to allow for temporary fencing and to allow the fencing to be placed on the top, not the inside of the levee. Ms. Delimont stated that protection of sensitive habitat was a major issue at the Planning Commission hearing. She noted that the site con- tains wetland areas and the Clapper Rail, an endangered species, inhabits the creek. She stated that testimony was received from environmental organizations and neighbors that the unrestricted sheep grazing was damaging its habitat and the wetlands. Ms. Delimont reported that the Planning Commission amended the draft condition requiring a fencing plan to specify that the fencing had to be on the inside of the levee, which reflected the recommendation of the Marin Conservation League and other groups. She added that the Planning Commission had also added the requirement for revegetation and monitoring to specifically address concerns about habitat damage. She stated that portable fencing would be satisfactory to staff, as long as it was approved by the Planning Director. With regard to vegetation, Ms. Delimont stated that since the grazing activities have stripped the levee of all vegetation, hydromulching with Baccharis and Bunchgrasses would be satisfactory. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not require a permit for the hydromulching. Ms. Delimont noted that staff is also adding a Condition that the Applicant submit an annexation proposal, because at present some of the parcels which do not have improvements are under the County's jurisdiction while some are under the City's jurisdiction, and this makes it very difficult to monitor and control the permit. For this reason, staff is recommending the following Condition be added to the Permit: "21. Within six months, or by October 6, 1992, the Applicant shall submit an annexation application for parcels 155-230-14 and 16". With reference to Condition 20, regarding the time limit of the Permit, the Appellant is asking the Permit be extended without a specific time limit. Ms. Delimont stated staff is recommending a three-year period, to April 6, 1995, and noted that the Condition specifically states that the Permit will be reviewed on a yearly basis. She stated that the reason for the yearly review is to enable the Planning Commission to take necessary action, including revocation. With this procedure the meetings will be noticed. Councilmember Breiner inquired, in terms of the possibility of requiring annexation, whether that would affect the Covenant? City Attorney Ragghianti responded he does not believe so, and pointed out that the Condition asks for an application only. Councilmember Breiner then inquired, if we were interested in finding out what was fill and what was the levee base, would core samples be sufficient to tell? Ms. Delimont responded that she had inquired of the Public Works Director and he felt that with this type of soil it would not be definitive. The Corps of Engineers were of the same opinion. Mr. Pendoley added that the problem would be that we do not think, nor does Public Works, that the underlying soil condition would be differentiated enough because of the wetland. He stated we could not take soil samples which would give evidence to tell what is soil and what has been added. Councilmember Thayer stated that from what she read, it looked as though staff's recommendation is that no fill would be removed at this time and that it could be removed if the soil is needed later for whatever development takes place. Ms. Delimont responded that it would be easier to use that soil than to bring it in at this time. She stated that anything outside that area, such as a proposal for an RV parking area, would use the soil. Mr. Pendoley added that staff would have to have an application by October 6, 1992, and otherwise the Appellant would not fill the terms of the Conditions. He added that staff estimates that if the fill were removed, it could involve 200 truckloads, and it would not benefit the neighborhood to have that many trucks taking the soil out in October and then trucks bringing soil back in later. Ms. Thayer noted that it is possible that the original fill would be on the property for at least a year, and asked what the time line was. Mr. Pendoley responded that if staff receives a fairly straight -forward application for RV storage and other uses, it is possible that an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) would be required. Councilmember Thayer inquired about the 1986 date for calculating the fill on the levee, and Ms. Delimont responded that staff has a topographic map prepared in 1986 and can tell what the contours were at that time, so the levee could be brought down to the 1986 contours. Councilmember Cohen inquired, with respect to Conditions 9 and 10, regarding the levee, if the Council gives a permit, do they have the authority to revise it? Ms. Delimont responded that the Planning Commission does, but the City Council could reserve that right. Councilmember Cohen suggested that it might be possible, instead of amending the Conditions, the Council could ask for a Master Plan. Ms. Delimont stated that is correct. IMayor Boro asked if the Appellant had comments to make. Attorney Robert Levy, author of the Appeal letter of March 24, 1992, stated that the Appellant had read the staff report and is amenable to most of the comments. He noted that the last Condition which, in effect, changes the permit from one year to three years, is written in such a way to be a little problematical. He stated the term of the permit was to give financial institutions the security of three years, and the way the Condition is written, it sounds as though at the time of the yearly review the Use Permit could be revoked and new conditions imposed, which would be the same as a one-year permit. Mayor Boro inquired of staff if that was the intent, and Ms. Delimont replied in the affirmative. Mr. Levy then addressed the subject of fill. He stated that the time line, when this was discussed with staff, was a question of staff's need for time, and the time for processing is not up to the Appellant. He said they could act as quickly as possible and are not trying to delay. He stated he is concerned with the language of Condition 10, since it is not clear what they are supposed to do with the Fill in the interim period, should they tear it down and leave it in another place? He stated that the objective, as he understands it, is to avoid exporting the fill and then importing it later. He added it would be helpful to have some direction on the part of the Planning Director while their application is being processed. Mr. Levy stated the most important thing to them, and the most contentious issue, is the fence. He stated it is a health and safety issue, to be balanced against an environmental issue. He explained that when you balance the health and safety issue of flooding against the risk to animals, the concern should be the levees, with the City to be held harmless and indemnified. However, if the levees were to fail and Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park suffered water damage, the Appellant would have to indemnify the City. He stated they are concerned in that they think the location of the fence and the objective of preserving the habitat will hurt their ability to provide the protection they are being asked to give. He stated that the sheep aid in the compacting of the top of the levee, and he has a letter from an engineering firm stating that the sheep have been helpful with respect to compaction. He stated that if a fence is put on top of the levee, a portable fence as suggested by staff, it would keep the sheep off, but if it were on the land side, the top could not be compacted. He stated with a portable fence there is no problem, and no significant risk to any habitat. He stated that, with regard to preserving the habitat, the risk of the water reaching the top of the levee is not as important as it permeating. Animals could still escape into the habitat. Mr. Levy stated that they want to revegetate the levee, but if it had to be compacted by mechanical means it would remove the vegetation each time and it would have to be replanted. Councilmember Breiner inquired how long the sheep have been at the site, and Ms. Delimont indicated she does not know, because it was not part of the previous permit. Councilmember Cohen inquired if alternatives to compacting the levee have been ex- plored. Mr. Levy responded that he has spoken with many firms, including Cooper, Crane & Rigging, who have worked on the levees, and they stated that most of the equipment is so heavy that it creates a risk to the levee. Also, it required Corps of Engineers' approval. Mayor Boro then asked for comment from the residents, and asked that they confine their comments to the Conditions being discussed, and to avoid repeating what others have said. Roger Olanious of 39 Vendola Drive, stated that when Bill Bielser and Joe Shekou purchased the airport property and spoke with the Santa Venetia residents, it was their understanding that there would just be the airport for recreational use. He recommended that the levee be restored to the 1986 height, and that an RV storage area not be approved so the recreational use of the area would be preserved. He stated that was a use which no one ever spoke of having. Tom Scott of 215 Vendola drive, stated that much of the fill in the levee is illegal and might include toxic materials. He expressed concern regarding liquifaction, because of the situation in the Marina in the earthquake. He stated that neighbors told him there was road fill dumped there in the '80s, and at that time asbestos was being used as a binder. He stated the material from the '70s would be largely vegetable matter, and should be easy to identify, and it should also be easy to identify non -marsh components. He stated he lives directly across from the part of the levee where the fence is broken, and he has seen sheep knee-deep halfway down the side of the slope, and clods the size of a bushel basket being broken off and going down into the water. He stated that the sheep pull out clumps of vegetable matter by the roots, and weaken the levee. He noted there is light equipment which can be rented, which would compact the levee. Bryan McLeran from Roosevelt Way, President of the (Santa Venetia) Homeowners' Association, informed the Council that the Planning Commission had taken a statement on the illegal fill and how it was done. He objected to the possibility of RV storage on the site, stating that when a truck was left out there it was obscene. He stated the three-year permit with review after a year was done for a purpose, since the Applicant has a history of continued violations. Mr. McLeran said he would like to know more about the annexation of the area which is in the County. He noted that the community has always supported the airport. He urged that the Council approve putting the fence on the inside of the levee. Shirley Fischer of the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents, noted that there has been a judge's ruling which supports the Covenant, and the Council should support the restrictive Covenant. She stated the reason for the one-year Use Permit is obvious, and noted it has taken a year to process this application. She noted the lack of cooperation by the owners of the property, which is unfair practice for the neighboring property owners. She stated that permitting the owners to put illegal uses on the property will give the wrong message, and the illegal fill should go. She agreed that the Applicant should present a Master Plan, and the Council should give the public the right message. John Haehl a Santa Venetia resident, stated that the original recommendations of the Planning Commission in public meetings are being thrown out. He asked why this is being done, when the site has a "history of expansion of uses on site without permits", as quoted by staff. He stated he is angered that noncompliance is being rewarded, and the Council should return to the Planning Commission's ruling regarding the land use. He noted that the Planning Commission had never brought up the annexation question at their hearings, and pointed out that as an unincorporated area, Santa Venetia residents depend on the County for support. He strongly recommended there be no annexation. Dorothy Skufca of Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park, stated she is speaking for 700 people. She stated she does not like some of the language in the Conditions, regarding "present users", and is not in favor of the RV storage. She stated that staff is diverting Planning Commission recommendations on the Conditions of Approval. She added that the storage containers were not supposed to impact Contempo, but that is not the case; there is a definite impact. Carol d'Alessio of Marin Conservation League presented a letter and read it to the Council. Ms. d'Alessio stated that Marin Conservation League (MCL) is both surprised and concerned about the number of changes recommended by staff, from the conditions imposed on this Applicant by the Planning Commission. She added that the conditions set by the Commission, after extensive staff work and a long hearing, were fair and reasonable, and MCL does not believe that some of these changes are in the public interest. Ms. d'Alessio then discussed Condition 8, regarding removal of the con- tainers, and stated that the Applicants were granted 120 days to relocate the illegal containers and that a 60 -day extension should not be granted as recommended by staff. Ms. d'Alessio then discussed Condition 9, regarding possible use of the former Bauman Landscaping site for RV storage, golf driving range and airport expansion, stating this site has been used in the recent past with no regard for wildlife habitat, the nearby neighbors, or the restrictive covenant on the airport property. She stated staff appears to encourage the submission of a separate use permit application for these uses. Ms. d'Alessio stated MCL recommends deletion of the last sentence from the new Condition 9, in order to discourage these plans. Regarding Condition 10, Ms. d'Alessio stated that with reference to removal of illegal fill from the levee, there is a great amount remaining from the 1974 base date, and MCL recommends that no extension for removal of fill material should be granted. Ms. d'Alessio then discussed the Applicants' request for temporary fencing of the levee, and stated that MCL recommends that sturdy fences be required, as noted in the Condition, and that if they cannot be erected on the top of the inside levee slope, that they be placed at the bottom where the ground is more stable, as recom- mended by the Planning Commission. The last condition discussed was Condition 21, regarding possible annexation of the County portion of the site by the City, with MCL recommending that annexation not be pursued at this time, since it is believed this would not be in the public interest at this time while questions of lawsuits, land use, and the restrictive covenants remain. Mayor Boro clarified with Ms. d'Alessio that when she referred to the fencing as being placed at the "bottom" of the levee, she meant on the land side, and not on the creek side. She stated that was her meaning. Frances Nunez resident of the Santa Venetia area, stated she agrees with MCL on the recommended changes on Conditions 8 and 9. She noted that in the original Condition 9, the containers were considered a public nuisance. Regarding Condition 10, Ms. Nunez stated that when she researched the City files, there were numerous complaints regarding illegal fill, between 1983 and 1986. She stated that if the City cannot go back to 1974 they should at least go back to the 1986 levels, after the grading for drainage and do a new topographical study, paid for by the Applicants, so it will be on the record. She recommended there be no delay in removal of the fill, noting it was willful and deliberate. Ms. Nunez recommended there be no exceptions made, and no extensions given for any reason. She stated the fill should be removed and then they could talk about other uses of the property. She noted this was not topsoil storage as was originally stated, and if the fill is not removed as scheduled, it flies in the face of justice and subverts the intent of the Planning Commission. Ms. Nunez cautioned against giving other developers the idea that they can follow the same path as these deve- lopers have done, and against setting a precedent. Ms. Nunez requested that the annual review by the Planning Commission of the use permit be made a Public Hearing. Ms. Nunez then addressed a density transfer, and read a statement by Supervisor Bob Roumiguiere which was in the lawsuit file: "I have previously urged the City of San Rafael to require a Declaration of Restrictions of this type and nature, as a condition of approval of the Civic Center North project, to ameliorate adverse impacts engendered by the density allowed for the project. If the Declaration of Restrictions had not been required, I, on behalf of my constituents in the vicinity would have urged the City to reduce the allowed density for the project. In my opinion, based on my experience as a County Supervisor, during which I considered scores of land development projects, a Declaration of Restrictions was an integral factor in the approval of the Civic Center North project at allowed density". Ms. Nunez stated that is why her group believes that the developers have already gotten their end of the bargain and have already benefited by the density on Civic Center North, and the restrictions should be upheld. She stated that any use such as that of the RV storage, is not valid under the Restrictions. Ms. Nunez then read a letter, "As concerned citizens of San Rafael, and representa- tives of many of the local San Rafael neighborhood groups and homeowners' associ- ations, we wish to earnestly request that the current San Rafael General Plan be amended to specifically exclude any present or future development of the Marin Ranch Airport property beyond the scope of the Restrictions and Covenants which have been in force since 1983. There is a great deal of concern about the uncertain status of this land with regard to future development as implied in the current revision level of the Conditions. It is time for the City to recognize and assert the fact that this land should never be made available for development past the level of the existing Covenants. Will you please let us know what process is needed to amend the current General Plan and which official should be contacted to start this amendment process in earnest. Thank you for your support and prompt response to this matter". Mayor Boro inquired who had signed the letter, and Ms. Nunez responded it was signed by Sam Cogswell, Stan Yates, Shirley Fischer, Lissa Herschleb, and other members of the North San Rafael Coalition. Mayor Boro asked Ms. Nunez to give the letter to the Planning Director and she will receive a reply. Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Breiner asked if the Council could adjourn briefly to Closed Session, since she would like to ask a question of the City Attorney. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that action would be in order, and the Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:37 P.M. and reconvened in Open Session at 10:05 P.M. Mayor Boro stated the Council will go through the items one at a time, and see if they can reach a consensus. He announced that the Council had a letter from Robert Levy, Attorney for the Applicant, dated February 27, 1992, which talked about potential future uses, and also potential amendments to the General Plan to reflect some of these uses, and those are issues which are not before the Council tonight. He stated it is important that we separate those issues from the Appeal on the Conditions, which is what the Council is hearing at this time. He stated that if the owners wish to make applications as referred to in his letter, they may and the meeting will be noticed. Mayor Boro asked for discussion on Condition 8, regarding the historic containers. Councilmember Cohen recommended that it may be preferable to say the containers are not to be used by anyone other than the current users, rather than "airport tenants". Principal Planner Delimont stated staff has a list of the people who use the containers, and it can be used to monitor that Condition. Mayor Boro asked Councilmember Cohen how he would modify Condition 8. Mr. Cohen suggested something in the order of, "If the use changes from the present use, those containers should be removed as well". Planning Director Pendoley stated that lang- uage seems appropriate to staff. He added staff was referring to historic use, and this change would say that if the historic use changes, it shall cease. Councilmember Thayer addressed the time extension. She stated this has been a bone of contention with the neighborhoods for a period of time. She stated the 120 days, as suggested by staff is excessive, and she would like to see it shortened to 60 days from this date, to June. Mr. Pendoley responded that staff had recommended 180 days, and the Planning Commission had shortened it to 120 days. Mayor Boro noted that time would have expired May 14th. Councilmember Cohen inquired how much time the City would need to review an applica- tion for relocation of the containers? Ms. Delimont responded it would take three to four months. Mr. Pendoley stated that if this is approved tonight it would be six months to get an application approved and get the containers removed. Council - member Shippey remarked that the Applicant has already had 82 days, by virtue of appealing. He stated he would support the Planning Commission's 120 days. Mayor Boro responded that the Planning Commission's 120 days was to May 14th, but nothing was done because of the Appeal. Mr. Shippey stated he would agree to 120 days from tonight. Mr. Pendoley noted that if they applied, they would get a 60 -day extension. Mr. Cohen observed that the clock was stopped during the Appeal, and 120 days, to August 6th, is reasonable. The Council agreed, without a motion. Councilmember Breiner added that it should be made clear that there will be no more than six containers, and Mr. Pendoley agreed to see that is done. Mayor Boro then addressed Condition 9, with the recommended change. He noted the Condition reads, in part, "The area previously occupied by a landscape and top soil contractor (Bauman Landscaping) shall not be used for any contractor's use or any other use". Mayor Boro then read the revision recommended by staff, where "shall not be used for any contractor's use or any other use" be changed to read "requires the approval of a separate use permit". Mr. Pendoley added that any use would require a use permit on the site, to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Boro stated this says they could apply if they wanted. Mayor Boro inquired what was the thinking of the Planning Commission when they worded the Condition this way? Ms. Delimont stated she believes this is the language staff had proposed to them and they adopted it. She added that staff had in mind the great impact the Bauman facility had on the neighbors. Mayor Boro stated that this wording then is that the property owner can apply for a permit if they care to. Mr. Pendoley noted that any change in use requires a use permit. Councilmember Shippey pointed out that the original language says that any change in use has to come before the Council. He stated he feels the language should remain as it is. Mayor Boro explained that if the wording is not changed, it leaves the door open for anyone to come in and apply. City Attorney Ragghianti stated he has difficulty with the wording. He said he understands what the Planning Commission said, that they wanted to preclude con- tractors' use, or any other use, and nothing could be there. He stated that this wording allows the owner to make application for other use, but it does not say the City would approve it. He noted that any use proposed would have to be consistent with the restrictions on the property, so it is somewhat limited in scope by the restrictions which burden the site. Mr. Ragghianti stated that either way, legally, would work. He stated the Council may choose, if they like. Councilmember Cohen noted that a future City Council has the opportunity of amending a use permit, and this wording would not preclude the owner from coming forth with an application. Mayor Boro noted that the public who are here tonight heard no other use mentioned, and it seems the Council would be setting up expectations for the community. He stated that an applicant can always come in and apply for a use permit. Mr. Shippey stated it would be beneficial from their point of view, to have this Council say exactly what they mean. Mayor Boro inquired if it should read, "any contractor use" or "any other use"? Councilmember Breiner stated she understands the owner could come in at any time for an application, but the application would have to conform to the restrictions on the site. Councilmember Thayer agreed that a person has a right to make application, but she would tend to agree with deleting the proposed language. Councilmember Cohen stated he is comfortable with the wording that any other use would require a use permit. Mr. Pendoley concurred, stating they could use the language, "which requires an amendment to the use permit". Mayor Boro then referred to Condition 10, regarding the base year for removal of the illegal fill on the site. Councilmember Breiner stated she would like to have more study and would direct staff to do more on this issue and bring back within the next couple of months any- thing which could be of help to the Council. She stated perhaps someone might even have photos which show the boggy area. She added that one of the biggest concerns is the fact that this is an area where we did have to place the fill, and it has not been properly dealt with. Mayor Boro inquired if staff has any further recommendations. Mr. Pendoley responded they have looked at all of the information the City has, and there were no photos. He stated they could try soil sampling, but staff has shared with the Council the limitations on that method. He stated they discussed the problem with the Corps of Engineers. He recommended that staff could require the property owner to post a sum of money to have the City perform the soils test. He noted the City has the Geotechnical Review Board, and they could be involved in the study. He stated that the Geotechnical Review Board could take a month, and the soils sampling another month. Mayor Boro stated he would suggest the Applicant be directed to start removing the fill, because we know the fill goes at least to the 1986 level. Mr. Pendoley stated he will eliminate reference to the RV park in the conditions. Also, he would like to see the fill removal start as soon as possible. He stated he will report back in two weeks. Mr. Shippey stated he assumes the City will be monitoring the types of fill, and Mrs. Breiner stated it might be wise to include how the initial soils sampling went, when submitting the status report. Mr. Cohen stated his only concern is that illegal fill is illegal fill, and we should have it removed if we have the power to do so. He inquired about the date of 1974 regarding the fill. Ms. Delimont stated that 1974 was the date of the first use permit, which gave the City control of the use of the property. Councilmember Thayer stated it is her understanding that the illegal fill, even though it was done before acquisition of the property, is still the responsibility of the current property owner. She said that she feels it is important that the public be aware of this. Mr. Pendoley stated that ownership is not an issue in the permit, but what is at issue is the beginning of the jurisdiction. Councilmember Cohen stated that with regard to removal of the soil which we know has been placed there since 1986, he said we should make sure it would not disrupt the soil sampling, so we could get an accurate reading. Mr. Pendoley stated he will deal with this issue and bring back a report. Regarding Condition 11, limitation on hours of operation, the Council agreed with the staff recommendation that non -aviation hours of business is limited to 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday; and that operation of these businesses, other than routine office work or other non -noise generating interior work, is not permitted on Sundays or outside the prescribed hours. The next discussion was on Condition 12, to modify additional time for installation of parking improvements. Mayor Boro asked for questions, and Councilmember Thayer asked for an explanation of how the subject had come up. Ms. Delimont stated that this is tied in to the potential application. She reported that the Applicant had originally requested that all storage of equipment and vehicles, as well as the landscaping, be postponed until that application is considered. She stated that staff had wanted dust control by immediately having the permanent parking areas done immediately, and the Applicant stated that if he put in landscaping it would have to be removed if he was permitted to have an RV storage lot. Ms. Thayer recommended going back to the original language of the Condition, with the date changed to October 6, 1992. Mayor Boro inquired if there was discussion on Condition 14, regarding business licenses for tenants at the Airport, and the Council agreed with the Condition as written by staff, with the date for compliance changed to July 6, 1992. The Council discussed Condition 15, the fencing at the levee, and agreed it should be inside the levee. Ms. Delimont noted that a sentence was added regarding revege- tation. Mayor Boro asked for an explanation of the annexation issue. Ms. Delimont explained that the Applicant had brought up the fact that the levees are currently not under the City's jurisdiction, but the County's, and he questioned the fencing requirement because of that. She stated she checked with the County and, under their zoning regulations, they cannot require the fencing. For that reason, staff is recommending adding Condition 21, to state, "Within 6 months, or by October 6, 1992, the Applicant shall submit an annexation application for parcels 155-230-14 and 16". She noted the County fully supports the fencing of the habitat area. Mayor Boro stated he assumes the Applicant would be willing to construct the fence if we had jurisdiction over it. Attorney Robert Levy, representing the Applicant, stated the answer is "No", unless they would be assured somehow that they would have access. He stated that if a fence was put inside the levee and they had to come to the City every time they wanted to compact or do other work, they would not approve. However, if they could be enabled to have access, it would be agreeable. Mr. Pendoley stated that the fencing requirement in no way affects the maintenance of the levee. He stated he does not see the relationship between fencing access and permits. Mr. Levy explained that if there was a sluff -off, they could not access it. Mr. Pendoley responded that a gate would be permissible. Mr. Levy stated he is not prepared to say that putting a gate in would be adequate to maintain a levee, but if they have no access problems, it would be satisfactory. Mayor Boro stated the City staff will work on this, along with the other issues regarding the County's role, and bring the item back in two weeks. Mr. Cohen stated if that works out, the annexation would not be necessary. The Council next discussed Condition 20, time limit for the extension of the permit. Mayor Boro stated that a three-year limit with annual review, which could include revocation, is the staff's recommendation. Mr. Pendoley added that the Commission review requires a Public Hearing. Mr. Cohen added there could also be an appeal to the Council if the outcome of the Public Hearing is not satisfactory. Councilmember Breiner noted that any member of the Council can call for a review. She discussed rewording to the effect that if compliance is not achieved appropriate action may be taken, including revocation. She stated that ties it with the noncompliance. Councilmember Shippey stated that he wants to make sure that all references to RV park or RV storage are removed from the Resolution. Mayor Boro reviewed the Council's discussion, and stated they had reached agreement on Conditions 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 20. He then asked staff to come back with further information on Conditions 10 and 15, as discussed, in the next two weeks. He asked for a motion on the Conditions which the Council approved tonight. Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving the action taken on Conditions 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 20, as discussed. RESOLUTION NO. 8640 - GRANTING IN PART THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING A USE PERMIT EXTENSION FOR THE MARIN RANCH AIRPORT WITH REVISED CONDITIONS WHICH LIMIT THE NON -AVIATION RELATED USES AND MODIFYING CONDITIONS NO. 8, 9, 11, 12, AND 20; UP74-6(g), AP #155-230-10, 11, 12, 13, 14 BIELSER, SHEKOU, ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER; CAPITAL INVESTMENT RESOURCES, REPRESENTATIVE (AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro (NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None (ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None City Attorney Ragghianti noted that the Public Hearing was closed and it will not be re -noticed as a Public Hearing, but that public input will be permitted, if it is a new subject not discussed tonight. 20.PUBLIC HEARING - Z89-15, ED89-102, & GPA 90-2 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 5 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT; 10 E. CRESCENT DRIVE; REAL TIME INVESTMENTS, OWNER; FORSHER + GUTHRIE, REPS.; AP #10-291-67 (P1) - File 10-3 x 10-6 x 10-7 (Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley gave a brief overview, and discussed the General Plan amendments which would be required. He noted that the property is zoned Commercial, and this 5 -unit condominium project would generate significantly less traffic than commercial would have. Also, there is greater compatibility with the adjacent resi- dential uses. There would also be improvement of the intersection at Fourth and E. Crescent, which would improve traffic conditions. Associate Planner Bell then briefed the Council on the project, describing it as a proposal to construct five condominium units on a 10,396 sq. ft. parcel, located in two buildings. The split level condos will be constructed over a subterranean garage. Ms. Bell then discussed the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Retail/Office to High Density Residential. The rezoning is from C- 2 (General Commercial) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential). Ms. Bell then gave an analysis, including preservation of an existing Redwood tree, which had caused concern; on-site parking, which meets the requirements. Ms. Bell reported that at the July 9, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, neighbors had expressed concern regarding adequacy of parking. The Commission was concerned that, given the prices of housing units in San Rafael, there might be two families instead of one in some of the condos, which would present a parking problem. The Commission asked staff to provide additional information on the parking standards. Ms. Bell reported that the City conducted a parking survey of apartment complexes and condominiums to assess the actual parking demand, and also surveyed other jurisdictions for parking standards for condominium units. Conclusions of the study revealed that other jurisdictions do not distinguish between apartment parking standards and those for condos. No jurisdiction surveyed required more resident or guest parking stalls than does San Rafael. Ms. Bell reported that the project is in compliance with the Hillside Design Stand- ards. With regard to traffic impact, the intersection below the site is to be reconfigured and realigned, and a centerline installed on E. Crescent Drive. Ms. Bell then discussed Condominium Ordinance exceptions: 1) Site coverage (49% proposed, where 35% is allowed); 2) Minimum distance between buildings at their nearest point, (14 feet proposed, where 15 feet is required); 3) A screened parking area (100 sq. ft. per dwelling unit) for recreational vehicles is required (None is provided in the proposal); and 4) A community center or recreational center or recreational building center is required (None is provided). Ms. Bell explained that the wording of findings to support an exception to the condominium standards is similar to the findings for a variance, but they are fundamentally different in concept. She explained that a variance from the Zoning Ordinance is granted when a departure from the rules is necessary to allow any development at all to occur, or to avoid hardship. She noted that an exception to the condonimium standards are similar to the findings for a variance, but they are fundamentally different in concept. She explained that a variance from the Zoning Ordinance is granted when a departure from the rules is necessary to allow any development at all to occur, or to avoid hardship. She noted that an exception to the condominium ordinance is granted when necessary to allow a condominium to be built; the test is not whether any development at all would be possible without the exception. Ms. Bell stated that the Planning Commission requested a complete analysis of the exceptions requested, and they are in the staff report. She noted that development of the project site with a standard apartment complex could result in substantially more coverage at 60-70%. Mayor Boro inquired about the fire potential, and noted the roof recommended was Class C. As a result of the fire in the East Bay, he believes Class A is being required now. Councilmember Breiner inquired is it normal to have the Condominium Map after the approval? Mr. Pendoley responded, it seems fair to give the Applicant a way to have a reading, since there is a General Plan Amendment involved. Councilmember Breiner then inquired how many apartments would be permitted on the site, and Ms. Bell responded that ten would be the maximum. Councilmember Thayer inquired about compliance with the Hillside Design Standards, and Ms. Bell responded that the natural state requirement is applicable only for single family residences. Mr. Pendoley added that standard is really aimed at hill- sides where the site has substantially never been touched. He noted that a typical condo project has quite a few units with much open area, but this is an urban location and design. Councilmember Cohen asked if a screened RV area and Recreation Center would not be required if this was an apartment complex, and Mr. Pendoley stated it would not. Mr. (Cohen stated that is an important point. Councilmember Shippey inquired if the 49% coverage is normal for an infill lot, and Mr. Pendoley responded that there is one infill condo project in San Rafael which has more coverage than this one. Councilmember Shippey noted there was considerable information on preserving the Redwood tree, and Ms. Bell explained that there was much discussion and an Arborist was called in for recommendations on preserving the tree. Mr. Shippey noted that the report said the tree might not live more than two years, anyway. Ms. Bell stated that was because of a combination of drought and age, but they are trying to save it. Attorney Cecilia Bridges, representing the Applicant, Martin Feldman, noted there are six issues in the staff report, and three are not serious and three are taken care of. She noted that the Redwood tree is on the adjacent property, but the Applicant has provided for quarterly monitoring and preservation of the tree. Ms. Bridges discussed the various issues in detail, and stated that the map will be forthcoming after this meeting. She explained about the traffic mitigation by means of reconfiguring the corner, and posting of signs. Ms. Bridges stated that RV storage and recreation facilities should not be required on an infill lot. She stated that the financial analysis should not be a part of this discussion, since it is the lender's responsibility. Ms. Bridges noted that, in connection with the Visioning event in the Downtown Plan, there was discussion about starting with infill lots, as a part of the housing pro- gram. Harry Winters of WENA (West End Neighborhood Association), stated that the notice sent for this meeting was incorrect in that it stated it was to hear an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of the Design Review when, in fact, this was an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of the Design Review, as noted in the staff report. He stated this caused confusion among the neighbors. He wondered if it had an impact on this public hearing, noting there were so few people present. City Attorney Ragghianti stated the notice changes the nature of the hearing, but does not affect the noticing requirement. Mr. Winters stated the Applicant has submitted an amendment to the General Plan, and requests for exceptions. He noted that next door to this site is a single family lot approximately the same size. The neighbors feel that three units would be reasonable. Mr. Winters also addressed the density and traffic problems, and expressed concern about guest parking not being adequate. He stated the lot coverage is too great. Mr. Winters stated he feels a financial analysis should be required. Jan Adams of Tierra Vista Way, expressed her concerns about traffic, and speeding on E. Crescent, and agreed with Mr. Winters that three units would be acceptable. (There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed. Councilmember Cohen asked about a comparison of commercial versus residential regarding intensity of use. Ms. Bell showed a graphic illustrating a commercial development, and noted that on the Miracle Mile the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) is .32. As for traffic trips, she stated she will research this. Mr. Cohen said there is no doubt the owner has the right to develop his property, and the point for the Council to keep in mind is No Use versus Condos. He stated it is his feeling that residential would be a preferable use. He stated this has been zoned commercial where residential is appropriate, and is on the border between residential and commercial. Councilmember Thayer stated she realizes it could have been developed with greater intensity, but that is not before the Council. She stated she notes with interest that the project meets the Hillside Standards, but that whenever exceptions are requested to the Ordinance it tells her something about the lot size. She stated she is not at all sure that this could not be done with less density. Mr. Pendoley responded that this project has the same density as an apartment, but an apartment complex does not have the same restrictions as the Condo Ordinance. Councilmember Breiner expressed concern about the driveway grade, and the turnaround. Councilmember Shippey stated he feels it should be rezoned residential, but he is concerned about the coverage of the site. Mayor Boro stated that he noticed there are duplexes and single family homes in the area, and multi -residential above. He said the issue before the Council is that there is an infill site and in order to provide condos, it will require exceptions. He stated the Council has two items to consider, whether to direct staff to prepare resolutions approving the Design Review, certifying the Negative Declaration, and approving the General Plan Amendment application; and directing staff to prepare an Ordinance adopting the zone change. Councilmember Breiner inquired about the advisability of deleting Condition (35), which reads: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall file and receive approvals for a subdivision map to allow the construction of condominium units". Mr. Pendoley agreed. Councilmember Cohen stated that the Downtown Plan supports condo projects as doing more than apartments, and encourages multi -housing. He stated it does not make sense to require an RV storage on a downtown site. He stated he has a problem with the steepness of the slope requiring an exception. He stated he would be comfortable going forward with the exceptions, and with deleting Condition (35). Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to grant the Appeal of the Planning Commission denial; direct staff to prepare Resolutions approving Environmental and Design Review application, certifying Negative Declaration, and approving General Plan Amendment application; also, deleting Condition (35). Under discussion, Councilmember Breiner stated she would like to see the exceptions which were issues on this project considered when the Subdivision Ordinance is updated. She stated the exceptions should be spelled out in the Ordinance. Councilmember Thayer stated that with regard to the exceptions, it bothers her to make exceptions to Ordinances to accommodate a project. Councilmember Cohen noted that if this were an apartment project it would be in total compliance. (AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey & Mayor Boro (NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer (ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to direct staff to prepare an Ordinance approving the Zone Change. (AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey & Mayor Boro (NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer (ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 21.UP72-32(b)/ED91-55 - APPEAL OF CONDITION 14, REQUIRING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS, REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1730 SQ. FT. MULTI- PURPOSE ROOM FOR THE TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH; 333 WOODLAND AVE. (Pl) - File 10-5 x 10-7 Public Works Director Bernardi reported that he had investigated the issue of the sidewalk being moved closer to the center of the street, and does not feel it is feasible. It would create drainage problems for the street, unless a major street drain system is undertaken. It would also create a safety hazard for vehicles and would increase the City's liability. Also, the retaining wall would be no higher than 4 feet at its highest point, and will have no aesthetic impact. Mr. Bernardi recommended that Condition 14 be rewritten to allow the church to satisfy the sidewalk requirement by paying $5,000 toward the construction of the sidewalks. In addition, Mr. Bernardi requested authorization to use Gas Tax funds for the remainder of the cost to construct sidewalks, including the required retaining walls, and that the attached Resolution be adopted. Councilmember Breiner inquired if the findings in the soils analysis indicate that the cost would be greater, would be project come back before the Council? Mr. Bernardi responded that they will not cut the hill until they are sure it is stable, after surveying the area. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution denying the Appeal, and authorizing the Public Works Director to utilize Gas Tax funds for partial payment of sidewalk installation on Woodland Avenue. RESOLUTION NO. 8641 - DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITION OF APPROVAL #14; REQUIRING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS (ED91-55) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,730 SQ. FT. MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM FOR THE TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH; 333 WOODLAND AVE. (AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro (NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None (ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 22.REZONING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 176 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX (OAKRIDGE APARTMENTS); SMITH RANCH ROAD PROPERTIES, OWNER; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO., INC., REP.; AP #155-251-08 & 09 (P1) - File 10-3 x 10-1 IMayor Boro and Attorney Al Bianchi, representing the Applicant, agreed that due to the lateness of the hour and the fact that the Applicants planned a half-hour presentation, that the item be postponed until the next meeting on April 20, 1992. Mayor Boro promised Mr. Bianchi he would move the item up before the Public Hearings on the agenda, and thanked the group for their patience and understanding. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to continue this item to the meeting of April 20, 1992. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 23.STATUS REPORT ON COUNTYWIDE PLAN (P1) - File 191 Mayor Boro recommended this item be postponed to the May 4, 1992 meeting, since there will be no decision made at the next Countywide Plan Committee meeting. 24.DISCUSSION RE VOLUNTEER STORM DRAIN INLET STENCILING PROJECT - EARTH DAY 1992, (SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 25, 1992 (PW) - File 9-3-40 x 105 Public Works Director Bernardi briefed the Council on the project, in which portions of the sidewalks would be spray painted with a stencil informing people not to dump oil and other substances into our catch basins. He stated this would be especially helpful in the Canal area. He stated the project is currently being coordinated by Carol d'Alessio of Marin Conservation League, and the stenciling will be done by volunteers. Mr. Bernardi recommended the City participate by donating the funds, about $200 for the materials. Carol d'Alessio stated that explanatory brochures will be in English and Spanish. Councilmember Cohen recommended that the signs also be done in Spanish. Mayor Boro stated that there will be a Canal Task Force meeting on Monday, and he will ask them if they think stencils in Spanish would be necessary. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, that the City parti- cipate in this observance of Earth Day 1992, and contribute $200 toward the materials. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 P.M., April 7, 1992. # SUZANNE M. DRAKE, Deputy City Clerk For: JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1992 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL