Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1992-09-08SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page I IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1992, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 92-15(a) - #7 No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1992, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE REQUEST FOR DOG PLAY PARK - File 9-3-66 x 12-5 Mario DiPalma, resident of 34 Heritage Drive, San Rafael, spoke with regard to a "Canine Commons" in San Rafael. He stated this was a park needed for dog owners to let their animals run freely and get enough exercise. He also presented the Council with a petition with approximately 200 signatures of San Rafael residents supporting a dog park. Rick Johnson, Community Services Director, Marin Humane Society, stated he was working at this time with many cities in the area to create Dog Parks for dog owners and considers this a very positive issue for them. He urged the City of San Rafael to take action on this. Mel Beck, a 33 year resident of San Rafael, also spoke in support of a dog park. Mayor Boro directed City Manager Nicolai to refer this to Recreation Director McNamee to submit this request to the Park and Recreation Commission and invite the speakers tonight to appear before the Commission. He stated there have been parks being developed recently which were funded by residents in the area of these parks. He also stated there is no money available through the City to create new uses in the parks, so any that have been put to use have recently been done on a matching basis between grants received by the City, as well as funds raised locally. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Meeting of April 8, 1992, Special Meeting of June 29, 1992, Revision to Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 6, 1992, Item #23, and Regular Meeting of August 3, 1992 (CA) 4. N 7. Adoption of State of California 1992 Standard Specifications and Plans for Construction Projects (PW) - File 9-3-32 x 9-3-40 x 1-6-1 Authorization to Call for Bids - Reroofing of Fire Station #3 at 30 St. Joseph Court (PW) - File 4-1-454 Resolution of Appreciation to Roy Butts, Code Enforcement Officer, for 12 Years of Service to the City of San Rafael (Pl) - File 102 x 9-3-17 RECOMMENDED ACTION Approved as submitted. Approved staff recommendation. Approved staff recommendation. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8731 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ROY BUTTS, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, FOR 12 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY OF SAN SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 3 8. Resolution Authorizing Payment of City's Share of $1,400 for County Commuter Bike Way Study (P1) - File 191 x 11-16 x 9-3-17 11. Resolution Setting the 1992/93 Property Tax Rate (Fin) - File 9-12-1 12. Resolution of Appreciation to the San Rafael Lions Club Commending Them on Their Community Project (CM) - File 102 13. Claims for Damages: a. Estate of Susan Zahl (PW) Claim No. 3-1-1637 b. Erica L. McLemore (PD) Claim No. 3-1-1642 c. Jennifer Lynn Martin (PW) Claim No. 3-1-1616 d. John Martina, M.D. (FD) Claim No. 3-1-1624 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8732 - AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF $1,400 OF TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES AS THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TO FUND A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A NORTH -SOUTH COMMUTE BIKE ROUTE IN MARIN COUNTY ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8733 - FIXING THE RATE OF TAXES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 (Fixed for payment of principal & interest on General Obligation Open Space Bonds the sum of $.002 for each $100 for full valuation) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8734 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO THE SAN RAFAEL LIONS CLUB COMMENDING THEM ON THEIR COMMUNITY PROJECT (Removal of all illegally posted signs on utility poles along Second and Third Streets) Approved City Attorney's recommendation for denial of Claims a & b. Approved Insurance Consulting Associates', Inc., denial of Claims c & d. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen (from Minutes of Regular Meeting of 8/3/92 only, due to absence from meeting) Mayor Boro announced that he was addressing the following items out of agenda order: SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 14.PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO THE SAN RAFAEL LIONS CLUB COMMENDING THEM ON THEIR COMMUNITY PROJECT (CM) - File 102 Mayor Boro presented the Resolution of Appreciation to representatives of the San Rafael Lions Club, for their community project of removing all illegally posted signs on utility poles, primarily along Second and Third Streets. Working in conjunction with the Code Enforcement Officer, they secured the necessary permits and insurance to accomplish the project. Mayor Boro expressed the City of San Rafael's appreciation for their successful program. 15.SPECIAL PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION TO CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, DECLARING SEPTEMBER, 1992, AS "SCHOOL'S OPEN - DRIVE CAREFULLY" MONTH (CM) - File 110 Mayor Boro presented the proclamation to Frank Beamis, District Manager of the California State Automobile Association, in connection with CSAA's campaign to encourage all motorists to drive safely and keep a watchful eye out for children who will be returning to school at this time of year. Mr. Beamis thanked the City Council, and noted this is especially important for children who are attending school for the first time. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 4 The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 3.RESOLUTION OF INTENT WITH REGARD TO CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FUNDS AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FOR THE FREITAS PARKWAY INTERCHANGE (PW) - File 171 x 10-2 x 11-1 x 11-16 Councilmember Cohen noted that the staff report indicates the City's contribution would be approximately $161,000 to be paid out of Traffic Mitigation fees, and the Resolution states that the STP/CMAQ funding is fixed at $1,239,000 and therefore any cost increases cannot be expected to be funded with STP/CMAQ funds. He asked whether we have a reasonable expectation that the $161,000 plus the $1.2 million is sufficient to cover the cost of the project. Public Works Director Bernardi explained that there are a number of retaining walls to be built and some widening for the Northbound off -ramp at Freitas Parkway. He stated that they took the current cost and added a very small inflation factor, and that is how they came up with that number. He added that they will not know the final number until they actually open the bids, but they feel fairly confident in this number. Councilmember Cohen said he would like to see the project move forward, but inquired if we have sufficient reserves in the Traffic Mitigation funds to cover contingencies and, if the bids are over, could we back out of this funding? Mr. Bernardi responded that before the award of the contract they can take any action they wish to. Councilmember Thayer stated she would like to know what is the usual variance of the projections being discussed. Mr. Bernardi explained that at this point it is too soon to tell, because they are at the very preliminary design stages and have done a preliminary layout of the project. He stated that there could be a problem with CalTrans, but having had the experience with the Merrydale Overcrossing, staff feels these numbers are very good. Councilmember Shippey inquired if part of the project could be taken out if necessary, or is it "all or nothing"? Mr. Bernardi explained that if the bid should come in 50o over estimate, the City would have to decide what can be taken out of the project. He added that they could also take more Traffic Mitigation Fees to add to the project. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution regarding funding of the Freitas Parkway Interchange Improvements project. RESOLUTION NO. 8735 -WITH REGARD TO FUNDING THE FREITAS PARKWAY INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT UNDER THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None S.REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT - EMERGENCY TREE SERVICES - FAHY TREE SERVICE (PW) - File 4-1-452 x 11-6 x 12-1 Councilmember Breiner stated she has faith in Fahy Tree Service, but was surprised that we did not get additional bids. She stated she would like to refer the matter back to staff to review the process. Mr. Bernardi asked for clarification, as to whether the Council wanted staff to find out why there were no other bidders. Councilmember Breiner responded that she would like to know why the other people chose not to bid, and if there is no other way to proceed. She stated that Fahy is excellent, and her recommendation in no way takes away from them. Mr. Bernardi stated that Councilmember Breiner's comments are appropriate, in that there was only one bid, and she simply wants to make sure the City is getting what it is paying for. Mayor Boro inquired of the City Attorney about the procedure. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that the City should either reject the bid or award the contract. Mayor Boro stated that on that basis he does not feel we should hold it up. City Manager Nicolai stated she was surprised at the bid results, and would like to know from the other tree services if there is something in the specifications which was not clear. She stated this is unprecedented, and that may be the reason. She added that if there was no misunderstanding and everything is fine staff will come back in two weeks and award the bid. Councilmember Shippey agreed, stating he was surprised the bid was so high. Ms. Nicolai responded that it has been that high for a few years, and noted there has been a two-year drought. She stated that if we had a storm the higher amount would be absorbed. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page k, Councilmember Thayer stated she would like to know what kind of specifications we are sending out, because a $100,000 contract would have had more response. Ms. Nicolai explained that the problem with this particular bid is that for emergency tree services the volume is unpredictable, and firms tend to bid higher in the event of a higher volume of work in order to cover themselves. Councilmember Thayer then noted that in the second sentence of Paragraph 2 of the staff report there is mention of "plan holders". Mr. Bernardi explained that staff had sent bid packages to a number of tree firms and that Fahy, Davey and Bartlett were a few, and these all had the required insurance. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to carry the matter over for two weeks, as discussed. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9.RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE TO SPEND FEDERAL DRUG ASSET SEIZURE FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF POLICE VEHICLE EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT (PD) - File 9-3-30 Councilmember Breiner expressed concern about the recommended lighting being mounted inside the vehicles, since she feels that the use of Halogen lights could cause a health problem. She recommended that staff talk to the Center for Disease Control or the State Public Health Department regarding any possible problem. She stated she would not want to hold up the purchase of the equipment, but feels the issue should be researched. Ms. Nicolai stated she will call some agencies and check it out before the equipment is purchased. Councilmember Breiner stated that, with that assurance, she would move, and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the Resolution authorizing the purchase of the equipment. Councilmember Thayer expressed concern about having to purchase additional equipment in order to keep up with the County communications. Ms. Nicolai explained that staff had been aware that additional equipment would be needed. She pointed out that they are keeping some of the old radios in the cars for Mutual Aid, and they can communicate with the County, but some car -to -car communication is a problem. She added that other departments are looking into this equipment also, and will be switching over to this equipment because it is better and cleaner. RESOLUTION NO. 8736 - AUTHORIZING THE ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE TO SPEND FEDERAL DRUG ASSET SEIZURE FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF POLICE VEHICLE EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT ($4,600) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None 10.RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991/92 BUDGET (Fin) - File 8-5 Councilmember Breiner called attention to the $31,360 Non -Departmental expenditure, noting that the Retirees' Health Insurance was over by $23,873 and that this was to be addressed when possible. She stated the City assumed a financial liability by taking care of the retirees' health insurance, and pointed out that this was only to apply to a few employees when it started out. She noted that the private sector is doing much more in holding down their costs for Retiree Health Insurance, and she would like to see staff come back to the Council in the next few months with a chart showing a breakdown of the cost, and a report on what other communities are doing on this issue. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution amending the 1991/92 Budget. RESOLUTION NO. 8737 -AMENDING THE 1991/92 BUDGET AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Cohen stated he will be interested in seeing the report from staff on this issue, and that he will agree that this is a problem but does not feel that the private sector is doing that much to help. Councilmember Thayer stated she would like to see some incentives offered in the area of Workers' Compensation, since the claims are pushing the City over budget in some SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page departments. She recommended working on safety programs in the work place, on an incentive basis. ADD ITEM RE TASK FORCE ON WILDLAND URBAN INTERMIX THREAT ANALYSIS - File 9-3-30 Mayor Boro called attention to the fact that in the Minutes which were approved this evening, there was included a revision to the Minutes of the July 6, 1992 meeting, regarding the Task Force on Wildland Urban Intermix Threat Analysis. He noted that in July the Council had received letters from the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods and from the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents where they volunteered to work with our Fire Chief via the Hillside Standards Ordinance to proceed with implementation of this Plan. He stated he plans to have a letter sent to the presidents of the two organizations informing them that we are accepting their offer and that Chief Marcucci will be contacting them shortly. 16.PUBLIC HEARING - ED92-20/UP92-30 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND USE PERMIT FOR A SECOND UNIT; 68 DURAN DRIVE; AP #165-061-04; DAISY SAVOY, OWNER; G. SCOGGINS, REP. (Pl) - File 10-7 x 10-5 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing, and announced that he was informed by staff that the Applicant has not withdrawn his appeal but has prepared a new plan which will go back to the Planning Commission for review. He stated he will keep the Public Hearing open to come back to the City Council. City Clerk Leoncini informed the Council that if the Public Hearing is continued to a date uncertain it will have to be renoticed when a new date is set. 17.PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF CHAPTER 14, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (P1) - File 10-3 x 10-1 Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing. Planning Director Pendoley briefed the Council, stating that tonight the proposed Zoning Ordinance is before the Council for consideration and adoption. He noted that this is a culmination of nearly four years of work. He explained that the San Rafael General Plan 2000 was adopted in 1988, and State law requires that Zoning Ordinances be consistent with, and implement, policies in the General Plan. He added that San Rafael's Zoning Ordinance dates back to the 1950's and required significant revision. Mr. Pendoley reviewed the process which was followed in the updating of the Ordinance, and pointed out that the white binders furnished to the Council for the May 5, 1992 Public Hearing contain the record of the Planning Commission's review and recommendations. He noted that 350 comments were received at the Commission's public hearings and all have been responded to in writing. The comments and responses are found in Exhibits B and C to the May 5, 1992 staff report. Mr. Pendoley reported that in May and June, 1992, the City Council reviewed and recommended additional changes to the draft Ordinance, and on June 15th the Council requested preparation of this final draft Ordinance incorporating all changes for consideration tonight. Mr. Pendoley point out that, in addition to this evening's actions, Council also directed staff to undertake several follow-up actions later this year including revision of the Housing Conservation Ordinance to consider isolated residential uses; reconsideration of Recreational Vehicle (RV) parking regulations; and incorporation of the changes recommended by the Downtown Community Plan. Mr. Pendoley then reviewed the actions to be taken at this Public Hearing relating to the adoption of the draft Zoning Ordinance: First, the Council is to receive final public comments on the Ordinance, including legal language. Second, the Council is to adopt a Resolution certifying adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the Zoning Ordinance amendments. Third, the Council is to adopt an Ordinance to delete Municipal Code Chapters 13.04 and 13.08. He explained that these sections have a historic interest in that they are the City's first effort at establishing setbacks; however, they are now obsolete because of the new property development standards and should be deleted to avoid contradictory requirements. Mr. Pendoley explained that two additional changes have been made in response to legal concerns. The first change, which has been incorporated into the published draft, is deletion of special zoning requirements for what is termed "transitional housing". He noted the City Attorney has stated that such housing (which is essentially a shared rental of a single family home by previously homeless people) may not be singled out for special requirements. He added that in accordance with the Fair Housing Act such housing is to be treated as all other single-family households are treated - with no special permit required. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 7 Mr. Pendoley then explained the second change, which is included in tonight's staff report, but is not incorporated into the draft Ordinance, is a change to the Emergency Shelter standards, Section 14.17.030. He added that, on recommendation of the City Attorney, wording for this change is included on Page 6 of tonight's staff report; and that this change is also recommended in response to legal concerns regarding implementation. He explained that, while emergency shelters continue to require a use permit and the same standards received by the City Council and Planning Commission continue to be proposed to evaluate these use permits, Section 14.17.030 of the Ordinance and the standards have been modified as to how the standards would be applied. Mr. Pendoley noted that they are recommended to be evaluative, rather than mandatory standards. Mr. Pendoley then noted that adoption of the Resolution for standards to be used for evaluating use permits for emergency shelters is included in tonight's actions, and that the Resolution incorporates the City Attorney's recommended modifications, as noted. He reiterated that they are to be evaluative, rather than mandatory standards, and be outside of the Ordinance. Mr. Pendoley concluded by stating that the final action to be taken is the first reading on a number of proposed Planned Development (PD) zonings, most of which replace obsolete PC or PUD planned districts, and all of which reflect existing uses on specific sites. He noted that with the completion of tonight's Public Hearing and resolution of any outstanding issues and concerns, San Rafael should have a new Zoning Ordinance in effect on October 21, 1992. Councilmember Breiner referred to the June 15, 1992 recommendations regarding storage of inoperable vehicles parked in the front yard. She inquired where it is in the current version of the Ordinance. Associate Planner Linda Jackson responded that it is on Page 16-13, at the top of the page. Mrs. Breiner said her next concern is with Page 17-9, regarding second dwelling units, with Subparagraph 4 commencing on Page 17-8, Attached/ Detached Units. She stated it was her understanding that most of the language of that paragraph was to have been eliminated because several Councilmembers were not in favor of conversion of detached structures to second units. Principal Planner Jean Hasser responded that it was her understanding that covered future projects. She noted that the sentence under discussion, "However, conversion of an existing detached structure (i.e., poolhouse, cabana) built prior to June 6, 1983 may be permitted provided all other criteria are met", has been in the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance since it started, and that was never really discussed. Mayor Boro stated he recalled the discussion, and that it involved future proposals for detached units. Councilmember Thayer stated she recalled the discussion, and thought the Council had decided to do away with permitting detached second units, even on larger lots. Mr. Pendoley stated the reason the issue came up was due to several requests for detached second units, and one of the items for discussion was the plumbing to be allowed in detached units. He noted there were many variables. Mayor Boro stated it was explicit that the Council did not want to add any detached units, but he did not recall discussion about grandfathering existing units. Mrs. Breiner stated that it was her intention to eliminate the detached second units, noting that there has been a problem in the Bret Harte area with a detached garage which was converted to a dwelling unit. She stated that the way this is worded, any detached structure, no matter where it is on the property, could remain and, if there are a number in a given area, it could really have an impact on the density. Councilmember Cohen pointed out that detached second dwelling units which were permitted under the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance when it was adopted in 1983 would have to be permitted, but the Council had agreed they would not encourage that any more be built. Councilmember Breiner then referred to Paragraph 6, Size under "Exceptions" it lists findings under which exceptions. She stated that, in the case of the very Gap, if you considered a percentage in relation to could have a second dwelling unit which could house finding be added where the exception would have to would have the abilitv to denv it. Councilmember exceptions the second stated her Limits, Page 17-9, stating that the City Council could grant large homes such as in Peacock the size of the main house you many people. She recommended a be restrictive and the Council Cohen noted that "b" in the proviaes a way ouL, py sLazing, -mere is no reasonable way to accommodate dwelling unit without granting the exception. ". Councilmember Breiner concern is for the future. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that Paragraph D, Findings, at the bottom of Page 17-9, assures that the findings will have to be complied with. Mayor Boro inquired was it the intent to deal with minimum size units? Mr. Pendoley said SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 7 Eta SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page that is the intent - small units. Mayor Boro recommended that be stated, such as nothing larger than 1,000 sq. ft., but noted that in many neighborhoods a second unit of 1,000 sq. ft. would cause a problem. Mrs. Breiner stated she would have no problem if the units are small. Councilmember Thayer stated the parking requirements should also be considered when allowing second units. Mr. Pendoley responded the parking standards in this Ordinance are tighter than the current Ordinance. Mrs. Breiner then referred to Page 18-12, On -Site and Remote Parking, and stated she would prefer that the wording of Paragraph C be revised to add, "Upon Planning Commission approval of any remote parking area. . .". Mrs. Hasser explained that the language was intended that, for remote parking to be considered, the Director would have to be of the opinion that there was hardship, but there would still be Planning Commission approval of any remote parking agreement, through a use permit or design review process. Councilmember Breiner then referred to Page 18-13, Subparagraph D under Grandfathered Parking. She noted that there are some apartment houses in town where parking is provided on site but the parking is not tied to a specific unit and, rather than pay an additional fee, some tenants park on the street while others pay the fee and park on site. She stated that is contrary to the intent. She added that the way this paragraph is worded it would not stand up in court. She asked for City Attorney Ragghianti's opinion. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that the sentence (at the top of Page 18-13) seems to suggest that once off-street parking has been provided it cannot be eliminated or made unusable in any manner. He stated that in that case there would not be an opportunity to do what Mrs. Breiner suggested. He stated he is not sure there is anything we can do to prevent people parking on the public street except for a period of time as it constitutes abandonment under the California Vehicle Code. He stated a person can park on a public street, and a person has the right to rent their garage out, and they can do it, absent an Ordinance which would prevent it. Mrs. Breiner cited a case where a landlord charges extra for a garage, where the units do not include the parking, even though the City requires that parking be provided. Mr. Ragghianti responded that for a new building that could be accomplished. Mr. Pendoley stated that was the intent, and staff felt this would also cover existing conditions. He noted the sentence states that once the parking is provided it cannot be reduced, and five years ago that was done. Mrs. Hasser stated their principal intent at this time was that the vehicle spaces would not be eliminated. Mrs. Breiner stated that is a major problem on Lincoln Avenue. Mrs. Thayer added it is also a problem in the Canal area. Mayor Boro stated that if landlords do that they are circumventing the intent of the Ordinance. He noted that at Courthouse Square there had been consideration of charging for parking spaces, and the City made sure the parking was included in the rent. He stated it seems reasonable to him that if we come upon a case where people were renting their parking separately and people have a need for parking, we should do something about it. Mayor Boro inquired if this wording would allow us to take action. Mrs. Breiner inquired, if we had to go into court would we have enough strength, with this one paragraph? Mr. Ragghianti stated he would not be comfortable mitigating something on the basis of this paragraph. He added that to him the language is not clear as to its intent. Mayor Boro asked for a recommendation for clarification from the City Attorney and staff. Councilmember Breiner recommended that on Page 24-1, under Paragraph D, Height, second line, the word "over" be changed to "beyond". Councilmember Shippey stated he is concerned about Motor Vehicle Maintenance, Page 16-12, 14.16.250, and Page 17-6, 14.17.090, since it seems to him that they both say the same thing particularly with regard to oil disposal, although one is residential and the other commercial. He feels they should be cross-referenced. Mrs. Hasser stated that some of the regulations may not apply to both, but she could add Subparagraph 6 on Page 17-6, to state that waste oils and other materials shall be disposed of properly and not discharged into the storm drain or sewer system. Councilmember Thayer then referred to Page 16-5, Fences, and noted that a front fence could be only three feet high, with an additional foot being 80% open. She inquired about higher fences being permitted on other parts of the property, and Mrs. Hasser explained that a fence in back of the 15 -foot setback for the house, as long as it follows the line of the house could be six feet high. Councilmember Cohen noted that in previous discussion the Council had agreed to revisit the options on parking of Recreational Vehicles after adoption of the Ordinance. Mr. Cohen inquired of staff what the conclusion had been on high volume food service establishments. Ms. Jackson responded that there is a definition for them on Page 3- SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 8 A SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 4, stating that they are food service establishments over 1,000 sq. ft. in size which serve more than 200 lunches daily or equivalent volume at other mealtimes. She added they require a use permit. Carols Telleria addressed the Council on behalf of the Marin Yacht Club. He stated they have one parcel which is designated as Medium Density Residential, and another parcel which is Marine Related Uses, and zoned PD. He added it was the Yacht Club's belief that they would not be affected by the Zoning Ordinance but recent negotiations with the San Rafael Sanitation District and some other lease renewals focused the Yacht Club on the fact that the Draft Ordinance had some specific changes which were being made to Yacht Club property zoning. Specifically, he noted that the one parcel which was designated Medium Density Residential is being proposed as Duplex Residential. He stated that results in limiting the site to a duplex and does not permit more flexible and perhaps better design where there is more than one unit attached to a single structure. Mr. Telleria noted that in light of the increased constraints which were put on the property by General Plan 2000, the Wetlands Overlay and the Canal Zone Overlay, as well as a 15 -foot access easement which was granted to the City as a condition of a previous development proposal, the DR designation is going to make it very difficult to do what is reasonable with the property. He recommended that the MR 2.5 zoning which has almost identical requirements and performance standards is more appropriate. He noted that MR 2.5 permits multi -family which is more than two units per structure. Mr. Telleria stated he also wants to preserve the PD Zoning on the balance of the Yacht Club property, which is designated in the General Plan as Marine Related uses, but with the PD Zoning it was the Yacht Club's belief that they had some flexibility to do something with the property at such time as they chose to do so. He reported that for the past 57 years the Yacht Club has been providing some of the things which the Marine Related zoning specifies, such as promoting the Canal as a navigable waterway and viable boating and maritime district, and to preserve limited Canal -front sites for water frontage dependent uses in order to maintain the Canal as a viable maritime boating district. He added that the Yacht Club has a lease with the City which it would like to renew, to continue to provide that facility. Mr. Telleria stated that this is a very good quality residential neighborhood and he feels the introduction of some of the uses which are permitted by right, such as boat sales and rentals, charter boat businesses, equipment rentals and related fishing and bait stores, as well as marine supply stores and the like, would meet with objections from the residents of Porto Bello and Loch Lomond. Mr. Telleria pointed out the irregular shape of most of the site and the fairly small size of the portion with the Tennis Club. He added that the intersection is not signalized and there are other properties along San Pedro Road which could better accommodate those uses than this site. Mr. Telleria stated that what they propose is that the Marine Related Use not be applied, and they would like to proceed with a request for a change in the General Plan to residential uses of MR 2.5, even for the Yacht Club property, so that all of the Yacht Club property would have the same zoning. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Pendoley for comment. Mr. Pendoley stated he has discussed these issues with Mr. Telleria. He noted the Yacht Club has a small property which is designated Medium Density. He stated the property is severely constrained by today's General Plan which has setbacks for wetlands of which there are some on the property as well as adjacent. There are also setbacks for the Canal. He added there is a series of overlay zoning districts which are proposed for this property which will implement, by Ordinance, those policy setbacks. He pointed out that those setbacks are really what is going to determine the density of this property. However, ultimately the density of this property is going to need to be decided through the site design process, which process will finally determine the number of units which will work effectively on that property. Mr. Pendoley noted that staff feels that, based on what is known about the property today, the duplex designation is reasonable and allows the yield permitted by the General Plan. However, the owners do have the right at the time they feel they are ready to develop, to conduct the design studies and propose a designation such as MR 2.5 which would allow another type of medium density development of the property. He explained this would be a rezoning, and the Council would be able to judge whether it made sense based on the merits of the design, and would be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Pendoley concluded by stating that staff feels the zoning being recommended provides the most flexibility and the ability to affect the best design on the property. Mayor Boro stated that, for the record, he would like to clarify an issue. He stated that as he understands it, there were six approved lots on that site. Mr. Pendoley replied that there were six lots at one time. Mayor Boro added that the reason those have gone away, even though the Plan has new requirements, is that these uses were allowed to expire. Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. Mayor Boro explained he wanted everyone to understand that issue, and that had the uses been kept alive there would be no problem now. He then asked Mr. Pendoley to discuss a lot split. Mr. Pendoley SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 9 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page stated staff feels that with the zoning being recommended tonight, it could achieve four units but, again, that will take a detailed design study to know for certain. Mayor Boro inquired what would 2.5 yield, maximum, and Mr. Pendoley responded that in theory it would yield 13. However, staff feels that when the design studies are done and all the setbacks are applied it would be a lesser number. Mrs. Hasser remarked that there is one other option. There is a Medium Density Residential District which is called MR5, which is one unit per 5,000 sq. ft., which would permit a maximum of 6 units on the 34,000 sq. ft. lot. She noted that would be no higher than was permitted in 1983, and it would be a lot closer to the number which might reasonably be expected with the wetland setbacks. She distributed an exhibit to the Council and to Mr. Telleria, illustrating how the 6 units were placed on the site before, and what the site looks like with the wetland setback in place. Mayor Boro asked Mrs. Hasser to explain further. Mrs. Hasser stated that the approval in 1983 had 6 units on it. She pointed out the dashed line which showed the mean high water line of the San Rafael Canal. She noted that two of the units are basically requiring fill into the San Rafael Canal, and the other four units are affected by the 50 -foot building setback. Mayor Boro clarified that Lots 5 and 6 are the ones requiring fill into the Canal. Mrs. Hasser went on to explain, if you were to move the first four units back and provide parking for them, it is possible you could get four units on this site, but it is more likely you could get two. She pointed out that in either Duplex Zone where you have the potential of splitting the lot and getting four units, or the Medium Density Zone, you have the potential for possibly four units according to staff's analysis. Mayor Boro asked whether either the Duplex approach or the MR5 approach would achieve that, and Mrs. Hasser stated they would, but that the Duplex Zone would require a lot split and the MR5 Zone would not. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Pendoley to discuss the second issue raised by Mr. Telleria. Mr. Pendoley responded that is really a General Plan issue. He stated Mr. Telleria is asking whether the entire Yacht Club property could be redesignated to a Medium Density Zoning District, and that would require a General Plan change. He noted that presently the property is designated Marine in the General Plan, and that would have to be changed before you could entertain a rezoning. Mr. Pendoley noted that, while staff has not done a study of that issue, it seems to staff that the General Plan is most consistent with itself in its present designation of Marine on the Yacht Club's property. Mayor Boro inquired if, to put it in perspective as to where the Council is tonight, that is something which can be dealt with separately at some future point? Mr. Pendoley responded in the affirmative, adding that would take a General Plan application via the Yacht Club. There being no further public input, Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing closed. He recommended the Council first discuss the Yacht Club issue. Councilmember Cohen stated it seems to him that the MR5 designation mentioned by staff is the most reasonable tack to take at this point. He noted it preserves the possibility of six units as in the previously approved proposal, yet it does not grant a right to six units. He noted the Yacht Club is still going to have to deal with the burden of the wetlands setback and other issues, and the burden of proof is on them to show how it could be accomplished. He added that if at some point they determined it is to be in their best interest to take the duplex approach then they could apply for rezoning and a lot split and come up with two duplexes. Mr. Cohen proposed that the designation be changed to MR5, leaving the applicants with flexibility and the opportunity to find a way, if they can, to accommodate 6 units on the site. He added that although it does not appear that could be done, this would not preclude the possibility if the applicants can find a way to accomplish that. Mayor Boro agreed with that approach. Councilmember Shippey stated what he heard staff recommend was the duplex because they thought it gave the City the most flexibility. Mr. Pendoley stated that, from his point of view, the Duplex District gives the City a little more flexibility, and puts us in a stronger bargaining position. He added that the MR5 gives a little bit more design flexibility to everyone. He stated that, in any event, he does not think the Council basically is going to have complete control, and in the final analysis this is going to be a design exercise. He stated it is design which will determine the density, and noted that there are really very minor differences between the districts in terms of what the ultimate outcome is. He added that from his point of view there is a little more control if you go with the Duplex SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 10 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page District. Mayor Boro stated it seems it is more psychological, and Mr. Pendoley agreed. Councilmember Thayer agreed that design issues are critical, and she would support an MR5 designation for that reason. Councilmember Breiner stated she recalls voting against it when it came in with six units and remembers very well what the land looks like. She inquired if the MR indicates marine related. Mr. Pendoley responded that MR is Medium Density Residential. Mrs. Breiner asked in that case why could there not be a triplex designation which gives a little more flexibility. She stated she feels six units should not be considered, but up to three units would be more reasonable, but if there is a choice between MR5 and the Duplex, she would prefer the duplex, if there is no choice in between. Also, the views must be considered. Mr. Pendoley stated there is no Triplex District, and the MR5 is the closest we have to a triplex. Mayor Boro inquired, what is the maximum under MR5, and Mr. Pendoley responded the maximum is six, but staff does not think that maximum could be reached. Councilmember Cohen pointed out that General Plan policies obviously apply, and the maximum density is by no means guaranteed. He stated that views are a valid concern to the public and are a matter of public policy which will dictate what kind of development proposal is acceptable here. He stated that, looking at this map, he does not see much chance of accomplishing more than the four units which the Duplex designation would permit anyway. He added it makes more sense to build in more design flexibility since that will be the critical component in accommodating the wetland setback and preservation of view. Councilmember Breiner inquired, when staff speaks of Duplex, are they referring to one duplex, or two? Mrs. Hasser replied that right now there is one lot, so they could have two units and they would be in a duplex building which is two units attached. Mrs. Breiner stated that was her understanding. Mrs. Hasser further explained, if there was a lot split which could occur in this zone, you could get up to four units in two duplex buildings. Mrs. Hasser stated the duplex zoning would allow a single family home plus the duplex structure, but there is perhaps slightly more design flexibility for getting triplex building in the MR5. Mayor Boro stated it seems to make sense to go along with the MR5. He added he does not believe we are going to get up to six units. He stated this really puts the burden on the applicant. He explained they have something they can achieve, but they are going to have to achieve it within the boundaries we have here as far as the setbacks are concerned, and the marine requirements, and the other issues. He stated he feels it is clear that the maximum will probably be four units which MR5 would allow, four individual units versus two duplexes for which they could ultimately strive. Councilmember Breiner inquired, what is the procedure if there is a split in a specific zoning issue? City Attorney Ragghianti responded that all you do is record it in the Minutes and the majority, of course, obtains. Mayor Boro pointed out that a Councilmember does not have to vote against the whole Ordinance, but the Council could vote on this one item separately so it will be recorded that way. City Attorney Ragghianti agreed. Mayor Boro then recapped the earlier discussions on the five other items: Page 17-8 and 17-9, regarding the second units and whether or not that applied to existing units or future units. He stated he thinks the consensus is it applied to future units, but he would like to hear from the Councilmembers if they feel differently. Councilmember Breiner stated she would like to bring up a point. She stated this issue was brought out when the Council was discussing the cottages, and it is inconsistent to say in a sense that we ruled out guest cottages, but that we would be willing to allow detached structures to become legalized second units. She stated she is very much opposed to it, and she would like to see the original wording from the 1983 Ordinance. Ms. Jackson stated that the sentence in question is part of the original Ordinance which was adopted in 1983. Councilmember Breiner stated she is surprised that we have not had a lot of applications under that provision. Ms. Jackson responded that it is a difficult thing to achieve. She stated she is aware of occasional requests, and none of them have proceeded once they realized the requirements as far as setbacks, parking and like issues are concerned. Mayor Boro asked for comment from the Council, and Councilmember Cohen stated he found the discussion in the past minutes. Apparently this was an issue of some at lease minor SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 11 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page controversy when the Second Unit Ordinance was adopted. He stated it does not seem appropriate to go back after the fact, nine years later, and remove the language which was there. He stated he is content with it, but was opposed to making that provision for any new structures; the condition which obtained before should still be in. Councilmember Thayer stated that just because the provision was in there in 1983 she does not see any reason for keeping it in there now. She stated it will be used rarely, but she remembers the one time the Council dealt with it, it was an extremely difficult issue. She added that with the state of the economy there might be more second units or more conversions to second units on existing structures such as garages. She stated that one of the reasons a second unit had to be part of the main structure was that the owner had more control over it when they actually lived in the house. She stated that, for that reason, she would like to strike all detached structures. Councilmember Shippey agreed with Mrs. Thayer, and feels the policy should be consistent. He stated he sees no reason to select a date in 1983 regardless of the fact that we passed an Ordinance then. He stated that in order to be consistent such units should be banned. Mayor Boro stated it will be a 3-2 vote on this issue, because he agrees with Councilmember Cohen, that the Council really did not get into the grandfathering issue, and there has just been a statement made that few if any of these have come before us because the requirements are very strict. He stated it seems like over -kill, so that item will be deleted starting with the word, "However" in the last sentence, Page 17-9, 14.17.120 C4. Councilmember Breiner noted there are some other areas where there will have to be some revisions, such as in Item 10 where it says, "if a separate structure", in the second line and a few other places. Mayor Boro stated we will look to the staff to pull those out. Mrs. Breiner offered to assist staff. Mayor Boro next referred to Page 17-9, on size limits, there was going to be a minimum on the Exceptions. Mayor Boro then referred to Page 18-12, 14.18.220C, On -Site and Remote Parking. Mrs. Breiner noted the words, "upon Planning Commission approval" were to be added. Mayor Boro stated that the Council agreed that it should be explicitly stated that the Planning Director would review this, but it would go to the Planning Commission for approval. Mayor Boro inquired of staff if they had come up with wording for the top of Page 18-13, as discussed regarding on-site parking requirements. Ms. Jackson read the first sentence as proposed: "Once any off-street parking or loading space has been provided, which wholly or partially meets the requirements of this title, such off-street parking or loading space shall not thereafter be reduced, eliminated or made unusable in any manner which renders the on-site parking inadequate for the building and/or uses in existence on or created after the adoption of this ordinance". Mayor Boro asked Mr. Ragghianti if he approved of the wording, and he replied that he wrote part of it. Mrs. Breiner expressed her appreciation for the revision. With regard to Page 17-6, 14.17.090C, regarding motor vehicle oil disposal, Mayor Boro inquired if Councilmember Shippey was satisfied with staff's addition of Subparagraph 6, as read previously. He stated he is, but that he feels there is a technicality in that waste oils are not necessarily hazardous waste, and he would like both to be specifically cited in the Ordinance. Mayor Boro then referred to the discussion this evening on the Yacht Club property, and asked Councilmembers how they felt about MR5 designation. He said he felt it is 3-2. Councilmember Thayer stated she is satisfied with MR5, as did Councilmember Cohen. Mrs. Breiner stated she has had a long-standing problem with this issue. Mayor Boro stated that the record will show consistency. He added that there are five motions to be made to conclude the actions. He first asked for a Resolution certifying the Negative Declaration. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution on the Negative Declaration. RESOLUTION NO. 8738 -CERTIFYING NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR THE PROPOSED SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 12 13 ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page Mayor Boro then asked for a motion to pass the Ordinance to print deleting the existing Municipal Code, Chapters 13.04 and 13.08. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DELETING CHAPTER 13.04, 'PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHMENT' AND 13.08 'SETBACKS ESTABLISHED', FROM THE MUNICIPAL CODE" Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1624 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro stated the next action is to pass the Ordinance to print amending Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING CHAPTER 14 (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE" Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1625 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro next asked for a motion on adoption of the Resolution on standards for Emergency Shelters to be used in conjunction with 14.17.030. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution regarding standards for Emergency Shelters. RESOLUTION NO. 8739 -APPROVING STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING HOMELESS SHELTERS AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro stated that the last item is to adopt the Planned PD District Zoning for 14 specific identified lots, which he read into the record: Zoning on Contempo Marin, Corte Mesa, Green Oaks, Loch Lomond 10, Marin Fellowship of Unitarians, Peacock Gap Unit 6 known as The Knolls, Peacock Hill Unit 1, Porto Bello, Porto Bello West, Quail Hill Townhouses, 10 Bay Way, Terra Linda Meadows, The Terrace, and Villa Marin Retirement Residences. The titles of the following Ordinances were read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1626 FOR CONTEMPO MARIN, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1627 FOR CORTE MESA, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1628 FOR GREEN OAKS, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1629 FOR LOCH LOMOND 10, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1630 FOR THE MARIN FELLOWSHIP OF UNITARIANS, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 13 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1631 FOR PEACOCK GAP UNIT 6 (THE KNOLLS), AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1632 FOR PEACOCK HILL UNIT 1, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1633 FOR PORTO BELLO, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1634 FOR PORTO BELLO WEST, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 15 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1635 FOR QUAIL HILL TOWNHOUSES, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1636 FOR 10 BAY WAY, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1637 FOR TERRA LINDA MEADOWS, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1638 FOR THE TERRACE, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1639 FOR VILLA MARIN RETIREMENT RESIDENCES, AS CLASSIFIED ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: Z91-4 SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE)" Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinances in their entirety and refer to them by title only and pass the following Charter Ordinances Nos. 1626, 1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1634, 1635, 1636, 1637, 1638, and 1639 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro thanked Principal Planner Jean Hasser and Associate Planner Linda Jackson for their very fine work on this Ordinance. He stated this was the eleventh meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council meetings and the fact that the public has really been involved as evidenced by the lack of attendance tonight, except for the Yacht Club issue. He stated the City Council is appreciative of the staff's handling of the process. 18.DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES' ANNUAL CONFERENCE TO BE HELD IN LOS ANGELES, OCTOBER 10-13, 1992 (CC) - File 9-11-1 Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to designate Ransom Coleman, Finance Director, as the voting delegate for the League of California Cities' Annual Conference. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19.CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: a. UPDATE ON CITY BUDGET - File 8-5 Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro Mayor Boro asked for a brief update on the City Budget. City Manager Nicolai stated the approximate impact on the City's budget will be $480,000 and, in addition to this, an approximate $300,000 impact on the Redevelopment Agency budget. Included in the State Legislation are some new costs the County of Marin will be allowed to include in the booking fee charges the City pays. She stated that she and Finance Director Coleman should have some preliminary recommendations ready for the Council on September 21, 1992 at the regular meeting. She also suggested reserving September 28, 1992, for a possible special session to discuss this in more detail. b. OPEN HOUSE AT THE CENTERTOWN PROJECT - File 5-1-286 x (SRRA) R-272 Mayor Boro stated there will be a formal dedication in late September or early October, but this invitation is for Saturday, September 19, 1992, from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, for the public to view the project and ask any questions related to affordable housing. c. SUPERVISOR KOPP'S BILL REVISING THE BROWN ACT - File 9-1 Councilmember Thayer brought this up stating she would bring information back to the Council at the next meeting to keep them advised of what the standards will be. d. HILLSIDE DESIGN STANDARDS - File 10-7 x 10-2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 16 Councilmember Thayer stated San Rafael won First Place in the Small Cities' Division for the Hillside Design Standards, and this will now go to the National competition. e. PIPELINE EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR BAYPOINT LAGOONS - File 6-48 x 9-3-40 Councilmember Breiner stated she was pleased to receive from Public Works Director Bernardi a letter from the Water District regarding the bad trenching job near the Shell Oil Station on Third Street west -bound where the street is sinking. The original project was to upgrade the water line capacity for Baypoint Lagoons. The trench was not compacted properly and will be repaired by MMWD (Marin Municipal Water District). She also requested Planning Director Pendoley to come back with a report on the history of a building on Third Street, in the same general vicinity, opposite United Market, as to the color combinations. ADD ITEM: I.CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER/PLANNING DEPARTMENT - File 9-3-17 x 10-2 x 13-8 x 7-4 Planning Director Pendoley introduced the new Code Enforcement Officer, Clare Machado, who transferred from the City of Fremont to San Rafael. Mayor Boro adjourned the meeting at 10:10 PM in the memory of Dorothy Chuche, former Children's Librarian, who passed away on August 16, 1992. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1992 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/92 Page 16