HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1995-05-01SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 1, 1995, AT 7:00 PM
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
David J. Zappetini, Councilmember
Absent: None
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Boro announced in Open Session that the City Council would be going into Closed Session
to discuss the following Closed Session item:
1. CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE ROOM 201
a. Conference to discuss Labor Negotiations with Suzanne Golt, Negotiator re San Rafael
Firefighters' Association.
(Govt. Code Section 54957.6)
The City Council then met in Closed Session in Conference Room 201 to discuss the above-
mentioned item.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 1, 1995, AT 8:00 PM
OPEN SESSION
1. Re: CLOSED SESSION ITEM
a. Mayor Boro announced that no reportable action was taken on the Labor Negotiations in Closed
Session.
APPOINTMENT TO LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES: - File 9-2-3
Mayor Boro announced the appointment of Elizabeth Grasham, John Haeuser and Robert Katz to
the Library Board of Trustees.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
RE: SEISMIC REPAIRS TO AMERICAN RED CROSS BUILDING - 712 -5TH AVE. - File 13-11 x 9-3-40 x 102
Mr. Herbert Nienstedt, representing the American Red Cross, recounted the history of the
American Red Cross building in the 76 years since it was floated to San Rafael and then moved
to its present location, and added onto in later years. The Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989
resulted in them not being able to utilize the forward section of the building. They sought
the advice of City staff, including Planning Director Robert Pendoley and Principal Planner
Sheila Delimont, and later Public Works Director Dave Bernardi, and Fred Vincenti, Senior
Engineer of Land Development. It was through Mr. Vincenti's expertise and assistance, and
the help from the Building Inspection Department that they were able to comply with the City's
requirements regarding disabled access and other regulations. Last week the work was
completed, including the seismic repair, and Mr. Nienstedt expressed appreciation for the
assistance from the City staff.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to approve the recommended
action on the followina Consent Calendar items:
ITEM I RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Request for Funds for 1995 Safe Graduation Night Parties
for: (CM) - File 105
a. San Rafael High School
b. Terra Linda High School
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9334 -
AUTHORIZING A DONATION TO SAN
RAFAEL HIGH SCHOOL OF $100 FOR
GRADUATION NIGHT PARTY
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9335 -
AUTHORIZING A DONATION TO TERRA
LINDA HIGH SCHOOL OF $100 FOR
GRADUATION NIGHT PARTY
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 1
2. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM)
- File 9-1
a. OPPOSED SB61 (Kopp) - Elections:
City & County Charters
b. Monitor SB1073 (Costa) - Housing Elements:
Preparation & Review
3. Resolutions of Appreciation for Downtown Advisor
Group (Pl) - File 102
Adopted Resolutions of Appreciation:
RESOLUTION NO. 9336 - PHILLIP ABEY
RESOLUTION NO. 9337 - LINDA BELLATORRE
RESOLUTION NO. 9338 - STEVE BOWMAN
RESOLUTION NO. 9339 - DIRCK BRINCKERHOFF
RESOLUTION NO. 9340 - CAROLYN CAMP
RESOLUTION NO. 9341 - CAROL DILLON
RESOLUTION NO. 9342 - FRED DIVINE
RESOLUTION NO. 9343 - GLADYS GILLILAND
RESOLUTION NO. 9344 - PHIL GREEN
RESOLUTION NO. 9345 - CYR MILLER
RESOLUTION NO. 9346 - TOM OBLETZ
RESOLUTION NO. 9347 - STAN OTT
RESOLUTION NO. 9348 - LARRY PAUL
RESOLUTION NO. 9349 - ROGER SMITH
RESOLUTION NO. 9350 - GEORGE WATSON
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 2
Approved staff recommendation.
7. Winter Storms of 1995 - Designation of Applicant's Agent ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9351 -
Resolutions (Re FEMA) (PW) APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION
- File 12-5 x 9-3-40 FOR WINTER STORMS JANUARY, 1995
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9352 -
APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION
FOR WINTER STORMS, MARCH 1995
9. Adoption of Resolution Approving Grant Contract with ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9353 -
State Department of Education for $1,800 (Rec) AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A
- File 4-10-238 x 4-10-188a GRANT CONTRACT WITH STATE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR
$1,800 (For Child Care
Division)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion:
4. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1676 (Pl) - File 10-3 x 10-7
An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael Amending the Zoning Map of the City of San Rafael,
California, Adopted by Reference by Section 14.15.020 of the Municipal Code, so as to
Reclassify Certain Real Property from P -D (Planned Development) District to P -D (Planned
Development) District by Amending a Portion of the Smith Ranch Planned Development Plan
and Conditions (Regency Center Phase 2 - AP 155-251-04, 05 and 10)
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to dispense with the reading
of the Ordinance in its entirety and approve the final adoption of Ordinance No. 1676,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips (Absent from first reading).
5. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1677 (PD) - File 4-13-54 x 9-3-30
An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael Adopting by Reference the Animal Control Regulations
Contained in Title 8 of the Marin County Code, Amending Sections 6.10.010 and 6.10.050;
Repealing Section 6.10.012 of the San Rafael Municipal Code.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 3
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Zappetini seconded, to dispense with the reading
of the Ordinance in its entirety and approve final adoption of Ordinance No. 1677, by the
following vote, to wit:.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips (Absent from first reading).
6. ADDITIONAL STREET CLOSURES FOR CLASSIC CAR PARADE ON SATURDAY, MAY 20, 1995
(RA) File - 11-19
Mayor Boro inquired about use of the City Hall parking lot during the event. Assistant Executive
Director (Redevelopment) Ours explained that the back, or north, parking lot will be used
for registration for the event. There will be tables set up for the participants to
register, so they are requesting closure of the portion of the back parking lot in the
vicinity of the doors. Mr. Ours added that there is a correction to the staff report,
Item 1: It should read Fourth Street from Lincoln Avenue to "C" Street, instead of to "B"
Street.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to approve the staff
recommendations.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
8. APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND THE CANAL
COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FOR STATE GRANT FUNDS FOR PICKLEWEED PARK KIDS CLUB (Rec)
- File 4-10-281
Councilmember Heller asked for a little more information. She noted the MOU goes from May
1st to December 31st, 1995, and she wondered about the age of the youth leaders and if
this is the first time we have received these grant monies, and is it one time only, or
can we continue to get, and work on with the CCA group. She asked are there other programs
for the youth in the Canal area.
Recreation Director Sharon McNamee explained that the dates on the MOU are to allow for finishing
the fiscal work on it, because the money has to be spent by July 1st. We will try to buy
materials to last through the next school year. She stated this grant may be possible
on an annual basis, but we are not certain at this point. Most of these programs are for
licensed child care, but CCA was very generous and took the time to put this grant together
with staff's help. We will be license exempt, and this is how we qualify. There are two
directors who are in their mid to late 20's, and the youth leaders are high school students
from the Summer Youth Employment Program which is run by the County. They are from 15
to 18 years of age. Most of them are from San Rafael High School and live in the
neighborhood, so they are getting good experience and training.
Ms. McNamee explained that other programs include a child care center at Pickleweed Park, and
a preschool program in the neighborhood which is run by Community Action Marin, and some
tutoring programs and other small programs at the Canal Ministry after school. There is
also the Teen Program run by CCA. There are a few pay-as-you-go classes at the Recreation
Center, with the "Y" and other groups. Ms. McNamee stated they are always trying to find
other resources to bring in, which are not on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving
the MOU with the Canal Community Alliance.
RESOLUTION NO. 9354 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND THE CANAL COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FOR STATE GRANT FUNDS FOR
PICKLEWEED PARK KIDS CLUB.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
10. PRESENTATION OF THE YOUTH SERVICE DAY AWARDS (CM) - File 102
Mayor Boro presented Youth Service Day Awards from the National Council of Mayors to the
following students, on behalf of the City Council and the City of San Rafael, for their
outstanding community service.
Rhi Davies, Terra Linda High School for establishment of Friday Night Live program.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 4
Sarah Fazio, Davidson Middle School for Club Live, and Youth Leadership Institute activities.
Rob Robertson of the Marin County Youth Commission, and for his services as counselor at the
Boy Scouts Junior Leadership Training Course, and work with the Canal Ministries.
Tu Dang of the Marin County Youth Commission, active at San Rafael High School including being
Associated Student Body Director of Student Activities.
Georgina Anglade of the Marin County Youth Commission and Youth Grants Board.
Quynh Nguyen of the Marin County Youth Commission and Youth Grants Board, and Friday Night
Live activities.
11. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO DOWNTOWN ADVISOR GROUP (Pl) - File 102
Mayor Boro made presentation of the Resolutions to the following: Phillip Abey, Linda
Bellatorre, Steve Bowman, Dirck Brinckerhoff, Gladys Gilliland, Cyr Miller, Tom Obletz,
Stan Ott, Larry Paul, Roger Smith and George Walton.
Carolyn Camp, Carol Dillon, Fred Divine and Phil Green were unable to be present.
Mayor Boro expressed the appreciation of the City for their outstanding efforts on behalf of
the Downtown Plan.
12. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF FEBRUARY 28. 1995 RE: UP94-105
UPHOLDING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVALS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A SETBACK
EXCEPTION/DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FORA ONE -CAR GARAGE; 26 WILDWOOD WAY, AP 10-121-05; LT. COL.
AND MRS. JOHN STICKLE, APPELLANTS: GEORGE AND MICHELE HUFF, OWNERS (Ph
File 10-5 x 10-7
Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and asked for a staff report.
Planning Director Pendoley gave a brief introduction of the process this project has been through. He explained that the
property under consideration is currently developed with a one-story building, approximately 3,400 sq.ft., including the
garage. It is located on a level portion of the property; however, portions of the parcel to the south and west are steeply
sloped downhill. The owners are proposing an addition of slightly more than 1,000 sq.ft. on the second story. This
requires a design review permit, and the principal issue in the review is consistency with the Hillside Design Guidelines
(HDG). Mr. Pendoley noted that in 1989 this property was considered for a second unit. After a long series of
debates at the Design Review Board (DRB), the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Council upheld the
decision of the Planning Commission granting a use permit for a second unit. With regard to the design of the addition
which, at that time, was slightly more than 500 ft., the Council required that the additional space be provided at the
ground level. A principal issue at the time seemed to be to avoid the perceived precedent of adding a second unit by
keeping it as low visibility as possible. We did not have the Hillside Design Guidelines (HDG) at that time.
Mr. Pendoley explained that the application which is before the Council tonight was originally submitted in November of 1994,
and has been to the Zoning Administrator three times. At its first scheduled hearing on January 4, 1995, some
property owners nearby asked for a continuance. It was heard again on January 9th, and there was a good deal of
concern expressed about the size and massing of the building, as well as issues having to do with view blockage and
consistency with City standards. In order to respond, staff referred the design to the City's Design Review Board
(DRB) who considered it on January 18th and endorsed the project, saying they believed it complied fully with the HDG.
The Zoning Administrator took final action in late January. The issue was appealed to the Planning Commission, and
the Commission unanimously endorsed it on February 28th.
Mr. Pendoley reported that, basically, the appeal letter from Mr. Albert Bianchi, who is representing neighbors, Mr. and Mrs.
Stickle, cites three issues: 1) The necessary findings to support the action cannot be made; 2) The findings which are
on the record are not supported by evidence; and 3) That the action is inconsistent with various standards, including the
Design Review Ordinance and the HDG.
Mr. Pendoley explained that in the summary staff report to the Council, which tries to take the most important parts of previous
reports to the Planning Commission and the City Council, staff has focused our attention on the HDG. He asked
Principal Planner Sheila Delimont to give an explanation of the pertinent parts of the Guidelines and explain the staffs
recommendation that this project does in fact conform. He stated he will have a brief final comment after Ms. Delimont
has made her remarks.
Ms. Sheila Delimont stated that, as the Council is aware, the City adopted the HDG to regulate development in our hillside
areas. There are two tiers for review, for determining consistency. There are mandatory property development
standards which are incorporated into the Hillside Overlay District, and there are also design guidelines which are
advisory and intended to be flexible. This project, staff believes, complies with all of the mandatory requirements. It
has the maximum square footage of 4,687 sq.ft., where 6,500 sq.ft. is allowed and the building height of 24 ft. (she
pointed it out on the graphic), where 30 ft. is allowed. There are also building step -back requirements which are
mandatory, and where this structure encroaches into the step -back zone it has a maximum height of 14 ft., which meets
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 5
the requirement.
Ms. Delimont reported that in dealing with architectural guidelines, they are flexible. She explained how the staff uses the
checklist. She added that they would not normally take an addition such as this to the Design Review Board (DRB),
but in this instance because of the concern of the neighborhood, it was taken to the DRB to get their input also. She
noted they are our experts; they are licensed architects and one landscape architect. The Guidelines do provide
flexibility, but they require a comprehensive evaluation of each project to ensure that it is compatible with its setting.
There are site development standards, and these require that significant trees be preserved and that grading be
minimized. In this case, with the second story addition there is no grading involved, but an arborist's report was
prepared and does make recommendations for preserving the Oak tree. That is very significant in this instance
because it does provide screening between the site and the Stickles' home. There are conditions relating to that, to
ensure that the arborist's recommendations are followed.
Ms. Delimont explained that the Guidelines also contain a number of recommendations which are intended to reduce the bulk
of buildings on hillsides and this project incorporates most of those recommendations. The roof forms are broken into
smaller components, as illustrated, instead of being one large mass. There are overhangs and architectural details
which provide shadow and depth, which also reduce the mass. The upper story is not built out to the total footprint of
the lower story, but steps back. One issue which has been raised is that the building does not step into the hill. Both
the DRB and the staff recommend that the step addition would be inappropriate on this site, because the home is
located on a flat pad. Also, the Guidelines are intended to be flexible, and the project does not have to comply with
every single recommendation, but taken as a whole staff asks does the project reduce the mass, and in this instance
staff believes it does. The Guidelines also state that all new hillside residential development should be located so as to
minimize interference with views from adjacent residences. They recommend giving special consideration to views of
rooftops from other hillside areas, adjacent roads and uphill properties. She explained that this is where staff has no
significant issue with this particular project. She stated that the Planning Commission, DRB and staff have concluded
that the view loss in this case is minimal. Both the cross-section and photo displays which have been prepared show
that the maximum view blockage is approximately 1%, which is the view from the master bedroom. The other two
views show approximately .4% and .5% blockage. She noted that in this case, because of the neighbors' concerns,
story poles were put on the addition so everyone could have an accurate review. Members of the DRB went out there
also, as well as the staff members, and saw it in the field, and the recommendations are based on that.
Ms. Delimont noted there is one minor issue, which is the colors. The Guidelines require recessive colors. The existing
house is white, which does not blend in with the hill, and they are proposing painting it gray. The DRB recommended
that they look at a darker gray color in this instance. Staff, the DRB and the Planning Commission all have concluded
that the project is consistent with the Guidelines, and recommend approval.
Mr. Pendoley stated that, in conclusion, staff would recommend that the issue before the Council tonight is to decide whether,
based on the evidence on the record, the application is consistent with the HDG. The Council has great discretion in
this regard. What is required, however, is that the Council cite specific facts and outline the analysis which leads you
to your conclusion that the project either is, or is not, consistent with the Guidelines. The burden of this staff report and
the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board, is to cite the facts and provide an
analysis which shows that the project is consistent. Staff recommends that the Council uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission.
Mayor Boro noted that the staff report refers to the number of second story units in Fairhills, and there was some discussion
about this setting a precedent. Also, in the Planning Commission documents in February it talked about 50% of the
units having second stories, but there was no documentation of that. He asked staff about the ratio of second stories
in Fairhills. Mr. Pendoley responded it would be difficult to give a final and conclusive number. However, to obtain a
representative type of example staff drove up Fairhills Drive, and where they could see the houses and feel confident
about whether it was one, or two, or a greater number of stories, they marked it on a zoning map. He explained that
the parcels which are shown in red on the map total 19, and are all two-story with the exception of one which is three
stories. He explained that the green cross -hatch is the property where the addition is proposed and the lot which is
marked with dots is the property owned by the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Stickle. He noted that in the stretch from
Idlewood up to just past the project site, staff found 19 structures which were two stories or more.
Councilmember Phillips inquired about the view requirement. He noted the staff report states that 1 % of the panoramic view
is blocked by the new addition, as seen from the bedroom. He inquired if staff could demonstrate how that is
measured. Ms. Delimont explained that there is an exhibit which was prepared by the applicant, and Mr. Pendoley
displayed the panorama with an overlay. Ms. Delimont stated that the applicant has framed in what they consider to be
the predominant view shed from the site. She pointed out where the cut-out area on the overlay shows the location of
the addition. Councilmember Phillips asked, does the appellant agree with the conclusions drawn with regard to the
obstruction? Ms. Delimont stated she does not think anyone is disputing the methodology of this example, it is just that
they would disagree that this is the correct way of measuring the view shed. Councilmember Phillips inquired if the
percentages are disputed, and Ms. Delimont replied there is no dispute on percentages. Mr. Pendoley added he feels
the applicant (said "applicant" but meant to say "appellant") will tell the Council, among other things, that they think the view
blockage impact is much more significant than is represented by the percentage figures.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 6
Councilmember Heller stated she understands there was a little disagreement on the story poles as to whether they were
accurately portrayed in height, and she asked was that resolved. She noted that in one instance there was a feeling
that they might have been too low. Mr. Pendoley responded that after the Planning Commission hearing, and following
the notice of appeal to the Council, staff received a letter from Mr. Bianchi asking for verification of the story poles.
Staff passed that on to the applicant and told him he should have credible testimony tonight.
Councilmember Zappetini inquired, regarding the gross building square footage, how many square feet is the lot? Ms.
Delimont responded 2.6 acres. Councilmember Zappetini asked how staff reached the 6,500 sq.ft. figure in the staff
report. Ms. Delimont explained that the formula has a cap of 6,500 sq.ft., so no matter how large your lot is you cannot
exceed the 6,500 sq.ft.
Mayor Boro called on Mr. Al Bianchi, representing the appellants.
Mr. Albert Bianchi, attorney representing the appellants, John and Marie Stickle, stated the Stickles have lived in their house
for almost 40 years and they are here this evening asking the Council to protect their rights without prejudicing the rights
of the applicants in this instance. He stated he believes there are two issues before the Council for determination.
The first is whether or not the project meets the goals which are set forth in the San Rafael Zoning Ordinance and the
Guidelines. The second issue is whether this project, or some modification of the project, can give the applicants what
they want while at the same time protecting the rights of the neighbors. He stated he believes that the answer to the
first issue, namely whether the project as designed meets the goals of the Zoning Ordinance and the Guidelines, is
clearly "No". He added that will be demonstrated in further testimony. Mr. Bianchi stated he thinks the answer to the
second issue is to say whether the project can be redesigned in such a way as to meet everyone's concerns, is clearly
"Yes". Therefore, the Council need not deny this project, but simply need to ask that it be modified in an appropriate
manner. He stated he will not belabor at this point the segments of the Design Review Ordinance which he believes to
be applicable here. They have been cited previously, and they appear in the materials which were given to the
Council.
Mr. Bianchi stated that, additionally, another of the concerned neighbors, Mary Ellen Irwin, will address the Council to bring
forth some of her concerns about the failure of this application in its present form to meet the requirements of the
Guidelines.
Mr. Bianchi called attention to the Ordinance which has to do with Environmental and Design Review, and where it says, in
Section 14.11.050, that: "The review (meaning the design review which the Council is considering tonight) shall be
guided by the following criteria..." He noted there are a number of them and he does not want to take up that much time.
However, one of them which is particularly important is the one which says that: "The design shall show that due regard
has been given to orientation of structures to ... especially the creation and utilization of vistas and open space". He
stated that is what tonight's hearing is all about, the utilization and protection of vistas and open space.
Mr. Bianchi explained that the Stickles do not object to the desire of the applicants to add another 1,060 sq.ft., plus a third
garage, to their existing home. They also seek to add a two -car garage and the Stickles have no objections to that. It
will increase the size of the structure on the property from 3,350 sq.ft. to more than 5,400 sq.ft., which is considerably
larger, he believes, than most houses in the Fairhills tract. The Stickles do not object to that, but what they do object to
is allowing these additions to intrude unnecessarily into their view. He stated he thinks the solution to the dilemma
here is fairly obvious. As Councilmember Zappetini's question brought out, the property owned by the applicants is
almost 2-2/3 acres. There can be no argument that there is plenty of room to build the proposed additions where they
will not detrimentally affect the neighbors. He stated they will show that to the Council in written expertise form this
evening by an architect's presentation. If the structure was limited to the single story, which it now has, and was added
to in a single story, it would give the applicants everything they are asking for in terms of utilization of space on their
property for the purposes that they have applied. Secondly, it would more closely meet the goals of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Design Guidelines. Thirdly, it would not adversely impact the Stickles' property. Fourth, it could
be done -and we will show you on the basis of written bids -at less cost than adding a second story. Our architect will
explain why that is so, and we will present you with an actual proposal, or bid, for doing the job for less money than this
second story is going to cost.
Mr. Bianchi noted that the applicants argued, and the staff has echoed this evening, that the plans meet all of the Guidelines.
However, please bear in mind the term, "guidelines" and what guidelines mean. Guidelines refer to the most that can
be done. They refer to the worst possible case scenario, to the maximum that is allowed under any circumstances.
However, there is no right, either moral or legal, to the maximum if it detrimentally affects others, particularly where it is
not necessary, which is the case here. Mr. Bianchi stated that the Council has the legal right to deny this application or
to ask that it be modified in order not to intrude upon the privacy and views of the neighbors. He asked the Council not
to be afraid to exercise that right. That is why the Ordinance provides for the Council to review these things; they have
the ultimate say. He noted it is the Council's constituents out here, asking the Council, as the court of last resort in
effect, to come up with a plan which he thinks they can present this evening, to give the applicants what they need and
at the same time not detrimentally affect the Stickles and others.
Mr. Bianchi pointed out that the applicants also argue that their plan minimizes the obstruction of the Stickles' view. He noted
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 7
that the figures have varied from 1 % to 2% or 4%, intrusion in the view. He stated that is not the point. The question
is not, what percentage of the view is affected; the question is the impact of that intrusion for the first time in a vista
which previously had been entirely open, and which need not be intruded upon at this time if the applicants will simply
take to heart the need to be neighborly and to consider the wishes and the effect of this project on their neighbors. He
stated the impact is the same as the "grain of sand under the eyelid" question. Itis not the size of the grain of sand, nor
whether or not it bears a significant percentage to your body mass, it is the impact - the effect of that grain of sand
under the eyelid. That is what we are facing here, and that is why it does not matter whether we are talking about a 1%
view intrusion, or 10% or any other figure. It is not necessary, in any event.
Mr. Bianchi noted that the applicants have suggested at previous hearings that perhaps, in a way, they are being victimized
because they are not going to be allowed to add a second story to a home where there are other second stories in the
area. He stated that for the most part the second stories in Fairhills are placed in such a way that they step into
hillsides, or they step down hillsides. They do not intrude upon view. If they do intrude upon views they should not be
there, and we should not encourage, by our actions here this evening, the furtherance of the proposition that an
applicant can come in, point to other bad examples (if there are any), and say that because that bad example was
approved at some time in the past by some previous City administration, we therefore should have the right to do the
same thing.
Mr. Bianchi stated that is why the Council is being asked tonight to exercise their discretion and their legal right to deny this
application.
Mr. Bianchi noted a recent newspaper article about this issue, which was a very well balanced report. However, one point of
it should be commented upon. It quotes one of the applicants assaying that the Stickles have been here long enough
to build coalitions of support. Mr. Bianchi stated that is true, and many of them are here tonight, and many letters have
been received opposing this project. The article also quoted the applicants as saying, "We're the new kids on the
block, and it seems like a lot of people are automatically siding with them (the Stickles) because they have been here for
a long time". Mr. Bianchi stated that nothing can be further from the truth. The Stickles welcomed the applicants to
the neighborhood, and everyone else in the neighborhood was very happy to have them. They are fine people and
upstanding citizens of the community. There is no quarrel over the fact that they are the "new kids on the block". Mr.
Bianchi noted there is correspondence in the packet from people who have lived in the neighborhood for a shorter
period of time, who oppose this project. They oppose it on the principle that it is not necessary to intrude upon your
neighbor's privacy in order to accomplish what the applicants wish to accomplish. The applicants' real estate agent
was told before the property was ever sold to the applicants - and that is documented - that there had been a problem
which occurred previously when someone else sought to put a unit up above, and go up to the second story, and that it
was denied by the City Council at that time. From the very outset, when the applicants first brought forth this plan and
brought it around to show it, they were told the same thing; that the neighbors would not oppose the addition unless it
went up into a second story, that they had opposed it before and would oppose it this time. He stated there has been
ample warning, and offers to work with the applicant, but to this time we have not been able to reach with them a
mutually beneficial solution.
Mr. Bianchi stated they are seeking what he believes is a common sense solution - let them have what they want, and protect
what the others have there already. It is not necessary to intrude on the view whatsoever. He then introduced the
appellants' architect, Mr. Jim Ring, to explain how this project can be done in a way which will not intrude on the
neighbors and will give the applicants what they seek, and be done at a lesser cost.
Mr. Jim Ring, architect for Mr. and Mrs. Stickle, showed photographs which he stated were shot with a standard camera with
a 50mm lens, which does not distort the picture. He showed a view from the Stickles' bedroom, which showed the
story poles, and showed Mt. Tamalpais in the center of the picture. He noted that this is a downslope lot, and not a
property which can be accessed from the side or the bottom. Any man-made feature will intrude. He stated he is
proposing a one-story addition, and showed the location where the addition would be. He noted that there is a
statement in the Hillside Design Guidelines which says the quality of site design will be given first priority in the review
of development proposals. A project should display sensitivity to the natural hillside setting and compatibility with the
nearby hillside neighbors. He stated that this project did not go through a site analysis, and they did not consider other
options available.
Mr. Ring, showed a design with the one-story concept, and the floor plan to illustrate, and adding trees off the survey. He
described the location of the various rooms, and stated that this plan has identical square footage to the one being
proposed. No grading would be required for the one-story addition, and there would be a standard foundation. He
noted they had prepared a set of working drawings for the one-story addition and took a bid from a contractor who has
been in business for 36 years. He indicated that with this plan, and new roofs on both buildings, the savings would be
approximately $56,000. They also added money for earthquake tiedown. The architect stated that the foundation
would not have to be replaced. Mr. Ring stated that this design option was not studied by the applicants. This option
would not deprive the Stickles of their view and the applicants could have all the rooms they need, It would not remove
any significant trees, and would not require a large cantilever section. They have a 22 ft. hall now, and this would
increase it by one room length. He noted that the attorney for the Huffs stated that this design would require the
removal of significant trees, but that is not according to these plans or the measurements, and not the topographic map
on that plan. He noted other cost savings, including not having to grade the area, and saving all significant trees. The
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 8
closest property to the west is downhill, and this addition would hardly be noticeable from the downhill neighbors.
Mr. Ring noted that the windows which are proposed in this design face the Stickles, and should be eliminated. There should
not be any windows facing the Stickles; no matter how insignificant they seem they are still an invasion. He stated the
fireplace does not need to be relocated, but for the Stickles it would be better because it turns from a mass one way to
mass in another direction.
Mr. Ring summarized by stating that when he analyzed everything including articulation, distance from property line, size - he
can find no difference, other than a client who does not want a one-story addition. He stated he thinks the architect can
design a beautiful one-story addition and make it sensitive to the environment and meet that first criteria of the Design
Guidelines. He stated this should be remanded back to the DRB for a one-story study.
Councilmember Zappetini noted that on one picture Mr. Ring was explaining about the 15mm film, and when he looked at the
story poles it did not seem that large. He asked were the story poles inaccurate? Mr. Ring replied that they accepted
the story poles as accurate. Councilmember Heller stated it was her understanding that the yellow tape is the top of
the roofline, but Mr. Ring is showing the roofline well above the tape. Mr. Ring explained that the story poles are
connected at the edge of the house, but it is a matter of perspective. He illustrated his point on a rendering.
Mayor Boro summarized, stating that Mr. Ring has filled in the space between the story poles, and is representing as he
understands it what the built -out building will look like to the Stickles from their bedroom.
Councilmember Phillips stated that Mr. Ring has not demonstrated what the Huffs' view would be like under the one-story
proposal. Mr. Ring replied they now have a view of Mt. Tam, and they still will. Councilmember Phillips asked if the
second story view would be a more attractive one, or the same view? Mr. Bianchi stated this is the same view they
bought. They were told when they bought the house that there was a problem about a second story. Councilmember
Phillips noted that staff is telling us that the alternative design which Mr. Ring is suggesting would result in tree removal.
He asked does it or does it not? Mr. Ring replied they were only going by the survey they provided. He did not see
any trees which were significant. They are small trees. He noted this addition only goes out 20 ft. and the photograph
he has may include a tree at one point. He stated there are none on the licensed survey.
Mayor Boro noted that the staff report also states that the view of the addition from the downslope properties will also be an
issue. He asked Mr. Ring if he is stating that is correct, or not correct? Mr. Ring replied that no properties below this
house are impacted by the one-story addition. There is existing tree cover.
Mr. Bianchi stated they would like to ask one of the other concerned neighbors, Mary Ellen Irwin, to discuss the issue of
Guidelines.
Mrs. Mary Ellen Irwin of 34 Wildwood Way, stated her property is contiguous to this one except for a driveway which is in
between. She stated that the Minutes show the concerns that she has with her home, which will be significantly
impacted by increased privacy difficulties. She added that because she is active in the neighborhood, she is here
tonight to speak to the major neighborhood issues, as well as being concerned personally.
Mrs. Irwin stated she read the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, and the comments by the staff, and she feels
very strongly that many of them do not address the reality of what Fairhills residents are facing if this second story is
passed tonight. She stated that they believe that passage will set a precedent, driving the neighborhood toward
"stepping stone" houses, looking straight out and perhaps up a little bit as in this case, and jump on the next roof, go
straight out and down, and so on. She explained that this has happened to two beautiful communities with which she
has been associated - Tiburon and La Jolla - it is awful, and there is no longer a sense of space in particular parts of the
neighborhoods. She stated that tonight it is the Council's choice. The issues are views, privacy and a precedent for
second stories added in front of views, and a significant loss of property values as well as the inaccurate interpretation
of the Guidelines by the attorney for the Huffs, and in a couple of places by the Planning staff report. Mrs. Irwin stated
that even after the meetings, over the past months, Planning staff still insists that views of open space and Mt. Tam are
what matter, but this is not borne out in all the references to views in documents we are relying on, the Hillside Design
Guidelines and Neighborhood 13/14 Plan. She stated our views are of the City, and of the backdrop of developed and
undeveloped space. The view of Mt. Tam is lovely, but from Fairhills it is the view of life in the City, or in Terra Linda,
or the Civic Center with the backdrop of the Sonoma mountains and the sky, which is so wonderful for us. She stated
this is true for Gerstle Park, West End, parts of Dominican, Rafael Highlands and Bret Harte Highlands. They all have
this concern. She stated that, according to the Planning staff comments, these views of life in the City would not be
judged with a value worthy of preservation as is the open space. When a home has a view with no other interference
by a roofline, it is very close to feeling like you are living in Heaven. The heartbreaking part of this issue is that most of
us have all of our money in these homes with these heavenly views. The taking of any of that view is the same to us as
the taking of land, only you are not reimbursing us. These are older homes. We bought them believing that
development was done and that the lots were large enough to absorb development or expansion without impinging on
the views. Mrs. Irwin stated that others will speak tonight regarding the loss of value. Neighborhood 13/14 Plan,
Appendix B, speaks to the preservation of views, stating that the structures should be situated to preserve the views to
and from hillsides. She stated that the City's own reference to the setbacks and siting of structures state that they will
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 9
be adequate to protect views from existing and proposed structures. She noted that some regulations have open
space added to the language, and some don't.
Mrs. Irwin stated that the materials which came out on Saturday for the first time indicate the history of the development with
this home, but she believes a slight "red herring" has been stated, saying that the Council conditioned the use permit to
require that the addition be at the ground level to the rear of the garage. The reality is that Council requested that the
design be on one story and that the previous owner should come up with a design, which he never did before he sold
the property. Mrs. Irwin added that to help the discussions, the Planning staff drew a design which showed the
addition at the back of the property. Ultimately, the second unit with the one-story provision was passed, but no
absolute location was required. Mrs. Irwin stated that according to a letter from Mr. Pendoley, the Council concluded
the one-story design promoted the public welfare, etc. Mrs. Irwin noted that the Hillside Design Committee
representatives from Fairhills, Sandy Imlay and herself, consistently supported the language regarding preservation of
views and "notification and review for additions over 500 sq.ft." She stated that at one point, the notification had been
taken out and then it was reinstated at a following committee meeting. She noted there were eight neighborhoods
involved which agreed on the notification issue.
Mrs. Irwin referred to the drawing which appears in the Hillside Design Guidelines document, which shows a home looking
down, but at an angle. If this consideration had been followed, there would be no problem, we could still see down into
the City. She noted that under the picture, it states, "Give careful consideration to views of rooftops from other hillside
areas, adjacent road and uphill properties". She pointed out that the notification language was placed so that
neighborhoods would be totally aware of the design and view implications to everyone in the neighborhood. She
asked, why are the notification and views no longer important?
Mrs. Irwin noted that the Minutes from one meeting state that she said there are no other second stories in Fairhills. This is
incorrect, and she apologized for not calling and having it corrected, but she did not think this would be an issue. She
read her previous statement from her notes: "All the homes on the south side of Oakmont and Wildwood are built on
one story. Where there was expansion they went out and down. The Guidelines say that homes should be consistent
with the immediate area. Clearly this two-story home will not be". Mrs. Irwin stated there are 54 homes which could
be affected by the precedent the Council sets tonight, which are fair game to go up.
Mrs. Irwin stated that the trees discussed as significant in the report, and therefore disallowing expansion on one floor, she
believes is balderdash. The report from Bartlett's describes the trees as having structural weakness due to "an internal
decay" as evidenced by mushroom conk at the base, beetle attacks in the trunk, and thinning canopies. She stated
that what little screening is there, would probably go soon. She stated that the maximum blockage is 1 % if it is based
on a 2300 panorama including the sky. She stated that others can deal with this, but from her home there is an impact.
She showed a picture of her home indicating the roof of the house below, and noted that if they added a second story it
would remove their view of downtown. She explained that 5% would take away their view of West End and Gerstle
Park, and 10% would take away Mt. Tam. Any obstruction would break their hearts; it is very important to them. The
people who bought the house below hers had intended to add a second story, until they realized what it would do to her
views. She stated that percentages are too confusing, and she wonders what percentages will be allowed in the
future.
She noted that Fairhills is governed by very strict fire codes, which includes tree trimming up to 10 ft. within 100 ft. of any
structure. All plants which may burn quickly must be removed within 10 ft. of the drip line of trees. The trees are to be
separated so their crowns are no closer than 8 ft. She stated we are having to create openness in all of our
south -facing neighborhoods in San Rafael. She stated that screening is beautiful, but if the Planning staff encourages
buildings which must be screened, we are plunged into a terrible dilemma. She stated we are setting a precedent
tonight. There are second stories in Fairhills, but no second stories in front of major views. There are only two she
knows of, and one was put up in an area which does not have a 25% slope, and staff told the neighbors the Hillside
Design Guidelines did not apply to them --the house in between Treehaven and Twin Oaks. Mrs. Irwin showed
photographs of the home as it was before, and how it looked after the second story was added. She questioned when
the Guidelines apply in terms of views. She stated the Fairhills residents believe the Council will stand by their
precedent of August 1991 and by the Guidelines as they were perceived and explained to the people who came to the
City Hall to support them. She stated this Council has always understood the issues of privacy and views, and she
hopes they will support the residents now.
Mayor Boro asked if attorney Neil Sorensen, representing Mr. and Mrs. Huff, would like to address the Council.
Mr. Neil Sorensen, attorney, stated that Mr. Huff will give a short presentation and then his architect can answer some of the
issues which have been raised.
Mr. George Huff, applicant, noted that every issue has two sides, and the Council has heard what the Stickles believe. He
stated his issue is very straightforward, and many of the issues raised tonight have been thoroughly debated in several
other forms. He explained that his neighbors do not want him to build a second story because they believe their view
will be significantly harmed. They also believe he is violating sets of guidelines and/or laws as well. He stated that,
due to their expanding family, he and his wife need to add to their home. They have taken great care to design an
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 10
addition which has minimum impact possible for the neighbors, as well as dealing with the constraints on their property.
He stated that the design and the proposal before the Council tonight, in terms of the second story, is essentially a 24 ft.
dwelling down from the 30 ft. they are allowed. They have relocated the addition away from where it would enhance
their views, and have reduced the size of the desired addition, all in the desire to have minimum impact on the Stickles,
as well as trying to deal with some of the topographic issues and the structure of the property. He stated he is aware
that the Councilmembers have visited the area and are aware of the steepness of the hills and the variations. He
stated they believe they have followed all of the guidelines in seeking to build this proposed second story; also, on a
subjective basis, they feel they have done a good job in addressing the Stickles' view issue. This is evident by the
Planning Commission and Design Review Board Minutes, reflecting such quotes as, "...the design is sensitively
designed..", "...every effort has been made by the applicant to create a place for their family and also to try to build to
their neighbors' needs". One DRB member stated that "...the applicants have done a good job of protecting the
neighbors' view". He stated these are not selected quotes. There are no quotes anywhere from the people who have
debated these issues thus far in a decision-making capacity, that contravenes, and he feels that is very representative.
He stated he would like to cover in more detail some of the issues and allegations which have been made, and he feels
they can be put into two groups. There is a set of points, issues and allegations which seek to defeat the proposal we
are trying to put forth; and there is another set which is just trying to delay it. Either way, a delay or
defeat, essentially he will lose because he has been delayed for five or six months now.
Mr. Huff first addressed the defeat issue, which he noted has been debated by many third party individuals. He stated he
wanted to cite some of the things which are not from his point of view essentially, or necessarily the architects and
attorneys retained by the Stickles, but from the Planning Department staff, the Design Review Board members and the
Planning Commission members as to what their thoughts have been after they have analyzed all of the data. He
quoted from the Planning Department's staff report which stated, "...The obstruction is minimal". He noted the DRB
had unanimity in this issue, and quoted several of their remarks. He noted one DRB member stated that "...does not
agree encroachment is significant", and "...blockage is negligible". He added that when he went before the Planning
Commission, while they expressed empathy for everyone who has been affected in this process, when it came down to
the specific point of the view, one of the Commissioners said they did not think the impact is major. Another said,
"...very minimal"; another, "...not truly significant impact", and lastly, "...as insignificant as it can possibly be". He
noted that none of those individuals represent him or his wife, but have looked at the data exhaustively. He noted that
all of the DRB members and he believe all of the Planning Commissioners, were up at the site and actually looked at the
area. He noted there is not one quote which states anything neutral or opposite.
Mr. Huff noted that the staff report states that privacy is not an issue; also, that the window placement will not allow anyone to
see the Stickles' home. He stated he has photos, if the Council would care to see them. With respect to consistency
with the Hillside Design Guidelines, Mr. Huff stated that the project was determined to be in compliance by the Planning
Commission staff, the DRB and Planning Commission. He noted all of the pertinent points are listed in the staff report.
Mr. Huff noted that there was mention tonight that a second story for this home had been denied previously, and he believes
some of the Councilmembers were here at that time. He stated these two events are totally different sets of facts,
different cases at different times. He stated that for a variety of reasons he does not think they can be compared. The
previous proposal was very different than this proposal; the Hillside Guidelines were not in place but they are now and
he is fully complying with them; the previous owner wanted to build a legal second unit. Essentially the thrust of the
opposition at that time was against the legal second unit. The owner was willing to go with a one-story or two-story
design. Mr. Huff stated he has a letter to that effect. He was going to rent the unit and not live in it, so it was a different
structure and a different set of events. Also, the proposed addition was on the order of 500 ft., which is half of what he
is looking to do, and they found a way to tuck it behind.
Mr. Huff stated that those are the main issues he wished to speak to, which have been put forth to defeat the project. He
stated there is also a series of issues to try to create delays in the project, which have to do with data and things of that
sort.
He noted one of the issues was that the story poles are not correct, which is to say that they could not determine the actual
impact the building will have. He stated the story poles have been in place since January of this year. His architect
determined the length and placement of the poles and his contractor placed the poles, and he has a letter to that effect,
which he will submit. He added that their photographs have been available for scrutiny for the same period of time.
The photos were done with Mr. Stickle standing next to him taking those photos, which are four months old. He stated
their plans have included additional cross-sections. He stated that all of this data has been here in excess of four
months.
Mr. Huff referred to the photographs on display, and stated that no one has made the statement that they are inaccurate.
They have had a basis of understanding to work with; but now there is a doubt cast by the appellant creating a whole
new series of charts introduced at the last minute.
Councilmember Phillips asked, in previous reviews by the DRB and Planning Commission, were Mr. Ring's renditions
presented, or not? Mr. Huff responded, "Never. None of these were presented until 15 minutes ago." He stated he
believes that this is one of the tactics for delay, calling into question the data by introducing new data here, so it has to
go back and be sorted out. He noted we have data which we have all been using for points of discussion. Again, the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 11
story poles were not questioned for four months, these charts have not been questioned, and neither have the plans.
He explained the panoramic pictures, prepared by the architect's office, and explained the percentage differential
pointing out the marked areas on the overlay. He noted that in no case are they over 1%. He stated that the numbers
are low. He noted that someone stated tonight that numbers are not important, but he feels people do not want them
to be important when they are very low and they do not serve them.
Mr. Huff referred to one of the pictures, and explained the definition of a pristine view being one with no man-made structures.
He pointed out the edge of his house, which can be seen, and the roof of Mrs. Irwin's home, and others, which are
existing. He noted that the City is down below, and that Mt. Tam rises in the distance, and in no way do they impinge
on Mt. Tam. He stated they feel that the view obstruction is minimal to negligible, and consistent with all of the
regulations and there is no objection from people who do not have a vested interest on either side.
Mr. Huff noted that both of these views would be totally covered, had he not cut one of his Oak trees back at Marie Stickle's
request a year and a half ago. Cutting that tree is what caused its ill health, which is mentioned in the arborist's report;
however, he intends to have it get healthy again.
Mr. Huff noted that the data they have been working with, which he has supplied, has been available for months on end, and
it is being questioned now although it has not been debated before. He stated those issues should have been worked
out, because this is not the forum to address those issues because it wastes everyone's time. He stated if there was a
good faith effort in this regard these issues could have been raised months earlier and brought to his attention, in terms
of questions, as to the pictures and the overall impact, as Mr. Ring had done with other issues early on. When there
were topographic questions, Mr. Ring called and they looked at them and figured them out and brought back data
before the bodies. However, the photos presented tonight by the appellants were not reviewed by him (Mr. Huff) or his
team, although all of his data and photos have been available and reviewed by them. He stated that, in essence, it
creates a disadvantage when the information flows in one direction. He believes his charts, plans, photos and surveys
do a good job of materially showing what the construction will look like. He added we are providing information which
is more exhaustive than is typically done, even exceptionally done, in cases in San Rafael.
In conclusion, Mr. Huff stated that on the question of why not build a single story unit, due to the layout and topography of their
property the proposed plans they have put forward strike the best balance between the competing needs of our
neighbors and us. He added that it is unfair for comments to be made that we could easily do a design that would
suffice for both. He stated that is not a subjective comment and he does not hold that this is true. He stated that at the
outset of this project they had interviewed three architects and asked them, considering the neighbors' concerns, which
design would make sense. Each clearly considered that a second story approach was the way to go. Mr. Huff noted
that he and his wife do not share at all the opinion that a one-story version would work for them. He noted that 15
minutes prior to the Planning Commission meeting another single story plan was proposed, for them to digest and try to
address. They were not able to do it at that time, but he believes this plan presented tonight is similar.
Mayor Boro asked Mr. Ring if this is the same proposal which was shown to the Planning Commission. Mr. Ring replied it is
similar, but not identical.
Mr. Huff stated that, speaking of the plan which was handed to him as he walked into the Planning Commission meeting, it
essentially puts the addition in the section of the home which has no views. He analyzed the plan for the Council,
noting that there is limited light and view and one room is almost completely internalized. The playroom has no view;
and the master bedroom has a reasonable view, and is blocked in the direction of Mt. Tam. Essentially, he is looking
at redeveloping a home and putting substantial dollars into it, and this structure does not create a balance between his
family and the neighbors, at all. He stated that from a design standpoint it does not seem to make sense. He noted
the staff report to the Planning Commission mentions some grading issues. There are, in fact, trees, large Oaks,
which were not plotted because the site survey which was requested to be done after one of the meetings asked that
only certain trees be plotted, based on the garage, and to see what their health would be. These were not plotted
because they were specifically not requested to be.
Mr. Huff stated that he and his wife agree that a one-story addition would not justify the economic investment based on
anything like what was presented at the Planning Commission, and what we see here. He stated that the current
design he has proposed is a compromise. It is substantially lower than the Guidelines call for. It is smaller, and its
location on top of the house is not to optimize their views. Lastly, he noted that the compelling issues at this point are:
1) That the professionals whose duty is to deal with what is and what is not allowed have stated unequivocally that our
design not only meets the Guidelines but does a good job of minimizing the impact on the Stickles' view; 2) The data
that has formed the basis of the DRB and Planning Commission meetings has been available and unimpeached for
months, and; 3) Given the fact that he has spent over $15,000 on this process thus far, their property rights essentially
should not be violated and this process should not be delayed once again, nor should it be defeated.
Ms. Colleen Mahoney, project architect, stated she will not repeat the testimony heard tonight. She gave a brief history of her
background in Marin County and described her familiarity with similar projects. She stated she often had to give
careful consideration to the impacts on neighbors, and she is familiar with working on hillside properties, and working
with two and three story residences. She stated that when she was approached by the Huff family to work with them
she very carefully reviewed the previous application from the Butlers, and all of the documentation which went into that
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 12
process. She also met with staff and discussed the process, and what the real issues had been. She stated that the
plans which were 100% endorsed by the DRB and unanimously approved by the Planning Commission, are the plans
which were the result of a lot of work to try to come up with a project which was a compromise, which steps the building
back and articulates it, and responds to the Hillside Guidelines. Staff had explained to her about the checklist the staff
goes through to confirm that the documents are responsive to the City's Ordinances and Guidelines. She stated she is
very familiar with the need to take them seriously. She agrees that they are standards which the City has invested an
enormous amount of time developing. She noted that her main office is in Tiburon, which has very strict hillside
guidelines. Ms. Mahoney noted that this house is 120 to 150 ft. away from the Stickles' home. It is a 30 ft. elevation
drop from their terrace to the floor level of the Huff residence. She added that this proposal, at its maximum height, is
24 ft., well below the level of the Stickles' terrace. She pointed out that if you look at the site sections, and the
photographs, they very clearly demonstrate that the view impact is absolutely minimal. She noted that the Stickles will
see a very small portion of gray roof. She selected a roof material which is a combination of tans and greens and
grays, and she firmly believes that when you squint and look in the foreground it will not be highly visible but will blend
in with the foliage and shrubbery which presently exists in the foreground. She noted that at the Planning Commission
meeting Mr. Bianchi said we need to be careful about balancing the man-made environment versus the natural
environment. She stated she thinks they have very carefully responded to that need here.
Ms. Mahoney noted that in the discussion there is one piece of information which is missing, but to which she has paid a lot
attention in the past when she was a design review board member, and when she has sat before other Planning
Commissions and City Councils. She asked that the Council consider that all of the views we keep talking about, are
of the picture which was taken out on the terrace. She stated it is nice to talk about living outdoors, and that needs to
be given consideration too. However, we have photographs which show that in the living room you cannot even see
the story poles. When you withdraw 5 or 10 ft. into the house you cannot see them. She has pictures which she took
to illustrate that point.
Mayor Boro asked Ms. Mahoney if she has seen the drawings which Mr. Ring presented tonight? Ms. Mahoney replied they
have never seen those drawings before this evening and noted that picture was taken from a different point. Also, it
helps clarify Councilmember Heller's concern, that the windows cannot look up at the Stickles' residence. She stated
she has plans to illustrate that point, and she will leave them with the staff if the Council wishes, for reference. Mayor
Boro stated the Councilmembers have all been to the site, and his recollection is as Ms. Mahoney stated, that from the
living room you do not even see the story poles. In the bedroom there was some intrusion by the story poles, and he
would like to have
Ms. Mahoney assess if what is shown in the new picture is realistic in her opinion? Ms. Mahoney responded that her
assessment goes back to stating that no human being stands and looks atone fixed picture at any given time. Mayor
Boro asked about someone lying in their bed, looking out, since that is what has been represented. Ms. Mahoney
responded she could not begin to guess what the view would be like from the Stickles' bed, if she were lying in a prone
position. She would imagine that you could not seethe story poles at all. However, there is a much more significant
horizontal view. She noted that the Design Review Board has told her they think this design is sensitive, responsive,
and minimal in its impact on any of the neighbors.
Councilmember Cohen asked if Ms. Mahoney has had an opportunity to review the one-story alternative presented by Mr.
Ring on February 21st, and/or has she evaluated potential one-story alternatives to the design the applicant is
presenting tonight? Ms. Mahoney responded she has glanced at the plan which was generated by Mr. Ring and in her
opinion it does not satisfy her clients' requirements. It blocks windows in two existing bedrooms, does not provide the
decks which her plan provides, and it does not enhance the value of the property by taking advantage of the spectacular
views on the property. She stated that the plans generated by her and her firm were in direct response to requests
made by her client, which were to look at the expansion of their home by 1,000 sq.ft., which would comply with the
Hillside Guidelines, and that is what this design does.
Mayor Boro asked if either of the appellants desired to speak.
Mr. John Stickle of 42 Oakmont, immediately adjoining the subject property, stated that in response to Mr. Huff's claim about
being pounced on as the "new kid on the block", should the scenario be reversed and he (Mr. Stickle) move into an
established neighborhood and decide to build in a manner which would be objectionable to the neighbors, he would
expect some opposition. He stated he is concerned, not only about the loss of view and privacy, but also about the
loss of property value which could be as much as $70,000 if this building is permitted. He stated that amount was
submitted by two separate, independent, professional appraisers as well as realtors, who are experienced in handling
Fairhills properties.
Mrs. Marie Stickle stated she would like to demonstrate the impact of a small obstruction. She first held up a piece of blank
white paper, which represents the panoramic view they now have, unobstructed. She then held up a piece of white
paper with a blue dot in the middle of it, and noted that the Councilmembers' eyes go to the blue dot. She stated it
does not represent a great deal of the piece of paper, but the blue dot is what you would see.
Mayor Boro asked for a show of hands for those wanting to speak. He noted that the hour is late and much testimony has
been given, and asked that people not repeat issues already mentioned. He stated that each of the four people may
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 13
have two minutes to speak.
Mr. Stanley Burford, president of the Fairhills Homeowners Association, stated that he is in a neutral position. He stated he
felt he should make a brief statement to clarify some recent misunderstandings. He stated that, notwithstanding
yesterday's article in the W regarding this issue, there is no organized endorsement or opposition to the 26 Wildwood
project on the part of the Fairhills Property Owners Association. He stated that on advice of counsel the Association as
a whole is not speaking to the issue. He noted there are several residents, and possibly members of the Association's
Board who will speak but they are doing so individually. He stated there is a history of concerns relating to the
preservation of views in all of the hillside communities in San Rafael, let alone all of Marin, and it is easy to understand
how great opposition to any development can be mounted by simply raising the issue of views. He stated that, as with
the Planning Commission and Design Review Board, the question tonight is a singular project, not a Citywide threat.
Assuming the Councilmembers have all visited the site in question, he is sure
they will interpret tonight's discussions accordingly.
Mr. Rene Maroten, past president of the Fairhills Property Owners Association, agreed with Mr. Burford's remarks. He stated
he is a State -certified professional real estate appraiser and is an expert witness in Superior Court on issues like this.
He stated his job is to come in when the damage is done, and assess the damage. In his expert opinion these
amounts are very large. He stated that from the very beginning when he saw that this was going to be a project he felt
that a bit of mediation might have helped to make this an easier project for everybody to accept. He suggested that the
architect should have consulted with the neighbors who were affected by the proposed addition. He stated that at this
point it is still possible for them to have their addition, although not exactly what they are proposing right now. He
stated that consulting with your neighbors is important for peaceful relations. He stated that saying this is a minimal
impact is a mathematical aberration, because this is a major impact on the life of the Stickles, especially Mrs. Stickle.
He stated that at least a review of the present proposed addition is in order.
Ms. Janice Triddick, a Fairhills resident, stated she has a letter written by Michel Rousselin, a past president of their Property
Owners Association, but much of the information in it has already been discussed, and she would hand out copies.
She noted that the primary focus of the letter was really to re -state how this property could set a precedent and cause
severe damage throughout the Fairhills area.
Mr. Richard Markel of 24 Twin Oaks in Fairhills, stated we have seen the affect of one staff -approved project at 66 Treehaven.
It is such a monumental monstrosity that he urged all of the Councilmembers to view it from Twin Oaks Avenue. He
stated it is not a question of degree, or of opinion, or of a dot, but it is absolutely awful, and everyone who sees it makes
the same comment. He stated that the Planning Commission saw a picture at their February 28th meeting and they
literally gasped when they saw it. He again urged the Councilmembers to visit the site.
Mayor Boro asked Mr. Bianchi if he had closing remarks.
Mr. Al Bianchi thanked the Council for their extreme patience this evening, stating they have been very kind to everyone on
both sides of the issue. He expressed his gratitude and that of his clients.
Mr. Bianchi stated he wanted to comment briefly on the contention that the drawings which are here this evening are for the
purpose of delay. The drawings are not intended to delay these proceedings at all, but they were prepared solely for
the purpose of illustrating graphically what it is that his group has been saying all along. There is nothing new in terms
of the drawings, except these illustrate what they had been trying to state verbally, and he hopes they will assist in the
Council's understanding of the monumental impact of what they are being asked to approve this evening. He added
they were also submitted to help to refute the contention that there is no alternative, or no reasonable alternative. He
stated he thinks the Council has seen here this evening that there is at least one reasonable alternative which will give
the parties everything they are entitled to. He stated the other purpose of the drawings, was to show that the position
that the Stickles have taken has been consistent from the outset. It is reflected in these drawings, with nothing new in
that respect. He noted that the applicants knew full well what the position of the neighbors was going to be, almost
from the inception.
To summarize, Mr. Bianchi stated that by rejecting this application in its present form, what the Council will do will be to allow
the applicants nonetheless to expand their property laterally without impacting anyone adversely. The applicants
would retain the view that they purchased. That is what they are entitled to, but they are not entitled to enhance that
view at the expense of someone else by going up a second story. By rejecting this application the integrity of all views
would be preserved. Mr. Bianchi stated that the Council has the absolute legal right and discretion to deny the
application and/or to approve it only for a one -level addition. Finally, the applicants would receive what we know they
recognized from the outset they would be expected to receive if they came in for an application of this type.
Mr. Neil Sorensen, attorney for applicants, stated that sitting through the presentation was helpful for him, because he noted a
few points he would like to summarize for the Council. First, the silence was deafening on the part of the appellant, as
to how this project which is before the Council does not comply with the Guidelines. He noted there was not one shred
of evidence, or one point made, as to how this project does not comply with the Guidelines. All of the points focused on
the issues of "there may be a better way to do it". He stated that the project before the Council had the benefit of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 14
review by the Design Review Board, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission, the City's professionals.
He stated the Council can put the other schemes aside.
Mr. Sorensen said that, secondly, if you want to use dots and such, he has an example Mr. Huff gave him, consisting of two
papers with dots, which are like rooftops in a distance. One of the papers has one more dot than the other, but you
have to look very carefully to see the extra dot. He noted that we are talking about a dot, which will be a roof top, and
it will be color which blends with the earthtones in the area. Because it is only 1 % it is clear that it will not obstruct any
view, but will become part of the other "dots" in the distance.
In summary, Mr. Sorensen stated that the Council should follow what their professionals have suggested to them. He noted
there has been quite a bit of emotional testimony, and it may be that the Council is tempted to let their emotions rule.
Unfortunately, that is not how these decisions are supposed to be made. Building laws, City statutes and Planning
Ordinances are based on laws, not emotions. He stated the City spent a lot of money developing the Hillside Design
Guidelines so they could rely on them, and not on emotions. He asked that when the Council makes their decision
tonight they follow the law, and the law compels them to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning Admin-
istrator, Design Review Board and Planning Commission.
Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing and brought the discussion back to Council.
Mayor Boro asked City Attorney Ragghianti about the scope of the Council's authority, or what discretion do they have on this
application in his opinion? He noted one of the issues brought up was what the Council had done a couple years ago
with respect to the second unit application for this property, and what is different about that. He noted it has been
characterized two different ways tonight.
Mr. Ragghianti responded that, with regard to the second question, he does not believe that what occurred two years ago has
any real relevance here, or prohibitive value with respect to the matters before the Council this evening. He stated that
may be of some historical importance in terms of the history of the land use
applications which have been made with regard to the property, but it certainly should not act in any way to persuade the
Council not to take action one way or the other this evening.
Mr. Ragghianti added that the attorneys have correctly indicated that the Council has broad discretion in handling this appeal,
meaning they can uphold the appeal, or deny the appeal, or modify the approval in some way. It can be sent back for
further public hearings before the appropriate bodies. However, with respect to appeals, the Council's discretion is not
unlimited. It is constrained by the evidence that has been presented. That evidence consists not only of the written
documents which have been presented and which are attached to the staff report, but it also includes the photographs
which have been introduced, the writings which have been delivered to the Council tonight, and the oral testimony
which the Council has heard. All of that together makes up the administrative record of proceedings which have
occurred, which is before the Council this evening. The Council has complete and broad authority to handle this
matter in whatever way they deem appropriate, as long as the decision made is founded in some factual basis. Mr.
Ragghianti stated it seems to him that the things which are most clear and perhaps do not need saying - but he will
repeat them quickly - is that we do not decide land use matters here or anywhere else by simply adding up the number
of people who speak in favor or who speak against, in determining what we should do. These are not political
decisions; they are legal decisions and there are parameters which are set. Those parameters are the state of the
administrative record and the credibility that the Council gives to the testimony which they have heard. The Council is
not required to take anyone's opinion, even an expert's opinion, nor accept it if you don't believe it, or if you don't believe
it is credible. Mr. Ragghianti stated that, against that background, he will tell the Council again for the third or fourth
time that their decision must be based on evidence which has been presented, and findings which support the
administrative record of the proceedings before the Council.
Councilmember Cohen noted to Mr. Ragghianti that on the issue of views there was a comment made this evening that the
taking of a view was akin to taking of the land. He asked for comment on that issue. Mr. Ragghianti responded there
is no common law right to a view in this State, and the court decisions so hold. There is no question but that the
practical effect of an obstruction to a view shed can have an impact on the fair market value of a piece of property; but,
without the purchase of an easement, the property owner enjoys no right to an unfettered, complete panoramic view
over the property of another. He added that over the course of time there have been statutes which have been
developed in this City, development policies and others, tree ordinances in particular (although they are not involved
here), which seem to have impacted the rights that individuals have as property owners to interfere with views from
neighboring properties. This is not a tree ordinance case, and San Rafael has no tree ordinance. There are
development policies here and in other communities which are important and which form the part of all decisions which
are made with respect to the manner in which structures are permitted to interfere with the views that property owners
enjoy. Mr. Ragghianti stated it is important to look carefully at what the statute says. By way of analogy, in criminal
law, death or homicide by criminal agency does not always equal murder. You simply do not prove the death occurred
by some criminal conduct and its murderer. The content of a man's or woman's mind is important in determining the
degree of the murder. Mr. Ragghianti stated that in this case he thinks it is important also to read the statute. If the
City had intended that no obstruction should be permitted in anyone's view shed it would have said that -it did not. So,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 15
the Council is obligated to balance, based on the facts presented to them, in this particular instance how this proposed
structure complies or does not comply with our Design Guidelines. He noted that is as well as he can state it.
Councilmember Zappetini asked staff if this is the first time they have seen these photographs (from the appellant). Mr.
Pendoley replied it is the first time staff has seen these photographs; however, he does not think these photographs
differ in any significant way from the photographs submitted by the applicant. He added that to him it is simply an
enlargement of a portion of the other photographs, and the impact is the same.
Councilmember Cohen stated that with regard to the single story proposal, he recognizes that the proposal which is the
subject of the appeal is the two-story
design presented by Ms. Mahoney, but has staff taken any time to analyze in any fashion the one-story alternative presented
at the Planning Commission meeting by Mr. Ring?
Principal Planner Sheila Delimont responded that staff has not done an in-depth analysis because it is not the project in front
of us. However, we have initial reaction to some issues, which is that in the plan which was presented tonight there are
Oak trees in that portion of the site. As they indicated, we did not have the arborist look at those because that was not
the development area. However, if those trees were removed that would open up that portion of the house and make
it more visible, potentially, from the adjacent neighbors on that side. It would also become a taller structure from that
side. There would be potential inconsistencies with the Hillside Guidelines regarding tree removal, and also this does
not step the house down and the roof form is not broken up. There are a number of issues, from the standpoint of
livability of the house, that were addressed by the Huff family. You have a very long corridor, you have existing rooms
which will be losing their light and air, but that is a separate issue and not a policy issue.
Mr. Pendoley noted that if staff was asked to evaluate this and somehow negotiate it, we would be very concerned about
advocating a floor plan that took away the downslope views in three rooms. We would be concerned about the
reasonableness of that.
Councilmember Cohen responded he recognizes that point, and thinks that is reasonable. He appreciates Ms. Delimont's
comment as well. He stated he did go and look at the site and it appears to him that there are two or three Oak trees
which he would not describe as "scrub", but he does not know the technical definition of a significant tree. They clearly
seemed to him to shield the house from several downslope neighbors, and he would have concerns about that. It
would appear that the one-story alternative would necessitate removing a couple of those, and he wondered whether
that would be in compliance with the Hillside Design Standards.
Ms. Delimont stated that staff tried to look at alternatives to removing significant Oaks.
Councilmember Cohen stated that with regard to design issues, he realizes that this design as presented clearly makes an
effort to respond to issues called out in the Hillside Design Standards, particularly in the roof forms, etc. One of the
issues in regard to the view impact relates to the height of the structure. Part of the height of the structure is the roof
form on the second story addition. He asked, is there any way that a flat roof addition could be in compliance with the
Hillside Design Standards? He wondered if the Huffs would consider that, or a design they would like. He asked, is it
conceivable that a flat roof would be consistent with the Hillside Standards, and might that lower the profile of the
building? Ms. Delimont responded that the Guidelines actually recommend against flat roofs in most instances. Part
of that is because of the view from up above. When you are looking down at a flat tar and gravel roof it is not very
attractive. Another part of it is the intent to have some interest such as a hip roof, so you do not just have a flat second
story. She noted the architect has lowered the roof height more than she normally would with a full second story. She
might be asked to expand on that issue. Mayor Boro and Councilmember Cohen agreed.
Ms. Mahoney referred to the plans, and explained that she had put a minimum pitch on the roof and is trying to keep the plate
heights very low. She has also hipped as much as she can and has held the addition away from the Stickles as much
as she can, over to the side. She concurred with staff regarding the flat roof, and stated it never occurred to her to look
at a flat roof, because it would not comply with Hillside Guidelines. It also would not be responsive to the existing
architecture of the house which has a modest pitch on the roof. She stated the only place they opened them up will be
toward the view, which is away from the Stickles. She illustrated her points on the plans.
Mayor Boro stated that it seemed from the rendition the Council saw here tonight that the roof seemed more complicated than
the existing roof as he remembered it.
Ms. Mahoney responded that it is definitely more complicated than the existing roof, but basically part of that is in response to
the existing floor plan. She explained that in order to minimize the impact on the existing structure she had tried to line
up the walls of the new addition with the walls below on the main level of the house. She stated that also had an impact
on the form the addition takes.
Councilmember Phillips stated he is influenced by this rendition and recognizes that this is perhaps Ms. Mahoney's first
opportunity to view it. He stated that having worked with the Planning Commission and having a great deal of respect
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 16
for the Design Review Board architects, he stated that perhaps Ms. Mahoney could critique that rendition better than he
could, and he would be interested in her comments in that regard. Ms. Mahoney responded that her comment is that
this picture has taken only one piece out of a larger panorama, and has enlarged it. It also does not reflect the fact that
the roof materials selected here have been selected to be a combination of a light tan, brown and green, which will
cause the roof to disappear in the foreground and foliage. This picture demonstrates a little more reflectivity and a
lightness which she does not think will occur with the material they are proposing.
Councilmember Phillips stated he can appreciate those responses, but specifically with regard to height, size, and shape, is it
similar to that rendition? Ms. Mahoney inspected the rendition and stated she thinks it is to some degree accurate, but
she questions the outer roof form on the far side down the hill, over the existing living room.
Councilmember Cohen stated that when he saw the rendering at first he was struck by the impact, which seemed to be larger
than his previous impression. He stated he is not an architect and will not comment on the accuracy of the roof forms,
or how they match up with the story poles. He noted that Mr. Ring commented that photograph was taken from the
edge of the arbor, and he thinks that if you look at that photo montage where the roof form is you will note that the post
supporting the arbor is right there at the edge of the picture. It frames the picture along with the tree. He stated that if
you compare that with the photograph presented by the Huffs, you step back and get further away. This photo is at the
edge of the property and there is no question that as you get close to the edge and look down on the Huff's property you
are going to see this addition more so then you see it today. He stated he does not know that the discrepancy which he
had first perceived between that presentation and the one the Council had already seen, but that when you get back
away from the edge, closer to the house and to the bedroom, in terms of size of the impact it may be more like the
presentation from the applicant. He agreed that it is more visible from the bedroom than from anywhere else. Mayor
Boro stated that is why he was trying to ask Ms. Mahoney earlier if that was the view that you would see from the
bedroom, and apparently it is not. Ms. Mahoney stated that measuring from the living room to the closest window she
is proposing, is about 150 ft. away.
Mr. Ring stated that he was standing at the glass wall, and that is the way the camera sees it. He stated that if you go into the
home you rise 22 inches off the ground. He stated he lowered the elevation of the camera to Mrs. Stickle's height, and
she is quite short. He used a 50mm lens. He stated the applicants took their pictures either with a stretch camera,
wide angle lens, or many -series shots. He stated your eyes do not work that way unless you turn your head.
Councilmember Phillips stated he agrees with Councilmember Cohen. He has also been to the property. He stated that
sometimes viewing story poles they do not leave you with a true impression of the mass.
Mayor Boro noted that the City Attorney commented that the Council has broad discretion but it has to be based on evidence
and findings to support whatever discretion the Council chooses to exercise. He added we have a staff report which
supports the applicant and states that the project conforms with the existing Ordinances we have in the City. We
obviously have appellants who feel differently. He asked if any Councilmembers have comments with respect to either
position at this point.
Councilmember Heller stated that is always a very difficult position when you are deciding other peoples' lives. However, she
first began to follow this project with the Design Review Board and followed that with the Planning Commission minutes.
She has visited the site many times. From everything presented tonight, she does believe that the proposal with the
second story addition is consistent with all of the City's design review criteria, including the Hillside Design Guidelines.
She stated she will move to deny the appeal.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to deny the appeal.
Under discussion, Councilmember Cohen stated his reason for this action is because he has listened to what the City Attorney
said, and to the comments made by Mr. Sorenson. He stated we need to look at the evidence which is on the record.
He noted that Mr. Sorenson said that no evidence has been presented that the project has failed to meet the standards
and the Guidelines which the City has adopted. He noted that Councilmember Heller has read the Minutes of the
various levels of review of this project, and he has reviewed all of the material presented to the Council tonight. He has
been to the subject property and to the appellant's property and viewed it. He stated that while he recognizes there is
an impact on the view in that there is a man-made structure which will be more visible once the addition is done, it
seems to him to not be of the same scale as the project the Council was shown in the photograph of Twin Oaks. He
stated he has spoken to people concerned about this project, and it seems to him that at Council level this is really a
policy issue. The question is whether the application submitted originally by the Huffs as drawn by their architect, is
consistent with the policies and Guidelines that the City has adopted. He stated that interpretation by the staff, the
Design Review Board and the Planning Commission, is that it is consistent with those Guidelines. He stated that while
we heard that the Council has discretion to say "No" if it is inappropriate, he did not hear an argument that staff was
inaccurate or that they were mistaken and there was a way in which this project failed to meet the Guidelines, and that
therefore it would be appropriate for the Council to uphold the appeal and deny the project. He stated he recognizes
the concerns of the neighbors. He recalled a few years ago the City considered a tree ordinance, which became a
view preservation ordinance, and eventually became so thorny in terms of personalities and differing viewpoints and
the legal complexities involved, that the City basically walked away from the entire project. It simply was not one on
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 17
which we could get consensus in the community. He stated the language about taking views into consideration is
clearly stated in the Guidelines. He noted there will be an impact on the Stickles because they will have a structure
there which has not been there for 40 years. He does not think that the comparison of a dot on a piece of white paper
is apt. He stated there is a stunning view from up there, but his eye is not drawn to any of the man-made features and
he believes that looking at all of the evidence presented tonight, even after the structure is complete his eye would not
be drawn to it, but rather to the breathtaking panorama which is still unobstructed here.
Councilmember Cohen stated he has a concern he believes should be explored. He stated that there has been comment
about the view preservation language in the Hillside Design Guidelines, and he thinks that perhaps we need to revisit
that issue. He stated he spoke with the Planning Director, and there were so many complexities in writing that portion
of the Guidelines, that they felt it was better to leave it in the generalities we are faced with tonight. He stated he would
like to ask staff, following the Council's action on this item, to provide a report for the Council on what those discussions
were with regard to protection of viewsheds and the impact of second story additions in neighborhoods such as
Fairhills. He thinks it would behoove the Council to discuss that issue somewhat further, and see whether or not we
perhaps need to reopen the Ordinance regarding the issue of precedent. He stated that, regardless of what action the
Council would take on that point, it would be after the fact with regard to the project in front of us tonight, and no action
we would take revising the Guidelines or strengthening the language to deal with the neighborhood's concerns about
precedent would allow us to make a different determination about the appeal which is in front of us. He stated this has
been a difficult decision. There are valid concerns and good arguments on both sides, but he has to conclude that
based on the evidence presented that the project is in compliance, and he has to agree with the staff, the Design
Review Board and the Planning Commission. He has not heard any convincing evidence to the contrary.
Councilmember Heller stated she agrees with Councilmember Cohen, who covered the issues well. She added that what we
are voting on is the project before us tonight, and not something which might be here in the future. We must make a
decision on this one tonight.
Councilmember Phillips stated he came into the meeting with a slant, and is now at a different place. He thinks there was
additional evidence this evening, and without that he would not have concluded as he is. He explained the additional
evidence regards the view issue in the Hillside Standards. He stated that 1 % to him sounds slight, and visiting the site
and looking at the story poles struck him as being slight, but he thinks he was mistaken in assessing the impact of both
of those considerations, on viewing this rendition we have been discussing. He stated this seems to be more intrusive
than he had anticipated and therefore he considers the Hillside Guidelines with regard to view as coming into play.
The Guidelines state that all hillside residential development shall be located so as to minimize the interference. He
stated that while perhaps steps have been taken in that direction, perhaps other alternatives are available to further
minimize it. He added that if the second story is developed the Stickles have no option with regard to minimizing the
impact from their standpoint, whereas the applicant does. He stated he will vote in favor of denial of the project, and in
favor of the Stickles' position.
Councilmember Zappetini stated that 1 % or 2% in the way it is shown looks bigger than that to him. He feels that should be
addressed in the Guidelines, with a standard giving limitations on the percentages. He stated he would like to see this
project go back to staff, after looking at one picture compared to the other. He would like staff to evaluate the
information we are seeing. He would like to vote in favor of the Stickles and send it back to staff to come up with
perhaps a better solution.
Mayor Boro stated that, as the entire Council has, he has visited both sites and looked at this project for quite awhile. Hemet
with the Stickles and with Mr. Huff and read the record. He stated there is one thing which keeps coming back to him.
What we have to deal with is an existing Ordinance and findings we are being given here by our professional staff and
City Attorney. His issue is that whatever we do we have to be able to defend it in a court of law, and it seems to him
that the defensible position is that this is permitted. He added that does not necessarily mean he likes it.
Mayor Boro added he thinks we need to put some further conditions, however, on screening this addition with specimen trees.
He stated he understands the concern about the fire ordinances and wildland fires, and we have to deal with that.
There was a comment made that, had not that Oak tree been taken down, a good portion of this addition would not be
seen. He would like to have a condition on this motion, if it is approved to deny the appeal and uphold the project, that
specimen trees be put on that site which have immediate impact on that addition. He is concerned about the roof
colors, and wants to make sure that what is being represented tonight by the architect will be the type of color that in
everyone's opinion will have the impact which has been described to the Council.
Mayor Boro stated it is unfortunate that we are at this point, because we have someone very upset and someone relatively
pleased. Oftentimes we try to find a way we can please both parties. He does not think the one-story addition would
be acceptable, and does not know any way we can deal with this project based on what has been presented to the
Council tonight. It does meet our requirements. He stated he does not think it was ever intended that we would
completely preserve a view with an addition. As the City Attorney pointed out, if that were the case people would then
buy easements. Even the addition which was shown to the Council by Mrs. Irwin, which Mayor Boro stated he has seen,
was not a very good result, but that did not come under the design standards of the Hillside Guidelines Ordinance. He
stated perhaps we need to revisit that issue, and Councilmember Cohen's recommendation for revising the Hillside
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 18
Ordinance makes sense. Again, we have to deal with what we have before us, so he will vote to support the motion to
deny the appeal and uphold the project, which is the motion before us.
Mr. Al Bianchi stated that, if the Council is going to add the condition for screening, we also need a condition to limit the
ultimate height of the trees.
Mr. Pendoley stated he understands what is being requested, and will bring alternative language back.
Mayor Boro repeated the motion: To deny the appeal and uphold the project.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips & Zappetini
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
There was a brief intermission, after which the meeting resumed.
OLD BUSINESS
13. PRESENTATION OF DOWNTOWN ADVISOR GROUP'S REPORT "GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT OUR VISION" (PI)- File 115x 10-1 x 10-2
Mr. Pendoley gave a brief introduction, stating that 18 months ago the Council appointed the Downtown San Rafael Group
(DTAG) to translate our Vision for Downtown San Rafael into a series of General Plan and Zoning Amendments. He
stated that the very strong community consensus which was built around the Vision was maintained throughout the
process of developing the technical language for the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. He noted that the effort
was exhaustive and there was considerable debate back and forth, but the debate was on the technicalities and never
on consensus which remained strong. From a staff point of view, they are extremely confident that the package which
DTAG has put together does fully realize the Vision and will help us to get there very quickly.
Mr. Roger Smith, co-chair of DTAG, spoke of the efforts of the group, and stated they are proud and pleased to be presenting
the finished product to the Council tonight. He stated that this amendment package is a fine example of how
civic -minded citizens with one goal - a vital and attractive Downtown San Rafael - can work together to complete a very
complex job.
Mr. Dirck Brinckerhoff, explained that, as Mr. Smith pointed out the Vision has set goals for us. The General Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance are the tools we use to attain those goals. He pointed out that the first thing they did was to
incorporate into the General Plan and the Zoning the neighborhoods which were recognized in the Vision process. He
stated that the regulations they wrote automatically take into account the characteristics of those districts which the
community said they wanted protected, enhanced or changed. He referred to the Land Use map on page 9 of the
implementation document showing that the land use categories track the neighborhoods closely. He described the
various neighborhoods and their uses.
Mr. Brinckerhoff noted that after setting the districts they went on to more technical areas, with six major ones being: Zoning,
Design Guidelines, Housing, Parking and Bonuses. He described the various streamlining techniques, and the
incentives for affordable housing, additions to the commercial FAR (floor area ratio), and re-evaluation of the traffic
patterns and volume.
Mr. Brinckerhoff stated the DTAG recommends these changes to the Council and trust that through the process they will be
adopted.
Mayor Boro noted that on page 73 of the document it speaks about the Lindaro District, with a 24 ft. height bonus. He asked
would that be seven stories in height potentially? Mr. Brinckerhoff replied it would be six stories. Mayor Boro then
asked about the 10,000 sq.ft. for public use, (Par. 2ii) and asked if that would be in the main office building and would be
for public use such as a museum, library or meeting hall? Mr. Brinckerhoff responded it would not necessarily be in the
main office building, but it would be part of that project.
Mr. Smith stated their presentation could not be complete this evening without some accolades for the San Rafael Planning
and Redevelopment staff, especially Jean Hasser and Linda Jackson with whom he worked very closely. He stated that
the work of DTAG was very technical in nature and a large group of neophytes had to enter the arcane and esoteric
world of the professional planners with all of the complexities and complications. The Planning staff served as skilled
instructors and mentors to lead DTAG along the golden path to knowledge and enlightenment. On behalf of all
members of DTAG, he thanked and complimented the staff for their efforts. He also thanked the Council for this
opportunity to serve the City of San Rafael.
Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciates the hard work which went into this presentation, noting we are lucky to have the
kind of volunteers we have in our community. He stated the Council should enthusiastically accept this amendment
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 19
package and send it to the Planning Commission for environmental review.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to accept the amendment package and send it to the
Planning Commission for environmental review.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Heller noted that on page 18 there are two items which are very close to her heart. One is the newsracks and
she thinks they are making progress on those but we need the entire community to police them and make sure that the
newspapers have as much pride in their product. Also, she invited everyone to go up and down "B" Street and look at
the new trees planted recently on both sides. She noted that San Rafael Rotary and Mission Rotary have been very
helpful in that project and the City owes them a great deal of thanks.
14. REPORT ON GRAFFITI ABATEMENT PROGRAM (CM) - File 13-9 x 9-3-11
Mayor Boro announced that Suzanne Golt is ill today, and the report will be given by City Manager Nicolai.
Ms. Nicolai noted that the Police Department, as mentioned in the report, has had the primary role in dealing with graffiti in San
Rafael as part of the grant, and also have been working with youth who have been identified through the high schools to
help abate the graffiti problems. There has also been support from the Public Works Department in the Parks, and
Redevelopment has been working on the signs in the Downtown area. There was to have been a demonstration at
this meeting, but it will be at a later date. Ms. Nicolai added that the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods group
has been leading the effort in this last year, to involve the business community in a volunteer graffiti abatement effort.
The report also lists some of the other agencies and groups which have been working on the graffiti problem.
Ms. Nicolai stated that the question before the Council tonight, and what staff will be recommending, is that graffiti is an issue
which we need to address. It creates an atmosphere and an impression. While some people compare us to other
areas and say that we do not have that much of a problem, part of it is that we want to keep up with the effort to get rid
of it so that it is not a problem. That has been the philosophy of the Federated Homeowners' group also, that if it does
become a problem you can lose it. What we are recommending is that we continue to take a leadership role as a City,
in coordinating and encouraging the collaboration which was started, and make sure that it continues. We recommend
that the City take a very strong position which can be carried out in things such a letter from the Mayor on behalf of the
City Council, that we send out to our fellow quasi -public and other public entities, saying that we think this is a serious
issue and we want you and other entities (like PG&E, the Post Office, etc.) to/ address the graffiti on their facilities and
to encourage the business community to address it on their own private property. With the help of the volunteers, the
Federated Homeowners with that letter containing a message from the City, would go out into the community and
encourage more support. Ms. Nicolai noted that the report mentions that this subject had been discussed at the retreat
with the Council. The budget has about $10,000 in overtime proposed in the upcoming budget to address the graffiti
on public property, with the idea that we could address it within 48 hours or with a 72 hour turnaround time, if we had
people come in on overtime, such as the first thing in the morning prior to their regular shift to pick up whatever had
been reported on the hotline, on public property, and address it from the City's point of view. She stated there was an
option discussed at the retreat, whether we would make that service available to the private sector, at a value of $25 an
hour; that is something we need to look up. If we can, we would like to continue making efforts toward apprehending
offenders. If they do get apprehended they should be dealt with in a way that would hopefully discourage it.
Ms. Nicolai stated those are the key points staff would like to have Council's consensus to proceed with, making a statement
of a leadership role. This is the program area, dealing with public property, and continuing to pool a collaborative effort
together with the multiple organizations which are interested in addressing it with the City.
Mayor Boro noted that we also received this evening a letter from the Chamber of Commerce. He stated he had spoken with
the Executive Director, Elissa Giambastiani, at this point where they recommend we not enact the Ordinance, and citing
the Corte Madera Ordinance. He had asked her opinion about the issue of the offenders, which Corte Madera also
addressed, in addition to the private property owners. She seemed to be open to that. He stated he had told Ms.
Giambastiani that he could understand the Chamber's position as far as the "double hit" on the property owner but, on
the other hand, if we do not end up with an approach which is cooperative and effective, we may have to look at it.
However, we are more than willing to do this on a cooperative basis. He asked Ms. Nicolai, how does she think we
should get the word out, once we have finalized the cost of having people available? Would we get the word out
through the Chamber and the BID (Business Improvement District)? Ms. Nicolai replied she would think so, since it is
important to get them to carry the message to their fellow business people rather than the City sort of being the
"enforcer". She stated if there is a sense that this does have an impact on the community as a whole, they should
grasp the message that if they take care of the graffiti problem on their building that it will have an overall beneficial and
positive impact. The Federated group have indicated before the meeting, in the lobby, that they are not interested in
adopting an Ordinance tonight, but the voluntary pursuit is what they would choose to do right now. She stated that if
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 20
we worked through block captains and the BID, and use the Chamber as a communications vehicle, there should be
some significant positive response to that.
Mayor Boro noted it was suggested that a letter be sent to some major businesses in the public sector as well, and he thought
it could be discussed with Mrs. Giambastiani and Neil Moran, and possibly that we could send a letter signed by both of
them, as well as himself, talking about what this program is, what we are hoping for, and what solutions are available
through us, as well as through the hotline, and that sort of thing. It would be a way to get the word out.
Ms. Nicolai agreed, and stated that what she also thinks is important, is that volunteers assist us in following up on the letter.
It is one thing to have the letter go out, and it is another thing to have some personal contact, to impress upon whatever
that entity is, that this is important to us. We would then offer alternatives such as the "Adopt a Sign" type of program.
She noted that a few days ago she saw the mailman cleaning graffiti off the mail box in front of the City Hall with a spray
can of cleaner. She stated that we need to build on what is going on, and keep it going.
Councilmember Phillips complimented the individuals directly involved in this program. He stated it is right that it is best to
stem the graffiti as quickly as possible, otherwise it seems to multiply. He added he is wondering if we should look at
not only the result and how to address it, but maybe the cause. He wondered if as part of this we should bring this
issue to the attention of the High School District, and see if we can do something there to heighten their awareness of
our concern and ask their cooperation in prevention, rather than after the fact.
Ms. Nicolai stated that the School District has a graffiti program, and Police Officer John Childress in the Youth Services
Bureau has it in his program, but she does not know how much he focuses on it. She stated staff can coordinate the
school districts and make sure that continues. She added she would like to continue to see that the youth, whether it is
a punitive measure or not, continue to play a role in this program, and be encouraged to divulge any information they
might have on who is doing it.
Councilmember Phillips stated that he would be interested in working on the School Liaison Committee. Ms. Nicolai
accepted.
Councilmember Zappetini addressed the issue of having Public Works crew members available, inquiring will the City assume
some type of liability in that regard? Ms. Nicolai responded that we would get waivers from the property owners, as we
have done in the past, and that would be necessary even with the volunteers. She stated staff has to look at this issue,
and also the issue of competition with other people, and is there something where we really should not step in.
However, if we approached it as an option for people to use, not something where we are taking some exclusive
toe -hold, we are going to have to look at it carefully, but as for liability she does not feel this is risky. Mr. Zappetini
explained that if someone fell off a ladder, it would be a question of whose Workers Comp would they be under.
Councilmember Heller stated she likes the Council taking a public position opposing graffiti, and feels it certainly is needed.
We need to look carefully at where the graffiti hotline telephone is going to go. With regard to using the Public Works
crews, she noted that if this will be done on their own time, before and after work, and paid from the $10,000 overtime if
it is approved for the budget, she thinks we need to review it in a certain amount of time, either 6 or 12 months. Also,
she feels Public Works may want to discuss among themselves and perhaps have reviewed by the City Manager, if
they go out into the public and get $25 an hour, she would like to see that remain within Public Works for their own
projects. It is something they would take pride in doing, and they could spend it however they would like to.
Mayor Boro stated the issue of charging liability is a good point, but obviously other cities have been doing this, and regarding
competition, other cities have trucks for their graffiti programs. If we create the program, and if the public does not
have the resources or does not want to bother with a contractor, the a City could step in.
Mayor Boro asked if anyone from the audience would like to address the Council.
Mr. Melvin Geister stated that he and his brother own several pieces of property in San Rafael, commercial buildings, and they
keep them in top shape as far as painting is concerned, but the graffiti is getting out of hand. He noted that most
commercial property owners have vandalism insurance, but they have a deductible, which in his case is $1,000. They
have to hire their own painter to take care of it, but they do not want the paint the City uses, because that spoils the
looks of the buildings wherever you put it. He asked, why can't you pass an Ordinance in this City, for the seller and
the buyer (of spray paint) if someone sells it to someone under 18 years of age he would be fined about $500. He
noted every store has a sign in thereabout cigarettes, stating it is against the law to sell them without identification. He
stated the same thing could be done with the Ordinance, and put it in the hardware stores and paint stores. They are
the ones where the kids are getting it. Something has to be done because it is getting worse, and he would like to see
the City pass an Ordinance in that respect.
Mr. Tom Obletz, president of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, acknowledged the work of staff. He stated he has
photographs he took in about a ten-minute walk, a full roll of 25 pictures, of instances of graffiti in the Downtown core.
As
Ms. Nicolai noted, there is a broad range of owners, and some of the owners might be perceived as public property - such
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 21
as PG&E, Pacific Bell, Golden Gate Transit, the newspaper racks, CalTrans and the Postal Service, as well as
dumpsters owned by Marin Sanitary Service. He applauds staff's intention and the Council's ideas of getting together
and raising the visibility on this. He added that Mr. Geister had a good point, and he appreciates him staying this late
and talking about it. Also, Councilmember Phillips had a good point with respect to outreach to schools. He reported
we are working on that, and are also coordinating with the Youth Probation Department at the County through Ralph
Merola. He stated the staff report stands on its own merits.
Mr. Obletz noted there are a couple of corrections to be made in the staff report. The $1,500 donation from the Police
Association was a no -strings -attached donation, and not specifically earmarked for graffiti, although a good portion of it
will be used for graffiti abatement. The hotline is something they intend to continue and if it moves to Public Works that
may be a good idea. He stated he and Police Corporal Jeff Franzini put it together so that the phone number is not
physically on the City's switchboard so it could physically be moved to another location with minimal cost to the City.
The Marin Interfaith Youth Outreach, in their letter in the packets, indicate their interest in participating and the
Federation will pursue that. We are very interested in not blaming all teenagers for graffiti, and are looking to develop
a cooperative effort with a number of segments of the community. He noted that the Council has just heard information
about the DTAG (Downtown Advisor Group) and the Vision, economic vitality and what is happening Downtown. He
feels that wiping out graffiti is part and parcel of the economic vitality of our core City.
In closing, Mr. Obletz acknowledged the four members of the Federations's Graffiti Abatement Program who have stayed here
nearly until midnight, noting they have worked quite diligently to bring this issue forward and he appreciates the amount
of time given by staff and the Councilmembers.
Mr. Steve Patterson of the Federation stated we do not want to make this a discussion about Ordinances or about money the
City does not have, but we really need to get a grip on the graffiti problem because it is more than a problem, it is a
crisis. He stated Mr. Obletz' role of film is just the beginning of the snapshots. One of the things they would like the
Council and the City to think or, better yet, re -think and challenge itself, is how it problem solves and how it allocates it
manpower and human resources. He stated that Mr. Franzini's grant is going to be gone in July, and part of the
eradication is going to vaporize when that happens. He asked, cannot there be away to re -think how the City deploys
its labor pool? Does it have to be "business as usual"? Can't we "reinvent" how we come up with creative, innovative,
entrepreneurial solutions? What he fears if that if we do not address the
perpetrators of graffiti, the causes and why they do it, but also the tags themselves, the problem is only going to intensify. He
stated we talk about cooperative efforts, but he really thinks that strong City leadership for a coordinated and
orchestrated effort is going to be required.
Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Patterson, and stated that at budget time that is what it will come down to -- priorities the Council
establishes. There will be competition for the programs and, creative or not, it will cost money no matter how we do it,
and what kinds of ways we can address this problem. He stated that with Mr. Franzini going away, the problem is still
going to be here, and asked Mr. Patterson to be present at budget time as well.
Mr. Geister inquired, is it not possible to publish the names of youth who are caught? He felt it would shame the youth and
deter them. Mayor Boro stated he believes that if they are under 18 years of age their names cannot be published in the
newspaper, and asked the City Attorney Ragghianti if that is correct. Mr. Ragghianti agreed.
Mayor Boro asked staff, based on the comments made by Mr. Geister, if they could look at part of an Ordinance, the part
dealing with the buying and selling of the spray paint, and also what happens if we do catch an offender and can we
hold parents liable. He asked to have that come back to the Council at some point. Ms. Nicolai agreed. She stated
there are Ordinances like that, and right now under current laws you can hold the parents responsible. She stated
there are some cities which have more stringent Ordinances.
Councilmember Cohen stated he read the Chamber of Commerce letter, which stated they are opposed to the portion of the
Corte Madera Ordinance which it is his understanding does penalize property owners by requiring them to have the City
do the work and charging them. He would be loathe to adopt an Ordinance like that until we really try to show some
leadership and work with the business people, and try to get people to follow our example. He feels we should set the
example before we can ask people to do that, and should not adopt an Ordinance like that at this time. He noted there
are Ordinances regarding sale of spray paint, and the responsibility of cleanup, etc., that the Council should take a look
at. He stated the Council should take a look at the sample Ordinances which are out there, and try to come up with one
which reflects our strong concern about the increase in graffiti, and obligates the people to deal with it, and see about
adopting an Ordinance which we feel is fit for San Rafael. The we should have a press release which says that
because we take the issue seriously and we think this is a problem for the community which needs to be addressed, we
are taking this action. He stated he is very concerned about how we are going to coordinate the graffiti effort. He
noted the staff report states that some coordination of graffiti removal efforts might be appropriate, and that the Police
Department's program has served as the unofficial coordinator for graffiti removal by volunteers. He wonders how we
are going to coordinate that kind of volunteer effort. He agreed with Mr. Patterson that this is a problem we need to
recognize, and we need to figure out a way to deal with that piece of it. We need some way for the City to coordinate
those efforts, because there are people out there willing to volunteer to help. He noted we have some resources
available, like the trailer, and we have to figure out a way to tap into the volunteers to coordinate. He stated he
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 21
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 22
supports the recommendation in the staff report to put something in the budget, because he feels we need to
aggressively go after graffiti on City facilities. The first step for us, before we go to the property owners, is for us to
aggressively go after City property, so we can say, "This is what we are doing and we expect you to do the same thing.
Don't expect us to do this for you, but we want you to match the effort we made".
With regard to responding within 48 hours, Councilmember Cohen stated he can see a real benefit to immediate response to
wiping out graffiti. He strongly supports putting money in the budget to do that. He stated if we can do that with City
crews in a cost effective manner, because we have the trailer setup and the tools, we should not take all the money
returned from that and let it stay in the Public Works Department's budget. He stated if they make money over and
above the cost of providing service, they can keep the profit within the Department.
Public Works Director Dave Bernardi responded he appreciates that, but there are a lot of other priorities we need to look at as
well, and not just keep the profits within Public Works. Ms. Nicolai stated that the intent was that the extra hours would
be offset by that cost. The cost goes out first, and then the fee comes in to offset it, and it is going to be a "wash"
generally speaking. Councilmember Heller stated she would like to allow the Public Works Department to have a little
bit of its own funding, because they are going out and doing something over and above what is normally required of
them, for the good of the community. She thought this would be something they could use to buy something for their
Department that they want,
that is not going to be high on the priority. It would be a "thank you" for extra service, and is not something that she would use
in another department. This is a special issue.
Councilmember Cohen stated there are three steps we really need to take, which are outlined in the staff report:
1) We need to go ahead and fund enhanced effort to remove graffiti from City properties, including the parks.
2) We need to look at the issue of how we are going to coordinate graffiti removal efforts and replace the effort that we
currently have which clearly has not been sufficient to completely address the problem. In fact, the problem we
perceive is going to get worse if we stop doing what we have been doing.
Mayor Boro asked Councilmember Cohen would he like staff to come back with an alternative to Mr. Franzini's program and
Councilmember Cohen responded he would. He noted there would be formal language required. Ms. Nicolai
responded that Planning Department is doing that - acknowledging is a priority, if it is not being done in that method how
are we going to proceed so it will be a priority and will get done.
3) Provide a report outlining sample Ordinances the City might consider
adopting.
Councilmember Heller stated she believes the Federation has some sample Ordinances. She obtained them for them from
the League of California Cities, so there are some which can be looked at immediately.
Mayor Boro asked if staff has enough direction, and Ms. Nicolai responded that they do.
15. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES (M) - File 9-1
Councilmember Cohen stated he has a number of issues to discuss and he does not believe we can have a meaningful
discussion at this late hour. Mayor Boro stated that because of the context for the next agenda we could not discuss
this and would have to delay it for a month. He suggested that the Finance Director speak to the Council about the
five-year projection.
Mr. Ransom Coleman, Finance Director, stated he intended to try to provide with the budget a multi-year revenue projection to
put the budget into perspective. He noted that at the recent retreat a couple of assumptions on which we had
discussion, namely whether the projections should assume any vacancies and whether or not we should include any
anticipated revenues which are not currently authorized, need to be discussed further. He added he understands
there are some differences of opinions as to what should, and should not, be in those five-year projections.
Mayor Boro stated that the discussion with respect to the vacancies, as he recalls, was that Mr. Coleman and City Manager
Nicolai would continue to view the job issue for the entire budget cycle. It would be pointed out either at budget time or
by the department heads, if there were some vacancies they had which they might not feel they would fill concurrent
with the start of the budget they would point it out. They would indicate any vacancies which were fully funded, and
that the money may be available. He noted we wanted to fund the budget, reflecting the liability. Mayor Boro asked if
the Councilmembers concur in that summation.
Councilmember Phillips stated he does not think the Council should get in the habit of using "budget" and "projection"
interchangeably. For him there are two distinctions. Budgeting is almost an appropriation of funds which you are
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 22
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 23
specifically setting aside to be expended in a certain way and presumably being reported back to the Council if there are
significant variances. A projection is a planning tool that is used to say that this is our anticipation of what is going to be
out therein four or five years. He noted it is considerably different in its intended use. Projection is a plan, and is our
best vision of what is going to take place. He stated he would use vacancies as an example. He feels it would be fair
for the Council to take its best guess as to when vacancies might be filled, or funds not expended, under a plan or
projection for vacancies. He stated we might want to budget for that, but that is a difference in anticipating our best
guess as to whether or not we will actually expend funds for vacancies. He stated it behooves the Council, for planning
purposes, to anticipate as best we can and plan for our financial future. He stated the word "conservative" should not
apply to this projection. The projections should be made by how close you can get and not whether or not you need to
spend all you planned to spend. That is not necessarily a positive.
Mayor Boro noted that by law we must adopt a budget, and not a projection. Councilmember Phillips noted that we adopt a
budget on an annual basis, but a five-year projection is entirely different. Mayor Boro pointed out that the Finance
Director was asking specifically for preparation for the budget, what was the direction we were giving him on the issue
of filling vacancies.
Mr. Coleman explained that he is going to present with the budget a five-year projection so the Council can look at the budget
in some sort of multi-year context. He stated we do try to make some sort of effort, at least in the year we are
presenting the budget, to try to reflect that if a position is not going to be funded by July 1 st we will make a projection.
The problem comes when you are trying to make the projection on whether you want to anticipate vacancies in the
1996/97 budget or the 1997/98 budget, or whether or not you just want to assume that all of the positions which have
been authorized will indeed be funded in the subsequent years, or whether we want to assume that some of those, with
some sort of historical average, will remain unfunded for whatever reason in the next three or four years beyond the
budget we are going to be presenting to the Council.
Mayor Boro stated it seems the first issue is for staff to give the Council a budget for the coming year, and in that budget they
have to estimate what they think they are going to do as far as who they are going to hire, and what sales tax revenues
will be. They have to make some kind of assumption. He noted in the staff report that staff is leaning toward the
conservative. He noted that if we know, for example, that a retailer is not going to come in until the eighth month, there
is no sense in budgeting for a full year. However, if you are going to project that over the next five years, beyond the
year you are budgeting for, you will assume that money is going to be there.
Councilmember Phillips stated he feels we need to define what it is we are referring to. We are talking about next year's
budget, and he is not suggesting any change there. He is suggesting a significant change with regard to our projection
procedures. He stated that to him we are using the term interchangeably incorrectly. He suggested perhaps we
should bring this issue back so we can go over it in more detail, but to him it is a plan, and that is different than a budget.
City Manager Nicolai stated she understands, noting we are OK for this year's budget, and will be as specific as we can about
what vacancies exist, and those numbers will be an allocation of dollars for the upcoming year. She does not think
some of these philosophical issues are going to be impacted this year. She stated that in subsequent years, and the
philosophy in projections as to whether we assume a COSTCO, or raises which are different from CPI, are a concern.
She stated that her only concern about that type of issue, when the Council gets to that discussion, which she thinks
should be deferred, is that if you are making decisions today about assumptions which are "not in the bank", our
approach has been to be fairly conservative. You do not count on a COSTCO being approved, to make decisions
today about expenditures in the future, until you know more for sure that is going to happen. She stated that is the
difference in the approach. She added she understands Councilmember Phillips' position, and suggested this
discussion be deferred for a month, since these issues are not going to have a big impact on the budget preparation.
Mayor Boro noted that with regard to projections there is a big difference between the private sector and the public sector,
since the public sector has to react to public input. We do not have the total control you might have in the private
sector.
Councilmember Heller asked if there is any way, with regard to the projections, of setting up a suspense file of projects we
would like to see done, and give a very basic cost for those items. As we go forward in our projections, perhaps in six
months or a year, we could see if there are one or two projects we would like to pull out and see if we could fund them
in the next year. She stated she is aware that we do that generally, and she is not sure how to accomplish this.
Ms. Nicolai noted that in the past they have a Worthy But Unfunded list, indicating that if money became available these would
be the first to be funded. She stated the capital issues are already in the Capital Improvement Program, and we have
an entire list which is prioritized. It is the non -capital ones which are "floating" out there, for which there is no running
list. Councilmember Heller noted one item would be the computer program for the entire City, which would cost about
$25,000. She would like to see that looked at. Ms. Nicolai stated she will put that and other items on a Worthy But
Unfunded list and present it to the Council for discussion.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:20 AM, May 2, 1995.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 23
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1995
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 24
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/95 Page 24