Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1989-08-07SRCC MINUTES (Regula 8/7/89 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 1989, AT 7:00 PM. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a 1. No. 89-13(a) - (#2). No. 89-13(b) - (#7). No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 1989, AT 8:00 PM. Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor San Rafael City Council Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: Item 3. Call for Applications to Serve on the: (CC) - a. Cultural Affairs Commission Due to the Resignation of Commissioner Becky Poulliot - File 9-2-24 b. Fire Commission Due to the Resignation of Commissioner Lane Fye - File 9-2-5 4. Authorization to Call for Bids - Peacock Gap Community Park Phase III (PW) - File 12-5 x 6-37 x 9-3-66 a. Completion of Park Construction. b. Procurement of Playground Equipment. 6. Agreement with MPA (Michael Painter Associates) for Plans and Specifications for City Pond Access Project (Rec) - File 4-3-219 x 9-3-65 Recommended Action Approved staff recommendation: a) Accepted resignation of Becky Poulliet; Called for applications to fill vacancy with deadline for receipt set for August 29, 1989 at 12:Noon, City Clerk's Office; Set interviews for Special Council Meeting for Tuesday, September 5, 1989 at 6:30 PM, to fill unexpired term to end of April, 1993. b) Accepted resignation of Lane Fye; Called for applications to fill vacancy with deadline for receipt set for August 29, 1989 at 12:Noon, City Clerk's Office; Set interviews for Special Council Meeting for Tuesday, September 5, 1989 at 6:30 PM, to fill unexpired term to end of March, 1993. Approved staff recommendation, authorizing staff to call for bids to construct the Peacock Gap Neighborhood Park. RESOLUTION NO. 8011 - AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF AGREEMENT WITH MPA DESIGN TO COMPLETE PLANS AND PUBLIC SPECS FOR CITY POND CONSTRUCTION (Agreement shall terminate on March 30, 1990). SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regula 8/7/89 Page 2 7. Renewal of Agreement with RESOLUTION NO. 8012 - AUTHORIZING Dolly Nave, Official Hostess/ SIGNING OF AGREEMENT WITH DOLLY Albert Park (Rec) - File 4-10-161 NAVE FOR RENEWAL OF ALBERT PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT FROM JULY 1, 1989 TO JUNE 30, 1991 (Two year period) 8. San Rafael Child Care Task Force: (Rec) - File 228 x 9-3-65 a. Request for Approval of Request for Proposals b. Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 7977 Regarding Funding 9. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Bid for Two Utility Vehicles (PW) - File 4-2-239 10. s89-7/ED89-57 - Two Appeals of Planning Commission's Certifica- tion of a Negative Declaration and Conditional Approval of a Two Lot Subdivision and Design Review for Two Single Family Residences; One Highland Avenue at Hubbell Court,; Ken Massa, Owner and Appellant and Jeff Mulanax, Spokesperson for Montecito Neighborhood Association, Appellant; AP 15-202-38 (Pl) - File 5-1-311 x 10-7 11. Claims for Damages: a. Leandro Pantoja-Sandoval & Maria de Luz Lopez (PD) Claim No. 3-1-1418 b. Theresa Robello (PW) Claim No. 3-1-1420 c. Maureen Crommie, Brenda Crommie & Maurice Crommie (PD) Claim No. 3-1-1421 d. Kate O'Dea Pacoe & Frank Pacoe (PW) Claim No. 3-1-1514 a. Approved staff recommendation. b. RESOLUTION NO. 8013 - AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 7977 TO ALLOCATE $5,000 TO THE CHILD CARE TASK FORCE TO COMPLETE A CITYWIDE CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY (Reduced from $10,000) RESOLUTION NO. 8014 - AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF TWO LIGHT UTILITY VEHICLES FROM STEVE SNYDER CHEVROLET (in amount of $27,810.67, lowest responsible bidder) Public Hearings on two appeals set for August 21, 1989. Approved City Attorney's recommendation for denial of claims a, b & c. Approved Insurance Consulting Associates, Inc. recommendation for denial of claim d. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOP- MENT AGENCY OF JULY 3, 1989 AND REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 17, 1989 (CC) - File 1-4 Minutes of Special Joint meeting of July 3, 1989 were approved as presented. Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 17, 1989 were approved with clarifi- cation requested by Councilmember Boro, who asked City Clerk to listen to tape and report back concerning Page 8, 3rd Paragraph Re time limits on other facilities: "Dr. Taylor responded there is no time limit on the 'detox' facility on Fifth Avenue, or the one at the Canal faci- lity, stating it is a non-residential facility". Councilmember Boro recollected that there were time limits on the other facilities. SRCC MINU��ES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 2 5. SRCC MINUTES (ReguLr 8/7/89 Page 3 Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to approve Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 17, 1989 with clarification. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT COST INCREASES FOR MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING (PW) - File 4-3-128 Councilmember Breiner stated she was concerned with CalTrans changing everything at this point, even determining that their own geometrics were unacceptable, and asked staff to have the new geometrics brought back to Council at the next meeting if they are available. Public Works Director Bernardi stated it will take a few months to have the design work done and that the geometrics will be brought back to Council at that time. Councilmember Breiner asked what the problem was and Mr. Bernardi stated there was a question of how the two roads came together - the on ramp and the Redwood frontage road. The grades did not work out properly according to Sacramento standards; also the radius of curvature as you make the curve to head north was too tight and they needed a larger radius curve. In order to do that they have to redesign the whole intersection. Councilmember Thayer was concerned about costs, stating this is the second time this has happened with this project, indicating this is a cost overrun in amount of $233,000. According to Mr. Bernardi the previous overrun was approximately $133,000. Councilmember Thayer stated when overrun monies are paid to the consultant and come out of traffic mitigation fees, that this basically takes away from the actual improvementsthemselves. In response to Councilmember Thayer's request to explain the Scettrini Widening, Mr. Bernardi stated originally, the City required through the planning process for the development of the "Velvet Turtle Property", property located on the top of the hill, that a design be prepared and submitted for approval involving the widening of Scettrini Drive to four lanes which has been complied wit4 and the City has the plans on file. This was prior to the Merrydale Overcrossing project that was to relieve traffic in that interchange. As a result, the geometrics and design for Scettrini Drive have changed because that is the connect- ing point of the overcrossing, which is an extra cost. Eventually, Mr. Bernardi stated this will be reimbursed back to the City when the Scettrini property is developed. He noted the construction costs will also be reimbursed by the developers of the Velvet Turtle property. He said most of the costs on the list will be reimbursed by CalTrans or from other funding sources. He indicated extra work that traffic mitigation fees are going to be paying for amount to $67,000, which is the real cost, with the balance being reimbursed back to the City through various sources. Mr. Bernardi stated completion will be about this time next year. Mr. Frank Tedesco of Wilsey & Ham stated he could not give a date specific because the changes involve roads having utilities that will require some investigation, noting it is anticipated this will begin next year, commencing late Spring 1990. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to adopt Resolution for additional cost increases. RESOLUTION NO. 8015 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A "REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION AND COST INCREASES" IN THE MERRYDALE OVERCROSSING DESIGN CONTRACT WITH WILSEY & HAM (In amount of $233,000) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regul ) 8/7/89 Page 4 12. PUBLIC HEARING - ED86-55 (c) & V88-24; APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED CARPORT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK; 98 WINDSOR AVE.; GLEN & DANA MEYER, OWNERS & APPLICANTS; RANSOM & GLENA COLEMAN, APPEL- LANTS; AP 10-301-12 (Pl) - File 10-7 x 10-4 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley stated this is a proposal to construct a carport with a top deck within the required 15 foot front yard setback in an R-1 District. The structure, having no front yard setback would cover a portion of an existing parking pad. The application as originally designed, was denied by the Zoning Administrator, approved on appeal by the Planning Commission and now has been appealed to the City Council. Mr. Pendoley stated it is important to consider the required findings, which are required by State law and the City's Ordinance: 1. Extraordinary circumstances to the property that would not generally be applied to other properties in the same zoning district. 2. That granting the variance is necessary to allow for the enjoyment of substantial property rights enjoyed by others. 3. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege. Mr. Pendoley stated in this case, the Appellants, Mr. & Mrs. Coleman, have said, in their opinion, the variance would grant a special privilege. The Zoning Administrator agreed, finding that virtually no other proper- ties, with one exception in the neighborhood, had parking decks or garages in the front yard setback. Planning Commission concluded that the covered parking is a basic property right and as such does not amount to a special privilege. Mr. Pendoley stated a second ground for the appeal is that the Colemans state the variance is out of character with the rest of the neighbor- hood. Zoning Administrator concurred, feeling that a parking structure in the front yard setback is simply inconsistent with the pattern on Windsor Avenue. A majority of the Planning Commission disagreed, feeling that with appropriate design, it would mitigate circumstances on the property. Mr. Pendoley noted the Planning Commission felt there is a very high retaining wall within the front yard setback. The Planning Commission did consider the fact that the design of the carport should be submitted to the Design Review Board, noting the design is at issue, and Mr. Pendoley cautioned that it is not a part of the variance. The only parts to the variance are the three parts mentioned earlier. In response to Councilmember Breiner's question regarding the Resolu- tion mentioning an upslope of 46% not generally applying to the land, buildings and uses in the same district, but that there are other houses along the same side of the street on similar slopes, Mr. Pendoley responded, generally they all have steep slopes, but not all are on 46% slopes. Councilmember Thayer referred to the one other property having an exception and asked for an explanation. Mr. Pendoley stated it has a parking deck around the corner and is essentially on the same block, and required a variance. He noted in 1979, the City Council at that time granted a variance for this to be done. Councilmember Boro asked if other variances were granted and Mr. Pendoley replied he has not researched this. Mrs. Glena Coleman - Appellant, referred to the other area in the neighborhood and stated that it has a flat deck even with the sidewalk and uncovered. She noted when parking on the deck there is enough of an area that when one goes forward with the car you are beyond the sidewalk. She noted this is a project that began with an earlier variance granted in 1981, and they felt it important to pursue this matter, noting they have lived in the neighborhood for 11 years. Mrs. Coleman stated previously, she spoke with several homeowners from the Homeowners' Association to protest the original variance which required covered parking beyond the 15 foot setback and the property owner requested that he have a variance from this requirement. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (RegulE ' 8/7/89 Page 5 She noted they also protested the massiveness of the proposed building, indicating at that time, Council upheld the variance and mitigated it with two conditions: 1) There be two five foot retaining walls with a three foot planter between to hold the hill back. She noted when construction began the hill became unstable and therefore a 15 foot retaining wall was built. 2) There be a planter area in front between the sidewalk and the parking pad to screen the parking pad, which was never done. She noted Mr. Meyer is now asking to build a carport structure over the existing parking pad. Mrs. Coleman stated the Planning Commission originally voted 3-3 to deny the variance, but then felt the retaining wall was so "ugly" and the massive part of the house could be mitigated by a good design in relation to what had already been done on the site. Planning Commis- sion felt another variance on this property would not grant a special privilege because everyone else enjoys covered parking except for the person having a flat deck. She noted it is true that everyone in the neighborhood has covered parking, however, they are all beyond the 15 foot setback. Years ago, the people who built the house at 110 Windsor had wanted a similar variance which was denied and they then had to change the design of the house before it was built and they now have a garage with covered parking beyond the 15 foot setback. The Planning Commission also found that it was necessary for the preser- vation of property rights for Mr. Meyer. She stated the problem with this is the original variance was granted over the neighbors' objections which allowed this property to be built without covered parking. She stated when one decides against covered parking and the house is built with a parking pad instead, it does not seem that one can come back later and state he does not enjoy the same rights as everyone else and now wants to have covered parking. Mrs. Coleman stated originally at the variance hearing, the covered parking within a 15 foot setback was never discussed as a possibility. She noted what she and other neighbors would like to have is the exist- ing landscaping be allowed to mature to see if it can cover the retain- ing wall and mitigate the massiveness of the structure and also have the original condition of a planter area between the sidewalk and the parking pad, restored to screen the parking pad. Councilmember Breiner clarified when the house was originally proposed, that instead of excavating for covered parking, the builder received the variance so he could save the money from further excavation which is what other neighbors in many cases had to do, and Mrs. Coleman agreed. Mr. Ambrose Harney, resident next door to the project, submitted pictures of the property and urged Council to turn down the Applicant's request, noting the property is unstable and unsafe. Mr. Ed Bedder, 32 Chestnut Avenue, corner of Chestnut and Windsor, spoke against the project, stating the carport will be hazardous because one cannot see past it. He noted the home with the other carport was built prior to 1979, more like 1969 with a different City Council. Mr. Glen Meyer, Applicant, 98 Windsor, stated the carport does not have to sit on top of the existing pad, noting the pad can come out and that the retaining wall is designed without the pad. He referred to a concern about the hill comimg down and stated there are piers that were placed between 6 and 20 feet deep, depending on rock conditions and supervised by a reputable Soils Engineer. He said there is some slippage of dirt away from the grade beams that go between the piers, but stated they have had no problem other than settling and some slip- page. Mr. Meyer stated the design is open but they are looking for protection for their vehicles and having storage space, noting the design before Council is preliminary. Mr. Meyer stated he bought the house for speculation, however, they decided to move into it on December 11, 1988. He indicated they were not involved in the original design, stating he bought the lot with plans and variances, noting it was his understanding that the Planning Commission was very strict regarding design which needed approval from the Design Review Board, having a right to appeal and going before the Planning Commission for final approval. He noted if it is a design consideration only, there is a lot of protection for the neighbors. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regul ) 8/7/89 Page 6 Councilmember Boro referred to Mr. Meyer purchasing the lot with plans and variances and asked him if he bought the site, then developed it and built it, and Mr. Meyer responded affirmatively, noting he bought the house as a speculation property, then moved into it. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Boro stated when he read through the staff reports for tonight's meeting as well as the Planning Commission, he found that the variance goes with the land and not with the property owner. He noted at the time the property was developed, after a number of hearings with both the Planning Commission and Council, a variance was given so that a carport would not have to be built in order to save money. Now a subsequent owner is stating he would like to have a carport. Councilmember Boro stated it seems at the time the variance was reached the neighbors and then Council reached a compromise, and to come in now and in effect do this, would be granting a special privilege. Furthermore, when the site was acquired it was not developed, and it seems that might have been the time to work something out but not build it and come back to try to retrofit it. Mr. Boro felt there has been sufficient consideration to this site, and to do anything further would be granting special privilege. Councilmember Breiner agreed, stating it would be granting a special privilege. Councilmember Frugoli stated he agreed there was a variance given back when the property was first looked at, but noted the City Council at that time should have made the property owner put in the carport. He noted everyone else has a carport and felt it was the responsibility of the City Council when the variance was granted that the carport be put in. After further discussion, Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to grant the appeal and deny the variance. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Planning Director Pendoley stated staff will prepare a Resolution granting the appeal to be on the Consent Calendar for the meeting of August 21, 1989. Mayor Mulryan asked staff to look into having the planter completed which was part of the original conditions of approval and has not been complied with. Mr. Pendoley replied staff will work with Mr. Meyer on this matter. 13. PUBLIC HEARING - UP89-5 - APPEAL OF USE PERMIT FOR KAISER HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN; 99 MONTECILLO ROAD; KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, OWNER; R.P. HUBNER, REPRESENTATIVE; TERRA LINDA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, APPEL- LANT; AP 175-060-57 (Pl) - File 10-5 x 10-3 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley stated Kaiser Hospital proposed a Master Plan for further development of the San Rafael campus. Improvements include a 35,000 square foot medical office building, 6,800 square foot addition to the Campus Services building and a new 312 stall parking structure. To accomplish this, a Zoning Amendment and Use Permit are required. If the zone change is allowed, (a later item on the agenda) and the Use Permit upheld, (project actually approved) the Zoning Ordinance would require that Kaiser file an application for design review which would be presented to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. In addition to approving the basic Master Plan for the property, the Use Permit would also approve a Transporta- tion Systems Management Program. Mr. Pendoley noted Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposal in June, 1989 which was appealed by the Terra Linda Homeowners Association. Mr. Pendoley stated the Terra Linda Homeowners Association appealed on two grounds, 1) Relating to traffic and 2) Design of the medical office building. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regul ) 8/7/89 Page 7 Traffic - At a neighborhood meeting, the Terra Linda Homeowners Associ- ation proposed that a left -turn lane be installed on Montecillo Road at Nova Albion; stop signs be installed at Montecillo Road/Nova Albion or that the City consider signalization of the intersection. Staff is recommending that if approved, the conditions of approval be modified to require the installation a left -turn lane as required, noting Kaiser has agreed. Also, Traffic Engineer Rumsey advised staff that within a year or two it will be appropriate to signalize the intersection if the application is approved, indicating it is likely that the signalization will be done before completion of the medical office building. The concern of the homeowners association is the appearance of the massiveness of the building, particularly as it presents itself to Montecillo Road. A way to deal with this would be to approve a "build- ing envelope" rather than a "building footprint". A "building footprint" is the exact outline of a building foundation, whereas a "building envelope" describes an area on the Master Plan within which the build- ing may be constructed. This would allow Kaiser to propose an L -shape building which staff feels would greatly mitigate the impact of the mass of the building. A letter of support has been received from the North San Rafael Coali- tion of Residents making several points: Entrance & Exit Traffic on Nova Albion - The Coalition feels this is too close to the intersection; however, the applicant states this exit is necessary to give some relief to traffic flow rather than having it all on Montecillo causing an overload to the intersection. It also allows for emergency access and egress and the potential impact of the exit from the parking lot would be alleviated by the signals. The curbing along Montecillo and around the corner to Nova Albion, between the two driveways to and from the parking lot, would be red all along, further reducing the impact. The location of the parking lot driveway is a set of compromises relating to site problems with pluses and minuses to several various possible locations; this one seems to be the best combination of positives. Mass of the Medical Office Building - The Coalition suggested an L -shape configuration; if approval is modified from the original conditions set by the Planning Commission, it would be possible to do that. Mayor Mulryan referred to a comment raised about Kaiser having grown over the years since the buildings were first built, and asked if there is some limit, noting there is buildout on that site. Mr. Pendoley replied that the rezoning proposal would limit the amount of trips available to the property that would in effect, "max" it out. Councilmember Boro referred to the letter written by Shirley Fischer, "More investigation of design options should take place before the Use Permit is approved." He stated this could be another option in the process, that the City not issue the Use Permit until they have the design controlled, rather than approving the Use Permit and then hoping to have the design approved. He related this to the Embassy Suites Hotel, which was successful. Mr. Pendoley responded by stating this could be an option but another way would be to require that the project come back to Council on the design review to assure that the parking layout and entrance/exits are responsive to the concerns of the appellants. He noted Council could grant the Use Permit conditionally upon their approval of the design, indicating this is not inappropriate. He cited with a complicated project such as this with a number of variables, which could involve a fairly long-term buildup, it is typical to give a basic use approval but then to also reserve approval of the actual design and establish building envelopes. He noted it allows the applicants and the Council some flexibility. Councilmember Thayer noted it is very difficult to separate an envelope at times, much less a footprint from the actual design of the building, and stated residents of Terra Linda are concerned about the aesthetics on the corner. She referred to where the envelope is situated now, noting their proposal is to keep it away from the homes on LeClaire Court. She referred to an alternative proposed by architect Erwin Williams which would help with the parking lot configuration by turning SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regula 8/7/89 Page 8 the building around. Mrs. Thayer noted she is having difficulty in approving the Use Permit without design considerations, indicating they are locking themselves into a particular envelope or footprint. Councilmember Thayer referred to egress/ingress concerns on Montecillo Road, stating employees would be tempted to exit on Nova Albion Way because it is the most direct way to leave. She stated there is a great amount of traffic at 3 o'Clock in the afternoon when the 3:00 PM shift is out from Kaiser along with the Terra Linda High School students. Councilmember Breiner stated she also met with some of the citizens in Terra Linda and her concern is not having anything done until they have the aesthetics and design review totally worked out. She indicated to go ahead with the Use Permit and then proceed with the design review would not be wise, noting if the community had concerns, it would cause another appeal. Mr. Dan McGreevy, Co -President of the Terra Linda Homeowners' Associ- ation, thanked Planning Director Pendoley and the Council for their statements relating to the concerns of the residents, stating their Association respects Kaiser Hospital and its staff. Mary Conte, spoke on behalf of the Terra Linda Homeowners' Association, also thanking Kaiser Hospital and its staff for the years of emergency service and good health care. She stated in a poll taken, it showed two to one against expansion. She stated they understand that a zone change requires that a design be submitted at the time of approval, but at this point there is no design and they have been told that one is yet to be developed. They believe Kaiser was granted an exemp- tion because it is necessary to preserve the "public health and safety"; however, the medical office building is not necessary, compared to an emergency room or hospital, therefore, they do not believe the exemption is in order. They are asking that the design be submitted for approval before a Zone Change and Use Permit are granted and that the neighborhood be allowed to have input in the process. Mrs. Conte stated they understood that the expansion was granted an exemption from the priority process procedure and felt it is inappropri- ate that an expansion on this site is consistent with the General Plan 2000 for the neighborhood. The site is not in the Northgate Activity Center but in a residential community over the hill from the Northgate Activity Center. Also, there are many points in the Initial Environmental Study that are questionable. Therefore, they believe an Environmental Impact Report should be done to answer all concerns, especially to determine the safety of the site. Because the corner site is highly visible, extremely busy and adjacent to pre-existing residences, they believe there will be obstruction of views from all angles. Mrs. Conte stated they are therefore challenged to find a way that an expansion can be handled without disturbing the residential character of the community. Alternatives are: 1. Move the present one-story administration building to the corner site, and build a two-story office building in its place, noting this would blend in with the present building and not obstruct any views and would decrease the constant traffic flow at the corner site. 2. Parking could be double -decked in the upper lot and in the emergency lot. Rent or buy parking space in the existing Northgate Activity Center where parking is already available and additional traffic would not impact the neighborhood. 3. Open the existing clinic for expanded evening hours. Use the same offices used in the daytime; use the money to be used on expansion to pay additional staff. Many subscribers would benefit by not having to take time off from work to keep daytime appointments. 4. Build a one-story building on the corner lot to house the MRI, Conference Room, Communications and Storage Space. Have a one-story building on the upper central lot for medical offices. 5. Create an L-shaped or a recessed square building on the site as shown in the sketch in the packet by Erwin Williams and Associates. The second part of their appeal concerns traffic and the flow of cars from the corner lot onto Nova Albion Way. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regula 8/7/89 Page 9 Mrs. Conte stated staff report indicates that while a Transportation Systems Management Program is indicated, one is not yet in place that mitigates present traffic much less increased traffic that expansion will bring. The traffic study that was done did not include morning arrival time, noon and afternoon from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM, which involves Kaiser shift changes and traffic exiting from Terra Linda High School and Valecito School. She stated a new study must be done to show the true figures, indicating Nova Albion Way is a small arterial that has been severely overtaxed. Mrs. Conte stated they are concerned for the safety of children walking to school, bicyclists and motorists. She asked Council to consider the alternative plan developed by Erwin Williams and Associates. Mr. Erwin Williams, Member of the Executive Committee of the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents, stated he felt this project related to the Embassy Suites project, noting the Coalition did support the hotel at the site but had some problems with the design. He commented they appreciate Kaiser's need to expand and modernize and recognize that Kaiser has made some concessions in the neighborhood with impor- tant changes, but indicated several design issues remain to be resolved. Mr. Williams stated he agreed with Councilmember Breiner that these differences can be resolved and some mechanism could be made for the process to proceed for a quality design for the neighborhood. Mr. Lafeyette Noah, 96 Elena Circle, Terra Linda, spoke for the project stating he is a Director of the Terra Linda Homeowners' Association, noting they did not speak for everyone, and recommended that the staff report be accepted. Mr. Fred Mayer, resident in Terra Linda for 30 years, spoke against the Kaiser project. He expounded on the traffic congestion the project would cause, including air pollution. Mr. Mayer was concerned about the Kaiser Hospital Foundation expanding rapidly with over 75,000 members with additional space needed in Terra Linda, Santa Rosa and Petaluma, noting 160,000 members all using the San Rafael hospital. He noted the entrance and exit road at Nova Albion Way and Montecillo Road along the Manual Freitas Parkway leading to Highway 101 is at a standstill anywhere from 6:30 AM to 9:30 AM, and becomes a parking lot when he commutes from Sausalito. He cited the traffic jams would be similar to Los Angeles County. Mr. Mayer voiced his concern with the Kaiser Foundation Hospital's membership and the small businessmen having to compete with a non-profit organization such as Kaiser when they do not pay their fair share of property taxes. Mr. Mayer recommended the elimination of the Kaiser Foundation Hospital's non-exempt status under the Welfare Exemption since they now comprise a monopoly and should be taxed accordingly. Mr. Mayer stated Kaiser Foundation should expand in either Santa Rosa or Petaluma where space is greater and they could stand the traffic. He asked the following be done: 1) That another Economic Impact Study be done that is unbiased on the effect on the small business community health providers in the Terra Linda area. 2) Change existing non-profit status at Kaiser to eliminate the Section 214 Welfare Exemption. 3) Tax the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to include the profits in such areas as: Pharmacy, Laboratory, Preventive Health, Emergency Care, X -Ray, Physical Therapy, Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Hospital, Home Health Care, Skilled Nursing and Vision Care. 4) Do an Environmental Impact Study showing the change resulting from this expansion on exit roads, shopping centers, and high schools. 5) A ballot measure be designed for the community of Terra Linda to put it to a vote to see if the community finds this proposed expansion desirable. Ms. Heather Patrick, representing Terra Linda Homeowners' Association spoke against the project, stating they have not seen the design of the project. She noted there is some misrepresentation on the Initial Environmental Study, stating residents disagree with several conclusions; Page 3 - Item 6 -Noise - the project will result in increases in existing noise level. Traffic throughout the day will create significant additional noise both during and after construction. Item 7 -Light and Glare - New light and glare will result, tall commercial lights have already been installed in the parking lot affecting neighbors. These lights SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regul+ ) 8/7/89 Page 10 could be reduced to a size compatible to a residential area. Item 8 -Land Use - They disagree that a 35,000 square foot office building will not produce substantial alteration of present land use. Item 11 -Population - Population will definitely alter the location and density of the human population of the area. Item 13 -Transportation/ Circulation - They feel that substantial vehicular movement will be generated. 13(d) - There will be severe alterations to the present patterns of circulation and movement of people. 13(f) - There will be increased risk of traffic hazards due to increased traffic, especially to school children. 14 - Public Services - Over time, maintenance of roads will be a definite necessity due to increased traffic. 16. - Utilities - Will not a 35,000 square foot office building be added burden on solid waste disposal and water resources? 18 - Aesthetics - A 2 -story, 35,000 square foot building on the small corner lot will result in the obstruction of views from all angles, and will impinge on the privacy of the adjacent residences. 20 (b & c) - The project does have the ability to make long-term impact, i.e. look at Villa Marin as an example of a project being on an inappropriate site. 20 (d) - Substantial adverse affects are created, i.e. traffic, noise and visual pollution and perhaps hazardous conditions in event of an earthquake. Ms. Patrick stated because of these many unanswered questions, they believe that an Environmental Impact Study should be done to include the following: 1) New traffic study to include morning hours from 7:30 to 9:00 AM, Noon and from 3:00 to 5:30 PM. 2) A Transportation Systems Management Program to mitigate increased traffic. 3) Soils and Geologic report. 4) Safety precautions for the Magnetic Resonant Imaging (MRI) equipment. Also, before a Zone Change is issued, a design for the office building needs to be approved. Mr. Rob Bridqes, resident of 250 Nova Albion Way, spoke against the project, and asked Council to seriously consider the suggestions offered by the Terra Linda Homeowners' Association, and questioned the quality of life. Captain David Fry, stated he was not a representative of Terra Linda and not a representative of Kaiser. He cited Kaiser as being the fore- front in the United States for its medical plan. He mentioned the cost of $80 per month is very reasonable and serves many people, espe- cially senior citizens. Mr. A.K. Strotz, Architect for Kaiser Hospital, stated one year ago Kaiser wanted to build a 3 -story building along Nova Albion Way which architectually would enhance the neighborhood and provide an area with parking. They spoke to the neighbors and associations and were guided by the City's Planning staff. After several sketches and attempts, the staff suggested to turn it around and heed what the neighbors wanted, noting that would be the only way everyone would understand, and they did this. They moved the building to the farthest corner possible, away from the neighbors where it would least impact their privacy. It was reduced from 3 -stories to 2 -stories. He mentioned the neighbors wanted the building built underground but noted it would be inhuman to have people work in basements. When staff suggested putting the garage behind the hospital, they concurred, indicating this was an excellent suggestion. Traffic studies were made with the City's Traffic Engineer studying the issues and Mr. Strotz stated he believed they have done everything possible, and what they are trying to get from Council is an approval of a Master Plan. Mr. Strotz stated he understands if Council approved the Master Plan and a Use Permit,they would then design the building, go through design review, Planning Commission, and if they must, come back to Council. But he believed it would be unfair to make Kaiser go through the entire design process and then deny a Use Permit. He believed a Use Permit could be issued with a proviso that Council will see the design, noting Kaiser is willing to do this. He stated this building will have a key position on that lot, and they recognize the concerns of everyone. Regarding traffic, Mr. Strotz explained at the Planning Commission meeting with the Traffic Engineer in concurrence, they decided the revised situation would help the neighbors. Mr. Strotz then showed the revisions from a drawing on the board covering areas of Nova Albion Way and Montecillo Road, having no parking along Nova Albion Way. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regul, ) 8/7/89 Page 11 Mr. Strotz stated staff has proposed an envelope with which they concur will give them the opportunity to design within that envelope. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question on design and how the proposed addition blends in with the the neighborhood, asking what difference it would make if Council granted a Use Permit conditional on the approval of the design, Mr. Strotz replied they have no objection to that, but stated it would be unfair to not make a motion one way or the other on the Use Permit tonight and leave that open altogether. Councilmember Frugoli asked if this would include the configuration of the building turning longways and stated one of the concerns is the egress/ingress on Nova Albion Way, citing this street is heavily used. He asked if this could be eliminated and have the traffic coming only from Montecillo, having two driveways which would not affect any of the houses. Mr. Strotz replied they will look into this once more. Councilmember Thayer asked why a chainlink fence could not be extended across the upper tier at night to keep people from egressing, because of the lights coming down the driveway and shining into the homes on LeClaire, and Mr. Strotz stated they felt that may be an option, but staff correctly pointed out that it would be a difficult policing problem to keep the chain intact, and would not be a deterrent of a more positive manner. He said it could be done, but noted when going downhill the lights shine down and not up and he therefore did not think lights from cars coming down the driveway would be of any concern. He noted Kaiser is willing to put up a soundwall to mitigate noise along that property line, such as a fence to prohibit the sound from travelling a direct line to the houses even with the little night traffic. Patrice Dowd, Medical Administrator at Kaiser San Rafael, referred to the internal traffic patterns on the property and mentioned several options to the circulation have been studied at the request of the Planning Department. She noted they came up with a solution with both the neighbors' input as well as with suggestions from the City's Traffic Engineer, indicating having two entrances out on to Montecillo Road and none on Nova Albion Way would result in a backup of cars coming from the North on Nova Albion and turning right on Montecillo Road, making a left hand turn. They hope to modify the backup by providing an entrance on Nova Albion and Montecillo to that lower lot. Regarding expansion relative to Sonoma County and Marin County, Ms. Dowd stated they have already expanded into Petaluma and Santa Rosa because of growth in those areas. She stated in January 1989, they opened a medical office building in Petaluma and about six years ago opened a medical office building in Santa Rosa, adding a second office, and they are planning a third office building with a hospital to open in Santa Rosa -the first quarter of 1990. The opening of the Santa Rosa Hospital will reduce the hospital utilization at the San Rafael facility. Currently, most of the medical office patients are being seen in Santa Rosa, noting a full staff of physicians is now present there. Councilmember Boro referred to a news article on Kaiser, noting if Kaiser is currently serving about 70,000 in Marin at this facility with another 80,000 from the other areas, a substantial decrease should happen in the numbers of people actually coming to this facility once the Santa Rosa facility comes on line. Ms. Dowd responded the heavy use of their facility comes from the outpatient setting. Since they are seeing their Santa Rosa patients now in Santa Rosa, that has already decreased the load on the San Rafael facility. Petaluma decreased it a little. The use of the Terra Linda Hospital will decrease by almost 30 percent, but the traffic generation by the hospital is much less than the offices. Councilmember Boro asked if the building being constructed is being geared to provide a visit facility for people living in the Marin County area and Ms. Dowd answered affirmatively, stating Kaiser San Rafael is not intending to add new services, citing they are out of space due to the needs created by technology and their growing member- ship. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regul ) 8/7/89 Page 12 Councilmember Thayer asked how will the new office building improve or expand services and Ms. Dowd replied at the moment they have doctors doubling up in offices, noting they will be installing a Magnetic Resonant Imaging machine (MRI) in trailer space which they intend to place in the new office building. She noted there are doubling in several other types of offices, indicating they are trying to get sufficient space so their doctors and staff have adequate working area. She mentione( because of the membership growth they need to add doctors to serve the membership and they hope this new project will meet their growth needs for the next 10 years on this campus. Ms. Dowd added a new techno- logy will be having the MRI scan machine on their premises. Councilmember Breiner referred to the next 10 years' expansion and asked if this would be the limit and Ms. Dowd answered affirmatively, noting if they need to expand in Marin County they will look to some other area. Elissa Giambastiani, Director of San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated the Board of Directors of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce urges the Council to uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Use Permit and to approve the Zone Change application for Kaiser. She noted Kaiser has been an important member of the San Rafael commun- nity for over 30 years and is one of the largest employers,providing over 1,000 local jobs with medical services to 25 percent of San Rafael residents, making this a significant entity within the community. Many businesses in the community rely on Kaiser to provide health care for their employees. She noted Kaiser is a paramedic base station, providing emergency services to both businesses and residents. Ms. Dorothy Brand, resident of Terra Linda since 1963, stated she supports the Kaiser project and noted she has been a member of Kaiser for 22 years and praised Kaiser for her health care. Ms. Brand submitted a petition signed by 102 people in the Terra Linda area who are in support of the project. Mr. Brian Dinday of Minor Court stated he does not oppose the hospital per se but has a problem with the 100 traffic trips per peak hours. He did not agree with the expansion of the medical office building and was concerned that in conjunction with the danger of traffic, this is a situation where the building plans are being held back and Kaiser is asking for Council's approval before those plans are shown, noting he and the Council should know what is going to be done with this space, what kinds of offices and administration, the number of doctors and the maximum of doctors that this change will bring. There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Planning Director Pendoley stated the Zoning Ordinance is very clear, citing Section 14.15.050, which describes the contents of plans to be submitted when a Planned Development Rezoning is proposed. The description goes on for more than two pages, is quite specific, focuses on Site Development and does not require arthitectural submittals. Section 15.51.060 describes supplementary actions and explains that the rezoning may proceed separate together, concurrent with or separate from the Use Permit and/or the design review proposal. Mr. Pendoley explained the reason for this is so that larger and more complicated projects, such as the Kaiser campus, can be planned comprehensively and in stages; working from the biggest part of the picture, the zoning down to the Use Permit, which is the basic distribution of uses, down to the final details which are architectural design. He noted the procedure as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission for the Kaiser campus has been followed for a number of years in a consistent manner in accordance with the Ordinance and the Planning Department's practice having to do with larger projects. Mr. Pendoley referred to Architectual Alternatives and stated very good sketches have been presented by the North San Rafael Coalition showing different ways on how the building could be placed on the site, and be consistent with what is being recommended. He noted it would be within the envelope as recommended in the staff report. He indicated those objectives from the North San Rafael Coalition as to architecture can be accomplished with the changes and conditions as recommended. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regul ) 8/7/89 Page 13 Mr. Pendoley referred to Alternatives for Access and Egress from the parking lot and stated four alternatives were considered at length by the Planning Commission, including the one recommended by the North San Rafael Coalition - Alternative B. He noted these were subjected to both Planning and Traffic Engineering review and it was found that Alternative A is the recommended one and also was recommended by the Planning Commission. He noted Alternative A is superior in terms of on-site impacts, the flow of traffic, off-site impacts and the provision of emergency access and egress. The most important concern with Alternative B is that it would cause extra congestion due to queueing at the intersection of Montecillo and Nova Albion, whereas Alternative A would allow the load to be distributed more evenly through the intersection. Councilmember Thayer asked if there is a way for the second exit to be further up the road, noting employees leaving at the same time in the afternoon would cause congestion, and asked if Kaiser could possibly have a policy for their employees to leave by another route. Mr. Pendoley responded this did not have adequate study and suggested this may be a reason to call up design review with Council to have the final say after a review by the Planning Commission. He noted Council could approve the building envelope and this could be dealt with by the design review. Mr. Pendoley stated the TSM Plan does regulate the flow of employee circulation on and off the site by controlling employee parking. Councilmember Thayer suggested that staff have a TSM review every six months rather than once a year for the first year or two. Mr. Pendoley replied this condition could be applied to the Use Permit. Mr. Pendoley stated the process would be well served with approval of the Use Permit tonight with a requirement that design review come back not only to the Planning Commission but to the City Council for final airing on several important remaining issues; design of the medical office building and access and egress on the parking lot with the understanding that one objective would be to move the second entrance further up Montecillo and further away from the intersection with Nova Albion. Mayor Mulryan indicated Council would want to be a part of the design review. Councilmember Breiner asked staff if question came up of having an entrance only on Nova Albion Way with no left turn Northbound, so that someone proceeding South on Nova Albion could turn in and it could also be available for emergency vehicles going both ways. Assistant Planner Schwob replied in consultation with the City Traffic Engineer, staff thought to equalize the traffic distribution, noting they do want a portion of traffic to enter into Nova Albion to equally distribute the traffic. He stated if all traffic were to enter on Montecillo that a great deal of traffic would divert through the residential neighborhoods which would then become impacted with traffic as opposed to how it presently is. Councilmember Boro referred to the concept of TSM and number of trips being predicated on what may happen in the future and noted the problems with the YMCA and -the pickup service of Federal Express which is also on the agenda tonight. He asked what "teeth" does the City have if five years into the future it is found that the number of doctors at Kaiser have doubled along with patients and traffic? He commented that somewhere in this process, the City would have to find a way to protect the City from that in the future. Mr. Boro indicated he is not opposed to the health care or the facility, but stated if they are buying a certain level of traffic in this facility then there should be a guarantee that it would stay that way and the City and Kaiser should find a way to ensure that. Councilmember Boro asked if Council should approve a Use Permit if they are inclined to approve it and then have design review come back or do they approve a Use Permit subject to design approval? He indicated there is a difference, noting they need to continue to motivate both the applicant and neighbors, stating the latter would be his preference. He indicated the purpose is to get the best possible solution, noting tonight is the first opportunity Council has had to see this. Councilmember Breiner asked staff to respond to a statement made by the Coalition on the traffic study not being done at a time they felt SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regu� ) 8/7/89 Page 14 reflected peak hours. Mr. Pendoley referred to page 33 of the attachment to the staff report, (C -1/A-3)33 which explained the study was done over a two-day period with peak hour period identified (page 37 of the attachments). He stated it read, "Traffic counts were counted Thursday, December 12, 1985 between 3:30 and 5:30 PM at each of the four entrances and also discusses in more detail the long period where the highest peak occurred. Staff found the study looked at the full scope of the 24-hour data then focused on the peak hour at approx- imately what the Homeowners Association asked to have studied. Councilmember Breiner asked whether the current Master Plan for Kaiser permits any outpatient pharmacy usage, and Mr. Schowb stated the proposal did not request an outpatient pharmacy. Mr. Pendoley stated if an outpatient pharmacy were proposed, it would require a Use Permit amendment. Mr. Mayer asked why the Kaiser Foundation Hospital was the applicant and Mrs. Dowd explained that Kaiser Permanente is three organizations, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Perma- nente Medical Group, and noted that Kaiser Foundation Hospitals owns and operates all Kaiser facilities and stated that particular Kaiser Foundation Hospital is a non-profit organization. She stated all of the facilities built are owned by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and noted this is the way the application is made out. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt the Resolution denying the appeal and approving the Use Permit for the Master Plan for UP89-5,subject to design review approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. RESOLUTION NO. 8016 - DENYING APPEAL AND ACCEPTING REVISED CONDITIONS OF USE PERMIT FOR KAISER HOSPITAL (UP89-5) (Subject to design review approval by the Plan- ning Commission and City Council) Under discussion, Councilmember Boro asked Staff to bring back to Council either in this amended Resolution or a separate memorandum, how the City will sustain the traffic level of service long term and how the City will have the right to enforce that in the future. Planning Director Pendoley indicated he would give Council a memorandum. Councilmember Frugoli asked that an amendment to the traffic circulation to and from the parking lot be subject to design review by the Council. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14. PUBLIC HEARING - Z89-2 - REZONING FOR KAISER HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN; 99 MONTECILLO ROAD; KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, OWNER; R.P. HUBNER, REPRESENTATIVE; AP 175-060-57 (Pl) - File 10-3 x 10-5 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley stated the action called for is to amend the zoning to establish the standards described in Exhibit A. There being no comments from the public, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 8017 - CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 14 (ZONING) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 99 MONTECILLO ROAD TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE KAISER HOSPITAL CAMPUS (Z89-2) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The title of the Ordinance was read: "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 OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM PC -NG AND U(PLANNED COMMUNITY - NORTHGATE ACTIVITY CENTER OVERLAY (M/O 286) AND UNCLASSIFIED) DISTRICTS TO PD -NG (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - NORTHGATE ACTIVITY CENTER OVERLAY (M/O 100) DISTRICT (99 MONTECILLO ROAD)" (for Kaiser Hospital Master Plan) SRCC MINUTES (Regu] ) 8/7/89 Page 15 Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1566 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 15. REPORT ON ORDINANCE NO. 1564 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ENACTING TITLE 20, TO PROVIDE FOR MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION (CA) - File 13-7-1 x 115 x (SRRA) R-173 City Manager Nicolai stated subsequent to the previous meeting when Council passed to print an Ordinance for Rent Stabilization for the Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park, staff modified points made at that Council meeting as to the definition of mobilehome versus trailer. She noted meanwhile, based on a court case that was decided in Santa Barbara, part of the City's Ordinance was unconstitutional, and that the Ordinance would need to be modified. She alerted Council that the Ordinance would allow for decontrol, once a Mobilehome is sold, to have recontrol after the new purchase price has been set, then come back under rent control for subsequent rent increases with the new owner. In addition, discussions were held with Marin Mediation Services to clarify the difference between mediation and arbitration. Ms. Nicolai stated after modification of the Ordinance that it would come back to Council for a first reading during another public hearing. City Attorney Ragghianti referred to item 3 of the staff report... "Revise Section 20.20.050 requiring 60 -day notice to 90 -day notice by the park owner for any rent increases. This provides time for review of an increase above that allowed by the Ordinance that may be contem- plated due to refinancing the park". He commented this also violates Section 798.30 of the Civil Code which is the Mobilehome Residency Act. He stated the maximum time the law permits for advance notice of rent increases is 60 -days rather than 90 -days, noting the City cannot exceed the State's statute, and that -change has to be made as well. In response to Councilmember Frugoli's concern about mobilehome versus a trailer in relation to the B -Bar -A Trailer Court, Mr. Richard Bornholdt, Housing Consultant, noted if there is to be an Ordinance applying to mobilehomes it must apply to all mobilehomes and not a few, therefore, a definition will be added to exclude trailers and recreational vehicles. Mr. Bornholdt stated the Health and Safety Code and the Vehicle Code in the State of California have definitions for mobilehomes, recreational vehicles and trailer parks that will be used for the Ordinance. Councilmembers, without motion, unanimously directed staff to proceed with the Ordinance as discussed, to be brought back to Council at a public hearing on August 21, 1989. 16. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE NO. 1565 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ORDINANCE 1548 (PARAMEDIC SERVICE SPECIAL TAX) AND SETTING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989/ 90 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (CA) - File 9-3-31 x 8-5 The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ORDINANCE 1548 (PARA- MEDIC SPECIAL TAX) AND SETTING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989/90 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES" Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to dispense with the reading, to refer to it by title only, and adopt Charter Ordinance No. 1565 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regulz 8/7/89 Page 16 17. DISCUSSION OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM YOUTH ACTIVITIES -CYO RE 101 CORRIDOR ACTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION - File 170 Councilmember Boro stated he wanted to have some clarification to reaffirm where the Council stood on this item, noting that he had read the letter written by Michael J. Marovich of the Youth Activities - CYO and stated it was the first he had heard about the issue, and was quite taken aback by the posture taken by the City's representative, asking for an explanation from Councilmember Thayer, the City's represen- tative on this committee, concerning her action. He noted the Council and the Planning Commission had many meetings on the General Plan including discussions on McInnis Parkway, and noted whoever is representing the City should present what is in the City's plan. Mayor Mulryan agreed and noted McInnis Parkway was to be a two-lane roadway. Councilmember Thayer noted she had brought a copy of the General Plan on the eastside arterial, stating it is a 3 to 4 lane (roadway) of which 3 lanes would be paid for by local development, meaning that the cost of widening to four lanes is to be divided between areawide three fourths and regional one fourth program. She explained the position she took at the 101 Corridor Action Committee meeting by stating she spoke to members of the cities of Marin and found that the proposal (101 Corridor Action Plan) included the McInnis Parkway in terms of being paid for only by local development and that it was listed as a 2 -way highway. At the meeting she spoke to various members of the Marin Delegation, namely the cities, and learned that at the previous meeting when it passed, that Sonoma County passed it and not Marin County with the exception of one City in Marin who approved of it. She also found out that the Transportation Authority (an adjunct to the 101 Corridor Plan) does not intend to include it in the funding proposals, noting she made inquiry and found out that various members on that committee feel that it is perceived as so growth -inducing, that the whole ballot measure would fail because of McInnis Parkway. She noted since the City's Plan states this will be funded by regional planning, that basically what was being put in the 101 Corridor Action Plan was inconsistent with the General Plan of San Rafael. Councilmember Thayer stated she personally did not think it makes much difference whether it is in the 101 Corridor Action Committee Plan or not if it is not to be funded through the tax authority ballot measure. She added the developers have gotten together and would like to see the entire roadway east of the railroad tracks. She asked questions as to whether it would really serve this region as a diversionary route to 101 and is not certain about that being done. The only way it can be part of the 101 Corridor Action Committee Plan is as a diversionary route, otherwise it is a local road. If it is not to be funded by regional funds but only by local development she concluded that it is a local road and is indigenous to the General Plan but not necessarily to a regionwide planning effort. She stated if any accord is given to regionwide planning, then the City should look to sister cities in Marin County, asking why they voted to have it deleted from the 101 Corridor Action Plan. Councilmember Thayer stated these are some of the reasons she agreed to this and noted it did not make much differ- ence to St. Vincents/Silveira, indicating it is still in the City's (General) plan. Mayor Mulryan noted the problem is that the motion was not to delete it from the Sales Tax Plan but from the 101 Corridor Plan as well and stated it was contrary to what the Council's position was. Councilmember Breiner stated if McInnis is to be funded strictly by the property developers as they proceed to develop, then it does not make sense to have it in a sales tax funding. Councilmember Frugoli stated the question was whether to have McInnis in the 101 Corridor Action Plan, indicating part of the commitment was that some of the percentage of monies raised would be for local roads and some either paid for by the percentage given back to the cities from the sales tax base or from the local developers or mitiga- tion fees. He noted this is a reliever road, stating they wanted to change the name from McInnis Parkway to McInnis Drive because parkway relates to a 4 -lane road instead of a 2 -lane reliever road for emergencies and intercounty from the areas of Civic Center to Novato. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (regul ) 8/7/89 Page 17 Councilmember Thayer stated the architectural drawings she saw did not show where the road is going, noting the drawings have put it exiting at Route 37, which to some degree would be a diversionary route. She spoke with Traffic Engineer John Rumsey as to what level of service would be at buildout on this road, and he responded, Mid - Level of Service D. She did not know how this could possibly be calcu- lated with diversionary trips either from the Novato area or from Route 37 along with potential development, suspecting it was just potential development Mr. Rumsey was referring to along the roadway itself and not to the north of San Rafael. Councilmember Boro asked what the impact is now that it has been voted to delete McInnis from the 101 Corridor Plan, and City Manager Nicolai replied staff is in the process of preparing a report for the second meeting in September with a full analysis of all the different things included in the 101 Corridor Action Plan report as well as the Transpor- tation Expenditure Plan recommendation. She stated one of the functions of McInnis Road was to act as an arterial to Highway 101, having been designated as having regional value. Councilmember Thayer stated it is her fear that if McInnis Road is not included in the Transportation Authority Ballot Measure, and if it is included in the 101 Plan, that developers will come back later and expect regional funding for it, bypassing the tax process. Councilmember Boro stated in developing this plan, they are trying to have foresight to plan for the future, knowing that relief is needed for Highway 101 and whether it is local or regional, is a secondary issue. He noted Council's position needs to be sustained, indicating if he were to read this now without knowing anything, he would think San Rafael decided not to build McInnis, citing mixed signals going out to the community. Mayor Mulryan stated it should be made clear that McInnis Road is still part of the General Plan. Councilmember Thayer pointed out that when it passed the first time with all of the Sonoma voters it was designated as only a two-lane road to be paid for entirely by local development, so they did modify the City's General Plan, and therefore she thought it was inconsistent. After discussion, Council agreed to discuss this item further at meeting of September 18, 1989, including the status of McInnis Parkway, with the Council's position and further comments to be made known at that time and reported to the County. 18. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RE LUCAS RIDGE ESTATES - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF DUAL ANNEXATION POLICY (Pl) - File 149 x 10-1 x5-2 Mayor Mulryan stated he met with representatives of the developer, who are seeking clarification on annexation or no annexation, and noted they concluded they would like more time to meet with County representatives and local people in the Marinwood community to try to reach an accommodation for all factors. Planning Director Pendoley stated the law that creates LAFCo establishes a 90 -day time frame for LAFCo to act once an application has been received, noting September would be LAFCo's deadline. He noted in order for the applicant to give themselves more time and get a better idea on how the City and County feel it would be better to withdraw their application with LAFCo and reapply. Council reviewed the proposed MOU and made the following suggestions: Councilmember Breiner cited ANALYSIS - Potential Agreement, and stated if the agreement does not go through, she does not want the City of San Rafael paying all the legal fees for eminent domain proceedings, noting the cost should be split with the County. Councilmember Breiner also referred to No. 6 - City Commitments, amend the General Plan to state that the Daphne property only be annexed, to add, "or if annexation of the subject property is approved by majority vote of the residents of that property." Mayor Mulryan questioned Traffic Mitigation Fees, stating they should be applied in a certain manner. Mr. Pendoley replied that fees are SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regul ) 8/7/89 Page 18 being collected jointly by the City and County under the Northgate Plan and except when there is partial fee waiver, they are put into the same common pot. Mayor Mulryan accepted the explanation by Mr. Pendoley. Mrs. Edith McKenna, representing the property owners of Lucas Ridge Estates, noted it was her understanding that the application could be withdrawn without prejudice, and stated they will be meeting with Mark Risenfeld and the head project planner on this subject. City Manager Nicolai stated she wanted to be certain that if the appli- cant does not feel anyone is forcing LAFCo to make a decision that this be done in writing to them, explaining the time period will force them to make a decision if the application is not withdrawn or they have in writing, permission to extend it. She noted the City needs to know that,because if this does not happen, the City would need to make a decision in pursuing the issue. 19. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES: (P1) - File 10-5 a. ADOPTION OF A 45 -DAY INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE TO FREEZE ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES. b. APPROVAL OF WORK PROGRAM FOR RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES TASK FORCE. Planning Director Pendoley noted staff has provided the Urgency Ordinance and Work Program and stated if Council concurred with the analysis by staff, Council would now or in the future appoint a Task Force. He noted at the last Council meeting, it was decided to appoint 7 members; 2 Councilmembers, 2 Planning Commissioners and 3 Citizens At -large. Mr. Pendoley stated one modification was made to include not only group care facilities that provide for resident services, but also for group care facilities that provide for drop-in or out-patient services. He noted Council may want to expand the definition to include, "Temporary shelters for the homeless", indicating it would be appropriate to place it in DIVISION 3 of the Ordinance. Councilmember Boro stated it is important that current applications before the City would not be affected, but future applications would be, with this wording. Mr. Pendoley suggested DIVISION 3, be worded in part, "Notwithstanding any other provisions of the San Rafael Municipal Code or any other Ordinances or regulations of the City of San Rafael to the contrary, no new applications for group care facilities or temporary shelters for the homeless (this would be the addition) shall be accepted, pro- cessed, approved or granted." Mr. Pendoley stated this also would include the drop-in centers by definition from the first part. Mayor Mulryan and Councilmember Boro were appointed to serve on the Task Force, with Councilmember Thayer appointed as alternate. After further discussion on Members -at -Large, Council agreed to have this item discussed at the meeting of August 21, 1989. Council agreed that appointment of 2 Planning Commissioners be made by the Planning Commission. Cecelia Bridqes, Attorney, stated she was not certain what the effect of the change in the draft is on the proposed homeless shelter and application,located at Irene and Kerner Streets,which is before the City, which she understood to be incomplete. City Attorney Ragghianti responded this is covered under 3(b) which is an application for a facility which was received and does not indi- cate it has to be determined to be complete. He noted, therefore, he would take it to mean if it were received before adoption of the Ordinance, it would be processed. Ms. Bridges asked if this application would be exempt from the Ordinance and Mayor Mulryan responded affirmatively. Ms. Bridges requested that Council recognize that in adopting the Ordinance as an emergency measure, that Council needs additional infor- mation on group care facilities before it is further acted upon. She SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regul. ) 8/7/89 Page 19 asked Council to consider drafting Exemption 3(b) to read, "Applications for group care facilities deemed complete by the City prior to the effective date of this urgency ordinance." She noted the effect of her request would be to have this ordinance apply to the application for the homeless shelter in the Canal Area at Kerner and Irene Streets. Mayor Mulryan asked City Attorney Ragghianti if this wording were used whether it would be legal, and he replied affirmatively. Mayor Mulryan stated he supported the wording. Councilmember Boro stated it was never his intent to attempt to derail that particular project in this manner, but felt there are enough opinions from petitions he has received, indicating how they felt in this City and in that area. He did not want the Council to be accused of trying to fabricate an ordinance to defeat something like that but preferred that the shelter stand on its own merits. Mr. Pendoley stated that the amendment should be applied to Exemption (b), DIVISION 3, for consistency. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PROHIBITING ANY USES THAT MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH A CONTEMPLATED ZONING PROPOSAL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858" Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and adopt Charter Ordinance No. 1567, an Interim Urgency Ordinance, as amended, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 20. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR FEDERAL EXPRESS DROPBOX AT FOURTH AND "A" STREETS (PW) - File 2-11 x 2-11.1 Public Works Director Bernardi stated the fact that Federal Express is in the right-of-way is one issue and the other is that Federal Express is considered to be an advertisement which is prohibited in the Municipal Code. He said Council has been very clear in directing staff to deal with the right-of-way in terms of conducting business, whether it is produce salesmen, t -shirt people, etc., and staff recom- mended that this not be permitted. Mayor Mulryan stated he hoped negotiations between Federal Express and the building owner would be successful, noting the City has had many requests and problems with these types of businesses encroaching on City sidewalks. Ms. Kathy Burke, Senior Convenience Network Representative for Federal Express, stated one of the plans they are implementing in Marin County is trying to decentralize traffic, citing the Francisco Boulevard outlet where all their vans enter and exit. She said it used to remain open at late hours for customer convenience but they are now complying with the City's request by closing earlier; therefore, she indicated some people need to utilize Federal Express boxes within the City, but noted it increases sidewalk traffic. She asked for a temporary encroachment permit until they obtain permission to use the inside of the building of Courthouse Square at 4th and A Streets. After further discussion, Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to approve staff's recommendation to deny the Encroachment Permit application for Federal Express to maintain a dropbox at Fourth and "A" Streets, granting Federal Express 30 days to remove their dropbox from the right-of-way at Fourth and A Streets, with a letter to be sent by City staff to the owners of Courthouse Square at 4th and A Streets, encouraging them to make the lobby avail- able for a Federal Express dropbox. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNICLMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regu :) 8/7/89 Page 20 1. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 PM. JEANNV—.--LEONCINI , Ci y Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1989 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/7/89 Page 20