HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1989-08-21SRCC MINUTES (Regular 8/21/89 Page 1
IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1989
AT 7:00 PM.
Vice -Mayor Breiner announced in open session that City Council was entering
into Closed Session to meet with the negotiator to give instructions regard-
ing price and terms of payment for the sale of real property located at
346 Mountain View Avenue in San Rafael, California; negotiating with the
general public.
Regular Meeting:
CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a
No. 89-14(a) - V.
No. 89-14(b) - #5 - 346 Mountain View Avenue, San Rafael, California.
No reportable action was taken.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 21,
1989 AT 8:00 PM.
Regular Meeting: Present: Dorothy L. Breiner, Vice -Mayor
San Rafael City Council Albert J. Boro, Councilmember
Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember
Joan Thayer, Councilmember
Absent: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor
Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City
Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM
Re: SAN RAFAEL POLICE ASSOCIATION - File 9-3-30
Officer Harold Hutchinson, President of the San Rafael Police Association,
requested Council to direct administrative staff to follow through with
the impasse procedure. He stated they have been at an impasse since July
26, 1989, and as of this date have not received any formal notification
of executive session (closed session) of the Council.
Vice -Mayor Breiner stated Council has taken steps to schedule an executive
session (closed session), indicating that the San Rafael Police Association
will be informed.
Re: TREE ORDINANCE - File 10-2 x 115 x 9-2-10
Mr. Ned Turkington spoke on the status of the Tree Ordinance, and asked
Council what can be done to speed up the process with the Tree Ordinance.
Vice -Mayor Breiner referred to a letter from Planning Director Pendoley
dated August 18, 1989, stating at this time staff is behind schedule as
a result of the group home study which was not in the original budget.
She indicated Council is continuing to monitor this issue, and that Mr.
Pendoley will bring this matter back to Council in September, 1989, and
Mr. Turkington would be notified.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to approve
the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items:
Item
Recommended Action
3. City Attorney's Impartial Accepted report.
Analysis of Ballot Measure -
Measure B - Increase in
Appropriations Limit (CA) -
File 9-4 x 9-3-16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 1
4.
5.
21
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 8/21/89 Page 2
Ratification of: (Pl) -
a. Resolution No. 8016 -
Resolution Denying Appeal and
Accepting Revised Conditions of
Use Permit for Kaiser Hospital
(UP89-5); 99 Montecillo Road;
Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Owner;
R.P. Hubner, Rep.; Terra Linda
Homeowners Association, Appellant;
AP #175-060-57 (Pl) - File 10-5
x 10-3
b. Resolution No. 8017 -
Resolution of the City Council of
the City of San Rafael 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) -
AP #175-060-57 - File 10-3
x 10-5
Resolution Upholding Appeal of
Planning Commission 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,
Appellants; AP #10-301-12 (Pl) -
File 10-7 x 10-4
Second Reading and Final
Adoption - Ordinance No. 1566 -
An Ordinance of the City of San
Rafael Amending the Zoning Map of
the City of San Rafael, Califor-
nia, 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) Kaiser Founda-
tion Hospital) (Pl) - File 10-3 x
10-5 —
7. Resolution of Consent to Hold
Joint Public Hearing on October
2, 1989 with the San Rafael
Redevelopment Agency on
Redevelopment Plan Amendment (RA) -
File (SRRA) R-140 XII
9. Legislation Affecting San Rafael
(CM) - File 9-1
10. Claims for Damages:
a. Elaine Smith (PW)
Claim No. 3-1-1.410
b. Joseph L. Gillaspy (PD)
Claim No. 3-1-1423
RATIFIED RESOLUTION NO. 8016,
DENYING APPEAL AND ACCEPTING
REVISED CONDITIONS OF USE PERMIT
FOR KAISER HOSPITAL (UP89-5)
RATIFIED 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)
RESOLUTION NO. 8018 - UPHOLDING
THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
OF V88-24 AND ED86-55(c), APPROVAL
OF A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND
VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED CARPORT
WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK
AT 98 WINDSOR AVENUE
ORDINANCE NO. 1566 - 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) (KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL)
RESOLUTION NO. 8019 - AUTHORIZING
A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BETWEEN
THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AND THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
ON OCTOBER 2, 1989 ON THE CENTRAL
SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REPORT
SUPPORTED AB 1441 (Clute) -
Abandoned Vehicles.
SUPPORTED SB 1130 (C. Green) -
Vehicle Sound Amplification Systems.
OPPOSED AB 2372 (Hannigan) - Gives
Counties all Penalties on Delinquent
Property Taxes.
Approved City Attorney's recom-
mendations for denial of claims
a, b, c & d.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 2
C.�LCCJ�L—Ico� E lr-CCsSeu� lLc-�
u
g .4
7 �
SRCC MINUTES (Regula' 8/21/89 Page 3
c. Joe Testa (Rec)
Claim No. 3-1-1424
d. Nicholas H. Carter (PW)
Claim No. 3-1-1427
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Vice -Mayor Breiner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL BUDGET HEARINGS OF JUNE 26 AND 27,
1989 (CC) - File 1-4
Vice -Mayor Breiner asked that Minutes of Special Budget Hearing of
June 26, 1989, be amended. Sentence under No. 1. Sales Tax Revenues
to read,..."Sales Tax Revenues for 1988/89 were projected at 2.5 percent."
City Council unanimously approved Minutes of Special Budget Hearing
of June 26, 1989, as amended, and Minutes of Special Budget Hearing
of June 27, 1989, as submitted.
8. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 81 McNEAR DRIVE (PW) - File 2-5-29
Councilmember Thayer was concerned about discrepancy of the swimming
pool encroaching into City open space by approximately 1747.1 square
feet, citing contractor Don Lewis as being responsible for the error,
and asked staff if anything had been done in following up on this.
Public Works Director Bernardi stated nothing has been done by the
City, but said legal action is pending between Mr. and Mrs. Rodrigues
and Mr. Lewis in terms of title insurance and what was represented
to them regarding the sale. He said when staff inspected the site,
they were led to believe everything was done according to approved
plans, but when the Rodrigues resurveyed their property, they noted
the error and came to staff with some recommendations and solutions
to resolve it.
Councilmember Thayer indicated the solution was excellent and asked
if people in the area were notified, and Mr. Bernardi responded affirma-
tively.
RESOLUTION NO. 8020 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN RAFAEL ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY
AND AUTHORIZING THE VICE -MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE A GRANT DEED FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
AT 81 McNEAR DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli and Vice -Mayor Breiner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan
11. PUBLIC HEARING ON BUILDING DAMAGE AT 1301 FOURTH STREET DUE TO FIRE
(PW) - File 3-3-44
Vice -Mayor Breiner declared the continued public hearing opened.
Public Works Director Bernardi stated the building at 1301 Fourth
Street is coming along well, noting the Architect stated the work
should be completed within one month. He recommended closing the public
hearing.
Vice -Mayor Breiner closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to approve
staff recommendation to uphold the appeal, declare 1301-1311 Fourth
Steet to no longer be a dangerous building, and direct staff to prepare
a Resolution with the appropriate findings.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Vice -Mayor Breiner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan
12. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION
ORDINANCE (CM) - File 13-7-1 x 115 x (SRRA) R-173
Vice -Mayor Breiner declared the public hearing opened.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 8/21/89 Page 4
Housing Consultant Richard Bornholdt stated revisions to the Ordinance
were made with input from Mr. Stan Yates of Contempo Marin, Marin
County Mediation Services, Marin Board of Realtors and The Western
Mobilehome Association. In addition, a revised Ordinance was reviewed
with minor points of clarification as follows:
Word "Space" to read "Lot(s)" throughout the Ordinance, conforming
to the State of California Housing and Community Development Department
definitions.
Clarification and changes to references of "Arbitrator" and "Mediator"
in Section 20.10.110, Section B, where word "Arbitration" is shown
should read "Mediation"; where word "Mediator" is shown should read
"Arbitrator".
Page 4, top, under J. - "Mobilehome owner" or "Homeowner" means any
person legally occupying a mobilehome dwelling unit pursuant to owner-
ship thereof within a mobilehome park and - insert word "holding"
before word "a" rental or lease agreement with the park owner."
Mr. Bornholdt stated with these changes, staff recommended that Council
pass the Ordinance to print.
Mr. Stan Yates, President of Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park, thanked
Councilmembers, staff and Mr. Bornholdt for the work that went into
the Mobilehome Ordinance. He stated the Ordinance will make it possible
for the residents of Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park to be able to
afford living in their homes in Contempo Marin, and that they support
the current version of the Ordinance, including the amendment conforming
to the recent Federal Court decision.
Mr. Stan Ott, former City Planner, stated as a member of the Board
of Directors of the San Rafael Housing Corporation, he is grateful
for the serious consideration of Contempo Marin as a housing resource.
He noted in a period of over two years, their Board has been working
with Contempo residents and is now overjoyed to witness their citizens'
action being rewarded. He noted their action and the Council's is
a true demonstration of democracy, and will help to assure the housing
variety and economic diversity needed for a balanced San Rafael community.
Meq Miranda, Regional Director for Western Mobilehome Association,
also thanked Council and staff for consideration of the suggestions
the parkowners have made on the Ordinance. She requested Council table
this matter for a few months to see if the negotiations on a long-term
lease can successfully continue. She indicated negotiations began
July 25, 1989 when the parkowner made a proposal and they have been
waiting for the residents to come back with a counter -proposal, and
if they are successful, it would be unnecessary for Council to pass
this Ordinance. She asked Council to give the parkowners and homeowners
a chance to negotiate something outside of the City Ordinance and
regulations that would not involve the City and yet be fair to both
sides. She added if the residents do not agree with the parkowners,
Council could then pass the Ordinance.
Councilmember Thayer replied that the Ordinance provides for such
a procedure if 50 percent of the residents agree to it.
Mrs. Juanita Conrad, resident at B -Bar -A Trailer Ranch, stated there
are 45 mobilehome spaces in their area and asked if they are a part
of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance.
Mr. Bornholdt stated the Ordinance applies only to mobilehomes as
defined by the Health and Safety Code which also defines recreation
vehicles and trailers, and said these are exempt from the Ordinance.
He stated the Ordinance includes any mobilehomes within San Rafael
located in parks that rent to mobilehomes. He stated once an ordinance
is enacted to apply to mobilehomes it must apply to all mobilehomes.
Mr. Bornholdt responded to a question by Councilmember Frugoli on
the Ordinance applying to a certain amount of mobilehomes in a park,
by stating it does apply to mobilehomes and not trailers and recreation
vehicles in any park within the City of San Rafael. He indicated if
there is one or more mobilehomes within a park, the Ordinance would
apply.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 8/21/89 Page 5
Mr. John Kay, resident at the B -Bar -A Trailer Ranch, was unclear con-
cerning the Ordinance and said he understood the State law to say,
if a mobilehome park or trailer park has two or more coaches over
40 feet long, that they fall under a mobilehome park; if this is the
case, is the B -Bar -A Trailer Ranch under this Ordinance? Mr. Bornholdt
answered affirmatively, but noted it is only for coaches meeting the
definition of a mobilehome within the Health and Safety Code.
There being no further public comments, Vice -Mayor Breiner closed
the public hearing.
Councilmember Boro asked if there have been situations where. as vacan-
cies arise, the owner of the park would start to convert them to other
mobilehome type units? He referred to the proviso in the General Plan
that they look to the whole site as a center for low-cost housing which
is the purpose of the Ordinance.
Mr. Bornholdt replied he did not know.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - ADDING TITLE 20 TO THE MUNI-
CIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL ENTITLED MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE"
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it
by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1564 to print by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor
Frugoli, Thayer & Vice -Mayor Breiner
Mulryan
13. PUBLIC HEARING-s89-7/ED89-57 - TWO APPEALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
CERTIFICATION 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; AP #15-202-38 (Pl) - File 5-1-311
x 10-7
a. JEFF MULANAX, SPOKESPERSON FOR MONTECITO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION,
APPELLANT.
b. KENNETH MASSA, OWNER AND APPELLANT
Vice -Mayor Breiner declared the public hearing opened.
Principal Planner Johnston stated this appeal is in two parts, (a)
and (b), noting if (a) the Subdivision is approved, they would continue
with item (b). He stated this item was approved on a 4-2-1 vote with
Commissioners O'Brien and Starkweather dissenting. It involves the
construction of two lots on the property which was previously proposed
and denied by the City Council in January, 1989. Since then, the project
has been revised with the lot line increased so the width area exception
is not required. The homes have been relocated lower on the hillside;
the driveway grading is not as severe as it was and the houses are
not as visible as previously proposed.
The Montecito Homeowners Association has appealed the approval, stating
the reconfiguration of the lot line does not create a more buildable
subdivision than the previous application which was denied. They feel
the proposal violates the spirit of the Slope Ordinance.
Another issue concerns access to the two houses over an existing ease-
ment on the existing driveway off Highland/Hubbell/Jewell intersection,
which will create a difficult and more complex traffic pattern. For
these reasons, they feel it is a very dangerous intersection and the
application should be denied.
In reviewing the project, upon staff's recommendation of approval,
the Planning Commission voted to approve the subdivision and made
findings that the buildings have been revised substantially, so the
project is consistent with the General Plan requirements and the new
Slope Ordinance requirements. They felt the access to the lots from
the existing driveway is reasonable and have approved the project.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 8/21/89 Page 6
With respect to traffic circulation in the area, City Traffic Engineer
Rumsey indicated the surrounding intersection is operating at LOS A
(Level of Servicd; so it is a situation where although the intersection
may appear awkward, it has very low traffic and is not a problem.
Jeff Mulanax, representing Montecito Neighborhood Association read
a letter from the Sierra Club, in support of denying the subdivision.
In response to Councilmember Boro's inquiry as to what exception to
the Slope Ordinance is required, Mr. Mulanax replied they envision
the easement exception from Lot 1 to Lot 2 on the roadway including
an exception because of the frontage on Hubbell Court where it states
120 feet, whereby Mr. Mulanax's calculation is 116 feet, therefore
Mr. Massa has gone behind another residence and borrowed land from
the above project of 4 feet to increase their square footage. He added,
the 39.6 or 7 foot slope shown is not in the spirit of the Slope Ordinance
and should be rounded off.
Councilmember Thayer referred to the 116 feet versus 120 feet, stating
the frontage is not necessarily co -extensive with the width of a piece
of property.
Mr. Mulanax stated in most municipalities, the frontage in this case
would be the frontage on Highland and the length on Hubbell would
be a side measurement, claiming Mr. Massa to be very short.
In response to Vice -Mayor Breiner's question regarding a memo from
the Subdivision Committee dated June 10, 1969, applications on further
subdivision of the property, Principal Planner Johnston stated at
the time this was approved, the subdivision would create two houses,
the existing Skaar property on top of the hill and a new lot which
is a portion of the subject property. Circumstances have changed in
two aspects with respect to Condition "C" on the 1969 approval. 1)
The lot area under the current proposal has been increased through
the lot line adjustment. 2) The driveway in this proposal is required
to be widened from 10 feet and -up to 16 feet. The existing driveway to
serve additional units is unsuitable, therefore, the conditions require
that it be widened to 16 feet, and City Engineer Rumsey recommended approva:
Vice -Mayor Breiner stated the memo from the Subdivision Committee
dated June 10, 1969 has been superceded and should be ignored.
Mr. Kenneth Massa, applicant and resident of San Rafael, stated the
two -lot subdivision plan was approved by the Planning Commission on
July 25, 1989. The current application proposes a completely redesigned
plan to conform to the goals of the General Plan 2000 and in addition,
the project is designed in accordance with the newly amended Slope
Ordinance, the requirements of the Design Review Board, the various
San Rafael agencies, and the plan also addresses previous findings of the
City Council.
Mr. Massa stated he incorporated solutions to the concerns of the
neighbors in his new proposal, stating it has been through two and
one-half years of scrutiny by the public and various regulatory agencies
of San Rafael, as well as numerous engineers, consultants, department
officials, review boards and commissions. The project has gone through
this process in order to upgrade -the quality of the project so it conforms
to the highest standard required by San Rafael. The subdivision plans,
including the house and the site plans, which have been approved by
the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board, provide strict
development criteria and conditions of approval which will govern
future development.
Mr. Massa stated the Design Review Board has determined that careful
consideration has been made to incorporate this project into the scale
and character of the neighborhood. The Design Review Board and Planning
Commission have determined that the project conforms to General Plan
Section LU -34 which proposes clustering of the homes to minimize grading
impacts, to avoid the steepest parts of the site and to minimize visual
impacts. The home on Lot 2 has been relocated to a lower elevation
on the hill to conform to this General Plan Section. The Planning
Commission and Design Review Board have also found that the project
conforms to General Plan 2000 Section RES -1 by being harmoniously
integrated into the existing neighborhood in terms of density, intensity
and design. In addition, the Planning Commission and the Design Review
Board have concluded that the project conforms to General Plan Section
NE -20 which requires preservation of hillsides to provide visual backdrops.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular' 8/21/89 Page 7
Each of the houses is low on the hill to insure that the hilltop is
left unobstructed.
Mr. Massa stated the following findings were made by the Planning
Commission approval: The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent
with the applicable general and specific plans; the site is physically
suitable for this type and density of residential development; the
design of the subdivision will not cause environmental damage or problems
associated with public health, safety or welfare.
In regard to the amended Slope Ordinance, Mr. Massa stated the Planning
Commission has determined that the slope requirements have been favorably
addressed in this subdivision proposal. The approval of the subdivision
by the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board, document that
the subdivision is in compliance with the amended Slope Ordinance.
As indicated in the newly amended Slope Ordinance, lots over 25 percent
must have design review approval. The Design Review Board has approved
the house design as appropriate and in character with the neighborhood.
Mr. Massa stated other issues presented at the Planning Commission's
July 25, 1989 meeting, were in regard to traffic, slope stability,
drainage and grading. The issues have been reviewed and addressed
to mitigate the concerns of the respective agencies and the neighbors.
Police, Fire, Public Works, Traffic, Planning and the Planning Commis-
sion have determined that the intersection is safe for his proposed
subdivision to be approved. Public Works has approved this project
as being in compliance with their requirements in regard to slope
stability, drainage and grading. A Level "C" Soils report by John
Hom has been performed for the project. The report indicates that
the site is extremely stable and that there is no evidence of any
slide problems on this property.
The issuesin regard to slope stability have been reviewed by the Plan-
ning Commission and approved as being in compliance with the require-
ments of the City. Mr. Massa stated the Planning Commission has deter-
mined that the slope is stable and presents a safely designed project.
The two proposed homes could be built without any adverse impact in
regard to grading, erosion, drainage and safety. In addition, the
Soils Engineer has stated this project is in conformance with the
General Plan Section SC.
Mr. Massa stated Planning Commission and Design Review Board have
concluded that this proposal is in accordance with the promotion of
the public health, safety and welfare in regard to traffic, slope
stability, drainage, fire and police services. The Planning Commission
has determined that this project will not have an adverse affect upon
the surrounding properties or the intersection. This project will
not degrade the quality of the environment.
In conclusion, Mr. Massa stated the Planning Commission, Design Review
Board, Planning Department, Public Works Department, Traffic Engineer,
Fire and Police Departments have reviewed this project thoroughly
for conformance to the various requirements of the City, and the fact
is that this subdivision is consistent with City ordinances, policies,
standards, laws and specific requirements. Therefore, Mr. Massa stated
he respectfully requeststhat the City Council approve the subdivision
application and deny the appeal of the Montecito Homeowners.
Mr. Massa stated he had just received a letter written by Mr. James
Skaar dated August 21, 1989, in regard to this project, where he states
Mr. Massa has 116 feet of width; Mr. Massa noted the lot is 134 feet
in width, indicating Mr. Skaar did not include the 16 feet that is
part of the easement.
Mr. Bob Grime, resident at 61 Highland Avenue, next door to Mr. Skaar's
property, noted it appears the Design Review Board and the Planning
Commission have made up their minds that the hillside properties are
to be divided wherever possible. He noted when looking at the property,
one realizes there has been a manipulation of the lot line, so that
he can get below 40 percent; because the belief is that if you get
below 40 percent, approval is automatic. Mr. Grime referred to
the Slope Ordinance, stating a category was created between 25 percent
and 40 percent, and Council set up specific guidelines to look at
these properties. He noted they are not looking at a property that
is 26 or 27 or even 31, but at a property that is at the upper end
of the 15 percent category. Mr. Grime stated he suspected that Mr.
Skaar was carefully watching what Council's action would be, stating
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /21/89 Page 8
if Council approved the lot split with one of the lots at a 39 percent
slope, Mr. Skaar would be back looking for his other lot which was
denied previously by Council on a 5-0 vote. Mr. Grime also suspected
that other owners of steep hillsides would be watching very carefully,
noting in the past, what has happened with the Slope Ordinance is
that there was some "teeth" in it at onetime, but little by little,
it has been eroded. He felt that is part of the reason Council redrafted
the Slope Ordinance, noting Council did not want it just automatic
that if you were above 40 percent, you needed one acre, but if you
were below 40 percent, you did not need one acre but 20,000 square
feet. Mr. Grime stated he was here on Mr. Skaar's application and
that at that time he commented on Highland Avenue and the cracks in
the roadway, noting he also commented to the Planning Commission in
the same way, but stated there are probably upward to a 1,000 cracks
in the roadway since it was paved maybe five years ago, filled with
tar to avoid the intrusion of water. The applicant responded later
that it was because of the activity below the roadway causing the
roadway to subside. He stated there has not been anything built below
the roadway in probably 30 or 40 years. He stated he walked up to
Highland Avenue to the same portion of roadway just as steep above
Deer Park and noted there are no cracks in the pavement. He stated
the hill has a history of what he believes is either earth movement
or slides, one or the other. He noted he believes that the way homes
are designed today, the foundations are engineered to stay on the
hillsides. He actually envisions that if the heavy rains came again,
the homes would remain right where they were designed to be built,
but the hillside would be down in the roadway. He explained when
one cuts into the hillside even though the foundation was properly
engineered, the home stays where it is but the front yard moves. He
noted that when you build on a hillside, you have to be extremely
careful of what happens when you cut into the toes and the banks of
the hills. Mr. Grime asked Council to think in terms about the fact
that this lot was bought as a single family lot and that nobody is
objecting to having a single home built on this lot. The problem is
that it is being asked to be sub -divided. The neighbors have been
opposed to it, he was opposed to it, and Mr. Grime hoped that Council
was also opposed to it, and noted if Council did agree with them that
it should not be split, that Council give clear direction back to
the applicant that he does not come back a third time; that if two
homes are unsuitable to front on Highland, two homes are not suitable
on the lot no matter what they front on, what street.
Mr. Tom Arnst, resident at corner of Jewell and Hubbell, stated adding
another street or access to the street in this intersection would
increase the already unsafe condition of that intersection, and no
matter what anyone says he hears the traffic constantly, indicating
it is not a safe intersection.
Mr. Arnst stated he believes the house facing on Hubbell will take
up the hillside because it has been lowered on the hill, and that
it is visible from his bedroom. Also, his lot has suffered some movement
during the last three years he has lived there, with probably an inch
of movement, noting he called an engineer to look at his house this
week. Mr. Arnst stated movement on that hill concerns him.
Mr. Arnst asked Vice -Mayor Breiner to read a document dated 1969.
She stated it was from the Subdivision Committee at that time, then
asked Principal Planner Johnston if this was when the whole hillside
was subdivided. Mr. Johnston responded it was at a time when the Massa
property as it presently exists was subdivided from the Skaar property.
Vice -Mayor Breiner stated one of the conditions she read was, "Applicant
is advised that future applications for further subdivision of the
property will probably require individual access from Highland as
existing driveway is unsuitable for serving more lots than hereby
created". She stated since that driveway would be widened in connection
with the development if it were to proceed, this is really moot.
Mr. Arnst stated there would still be two driveways and asked how
this is moot, and Mr. Johnston stated this condition only referred
to the existing main driveway and would basically allow the development
of one house at the existing 10 foot driveway width. He stated when
this project is approved and developed, that driveway would be expanded
to 16 feet, therefore that is the difference.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /21/89 Page 9
Mr. Arnst stated this would be adding another street into that intersec-
tion, and Mr. Johnston referred only to the main driveway which is
bounded by the two pillars which will go up from 10 to 16 feet.
Ms. Nora Contini, resident on Broadview Court, stated she was present
last year when Council unanimously voted to disallow the lot split
and at that point Council said to the neighborhood association, "Don't
come back and give him a hard time about putting one house on that
lot." She noted the City's Slope Ordinance is stricter than it was
last year; the lot has been manipulated to get this far under 40 percent,
but nothing else has changed. She said it is the same dangerous inter-
section, noting she did not care what the traffic report says. Ms.
Contini stated she looks down on the intersection and has seen two
accidents at that intersection in the last year and is afraid to walk
with her two year old there because you cannot tell where a car is
coming from, and to put another road at that intersection is insane.
She noted the City Council should be representing the citizens of
San Rafael and not an out of town developer who is here not to live
in one of those houses being developed, but to maximize off the profit
on that piece of land. She stated the slope is very steep and the
neighbors see what the problems are.
Ms. Contini referred to another case she made last year and stated
the City Council has agreed there should be a neighborhood plan for
Montecito, and no exceptions should be made until that neighborhood
plan is in effect, since their neighborhood is more dense now than
any other neighborhood in San Rafael with exception of the Canal district.
Ms. Harriet Watson, resident at 8 Hubbell Court, stated she needed
to impress Council about the dangerous intersection, noting there
now are five streets coming into the intersection, and that there
will be six regardless of whether they call it a street or not. She
stated if an exception is being made to the Slope Ordinance for Mr.
Massa, then Council would have to make exceptions for others, and
asked, why.
Ms. Barbara Barkovitch, resident at Eucalyptus Lane below and behind
the property in question, stated the fact that this particular slope
is just slightly below 40 percent suggests that there cannot be a
substantial difference between what it is now and what it was before.
Mr. Richard Goss, resident at 4 Highland Avenue, quoted from the City
Code, Section 15.34.920, which states that, "Lot sizes may be required
to be larger where potentially hazardous conditions occur." He asked
Council to discuss those hazardous conditions which he felt require
a lot size of a minimum of one acre per home. Further, he pointed
out that there is a hairpin turn at this intersection, noting this
is not a standard intersection by any means compared to other intersec-
tions in the City of San Rafael. He stated the problem is if there
are five streets already converging and now a sixth street is proposed,
and there are a large number of school-age children walking by all
the time as well as senior citizens, he felt the safety hazard alone
would justify denial of this proposal.
In addition, Mr. Goss stated there is the safety hazard regarding
the soil on the particular unstable hillside, noting the number of
landslides in this area in the last few years. He noted he lives directly
downhill from the development and is particularly concerned about
the hillside coming down on him, and the City should consider the
potential liability. Mr. Goss concluded if Council considered the
two hazards of the steep hillside which is unstable and the traffic,
it is very clear that under the Slope Ordinance, Council has the right
to deny the application of Mr. Massa because the hazards are too severe,
and also that the spirit of the new Slope Ordinance be protected.
Mr. Dennis Fishwick, spoke against the subdivision, stating if there
is an access easement over Lot 1 for both Lot 2 and the Skaar property,
he strongly urged Council to reject the proposal. Mr. Fishwick stated
Design Review did not approve what is being implied as having been
approved, but in fact, they objected to it.
In conclusion, Mr. Fishwick stated the Slope Ordinance is not just
a document that is a set of percentages, noting it is only one-third
of it and that the rest is a great deal of verbage to help define
what is important, and one of the important key Sections is 15.34.02
which concludes that, "Lot sizes may be required to be larger for
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /21/89 Page 10
potential hazardous conditions or special natural features that occur
or when development would be highly visible to the neighborhood or
community." Mr. Fishwick urged Council to vote for the neighborhood's
appeal and to deny Mr. Massa's.
Mrs. Maryann Shaw, representing Loch Lomond Homeowners' Association,
stated they are here tonight because they are sympathetic to the Monte-
cito Neighborhood Association appeal. She stated today she did get
a copy of the "Sea Level Soils Report" done by John C. Hom and Associates;
however, after reading the report, she found that the report is now
defunct due to the limitations set on Page 8 of the study by the authors.
She said there are a few revealing things in this report that are
of value, such as, they use Salem Rice's Soils Map; Salem Rice and
Mr. Thompson, who work for the California Department of Mines and
Geology. In the soils report, the engineers do examine the site and
what they state is that "no active faults have been plotted or observed".
She said this is very true that there are no active faults but noted
there are faults which she outlined on the plot map, and that a fault
runs through the intersection on Jewell and Hubbell Court. She stated
she is trying to point out two important things; 1) There are inactive
faults in the area and 2) The soil consists of Francisan Melange which
has an important significance in hydrological studies and has not
been covered in the soils report.
Councilmember Boro referred to a statement made by Mrs. Shaw and asked
if the original soils report is now disqualified, and Mrs. Shaw responded,
"It (the report) is now defunct according to his own limitations".
Vice -Mayor Breiner quoted from Page 8 of the report as follows, "The
practice of soils engineering changes and therefore we should be consulted
to update this report if construction is not performed within 18 months."
Mr. Clifford Elbinq, of the Montecito Neighborhood Association, stated
the road leading to the area he calls "a subdivision", is a private
road that will be increased to 16 feet and is not adequate for vehicles
such as garbage trucks and fire department vehicles to turn around.
Also, he noted there are no house numbers and the steet is not dedicated.
He noted this is important for emergency services, because of all
the brush and trees that grow in front of these houses. He stated
he had spoken to Mr. Joe Garbarino who states he will not drive his
vehicles up to the top of the hill because his trucks weigh about
15 tons and has been using a pick-up truck and that the residents
would have to bring their garbage downhill, to the corner of the inter-
section with the five streets. Mr. Elbing mentioned that UPS also
states they will not go up the hill. He stated that the sewer connections
are inadequate and will create problems if they have to take in additional
water flow, noting water and gas lines are undersized and have not
been changed in years; also, no street lights are on that private
road which will make 911 call services difficult.
Robert Fulsterwait, Attorney and resident in the Dominican area, stated
he is concerned that the new Slope Ordinance remain intact and does
not want more slope development and in turn encourage litigation against
the City of San Rafael by allowing development that is very close
to the line, very close to what is considered safe or unsafe by the
criteria of 40 percent grade, as he feels the grade is very steep.
Perry Litchfield, Attorney representing Mr. Massa, stated on behalf
of the applicant, they have to put this project into perspective to
understand what seems to be a misconception among some of the home-
owners surrounding the project as to what has happened. He said the
Slope Ordinance was updated and modified in the middle of Mr. Massa's
original application and he therefore had to provide for an exception
to the Slope Ordinance. His project was denied because he needed an
exception and it was not given to him. Mr. Massa at that point went
out to attempt to comply with the new Slope Ordinance as adopted by
the City and in making certain arrangements and in acquiring additional
land, he now is able to comply with the new Slope Ordinance; therefore,
he submitted a new application which did not require or request one
exception whatsoever. It was at that point he was approached by Plan-
ning and asked if he would have the driveway eliminated on Hubbell
and if he would have access off of Highland which did require an excep-
tion. Mr_. Massa responded he would be willing to do that, but he did
not want to jeopardize his project by requesting an exception which
might be discretionarily denied by the City. He stated this is the
history as to where they are now. He stated the appeal taken by the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /21/89 Page 11
applicant tonight, Item B, will be withdrawn to the extent that Appeal
No. A is denied; he noted it was a cautionary appeal to ensure that
the plan which did not require any exception was also before the City
Council this evening to the extent that they upheld the appeal of
the Homeowners Association.
Mr. Litchfield stated Mr. Massa wishes to make sure the project, which
does not require any exception, is acted upon by the City.
Mr. Litchfield referred to comments made by Mr. Grime, that there
is a new procedure under the Slope Ordinance but indicated that procedure
was followed. He believed this to be the first case where Design Review
was consulted at an early stage of the process, and in fact, made
certain findings and recommendations. He noted the architectural concepts
before Council have already been done. The 11 requirements set forth
in the new Slope Ordinance which applied to 40 percent and above slopes,
were analyzed and all complied with. There has been a finding made
at each level that Mr. Massa has complied with what the intent of
the new Slope Ordinance was, to minimize different areas of impacts;
and he has done that.
Regarding comments about trees being removed, Mr. Litchfield stated
they are sympathetic with that, noting Mr. Massa did not remove trees
on his lot, but that Mr. Skaar had removed trees on his lot.
Regarding comments on a new road being created, Mr. Litchfield stated
it is not a new road but a driveway that will service two residences.
Mr. Litchfield stated he did not believe that there has been any evidence
of a substantial nature that has supported the opposition's position.
They have heard that people believe that the traffic is bad there;
however, the Traffic Engineer, the only expert who looked at it, said
that it is not a problem, but a low level impact area.
With respect to soils, Mr. Litchfield stated there has been discussion
of the land moving and slides in the area; however, the one expert
who did look at it, concluded there were no slide problems and in
fact, noted that Mr. Hom was present to answer questions on soil stabi-
lity. He noted Mr. Hom has looked at the property since his original
report and feels that the original report stands at this point.
Mr. Litchfield stated the one asking for a variance today really is
the (Neighborhood) Association. Mr. Litchfield stated all Mr. Massa
is asking is that he be treated equally, noting he has followed the
rules and now would like to have his project approved.
Mr. Ken Philo, resident of the neighborhood, stated he is a professional
construction engineer, and has looked at a house on Hubbell Court.
He said looking at the driveway for the new building up there, you
will find that it is badly undercut and eroded at this point and time,
and if something is not done, the driveway will be in Hubbell Court
shortly.
Mrs. Maryann Shaw spoke on soils and called Council's attention to
page 3, Conclusions and asked if the City has Earthquake Ordinances
and Codes being followed or if the City is following the minimum standard
Building Codes. She pointed out that earthquake insurance is virtually
unavailable to all but the very well off.
Public Works Director Bernardi stated they follow the Uniform Building
Code and added staff will be bringing to Council within the next month
and a half, the adoption of the 1989 Building Code that includes earth-
quake provisions.
Mrs. Shaw asked if the present Building Code has incorporated the
new earthquake standards and Mr. Bernardi replied the earthquake standards
have been upgraded in the Building Code since 1960 and whenever it
has been revised it was more strict.
John Hom, Geotechnical Engineer with an office in San Rafael, stated
most of his work is in the Marin County area, noting that the City
of San Rafael has the strictest review process in the County of Marin
as stated in the General Plan, with issues such as the Slope Ordinance
where slope stability has to be reviewed by not only staff but sometimes
by outside consultants. He indicated he prepared the geotechnical
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /21/89 Page 12
report for Mr. Massa back in 1987 and has reviewed his present proposal
and finds the report he did still stands for what is being proposed
today.
Mr. Hom referred to issues raised by the neighbors on slope stability
and potential faulting near by the site. He defined what is considered
an active fault by the State of California which states that an active
fault is any fault that exhibits evidence of movement within the last
10,000 years, noting the last 10,000 years is conservative over the
magnitude when one talks about this type of building. Any fault that
has not exhibited movement is considered inactive; therefore, the
fault brought up by one of the speakers is very outdated, and noted
the City of San Rafael does not have any active faults within the
City's boundaries. He indicated this is accepted by the industry and
the General Plan.
Mr. Hom spoke on slope stability and stated he evaluated the site
in 1987 which included a number of test points, laboratory testing,
engineering analysis and found no signs of instability that would
preclude the project as he sees it. He said he was available to answer
any questions on soils.
Vice -Mayor Breiner referred to Mr. Hom's report where he states periodic
land maintenance will be required and that surface and sub -surface
drainage facilities should be checked frequently and maintained as
necessary. She asked how easy is it to check sub -surface drainage
facilities on a hillside.
Mr. Hom responded he considers sub -surface drainage maintenance to
be normal such as cleaning gutters, making sure drains work properly
and that inlets are not clogged with leaves and pipes are not leaking.
Vice -Mayor Breiner spoke on the dense growth of deep rooted ground
cover, indicating that the slope in question has not had any grading
or real disturbance and Mr. Hom replied he considered it to be pretty
much a natural vegetation area.
In response to a question from the audience if Mr. Hom measured the
hillside creep that the slope is undergoing and what period of time
this was done, Mr. Hom replied the amount of creep is very small each
year, and defined what hillside creep is. He explained the type of
soil on the site is claylike in nature and clay soil through the cycle
of Summer and Winter, gains and loses moisture content with the seasons.
As soil gains moisture content it swells and because of gravitational
forces, the swelling action is in a downhill direction. During Summer-
time when the soil loses moisture content, the soil contracts and
again, due to gravitational forces, the soil contracts in the downhill
direction. Therefore, the amount of creep would depend on a number
of factors, such as the amount of rain, amount of drying out of the
soil and would not be a constant measurement each year. Mr. Hom stated
he did not measure the amount of creep, and that he has studied the
hillside since 1987. He stated in his experience, hillsides creep
fractions of an inch per year and that fraction varies with the amount
of seasonal rainfall.
Vice -Mayor Breiner closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Thayer stated many people alluded to some sort of an
exception being made to the Slope Ordinance, indicating she felt they
confused the issue with the exception being required for an access
driveway to expand the existing lot which would basically be the excep-
tion. She noted in terms of the numerical values attached to the
Slope Ordinance, there is no exception being made. She said she has
many concerns with regard to the project, however, in terms of the
amount of acreage required, Mr. Massa does appear to have met that
no matter how he acquired the extra land. She did not feel someone
should be precluded from building if they go about it differently
and acquire more land, noting that is not the point. She felt the
appeal has brought up some interesting points regarding the additional
factors required by the Slope Ordinance such as avoiding highly visible
hillsides and preserve hillsides as visual backdrops and steep slopes
to be avoided, and tree preservation is maximized. She noted the widen-
ing of the driveway will require cutting quite a few ecualyptus trees,
which is in the staff report. Principal Planner Johnston stated the
widening of the driveway will require removing some trees but he was
not certain as to the exact number of trees, noting the applicant
has that information.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) '21/89 Page 13
Councilmember Thayer had concerns with the intersection which would
basically amount to six streets. She stated if Council precluded Mr.
Skaar from developing his property in such a way whether he would
be back with a proposal for two more residences, she asked how many
would be built on that hillside if this project was approved. Mr.
Johnston replied that Mr. Skaar has submitted a subdivision of two
lots, which would be one additional to the existing lot. Mr. Johnston
stated this is a recent submittal and that he has not yet seen the
proposal.
Councilmember Thayer referred to City Code 15.34.920, stating she
tends to agree with the neighborhood that one house would be sufficient.
Councilmember Boro was confused by Councilmember Thayer's last comment,
where legally the applicant is entitled under the Slope Ordinance
to basically build two houses meeting all the Codes which Mr. Boro
stated he has been struggling with. He noted Mr. Massa has met the
specifics of the Ordinance and the exception being asked for is to
the Subdivision Ordinance and not necessarily to the Slope Ordinance
for the access right-of-way.
Councilmember Thayer stated she made that clarification at the beginning
and noted she was reading from some portions of the letter of appeal
that the Slope Ordinance also has other factors that can be considered,
stating it is not just the percentage of slopes.
Councilmember Boro asked staff to comment on the City's Geotechnical
Review Board input on this site, and Mr. Johnston replied the Condi-
tions of Approval required Level "C" Soils Report which has been done,
but that it could be reviewed by the Geotechnical Review Board for
a third party analysis. He noted he would have to check the conditions
as to whether or not this is required prior to recordation.
Councilmember Thayer asked if Council could require that an EIR be
done, and Mr. Johnston stated that the Subdivision Map was processed
within 50 days as required by the State Permit Streamlining Act, and
noted there also is a provision that requires the determination on
a requirement of an EIR within 30 days of an application submittal
and acceptance as complete. He stated they have exceeded this time
frame and suggested that if Council determines that an EIR is required,
that it should be more appropriate to deny this project without prejudice
and at that point, the applicant should, if he chooses, resubmit and
the Planning Department would require an EIR at that point; but staff
would have to determine what the scope of the EIR would be and this
would take some time as well as hiring a consultant to prepare the
document. He stated based on the information provided, staff and
the Planning Commission felt that an EIR is not necessary to come
to a decision on this project.
Councilmember Boro spoke on the issue of design review going forward
and stated Council had some plans from Mr. Massa of what he plans
to build and asked if these are locked into this site. Mr. Johnston
replied negatively and said the Conditions of Approval on the subdivision
have extensive conditions on what should happen through the design
review process; the new Slope Ordinance requires the Design Review
Board review hillside subdivisions when they are over 25 percent.
Therefore, the procedure has been to have an Environmental Design
application submitted in conceptual design.
Councilmember Boro asked if Mr. Massa received approval for one or
two homes, in this case two, then sold his interests, would the sub-
sequent owner be obligated to come back and go through design review?
Mr. Johnston replied he would, stating it is part of the condition,
and added the approval does provide for a specific access, so the
access would remain the same but the architecture could be revised.
He referred to the Planning Commission staff report, Condition 4,
where the design review criteria was listed, items a through g.
Councilmember Boro referred to the Planning Commission meeting where
Commissioner Starkweather was concerned about six foot high retaining
walls, and asked what was behind that issue. Mr. Johnston stated at
the point of the minor driveway where it splits off and goes to both
houses, there is a retaining wall at that point and the staff report
lists the height of that retaining wall as actually five feet. He
believed through some of the discussion that it may be six feet in
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /21/89 Page 14
height, and that there is two to one grading that occurs up above
that, therefore, depending on the exact grading plan, it would be
in that area. He said staff analysis on that item was that retaining
walls can be attractive and in this case would not be appropriate
and there are examples of retaining walls throughout the neighborhood.
He did not recall what Commissioner Starkweather used as the determining
factor, but noted he did vote to deny the subdivision.
Councilmember Frugoli referred to comments made by Councilmember Thayer
and reaffirmed by Councilmember Boro that there really was no exception
given to the Slope Ordinance because of Mr. Massa receiving more land
on the site, noting he did what he was told to do. He stated what
he is hearing from the neighbors is that the soil could be unstable
and the slope itself. He noted if they had a focused EIR on the slope
stabilization, they could then deny the project without prejudice
and everyone would feel that has been met. He felt the traffic is
at Level of Service A, noting there still is only one street there
and an extra driveway would be added off the existing street; that
they would not be adding another street especially not putting one
on Hubbell Court, but on Highland.
Vice -Mayor Breiner clarified if Councilmember Frugoli was asking for
a hydrology report and a geological review, and he answered affirmatively.
Vice -Mayor Breiner stated rather than call it a focused EIR they could
call it additional study.
Public Works Director Bernardi suggested to Council if they wanted
additional soils analysis done, they could refer (the proposal) to
the Geotechnical Review Board to have them perform the analysis on
Mr. Hom's existing report to determine whether or not there is sufficient
information present or whether more information is needed to develop
the site. He said in that way, Council could get the answers as to
the stability of the site.
Councilmember Thayer stated there are legitimate concerns by the neighbors
and it seems the Slope Ordinance does give other factors which can
be taken into consideration in addition to just the percentage of
slope. She pointed out that one of them has to do with the visibility
of the hillside; and given the fact that there is a property above
that property which has the potential for further development, she
felt they should look at that hillside extremely carefully. She noted
part of the Slope Ordinance has to do with the visibility on hillsides.
She believed on those grounds of visual reasons, Council could also
require that only one house be built on the lot, noting this would
not deprive the owner of reasonable economic use of his land.
Councilmember Boro noted there are two issues before them. One is
to come up with a focused EIR and the other is to see under the Slope
Ordinance, what latitudes they might have with the proposal before
them that could be implemented. He stated if staff is ready to speak
to those, that is fine, but if not, it might be worthwhile in order
to come up with something constructive for themselves and the applicant
and the residents, to have staff come back in two weeks as to what
those options might be.
Principal Planner Johnston stated based on the criteria in the Ordinance,
clearly the 11 items listed (actually 12 items) would apply, the City
Council has the option of interpreting those on this particular property,
to what he believes could provide a basis for denial of a subdivision.
However, those findings would have to be articulated by Council and
staff would then come back at a later meeting (next meeting) with
a Resolution. He noted the Planning Commission on the other hand,
felt that this project met the criteria. They actually discussed the
Slope Ordinance as well as the Council did. Planning Commission's
determination, however, on a split vote, was that the project met
the intent of the Slope Ordinance on all 12 items.
Vice -Mayor Breiner asked staff for clarification, referring to a letter
from the Montecito Homeowners' Association, dated August 17, 1989,
regarding borrowed land Mr. Massa included in the application which
was part of the Lot 4 rejection of the Skaar proposal. Mr. Johnston
stated this is correct, explaining the primary basis for staff recommend-
ing denial of Lot 4, was not the location of the house itself, but
that the major issue was with respect to grading of the driveway to
get to that Lot 4. What it required was a driveway that wrapped all
around the hillside.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /21/89 Page 15
Vice -Mayor Breiner asked if the appeal is approved, whether only one
house would be built on the two lots. Mr. Johnston responded that
the property is one lot, created by the 1969 subdivision, and on that
one lot, a house could be built on it without design review. He believed
the applicant has received water allocation, stating he submitted
plans for a single family house sometime ago that was not subject
to design review; therefore, it is clear that one house can be built.
Councilmember Thayer asked if there were only one house if it could
require that extra expansion of the driveway, and Mr. Johnston replied
there would be no discretionary approval other than a building permit.
He stated the driveway would remain at 10 feet, but if sometime in
the future, Mr. Skaar came in with the subdivision which was approved,
he would still have that requirement of expanding that driveway to
16 feet. He said.obviously they do not know what is going to happen
with the Skaar subdivision because it is not accepted as complete
yet.
Mr. Johnston stated if Council had questions on how the project does
or does not meet the criteria with the 12 items listed in the Slope
Ordinance, he would review it with Council.
Councilmember Boro stated he felt Councilmember Frugoli's original
thought might be more valid at this point, noting whether they build
one house or two houses, the issue of slope and slide is still in
the minds of the neighbors, and that perhaps a focused EIR would cover
this safety issue of slippage.
Councilmember Thayer agreed with Councilmember Boro and added traffic
is also a concern with the potential for an extra roadway leading
to accidents at that thoroughfare.
Vice -Mayor Breiner disagreed with traffic to a certain extent.
Councilmember Frugoli agreed with Vice -Mayor Breiner, stating if they
put the driveway off Hubbell, you would have a problem with traffic,
because you would be adding a sixth street. However, if it was kept
on Highland through the concrete pillars, then it is just one street
and two houses, noting that is the difference. He said he does have
a problem with the stability of the hillside.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to
uphold the appeal of Montecito Neighborhood Association without prejudice,
and directed applicant Kenneth Massa to have a EIR focused on soils
stabilization, hydrology and drainage should he come back with a new
application.
Attorney Litchfield asked Council when Mr. Massa would be able to
come back, stating it might determine if they would seek litigation
or do more testing? City Attorney Ragghianti answered Mr. Massa could
come back the next day.
City Attorney Ragghianti clarified to Council that there is no such
thing as a "focused EIR" which is a word developed in the industry.
He stated it is an Environmental Impact Report that focuses on certain
aspects. He stated the motion is to grant the appeal and the effect
of that is to deny the application; therefore, it is unnecessary to
deny it without prejudice, to grant the appeal is to deny this project
as proposed. Inherent in granting the appeal, is the determination
that the negative declaration which the Planning Commission certified,
is unacceptable to the Council; and that they are requiring an EIR
be prepared if the applicant resubmits. He noted the applicant may
resubmit tomorrow or the day after.
Vice -Mayor Breiner stated she sees the Council's concerns on soil
creep and possible slippage under certain conditions and that perhaps
with borings and more detailed analysis, it might make a difference
in terms of where one house or two would even be placed. She asked
if this was an adequate reflection with some of the reasoning behind
the need for further analysis.
Attorney Litchfield stated this should have been asked for a long
time ago, and that Council is now going about it with a different
procedure. He noted Council is actually denying the project with some-
thing that should have been discussed earlier. Why not approve it
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /21/89 Page 16
subject to getting that done before you can have a final map? He noted
if that is the Council's only real concern if the soil is acceptable,
it can be handled by having a review board review it before any subdivi-
sion map be finalized.
Vice -Mayor Breiner stated the question is whether to have one or two
houses, and Council is concerned without having additional information.
She noted in discussing this with Senior Engineer (Land Development)
Vincenti of Public Works today, she wondered at what point does the
Geotechnical Review Board get involved. She referred to Loch Lomond
10, where the Geotechnical Review was more important to have upfront
rather than subdividing that particular piece of property and then
having the Geotechnical Review do further scrutiny because it made
a difference in terms of how many lots were going to end up in that
subdivision.
Councilmember Boro stated, as a point of clarification, this is the
point City Attorney Ragghianti was making, that if Council upholds
the appeal the project is dead. Whether or not the applicant comes
back and if he does, he understands that he would have to do an EIR.
If he chooses not to come back with a subdivision, he would not have
to do an EIR on that one lot. He stated he was trying to follow up
on Attorney Litchfield's point, noting he does not see a need to uphold
this without prejudice but just uphold the appeal, noting Mr. Litchfield
understands what the ground rules are, if he is coming back, he has
to have a focused EIR.
Councilmember Thayer mentioned to the people of the Montecito Neighbor-
hood Association the advantage of having two houses rather than one
in terms of not just clustering, but in terms of size. She stated
no design review will be required if the owner chooses to build only
one house.
Attorney Litchfield asked City Clerk Leoncini to read the motion;
she stated Council voted to grant the appeal and to require an EIR
focused on soils stabilization, hydrology and drainage, if the applicant
comes back with a new application.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Vice -Mayor Breiner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan
14. DISCUSSION RE APPOINTMENT OF THREE (3) MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SERVE
ON THE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES TASK FORCE (Pl) - File 10-5
Councilmember Boro suggested three names, stating his thoughts at
the time when they spoke on forming this committee, was to have citizen
participation and try to have citywide representation. The three names
are: 1) Peter Walz who lives in the Terra Linda area; 2) Linda Bellatorre
who lives in the Bret Harte area and 3) Ralph Crocker who lives in
the Spinnaker area.
Councilmember Frugoli indicated the areas impacted are Lincoln Avenue,
Dominican and Gerstle Park. He felt the representatives should probably
be people from those areas, agreeing to have Peter Walz and noting
if Linda Bellatorre is to be included, Dr. Sushma Taylor from the
Lincoln area should also be included.
After further discussion, Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember
Frugoli seconded, to have four people on the Residential Care Facilities
Task Force Committee as stated.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Vice -Mayor Breiner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan
15. UP87-81 - USE PERMIT TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING SECOND DWELLING UNIT
INCLUDING AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE UNIT SIZE TO BE 44% OF THE MAIN
DWELLING UNIT (40% PERMITTED BY ORDINANCE); 503 BRET HARTE ROAD; ANNE
MARTINDALE LeDOUX, OWNER; DARRYL LeDOUX, REP.; AP 13-143-12 (Pl) -
File 10-5
Principal Planner Johnston stated the size of the dwelling unit is
two -stories high and 1,700 square feet. The second dwelling unit would
constitute 44% of the main unit square footage, 58 square feet above
the allowable 40%. He noted the second unit will be on the lower level
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /21/89 Page 17
" of the house, and Planning Commission has recommended approval of
the project.
Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt
Resolution granting an exception to allow a second dwelling unit which
exceeds 40 percent of the size of the main dwelling unit at 503 Bret
Harte Road.
RESOLUTION NO. 8021 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN RAFAEL GRANTING AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A
SECOND DWELLING UNIT WHICH EXCEEDS 40% OF THE
SIZE OF THE MAIN DWELLING UNIT (503 Bret Harte
Road)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor
ADD ITEM
Frugoli, Thayer & Vice -Mayor Breiner
Mulryan
1. REQUEST FROM DOMINICAN COLLEGE FOR PARTIAL CLOSURE OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE
EAST OF PALM AVENUE, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1989 FROM 10:00 AM TO
6:00 PM (PD) - File 11-19
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to
approve staff recommendation for a partial closure of Magnolia Avenue
East of Palm Avenue, on Saturday, September 16, 1989 from 10:00 AM
to 6:00 PM.
Vice -Mayor Breiner asked staff to have a report to Council in the
future on the impact of the neighborhood's traffic flow east of the
auditorium at Dominican while the Civic Center auditorium is closed.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Vice -Mayor Breiner
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mulryan
2. OPEN SPACE SHEEP GRAZING AT TERRA LINDA - File 4-10-158 x 9-3-40 x
13-14-1 x 4-10-212
Councilmember Frugoli stated he had numerous telephone calls from
concerned citizens, asking to come before the Council on the sheep
grazing issue, and asked that this be on the next agenda for the meeting
of September 5, 1989.
Council agreed.
There being no further business, Vice -Mayor Breiner adjourned the meeting
in memory of Judge Ernest Zunino, who passed away today.
JEANN LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS
DAY OF
VICE -MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/21/89 Page 17