Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1988-04-18SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /18/88 Page 1 " IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1988 AT 7:00 PM. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION - File 1.4.1.a No. 88-9(a) - (#2). No. 88-9(b) - (#2). No. 88-9(c) - (#2). No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1988 AT 8:00 PM. Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor 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 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: COMMUNICATION RE CIVIC CENTER NORTH TRIP TRANSFER POLICY - "CATCH 22" - File 115 x 5-1-303 Attorney William T. Bagley, representing the owners of Civic Center North, asked Council to have the Civic Center North Trip Transfer Policy - Catch 22 item placed on the agenda for the meeting of May 2, 1988. Council granted Mr. Bagley's request. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: Item R• 3. Acceptance of Storm Drain Ease- ment - 65 Summit Avenue (PW) - File 2-4-14 4. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Agreement Rescinding Previous Agreement to Annex to Flood Control Zone 7, between City and GOS Joint Venture and Los Galinas Development, Inc., Re Civic Center North Subdivision (PW) - File 5-1-303 x 10-1 x 12-9 Recommended Action RESOLUTION NO. 7713 - ACCEPTING GRANT OF STORM DRAIN EASEMENT VICINITY OF 65 SUMMIT AVENUE, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 7714 - AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT RESCINDING THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT TO ANNEX TO FLOOD CONTROL ZONE 7 (Re: Civic Center North Subdivision) 5. Approval of Parcel Map (S87-11) - RESOLUTION NO. 7715 - APPROVING Oakwood Unit 2 (PW) - PARCEL MAP S87-11 (SHOWING LOT File 5-1-244 LINE ADJUSTMENTS OF LOTS 18-22; OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION UNIT 2) 6. Appointment of Eljumaily-Butler Approved staff recommendation, Associates to Geotechnical appointing Eljumaily-Butler Review Board (PW) - File 9-2-26 Associates as qualified Geotechnical Review Board Consultants. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 2 7. Partial Closure of Fourth and 'A' Streets for Street Dance and Classic Car Display, Sponsored by the Downtown Merchants Association on Saturday, May 21, 1988 (PD) - File 11-19 x 183 8. Partial Closure of 'E' Street Between Third and Fourth Streets on Sunday, May 15, 1988 for the San Rafael High School Centennial Parade (PD) - File 11-19 9. Addendum to Contract with Moore, Iacofano & Goltsman for Prepara- tion of General Plan Summary Newsletter (Pl) - File 4-3-161 x 115 10. Extension of Agreement for Consulting Services with JHK and Associates for General Plan Services (P1) - File 4-3-170 x 115 11. Adoption of Resolution Re Settlement of Allardt's Canal Claim with George H. Dexter, Jr. and Geraldine L. Dexter (RA) - File 182 x (SRRA) 4-25 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. Renewal of Lease Agreement with Bahia Vista School (Rec) - File 4-7-17 Amendment to Contract Agreement with Moore, Iacofano & Goltsman Re: Pickleweed Park Conceptual Master Plan Design (Rec) - File 4-3-184 x 12-5 x 9-3-65 Resolution of Appreciation for Dolly Nave, 1988 Citizen of the Year (CM) - File 102 x 119 Resolution of Appreciation for Karen Limb, Secretary, Recreation Department, 1988 Employee of the Year (CC) - File 102 x 9-3-65 Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) - File 9-1 Approved partial street closure, Saturday, May 21, 1988, from 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM. Estimated cost of police services, $583.26. Approved partial street closure, Sunday, May 15, 1988, from 9:00 AM to Noon for a parade assembly area. Cost for police services, $422.86. RESOLUTION NO. 7716 - ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT OF MOORE, IACOFANO, GOLTSMAN (Hereinafter, Consultant) EXHIBIT G (Estimated Cost - $4,710) RESOLUTION NO. 7717 - AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH JHK AND ASSOCIATES (Cost not to exceed $1,500) RESOLUTION NO. 7718 - AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT TO SETTLE A TITLE DISPUTE WITH GEORGE H. DEXTER, JR. AND GERALDINE L. DEXTER (Dexters to pay City of San Rafael, $75,000) RESOLUTION NO. 7719 - AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF RENEWAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SAN RAFAEL SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR BAHIA VISTA SCHOOL (Term of Agreement for one year, beginning September 1, 1987 and ending August 30, 1988) RESOLUTION NO. 7720 - ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT OF MOORE, IACOFANO, GOLTSMAN (hereinafter, Consultant) Exhibit A (Extended to June 30, 1988 - Cost not to exceed $6,000) RESOLUTION NO. 7721 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DOLLY NAVE, 1988 CITIZEN OF THE YEAR RESOLUTION NO. 7722 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR KAREN LIMB, SECRETARY, RECREATION DEPARTMENT, 1988 EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR Approved staff recommendation: OPPOSE AB 2687 (Peace) Toy Firearms. SUPPORT SB 1795 (Roberti) Toy Firearms. SUPPORT HR 4221 (Matsui) Taxability of Accrued Vacation. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 3 18. Claims for Damages: Approved Insurance Consulting Associates, Inc. recommendation a. Lloyd & David Nelson (PW) - for denial of claim a. Claim No. 3-1-1307 b. Kenneth H. Pinkus (PD) - Claim No. 3-1-1316 c. Arnold Marque (PW) - Claim No. 3-1-1324 d. David Garcia (PD) - Claim No. 3-1-1325 e. Federico Acuna (PD) - Claim No. 3-1-1326 f. Michael Schulz (PD) - Claim No. 3-1-1327 g. Fourth Street Tavern (PW) - Claim No. 3-1-1334 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Approved City Attorney's recommendations for denial of claims b, c, d, e, f & g Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1988 (CC) - File 1-4 Councilmember Breiner requested an amendment to the Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 4, 1988, as follows: Page 3, Item 10, third paragrpah from the bottom, the second sentence to read after the word "for",...; "the ultimate height of filled land after 30 years settlement". Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to approve the Minutes of Special Meetings of March 17 and April 4, 1988 as submitted and Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 4, 1988, as amended. AYES: COUNCIlMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14. REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT - ONE LOT PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR SHORT SCHOOL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDED (Gen. Svcs) - File 4-2-225 x 147 Councilmember Boro asked for clarification of the bid, and Recreation Director McNamee stated that the low bid did not meet the specifi- cations, noting that although Iron Mountain Forge submitted a higher bid in the amount of $21,582.72, they were selected because they did meet the required specifications. RESOLUTION NO. 7723 - AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE LOT OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR THE RENOVATION OF SHORT SCHOOL CHILD CARE CENTER (Contract awarded to Iron Mountain Forge, Farmington, Missouri, in amount of $21,582.72, lowest responsible bidder that meets the specifications). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 27. DISCUSSION OF CAT RESTRICTION IN CC&Rs FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 224 HOMES, CIVIC CENTER NORTH, PARCEL #3, AP 180-420-03, 04, 07, 11, 13 (P1) - File 5-1-303 Mayor Mulyran indicated that in order to accommodate the number of people attending the meeting concerning this item, he was pulling it out of order so it could be addressed earlier. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /18/88 Page 4 Councilmember Frugoli asked City Attorney Ragghianti if a Councilmember could appeal any restriction placed before the City Council; also, if appeal is passed the time limit constraints, if this could be brought back as part of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, proposing that once the homeowners have purchased their residences in this area, they be able to vote on a 50 percent plus 1 majority, that the cat ban can be overturned and have this restriction removed from the CC&Rs. City Attorney Ragghianti responded by stating that any member of the City Council has the right to agendize the matter, noting this item has been agendized and therefore can be discussed. In relation to whether a Councilmember can, on his or her own, seek to have undone a condition which is final, Mr. Ragghianti stated that he did not know the answer nor had he researched it, but stated that he would, if requested. Councilmember Frugoli moved to have the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) include a condition that future homeowners who purchase homes in the Civic Center North project, be able to vote on a 50 percent plus one majority, that the cat ban can be overturned and have the restriction removed from the CC&Rs; also, that the City Attorney research whether the Council may seek to overturn an action taken by the Planning Commission when the action has not been appealed. The motion died due to lack of a second. Ms. Elsa Gruber, 9 St. Lucia Place, Paradise Caye, presented Council - member Frugoli with a membership to the Marin Audubon Society. Councilmeml3p-r Frugoli accepted the membership, stating that he was not against the environment and the endangered species, but with the enforcement level, indicating that some rights have been taken away from future homeowners for this project. 19. PUBLIC HEARING - ON ED86-113, ED114, ED86-115 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS FOR PHASE II OF BAYVIEW BUSINESS PARK; KERNER BOULEVARD & PELICAN WAY; BAYVIEW ASSOCIATES, OWNERS; VZM ASSOCIATES, REP.; L.C. TOLOMEI, REID CORPORATION,APPELLANTS; AP 9-290-65, 69 & 85 (Pl) - File 10-7 x 115 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Mr. Paul Jensen, City Contract Planner, stated that the Bayview Business Park Development is an office and light industrial development project located in East San Rafael on 13.5 acres of landfill. In 1984, planned development zoning was adopted for the property, and in 1985, a Use Permit and a master Design Review Permit were approved for development of up to 7 tilt up concrete buildings. He stated that the Planning Commission approved the permits with numerous conditions which included mandatory phasing and payment of traffic mitigation fees. A number of traffic related conditions were appealed to the City Council by the developer, and on November 18, 1985, the Council acted on the appeal and adopted Resolution No. 7229. Council gave clear entitlement for construction of the first Phase of the Bayview Business Park project consisting of 3 of the 7 build- ings, but imposed Condition (a)(4) of the Use Permit and Condition (1)(4) of the master Design Review Permit. He stated that Condition (a)(4) of the Use Permit requires that prior to the issuance of build- ing permits for buildings subsequent to the first Phase, a determina- tion must first be made by the City that there is sufficient traffic capacity to maintain acceptable Levels of Service in the surrounding street system, noting that Resolution No. 7229 cited Level of Service "D" standard. Mr. Jensen stated that Condition (1)(4) of the master Design Review Permit requires that individual Design Review Permits be secured for buildings being proposed subsequent to the first Phase, and that the purpose for this condition was to ensure that the design of any buildings built past the first Phase are consistent with the design parameters of the master Design Review Permit approval. It was noted that Resolution No. 7229 concludes that the phasing requirement SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /18/88 Page 5 is mandatory in order to mitigate unavoidable adverse traffic impacts and was a way of justifying the certification of a Negative Declaration for this project. Mr. Jensen stated that since 1985, the first Phase of the project has been built and occupancy has been granted. In October 1986, the Citywide Moratorium was lifted and the Design Review Permit applica- tions for the second Phase, Buildings A, F and G were filed with the design identical to the original Master Plan approval and are the same applications currently being reviewed by the Council. He stated these applications were reviewed on January 26, 1988 by the Planning Commission and the applications were denied without prejudice. The Commission action was based on the current status of the draft General Plan 2000, the inability to make appropriate California Envi- ronmental Quality Act Findings for cumulative traffic impacts and the inability to make the required findings of Resolution No. 7427, which regulates development during the review of the draft General Plan 2000. Mr. Jensen indicated that the Commission action was appealed on February 2, 1988, and that the reasons for the appeal are as follows: The appellants claim that the Design Review Permit is not discretionary and the original permit requirements were merely imposed to insure consistency with the master Design Review Permit approvals. The appel- lants also claim that the permits are not subject to environmental review under the provisions of CEQA. Furthermore, the appellants claim that building permits can be issued by the City at this time because the City can make a determination that there is adequate traffic capacity in the local street system to approve the project, and that the project will not exceed the capacity limits of the Plan- ning Commission recommended Mid -point Level of Service "D" standard, which is identified in the draft General Plan 2000 for East San Rafael. The appellants find they have fulfilled all other extensive traffic conditions that were originally imposed. Mr. Jensen stated the staff report cites the arguments for denying the applications without prejudice, noting these findings were based on a consultation with the City Attorney and staff's review of the circumstances. He indicated the Design Review Permits and Building Permits are discretionary, explaining that under provisions of the Use Permit conditions set by the Council, the City must make a finding that there is acceptable Levels of Service at local intersections, before issuing building permits, and such a determination is a discre- tionary judgment. Staff also concludes the permits are subject to environmental review, stating that an initial environmental study completed in February, 1987, concluded the project would add to the street system in East San Rafael traffic which would be individually limited but cumulatively significant. He indicated at the present time, there is no certified Envivonmental Impact Report (EIR) which assesses cumulative traffic impacts for this area of the City. He noted that the draft General Plan 2000 EIR does provide such an assess- ment but stated the EIR is not certified at this time, and such impacts can only be mitigated by implementing a procedure that would evaluate development projects which are competing for limited traffic capacity in traffic sensitive areas. The General Plan 2000 EIR also concludes that cumulative traffic impacts cannot be mitigated with review of development projects on a case by case basis. Mr. Jensen stated that if the project were to be subject to the compe- tition or "beauty contest" required by San Rafael General Plan 2000 Policy C -F, Bayview Business Park presently is not considered a priority project in that it does not involve a high tax generating commercial land use, affordable housing or needed neighborhood commercial uses. Mr. Jensen concluded that the project approval at this time would prejudice the City's ability to adopt a Level of Service standard for this area also interfere with the feasibility to implement measures for mitigating cumulative traffic impacts and set a precedent on other pending and anticipated development projects in this area. In response to questions raised by Councilmember Frugoli, Mr. Jensen noted this is the only pending development project which has approval of a master Design Review Permit but that it is not the only pending development project which is subject to a mandatory phasing program. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /18/88 Page 6 As part of the City's action on the Spinnaker on the Bay project, there was an agreement that the first Phase be allowed to proceed regardless of the City's Level of Service standards. Jeffrey Johnson, with Ellman, Burke & Cassidy of San Francisco, repre- senting Reid Corporation, owner of Bayview Business Park, submitted additional material to the Council, stating that when zoning was approved in 1984, approvals were based on a number of conditions. These conditions were used as findings to substantiate certification of a Negative Declaration. In 1985, the project applicant sought a significant change in the project and went back to the Planning Commission, receiving Use Permit and master Design Review approval; then also appealed some conditions to the Council. Both proceedings at the Planning Commission and City Council levels in 1985 had exten- sive consideration of traffic including cumulative traffic, with the result that the Planning Commission and City Council adopted findings which have not been modified to this date and continue to be effective. He mentioned this is the only project in San Rafael that holds a master Design Review approval and all other preceding approvals, (i.e. zoning, use permit and necessary approvals leading up to the Design Review). Mr. Johnson stated the approval that is being requested is a determi- nation that the conditions have been satisfied. This action does not require any findings of consistency with the General Plan 2000. Mr. Johnson stated that with the construction and occupancy of the Bayview project, Phase II would not go beyond Level of Service "D", but would barely be into Level of Service "D". He mentioned the offi- cial traffic policy for the East San Rafael area is Level of Service "D" and that traffic allocations have been on a first come first serve basis. Mr. Johnson mentioned the issue of cumulative impacts is of importance to the City. He stated his clients have asked Barton-Aschman Associates, a Transportation and Engineering firm, to answer any questions the Council may have on this subject. He also referred to the Summary submitted, pages 12 through 15, and asked Mr. Robert Scale of Barton-Aschman Associates to comment on cumulative traffic. Mr. Scale, Vice -President of Barton-Aschman Associates, stated their traffic study was an updated version of earlier studies (since the process began one year ago). He indicated that they agree with all of the traffic questions raised in the past, and also the analysis the City's staff and consultants have conducted. Mr. Scale noted that with respect to East San Rafael, the method used to evaluate traffic conditions around the Bellam interchange was developed in late 1983 and 1984. This information was used as the basis for of all the analyses of cumulative impacts since 1984. This procedure, which is four years old, predicts traffic to be within three or four percent of existing traffic. In Mr. Scale's opinion, this is an excellent method and he considers it to be accurate. Mr. Scale stated the Bellam intersections and critical movements are operating within Level of Service "C" conditions, and added that when all the buildings that are either approved or built but not yet occupied are completed, the Level of Service at the Bellam inter- sections will continue to be within Level of Service "C" and approach- ing Level of Service "D". Mr. Scale indicated that with the addition of the second phase of Bayview, the volume over capacity ratio at the Bellam intersectin will be .83 which is above Midpoint Level of Service "D" conditions. In summary, Mr. Scale stated the cumulative impact of this project and all projects approved or awaiting design review is no different than what was considered four years ago. This project will be within the City's projections for acceptable Levels of Service at these critical intersections. Mr. Johnson asked whether or not the approvals that are requested are discretionary when one project has never been subject to CEQA compliance, and never had a Negative Declaration and an EIR certified. He stated not every project, nor every approval given, even it may have some element of discretion in it, requires CEQA compliance. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 7 If a project has previously been a subject of a certified EIR or, as in this case, CEQA has been complied with through a Negative Decla- ration, that subsequent requests for determinations that a setback or a traffic level or some other standard required by the use permit has been met, are not projects for CEQA. He stated they do not need to do an EIR or Negative Declaration whenever they come back to Council and present an architectural drawing, for example. He was not suggest- ing that there is no element of discretion in design review, but stated they come to Council on an application called a design review approval. He said they are not asking for a design review but that Council confirm that the Level of Service "D" that is specified in their approval, has been met. The other element is the question of whether or not the architectural elevations are consistent with the master design review approval. He stated CEQA has been complied with and there has been a Negative Declaration that has been adopted for the project, and indicated that the project under CEQA assesses the primary land use entitlement. He noted they are supposed to comply with CEQA as early in the process as you can anticipate what the impacts are. Mr. Johnson questioned if the physical circumstances concerning cumulative traffic have changed. Mr. Johnson stated that in his opinion these circumstances have not changed. He referred to the Summary he submitted to Council tonight in bold heading, and reviewed it with them. He commented that he listened to all tapes from both the matter that came before Council on appeal and at the Planning Commis- sion level before it was appealed. He stated it was clear that Level of Service "D" was the goal in San Rafael and the City adopted that policy formally, by Resolution, not just in the context of this project but as a formal official policy for traffic. He stated it was also clear that a first come first serve situation is the policy, and he stated it may change, including changing Level of Service "D" someday. Mr. Johnson noted he believes they are entitled to be measured against the Level of Service "D" which was the subject of their approval. He directed Council's attention to page 3 of the Summary, an excerpt from the staff report for item dated 8/27/85 from the Planning Commis- sion, where the basic approvals were given. He then referred to Plan- ning Director Moore's staff report where she expressed great concern that the approvals that had been given on cumulative basis, could lead to a Level of Service "E" or to Level of Service "F", and when one gets to Level of Service "F" there is gridlock. He stated that conditions today are slightly better than what was predicted back in 1985. Mr. Johnson spoke on the grounds for denial of the appeal stating that one reason given by the Planning Commission is that findings under State law of consistency with the General Plan could not be made. He stated it is true that under the Planning Commission level they were applying for a tentative subdivision approval and that under the State law one must be able to make a finding of consistency with the General Plan in order to approve a tentative subdivision. He noted they withdrew that request for approval, stating it was not important in the context with what they are trying to do with the project. He indicated that what was before Council tonight does not require a finding of consistency with the General Plan under the State law. Another ground recited in the staff report for denial of the appeal refers to Resolution No. 7427. Mr. Johnson previously submitted a letter to Council stating that this Resolution should be interpreted in the manner that the staff suggests. He indicated staff suggests that every approval that is not expressly exempt under the Morato- rium Ordinance, would have to be denied today, because a finding could not be made of consistency with the new General Plan because it is not in place. He stated that if the Council relied on the Resolu- tion, you would be saying, "Applicant, you cannot comply with an unadopted standard, so it is denied". He did not believe this to be a valid ground for denial, but would need substantial evidence to deny the approval on its merits. Mr. Johnson stated he was offering an interpretation of Resolution No. 7427 which he believed would hold up under a court challenge, indicating the Resolution applies to development applications, and stated that term is not defined as such in the Resolution. He stated the Resolution followed from the Moratorium Ordinance which was put in place in order to protect SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) ./18/88 Page 8 the City's approval process, the integrity of its General Plan. He noted that the City was sued to challenge the validity of the General Plan and the City Attorney and Council wisely adopted a Moratorium rather than defend the lawsuit giving Council a period of time to rectify the General Plan, and it continues today. The Moratorium failed to be extended in October 1986. This Resolution No. 7427 would serve as a valid ground for denying someone their approval, if their approval required a consistency finding under the State law. He stated Council could not make that finding today because the City does not have an adequate General Plan. He indicated there are only a few projects in San Rafael that would not be development applications which could not be denied on the basis of Resolution No. 7427, and those are projects having all approvals not including design review, so if it requires a General Plan amendment or a tentative subdivision or a use permit, all of those approvals would require a finding of consistency with the General Plan under State law, indicating that was what the Resolution spoke to. Mr. Johnson referred to page 15 of the Summary where only four projects in East San Rafael and one other in all of San Rafael have their approvals all the way through but not including design review. He mentioned that if the Council were to approve Bayview Business Park Phase II on the basis that it is not a development application, the cumulative traffic would only get to .824 which is just getting into Level of Service "D", and other projects listed as awaiting design review are, many storage facilities having negligible traffic, an apartment building and a Whole Earth addition that have negligible traffic and the Nolan project having negligible traffic. Again, he suggested if Council interpreted Resolution No. 7427 as he stated, Council would preserve their right to a proposal of a Mid -Level of Service "D" if they chose to do this with some capacity left. But, if Council interpreted the Resolution to be a basis for denying all projects that have everything accept final design review, the Council, in effect would be extending the Moratorium. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Mayor Mulryan stated this was not a question of the project but of the timing for Council's approval in view of where they are with the development of the General Plan. He asked staff if the approval of this project does, in fact, require a finding of consistency with the General Plan. City Attorney Ragghianti responded that it does not. Mr. Ragghianti indicated that Mr. Johnson's point is well taken and in reference to another case he stated these types of applications do not require consistency of findings. Councilmember Breiner stated that the traffic counts conducted recently are better than previously predicted partly due to the fact that there are a number of unoccupied buildings in that vicinity. Traffic Engineer Rumsey stated that in 1984 when the base traffic modeling was done, the area experienced significant diversions through the Bellam intersections. Those diversions are retained in the base because of the high probability those diversions will reoccur prior to the major highway improvements needed to accommodate future growth throughout the entire corridor. He indicated this is the three or four percent difference between staff's and the Barton-Ashton's traffic projections. Councilmember Frugoli noted that this project should be approved due to the fact that it has gone through all the process and is the only one with a master Design Review. Councilmember Thayer stated she had reservations because of the impact on the General Plan and other developers who also have proposals. She pointed out that on October 15, 1986, the applicant's representa- tive did sign a notice to the affect that they understood that their project could be disapproved as a result of what could happen with processing of the draft General Plan 2000. She noted the applicant's signing this notice is their recognition that these permits are discre- tionary on the part of the City. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /18/88 Page 9 Councilmember Boro agreed with Councilmember Thayer that the whole General Plan process would be jeopardized if this project were granted. Mayor Mulryan stated the real question is whether the City could or should approve the project in view of the revision of the General Plan. Councilmember Breiner stated CEQA seems to take a predominant role in the discussion and part of it has to do with our finding way back then that the City was going to be mitigating everything, but now in 1988 realizing we did not have the cumulative picture, indicating this is a very relevant issue. She noted she could not see that the City would be jeopardized by trying to take a more firm CEQA stance as opposed to a less firm CEQA stance. Councilmember Frugoli stated nothing has changed in that area, noting there have not been any more buildings built since 1985 and 1986. He mentioned the same properties are still there such as Bayview Business Park, San Quentin Disposal, Spinnaker and Canalways, noting they are still under the Level of Service "D" or below in the area, and urged that Phase II be allowed to go forward. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 20. PUBLIC HEARING - Z81 -24(b) - TIME EXTENSION FOR EXISTING P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONING; 13 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (BRET HARTE HOMES); UPPER IRWIN ST.; MAURA MOREY, OWNER; WARREN BELL, REP.; AP 13-271-29 (Pl) - File 10-3 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened, and recognized George Silvestri, Jr., Attorney for the property owner and developer, Warren Bell. Mr. Silvestri stated that two weeks ago, Council continued this request for the confirmation of the Planning Commission's unanimous recommenda- tion that the time extension be granted for approval of the P -D Zoning and final map of the 13 unit subdivision. He indicated the purpose of Council's action at that time was to allow time for review of a concern that came up from a neighborhood group represented by Mr. Dean DiGiovanni, who suggested a new Environmental Impact Report be performed in connection for this extension. He stated Mr. DiGiovanni may or may not have been aware that the project was approved in 1983/84 and was subject to an EIR and there are no changed circumstances or new information that would warrant a new EIR. After Council's action two weeks ago, Mr. Bell contacted Mr. DiGiovanni who was not interested in meeting with Mr. Bell but only interested in having a new EIR done. The have taken the Planning Department's direction to communicate with Mr. Dean DiGiovanni and think it is unnecessary to continue this any further, and objected to any further continuance. Mayor Mulryan stated that as a courtesy to Mr. DiGiovanni, this item was continued to this meeting in order to have any questions he might have answered. Planning Director Moore indicated that this item was continued to a date specific which is tonight, and stated that staff was unable to reach Mr. DiGiovanni by telephone or otherwise. Mr. Bill Howard of 66 LaCuesta in Greenbrae, former owner of the property from 1979 to 1987, stated that Mr. Sam Fedeli, one of the neighbors living on Irwin Street adjacent to the property contacted him on numerous occasions during his ownership of the property. The first time was soon after he bought it, when Mr. Fedeli called him in 1986 after a heavy rain to inform him that water was running into his backyard. He explained that the property has a drainage swale that goes down from the top of the property to Mr. Fedeli's backyard which has always been there since the land was in existence. Mr. Howard stated there is a large cut along Irwin Street to allow a series of homes to be constructed on the West side of Irwin Street and when it was made no abatement conditions were made to control the drainage off the slopes into the backyards below. Mr. Howard indicated he helped Mr. Fedeli. put up a retaining wall of five feet SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 9 21. 22. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 10 long and three feet high to act as a deterent, allowing water to go into the creek rather than running into his yard. He stated this is the explanation of the wall, indicating that it was not creating nor alleviating any condition that did not pre-exist for a number of years. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councimember Thayer seconded, to permit the Time Extension with a condition to be included to require further review of the wall and drainage issue, with staff to work with the developer and neighbor, Mr. Dean DiGiovanni. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF HANDICAPPED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS - 734 "A" STREET (NAUTILUS OF MARIN) (PW) - File 13-1-1 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Councilmember Breiner disqualified herself and left the meeting, due to potential conflict of interest. Public Works Director Bernardi stated that Council, sitting as the Board of Appeals, was being asked to consider a request of unreasonable hardship for the Nautilus Marin Health Club, who was proposing to provide a juice bar for their members on the second floor of their club. He indicated that it is required by the Code that the club provide an elevator to the second level, but the cost of the elevator is estimated to be $50,000/$70,000. He stated a letter has been received from Marin Center for Independent Living who has also reviewed the proposal and stated that given the unreasonable hardship, they recom- mend that the elevator not be required, and concur with the applicant's proposal that a telephone be provided at the lower level and staff would bring down requests from the juice bar to people on the lower floor. There being no questions or comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to grant the appeal and directed staff to prepare an appropriate Resolution of Findings and to bring said Resolution back for adoption at the meeting of May 2, 1988. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, due to potential conflict of interest. (Councilmember Breiner returned to meeting). PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF HANDICAPPED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS - 406 LAS GALLINAS AVENUE (BEAUTY STORE AND MORE) (PW) - File 13-1-1 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Public Works Director Bernardi stated that Council, sitting as the Board of Appeals, was being requested to consider a modification to the full provisions of the handicapped accessible requirements. He stated the tenant space being remodeled is the former Hunts Dough- nuts Store and that the new tenant is the Beauty Store and More. Cost of construction is approximately $20,300 and in order to make the bathroom fully accessible, would cost $5,981. He stated that the spirit of the law can be met with an expense of $1,638 but it would not provide the full accessibility that the law requires. Staff feels that the $1,638 proposal for Plan "B" would meet the spirit of the law, and indicated a letter has been received from the Marin Center for Independent Living who concur with staff's recommendation. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) '/18/88 Page 11 There being no questions or comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to grant the appeal and directed staff to prepare an appropriate Resolu- toin with Findings and that said Resolution be brought back to Council for adoption at the meeting of May 2, 1988. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 23. PUBLIC HEARING ON UP88-14 - APPEAL OF MASTER USE PERMIT FOR ACURA BUILDING; 1504, 1510, 1518, 1520 & 1522 FOURTH STREET; MICHAEL, ROGER & EDWARD SMITH, OWNERS; TREFFINGER, WALZ & MACLEOD, REPS.; ROBERT FENTON, CRAIG CAMPBELL & HARRY SIMON, APPELLANTS; AP 11-202-11 & 14 (Pl) - File 10-5 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Moore stated on March 29, 1988, the Planning Commis- sion considered the proposed Master Use Permit, and considered a Use Permit for the project at the Acura Building. The only person who spoke on the matter was one of the three appellants, who listed several reasons for the appeal as follows: 1) Major traffic problems in the area but was not specific about it. Ms. Moore noted that the downtown area is not one of the traffic impacted areas that is noted in the San Rafael General Plan 2000 because it is projected that at the present time and in the future, the critical intersections in the downtown area will operate at acceptable Levels of Service. 2) Not enough outside parking. As is the case with most older buildings in the downtown area, Ms. Moore stated this property has rights to "Grandfathered or Grandparented" parking spaces which means the build- ing and uses predate zoning requirements for parking which is recog- nized in specificationsfor use of such properties that trigger the need for additional parking spaces. Staff analysis and Planning Commis- sion's consideration include looking at the adequacy of parking with the Planning Commission finding that the nature of the business was such that most of the vehicles to be serviced would be located inside the building: 3) There would be on -street parking of damaged vehicles over the weekend. Ms. Moore stated that the Planning Commission approved the Master Use Permit with a condition that there shall be no on -street parking of visually damaged vehicles at anytime associ- ated with use. If this were to take place, the Use Permit would come back to the Planning Commission for revocation. 4) Toxic materials on the site. Ms. Moore referred to a letter from the Environmental Health Section of the County Health Department indicating there are no regulations concerning this kind of use in close proximity to the restaurant use, and additionally, all tenants will need to comply with the City's Right to Know Ordinance which is administered by the Fire Department. 5) There are no proper fire exists available at the site. Ms. Moore stated that the Planning Commission made it very clear that this is essentially compliance with Fire and Building Codes, a given, and not a specific condition, and that a response to this comment made by one of the appellants, indicated that such a condition was added. Ms. Moore noted that regardless of future occupancies, modifications will be required to comply with current Code requirements at the site. 6) Inadequate venting of deadly toxic fumes. Ms. Moore stated there is a condition that permits are to be applied for from the Bay Area Air Quality Maintenance District, for paint booths prior to securing building permits from the City of San Rafael. She indicated that prior to the City authorizing any occupancy that any of the tenants would have to demonstrate they had secured these permits, which are the same permits the appellants would have to comply with for their business in East San Rafael. Again, Ms. Moore stated the City's Right to Know Ordinance and OSHA would come into play regarding the venting of deadly toxic fumes. 7) Approval of surrounding property owners. Ms. Moore stated the staff report showed which properties and organizations received notice of this item to property owners and nearby neighborhoods. Ms. Moore stated that one of the appellants came into the office a few months ago inquiring about the feasibility of an auto service use and staff discouraged him, along with others who asked about SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /18/88 Page 12 the same use at that property. City and Redevelopment staff encouraged the property owners to find non -auto related tenants, and onlv after several months did the property owners indicate prospective tenants they kept hearing from were auto service uses. At that time, staff was asked how a use permit could be pursued while looking for future tenants at the site, indicating that is how the matter came to the Planning Commission for consideration. Staff made it very clear to the property owners that this was not a Zoning Administrator type item, but a Planning Commission item, because the interpretation of the Downtown Policy Six was important if the Use Permit could be approved. Specifically, that Policy in the General Plan 2000 reads as entitled, "No additionally expanded industrial uses downtown". She stated as with the PG&E Corporation Yard, the City will continue to assist with the relocation of existing industrial and auto service uses in the downtown area to appropriate areas within the City. Ms. Moore added there has been concern about the use of the corner portion of the building which has traditionally been the auto sales display floor. She stated that Condition "B" as modified by the Plan- ning Commission makes explicit what was implicit in the property owner's application for the 4800 square foot area in the southeast corner that it shall be occupied by general retail auto sales uses only. Mr. Robert Fenton stated he was not against the owner of the property or the tenant, but indicated he made an honest inquiry of the property when it was available. He contacted the City and Zoning Administrator to learn what he could do with the property, and stated that staff told him what he planned for the property was not feasible. However, shortly after his inquiry, he found out the City was going to allow the use of body shops which caused him to attend the Planning Commis- sion meeting where he was told staff changed their mind because basically, it was a hardship on the owner's part and in order to help the owner out in his search for a tenant, he was granted automotive use. Mr. Fenton stated for years the building did not have an auto body shop stating that was the consideration he had, because he was interested in leasing the building with another person who is in the body shop business. He indicated he himself has an auto repair shop and noted there is a distinction between the two. Mr. Fenton stated he wanted the inconsistency explained to him. Ms. Moore stated that the inconsistency and discouragement Mr. Fenton received at one point and the ultimate staff recommendation for the Planning Commission approval for a Use Permit had to do with the passage of time and the owners' inability to find a tenant. Property owner Mr. Michael Smith noted Mr. Fenton did make a verbal offer for the property but did not mention why he backed away from the property or if he had a problem with the City or the use of it. Mr. Peter Walz, architect for the project, reinforced Mr. Smith's comments stating they first worked on this project in April/May of 1987 and at that time both brothers of the owner wanted to have bou- tiques, shops and retail and looked for tenants. However, there were no tenants for these uses. Councilmember Breiner referred to the site plan dated March 22, 1988, Space 2 which is located on the corner and showed proposed automotive uses. She was told Space 2 would be retail of some kind and asked if this were true. Mr. Walz stated Space 2 would be retail, but indi- cated they applied for a generic permit because they did not know who precisely their tenant would be, and realized at that time it was going toward automotive. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Breiner stated for the record, she is accepting the proposed use of the site as long as the corner portion is retail and not auto body repair, and felt that staff should be credited for trying to change the use in the building. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 12 24. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /18/88 Page 13 Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to deny the appeal and uphold Planning Commission's approval of UP88-14 and directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial and that said Resolu- tion be brought back to Council for adoption at the meeting of May 2, 1988. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None (Councilmember Frugoli left meeting). PRESENTATION AND APPROVAL OF PICKLEWEED PARK MASTER PLAN INCLUDING CERTIFICATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Rec) - File 12-5 x 9-3-65 Mayor Mulryan stated that the involvement with the neighborhood in the number of meetings and deliberations is to be commended and contri- buted- to results. Recreation Director McNamee stated that the Master Plan is the imple- mentation of the General Plan 2000 calling for it to be done several years from now but that the decision made by the Council last summer to have the child care moved to this site, produced another question to the City as how this could be done. She noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission suggested that a Master Plan be done and a Task Force was then appointed with Moore, Iacofano and Goltsman hired to do the community assessment and a Park Master Plan. Also, a Negative Declaration has been written for the Master Plan under the General Plan and this is considered a project. CEQA review has been completed and no adverse comments have been received, but some items within the Plan will receive extensive review when design, specifications and actual construction takes place. Ms. McNamee thanked the Task Force who did a great amount of work and introduced Mr. Steven Arago, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Mr. Roland Bacci and Ms. Christine McCann, three of the eleven people involved who were present at the meeting. Mr. Dan Iacofano then referred to the Master Plan and gave a brief overview of the Pickleweed Park Master Plan, stating that a special effort was made to survey the opinions of the children about its use as well as the community as a whole, both English, Spanish and Vietnamese. He highlighted the main features of the plan dealing with pathway designs, facilities design, parking, improved children's play area and expanded play area for fantasy play, child care facility, hard surface for outdoor sports courts for teenagers and other users of the park, a community garden to be expanded, retaining the lawn and using it also for soccer and other field sports, adding an environ- mental education area which is referred to as the "observatory mound", fishing and observatory deck and some strengthening and clarification of the relationship to Shoen Park, off Canal Street at the lower southeast corner of Pickleweed Park and aesthetic improvements to the Community Center Building. Councilmember Breiner was concerned about the boat launch area and safety of the children. Mr. Iacofano responded that the boat launch concept is referenced as a concept at this point, and if it material- izes the boats would be carry -on boats and not the large ones. In response to Councilmember Boro's reference to the child care center, Mr. Iacofano stated there will be two portables adjacent to the community Center, near the outdoor sports area and community garden. One restroom will be associated with the child care facility in the same area which would be surrounded by some fencing and vegetation for control of access into this area. He stated there is the potential of having a third building if it becomes necessary. RESOLUTION NO. 7725 - AUTHORIZING THE PICKLEWEED PARK MASTER PLAN AND CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /18/88 Page 14 (Councilmember Frugoli returned to the meeting). 25. RECONSIDERATION OF TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN COMMITTEE RE COMPOSITION OF TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (CM) - File 170 x 9-1 City Manager Nicolai stated the Council in a previous meeting, consid- ered the makeup of the Transportation Expenditure Plan Committee as recommended by the Transportation Authority. At that time, Council adopted a Resolution endorsing a 7 -member concept and at the last Council meeting a request was made to have this brought back for further consideration of a 13 -member makeup giving San Rafael 2 repre- sentatives, 2 representatives for Novato, 2 representatives for the County with 7 other individual cities being representative of their own. Councilmember Boro clarified that he brought this item up at the last meeting, stating that Mayor Mulryan was not present at the meeting when the Resolution was adopted and that he had subsequent discussion that lead him to believe that possibly, the base of 7 members previously approved was not sufficient in that they would not have support from some of the cities. Mayor Mulryan stated that a 13 -member concept would not give control to San Rafael or the County. Ms. Nicolai mentioned that at this time, San Rafael will be the only jurisdiction in the County not supporting the 7 -member board, stating the County Board of Supervisors has adopted the 7 -member board. She indicated that the guidelines have to be voted on by a majority of the jurisdictions as well as those representing the majority of the population. Ms. Nicolai stated the plan would have to be placed on the ballot and approved by the voters. There would be a slight amount of authority to move money around on some projects either running over or coming in last,and the Authority will not have a "free reign" with the sales tax monies. After further discussion, Council agreed to keep their endorsement of a 7 -member Transportation Authority. 26. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE NO. 1542, 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 "M" (HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND MANUFACTURING) DISTRICT TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT (610-620 DUBOIS STREET) (Pl) - File 10-3 x 10-1 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 "M" (HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND MANUFACTURING) DISTRICT TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT (610-620 DUBOIS STREET)" Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to dispense with the reading, to refer to it by title only, and adopt Charter Ordinance No. 1542 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 28. PROCESSING OF CREST MARIN II, 220 UNITS OF RENTAL HOUSING; CRESTA DRIVE (Pl) - File 5-1-309 Planning Director Moore stated the developer of Crest Marin II was requesting immediate consideration of specific items; that all adminis- trative determinations for this project be acted upon no later than May 19, 1988. Staff is unclear as to what is an "administrative deter- SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4,8/88 Page 15 mination", and indicated that the project involves Zoning, Use Permit and Environmental Design Review actions. The Planning Commission makes recommendations on the Zoning and has final decision making authority on the Use Permit and Environmental Design Review. Ms. Moore referred to page 2 of the letter stating that the developer's understanding of the reasons the Planning Commission recommended in the draft General Plan 2000, were a program for considering priority projects; backlog in the process of project approvals; limited staff resources and demands on staff time in connection with development of the General Plan. She indicated these are not the reasons why the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council consideration of Policy C-7 and adoption of program C -B, which require that in traffic impacted areas, priority projects be given consideration. The reason is that it is viewed as a mitigation measure to avoid first come first serve and case by case development approvals. When looking at the big picture with the cumulative effects, what are all the possibilities for the City to be able to approve those projects most consistent with City policy during the interim period prior to ultimate transportation improvements being done. Ms. Moore stated the developers have indicated they will guarantee that five percent of the units in their apartment project will be affordable to low income households for 20 years and that 10 percent be affordable to moderate income households for 20 years. She stated this is the criteria that staff intends to recommend to the Council to be the way of identifying those projects that include a significant amount of affordable housing. In this respect, Ms. Moore indicated it appears the Crest Marin II project is well on its way to being able to meet that important criteria. She stated what is missing at the present time, is that all the other developers or property owners who believe they currently have or could devise a development proposal that would be equally meritorious under the criteria to be adopted in Policy C-7, have not been notified of this matter before the Council this evening. Therefore, other properties that have an interest as to who gets development approvals in the interim at the Lucas Valley/Smith Ranch Road interchange do not know about this item before the Council this evening. Ms. Moore indicated staff is uncertain how the request for immediate processing and approval of their project could be done at this time before final action is taken on the General Plan 2000. Councilmember Thayer asked if 10 percent affordable housing is manda- tory, assuming that portion of the General Plan were adopted as presented, and Ms. Moore responded that 10 percent of moderate income affordable housing is mandatory for projects with 10 or more lots or units. This project has 15 percent with 5 percent being low income affordable and 10 percent moderate income affordable. Councilmember Thayer commented this project would give the City more rental units and Councilmember Breiner agreed. Both Mayor Mulryan and Councilmember Boro also agreed conceptually with their proposal. Robert Thompson, attorney working with the project developer stated they are asking for the ability to proceed now without waiting for the final Environmental Impact Report in the new General Plan. He stated that the only way they could proceed short of waiting for the final EIR in the General Plan, which could take them to the end of the year, is to proceed with some assumptions that allow them to do an Environmental Impact analysis at this point to undertake what the staff would need to do in order to give them a Negative Declaration so they can meet the deadline. He indicated if they do not meet the deadline their project would be disapproved if they are not able to move forward before May 19, 1988. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that the developer can waive the provisions of the Permit Streamline Act in writing and therefore estopp themselves from asserting in the future that that time period has run, and if they are willing to do this, the City could arrive at appropriate language. Mr. Thompson understood that the law indicates it would be very diffi- cult to go beyond the first 90 -day extension, and stated if there is a way to extend the time period without requiring the mandatory disapproval, they would address that. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /18/88 Page 16 Mr. Ragghianti stated the developer could withdraw the application and have a resubmittal of his application. Mr. Thompson stated they are dealing with some difficult time lines that cannot be waived by them but represent problems with the owner of the property and other circumstances. He noted if they were able to escape the May 19 deadline, another deadline could come up which would be the "make or break" point for this project. Mr. Thompson stated they are not trying to tell the City how to proceed but need to solve the problem prior to adoption of the General Plan. Mr. Ragghianti stated that it is very difficult if not impossible to have interim development approvals implemented at this stage with the adoption of the General Plan, indicating that the developers have very real problems but then so does the City. He stated he believed they could enter into a binding agreement that would permit the time constraints and Permit Streamline Act to pass, however, he did not know how to address the developers' problem with the owner of the property. Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Thompson if he could ask for a specific action to be undertaken by the Planning staff, what it would be, and Mr. Thompson responded they would submit whatever is needed by way of additional traffic studies in order to be in a position to decide whether a Negative Declaration was appropriate; to allow the staff to prepare its normal report, stating he believed it was calendared for May 10, and his fear is that it would be disapproved without prejudice that will kill this project. He asked to instead use that date as a deadline in order to do the administrative processing and which they are prepared to commit any financial assistance to meet that deadline, and make that hearing a basis of hearing the project on its merits and not a proforma disapproval. He stated they were only asking that this be considered on its merits. Ms. Moore stated the developers are also asking for a Negative Declara- tion, and the cumulative traffic issue Council dealt with at length on the Bayview Business Park earlier also pertains to this project. She indicated that by itself, this project may or may not have signifi- cant effects depending on what trips are counted in and what trips are counted out. But, in conjunction with all other pending and possible developments tributary to this interchange, this project with all of the other traffic, has potential of significant adverse impacts, Level of Service "F". Ms. Moore stated staff will not be preparing a Negative Declaration but will state that this project needs an Environmental Impact Report, and if the developers want to prepare an initial study on their own to present to the Planning Commission for consideration they can do so. Mr. Thompson stated they are not asking for a Negative Declaration but asking that they have the opportunity to submit traffic studies and other information that might lead staff, in an objective approach to the traffic issue, to decide if a Negative Declaration is appropri- ate. He indicated they have a traffic study prepared but did not refer to it because they felt that Council did not want to get into this at this time. Mr. Thompson stated the only way they could proceed, is with some indication that they would be processed before the General Plan and the General Plan EIR are finalized. He stated they would be glad to speak with the City Attorney and staff on this project. City Attorney Ragghianti stated this is a project where consistency requirements in the State Planning Law must be met, indicating there is a zone change as well as other discretionary entitlements involved and both Resolution No. 7427 and the consistency requirements of State Planning law require that Council make findings that the project is consistent with the General Plan that has not been adopted. Mr. Thompson stated he sees as a way around this problem, for Council to make a finding of consistency with the existing plan and the General Plan in the draft stage that exist at the time of project approvals. He indicated they are willing to accommodate other conditions to the project approval that will assure consistency with the new General SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) /18/88 Page 17 Plan and sees traffic as the only significant issue that could become different than the existing General Plan as it effects their project. He believes they not only comply with the General Plan but the project is the highest priority under State law with the existing General Plan and the likely future General Plan. After further discussion, Council directed City Attorney Ragghianti and the Planning staff to work with the developer on finding a solution to their request. ADD ITEMS Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to allow discussion of the situation in the Canal Area as an urgency item. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 1. REPORT FROM POLICE CHIEF INGWERSEN ON UPDATE OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE CANAL AREA - File 9-3-30 x 13-9 Police Chief Ingwersen gave an update of the development in the Canal area stating his department is continuing to work with the residents in the enforcement of ridding the Canal Area of drug trafficking and prostitution, indicating they will be holding a meeting with the community in conjunction with the Canal Community Alliance on April 28, 1988 to better educate the residents of what they should be made aware and how to handle the situation. He stated they are also working with Kathy Campbell of Canal Community Alliance, Dr. Nancy Dalton, Superintendent of Schools and other people in the com- munity to address the whole issue on a much longer range scale to change the needs of our society. Councilmember Breiner asked if a "hotline" was considered, and Police Chief Ingwersen stated they do not have the financing for this sugges- tion and added that they do not feel this method would work, but that educating the community in working with the police will. Councilmember Frugoli commended Police Chief Ingwersen and his staff for the fine job they did in clearing the Bermuda Palms Motel and the Monte Mar Motel which were a large part of the problem. 2. BARRIER AWARENESS DAY - File 13-1-1 Councilmember Thayer invited Council to attend a special event for the handicapped on May 7, 1988, which is Barrier Awareness Day, to be held at Redwood High School and the community fields from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. JEANNE(". EONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1988 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/18/88 Page 17