Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1988-07-05SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 18, 1988 AT 7:00 PM. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION 1. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 88-15(a) - (#7) only. No litigation was discussed. No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 1-8, 1988 AT 8:00 PM. Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember Absent: Joan Thayer, Councilmember Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: At the request of Mayor Mulryan, Councilmember Frugoli moved and Council - member Breiner seconded, to discuss additional item not on the agenda as posted. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer PARTIAL STREET CLOSURE, RIVIERA DRIVE - File 11-19 Mrs. Mary Carpou of Peacock Gap Homeowners' Association, requested Council permission to close the cul-de-sac at the end of Riviera Drive from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM on Sunday, July 31, 1988 to allow them to have a neighborhood party. She noted it will not block the intersection of Riviera Manor and Riviera Drive but will be beyond that area so it will not impede traffic. Mrs. Carpou indicated she filed the application regard- ing her request with the Police Department two weeks ago and due to time constraints, she was asking Council for their decision tonight. Mayor Mulryan asked Police Chief Ingwersen if her request would present a problem, and he stated he had no objection to Mrs. Carpou's request. Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to approve request for partial street closure at the end of Riviera Drive on Sunday, July 31, 1988 from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM for a neighborhood party. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer CONSENT CALENDAR Breiner, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: T t am 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Meetings of May 3, 9, 17 and June 20, 1988, and Regular Meeting of June 6, 1988 (CC) 3. Report on Northgate Shuttle Bus (CM) - File 11-33 x (SRRA) R-263 Recommended Action Approved as submitted. Accepted report indicating the Northgate Shuttle Bus has been discontinued for numerous reasons, including lack of ridership. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 1 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 3 City Manager Nicolai indicated she would look into the matter, noting it depends on the condition of the vehicle at the time it is rotated out of Police Department service. RESOLUTION NO. 7755 - AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE 3/4 TON PICK-UP FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE, (Cost $13,955.75). ONE 3/4 TON PICK-UP FOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE (Cost 15,629.49) & ONE 2 -DOOR SEDAN FOR RECREATION (Cost $7,238.08), (from Wayne Cross Ford Co. of San Rafael, lowest responsible bidder that meets specifications) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer 7. RESOLUTION APPROVING 1988/89 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL BUDGET (Fin) - File 8-5 Council asked staff for the following input: 1. When an opening comes up for new hire that Council be advised. 2. Drainage projects that need funding. 3. Possibly having an advisory committee comprised of members of the public whose purpose -would be to review proposed new revenue sources and to make recommendations. 4. Look into why the Alpine Street curb and gutter project was not completed when funds had been allocated for the work. City Manager Nicolai stated she will try to bring more information to the Council at the next meeting scheduled for July 18, 1988. RESOLUTION NO. 7756 - APPROVING THE BUDGET OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 1988 - JUNE 30, 1989 AND PROVIDING FOR THE APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURE OF ALL SUMS SET FORTH IN SAID BUDGET AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer 9. PUBLIC HEARING - UP82-01(d) & ED85-117(c) - RECONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW TIME EXTENSIONS FOR A 63 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (CENTERTOWN); 855 "C" STREET; UNITED SAVINGS BANK, OWNER; JOHN CONNOLLY IV BROTHERS REALTY GROUP, INC., APPELLANTS AND REP.; AP 11-254-18 (P1) - File 5-1-286 x 10-5 x 10-7 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened and continued the public hearing to the meeting of July 18, 1988 at the request of the Appellants. 10. PUBLIC HEARING - ED87-112 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL UNIT ON R-3 LOT WITH NEW PARKING; 279 UNION STREET; DAN AND SEAN NOWELL, OWNERS; JEFF MULANAX, APPELLANT; AP 14-024-06 (P1) File 10-7 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Moore stated the project involves construction of a detached one -bedroom dwelling unit in the rear yard of an R-3 zoned site presently developed with one duplex. The resulting gross density would be 7.5 units per acre and this area is designated High Density Residential Development in the San Rafael General Plan 2000, allowing between 15 to 32 units per acre. On May 10, 1988, the Planning Commis- sion unanimously approved the project after previously having discussed the project and asking for additional information on February 23, 1988, and before that the Zoning Administrator had considered the matter twice before in November and December and had referred the matter to the Planning Commission because of neighborhood controversy and opposition to the proposal. Ms. Moore then gave a brief synopsis of the basis of the appeal. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 4 Ms. Moore stated the Appellant based his appeal on nine specific items as follows: 1. "No environmental study done on the proposal". Ms. Moore indicated that staff provided information indicating the City's interpretation of the California Environmental Quality Act already allows the project a categorical exemption and the surrounding area has no impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern which has been designated, mapped and adopted pursuant to law by Federal, State and local agencies. 2. "Parking is inadequate per City codes". Ms. Moore stated there is adequate parking provided for 3 units and 5 bedrooms and that staff relied primarily on the 5 parking spaces. She stated a strict interpretation could require 6 parking spaces but while 6 spaces probably could be located on the site it would probably result in an additional curb cut which is not desirable in a neighborhood and would be a significant reduction in the yard area. 3. "Prior to conversion from a single family residence to a duplex there was no approval by the City of San Rafael". Ms. Moore stated this statement is correct. She noted this matter has been rectified by inspection that has been done since and would be with consideration of the proposal. 4. "Union Street is inadequate and dangerous in terms of width, curbs, gutters and sidewalks and that encroachment has occurred on City property". Ms. Moore stated public improvements on Union are intermittent and noted that the frontage of this parcel is improved with City standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. The Public Works Department has determined there are no encroachments on this property into the public right-of-way. 5. "City infrastructure (including sewers) is inadequate in that area". Ms. Moore referenced the Public Works Department memo, noting that City staff stated they were aware of no deficiencies in the City's sewer system in the area and consultations with the Marin Municipal Water District concluded that water pressure is high enough to be classified as "high water pressure". The District has no record of any complaints from services connected to the main which would provide water pressure to the proposed project. 6. "Access to the proposed unit is inadequate in terms of safety and convenience". Ms. Moore stated the Fire Department found that the adequate access and site is safe so long as the residential sprinkler system is included in the unit proposed in the rear yard. 7. "Current City General Plan is inadequate". Ms. Moore stated the City Attorney reviewed this concern and responded that there has been no court ruling so holding. 8. "Basing approval of this project on the proposed General Plan 2000 is not possible, as that Plan has not yet been adopted and currently has several serious flaws". Ms. Moore stated the Planning Commission consideration of this matter was wholly consistent with the City Council Resolution No. 7427 which established the procedures for considering appli- cations during preparation of the San Rafael General Plan 2000, and this project is wholly consistent with that Plan. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 5 9. "The proposed General Plan 2000 is inadequate in terms of its treatment of the Montecito neighborhood area". Ms. Moore stated Council received comments during deliberations on the General Plan 2000 and program RES -a calls for the prepara- tion of the Montecito Neighborh000d Plan and indicated that Council is commited to this by prior agreement with the San Rafael School District regarding the Redevelopment Agency Program. She stated Council endorsed the program as a Class 2 priority after completion of the East San Rafael Neighborhood Plan. In response to Councilmember Breiner's question as to where the five parking spaces would be placed, Ms. Moore stated two are in the existing garage, two in the existing garage off the street and the additional space is out of the way of the garage in the single family dwelling, also the garage is a legal non -conforming structure that was rehabili- tated a few years ago. Also, regarding complaints from surrounding neighbors that the garage is being used for storage instead of parking, Ms. Moore indicated this may be the case at present but noted it is clearly a condition of approval as imposed by the Planning Commission that that garage be available for parking and that the Applicant would not be meeting the conditions of approval if it is not, adding that this will be monitored over time. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question as to what would be done should the Applicant not utilize the garage as such, Ms. Moore stated it would then be converted back to a garage and indicated that staff felt assured that it would be used as a garage because it is difficult to rent space without parking, and that there is an economic incentive for the property owner to have these spaces available, and that Staff could have the City's Nuisance Abatement proceedings available to reinstitute it as parking if necessary. APPELLANT, Mr. Jeff Mulanax Mr. Mulanax stated he has been a resident of 4 Highland Avenue for the past 21 years, and presented a packet of material to the Council which included comments from the proposed General Plan 2000, neighbor- hood plan for the Montecito area, General Plan 1974 objectives of the neighborhood plan and the 1985 Housing Element showing Montecito Neighborhood Plan which was to be done by July 1986. He indicated they need to have the Montecito Neighborhood Plan started. Mr. Mulanax stated after the previous owners expired, Dan and Sean Nowell, the new owners, had a split lot, built an additional house with a single family dwelling with a unit on Jewell Street, then had an illegal conversion of the house to a duplex with no hearing from the neighborhood or the Planning Department and that this house is now designated as a duplex. Mayor Mulryan asked staff for clarification and Ms. Moore stated that the conversion was originally done illegally but stated when situations such as this are found out and inspection of the unit is done to ascer- tain if building code requirements are met, and if adequate parking can be met, and if that is the case and the situation can be legalized, duplexes are allowed in R-3 Districts, noting in this case it passed inspection and adequate parking could be provided. Mr. Mulanax submitted photographs of the site to Council. In response to inquiry by Mayor Mulryan as to how long the garage has been there, Ms. Moore stated she felt the owner should answer but indicated it obviously is an old structure, perhaps several decades. She stated it is a free standing garage and conditions of approval would require that automatic remote control door openers be installed for the garage in the duplex building. Mr. Mulanax stated that the garage should have been brought up to code if there were any modifications to the main house that was converted into a duplex. He noted that the garage is too close to the street and should have electric doors. Mr. Mulanax noted they formed a neighborhood association over the weekend with 75 plus members and their main concern is with their SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 6 part of the City they feel has been neglected by the Planning Department and the City and that a neighborhood plan has been promised since 1974. He requested their neighborhood plan priority be changed from Priority 3 to a Priority 2. Mr. Mulanax stated that staff determined that it is illogical to consider this for 6 places when there is a separate single dwelling with the other parking on the property. He claimed that staff has given this property a variance and denied it another parking place when computations show it should have 6 parking places. He concluded they do not believe that the Nowell's should be granted a variance on the parking, which is their main complaint. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question if the current use requires the front garage be used as a garage, Ms. Moore indicated in order to meet parking requirements, the garage must be utilized or removed and replaced with parking spaces. Mayor Mulryan stated from the pictures submitted, it seems the garage is not being used and that it appears to him to be an illegally non -con- forming situation over the garage. Ms. Moore responded that is the case. The garage is clearly not being used for parking, and that as a result of this application, staff discovered a building permit had been issued to remodel the downstairs which resulted in a studio unit, although there were no complaints from the neighborhood. In response to Councilmember Boro's about the garage being used for parking for the second unit, Ms. Moore indicated the legalization of that unit is essentially a part of this application. She noted if this application had not been forthcoming, it would have required that the owner modify or use that garage for parking and that a building inspection be done to ensure the second unit meets all code requirements. If this proposal is approved, presumably it would be subject to Planning Commission's conditions of approval or. some modifications, and if not, four parking spaces for the duplex would need to be provided to legalize that second unit. She added if this were a single _ apartment building having a 3 bedroom unit, a one bedroom unit and a studio, which is what these units are, the parking requirement would be four and one-half parking spaces which would result in staff requir- ing five on site spaces. Ms. Moore indicated that the dimensions and maneuverability do work. Mayor Mulryan stated it seems to be clearly illegal now. MR. DAN NOWELL, Applicant Mr. Nowell stated he met with a Planning staff member who made the modifications to the site plan. He referred to a point brought up by the Planning Department that technically the property requires six parking places but stated when dealing with a studio unit, one and three bedroom units requiring two parking places for each of those units may not be reasonable. At present, the parking needs are being met with the garage next to the house and the driveway parking. He stated the garage could fit two cars, noting the garage is presently being used for storage. Mr. Nowell stated in 1952 the previous owners tore down a small house and built the current house on the property. The garage on the street was built in the 1930's and was repaired to code about three years ago when Mr. Nowell purchased the house, and was inspected and approved. He noted the lot in the rear that he is said to have split off was a separate lot the previous owners had bought and held separately from this parcel. In the 1970's it was merged because it was under the same ownership and he applied for a Certificate of Compliance. He indicated when he purchased the property, his intention was to get a Certificate of Compliance on the rear lot and put three units on thislot. He stated he positioned the unit in the back to maintain an open courtyard feeling and added that the property is zoned for 6-12 units but noted he does not propose that because this is a sensi- tive area. He added that other solutions to the parking problem would be to pave the front yard but he feels it would not be aesthecially pleasing to the neighborhood or for his property; or he could tear SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 7 down the garage on the street and put a driveway into the backyard with parking there, but noted he would be forced to put in more units. Mr. Nowell stated he is trying to work with what he has presented, providing quality housing and keeping the density down. Mr. Nowell stated he has not been contacted by the Montecito Neighbor- hood Association, noting there was a lot of opposition when they built the house in back and he wrote letters to every person who was against their plans but did not receive any responses from them. He stated he had met with Fire Marshall Keith Schoenthal who told him there should be nothing that would preclude him from building on the property and that the fire safety services were adequate for the site. He men- tioned he has a list of 12 items to upgrade the property, from land- scaping plans to a new fire hydrant. Mr. Tom Maloney, neighbor on Union Street, spoke of the danger on Union Street stating that the street is too narrow and a fire truck has difficulty in driving on the street. He said he has complained to the Planning Department to no avail, and that Union Street is an unsafe street. He asked that the City enforce no parking on one side of the street or make it a one-way street. Mrs. Kathy McCord, neighbor on Eucalpytus Lane above Union Street stated she worked in the neighborhood on Bell and Unions Streets and that her two children attend Coleman School six blocks from there. She indicated that Union Street is not safe for driving and that she does not allow her children to walk to school because of the unsafe situation and urged the Council to look at this construction and that something be done regarding parking on Union Street. Ms. Winifred Baker, resident at 16 Highland Avenue for 27 years, stated her lot runs from Highland Avenue down to where Union Street meets Jewell. She indicated she needs to drive in this area in order to get to work and that many times she cannot get through because of parking on the street, and added there are very few garages in the area being used for cars. She mentioned that corner has many car crashes noting the area is at a crisis. Mr. Cliff Elbing, Fire Commissioner and resident at 16 Broadview Court protested the action of the Planning Commission approving the permit to construct the third living unit for the following reasons: 1) Union Street from Mission Avenue to Jewell Street is overloaded with residents and renters beyond its capacity. 2) The neighborhood is overloaded with narrow streets and inadequate parking, undersized and overloaded sewers, water, gas mains and electric lines, etc. 3) There are no sidewalks or curbs on at least 50 percent of the streets causing adults and school children to walk on the street presenting hazards to them and drivers and the street is especially dangerous at night and on rainy days. 4) The street is so narrow that when vehicles going in opposite directions meet, one or the other must stop to allow for passing, and it is especially bad at the Jewell Street intersection, which presents a serious situation for the Paramedics, Fire and Police Departments. 5) Water volume is bad in the morning, evenings and on weekends. He spoke against approval of the permit. Mr. Steve Levin, resident on Union Street spoke against approval of the permit and indicated he witnessed an automobile accident there just two weeks ago. He also noted he believes there is an illegal unit across the street from this address. Mrs. Alice Cochran, resident next door to the property in question, spoke against approval of the permit. Her concern is with not having a neighborhood plan and asked Council to have a moratorium on building until some of the controversy is settled. She noted if this permit is approved she would like to be able to question the placement of the unit so close to their property and not adjacent to the existing property; she does not encourage parking in the back yard because that is what their view would be; and there are issues to be worked out and they are not in favor of approval until after approval of the neighborhood plan. Mrs. Cochran indicated there seems to be no buffer zone between single family residential units and multiple family units adjacent to Jewell Street on Union Street and requested a buffer zone between R-1 and R-3. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 8 Mr. Rob McCord, resident on Eucalyptus Lane, spoke against approval of the permit and reiterated the dangerous situation of traffic in that area, noting garages are not being properly utilized. Mrs. Doris Everts, resident adjacent to 279 Union Street, second house from the Applicant, spoke in support of the Applicant and stated she has not been approached by anyone in the neighborhood regarding the applicant's situation. She indicated the people are going after an owner who is providing housing for rental which is what the City is looking for and who is also providing parking. She noted there are about 30 or more apartments that do not have parking and they should be investigated. MR. DAN NOWELL, Applicant, referred to Mrs. Cochran's point of when she and her husband were in the process of buying their unit, noting that he met with them on site where she asked him what his plans were for the property. He wanted to place a third unit on this corner of the yard. He also agreed with having a buffer zone. Mayor Mulryan stated this is a difficult situation, noting the zoning clearly allows this type of unit, and suggested this item be postponed so Council will be able to look at the site and review the situation. Councilmember Boro stated staff indicated the site is zoned for R-3 use but that in tonight's discussion, it was mentioned that six parking spaces were "illogical" for the property, and asked staff to bring information back on this. Staff was also directed to look into other properties that might have garages illegally converted into second units or other uses. Councilmember Breiner asked the Traffic Engineer to look at the site for possible relief, whether it is "red curbing", or to see what he might consider to help traffic in this area, and what can be done in the interim, indicating one unit may not make a big difference and in a sense could be a buffer. She asked whether something could be done for this neighborhood in the next few years before a neighbor- hood plan is begun and completed that would not make a neighborhood plan moot. She explained if they get a lot of development applications coming in, it would further deteriorate the neighborhood and she does not want this to happen, noting that maybe an interim density use would be appropriate so that people who own property would have to wait a little longer before developing. Mayor Mulryan continued the public hearing to the July 18, 1988 meeting so Council and staff can have answers to the questions posed. 11. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 14, SECTION 14.08.090H TO STANDARDIZE THE METHOD USED TO DETERMINE BUILDING HEIGHTS (Pl) - File 10-3 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Moore stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to revise the method used to calculate building height and voted unanimously to recommend adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of the text amendment. Thre being no comments from the public, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 7757 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO STANDARDIZE THE METHOD USED TO DETERMINE BUILDING HEIGHT (Z88-3). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 9 The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, SECTION 14.08.090H "DEFINITIONS" SO AS TO STANDARDIZE THE METHOD USED TO DETERMINE BUILDING HEIGHT" Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1546 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer 12. UP88-22 AND ED88-17 - STATUS REPORT ON RECONSTRUCTION OF FIRE DAMAGED BUILDING AT 1301/1309 FOURTH STREET (P1) - File 3-3-44 Planning Director Moore stated on June 20, 1988, Councilmember Frugoli requested a report regarding the status of the reconstructon of the fire damaged building at 1301-1309 Fourth Street. A staff report was prepared for Council review reporting that use and design review permit applications had been received on February 29, 1988, nearly eight months after the building had been substantially damaged by fire. The report also indicated that inaccurate site plan information and incomplete architectural details had been submitted with applications and no documentation of previous second floor uses. Second floor uses are needed to determine adequacy of the "grandfathered" parking associated with the project. Because of the incomplete and poor quality elevations, staff indicated it had not been possible to schedule the applications for consideration by the Design Review Board or Cultural Affairs Commis- sion. Staff verbally indicated at the meeting on the afternoon of June 20, 1988, that Planning Department had received revised and more complete drawings for the Fourth and "C" Street elevations. Ms. Moore stated after review of the staff report, Council heard the property owner's representative, Attorney Perry Litchfield who indicated it would be difficult for the property owner to rebuild the building consistent with the previous historic architecture unless seven two bedroom units were allowed on the second floor. Planning Director Moore stated that since the meeting of June 20, 1988, staff has ascertained the second floor use of the property, which included four studios and three one bedroom units. Attorney Litchfield, representing owners of the property, stated they were working on a solution with the planning aspect to be compatible with the General Plan within the next two weeks. He stated they will come back with an agreement to apply for a variance. Council accepted the staff report, without motion. 13. DISCUSSION ON EASTSIDE ARTERIAL IN NORTH SAN RAFAEL (MCINNIS PARKWAY) (Pl) - File 11-15 x 115 Councilmember Boro stated a plan for a parallel arterial to Highway 101 is being studied and asked Council to discuss these issues and that staff should note what opposition is being formulated. Councilmember Frugoli stated he attended a meeting with the County regarding the McInnis Parkway, noting the engineers stated they could handle a two lane arterial. They spoke of "taking" 100 feet if necessary to allow for the number of cars that will be using it. After further discussion, Council accepted the status report from Planning Director Moore, and directed Traffic Engineer Rumsey to pursue possible Merrydale Overcrossing connector with McInnis Parkway, now known as McInnis Drive. SRCC MINUTes (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 10 ADD ITEM 1. UNSAFE TRAFFIC CONDITION AT INTERSECTION OF LOS GAMOS ROAD AND LUCAS VALLEY ROAD (PW) - File 11-9 x 11-15-1 At the request of Councilmember Breiner, Traffic Engineer Rumsey to check with the County on improving the unsafe traffic conditions by placing a stop sign or other improvement at Los Gamos Road and Lucas Valley Road, which is in the County's jurisdiction, including obtaining the accident history and traffic warrants. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. JEANNE(JA. LEONCINI, Ci y Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1988 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/5/88 Page 10