Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1988-08-15SRCC MINUTES (Regul` ) 8/15/88 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 1988 AT 7:00 PM. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION 1. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No litigation was discussed. No. 88-18 (a) - (#7). No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 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 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: Item Recommended Action 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Approved as submitted. Meeting of July 18, 1988 (CC) 3. Report on Bid Opening and Award RESOLUTION NO. 7791 - AWARD OF of Contract - Alpine Street CONTRACT FOR ALPINE STREET Drainage Improvements (PW) - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (To File 4-1-424 Wildcat Construction and Engineering, low bidder, in amount of $8,225) 6. Resolutions of Appreciation For: a. Eleen Morrisette, Secretary City Attorney's Office (CA) - File 102 x 9-3-16 b. John Powers, Former Design Review Board Member (P1) - File 102 x 9-2-39 10. Renewal of Lease Agreement with San Rafael Pop Warner Football Club Re Storage Space in Albert Park Stadium (Rec) - File 4-10- 127 13. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) - File 9-1 14. Claims for Damages: a. Claire A. Christensen (PW) Claim No. 3-1-1328 b. Roselae H. Babcock (PD) Claim No. 3-1-1353 c. Saundra Viglienzone (PW) Claim No. 3-1-1355 RESOLUTION NO. 7792 - TO ELEEN MORISSETTE, FOR SEVEN YEARS OF SERVICE (In the City Attorney's Office) RESOLUTION NO. 7793 - TO JOHN W. POWERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBER (For Three Years of Service) RESOLUTION NO. 7794 - AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SAN RAFAEL POP WARNER FOOTBALL CLUB FOR STORAGE SPACE IN ALBERT PARK STADIUM COMPLEX, JULY 1, 1988 TO JUNE 30, 1990. (Two year Agreement at $35.00 per month) OPPOSED - AB3341 (Floyd) Compulsory and Binding Arbitration for Police and Fire Officers. Approved Insurance Consulting Associates, Inc. recommendation for denial of claim a. Approved City Attorney's recommendations for denial of claims b & c. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regu1G ) 8/15/88 Page 2 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer (from Item 13 only) 4. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LONG TERM 1993 TO 1998 (AB -84) MAJOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN MARIN COUNTY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MARIN COUNTY URBAN SYSTEM COMMITTEE (PW) - File 171 x 4-10-66 x 11-15.1 5. 7. Councilmember Boro questioned the priority given to item 12 - I580/Bel- lam Boulevard - Relocate Westbound Off and On Ramps, and item 13 - I580/Irene Street, Construct Underpass and Relocate Eastbound Off and On Ramps at Bellam Boulevard - on Exhibit "A" of the Proposed Highway Projects, stating in light of the approval of the General Plan, the two intersections, especially Bellam need to be readdressed. He requested a cover letter be sent to the County indicating the City's desire to expedite the Bellam Interchange project. There were no objections to Councilmember Bcro's suggestion. In response to Councilmember Thayer's comments regarding the Andersen Drive project being financed through local funding, Public Works Director Bernardi stated the State asked that projects having an impact on the freeway and its capacity be listed as Local Projects to be funded locally. In response to Councilmember Thayer's comment that the City does not have support from the community for McInnis Parkway, Mayor Mulryan indicated that an alternative means of moving from the Southern part of the County to the Northern part has long been a goal of those study- ing the issue. Councilmember Thayer felt there is a real fear that it will spawn so much development that it will overtake any kind of transportation improvements, stating it is a "Catch 22" which can be funded in the future. RESOLUTION NO. 7795 - APPROVING THE LONG TERM 1993 TO 1998 MAJOR TRANS- PORTATION PROJECTS IN MARIN COUNTY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MARIN COUNTY URBAN SYSTEM COMMITTEE (and that a cover letter be sent to the County indicat- ing the City's desire to expedite the Bellam Interchange project) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None BASE MAPPING SYSTEM - AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE LAS GALLINAS BASIN (PW) - File 9-3-40 x 8-5 Mayor Mulryan asked staff if the quality of the aerial photographs was such that they could be merchandised to make a profit, and Public Works Director Bernardi replied they could be sold, adding that certain areas of the photographs could be blown up at the purchaser's request. He noted people do purchase their maps and are charged according to the City's fee schedule, noting over a long period of time, some of the costs are recouped. RESOLUTION NO. 7796 - AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE FOR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAS GALLINAS BASIN (at cost of $3,705 from unallocated reserves) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None EXTENSION OF CONTRACT WITH BRYAN & MURPHY AND FORSHER + GUTHRIE FOR CONSULTANT PLANNING SERVICES (P1) - File 4-3-185 In response to questioning by Councilmember Frugoli, City Manager Nicolai noted they are trying to complete some of the more complex projects with some consultant firms, indicating that some of their SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regul, ) 8/15/88 Page 3 staff were former employees of the Planning Department, so they are familiar with San Rafael and the process. She stated this is expected to be phased out as soon as the in-house staff people become more experienced. Councilmember Frugoli stated what the consultants are doing is what the Planning staff should be doing and believed some consultants are working on City projects and other projects for the same developer. Planning Director Moore explained there are no cases where consultants are working for the City and working for the same applicant in another capacity. She noted they have been careful about not assigning projects to Consultants in a geographic area close to the few private clients they are working for in the City. Mayor Mulryan stated there is limited Planning staff and because of the General Plan process, staff has been proposing to developers that if they want to pay for planning services at their cost, that in effect, it enlarges the working capacity of the Planning staff, and if this were not being done the process would inevitably be slower than it is now. Ms. Moore clarified that at the present time, the Planning Department has a Principal Planner, one Associate Planner, three Assistant Planners and a Senior Planner who works on advanced planning only. She noted the three Assistant Planners have worked for the City between 6 12 months each; the Associate Planner has worked for the City for one year and the Principal Planner has worked for the City for six months. Councilmember Boro indicated the use of outside Consultants should diminish, adding that staff will never get the expertise they need if the City continues to do this. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question if Planning Director Moore was assigning the more complex projects to the outside people rather than the Planning staff, Ms. Moore replied it has turned out that way, noting that many of the projects started when there was no Princi- pal Planner available to work on these projects. Now they are finding that the Principal Planner's time is better spent in training the new people and getting the other vacancies filled. She noted the consultants are very experienced, having between 10 and 20 years of planning experience. Ms. Moore stated the Council will be receiving a list of department projects very shortly, noting there is no shortage of projects assigned to Planning Department staff. Presently, there are about 100 active applications being processed by the staff, and typically, each planner has 15 to 20 projects assigned to them. The Principal Planner has only a few, but they are the largest and most complex, such as the Costco project. Councilmember Breiner mentioned that two projects have EIR's to be done, and noting they are always sent to outside consultants. Councilmember Thayer felt staff has been overloaded because of work on the General Plan and beginning of the implementation procedures. She did agree there should be less use of outside consultants in the future, however. RESOLUTION NO. 7797 - AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENTS WITH BRYAN & MURPHY AND FORSHER + GUTHRIE FOR SIX MONTHS (To February 15, 1989). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 8. SMITH RANCH HOMES (A.K.A. SMITH RANCH HILLS - MARIN) RETIREMENT PROJECT; STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CA) - File 5-1-290 x 9-3-16 Councilmember Thayer stated she was disturbed that none of the approved 400 senior citizens residential condominium units will be for moderate income housing, compared to the 98 units at McInnis Park apartment SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regul 8/15/88 Page 4 complex, where 20 of those units will be affordable housing for moderate income in the 80 to 120 range. - Planning Director Moore stated when the project was approved in 1984-85, it was by specific denial and then reconsideration of the project by the City Council whereby the family rental units became part of the overall project and it was done specifically to have non -age re- stricted and affordable housing throughout the project, as well as to gain affordable units. She noted the Development Agreement precludes the City from modify- ing its policy or approval position on the project so long as the Applicant performs according to all terms, and they have done so. Councilmember Breiner also explained that the 98 units were kept on a rental basis in perpetuity which was one of the trade-offs. RESOLUTION NO. 7798 - AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65865.1 (Smith Ranch Hills Development Agreement) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9. RESOLUTION AMENDING 1987/88 BUDGET (Fin) - File 8-5 Mayor Mulryan asked how the figure of $115,000 for the Fire Department came about, and City Manager Nicolai replied there was a vacancy in the Captain's position which was not on the computer system and there- fore, not included in the figure shown last year, causing a shortfall. RESOLUTION NO. 7799 - AMENDING THE 1987/88 BUDGET (to provide an additional $611,481 for current expenditures; also, $130,696 to be transferred from the General Fund to the Trust and Agency Fund and $19,000 from the General Fund to the Recreation Fund project) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 11. RESOLUTION AMENDING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (RESOLUTION NO. 7553, "SECTION 7 - LIBRARY", REVISING RENTAL RATES FOR VIDEOS (Lib) - File 9-10-2 x 9-3-61 Mayor Mulryan asked staff to provide a list to the Council of what video tapes are available. RESOLUTION NO. 7800 - AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (RESOLUTION #7553), "SECTION 7 - LIBRARY", REVISING RENTAL RATE FOR VIDEOS (from "$1.50 first day; $3.00 per day thereafter," to $1.50 per day) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. REPORT ON LEASING AND RENTAL OF OFFICE SPACE AT FALKIRK TO NON-PROFIT CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS (Lib) - File 9-3-84 x 9-3-61 Councilmember Boro stated although he agrees with the staff report, his concern is that they keep a balance as to the amount of space to be rented out versus the amount of space available for public use for private parties, etc., and asked what floors would be leased out. Cultural Affairs Director Stratford replied the upper floors would be leased. Council accepted the staff report, without motion. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regul, 8/15/88 Page 5 15. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JOHN POWERS, FORMER DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBER - File 102 x 9-2-39 Mayor Mulryan presented the Resolution of Appreciation to Mr. John Powers, and thanked him for his volunteer work on the Design Review Board for three years. 16. 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 (Pl) - File 10-7 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Moore stated the City Council considered this matter on July 5 and 18, 1988, resulting in Council directing staff to hold a neighborhood meeting to try to resolve what the neighbors surrounding 279 Union Street consider to be a problem because property owner Mr. Dan Nowell is attempting to build and rent out an additional unit on his property, causing more traffic on the narrow streets in the neighborhood. She noted that from the 75 people notified, only a few interested neighbors attended, including the Appellant, nearby neighbors, an adjacent neighbor who has an interest in the project and the Appli- cant. After reviewing all pertinent information, staff concluded that many of the concerns have to do with the lack of a Neighborhood Plan, and a belief that zoning and land use designations would be changed if there were such a plan. Staff believes the most critical issue, aside from the Neighborhood Plan, concerns parking. The Planning Commisson approved the project requiring five parking spaces and there is a strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that could conclude that the proposed three dwelling units would require six on-site parking spaces. Those six spaces could be located on-site but would require additional paving of the front yard area and the inclusion of another driveway, or widening of the existing driveway width so there is a gain of an additional on-site parking space. This would probably eliminate one on -street parking space because this lot has curb, gutter and sidewalk in front of it. Staff looked at other issues raised including the fact that the garage could not be used for storage. They felt it would be safe if the garage were utilized with the cars backing up into the street. Staff recommends roll -up garage doors for the garage in the existing structure and the legal non -conforming free-standing garage structure toward the front of the lot, believing this would mitigate some of those concerns. Staff intends to monitor this project to ensure those garages are being utilized and will require the Applicant to notify any tenants of that requirement. The Planning Commission imposed a rigorous condition regarding landscape requiring irrigation. There is concern as to the looks of the yard now and Ms. Moore encouraged Council to ask the Applicant to explain in his own words, his rationale for not landscaping, noting she believed he did not expect this matter to go on for so long. Ms. Moore stated that as a result of the comments made by Mrs. Cochran, the adjacent property owner, staff recommended that the setback of the proposed free-standing unit, if approved, be maximized and be the greatest distance possible from the rear inside property lines without endangering an existing olive tree located in the courtyard area of the proposed reconfigured backyard, and that there be some additional landscaping in the setback areas. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question whether the zoning is presently zoned as R-3, Ms. Moore responded it is and added that the property could hold 12 units if the existing structures were demolished and a new apartment was designed for the entire lot. She indicated this has been done on other properties over the years with similar lots converted into apartments, and in some cases, some lots may have been smaller. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regula) 8/15/88 Page 6 Councilmember Breiner asked Ms. Moore, if Council were to let the additional unit proceed, if the maximum of what is there now could be locked in through rezoning, and Ms. Moore replied affirmatively, indicating the rezoning for consistency with the General Plan could be modified. She noted this is not a zoning matter before the Council, therefore, there is no way to preclude Mr. Nowell from never applying for anything later. Councilmember Breiner asked staff if Council took a stand that this is the maximum they want to see on that corner, could Council not direct that it be brought back to cap it at the existing intensity during the time that properties are rezoned throughout the City, and Mayor Mulryan indicated this could be done by agreement with the owner. Ms. Moore responded that staff could look at the zoning in the existing neighborhood and bring appropriate recommendations back for General Plan consistency zoning. Also, that if Council's direction is that they are not seeking maximum R-3 densities in this neighborhood, but the low end of the allowable R-3 densities, that it would be taken into consideration in the staff review. Mayor Mulryan clarified once they get into the Neighborhood Plan, that would become the zoning for the area and any demolition made in future years on this particular site would not be consistent with what the zoning would be. Ms. Moore suggested Council require a condition to rezone the parcel to R-3 (b or d) which would be "spot zoning" with staff looking at more properties surrounding the area. She asked that Council direct staff to look at this with the General Plan consistency rezoning to be done in advance when starting the Neighborhood Plan. Councilmember Thayer referred to the downstairs area of the main build- ing, stating had this been zoned R-1 it would be a second unit needing to be owner occupied; however, as it is zoned R-3 and not owner -occupied, this bothers her, noting she would prefer having a Neighborhood Plan in place before this project is accepted. Mayor Mulryan stated the property is zoned R-3 and the owner purchased this property zoned as such, which allows 12 units to be put on the property, and yet the Council is only putting half that amount on the property. Councilmember Boro stated this issue has highlighted the need for a Neighborhood Plan, and legally, there is no way they cannot go along with this because Council is here to do what is correct under the Zoning Ordinance. He referred to the roll -up garage doors, indicat- ing that he assumes the Applicant would be required to install auto- matic garage door openers and request the tenants to use the garage, and noted this is an improvement. Mayor Mulryan called upon anyone wish to speak. Mr. Jeff Mulanax, Appellant read a letter into the record, noting State Codes, especially CEQA, have been sidestepped or misapplied. There have been inappropriate uses and the absence of applications for proper building permits for the intended uses. He referred to the repair permit for a parking structure was obtained but that instead the entire structure was rebuilt, indicating the proper method would have been to apply for a building permit for total reconstruction, noting the garage would have then needed to be set back an additional 13 feet from its current position with the increased side setback from the current two feet to about five feet. He noted this would have put the structure in compliance with City codes. He stated it is clear that this parcel has had five separate living units proposed: 1) The existing single family dwelling at 279 Union St.; 2) The lot split which created 245 Jewell St.; 3) The construction of a single family unit and a detached unit at 245 Jewell St.; 4) Conversion of the downstairs to a separate living unit; 5) The current proposed single family dwelling in the back yard of 279 Union St. He referred to CEQA Section 15303(a) which does not cover more than three units, nor apartments, indicating it therefore does not apply SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regul, 8/15/88 Page 7 to this proposal and no categorical exemption should be given for this property, as at least five units have been proposed on this property; also mentioned an environmental study be conducted regarding the entire parcel. Mr. Mulanax stated the conversion of the downstairs into a separate living unit was not done through the proper planning process; the application was to allow interior improvements; no mention, notice, or application for the conversion of the downstairs to a separate living unit was made; from the time of purchase to the property applica- tion process; environmental studies, notification to the Council and neighborhood residents have been avoided; the City is being asked to condone an activity that is improper, sending the wrong message to the community that rules can be broken and later excused by the City of San Rafael. Mr. Mulanax concluded that the residents and homeowners of the Montecito Neighborhood are entitled to a Neighborhood Plan, and currently they are suffering from absentee landlords, such as the owner of 279 Union, who come in, make changes not meeting code and ignore proper applications for permits and noticing. He indicated too often development in their neighborhood is approved, despite the fact it is not beneficial in any manner other than to the pocketbook of the absentee landlord. The residents who live in this area suffer, especially long time resi- dents who have made an enormous investment to the community. He urged Council to grant the appeal. In response to Mayor Mulryan's question if there is an issue regarding CEQA, City Attorney Ragghianti stated that staff advised him there are three units here and on the basis of that it is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. He stated he knew of no information or data that suggests there are more than three and suggested that Planning Director Moore comment on this. Planning Director Moore stated Mr. Mulanax is calling the property, including the home owned by the Cochran's next door, to be parcels purchased by the preceeding property owner. She noted there is some question as to whether they were or were not merged but there is a Certificate of Compliance granted for the parcel where the Cochran's home now is, so Mr. Mulanax' counting of five units includes two units of the Cochran's home plus the three here. Ms. Moore noted staff does not count that way by interpreting the California Environmental Qualty Act. Regarding the garage, Ms. Moore stated there were no difficulties and explained that the garage renovation was done with building permits and noted a few years back the value was not such that it triggered any special treatment. The property owner was treated the same way they would have treated any other property owner who was willing to make some minor improvements within the Zoning Ordinance to a legal non -conforming structure, and stated there was nothing done improperly in upgrading the free-standing garage structure a few years ago. Mr. Dan Nowell, Applicant, stated he had copies of the building permits of the parking garage on hand should Council wish to review them and spoke on concerns regarding the proposed third unit brought up at the neighborhood meeting held on August 8, 1988. He stated in the early planning for this project he looked at the feasibility and desireability of attaching a third unit to the main structure, and felt more of an apartment feeling would be created if it were attached, having privacy and more quality, and that the courtyard area would be destroyed for the occupant. However, he noted if he had attached the third unit only five parking spaces would be required. He then chose to detach the unit, given the size of the parcel, and felt it would be more in keeping with the surrounding single family home. He positioned the structure to minimize the effects on the adjacent neighbor's views and to maximize the solar gain for Title 24 energy requirements. Mr. Nowell then showed Council a drawing of his project. Regarding the detached garage in front of the property, Mr. Nowell stated most neighbors seemed to be in favor of automatic roll -up garage door or the removal of the doors. He noted the locks have been removed SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regul, 8/15/88 Page 8 on the detached garage and it has been available for parking and the inside wood framing has been primed to show what it would look like if it were left painted and the doors removed, turning it into a carport. He stated he would be in agreement with placing a condition for the automatic garage door on the detached garage to match the roll -up garage doors and that it be part of the conditions of approval which is the same condition of approval for the main structure garages. He stated Ms. Cochran had a concern about being able to see the fifth parking place behind the detached garage, indicating he would be in agreement to install additional landscaping in order to screen the view of a car behind the garage from her view. Another concern brought up regarding the front yard landscaping be installed and maintained will be taken care of by the required landscaping plan for the property. Mr. Cliff Elbing, spoke of his concerns on having second units in the area. Mr. Rich Goss, 4 Highland Avenue across from the proposed development, stated he felt their neighborhood has overly high density, noting there is excessive traffic in their area and that this project be disapproved. Ms. Dorothy Chuche, spoke of her concern with the lack of planning in the area but was not concerned about the proposed additional unit on the site. Ms. Monica Lau, former resident at 165 Park Street, one block east of Union Street, stated she agreed with all the neighbors that Union Street is heavily traveled and that Council consider a stop sign at the intersection of Mary and Union Streets. Ms. Cynthia Van Rozeboom, spoke in favor of the Applicant. Mr. Fred Eberts, owner of 261 Union Street, stated he is in favor of approving the project, including having a Neighborhood Association. Mr. Dennis Fishwick, stated he reviewed the property with Mr. Mulanax last Monday and spoke of the traffic problems in front of this property. He referred to the separation of the R-1 and R-3 zoning, noting this was done because of the hill slope, stating this may have been inappro- priate that this property was included in the R-3 zoning. He stated it would be more appropriate that this�roperty have an R-1 zoning because of the hill slope. Regarding CEQA, Mr. Mulanax mentioned the determination had been they are single family units and a categorical exemption applied and neither a Negative Declaration or an EIR were required was based upon the fact that they are single family dwelling units. In the next instance, the rationale for allowing less than six parking spaces was that this project was considered to be apartments, and stated this does not meet the CEQA category of 15303(a), and indi- cated that 15303(b) is for apartments and totally different. Mr. Fishwick stated on one hand staff is requiring six parking spots by code and on the other hand the rationale for allowing only five is that this is considered an apartment complex. Mr. Fishwick stated the property was one parcel with one household on the entire property, and if this had been brought forward to Council at the time of the proposal, it would not have a categorical exemption because there would have been five entire dwelling units proposed for it. Mr. Fishwick stated he believes this to be the point Mr. Mulanax is trying to make with CEQA. Mr. Fishwick referred to the garage setback and stated if it had been properly set back it would take the fifth parking spot. If the Neighbor- hood Plan were in effect, there would be proper design standards so when a building becomes delapidated and a new owner comes into the neighborhood, he would be able to review the property in light of those standards, noting if the proposal were to be looked at in total, it would be inappropriate to go along with what is being proposed. Mr. Mulanax suggested alternatives, such as expanding on the back of the current house which is a positive step. Mr. Fishwick noted if this were done, the duplex would only require four parking spaces and probably provide the same amount of income the owner hopes to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (REgulL 8/15/88 Page 9 get and yet there would be no need for the entirely separate unit. Mr. Fishwick referred to the units across the street from the proposed parcel and stated it is another example of what is occurring in this neighborhood, noting the garage directly across is being used as a living unit and has a mailbox outside. He again referred to Mr. Mulanax's concern of garages being used as living units. In conclusion, Mr. Fishwick stated the neighbors are looking for a Neighborhood Plan and requested the City deny the current proposal and approve Mr. Mulanax's appeal. Ms. Winifred Baker, resident of 16 Highland Avenue above the proposed unit, spoke against the project, asking Council to consider a whole Neighborhood Plan before this project is put in. Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Council Discussion Councilmember Frugoli asked staff if a variance had been given on the parking because of the supposedly six parking units but now there are only five. Ms. Moore responded negatively and stated an interpreta- tion of the Zoning Ordinance was utilized, noting there was no parking variance sought and none approved. Councilmember Breiner asked if staff was going to assign parking spaces to the live-in units or work with the Applicant? Ms. Moore stated they would be checking on this. After discussion, Councilmember Boro moved and Mayor Mulryan seconded, to uphold the Planning Commission's approval and deny the appeal,and to include that automatic garage door openers be provided on all four garage doors. Also, to include discussion held on landscaping; that the fifth space as seen from the Cochran residence be provided and that modification of the setback be made. Councilmember Frugoli stated the only way he would approve the project is to have the Montecito Neighborhood Plan changed to the status of Priority One instead of Priority Two. Councilmember Thayer stated she felt the whole area is zoned inappropri- ately, indicating the streets are too narrow for the density it is zoned at this time, and noted she would vote against the motion. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli & Thayer ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Breiner suggested staff review using this lot as a buffer between R-1 and R-3 in general, and make an accommodation or change in the zoning process along the way. There were no objections to Councilmember Breiner's suggestion. Ms. Moore asked that people in the neighborhood who believe there are unauthorized units, provide the Planning Department with addresses so staff can enforce its rules. Councilmember Breiner asked staff to review those intersections mentioned including the stop sign westbound on Jewell, to see if that would improve the situation in terms of traffic flow. Mayor Mulryan mentioned that the streets are very narrow, and although the City does not have one-way signs in residential areas, he directed Public Works to look into the matter. 17. PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER PUBLIC NECESSITY, HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE REQUIRES THE FORMATION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY OF MONTECITO SHOPPING CENTER, SAN RAFAEL CREEK, GRAND AVENUE AND SECOND STREET (PW) - File 6-47 x (SRRA) R-267 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regul ) 8/15/88 Page 10 Public Works Director Bernardi stated this is the opportunity for those affected by the undergrounding project to speak of their concerns regarding the timetables set forth in the Resolution, which indicate that all properties must be ready to receive underground service by April 1, 1989, and that the removal of all poles and overhead wires and associated structures and the installation of all underground facilities be completed by August 1, 1989. He estimated the project will cost $500,000 and is being completed under PG&E's Rule 20B rules and regulations, noting the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency will be paying for the project which will enhance the Montecito Shopping Center, and staff is recommending adoption of the Resolution. Mayor Mulryan called upon wishing to speak on this item. Mr. Cliff Elbing, spoke in support of undergrounding in this area. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 7801 - ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT IN THE VICINITY OF MONTECITO SHOPPING CENTER, SAN RAFAEL CREEK, GRAND AVENUE AND SECOND STREET AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 18. PUBLIC HEARING - VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN EAST SAN RAFAEL (HELIPORT SITE) (PW) - File 2-12 x 211 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Mayor Mulryan noted Councilmember Breiner had mentioned earlier a concern about this property; however, she had looked at the property today and now has no objection to the vacation of the drainage easement. Mayor Mulryan called upon anyone wishing to speak on this item, and hearing none, closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 7802 - ORDERING CLOSING, ABANDONING AND VACATING 15 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN EAST SAN RAFAEL (A.P. NO. 9-290-16) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19. REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FOR SEASTRAND SUBDIVISION PARCEL "B", AP #16-301-21 (P1) & (PW) - File 5-1-242 x 9-3-16 Planning Director Moore stated Public Works and Planning staff were directed by Council to prepare an Initial Study and Environmental determination for the proposed construction of a single family residence on Parcel "B" at Seastrand, and Mr. Nibbi was notified to submit the Environmental information sheet required of applicants for Environmental Determinations. She indicated Mr. Nibbi contacted her stating he would be submitting the information sheet to staff on Thursday and requested that the matter be continued pending his ability to meet with staff to review the environmental information he submitted. She noted the information is available to any interested persons, adding staff has not as yet completed the Environmental Checklist and Environmental Determination. Councilmember Breiner asked if staff will be working with conservation groups the City might not know about since the property has been dis- rupted with the bulldozer grading and Ms. Moore replied they have prepared a draft of the Environmental Determination prior to this going to the legislative body for adoption or certification, and it will be circulated for at least 10 days. Terrel Mason, Attorney on behalf of the Seastrand Homeowners Association, stated they have been advised of staff's preliminary investigation and presented some pictures of Parcel "B", in particular, as viewed SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 10 a17 21. SRCC MINUTES (Regul 8/15/88 Page 11 from Sea Way taken the winter of the 1982 floods, showing Parcel "B" under water, and asked that Council and staff take particular notice of the area. Planning Director Moore indicated they will strive to have this item back at the next Council meeting, noting they hope to have the Initial Study Environmental Determination completed this week in order to provide adequate notice prior to the next Council meeting. APPROVAL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF CLERICAL/LIBRARY CLASSIFICATION STUDY (CM) - File 4-3-180 Assistant to the City Manager Suzanne Golt, stated the Clerical/Library Classification and Compensation Study was conducted by Personnel Associ- ates as part of the City's continuing efforts to upgrade and update its systems. She noted the Clerical/Library study is the latest effort and was completed in early 1988. The goals included revising the exist- ing classificaton specifications for Clerical/Library Classifications, also creating new classifications for any newly created positions. She stated they wanted the study to look at the appropriateness of classifications assigned to the encumbents, to determine whether they are properly classified for the work being performed; and to analyze the compensation paid to the Clerical/Library Classifications with an emphasis on studying the internal salary relationships within exist- ing classification series. The results of the study included abolishing several classifications; creation of six new Clerical or Library Classifications,with a number of positions to be retitled as a result of this study to reflect the work being performed and to more accurately reflect the current industry or market salaries that are prevalent today, and to reclassify 16 positions effective January 1, 1988. Ms. Golt stated the cost of the study was over $14,000, representing the cost for recommended reclassifications and a slight cost for the internal salary relationship that will result from the study. She stated the City met and conferred with both the Marin Association of Public Employees (MAPE) who represents the great majority of Clerical and Library employees, as well as the Police Association on minor changes regarding the Police Clerical Classifications. Ms. Golt noted that the MAPE Team consisted of Beth Winters, the Senior Field Representative, Karen Limb from Recreation, Jan Lacues, Finance Department, Joan Nilsen, Library, Sheila Edwards from Redevelopment and Susan Southard from Public Works Department. Ms. Beth Winters stated MAPE is very pleased with the outcome of the meetings held and she expressed her appreciation to the Bargaining and Managment Team. Mayor Mulryan also expressed his appreciation for the good effort by all concerned on this item. RESOLUTION NO. 7803 - AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLERICAL/ LIBRARY CLASSIFICATION STUDY AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE FOR TAXI SERVICE IN NAME OF MARIN TAXI SERVICE, DANIEL THOMAS CARLSON, APPLICANT (Fin) - File 9-9 Finance Director Coleman stated this is the third application received in the last ten years for a taxicab company to operate in San Rafael, noting in 1982 an application was denied and in 1984 an application was approved. He stated staff's recommendation is to deny the request without prejudice, by Mr. Dan Carlson for a Certificate of Convenience for Marin Taxi to operate a cab in San Rafael at this time. Mr. Coleman stated upon application, the code requires that the City review requests to determine if additional taxicabs are required at SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regul 1 8/15/88 Page 12 this time in San Rafael. He stated Council could approve or deny the application at this time by considering the facts of the matter, or decide that Council does not wish to regulate the number of taxicabs allowed in San Rafael. Denial is based on the fact that there is no additional need for another taxicab and in looking at cities similar in size to San Rafael, there seems to be an adequate number of cabs based on the population. He also noted the operator has limited experience in operating a taxicab company and for that reason, also recommends denial at this time. Mayor Mulryan called upon the Applicant, but he was not present. Councilmember Frugoli stated the two current cab companies in San Rafael do an excellent job, noting the City is well covered. Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to deny the request without prejudice for a Certificate of Convenience for Marin Taxi. Councilmember Thayer commented this is a free enterprise system, noting the market should decide. Councilmember Breiner stated staff has indicated that Mr. Carlson could again apply after he establishes a good track record, noting she would be open to this should the request come back to Council. Ms. Elissa Giambastiani, Executive Director for the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce asked how many other businesses Council regulates, and Mayor Mulryan replied this is the only one regulated in this manner. Councilmember Frugoli mentioned tow trucks and card rooms are also regulated. Mayor Mulryan explained this was developed through the Charter and is also based on the public's safety and service required, noting the City might end up with no taxi service without Council review of the market demand. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 22. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE FOR LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 16-19, 1988 IN SAN DIEGO (CC) - File 9-11-1 Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to designate Mayor Mulryan as the Delegate to the League of California Cities Annual Conference, and Councilmember Boro as Alternate. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulyran NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 23. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES: (CM) - File 9-12 City Manager Nicolai stated staff was presenting two options, one, whether all options should be reviewed by the Committee, and two, whether Council wanted to eliminate any of the options, which could be done tonight and then discuss the process. Mayor Mulryan referred to the staff report stating staff does not recommend pursuing the garbage collection item because it does not apply throughout the City and asked why it could not be applied in Las Gallinas Sanitary District. City Manager Nicolai stated they have the responsibility for setting rates and if there were a Franchise fee imposed it would accrue to them. City Attorney Ragghianti stated he was not 100 percent sure but thought Ms. Nicolai was correct, and believed this to be a separate political entity from San Rafael. He noted if a Franchise fee were imposed, the City would not have any authority to impose it out of its jurisdic- tion, but asked to be able to check on this. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regul ) 8/15/88 Page 13 Finance Director Coleman stated if the City were to impose the Franchise fee, the garbage company would probably not be able to pass it on to the homeowners because Las Gallinas sets the rate they can charge, and noted the City could probably set a fee but it would come out of Marin Sanitary's revenues rather than being an add on to garbage. a. Increase in Hotel/Motel tax. Councilmember Frugoli stated he opposes all tax increases, noting it would be circumventing Proposition 13 and that consideration of tax increases should go to the voters. b. Increase in Overtime Parking Meter Fines. C. Establishment of Garbage Franchise Fee. d. Municipal Services Tax. e. Utility Users Tax. f. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Dr. Rafael Dufficy, President of the San Rafael Forward 2000 stated their concern is that the taxes will hit upon homeowners and felt the City should set up its fiscal priorities and if there is not enough money, then the people should have the right to know what the taxes are for and how long it will be used for. After further discussion, Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, that Items a and b be put on a future agenda for further discussion and public hearing (to be scheduled for September 19, 1988), and agreed not to pursue item c at this time; to further discuss setting up a broad based citizens committee to review and make recommendations on items d, a and f, and that City Manager Nicolai bring back to Council a Capital Improvement Program and a report on the composition of the committee after receiving suggestions from Council. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. J` JEANNEO�LEONCINI; City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1988 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 8/15/88 Page 13