HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1986-04-21SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 1
In Conference Room 201 of the City of San Rafael, Monday, April 21, 1986 at
7:00 PM.
Regular Meeting:
CLOSED SESSION
1. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION - File 1.4.1.a.
Nos. 86-10(a) - (#2); 86-10(b) - (#2); 86-10(c) - (#2); 86-10(d) - (#2);
86-10(e) - (#2).
No action was taken.
In the Council Chambers of the City of San Rafael, Monday, April 21, 1986 at
8:00 PM.
Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor
Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember
Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember
Richard Nave, Councilmember
Jerry Russom, Councilmember
Absent: None
Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City
Clerk; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
Mayor Mulryan announced that at a special meeting held tonight, the
following people were appointed to the Fire Commission and Board of
Review (Personnel):
a. Roger J. O'Donnell on Fire Commission and Jeremiah Sweeney as
alternate.
b. John Gilleran on Board of Review (Personnel) Alternate.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Russom seconded, to approve
the recommended action on the following consent calendar items:
Item
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular
Meeting of March 17, 1986 and
Special Joint Meeting with
Redevelopment Agency of
March 24, 1986 (CC)
3. Acceptance of Conveyances -
899 Northgate Drive: (PW)
a. Grant Deed of Street Right -
of -Way - File 2-2
b. Dorian Way Drainage
Improvements - File 2-14
4. Accept Proposals for Engineering
Services: (PW) -
a. Second and Irwin Streets
Safety Improvements -
File 4-1-393
b. Dorian Way Drainage Improve-
ments - File 4-1-394
Recommended Action
Approved as submitted.
RESOLUTION NO. 7326 - ACCEPTING
GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC
INGRESS AND EGRESS ON PRIVATE
SIDEWALK (899 NORTHGATE DRIVE)
RESOLUTION NO. 7327 - ACCEPTING
CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY
FROM HBC ONE, LTD.
Approved staff recommendation
Authorizing the Director of Public
Works to Accept the Proposals by
Copple, Foreaker & Associates for
the Design of: A) Second & Irwin
Streets Safety Improvements
($9,990) & B) Dorian Way Drainage
Improvements ($6,800)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 2
6. Report on Annual Filings - Fair
Political Practices Commission
Forms 730, Statements of
Economic Interests for Desig-
nated Employees, Including
Consultants (CC)- File 9-4-3
7. Resolution Amending Resolution
No. 7225 (Mid -Management) to
Provide for a New Classification
of "Principal Planner" (Pl) -
File 7-3
8. Report on Bid Opening and Award
of Contract for Pickleweed Park
Community Center - Fixed Stage
with Lift (PW) - File 4-2-205
9. Economic Consultant Contract for
General Plan Revision with
Richard Recht, Economic
Consultant (P1) - File 4-3-165
11. Approval of Basic Life Support
(BLS) Ambulance Contract for
Paramedic Area B (FD) -
File 4-3-105 x 9-3-31
12. Resolution Supporting Partici-
pation in California Main
Street Program (RA) - File 140 x
SRRA R-248
13. Request to Recruit for Librarian
III (Lib./Cul/Affs) -
File 9-3-61 x 7-3
14. Resolution Authorizing Acceptance
of Quit Claim Deed from Raymond
Piombo to the City of San Rafael
(PW) - File 2-12-1
15. Legislation Affecting San Rafael
(CM) - File 9-1
Accepted report.
RESOLUTION NO. 7328 - AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 7225 PERTAINING TO
THE COMPENSATION FOR MANAGEMENT
AND MID -MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES
(Re: Principal Planner Position)
(Minimum $2,860.17, maximum
$3,384.06)
RESOLUTION NO. 7329 - REJECTING THE
BID FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED
"PICKLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY CENTER,
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, INTERIOR
IMPROVEMENTS: FIXED STAGE WITH
LIFT"; Directed staff to negotiate
for the work on the open market.
RESOLUTION NO. 7330 - AUTHORIZING
SIGNING OF CONTRACT WITH RECHT-
HAUSRATH ASSOCIATES, ECONOMIC
CONSULTANT FOR GENERAL PLAN
REVISION
RESOLUTION NO. 7331 - AUTHORIZING
SIGNING OF A CONTRACT WITH UNITED
AMBULANCE SERVICE TO PROVIDE BASIC
LIFE SUPPORT EMERGENCY AMBULANCE
SERVICE TO PARAMEDIC AREA B (Sixty
months contract with 30 day termi-
nation notice by either party)
RESOLUTION NO. 7332 - RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING SUPPORT OF APPLICA-
TION BY SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
CALIFORNIA MAIN STREET PROGRAM
Approved staff recommendation
to recruit a Librarian III for
current Librarian II vacancy
RESOLUTION NO. 7333 - ACCEPTING
QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM RAYMOND
PIOMBO, et al
RESOLUTION NO. 7334 - SUPPORTING
PROPOSITION 43 WHICH PLACES BEFORE
THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA JUNE 3,
1986, A BOND MEASURE TO PROVIDE
FUNDING FOR PARKS AND RECREATIONAL,
DEVELOPMENT RESTORATION, LAND
ACQUISITION AND OTHER RELATED
PURPOSES
OPPOSED SB 2475 (City Payment to
the County for the Cost of
Administering Property Taxation)
OPPOSED AB 4388 (Wright) Restric-
tions on Business License Taxes
OPPOSED SB 1990 (McCorquodale)
Redevelopment. Mandatory Pass -
Through for Fire Districts.
OPPOSED SB 2522 (Maddy) AB 3858
(Calderon) Preclusion of Local
Regulation of Off -Sale Beer and
Wine Retailers.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 3
16. Claims for Damages: Approved Insurance Consulting
Associates, Inc. recommendations
a. Roy & Margaret Oakley (PW) - for denial for claims.
File 3-1-1057
b. Larry & Debra Wilkins (PD) -
File 3-1-1068
c. Robert S. & Brenda Hascall (PW) -
File 3-1-1075
d. Tim Gallagher (PD)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
5. REPORT ON BID OPENING - TURF RENOVATION EQUIPMENT (CM) - File 4-2-207
Councilmember Russom inquired of staff about the procedure of going to
the open market when rejecting bids, and Public Works Director Bernardi
stated that there are two assumptions: 1) That whatever price the City
pays will be less than what was bid on and budgeted; 2) That the
equipment comply with the specifications sent out in the regular bid
documents. If both are not met, the City would then go through the
whole bid process once more.
Councilmember Russom moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to approve
staff recommendation that Council reject the three bids received and
authorize the Purchasing Department to purchase on the open market.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
10. SELECTION OF AUDIT FIRM FOR CITY'S ANNUAL AUDIT (Fin) - File 8-1
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Russom seconded, to adopt
a Resolution authorizing a contract with Deloitte Haskins & Sells to
perform audits for the City for a three year period.
RESOLUTION NO. 7335 - AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH DELOITTE HASKINS &
SELLS (for audit services - July 1, 1985 to June
30, 1988)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
17. PUBLIC HEARING - GPA 85-1 & Z85-5; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
FOR McDONALD'S RESTAURANT; 170 MERRYDALE RD.; SHAUN & HELEN M.
WILTSHIRE/WILTSHIRE PROPERTIES, OWNERS; ANDREW JAMES RING III, R/M
ASSOC., REPS.; AP 179-104-04 & 07 (Pl) - File 10-3 x 10-1 x 115
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Moore stated that the necessary materials to complete
the applications submitted by McDonald's Corporation were received,
involving a General Plan amendment, a zoning action, use permit and
design review. The General Plan amendment is needed because of trips
allocated among sites in the Northgate Activity Center Plan; the
property would need to be rezoned consistent with the relocation of the
Northgate overlay, and fast food restaurants require use permits and
design review. She indicated that the matter tonight pertains to the
General Plan amendment and rezoning application.
William Bullard, attorney representing McDonald's Corporation,
introduced Mr. Larry Dorsey and Mr. Mike McGruder, owner and operator of
the project, noting they were available to answer questions by Council.
Mr. Bullard stated that the action to be taken tonight on the denial
without prejudice, is a procedural act on the Council's part and does
not apply to the consideration of the McDonald's project on its merits.
He also expressed concern about the order of the processing of new
applications or the resubmitted applications when the moratorium is
SRCC MINUTES (regular) 4/21/86 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 4
lifted and indicated that McDonald's will cooperate throughout the
General Plan revision process.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public
hearing.
RESOLUTION NO. 7336 - RESOLUTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATIONS
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR A FAST
FOOD RESTAURANT AT 170 MERRYDALE ROAD
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Breiner asked whether staff has developed a method of
prioritizing requests for processing projects when the moratorium is
lifted.
Planning Director Moore indicated her staff has been requested to
develop procedures by the end of next month on how the processing of
applications will be handled anad stated she hoped to have
recommendations ready to present to the Planning Commission and City
Council for consideration well in advance of the lifting of the
moratorium in September.
Staff's intent is to set up a procedure whereby those applications that
have been withdrawn and/or denied without prejudice during or as a
result of the General Plan revision are given special accommodations at
such time when business is "as usual" after the moratorium is lifted.
18. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF HANDICAPPED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS - 1050 FOURTH
STREET, (NEW HORIZONS SAVINGS AND LOAN) (PW) - File 13-1-1
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Public Works Director Bernardi stated that New Horizons Savings and Loan
is moving into a space which was previously occupied by the First
Commercial Bank and plans to have minor modifications done. Because the
building permits require the handicapped accessibility, provisions have
been addressed. Staff has determined that the cost of remodeling the
bathroom is far in excess of $600. Marin Center for Independent Living
agrees that it would be an unreasonable hardship.
Mayor Mulryan stated that a suggestion was made to him that, in light of
a number of proposals of this nature, handicapped access bathrooms are
not being built and directed staff to investigate the idea of creating a
fund for handicapped access improvements.
Mr. Bernardi indicated that staff has researched the matter and found
there is no State legislation that provides for this type of "in -lieu"
fee. However, staff will do further investigation on the matter.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public
hearing.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, that the
City Council, sitting as the Board of Appeals, determined after hearing
all testimony, that in this particular case the provision of handicapped
accessible toilet rooms would represent an unreasonable hardship, and
directed staff to prepare an appropriate Resolution with Findings and
bring said Resolution back for adoption at the next meeting.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
19. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY
APPROVE A TIME EXTENSION FOR LOCH LOMOND UNIT #10, A 30 LOT SUBDIVISION;
LAS CASAS AVENUE, INVERNESS DRIVE; FERNLEA PROPERTIES, INC., OWNER;
OBERKAMPER & ASSOCIATES, REP.; LOCH LOMOND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
APPELLANT; AP 186-031-02 & 06 AND 186-520-17 & 18 (P1) - File 10-8
Mayor Mulryan opened the public hearing.
SRCC MINUTES (regular) 4/21/86 Page 4
F �ISED
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 5
Planning Director Moore responded to Mayor Mulryan's question on
addressing the geological questions by stating that staff's
recommendation to have a Resolution of Denial without Prejudice
prepared is not based on any of the additional studies, but as in the
case of the McDonald's project discussed earlier, has to do with the
timing of the matter coming up now while the General Plan revision is
being done.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated that on April 17, 1986, he received a
letter from Attorney Joseph Lemon re the hearing of the appeal on the
basis of the provision of the Subdivision Map Act specifically, Section
66452.5(d). Mr. Ragghianti replied to a second letter addressed to the
City Council in connection with the appeal on a broader area. He stated
that in his judgment, the Council does have jurisdiction to hear the
appeal of the appellants which he cited in his letter to Mr. Lemon,
stating that the California Supreme Court has stated certain rules
relative to the time limits within which acts must be accomplished as
established by statutes or ordinances. Mr. Lemon was advised that the
general rule in California is that the requirements relating to time
when an act must be accomplished are directory rather than mandatory or
jurisdictional unless a contrary intent is clearly established.
On January 15, 1985, the Planning Commission approved a time extension
on a Tentative Map for the applicant, and on January 30, 1985, there was
an appeal taken from that determination. Staff advised the appellants
that the proper appeal period was 15 days rather than 10 days which was
set forth in the City's Code and also in the Subdivision Map Act, based
upon the wording of the Section cited by Mr. Lemon which reduced the
time from 15 days to 10 days. The law was recently changed back from 15
days to 10 days.
Mr. Ragghianti concluded that the appellants relied upon the advice
given to them by the City and indicated that Mr. Ham, the developer, did
not object until recently. The consequences to the appellants in
refusing to allow the appeal would be that it would not be heard tonight
and the City would be precluded entirely on any hearing on the matter.
In addition, neither the Subdivision Map Act nor the City of San
Rafael's Code provide or suggest a penalty for failure to file an appeal
in a timely fashion. The 5 -day delay involved in this case in
connection with the filing of the appeal, was not substantial or
prejudicial to the applicant. Section 1.08.010 provides that the
provisions of the Municipal Code and all proceedings under it are to be
liberally construed to effect its objectives and to promote justice.
Mr. Ragghianti indicated that for the reasons stated that the City
Council has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and whatever the
determination is, that staff be directed to prepare a Resolution of
Findings and bring it to Council at the next meeting for Council's
approval.
Associate Planner Jensen stated that the history of the subdivision
started back in the late 1970's. The tentative map was approved in 1981
by the Planning Commission, consisting of 30 single family lots North of
Loch Lomond in Villa Real, and for two years there was no further
action, until the applicant requested a time extension in 1983. Because
of the storms in 1982/83, damage was done to some of the downstream
properties. Staff was then directed to prepare additional geologic
studies and have them forwarded to the Planning Commission, and
recommended that staff hold neighborhood meetings to solicit comments.
In January 1985, the extension was granted with a revised Negative
Declaration. An appeal was filed by the Loch Lomond Homeowners
Association, and after a lengthy discussion (on February 19, 1985) the
Council closed the hearing and referred the matter back to staff to
report on a number of items which mostly pertained to geology, soil and
drainage. The appeal was to be considered in January of 1986, but
because of the moratorium it was held over and the City Attorney
has determined that the processing of the appeal is exempt from the
moratorium.
Although all the studies prepared to date indicate that the site is
probably developable and the subdivision is probably feasible, the
moratorium makes a number of changes on how the project is reviewed.
The Subdivision Map Act requires findings that the project is consistent
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 5
Planning Director Moore responded to Mayor Mulryan's question on
addressing the geological questions by statinq that staff's
recommendation to have a Resolution of Denial without Prejudice
prepared is not based on any of the additional studies, but as in the
case of the McDonald's project discussed earlier, has to do with the
timing of the matter coming up now while the General Plan revision is
being done.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated that on April 17, 1986, he received a
letter from Attorney Joseph Lemon re the hearing of the appeal on the
basis of the provision of the Subdivision Map Act specifically, Section
66452.5(d). Mr. Ragghianti replied to a second letter addressed to the
City Council in connection with the appeal on a broader area. He stated
that in his judgment, the Council does have jurisdiction to hear the
appeal of the appellants which he cited in his letter to Mr. Lemon,
stating that the California Supreme Court has stated certain rules
relative to the time limits within which acts must be accomplished as
established by statutes or ordinances. Mr. Lemon was advised that the
general rule in California is that the requirements relating to time
when an act must be accomplished are directory rather than mandatory or
jurisdictional unless a contrary intent is clearly established.
On January 15, 1985, the Planning Commission approved a time extension
on a Tentative Map for the applicant, and on January 30, 1985, there was
an appeal taken from that determination. Staff advised the appellants
that the proper appeal period was 15 days rather than 10 days which was
set forth in the City's Code and also in the Subdivision Map Act, based
upon the wording of the Section cited by Mr. Lemon which reduced the
time from 15 days to 10 days. The law was recently changed back from 15
days to 10 days.
Mr. Ragghianti concluded that the appellants relied upon the advice
given to them by the City and indicated that Mr. Ham, the developer, did
not object until recently. The consequences to the appellants in
refusing to allow the appeal would be that it would not be heard tonight
and the City would be precluded entirely on any hearing on the matter.
In addition, neither the Subdivision Map Act nor the City of San
Rafael's Code provide or suggest a penalty for failure to file an appeal
in a timely fashion. The 5 -day delay involved in this case in
connection with the filing of the appeal, was not substantial or
prejudicial to the applicant. Section 1.08.010 provides that the
provisions of the Municipal Code and all proceedings under it are to be
liberally construed to effect its objectives and to promote justice.
Mr. Ragghianti indicated that for the reasons stated that the City
Council has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and whatever the
determination is, that staff be directed to prepare a Resolution of
Findings and bring it to Council at the next meeting for Council's
approval.
Associate Planner Jensen stated that the history of the subdivision
started back in the late 1970's. The tentative map was approved in 1981
by the Planning Commission, consisting of 30 single family lots North of
Loch Lomond in Villa Real, and for two years there was no further
action, until the applicant requested a time extension in 1983. Because
of the storms in 1982/83, damage was done to some of the downstream
properties. Staff was then directed to prepare additional geologic
studies and have them forwarded to the Planning Commission, and
recommended that staff hold neighborhood meetings to solicit comments.
In January 1985, the extension was granted with a revised Negative
Declaration. An appeal was filed by the Loch Lomond Homeowners
Association, and after a lengthy discussion (on February 19, 1985) the
Council closed the hearing and referred the matter back to staff to
report on a number of items which mostly pertained to geology, soil and
drainage. The appeal was to be considered in January of 1986, but
because of the moratorium it was held over and the City Attorney
has determined that the processing of the appeal is exempt from the
moratorium.
Although all studies prepared to date conclude that the site is
developable and the subdivision is feasible, the moratorium makes a
number of changes on how the project is reviewed. The Subdivision Map
Act requires findings that the project is consistent with the City's
SRCC MINUTES (regular) 4/21/86 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 6
General Plan and, because of the revision, the City's hillside
development policies will likely change as well as slope density
provisions of the subdivision ordinance. These are the reasons for the
staff recommendation of denial without prejudice, which is not a denial
based on the merits of the project but on the present General Plan
circumstances.
Assistant Public Works Director Strom stated that of the 10 issues that
needed to have addressed, the critical issue was the stability of the
lots on the Westerly end of the subdivision off La Casas Drive. At the
hearing held in February 1985, retired geologist Mr. Salem Rice made
comments and presented staff with a letter wherein he questioned the
stability of those lots in that area of the subdivision without further
subterranean investigations, which caused uncertainty with the Council,
staff and public.
From an inter -department memorandum of January 17, 1986, Mr. Strom gave
a summation of the steps that were taken.
1. Cooper Engineers was retained by the applicants to have a subsurface
investigation done, and the property was found stable and suitable
for development. However, there was one concern on a large area
above the lots, off the site and on private property which had no
subsurface information.
2. The owner of the offsite property that had no subsurface
investigation done, Mr. Glen Brown, commissioned Donald Herzog and
Associates to do a soils investigation on his property for
development, and that information was submitted to the Planning
Department when he requested a building permit. This information
was also made available to the applicant and his engineers.
3. The Loch Lomond and Villa Real Homeowners Associations then retained
Dr. David Rogers of Rogers/Pacific on October 28, 1985, who
specializes in geotechnical engineering. Dr. Rogers then made some
recommendations that he felt needed to be looked into.
4. In order to address and compile the new information made by Cooper
Engineers, Herzog and Rogers, the applicant hired Van Houten
Consultants in November 8, 1985, to combine the information into one
report and did some additional field investigation and test borings
and test pits. Mr. Van Houten worked closely with Dr. Rogers
with the result that the final report prepared was generally
consistent with the recommendations made by Dr. Rogers.
5. The final report was reviewed by Dr. Rogers and in conversation with
Mr. Strom, Dr. Rogers agreed with the findings of the Van Houten
Consultants, and indicated that if the results were strictly adhered
to, the site could be safely developed and not pose a hazard to
downstream property. Dr. Rogers commented that the final plan
should be reviewed by hydrologists and a soils engineer, and that
the design of silt basins should be constructed to be easily
maintained.
Mr. Strom then responded to some of the issues that were brought up at
the last meeting of February 19, 1985.
A suggestion was made to have new information reviewed by the
Geotechnical Review Board as well as Mr. Dominic Selmi reviewing the
hydrology. As more specific information was created, it pointed toward
the safety of the project and there was nothing involved that refuted
the original assumptions made in earlier reports. Therefore, after
reviewing this with the Public Works Department, it was found that it
was not necessary to send this out for a geotechnical review since it
was reviewed by the homeowners' engineer. The hydrology calculations
prepared by the applicant's engineer were reviewed by Mr. Selmi and
staff and also reviewed by Mr. Ray Foreaker of Copple and Foreaker
Engineers who found them to be in order. Attention was directed to the
entrance of the pipes rather than the adequacy of the size of the pipes
as the most critical factor of the hydrological aspects of the project.
The remainder of the concerns did not specifically relate to the eight
lots which were the paramount issue, and Mr. Strom mentioned the
underground springs, a house that was destroyed in the winter storms of
SRCC MINUTES (regular) 4/21/86 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 7
1982 in Lindenwood Court, and what similarities there might be between
this development and the previous occurrence. Another issue was the
maintenance of the drainage facilities in the Loch Lomond area which
receives the same level of maintenance that all the drainage facilities
throughout the City receive, which are routinely patrolled and
maintained on an "as needed" basis; and prior to every winter they are
checked and cleaned.
Re the cost of maintaining the silt basins as part of the development,
the silt ends up in the City -maintained facilities and it is only a
matter of taking it out upstream of the facilities rather than at the
bottom of the hill. There would be a cost associated with maintaining
the silt basins which could amount to several thousand dollars per year,
but it also could be offset by what it would cost for the City to
maintain the downstream facilities.
The issue of Lots 23 and 24 to have some mitigating work done have
proven to be stable and have not created any further problems.
A suggestion was made regarding having the recommendations of the
various soils reports incorporated into the "conditions of approval"
which is not staff's normal procedure. Considering the length of the
conditions and overlapping, it would create an unwieldy document. Staff
proposed a condition where all of the reports generated to date, would
be identified in the conditions of approval, and the recommendations
would be adhered to and wherever there are differences, the superior
condition would prevail.
Another concern was the sequence of work and the completion of the
project. In this project, which are custom homes, there is no way of
knowing how long it will take to complete, however, in the course of the
subdivision improvements, the City would require that all of the major
grading be done so that when the lots are built upon, it would require a
minimal amount of grading.
Mr. Strom gave four additional recommendations for the conditions of
approval as follows:
1. Referencing the various geotechnical reports which have been
prepared.
2. Final plans to be reviewed and signed by the soils engineer and the
hydrologist to insure compliance with their recommendations.
3. Final plans to be reviewed and signed by a hydrologist to insure
that the proposed facilities are adequate to function under all
projected conditions.
4. Permanent siltation basins and trash collection facilities shall be
constructed at the entrances to all pipes where determined necessary
by the City Engineer. These facilities shall be designed to be
easily accessible for maintenance with mechanical equipment.
Mr. Strom concluded his report by stating that the most important aspect
of the project is the follow through on the work which should be
supervised by a soils engineer which was in the original conditions of
approval.
Mayor Mulryan clarified that because of the revision being done on the
General Plan, staff's recommendation on this project is not to review
this project on its merits tonight, but to deny the extension of the
appeal without prejudice, and Mr. Strom indicated that was correct.
Joe Lemon, attorney representing the developers Messrs. Robert Ham and
John Leahy, indicated that it would be unfair if Council granted the
appeal as recommended by staff and asked Council not to grant the
appeal, stating that the project is consistent with the General Plan as
it exists today.
Mrs. Marianne A. Shaw representing Loch Lomond Homeowners' Association,
stated that after listening to the reports presented by staff, that her
conclusions did not match.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 8
Mrs. Shaw referred to a letter from Mr. Keith Bergman to Mr. Strom
indicating that Mr. Strom asked Mr. Bergman to comment on the area of
Las Casas Drive as discussed, and that subsequently, reports from
Cooper Engineers dated July 24, 1985, Rogers/Pacific dated October 28,
1985 and Don McEdwards dated December 1985 are only of the Las Casas
area with no new information relating on the Eastern portion or
Inverness side of the proposed subdivision site. Mrs. Shaw pointed out
that in tonight's staff report, staff claims that all problems have been
studied and addressed in detail which she did not agree with, and read
eight problems from the initial report from Dr. David Rogers dated
October 28, 1985; quoted parts of a report by Cooper and Clark dated
July 4, 1985 on erosion, asking staff to give them a copy of the formula
used for the analysis; questioned the validity of four underground
springs being on the Las Casas property and produced a map from the
Cooper report showing what she thought were underground springs.
Councilmember Russom interjected stating that the information Mrs. Shaw
was producing was relevant, but questioned it being applied to the
hearing. Mayor Mulryan stated that the staff's recommendation was for
Council not to decide on the merits tonight, bur rather, to deny the
appeal for extension without prejudice until the moratorium process is
done, and was puzzled as to all the information Mrs. Shaw was
presenting.
Councilmember Russom stated that his understanding of what the Council
is to decide on, is whether or not the Planning Commission should be
upheld on its decision on the time extension, and that the questions of
geologic concerns and technical aspects would be handled when the
project is before the Council on its merits.
Mrs. Shaw continued to give a synopsis of a report done by the
consultant hired through the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association.
Mr. Craig Spencer of 60 Las Casas Drive urged the City Council to adopt
the recommendation made by staff.
Mr. John Leahy, the developer, stated that this development is of an
unusual situation in that there were serious hazards on the off-site
properties. They were able to get the cooperation of the adjacent
property owners and bring their experts onto the property to take care
of the problem. They, as private developers, propose to take care of
the hazards with their own money which would cost several hundred
thousand dollars. A law enacted last year states that wherein there are
sales or resales of houses, the owner or representative must disclose
any hazards that might exist on the property, and with this project,
there is a real possibilty of financial damage. Mr. Leahy indicated
that the developers are proposing a solution to this problem which is
not located on their property, and that as a matter of public safety and
property rights, they should be given more than a little technical
consideration.
Mr. Goodmanson of 36 Inverness Drive was in agreement with the
recommendation made by Mrs. Shaw to have further studies done on the
Eastern or Northeastern end of the project because of springs found on
adjacent properties.
Mrs. Marianne Shaw spoke as a private citizen rather than as President
of the Loch Lomond Homeowners Association, stating that the hills are
classified as highly unstable requiring more than the average standards
of engineering and up-to-date figures, and noted she does not want to be
inundated by flood waters, mud, etc. as a result of poor planning.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public
hearing.
Planning Director Moore commented on the scope of the General Plan
revision and application to the project, stating that at the time this
project was originally reviewed in the early 1980's, it was standard
practice for the City to expect to accept open space dedications. Since
1981, much has been learned from the time this project was approved by
the Planning Commission. A major area of investigation for open space
and conservation and safety portions of the revised General Plan is
going to be what should be the City's policy posture for acceptance of
open space dedications, particularly in potential or hazardous hillside
SRCC MINUTES (regular) 4/21/86 Page 8
REVISED
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 9
areas. It is not just a matter of developing and implementing a policy
of not accepting it and leaving it to the responsibility of the
Homeowners Association. The City's reason for not accepting an open
space dedication has to do with liability exposure and ongoing
maintenance costs, and concerns about the homeowner/condominiums
associations' ability to properly manage that kind of land. If it is
not managed properly, it then comes back into the public domain. This
is being investigated by staff.
Mayor Mulryan commented on some of the reports presented as to some of
the disagreements, and stated that these issues are to be clarified
before a decision is made by Council.
Councilmember Russom moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to grant
the appeal with a Resolution of Denial without Prejudice to be brought
back for adoption at the next meeting, and that when the time comes for
the project to be considered on its merits, Council should have all the
necessary materials before them.
Councilmember Breiner directed staff to bring back to Council, not only
a technical report but requested that an examination be made on risk
management and liability, and that Council have a field trip of the
entire site. She also requested copies of all the recent reports.
City Attorney Ragghianti elaborated on comments made by Councilmember
Russom on the General Plan by stating that current California law does
not require that any reason be expressed as to extension of the
tentative map. The request was made to extend the map and the Planning
Commission recommended that it be extended and an appeal was taken.
Coincidentally, because of the passage of time since the appeal was
taken and the lawsuit which attacks the current validity of the General
Plan, it is a fact that the City's General Plan is being updated and
amended. Mr. Ragghianti pointed out that Section 15.56.030 gives the
Council the right to overrule or modify the Planning Commission's
decision and to enter any such order as may be in harmony with the
spirit and purpose of the San Rafael Municipal Code. Technically
speaking, the determination originally made that this tentative map
complies with the General Plan, may not now be questioned. Mr.
Ragghianti continued to state that since Council is being asked to
extend the map, that Council can conclude that, since the plan is being
updated, they may look at this request for an extension in a new light,
and that this staff report should be accepted in that vein.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that some good points were made about the
Easterly end and that it should be looked into once more. He indicated
that the Peacock Gap/Loch Lomond area was probably not one of the areas
where our General Plan was invalid, but was probably more consistent
than any other area, and is still consistent with the neighborhood plan.
He agreed with Ms. Moore on the open space problem, indicating that
instead of dedicated open space, the Council should look at open space
easements from the developers back to the City, with the City not being
responsible for the actual maintenance.
Councilmember Nave commented that when Council addresses this project
again, all of the answers should be available for Council to make their
decision, noting that it has cost thousands of dollars for the
homeowners and hundreds of thousands of dollars for the developers.
Councilmember Breiner suggested that the Loch Lomond Homeowners
Association president or officers be brought into the process so there
may be some "meeting of the minds" before the project is presented
to the City Council again.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
20. PUBLIC HEARING - ED85-101; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITION OF
APPROVAL REGARDING CORNICE TREATMENT AT FELTON VOLKSWAGEN/AUDI; 601
FRANCISCO BLVD. EAST; LEON C. FELTON, OWNER; HAROLD S. LEZZENI, REP. &
APPELLANT; AP 14-203-01, 02, 10 & 11 (Pl) - File 10-7
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 9
areas. It is not just a matter of developing and implementing a policy
of not accepting it and leaving it to the responsibility of the
Homeowners Association. The City's reason for not accepting an open
space dedication has to do with liability exposure and ongoing
maintenance costs, and concerns about the homeowner/condominiums
associations' ability to properly manage that kind of land. If it is
not managed properly, it then comes back into the public domain. This
is being investigated by staff.
Mayor Mulryan commented on some of the reports presented as to some of
the disagreements, and stated that these issues are to be clarified
before a decision is made by Council.
Councilmember Russom moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to grant
the appeal with a Resolution of Denial without Prejudice to be brought
back for adoption at the next meeting, and that when the time comes for
the project to be considered on its merits, Council should have all the
necessary materials before them.
Councilmember Breiner directed staff to bring back to Council, not only
a technical report but requested that an examination be made on risk
management and liability, and that Council have a field trip of the
Eastern portion. She also requested copies of all the recent reports.
City Attorney Ragghianti elaborated on comments made by Councilmember
Russom on the General Plan by stating that current California law does
not require that any reason be expressed as to extension of the
tentative map. The request was made to extend the map and the Planning
Commission recommended that it be extended and an appeal was taken.
Coincidentally, because of the passage of time since the appeal was
taken and the lawsuit which attacks the current validity of the General
Plan, it is a fact that the City's General Plan is being updated and
amended. Mr. Ragghianti pointed out that Section 15.56.030 gives the
Council the right to overrule or modify the Planning Commission's
decision and to enter any such order as may be in harmony with the
spirit and purpose of the San Rafael Municipal Code. Technically
speaking, the determination originally made that this tentative map
complies with the General Plan, may not now be questioned. Mr.
Ragghianti continued to state that since Council is being asked to
extend the map, that Council can conclude that, since the plan is being
updated, they may look at this request for an extension in a new light,
and that this staff report should be accepted in that vein.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that some good points were made about the
Easterly end and that it should be looked into once more. He indicated
that the Peacock Gap/Loch Lomond area was probably not one of the areas
where our General Plan was invalid, but was probably more consistent
than any other area, and is still consistent with the neighborhood plan.
He agreed with Ms. Moore on the open space problem, indicating that
instead of dedicated open space, the Council should look at open space
easements from the developers back to the City, with the City not being
responsible for the actual maintenance.
Councilmember Nave commented that when Council addresses this project
again, all of the answers should be available for Council to make their
decision, noting that it has cost thousands of dollars for the
homeowners and hundreds of thousands of dollars for the developers.
Councilmember Breiner suggested that the Loch Lomond Homeowners
Association president or officers be brought into the process so there
may be some "meeting of the minds" before the project is presented
to the City Council again.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
20. PUBLIC HEARING - ED85-101; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITION OF
APPROVAL REGARDING CORNICE TREATMENT AT FELTON VOLKSWAGEN/AUDI; 601
FRANCISCO BLVD. EAST; LEON C. FELTON, OWNER; HAROLD S. LEZZENI, REP. &
APPELLANT; AP 14-203-01, 02, 10 & 11 (Pl) - File 10-7
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 10
Planning Director Moore stated that on March 11, 1986, the Planning
Commission granted conditional approval of the Environmental Design for
this project, and the Applicant has appealed the conditions for
treatment of the cornice element on the facade as recommended by the
Design Review Board. The Applicant proposes a three foot wide cornice
extending four feet beyond the wall into the public right-of-way and
onto an adjacent property under separate ownership. Staff has been
supportive of proposed improvements of highly visible sites along
Highway 101 Francisco Boulevard area, however, does not agree with this
design.
Mr. Harold Lezzeni, Architect for the project maintained that the
cornice is within the code because it is on the top of the wall and
allowed to encroach onto the public right-of-way. His clients and the
principals of the Audi and Volkswagon car dealers agree with the
preferred drawing before the Council tonight.
Mayor Mulryan ascertained from Mr. Lezzeni whether issues with the
adjacent owners were settled and Mr. Lezzeni responded they were, and
that the only issue before the Council is the public right-of-way
encroachment issue.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public
hearing.
Councilmember Nave moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to uphold
the appeal.
During discussion, Councilmember Breiner indicated she agreed with the
Design Review Board's recommendation.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
21. CANALWAYS' RE UEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF EXEMPTION FROM CITY'S MORATORIUM
(Pl) - File 1 5
Planning Director Moore stated that prior to the March 3, 1986 City
Council public hearing on the Interim Emergency Ordinance No. 1524,
Canalways' representatives submitted a large volume of material
requesting an exemption from the Ordinance, and staff was to report back
to Council in May. Since the March 3rd hearing, architect Jim Ring, a
new representative for Canalways submitted an urgent request that the
project be exempt and that Council consider the matter tonight. The
basis for the request is that Canalways' representatives will be unable
to process the applications during the moratorium and due to the
position of the Corps of Engineers, the project is "at risk". A letter
written by the Corps of Engineers states "the City of San Rafael has
indicated to you (Coldoff, Canalways representative) that they are
unable to proceed with their review and approval until such time as the
service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) has reviewed and accepted the
plan". Ms. Moore indicated this statement is not accurate, noting it is
not for lack of Planning action that this project has been before the
City for a long period of time; it has been changed by the Applicant
numerous times to make the project more sensitive, but additionally, the
processing has been affected by the preparation of the East San Rafael
Neighborhood Plan, and is highly prejudicial to the General Plan
revision.
In response to a question posed by Mayor Mulryan re the Corps granting
an extension during the moratorium period, Ms. Moore responded that in
talking with the Corps they indicated there was no prohibition against
re -submittals, but noted she did not ask the Corps whether that
question had been asked by Canalways.
Councilmember Frugoli indicated that the question should be asked to the
Corps of Engineers, and a letter be written to the Corps asking for an
extension.
Ms. Barbara Salzman, representing Marin Audubon, stated that she
telephoned the Corps of Engineers, and commented that it made no sense
that the applicant could not receive a new permit.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 11
Councilmember Russom moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to deny
the request for exemption from the provisions of Ordinance No. 1529, and
that the City send a letter to the Corps of Engineers stating Council's
support for a new application at the proper time.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
22. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY DEXTER TOYOTA, INC. FOR THE DEFERMENT OF FIRE
DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS (445 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD) (FD) - File 9-3-31
Councilmember Breiner was concerned about an irregularity in the process
re an additional 3600 square foot addition at Dexter Toyota, and
directed staff to have a revision made to the "tickler system" to assure
that final inspections are made in a timely manner.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, that due
to the possible modification of the structure in the near future as an
Auto Center, Council approved deferring Fire Department requirements on
the 3600 square foot addition to the Auto Service area for a two (2)
year period, subject to a Letter of Credit being submitted by Mr. George
Dexter and approval by the City Attorney for the cost of the Fire
Department's conditions as determined by an architect's estimate.
If progress has not been made on Mr. Dexter's proposed Auto Center in
two (2) years from the date of the appeal, the Letter of Credit shall be
used to complete the improvements as originally constituted.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
23. REQUEST BY MARIN HOUSING CENTER FOR EXEMPTION FROM CITY'S MORATORIUM
ORDINANCE FOR AN EMERGENCY SHELTER (Pl) - File 13-16
Mayor Mulryan pointed out that what was not before Council tonight was
a proposal on the merits of the housing center, but rather a request for
a ruling on whether or not this project is exempt from the moratorium
Ordinance, noting there was much correspondence received in support of
granting the exemption.
Deputy City Attorney Casey stated that in staff's opinion, Division 3(s)
(Health & Safety) would be an appropriate exemption.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to grant
an exemption for the Emergency Shelter as requested by the Marin Housing
Center, under Division 3(s) of Ordinance No. 1529, (Health and Safety)
and to allow processing of their application.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
24. REQUEST COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE FIRE ENGINE FOR CSA 19 (FD) -
File 9-3-31
Fire Chief Marcucci stated that the contract with CSA #19 was approved
by the voters on April 8, 1986 and the County contributed $55,000 for a
new fire engine. Initially in January, the bid price was $128,164 and
the manufacturer was asked to hold that price until the April election.
The price of this fire engine was reduced because of modifications made,
taking into consideration the $55,000 contributed by the County. Staff
feels that it would be economical at this time to have a second fire
engine purchased. In essence the City is purchasing a fire engine that
cost $124,000 for $34,000.
RESOLUTION NO. 7337 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A FIRE
ENGINE UTILIZING EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUNDS (with
the City contributing $34,000)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 12
ADD ITEM:
1. FEDERAL LEGISLATION RESTRICTING USE OF REDEVELOPMENT BONDS - File 140 x
(SRRA R-140 IX)
Mayor Mulryan stated that a letter was received from U.S. Senator Pete
Wilson urging the City to oppose HR 3838, the "Tax Reform Act of 1985".
If the bill is passed, it would limit the ability to use Redevelopment
funds. Staff was asked to have this matter on the agenda for the
meeting of May 5, 1986.
There being no further business, Mayor Mulryan adjourned the meeting in
memory of Mrs. Genevieve Fitzharris, who was active in the saving of elm
trees in the community of San Rafael.
JEA -Pt`, LEONCINI, C'�ty lerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1986
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/86 Page 12