Loading...
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