HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1986-07-07SRCC MINMS (Regular) 7 ,/86 Page 1
In the Conference Roomn 201 of the City of San Rafael, Monday, July 7, 1986
at 7:00 PM.
Regular Meeting:
CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM
1. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS -
File 1.4.1.a
No. 86-16(a) - (#2); No. 86-16(b) - (#2); No. 86-16(c) - (2);
No. 86-16(d) - (#2); No. 86-16(e) - (#2)
No action was taken.
In the Council Chambers of the City of San Rafael, Monday, July 7, 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
2. SWEARING IN OF NEWLY APPOINTED SAN RAFAEL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER
VITALY TROYAN (CC) - File 9-2-1
City Clerk Leoncini swore in Mr. Vitaly Troyan as the newly appointed
member of the San Rafael Board of Education, who was appointed to fill
the unexpired term of Jane Teitelbaum, who resigned effective July 1,
1986, to November 1987.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3.
5.
7.
9F
9.
12.
Approval of Minutes of Special
and Regular Meetings of
June 16, 1986 (CC)
Contract for General Plan
Revision With Donald Herzog
& Associates, Inc.,
Geotechnical Consultants (P1) -
File 4-3-172 x 115 x 10-2
Authorization to Call for
Bids - Mountain View Avenue
Storm Drain Improvements (PW) -
File 4-1-397 x 8-5 x 8-14
Resolution of Findings Granting
Appeal of Handicapped Access
Requirements - 1224-1226
Fourth Street (PW) -
File 13-1-1
Resolution Requesting County
Board of Supervisors to Continue
Sharing Underground Utility
Allocations With Cities of
Marin (PW) - File 12-18
Resolution of Appreciation,
Michael R. Peregrin, Architect,
Design Review Board Member
(P1) - File 102 x 9-2-39
13. Resolution of Appreciation,
Amanda Hall, Secretary -
Personnel (CM) - File 102 x
7-4
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approved Minutes as submitted.
RESOLUTION NO. 7372 - AUTHORIZING
SIGNING OF AGREEMENT WITH DONALD
HERZOG AND ASSOCIATES, GENERAL PLAN
REVISION GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
(Cost not to exceed $4,500)
Approved staff recommendation.
Funding to come from "unallocated
reserves".
RESOLUTION NO. 7373 - CITY COUNCIL
(IN ITS CAPACITY AS BOARD OF
APPEALS) GRANTING APPEAL FROM STATE
ACCESS REQUIREMENTS - 1224-1226
FOURTH STREET
RESOLUTION NO. 7374 - REQUESTING
THAT THE COUNTY OF MARIN BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS CONTINUE THE SHARING OF
PG&E RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY
ALLOCATIONS WITH THE CITIES OF
MARIN
RESOLUTION NO. 7375 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO MICHAEL R. PEREGRIN
(AS A MEMBER OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD FROM 1978 TO 1986)
RESOLUTION NO. 7376 - RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION TO AMANDA HALL (FOR
HER SERVICE IN THE PERSONNEL
DEPARTMENT OVER THE PAST FIFTEEN
MONTHS AS A ONE -WOMAN OFFICE)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/7/86 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular" 7/7/86 Page 2
14. Amendment to the California
Joint Powers Insurance Authority
Re City's Liability Insurance
(Fin) - File 4-10-202 x
9-6-1
15. Resolution Approving 1986/87
City of San Rafael Budget
(Fin) - File 8-5 x 9-3-11 x
9-3-1.4 x 9-3-16
16. Report on Canal Dredging
(PW) - File 12-10
17. Report Re Communication From
Marin Municipal Water District
on Water Quality From Russian
River (PW) - File 151
18. Selection of Architect for
Terra Linda Recreation Center
Renovation Project (PW) -
File 4-3-173 X 9-3-65
19. Legislation Affecting San Rafael
(CM) - File 9-1
20. Claims for Damages:
RESOLUTION NO. 7377 - RESOLUTION
APPROVING AND RATIFYING AMENDMENT
TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING
THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS
INSURANCE AUTHORITY (to require a
90 percent vote of the members to
change the agreement, instead of a
two-thirds vote)
RESOLUTION NO. 7378 - RESOLUTION
APPROVING THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR JULY 1, 1986 - JUNE 30, 1987
AND PROVIDING FOR THE
APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURE OF
ALL SUMS SET FORTH IN SAID BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO. 7379 - RESOLUTION
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 7225 TO
PROVIDE FOR INCREASE IN SALARY FOR
THE MANAGEMENT POSITION OF CITY
CLERK (5% Merit Award, effective
July 1, 1986)
RESOLUTION NO. 7380 - RESOLUTION
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 7266 AND
SETTING THE SALARY OF THE CITY
ATTORNEY (@ $5,000 per mo., effect-
ive July 1, 1986)
Accepted report.
Accepted report.
RESOLUTION NO. 7381 - RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF AGREEMENT
FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES WITH
FORSHER & GUTHRIE FOR RENOVATION
OF THE TERRA LINDA RECREATION
CENTER (@ Cost of $24,750, lowest
of four proposals received)
Approved staff recommendation:
OPPOSED Paul Gann's "California
Fair Pay Amendment."
Approved Insurance Consulting Asso-
ciates, Inc. recommendations for
denial of claims.
a. Linton Davis (PW) - File 3-1-1082
b. Louise Kleiber (PW) - File 3-1-1107
C. Antonino Calabro (PD) - File 3-1-1108
d. Jacqueline Penson (PW) - File 3-1-1117
e. Barbara Reiff (PW) - File 3-1-1118
f. Anthony & Kathleen Jones (PW) - File 3-1-1119
g. Edward & Joan Wishovich (PW) - File 3-1-1120
h. Erma Bridgett (PW) - File 3-1-1121
i. Paul Markavage (PW) - File 3-1-1125
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli (from Minutes of June 16, 1986
only due to absence from meetings).
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/7/86 Page 2
4.
6.
10.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular` 7/7/86 Page 3
STATUS REPORT ON MARIN RANCH (SMITH RANCH) AlxPORT (P1) - File 12-12
Mayor Mulryan relayed a question asked of him with respect to the
numbers of takeoffs and landings at the Marin Ranch Airport which have
caused a considerable amount of "touch and go" other than by the people
who rent the airport.
Planning Director Moore stated they have information on the activity
level, which is being used in the General Plan revision including noise
analysis, and that under the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) regulations,
the airport is not supposed to have any planes land other than those
that are based there.
Mr. Charles Wallace, President of the Marin Ranch Airport stated that
he also is concerned about the noise factor.
Mr. James Weese spoke against the noise, hazardous conditions and
nuisance of the airplanes.
After discussion, Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Nave
seconded, to accept the staff report and direct staff to bring back to
Council, an estimate on takeoffs and landings and whether they have
increased over the years; also, information from the Federal Aviation
Agency re use of the airstrip.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT - 1986 STREET RESURFAC-
ING PROJECT (PW) - File 4-1-396
Mayor Mulryan inquired of staff as to why the bid was higher than the
estimate.
Public Works Director Bernardi stated that the price per ton for oil
from the low bidder is $39.90 and the City estimated $45 per ton for
the asphalt. Mr. Bernardi also added that staff allocated $300,000
from Gas Tax funds for the resurfacing program and the low bid was
$202,000. The intention is to use the change order process to add to
the project up to the allocated amount of $300,000. By doing this,
almost one additional mile of streets could be paved.
Councilmember Frugoli suggested that staff prepare a list of the
streets to be paved and have it publicized for the public's
information.
In answer to Councilmember Russom's inquiry, Mr. Bernardi indicated
that the street paving will start about the end of July and finish
approximately the end of August 1986.
Councilmember Russom moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to
approve the Resolution awarding contract for the 1986 Street
Resurfacing Project and that staff be directed to prepare a list of
streets that will be paved and have it publicized.
RESOLUTION NO. 7382 - RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE 1986
STREET RESURFACING PROJECT TO W. R. FORDE
CONSTRUCTION (in amount of $202,004.75, as low
bidder)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
STATUS REPORT ON ANDERSEN DRIVE LAWSUIT WITH SANITARY DISTRICT NO. 1
(PW) - File 3-2-57 x 4-1-333
In response to Mayor Mulryan's inquiry as to when the City will go to
trial on the matter, City Attorney Ragghianti stated that it would be
the first quarter of 1987, anticipating February. Mr. Ragghianti
indicated he will be representing the City.
There being no further questions, Council accepted the report, without
motion.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/7/86 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular' 7/7/86 Page 4
11. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WITH MARIN POETRY CENTER
FOR RENTAL OF OFFICE SPACE AT FALKIRK (Lib/Cult.Affs) - File 4-10-205
Councilmember Breiner asked Recreation Director McNamee to come back to
Council with information as to whether the 47 cents per square foot is
higher or lower than what the City is being charged for Child Care
facilities.
RESOLUTION NO. 7383 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN
AGREEMENT WITH MARIN POETRY CENTER FOR RENTAL OF
OFFICE SPACE AT FALKIRK
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
21. PRESENTATIONS OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO: - File 102 x 9-2-39 x
7-4
a. Michael R. Peregrin, Design Review Board Member (P1)
Mayor Mulryan presented Mr. Peregrin with a Resolution of
Appreciation for his service on the Design Review Board from 1978 to
1986.
b. Amanda Hall, Secretary - Personnel (CM)
Mayor Mulryan recognized Amanda Hall for her dedication as Secretary
in the Personnel Department. Mrs. Hall was not present to accept a
Resolution of Appreciation.
22. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FROM STAFF DETERMINATION RE ORDINANCE NO. 1529
REQUEST BY MARIN AUTO FOR EXEMPTION FROM CITY'S MORATORIUM ORDINANCE
FOR PURPOSE OF OPERATING A TOWING SERVICE AT 180 GARY PLACE (P1) -
File 10-6 x 115
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Moore stated that this matter first came up in May
and has been continued several times at the request of the Appellant's
attorney.
John Sharp, Attorney for Mr. Calvin Wojciechowski re 180 Gary Place,
brought attention to two items in Moratorium Ordinance No. 1529:
1 - Staff's position re intensification of use. Therefore staff cannot
process the application given the Moratorium Ordinance. Mr. Sharp
stated that the applicant intends to use one tow truck and therefore
questions the use intensification. Also, whether or not sub -paragraph
(i) of Division 3 applies. Mr. Sharp indicated staff's position is
that there would be an increase of peak period traffic generation if
the use is granted, whereas it is his opinion that there is a
possibility that peak period traffic will decrease because there would
be enough tow trucks available in rotation to help with abandoned
vehicles, etc.
2 - Sub -paragraph (s) under Division 3 re Health and Safety in question
and Public Nuisance Abatement.
Mr. Sharp commented that he was led to believe that the Police
Department was exploring the need for another tow truck service and
indicated that his client would be interested if Council directed staff
to process the application.
Councilmember Frugoli asked Mr. Sharp if his client intended to operate
only one tow truck and Mr. Sharp replied affirmatively, but indicated
he would plan to expand his operation in the future. He stated that
staff could place a condition that his client could not expand during
the moratorium period. Councilmember Frugoli stated that under the tow
restrictions, the applicant would need to have a minimum of three tow
trucks for the reason that, should one be out of service the others
could be used on rotation.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public
hearing.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/7/86 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular 7/7/86 Page 5
Councilmember Breiner asked Police Chief Ingwersen if there is ample
tow truck coverage along the Highway 101 corridor, and he replied
affirmatively.
Councilmember Russom moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to deny
appeal and uphold staff determination that application cannot be
processed for 180 Gary Place during the effectiveness of Ordinance No.
1529.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
23. PUBLIC HEARING - Z86-1; ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE TO
PERMIT NEON IN SPECIFIC INSTANCES (P1) - File 10-3 x 125
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Moore stated that due to improved designs and the
increase in acceptability of neon, the Planning Commission recommended
by a vote of 4-2 that the Sign Ordinance be amended to permit the use
of neon in window signs, subject to the standard restrictions for
window signage and with review by the Design Review Board.
Councilmember Breiner commented on the recommendation made by the
Planning Commission, that was not contained in the Ordinance.
Ms. Moore indicated that it should have been in the Ordinance under a
separate section, and stated that the Ordinance would be revised to
include the following: "that all other use of nonconcealed neon in
wall, projecting or freestanding signs be subject to design review
approval by the Commission".
Mayor Mulryan directed Ms. Moore to have the Ordinance revised and
brought back at the next Council meeting of July 21, 1986.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan continued the hearing to
July 21, 1986.
24. PUBLIC HEARING - ED84-40(c); APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR/PLANNING
COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; 81 McNEAR DRIVE; L. J. LEWIS, OWNER
LUIS HERTO-ROJO, REP.; DENISE Y. RYAN, APPELLANT; A.P. 186-470-86 (P1)
File 10-7
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Moore stated that the appeal concerned a single
family home under construction at the end of McNear Drive going back to
April when the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the design
review amendment involving changes of exterior materials. The
Applicant requested several changes in materials at that time which
were denied by the Zoning Administrator and later went to the Planning
Commission on appeal. On June 10th, the Planning Commission upheld the
Zoning Administrator's decision, however, the decision was less
restrictive than the Zoning Administrator's decision and allowed the
Applicant to change some of the building materials not approved earlier
by the Zoning Administrator.
The appeal is based on the fact that the Planning Commission did not
require design review conditions of approval to be recorded against the
property and the modification of one permit which allows the use of
stucco and wood rib trim on the house.
Ms. Moore also stated that the Appellant objected to the appearance and
height of the building for which mitigation has taken place. For
example, windows and a deck were added to the boat storage and
racquetball court portion and landscape plans were altered twice to
provide for more evergreen trees to screen their property.
Regarding the matter of requiring the conditions of approval to be
recorded, the Planning Commission declared this to be onerous, putting
a cloud on the property. Ms. Moore indicated that this is not the
usual type of matter that is recorded and stated that the City
Attorney's office had similar concerns. Additionally, when properties
are sold, the Residential Building Report (RBR) lists all planning
permits and conditions of approval. The majority of the Planning
Commission felt that for a home of this size and expense, there would
be adequate maintenance of the landscaping.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/7/86 Page 5
SRCC MINliTES (REgular' 7/7/86 Page 6
The original design review called for fieldstone at the building base
and horizontal cedar siding above. The property owner requested that
the design review be amended to allow stucco and wood trim detailing in
tudor style in place of the cedar siding. The Zoning Administrator
denied the use of stucco on the basis of striving to maintain a
difference of individuality between this home and the one adjacent
which also is under construction. The Planning Commission determined
that the nude color stucco and wood trim were acceptable under the
Zoning Ordinance's design review guidelines. The adjacent residence
would remain distinct even if stucco and rib trim were used on both,
and one primary purpose of the design review was to mitigate visual
impacts of the ridgeline construction which were incorporated from the
beginning in the conditions of approval.
In reply to Councilmember Russom's question on recording, City Attorney
Ragghianti stated that if a document is recorded in the chain of title,
it will appear each time the search of the title is done in connection
with the transaction involving either the sale or financing of the
property. He noted that theoretically, it places the "entire world" on
what the law calls "constructive notice", the existence of a particular
condition affecting the property title. In this case, the request is
made that the City require, as a condition of design review, that the
conditions respecting the landscaping of the allegedly offensive
portion of the house be made a part of the chain in connection with the
record of ownership of the property.
Mr. Ragghianti stated that in his opinion this condition may not be
recorded against the owner's title without the owner's consent and that
the City may not require that it be recorded here without the consent
of the property owner.
Ms. Moore stated that the property owner objects to the recording.
Councilmember Breiner inquired whether the Design Review Board could
have assisted the Planning Commission, and referred to a letter from
the attorney of the owner dated May 16, 1986, which indicated that the
original approval for the three homes in the area was based on the fact
that the homes would be similar in size and configuration to others in
the area and "compatible with existing single family home
construction". Mrs. Breiner pointed out that the homes do not look
compatible with other single family homes in the neighborhood, adding
that because of the controversy, the Design Review Board should have
been asked to review this.
Ms. Moore stated that staff did not consider this to be controversial
and that the Ryan's were the only ones concerned.
Mayor Mulryan inquired if staff had determined it was controversial,
would it then be referred to design review, and Ms. Moore replied that
it could have, but that generally, single family homes are not referred
to design review because of the length of the Design Review Board
agendas, unless the Planning Commission makes that determination.
Mr. Jack Ryan of 78 McNear Drive stated that to correct the record, he
has support for his appeal from the Drowley's of 74 McNear Drive, the
Peacock Gap Homeowners Association and an absentee neighbor. Mr. Ryan
stated that they are asking that (1) the City require that the
conditions of approval of the Lewis home be recorded in order to give
the neighborhood the highest degree of protection that the evergreen
trees required by the City to screen the 23-1/2 foot structure will be
maintained by any future owner; and (2) to deny the stucco and wood
ribbing approved by the 3-2 Planning Commission decision and approve
instead, the wood siding originally requested by Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Ryan noted that recording the conditions of approval is the only
guarantee that a future owner will be on notice about the conditions,
adding that the accessory structure which houses the racquetball court
and boat storage area is enormous, built of eight feet of solid rock
wall topped by 16 feet of green slate roof rising from the rock wall.
Mr. Ryan stated that it is true that Mr. Lewis twice changed the
landscaping plans for the structure. First, because the trees Mr.
Lewis proposed to use to screen what was then a 22 foot structure, were
deciduous trees, providing little screening for most of the year.
The second time it was changed by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Lewis
raised the height of the building from 22
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/7/86 Page 6
b SRCC MINUTES (Regular' 7/7/86 Page 7
feet to 24 feet, without approval, and rather than force Mr. Lewis to
rebuild, the Zoning Administrator required that he plant evergreen
trees on the southeast side of the building to mitigate the massiveness
of the building.
Mr. Ryan indicated that they are not asking the City to impose any more
restrictions on Mr. Lewis, and noted that he is already obligated to
maintain the evergreen trees required by the City, but they are asking
that the conditions of approval be recorded to give the neighbors the
protection they should have that the trees will be maintained by any
future owner. Mr. Ryan stated that a letter dated June 30, 1986 from
Mr. Lewis incorrectly states that the City Attorney has advised the
staff that such a restriction constitutes an encumbrance and cloud on
title of the owner and cannot be imposed by the City without the
owner's consent. Mr. Ryan stated that this statement is not true as to
the recording of the conditions of approval, to the best of his
understanding from outside Counsel. The only opinion rendered by the
City Attorney prior to tonight, was in response to an original request
that an easement be granted to the City to guarantee maintenance of the
evergreen trees. They were not aware then about how to go about
guaranteeing maintenance of the trees and had asked that an easement be
granted, thinking this was the only means of assurance of maintenance
of the trees. Mr. Ryan indicated they are not now asking that an
easement be created. As for recording of conditions of approval, they
have been assured by their attorney that the City Attorney is in
agreement that such a recordation is legal. Mr. Tinney, attorney for
Mr. Lewis, has incorrectly construed the City Attorney's opinion as to
the legality of an easement to apply to their present request. In
response to Mr. Lewis' attorney's statement that the Ryan's objected to
almost every phase of the project, Mr. Ryan indicated that this is
untrue. Mr. Ryan submitted pictures of the two homes for Council
review.
Joseph Tinney, Attorney for Mr. L. J. Lewis, owner, who then introduced
Mr. Luis Huerto-Rojo, architect, stated that Mr. Lewis tried to meet
the concerns of the Planning Department and the neighbors, meeting with
the Ryan's to show them advance plans of his home and landscaping, with
samples of roof materials and changed the landscaping twice to meet all
objections. However, Mr. Tinney stated that the Ryan's were not
satisfied and objected to the home at almost every stage, i.e. plans,
landscaping, original designs and revisions, including having the
racquetball court being built, and at one time asked that a tennis
court be built instead; objected to a time extension once and later,
that the building was proceeding too rapidly.
Mr. Tinney continued to state that their request that the landscaping
conditions of approval be recorded, will put a cloud on the title which
will be unnecessary and burdensome. Mr. Tinney indicated that they do
object to the recording of this condition. The home is being built
tudor style and the Ryan's objection is that it is being built similar
to the Dill residence which is next to the Lewis' home. They ask that
Mr. Lewis be allowed, with his architect, to choose the materials he
wishes to have on the exterior of his home. He added that stucco has
been used on 22 homes on McNear Drive, and that the Ryan's home also
has some stucco, and stated that the home is similar to the Dill's home
but only that it is tudor in design. However, not all tudor homes look
alike because they are different in size, scale, construction, color,
etc., noting it is not designed to be a replica of the Dill's home, and
adding that Mr. Huerto-Rojo designed both homes to compliment each
other and asked that the City and neighbors not be allowed to design
the exterior of the home.
Mr. Tinney pointed out that the landscaping will largely screen the
view of the Lewis' home from the Ryan's home, and in fact, there is a
large water tank in back of the Lewis' home which is effectively
screened by landscaping. He then submitted photographs to the Council
showing Mr. Lewis' home and the Dill residence taken before the stucco
was applied to the Dill home and stated that the difference in design
was apparent.
Mayor Mulryan asked Mr. Tinney if Mr. Lewis objected to having the
landscaping conditions of approval recorded, and Mr. Tinney replied
that he does object.
Mr. Luis Herto-Rojo, architect for Mr. Ryan, spoke on the height of the
racquetball court requirements and the difference in size and shape of
the Lewis homne and the adjacent Dill home, and reiterated the
mitigation of the landscaping and exterior materials used on the home.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/7/86 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular* 7/7/86 Page 8
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public
hearing.
In response to Mayor Mulryan's question on the recordation, City
Attorney Ragghianti stated that the recordation cannot be imposed
without the owner's consent.
Councilmember Breiner asked Mr. Ragghianti whether the Residential
Building Report (RBR) was sufficient or if there was another mechanism
other than recordation that could be used, and Mr. Ragghianti replied
that other than the RBR, he knew of no other way except that the
purchasers of the property frequently inquire of the City concerning
the conditions involved, and that he had not seen a condition attached
to a grant of design review recorded in connection with the approval of
the architectural portion of a house. Mr. Ragghianti agreed with Mr.
Ryan that it is legally possible to record the document, the County
Recorder will permit the recordation and that it does not constitute a
cloud or encumbrance as those technical words are used in the law, but
that it is unnecessary and unwise for the City to require this of the
property owner as a condition of design review. If the owner does not
agree on the recordation, the City does not have the power to require
it as a condition of design review approval.
Councilemmber Breiner stated that some of the changes implemented by
Mr. Lewis were good changes, but under the circumstances, in terms of
the wood siding blending in with the ridgeline location, originally it
was a condition that was not contested by the Applicant. She
indicated that stucco is a major design difference in a sensitive
location, and that the wood siding should be maintained.
Councilmember Breiner moved that Council sustain the Ryan's appeal to
keep the horizontal wood siding condition on the Lewis home.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Councilmember Russom commented that the appeal touches on a broader
issue as to what the scope should be re the City's control over
architectural design in residential neighborhoods. Although he found
the homes to be dramatically out of character with the neighborhood, he
stated that taste is a subjective matter, and that the issues being
appealed are not significant enough to hold up the project. Mr. Russom
added that the City should give serious thought as to what, if any,
control the City has over the architecture in residential
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Breiner stated that historically, Council does not get
into a lot of design review in terms of residential, but noted Council
has stated that San Rafael's ridgelines are important and that it is
worth having it brought to Council to have a policy decision made.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to direct
staff to prepare a Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding the Planning
Commission Decision.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
25. EAST FOURTH STREET PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - File 6-41
Public Works Director Bernardi asked that this matter be brought back
to Council at the meeting of July 21, 1986 because the Engineer's
Report needed to be revised to reflect the reduced assessments.
Council agreed to have the matter of East Fourth Street Parking
Assessment District brought back at the meeting of July 21, 1986.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
9NI
JEAN -M-. LEONCCity Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1986
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/7/86 Page 8