Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1987-07-06R E V I S E D SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 6, 1987 at 7:00 PM. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a 1. No. 87-13(a) - (#1) Judith Jedeikin vs. PG&E, City of San Rafael, et al. No. 87-13(b) - (#2). No. 87-13(c) - (#2). No. 87-13(d) - (#2). No. 87-13(e) - (0). No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 6, 1987 AT 8:00 PM. Regular Meeting: Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor San Rafael City Council Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember Richard Nave, Councilmember Maynard H. Willms, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: GIRLS' STATE REPRESENTATIVE - File 9-5-G Miss Carole Quigley, student at Terra Linda High School spoke of her experience at Girls State, which is a sponsored government experience, stating she was elected as City Councilwoman, then appointed Mayor of her City. CONSENT CALENDAR Item Recommended Action 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting Approved as submitted. of June 15, 1987 (CC) 3. Report on Bid Opening - Renovation and RESOLUTION NO. 7557 - Addition to Fire Station No. 6 (PW) RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS File 4-1-406 FOR PROJECT ENTITLED "RENOVATION AND ADDITION TO SAN RAFAEL FIRE STATION NO. 6" 4. Resolution of Appreciation for Ray Swanson (CM) - File 102 5. Resolution Approving 1987/88 City of San Rafael Budget (Fin) - File 8-5 RESOLUTION NO. 7558 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RAY SWANSON (For his dedication and faithful attendance at City Council meetings) RESOLUTION NO. 7559 - RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 1987 - JUNE 30, 1988 AND PROVIDING FOR THE APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES OF ALL SUMS SET FORTH IN SAID BUDGET (totalling $24,338,311) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 2 6. Status Report on Oakwood Subdivision (P1) - File 5-1-244 7. Report on Canal Clean Up Day (PW) - File 12-10 x 9-3-40 8. Resolution Amending Master Fee Schedule (Resolution No. 7553), "Section 7 - Library", Adding Rental Rates for Compact Discs (Lib) - File 9-10-2 Approved staff recommenda- tion to continue to meeting of July 20, 1987. Accepted report. RESOLUTION NO. 7560 - RESOLUTION AMENDING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (RESOLUTION #7553), "SECTION 7 -LIBRARY, ADDING RENTAL RATES FOR COMPACT DISCS ($.50 per day per disc, added as No. 7.3.1) 9. Authorization to Waive Bidding Proce- Approved staff recommendation, dures and Allow Staff to Negotiate authorizing staff to waive Purchase of a Portable Building for bidding procedures and nego- Child Care on the Open Market (Rec) - tiate purchase of portable File 4-2-216 x 9-3-65 building for child care on the open market. 10. Resolution of Appreciation for John Hoffman, Marin County Senior Citizen of the Year (Rec) - File 102 11. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) - File 9-1 12. Claims for Damages: a. Ulla Margareta Chandler (PW) - File 3-1-1221 b. Wendy Silkworth (PW) - File 3-1-1254 13. Request for Leave to Present Late Claim - Rufus & Donna Colquhoun, Claim No. 3-1-1254 RESOLUTION NO. 7561 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JOHN HOFFMAN, MARIN COUNTY SENIOR CITIZEN OF THE YEAR Approved staff recommendation: SUPPORT AB 1573 (Eastin) and SB 178 (Deddeh) - Local Funding of State Highway Construction and Improvements. SUPPORT AB 711 (Condit) City Regulation of Sexually Explicit Harmful Matter. OPPOSED SB 399 (McCorquodale) Property Taxation: Costs of Defending Contested Approved Insurance Consulting Associates, Inc. recommenda- tion for denial of claim a. Approved City Attorney's recommendation for denial of claim b. Approved Insurance Consulting Associates, Inc. recommenda- tion to deny the request for leave to present late claim. 14. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO: - File 102 a. John Hoffman, Marin County Senior Citizen of the Year b. Ray Swanson Mayor Mulryan presented Mr. Hoffman with a Resolution of Appreciation. Mr. Ray Swanson was not present; presentation to be made at a future meeting. 15. PUBLIC HEARING - SR87-25; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF EXCEPTION TO AN ADOPTED SIGN PROGRAM; 530 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD WEST; McPHAIL'S INC., OWNER; ACTIVE SIGN CO., REP.; ORTHO MATTRESS, APPELLANT; AP 13-051-06 & 20 (P1) - File 10-11 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 3 Planning Director Moore stated on June 9, 1987, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the request for exception to the adopted sign program for McPhail's Home Improvement Center. At the time the home improvement center was originally approved, there was concern expressed by the Planning Commission that there not be modifications made later. The Appellant has requested permission to install signage across the mechanical tower in front of the center that also functions as an architectural element which the Planning Commission judged did not belong to any one tenant. A proposal was made to alter the size of a second proposed sign from that stipulated in the adopted sign program. Only one sign is permitted by the store according to the sign program. Both requests were unanimously denied by the Planning Commission. Mayor Mulryan called upon the Appellant. Mr. Andy Andrade, Appellant, and his architect Mr. Ray Swiggins, produced renderings of McPhail's Home Improvement Center showing the sign and the visibility problem if the sign is not placed on the tower. Ms. Moore stated the materials presented tonight were not presented to the Planning Commission, however, they understood very well what was being asked and do disagree as they considered the "box" to be an architectural feature of the center. Councilmember Willms commented that he was on the Planning Commission at the time the project was approved, stating everything was basically laid out as to where the signs were to be placed with the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and owners of the property and their repre- sentatives present at the meeting. Everyone agreed to the signage before the first tenant moved into the building. Mr. Andrade indicated the sign agreement was made before they became involved with the leasing of the building and stated they were led to believe by the owners of the property they had the sign approval. Ms. Moore referred to the staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 1987, indicating that Ortho Mattress was proposing two signs totaling a maximum of 33 feet 6 inches in length. Three separate "exceptions" to the sign program would be required to approve the proposal; transfer of signage from the fascia band to the mechanical tower and change in the lettering where the sign program called for 30 inch height of letters. They wanted to use 16 inch for the sign proposed to be located on the fascia band, therefore making the scale different from other signs in the center. Ms. Moore indicated the Planning Commission's decision was made because so much care had been given to the Sign Ordinance, adding staff always runs into this problem as individual tenants lease a building. She stated that is why it is important in multi -tenant buildings to have the signage ground rules made clear. In answer to Mayor Mulryan's question as to whether there is the consent of other tenants and owners, Ms. Moore responded their understanding is that the owners indicated via the Appellant at meetings, that they had their support but there is no written correspondence. She believed this to be a situation where they remain uninvolved because they are not actively endorsing this proposal and did not at the Planning Commis- sion meeting and yet they are not saying to the tenant that they cannot apply. Councilmember Willms stated he could not see Mr. Andrade's sign having any more of a disadvantage than other stores in the center, adding he had the same visibility as other stores. Councilmember Nave commented that in trying to be fair with signs that work for everyone, Council would have to agree with the Planning Commission's decision. After further discussion and there being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 4 Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Willms seconded, to uphold the Planning Commission's denial for "Exceptions" to the Adopted Sign Program. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 16. PUBLIC HEARING - ED85-105(b) - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO THE SUMMERHILL TOWNHOUSE PROJECT REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL FROM CEDAR TO MASONITE; REFERRED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR; 211 LOS RANCHITOS ROAD; KUYKENDALL & CHATHAM, OWNERS AND APPELLANTS; AP 175-060-64 & 65_ (Pl) - File 5-1-304 x 10-7 Planning Director Moore stated staff recommendation is to uphold the Planning Commission's disapproval of an amendment. The developers of the Summerhill project (former Hartzell School) proposed modifying the siding material for the 48 unit townhouse project from natural cedar to a manufactured Masonite material. The Zoning Administrator heard the matter on June 10, 1987, and referred it directly to the Planning Commission who heard it on June 23, 1987. A representative of the surrounding neighborhood spoke indicating that the neighborhood association who was actively involved in the City's review of the Memorandum of Understanding with the School District regarding developing of site, stated they were opposed to the change in materials. Planning Commission motion to approve the change in siding material failed on a 3-4 vote, disapproving the request for a change in modification. The developers filed an appeal and are under construction, and, if this were to be delayed for a long period of time it could adversely affect their construction schedule. They claim the opposition to their request is not substantial enough to warrant a denial. Ms. Moore stated since very few neighbors were present at the Planning Commission meeting, the developers sent out a letter to surrounding neighborhood associations and neighbors who had received notification of the application and the Planning Commission meeting, and a meeting was then held with many people in attendance. Ms. Moore summarized the difference of opinion stating the Planning Commission felt there was an aesthetic consideration that natural siding has more variation in the finish and the way it weathers over time whereas the manufactured board is much more uniform. Some Commissioners put value on the texture and diversity and some Commis- sioners were impressed by the performance and guarantees of the Masonite product. Staff's position was to deny the request for change in that the siding had been extensively discussed, and their recommendation was to remain with the existing conditions of approval because they had been worked out with much imput from the neighborhood. Mayor Mulryan called upon the Appellant. Mr. Art Chatham, Appellant, spoke on the similarity of appearance of wood and Masonite sidings, noting that the Memorandum of Understanding stated that siding and building materials should be compatible with those in the neighborhood and did not specify wood. Mr. Chatham said the neighborhood homes were built using plywood siding, therefore, as plywood is a manufactured board product, he was not sure natural wood was any more compatible than Masonite. He indicated the'IIesign Review Board overwhelmingly agreed with them to use the Masonite product but they still faced opposition from staff and homeowners; the developers ultimately agreed in the interest of time in order to get their approval finalized to back off on their request to use Masonite siding. Mr. Chatham stated the reason this is back is because their sub -contrac- tor informed them to once again try to achieve the use of the Masonite because he is seeing many cases of lawsuits involving projects using wood siding which is now failing. He then explained that wood today is not the same as it was 50 years ago, indicating it does not hold up as first growth material did; and they are now buying second and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 5 third growth material. Concern is that they be able to provide the best material for the homeowners who will be living there and that Masonite will remain looking as good as the day it was built for years to come, adding that wood will crack and warp and paint does not stick to it as well as Masonite. In response to a question by Mayor Mulryan if there was a cost difference between using Masonite and wood, Mr. Chatham indicated there is basically no difference in cost. Mr. Ron Kiselring, representative from Masonite showed Council samples of sidings made of cedar wood and Masonite and pointed out flaws in the cedar wood siding as compared to Masonite. Mr. Ed Kuykendall, one of the owners of the development, spoke on the trend of architecture which is different from 20/30 years past. He stated in the past, people did not think about how the building would weather as it matured, but in the last 10 years, theories seem to be that a project should look the same 20 years after it is built as it did when it was finished. He referred to the Silverado Country Club and Disneyland where Masonite was used, indicating that second and third growth wood is not as good anymore. Mayor Mulryan called upon anyone wishing to speak against the Appellants. Mr. Larry Simmons, resident of Terra Linda and President of the Terra Linda Valley Homeowners Association spoke at length, submitting written copies of his comments to Council which concluded that he and others were against the use of Masonite siding and that cedar siding be used. Mr. Jerry Craner of 16 Oakridge Road, representative of the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association as well as the Rafael Meadows Homeowners Associa- tion, stated that the developers are trying to preclude litigation in the years to come in the event something is wrong with the siding. He added he understood the developers' reason but would have felt more comfortable if someone from the lumber association was present to speak on redwood and cedar, rather than having only someone from Masonite. Mr. Craner indicated that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is the key issue, mentioning that Council approved the Summerhill project over the objections of Los Ranchitos residents who did not agree with the height of the buildings. He pointed out that Council responded the MOU indicated the height to be allowable and therefore approved the project. Now, the homeowners are saying to Council that hardboard siding does not meet with the conditions of the MOU and the Council should disapprove the request. He then referred to a portion of the MOU, Item I, PD Zoning, Standard (i) "...hardboard siding does not conform". Ms. Moore stated that Standard (i) reads as follows: "Colors and building materials of all proposed buildings shall be compatible with the surround- ing neighborhood. Buildings and site designs shall also blend with the neighborhood." The other pertinent language was in the Design Review Permit issued by the Planning Commission as Condition (o) which reads as follows: "Natural cedar or redwood horizontal siding shall be used for the exterior building materials in lieu of the proposed masonite siding material. The final color scheme and specifications for installation of the materials shall be subject to review by the Planning Department, prior to issuance of a building permit." There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Frugoli stated if the material is to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, then the material should be made out of plywood because most of the homes have plywood siding. He added that the Masonite siding shown to Council tonight is of a much better grade. Councilmember Willms clarified that at the Planning Commission meeting he participated in, both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board did not actually state they preferred Masonite to wood siding but fully accepted Masonite, and that when there was an argument about the conditions, the developer then said he would back off from Masonite and go with wood siding. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 5 Mayor Mulryan stated the with the MOU is a telling project, Council did base uphold the process cited it was one of the issues that he intend to go with SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 6 last point made by Mr. Craner having to do comment, and at the last hearing on the their judgment on the fact they wanted to in Condition (i) and Condition (o) and that Council had sifted back and forth, adding wood. Councilmember Willms reiterated that Condition (o) was not an original condition of the MOU but was something the developer agreed to. Councilmember Nave stated the best looking material is the Masonite and referred to guarantees, concluding that the Masonite siding would be better for the people who would be living there, stating further and if the Design Review Board felt it to be an acceptable method used all over the United States today, he agrees. Councilmember Breiner indicated support for the MOU process. Councilmember Breiner moved and Mayor Mulryan seconded, to uphold the Planning Commission's disapproval of amendment. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: The motion failed. Breiner & Mayor Mulryan Frugoli, Nave & Willms None Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Willms seconded, to grant the appeal to allow Masonite siding on the 48 unit townhouses at Summerhill. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli, Nave & Willms NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner & Mayor Mulryan ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ms. Moore gave a point of clarification stating the specifications for installation of Masonite would have to be reviewed by the Planning Department consistent with Condition (o), because the building permit was predicated on the wood siding. 17. SAN RAFAEL CANAL DREDGING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 - File 6-44 Public Works Director Bernardi stated there were a number of actions necessary to begin the assessment district proceedings. He reviewed the issues dealt with stating that two months ago, Council authorized the expenditure of $36,000 for testing of the bottom sediment as well as performance of hydrographic survey work. These funds were predicated on the successful formation of an assessment district. At that time the assessment district being addressed was not only the dredging of the federally authorized channel but also a portion of the channel outside the Federal channel. Subsequent to Council's authorization, staff distributed petitions among the property owners to get the necessary signatures to start assessment district proceedings. He noted the number of petitions received does not reflect the 60 percent necessary to petition the Council to form the district. Staff reviewed it with the homeowners committee as well as the bond counsel and staff's consult- ant for this work. Because the City needs to provide the funding for the Corps channel regardless of what else happens, staff decided to proceed with the formation of this district that deals only with the Federal channel. The issue tonight is with one exception that no petitions be submitted to Council tonight reflecting 60 percent of the homeowners. The Council is allowed with a four/fifths vote to initiate the assessment district proceedings on Public Works Director Bernardi's recommendation. He mentioned his memo to Council, which indicated it is in the Public Health and Safety to take such action tonight. Mr. Bernardi stated if the assessment district is not formed and money not raised to pay the City's local share of the Federal dredging, the City will lose almost $900,000 and the Corps will probably not come back again in subsequent years to dredge the canal. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 7 Mr. Bernardi stated in a meeting with property homeowners, the general consensus was to proceed forward with the Federal channel. Another issue to be addressed by staff and then Council is the work to be done outside the Federal channel. A large group of people still want to form a second assessment district to dredge that property outside the Federal channel. Timing is subject to discussions now and staff does not want this to delay the Corps' project which is out to bid with the bid to be opened on August 21, 1987. Referring to a map on the Bulletin Board, Mr. Bernardi clarified that by proceeding forward tonight, the City would be setting the stage for funding the Federal Channel (dark blue portion on map) with the City's local share which includes $36,000 that was allocated as well as the $75,000 which is (the cost) estimated by the Corps to haul the dredged spoils to Alcatraz, which is the local share of the $1,000,000 project. In addition and separate from that is the dredging of the light blue area on the map. He noted the property owners do not have to form an assessment district indicating this could be done individually, however, this is a vehicle for them to have their dredging done with the City preparing all the documents for them to proceed. If they were to do it on their own, each would have to go to the Corps to acquire a permit to haul the spoils to Alcatraz which would "bury" the Corps in paperwork, and the timing would be stretched out for a couple of years. It may be that the dredging of the light blue area might occur next year if the City cannot get 60 percent of the homeowners to agree to form a second district. Councilmember Frugoli inquired how much money was into the project to date and Mr. Bernardi answered $45,000. Mr. Frugoli suggested that this $45,000 be the City's portion to participate because (the dredging) does benefit the City, and suggested staff approach the County for funds f±•om boat registration in the future. Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Willms seconded, to proceed with the San Rafael Canal Dredging Assessment District No. 1 to include the $45,000 -as the City's share of the assessment. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None a. LETTER FROM DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS - FILED. b. RESOLUTION NO. 7562 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING LETTER OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND MAKING FINDINGS AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None c. BOUNDARY MAP - FILED. d. RESOLUTION NO. 7563 - RESOLUTION APPROVING BOUNDARY MAP AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None e. RESOLUTION NO. 7564 - RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES (with Sturgis, Ness, Brunsell & Sperry, Bond Counsel) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None f. RESOLUTION NO. 7565 - RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES (with CSW Consultants) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 8 g. RESOLUTION NO. 7566 - RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION TO UNDERTAKE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SET TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms, Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None h. RESOLUTION NO. 7567 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER IMPROVEMENT IN SAN RAFAEL CANAL DREDGING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms, Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None i. ENGINEER'S REPORT - FILED. (As amended). j. RESOLUTION NO. 7568 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING OF PROTESTS (HEARING TO BE HELD ON MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1987, at 8:00 PM). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms, Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None k. NOTICE OF IMPROVEMENT - FILED. (As amended). Mr. Elliot Ness, Bond Counsel with Sturgis, Ness, Brunsell & Sperry pointed out that item (g) Resolution of Preliminary Determination sets a hearing for July 20, 1987, and item (h) Resolution of Intention sets the protest hearing for August 17, 1987. Mr. Ness indicated that there will be a revision on the Engineer's Report to reflect the contri- bution of $45,000 before the hearing. Mr. Bernardi informed Council that the City's contribution reduces the individual assessments by one-third. (Councilmember Frugoli left meeting) 18. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR SMITH RANCH HILLS/McINNIS PARK APARTMENTS PROJECTS (Pl) - File 5-1-290 Planning Director Moore stated the recommendation to Council is to have staff prepare a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a Compliance Statement and Consent for Change in Ownership of the project. Also, the City Attorney indicated some minor amendments to the Compl- iance Statement as proposed by the developer should be done. Ms. Moore gave background that in June of 1985, Council executed a Development Agreement, which is the only Development Agreement under California Planning law that the City has ever entered into, and adopted Planned Development Zoning for development of the Smith Ranch Hills and McInnis Park Apartments mostly comprised on what used to be the Gallinas Golf Course. The project is a senior citizen residential retirement complex comprised of 400 units and the McInnis Park Apartments adjacent to that back near the railroad tracks will be a development of 98 apartment units. At the time of zoning, there were conditional use and design review permits granted for 300 additional retirement units and the 98 unit apartment complex. The PD Zoning applied to various parcels that comprised the total land holdings at that time. A below market rate housing requirement was imposed on the project of 20 percent for low income households in perpeturity and 20 percent of the units for moderate income households. Ms. Moore wanted to clarify that page 2 of the staff report indicated 20 years but that the Develop- ment Agreement specifies in perpeturity which was what it said originally. The Development Agreement under Zoning covered many standards and conditions of development but the important ones dealt with standards and timing for performance, periodic review and duration of the agreement which was 10 years from the initial date of occupancy of 50 percent of the units in the rental project. The rental project has to be built SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 9 prior to the senior project which was in the original agreement. Although the time frames are longer than the original agreement, it is because of the moratorium that was in effect. However, the use permits and design review permits were good through March with applications submitted in a timely fashion, with modifications to the design review application under consideration at the present time. She pointed out that Mr. Lewis Douglas of the Smith Ranch Corporation has an option to purchase the project from Medical Retirement Communities, Inc. which must be reviewed by the City Council as deterined by the City Attorney's office. Ms. Moore referred to pages 3 through 5 of the staff report stating it contained the conditions of approval in detail as to the type of Compliance required. Staff has concluded there has been compliance with all pertinent aspects of the Development Agreement. Regarding the redesign of the project, that application has been filed. There has been an initial presentation made to the Design Review Board and at direction of the Board, who had some comments about the design, additional work is being done. In relation to the Draft General Plan, the project is exempt from provisions of the Plan, and the Development Agreement specifically obligates the City to judge the project on the basis of the General Plan and Zoning Regulations in effect at the time the Development Agreement was entered into by the City and the property owner in 1985. The Plan assumes this project as a "given" development and all of the planning for North San Rafael and Smith Ranch vicinity has been done accordingly. In conclusion, Ms. Moore stated Mr. Douglas has provided substantial evidence to prove there has been a good faith effort to comply with the terms of the Development Agreement and she recommended that the Council direct staff to prepare the Resolution. Mayor Mulryan recapped that this is to be done for legal reasons regarding the transfer of ownership, and questioned whether the technical review indicates there is no substance of change to the project. Ms. Moore replied none of the items are being changed; the only applica- tion pending is the Design Review application having to do with design of the building and site design changes which are not covered in the Development Agreement which has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office. Councilmember Willms moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a Compliance Statement and to sign Consent for Change in Ownership of Projects from Medical Retirement Communities, Inc. to Smith Ranch Corporation. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli (due to business connections). (Councilmember Frugoli returned to meeting) 19. DISCUSSION ON CITY OWNED PROPERTIES AT 335 FORBES AVENUE AND 346 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVENUE (PW) - File 4-1-409 x 2-5-18 x 2-5-19 City Manager Nicolai stated the two properties were damaged during storms and were liabilities for the City. Staff has analyzed different options to bring them up to safety standards to eliminate the hazards and allow the City to recoup as much of the expense in acquiring the houses by doing the necessary repair work and then reselling the property. Councilmember Breiner suggested that because staff is very busy, repairs of the pipeline and reconstruction of the foundation should be done and put out to bid indicating there are people who work at this type of job at an inexpensive price. Mrs. Breiner referred to page 2 of the staff report, items 7 and 8 stating she would rather go with the resale of the house adding they could go back and do it another way if they did not get the money. Regarding the Mountain View Avenue SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 10 property, Mrs. Breiner stated she wanted more information as to what the odds are that flooding might re -occur and cause damage indicating the City paid $225,000 which is probably the best price and perhaps they should have the house demolished leaving the City with no worries. Mr. Bernardi agreed and stated one of the issues being looked at is to reconfigure the house, move it over to one side of the lot and where the garage is now to have a carport structure that would be a public right-of-way where they could get up the hill, so that if anything came down it would not effect the house. After discussion, Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to approve staff's recommendation as follows: a. That Council allocate $125,000 from the General Fund in order to proceed with the replacement of the storm drain and stabilization of the foundation at 335 Forbes Avenue. That Council authorize staff to accept a proposal from Morris Finisy, Architect, to perform a design/cost analysis for the refurbishment of the property. b. That Council authorize staff to accept a proposal from George Girvin Associates to perform a design/cost analysis for the recon- struction of the house and site at 346 Mountain View Avenue. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 20. REPORT ON FILLING VACANCY ON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (CC) - File 9-2-39 City Clerk Leoncini stated there were three alternatives: a. To re -advertise for another three weeks for a Liscensed Landscape Architect to 12:Noon, Tuesday, July 28, 1987; or b. Consider waiving requirements of Ordinance No. 1502 stating there should be two Landscape Architects to sit on the Design Review Board, for this appointment only, and advertise for a Professional Architect or Environmental Planner; or c. Consider waiving Ordinance No. 1502 residency requirement applications from City residents only, (for this appointment only) and include sphere of influence when calling for applications again. Mrs. Leoncini indicated her office has been contacted by members of the public who would like to apply but fall into one of the two categories b. and c. Councilmember Nave moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to have staff combine a. Readvertise for another three weeks (12:Noon, Tuesday, July 28, 1987) for Liscensed Landscape Architect; and b. Waive Ordinance #1502 for two Landscape Architects for Design Review Board for this appointment only, and advertise for a Professional Architect or Environ- mental Planner. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 21. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE NO. 1536, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SECTIONS 14.11.020A(1) and (2); 14.11.090B; 14.12.050D and F(1); 14.73.080; 14.75.020h; 14.75.0808; 14.82.030; and 14.88.010 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 14 (PLANNING COMMISSION, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND PLANNING DIRECTOR AUTHORITY RE VARIOUS USE PERMITS) (Pl) - File 10-3 x 10-1 x 9-2-6 x 9-3-17 Councilmember Breiner stated after the last meeting when the Ordinance was passed to print, she realized that item 3 (referring to her memoran- dum) would eliminate use permit requirements for additions to non -con- forming structures, thus, there would be no noticing and stated this is not the best policy. Also, in an effort to streamline, the public SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 11 would be better served if the Council were to consider, at least during the time of the General Plan review, if the Planning Staff could do as some of the other departments around the County are doing, which would be to close for a full afternoon and to close the counter at 4:00 PM in the afternoon on the other days when they are opened so they would have that time to catch up for the next day and get those things done that need to be accomplished during this period of great pressure from work. Mayor Mulryan agreed with Councilmember Breiner's idea but requested a report from staff at a later time. He asked Ms. Moore if it is correct that the noticing would appear to be diminished if the Council adopted the Ordinance as presently drafted. Ms. Moore responded that is correct, explaining if someone came in with a remodeling or expansion to a building on a non -conforming lot and it complied with all provisions of the Zoninig Ordinance, setbacks, coverage and height, it would simply be subject to building permits and they are not noticed. Ms. Moore stated there are only about a half dozen applications of this sort that come through in a year, indicating Councilmember Breiner is correct in that it would be primarily in older neighborhoods. Councilmember Breiner referred to the Ordinance stating it looked as if full paragraphs and sections were included in some areas, but in Section 14.75.080 and in Section 14.82.030, not everything was included; in other words, g was written out but asked if Council was to presume that a through f, h, i and j stayed the same in 14.75.080? Ms. Moore responded affirmatively. Mayor Mulryan clarified that the motion is to pass the Ordinance to print with the deletion of the affected section within Section 14.75.080). When he questioned Assistant City Attorney Casey if Council could take this action, she responded affirmatively. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING SECTIONS 14.11.020A(1) AND (2); 14.11.090B; 14.12.050D AND F(1); 14.73.080; 14.75.020h; 14.75.0808; 14.82.030; AND 14.88.010 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 14" (pertaining to Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator and Planning Director Authority for Processing and Approving Certain City Permits) Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Willms seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1536 to printr as amended, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ms. Moore stated for clarity, staff will also include within the Ordinance the unchanged sections so there would be no misunderstanding that they were deleted. Council agreed. Councilmember Breiner asked if the Planning Department hours should be discussed and Mayor Mulryan stated he would like to give staff a chance to reflect on that. 22. REQUEST FROM MARIN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR MEMORIAL PLAQUE HONORING LOUISE BOYD (Lib) - File 9-3-61 x 2-1-9 Mayor Mulryan suggested that Council endorse the idea of having a Memorial Plaque in honor of Louise Boyd and ask that various volunteer groups contribute funds. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 12 Mr. Ken Brown, Chairman/President of Marin County Historical Society urged Council to approve the item. Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, directing staff to draft letters to local service clubs and other community organizations soliciting funds for a Memorial Plaque for Louise Boyd. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 23. RESOLUTIONS RE ELECTION MATTERS - GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 3, 1987: (CC) - File 9-4 RESOLUTION NO. 7569 - a. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1. PROPOSING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, INCLUDING THE SAN RAFAEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE SAN RAFAEL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL ELECTION; 2. REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE WITH ANY OTHER ELECTION CONDUCTED ON THE SAME DATE; 3. REQUESTING ELECTION SERVICES BY THE COUNTY CLERK AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None RESOLUTION NO. 7570 - b. RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING POLICY REGARDING NUMBER OF WORDS IN CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS, AND PROVIDING THAT THE COST OF PRINTING AND HANDLING OF CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CANDIDATE AND PAID FOR AT THE TIME NOMINATION PAPERS ARE FILED AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None RESOLUTION NO. 7571 - C. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN TO PERMIT THE COUNTY CLERK TO CONSOLIDATE PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES RELATING TO THE SAN RAFAEL GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. JEANNE M.aE'ONCINI, City lerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1987 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/6/87 Page 12