HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1987-07-20SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 1
IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 20, 1987
at 7:00 PM.
Regular Meeting:
CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION, LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AND PROPERTY
ACQUISITION - File 1.4.1.a
No. 87-14(a) - (#2). No. 87-14(b) - (#2). No. 87-14(c) - (#7).
City Attorney Ragghianti announced in Open Session that Council was going
to meet in Closed Session to discuss property acquisition - 1313 Fifth
Avenue, San Rafael, with negotiator Jake Ours, Assistant Executive Director,
San Rafael Redevelopment Agency. Council then went back into Closed Session.
No. 87-14(d) - (#5) 1313 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael Redevelopment Agency
Assistant Executive Director, Jake Ours.
No reportable action was taken.
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 20, 1987
AT 8:00 PM.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Item
3. Resolution Authorizing Mayor to
Sign a Compliance Statement and
to Sign Consent for Change in
Ownership of Projects for Smith
Ranch Hills/McInnis Park
Apartments Projects (Pl) -
File 5-1-290
4. Resolution of Appreciation for
George Juilly, Design Review
Board Member(Pl) - File
102 x 9-2-39
5. Call for Applications to Fill
Unexpired Term on Cultural Affairs
Commission Due to Resignation of
Commissioner Barbara Gelleri (CC)
File 9-2-24
6. Resolution of Appreciation for
Mary Gassaway (CC) - File 102
Recommended Action
RESOLUTION NO. 7572 - AUTHORIZING
SIGNING OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT AND ASSIGN-
MENT OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP (to
Lewis A. Douglas, Jr., Developer)
RESOLUTION NO. 7573 - RESOLUTION
OF APPRECIATION TO GEORGE JUILLY
(For his 9 years of service to
the Design Review Board since
March 20, 1978)
Approved staff recommendation:
a) Accepted resignation;
b) Called for applications to
- fill vacancy on Cultural Affairs
Commission, with deadline set
for receipt of applications for
Monday, August 10, 1987 at 12:00
Noon, City Clerk's Office;
c) Set Interviews for Special
Council Meeting for Monday, August
17, 1987 at 6:30 PM, to fill
unexpired term to end of April,
1991.
RESOLUTION NO. 7574 - RESOLUTION
OF APPRECIATION TO MARY GASSAWAY
(For her interest and many years
of faithful attendance at City
Council Meetings)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regul&..._ 7/20/87 Page 2
7. Report on Bid Openings for: (GS)
a. One Athletic Field Conditioner
b. One Riding Turfmower with
Trailer - File 4-2-215
8. Glenwood School Land Lease for
Placement of a Child Care
Portable July, 1988 to June,
1993 (5 years) (Rec) -
File 4-7-21
9. Resolution Authorizing the County
of Marin to Act as the Agent of
the City of San Rafael for Service
of Process and to Defend the City
of San Rafael in the Lawsuit
Entitled Southern Pacific Trans-
portation Company, et al. v. State
Board of Equalization, County of
Marin, City of San Rafael, et al,
San Francisco Superior Court
(No. 877359) (CA) - File 3-2-61
11. Claim for Damages:
Ralph Beckman (PW) -
File 3-1-1245
12. REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT LATE
CLAIM - Renee R. Waygood (FD) -
File 3-1-1261
RESOLUTION NO. 7575 - RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF AN
ATHLETIC FIELD CONDITIONER AND
THE REJECTION OF ALL BIDS AND
REBIDDING OF ONE RIDING TURF
MOWER AND ONE TRAILER FOR RIDING
TURF MOWER (Purchase of Athletic
Field Conditioner from West Star
Distributing Co., Inc. of Hayward,
CA. in amount of $7,271.60 - low
bidder that meets specifications).
(Council rejected all bids and
authorized Purchasing Assistant
to rebid for One Riding Turf Mower
and One Trailer for Riding Turf
Mower as separate items.)
RESOLUTION NO. 7576 - AUTHORIZING
SIGNING OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
SAN RAFAEL SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR
GLENWOOD SCHOOL LAND LEASE
RESOLUTION NO. 7577 - AUTHORIZING
THE COUNTY OF MARIN TO ACT AS
CITY'S AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS
AND TO ACT AS CITY'S DEFENSE COUNSEL
IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED: SOUTHERN
PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,
ET AL. v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
OF MARIN, CITY OF SAN RAFAEL,
ET AL, SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR
COURT (NO. 877359)
Approved Insurance Consulting
Associates, Inc. recommendation
for denial of claim.
Approved City Attorney's
recommendation to deny the request
for leave to present late claim.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli (From Item #3 only, due to potential
conflict of interest because of business
connnections)
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
13. PRESENTATIONS OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO: - File 102
a. Georqe Juilly, Design Review Board Member
b. Ray Swanson
c. Mary Gassaway
Mayor Mulryan presented Resolutions of Appreciation to George Juilly,
Design Review Board Member, thanking him for his nine years of service,
and to Ray Swanson and Mary Gassaway for their interest, concern and
faithful attendance at Council Meetings.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETINGS OF JUNE 23 AND JULY 1, 1987
(CLOSED SESSIONS) AND SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS OF JULY 6, 1987
(CC) - File 1-4
Councilmember Breiner requested that Minutes of Regular Meeting of
July 6, 1987 be amended as follows:
Page 9, item 19, last paragraph, "...should be done, a minimum price
established, then the house could be put out to bid, indicating there
are people who work at house remodeling". (Balance of sentence to
be deleted).
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regulz 7/20/87 Page 3
Councilmember Willms moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to approve
Minutes of Special Meetings of June 23 and July 1, 1987 (Closed Sessions)
and Special Meeting of July 6, 1987 as submitted, and Minutes of Regular
Meeting of July 6, 1987, as amended:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
10. LEGISLATION AFFECTING SAN RAFAEL (CM) - File 9-1
Councilmember Frugoli directed staff to keep Council informed of any
Legislative bills involving Northern California water.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
accept staff report.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
14. PUBLIC HEARING - HEARING ON PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY - SAN
RAFAEL CANAL DREDGING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 (PW) - File 6-44
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Public Works Director Bernardi indicated this is the first of two
public hearings for this assessment district. This hearing is to deter-
mine the public convenience and necessity regarding the San Rafael
Canal Dredging Assessment District No. 1. He referred to the cost
estimate, noting the City's contribution as requested at the last
Council meeting (July 6, 1987) which accrued at $53,000, and explained
this was done because staff was proposing that Council purchase the
bond instead of going out to the open bond market, which will save
the property owners an additional amount of money that could be associ-
ated with bond printing, bond service charges, bond reserve fund and
bond discount which would also be eliminated, adding the interest
would be at the prevailing rate for bonds. He noted the Finance Director
has reviewed this and felt it was appropriate for the City to take
this action. Mr. Bernardi indicated the amount to be assessed is $104,000.
Mayor Mulryan indicated that correspondence has been received with
many people in favor of dredging the Canal. However, he referred to
a letter from Mr. L.E. Weisenburg whereby he takes issue with the
City's approach (to the assessment district) and to dredging of the
side portion of the Canal (non -Federal Channel, dark blue shading
on map.)Mayor Mulryan noted the City cannot go in and dredge on private
property to which Mr. Bernardi agreed.
Mr. Bernardi indicated the group of property owners as a whole will
have to determine whether or not they wish to dredge the non -Federal
Channel. He noted one of Mr. Weisenburg's concerns was whether the
City would participate, and stated the City has already participated
substantially in this project.
In response to a question from Councilmember Breiner regarding what
income the City receives from the businesses along the Canal, Mr.
Bernardi indicated he would provide Council with copy of a letter
Mayor Mulryan had written to Congresswoman Boxer urging support for
the dredging and detailing sales tax figures.
Staff was directed to look into the recommendation made by the "Enemark
Committee" which the City did not adopt, as mentioned in the letter
from Mr. Weisenburg.
There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Mulryan closed the
public hearing.
RESOLUTION NO. 7578 - RESOLUTION FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS -SAN RAFAEL
CANAL DREDGING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 (Provide
funding to reimburse the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for additional disposal costs associated
with dredging the San Rafael main channel from
San Rafael Bay to the Grand Avenue Bridge)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 4
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
15. Z86-5; ZONE CHANGE FOR A 128 UNIT CONGREGATE CARE SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY;
275 LOS RANCHITOS ROAD (FORMER HARTZELL SCHOOL SITE); SAN RAFAEL SCHOOL
DISTRICT, OWNER; TRANSAMERICA REALTY SERVICES, REP.; AP 175-060-62
AND 63 (Pl) - File 10-3
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Principal Planner Jensen gave background stating Transamerica Realty
Services is proposing to develop the remaining 2.8 acre portion of
the former Hartzell School site with a 128 unit senior citizens rental
project which is a congregate care and assisted care facility. Mr.
Jensen referred to the proposal involving a Zone Change and an Amendment
to the Memo of Understanding which was executed several years ago
through redevelopment of the property. He indicated the site is presently
zoned for office use and the Draft General Plan recommends a high
density residential land use designation, noting the proposal calls
for a 42 percent density bonus. Mr. Jensen concluded that the project
is designed for two buildings with three stories in height. It evolved
through a number of meetings with representatives from adjacent neigh-
borhood associations and was favorably reviewed by the Design Review
Board. The Planning Commission held hearings on the proposals on
June 9 and 23, 1987 and the major issues raised were the Draft General
Plan policy issues pertaining to building heights, provisions for
affordable housing, and handicapped accessibility. He added there
were some modifications made to the project addressing these concerns.
Mr. Jensen noted that Mr. & Mrs. Gimi Sessi from the Los Ranchitos
neighborhood have written letters raising parking concerns and traffic
mitigation fee calculations. Mr. Jensen referred to the traffic mitiga-
tion fees indicating no fees are being required because the project
is anticipated to generate less traffic than what was historically
generated from the site. Overall, the Planning Commission found that
the project is consistent with the Draft General Plan. The Planning
Commission also conditionally approved the use and Design Review permits,
noting conditions were handed out prior to tonight's meeting for those
permits granted.
Mr. Dwight Winther, Consultant with Brian & Murphy of Walnut Creek,
spoke on heights of the units, moderate income housing with the Appli-
cants submitting anticipated rent costs which have been reviewed by
the Marin Housing Authority who concluded the rent levels would be
affordable to persons of moderate income. In order to insure these
continue to be available to moderate income persons in the future,
a condition was written requiring 13 units be set aside for moderate
income housing, and the Applicant is to enter into an agreement with
the City regarding these units. At a Planning Commission meeting
Mr. Winther referred to parking and a letter from the Sessi's on a
comparable project of Parnow House. Also, the Applicant submitted
a letter from Traffic Engineer Wilbur Smith who concluded thatthe
project was basically different from Parnow House, therefore, the
parking problems at Parnow House are not anticipated to occur at this
project. Mr. Winther indicated that Parnow House has no dining facility
thus causing people to drive their cars which would generate higher
parking demands. The Applicant obtained a letter from Nazareth House
describing the operational number of units and available parking.
He indicated Nazareth House is a church run organization with 75 part-time
and full-time volunteers working there. He added if there is a parking
problem, it could be caused by the amount of people working there
as a contributing factor. In conclusion, he referred to the report
done by Wilbur Smith and Associates as accurate.
In response to Councilmember Breiner's question if most rentals fall
in the moderate income level, Mr. Winther stated affirmatively.
Mayor Mulryan called upon anyone wishing to address this item.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 5
Mrs. Marie Sessi, Member and Past President of Parnow Friendship House,
compared proposed parking with parking at Parnow House and Nazareth
House. She also referred to the 42 percent density bonus and pointed
out that this project is still owned by the San Rafael School District.
Mrs. Sessi referred to and did not agree with, the term "historic
use" of the site stating this site has been significantly changed
and further pointing out there were only six classrooms. For this
reason, Mrs. Sessi recommended that the Resolution should delete
any reference to "historic use" of the site.
Mr. John Harritt, Assistant Vice President of Transamerica Realty
Services stated they are purchasing the property from the School District
and that they also represent the owner in the Application. Mr. Harritt
reiterated what Mr. Jensen gave background on as to the type of project
being proposed, adding in their research it was found that people
inhabitating congregate living either do not own their own cars or
dispense with using their car because of the advantage of the bus
service or transportation provided by the project. A special package
of personal services is also provided by a non-medical staff at addi-
tional costs which is a concept of a slight level of care versus a
more independent life style. No extensive medical services or trained
medical staff will be provided at the facility.
In response to Mr. & Mrs. Sessi's concerns regarding the Parnow House
parking, he indicated it was answered by a letter from Wilbur Smith
and Associates. Mr. Harritt also referred to a letter from the Nazareth
House sent to him at his request, and gave comparisons of their project
and the proposed project.
He pointed out that 14 parking spaces will be provided for employees,
and they have agreed to provide 10 percent or 13 units at the below
market rate for 20 years, indicating their proposed rental rates are
almost all in the affordable range for seniors in Marin County. The
rates range from $1,100 to $1,900 per month depending on single or
double occupancy and size of unit. This includes transportation, three
meals, maid service and linens, housekeeping, recreational and social
programs to include one day field trips and the opera.
In response to Councilmember Willms' question of having a project
operated van service for the tenants, Mr. Harritt stated there will
be a 12 passenger van on site operated by a full time staff member
to transport people to their doctors' appointments, shopping trips
and excursions.
In response to Councilmember Breiner's concern as to why the Applicant
should have a 42 percent density bonus when moderate income units
are guaranteed for only 20 years and not in perpetuity with most of
the project geared as moderate income, Mr. Harritt responded in terms
of the density bonus, the Housing Policy, LU -20 page 24, shows the
Applicant to be in compliance.
Albert Bianchi, Attorney for the Applicant interjected stating in
order to obtain affordable housing, one almost has to have this type
of density and added it would be inconsistent to cut the density in
half and expect to provide the types of services described at the
cost mentioned. He explained this to be the reason, not only for today
but for the future, there is an ability to provide lower, affordable
income housing to the elderly and give them all of the services which
cannot be done with a lesser density.
Mrs. Breiner stated it would be logical for the City to require that
moderate income units remain moderate income in perpetuity.
Mr. Bianchi responded that the lending institution takes a close look
at the risk involved, noting there are few places in Marin County
that have a higher low income requirement than what is being proposed.
He added that 10 percent is a substantial portion of the project which
could mean the difference between a profitable project and a non-profit-
able project. Also, the charges that are going to be made to the tenants
all fall within affordable housing range at the present time, and
they do not know what will happen 20 years from now; therefore, perpetuity
cannot be considered. He noted if the City were going to finance
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 6
the project, perhaps an arrangement could be entered into because
the risk would lie at least in part with the City.
Mr. Alan Cristofani, Partner with TWM Architects, responded to questions
by Councilmember Breiner regarding the setback from Los Ranchitos
Road, stating it was 30 feet from the property line and that the painted
sumpstone wall would be weaving in and out from the property line.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Willms encouraged having wording included in the Conditions
that if there is a parking problem because of too many vehicles, that
additional vans be added.
RESOLUTION NO. 7579 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN RAFAEL CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 14 (ZONING)
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 275 LOS RANCHITOS ROAD TO P -D (PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 128
UNIT CONGREGATE CARE SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY
(AP 175-060-62 & 63)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
RESOLUTION NO. 7580 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AMENDMENT
TO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF
THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION
14.15.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO
RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT
TO P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT (275 LOS RANCHITOS ROAD)
Councilmember Willms moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it
by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1537 to print as amended
to include wording - "with additional vans to be added if there is
a parking problem because of tenant parking or resident parking,"
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Breiner indicated she was voting against the Ordinance
because the developer would not agree to provide the 13 units as moderate
income units in perpetuity.
16. TS84-1 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO REQUIRE A FOCUSED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SEVEN LOT SUBDIVISION; MEYER ROAD
AT THE END OF "C" STREET; ARMAND LOCKE, OWNER: DAVID BERMAN, REP.;
PERRY D. LITCHFIELD, APPELLANT; AP 12-291-16 & 17 (P1) - File 10-8
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Moore gave background that the property proposed
for subdivision is eight and one half steep acres on Meyer Road to
be developed as seven lots, 6 new lots and one lot with an existing
house. She explained a Tentative Map was filed in 1984 with an Environ-
mental Review completed in 1985 but the project was not processed
because the Citywide Moratorium was in effect for the most part of
1986. She indicated the application was denied without prejudice by
the Planning Commission in November, 1986 to avoid an automatic approval.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regula_, 7/20/87 Page 7
It was unclear to staff at that time whether the Applicant would be
proceeding with an application as they indicated they may wait to
see how the General Plan was completed due to discussion by some neighbors
as to what the appropriate density should be for the property. However,
a new map application was filed. On June 9, 1987, the Planning Commis-
sion reviewed the staff prepared Initial Study and recommendation
that the project could result in a potential adverse environmental
impact and that an EIR should be prepared. She added staff routinely
sends such recommendations to the Planning Commission so that if there
is disagreement on the decision or as to the scope of the EIR, it
can be worked out at the Planning Commission level prior to developing
a draft EIR rather than going through the process of preparing a document
only then to find out the decision making body has some concerns about
the scope of the environmental document.
Ms. Moore stated although the preparation of an EIR was questioned
as being duplicate work, it was not opposed by Attorney Perry Litchfield
for the property owner and that there was public testimony from neighbors
concerned about the environmental effects of the project. Ms. Moore
stated the Planning Commission, on a 7-0 vote, directed that a Focused
EIR be prepared and that the scope be expanded to include Fire Safety
and Archeology.
Ms. Moore noted the Applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision
requiring a Focused EIR but that there was no explanation as to why
a Focused EIR should not be required. She then referred to the staff
report pointing out Sections of the California Environmental Quality
Act guidelines which indicate the authorization for the Initial Study
and ground rules for determining significant effect. Staff had recom-
mended and the Planning Commission unanimously concluded that the
evidence in the record was such, in the Initial Study, that this Focused
EIR was definitely required. She also mentioned there was controversy
in the neighborhood over the proposed land use designation, stating
it is designated as "hillside residential" in the Draft General Plan
and several of the neighbors are recommending that it be designated
as the lower yielding density designation of "hillside resource".
She went on to state the Planning Commission's action essentially
directed to have an EIR prepared and that Earth-Soils/Geology,
Hydrology/Drainage, Plant/Animal Life, Land Use, Transportation/
Circulation, Fire Safety, Archeology and Assessment of Four Different
Alternatives be included in the Focused EIR, and that several of the
neighbors supported having the Focused EIR done.
For the record, Ms. Moore indicated it would be difficult for staff
to proceed ahead and follow through with an EIR for a project without
the Applicant's cooperation, noting that to date, no written information
or evidence has been presented to the Council by the appellant as to the
rationale for disputing the unanimous Planning Commission determination.
In response to a question
Engineers represent, Ms.
noting the requirement fo
Engineers and then to the
tion. She added by havin
evaluation, both reviews
needed.
by Councilmember Breiner as to who Cooper
Moore stated they represent the Developer,
r additional work would go back to Cooper
Geotechnical Review Board for further evalua-
g the EIR process include this aspect of
can be looked at anew for any further information
Mayor Mulryan called upon the Appellant.
Attorney Perry Litchfield, representing Applicant, stated that he
had expressed opposition to the need for a Focused EIR before the
Planning Commission. He indicated points were raised at the hearing
and that the Planning Commission should be aware of what the issues
were. He stated it was clear throughout the process the Applicant
has been fully cooperative with Planning and after three years it
reached a stage where it was decided to go before the Planning Commission
and the City Council to see if they were just "spinning our wheels"
and whether they were necessarily incurring all the additional costs.
Mr. Litchfield indicated it appears they have been "branded" as
uncooperative and he is concerned on behalf of his client.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regula_, 7/20/87 Page 8
Mr. Litchfield spoke on the history of the project, stating there
were applications starting back in 1964 of 1.21 units on the 8h acre
parcel and then at another point for 14 units which were not approved;
in 1977 the present applicant made application for 9 units but it
was determined that the land would be designated for open space acquisi-
tion by the City; the City subsequently determined this was not one
of its priority parcels, and the present 1984 application, which is
the current proposal, consisting of a request for a 7 -lot subdivision
over 8Z acreas was presented. It is for 6 new units and one existing.
Four of the units would be on Meyer Road and three on "C" Street.
He stated the plan as presented would preserve all redwood trees.
The down hill properties are on 5,000 square foot lots, noting an
Initial Study was completed in October, 1985, after the application
was made, and pointig out that essentially all of the items which
are now set forth in the proposed focused EIR were addressed in the
Initial Environmental Study. The matter was then referred to the Planning
Commission for certification of a Negative Declaration or finding
that a focused EIR was necessary; however, the moratorium was imposed,
hence the three year delay up until now.
He noted the reason they are going forward now rather than waiting
for the conclusion of the General Plan is that the General Plan as
now proposed would clearly allow the type of development which is
contemplated in their proposal, allowing anywhere from four to seventeen
dwellings on the 8.5 acre parcel, and pointing out this proposal is
on the low side of the requirements.
He stated his concern is, there is a need of finding a potential,
significant effect on the environment which must be found through
substantial evidence and that when looking at the study prepared to
date there are no disputes, and they appear to be in conformance. He indicate
not enough concern was given to the findings necessary in order to
look at each of the issues, adding his clients do not agree there
is a need for a Focused EIR. Mr. Litchfield stated it is clear from
Cooper and Herzog who were hired by the City, that each designated
lot has a buildable site and therefore it would become a matter of
design review. Regarding Hydrology/Drainage he stated they have provided
for a plan through two experts that would take away a problem that
has existed in the past,which is the surface runoff ponded in one
of the areas below the development. Applicant is willing to take
care of this drainage problem. Plant/Animal Life has been looked at
as has Land Use/Traffic and Transportation/Circulation. He agreed
that Fire Safety should be looked at, noting that by developing this
area it would create a safer environment. He did not agree that Archeology
should be looked at, noting there is no substantial evidence that
archeology is a problem.
In conclusion, Mr. Litchfield stated they do not think there is a
need for a Focused EIR which has already been done without disputes,
and in the alternative, if some items need to be looked at, it should
be done in the sense that the items have substantial evidence that
may impact upon the environment on which there should be further review.
Ms. Moore referred to the point made by Mr. Litchfield regarding
Archeology, stating the Planning Commission discussed this issue because
they cannot state with surety that there are no archeological resources
on the site and staff did note at the Planning Commission meeting
that it is unlikely there were archeological habitation sites located
on such a hillside. She indicated, however, it is required often in
EIR studies.
Regarding Assessment of Alternatives, Ms. Moore indicated whenever
an EIR is prepared it requires alternatives for the proposed project
be considered, then gave the four alternatives as follows: a) Open
Space (+ no project alternative); b) Lower density project (compatible
with the draft Hillside Resource land use designation); c) Redesign
of the project at the same density and d) A higher density project
(compatible with the draft low density residential land use designation).
Councilmember Willms informed Council that he was still a member of
the Planning Commission when this item was discussed and the three
main concerns were the Earth-Soils/Geology; Hydrology/Drainage and
Fire Safety.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regula-) 7/20/87 Page 9
Councilmember Nave stated he would like to have the EIR focus exactly
on what they are looking for and not branch out on "make work" programs.
Mayor Mulryan called upon anyone opposing the project.
Ms. Linda Bellatori, representing the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Associa-
tion reiterated their concerns on the Soils/Geology, Hydrology/Drainage
and Plant/Animal Life stating there should be focus done on drainage.
She stated if the development comes through they want to be sure that
everything necessary was done.
Councilmember Frugoli referred to the Hillside Resource Land Use Desig-
nation and asked Ms. Moore what it entailed regarding densities under
the General Plan. She responded it is a tenth of a unit per acre to
.5 per acre, making it the lowest density range in the Draft General
Plan.
Discussion was held by Council whether Conclusion (8) (b) (Lower density
project compatible with the draft Hillside Resource land use designation)
should be eliminated.
Attorney Litchfield did not agree with having an outside expert review
the Assessment of the Alternatives, as this would be costly to his
client, noting this should be the Council's responsibility. Mr. Litchfield
concluded by stating they do not think there is a need for a Focused
EIR, and in the alternative, if there are items where there is substan-
tial evidence they may impact upon the environment, then only these
issues should be addressed.
After comments made by City Attorney Ragghianti who disagreed that
number 8 should be eliminated, it was left in.
Ms. Leslie Simonsen of 9 Wolfe Avenue whose property is adjacent to
the proposed development, supported having a Focused EIR done.
Ms. Penelope Gerbode at 166 Wolfe Grade spoke on additional noise
that would affect their area if four more homes were built there,
and supported a Focused EIR.
Mr. Daniel Simonsen of 9 Wolfe Avenue spoke on his concern of having
redwood trees cut down in the area, and supported a Focused EIR.
Mr. Paul Cohen of 2 Antoinette, stated he originally evaluated this
project for the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association who had concerns
about the drainage problem, and agreed with a Focused EIR study.
Attorney Litchfield stated he did not agree with City Attorney Ragghianti's
comments made earlier.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Willms moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
uphold the Planning Commission preliminary decision to require a Focused
EIR.
In response to Councilmember Nave's suggestion that Conclusion Number
(8) be eliminated, City Attorney Ragghianti explained that the California
Environmental Quality Act requires that all of these alternatives
including what is called the "no project" alternative be evaluated
in every Environmental Impact Report, so it is a condition which is
promulgated by the Legislature and mandated for all the cities. He
indicated they absolutely have to require an examination of all alter-
natives including the "no project" alternative.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 10
17. APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION NOT TO ACCEPT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
FOR 1555 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD, ROBERT NOLAN, APPELLANT (P1) -
File 115
Planning Director Moore stated the Appellant proposed to construct
a light industrial office building at a floor area ratio higher than
allowed in the Draft General Plan. This matter was considered by the
Planning Commission at a General Plan Workshop on April 29, 1987 when
the land use designation was modified as a result of a letter from
Mr. Nolan; however, the Planning Commission did not have staff make
any change to the revised Draft General Plan at this time. Mr. Nolan
then sought to develop a building with a higher floor area ratio,
but staff did not accept his application because it was not consistent
with the Draft General Plan. Ms. Moore then gave background indicating
Mr. Nolan first applied for an application in 1977 which expired in
February 1978. Although the project had expired, an extension request
was accepted in December 1978 and approved in March 1980. Ms. Moore
indicated it is significant to note that an additional condition was
imposed on the project at that time requiring payment of traffic miti-
gation fees, noting the Environmental Design Review permit also expired
in March 1981.
Ms. Moore noted Mr. Nolan is not being denied an opportunity to develop
his property, but is being told the application is inconsistent with
the Draft General Plan and cannot be processed or approved at this
time.
Mayor Mulryan called upon Mr. Robert Nolan, Appellant.
Mr. Nolan gave background on the property and stated several years
ago he purchased a lot at 1555 West Francisco Boulevard, applied for
Design Review and went through the Planning Commission process and
the project was then approved. At that time, he experienced some health
problems and could not proceed but did receive an extension. Recently,
he approached the Planning Commission and asked to have the exact
building previously approved built. He was told it could not be done
because of the conflict with the Draft General Plan. Mr. Nolan noted
that staff had decided that included in the Draft General Plan was
a rezoning of West Francisco Boulevard from light industrial to office
buildings. He stated when the Bahia de Rafael Industrial Subdivision
was approved Planning was firm on setbacks, etc. He then told the
Planning Department it would be unfair to other owners to rezone their
property.
Mr. Nolan noted because there is substantial on-site and off-site
parking, there is no parking problem and stressed that he would like
to have his building built on his property. Mr. Nolan stated he had
measured all the buildings in the area to find out what the floor
area ratios were, then wrote a letter to the Planning Department indica-
ting under the General Plan a .38 was allowed and his pre -approved
plan was a .439 which is not very much but enough to make it difficult
if not approved for the use he is proposing. He noted if he had not
gotten sick the building would have been built.
Councilmember Frugoli recalled two projects Council previously considered,
the TI Building on Lincoln and the Whistlestop Building, which were
both inconsistent with the Draft General Plan but were allowed to proceed
through the Planning process, and stated this seems to be a similar
case. He indicated the lot is sitting next to A & H Auto by itself
in between buildings surrounding it, adding he did not feel it would
be precedent setting if he could build it. Mr. Frugoli noted the floor
area ratio is so close in difference, not even a .5 percent difference.
Mayor Mulryan agreed that the point raised by Councilmember Frugoli
was an interesting one in relation to the two projects and asked Ms.
Moore to explain the difference between those two projects and Mr.
Nolan's.
Regarding the TI Building, Ms. Moore stated it was an approval that
was recently made and because of foreclosure on the property, the
Applicant did not have legal standing at the time the moratorium became
effective to have pulled building permits. She added the project
approval was alive up to that point, whereas this project has been
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 11
expired since March 1981 and has not been evaluated under today's
current regulations.
Councilmember Nave stated he looked at the property and the area and
felt special circumstances should be considered for this project,
such as "finishing out an area." He commented that Council should
look at each request on an individual basis, noting he was not "sold"
on use of the proposed FARs for the area.
Mr. Nolan indicated, in response to Councilmember Breiner's concern,
that he understood there would be no implied project approval if appli-
cant is allowed to proceed through the Planning process.
Councilmember Willms pointed out that on a 10,000 square foot building
as proposed, the additional square footage would amount to approximately
600 square feet.
There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
After further discussion, Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember
Nave seconded, to grant the appeal and allow the Appellant to go through
the Planning process with his old plans.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Willms interjected that it be made clear that there
were mitigating circumstances to allow this project to proceed.
18. 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; 14.75.080q; 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
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; 14.75.080g; 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)"
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to
dispense with the reading, to refer to it by title only, and adopt
Charter Ordinance No. 1536 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
19. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH MOORE, IACOFANO AND GOLTSMAN TO COMPLETE
THE PICLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Rec) - File 4-3-184
Recreation Director McNamee stated the staff report outlined the status
of the Pickleweed Park, noting they would like to have a master plan
done to include community input to have a child care facility at the
park by next year. She indicated the firm of Moore, Iacofano and Goltsman
submitted a thorough proposal and recommended Council adopt the Resolution.
In response to a question concerning whether the project should go
out to bid because it is over $5,000, City Manager Nicolai explained
that this project falls within the scope of professional services
and therefore does not require a formal bid process. She also explained
that Mr. Iacofano has worked with the City on the General Plan which
involved community surveys and felt it would be to the City's advantage
to use his firm.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 12
RESOLUTION NO. 7581 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE
OR AGREEMENT (with Moore, Iacofano and Goltsman
to complete Pickleweed Park Community Needs
Assessment and Design Guidelines - in the amount
of $17,290.00, with funds to come from Park
& Recreation Facilities Fund)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
20. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE OPEN SPACE LANDS AT THE END OF RIDGEWOOD
DRIVE (PW) - File 2-1-75 x 13-14-1
Public Works Director Bernardi stated the Marin County Open Space
District has requested that the Council share the cost of purchasing
a lot at the end of Ridgewood Drive which is the last remaining privately
owned lot on the ridgeline. He indicated the Park and Recreation
Commission has reviewed this and recommends its purchase to Council,
adding the Planning Director has also determined the purchase is consis-
tent with the Draft General Plan policies concerning open space.
Mr. Bernardi informed Council the cost to the City is $22,500 with
total cost at $45,000, and the County will pay for all closing costs
and title insurance, in addition to $22,500.
RESOLUTION NO. 7582 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF MUELLER-NOLTE
PROPERTIES (END OF RIDGEWOOD DRIVE) FOR OPEN
SPACE PURPOSES
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Willms & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
JEANNE LEONCINI,ity C erk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1987
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/87 Page 12