HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1984-02-21SRCC Minutes t agular) 2/21/84 Page 1
In the Council Chambers of the City of San Rafael, Tuesday, February 21,
1984, 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
Also Present: Robert F. Beyer, City Manager; Peter J. Muzio, City
Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
COUNSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to approve
the recommended action on the following consent calendar items:
1.
3.
N
7.
10.
11.
TtPm
Approval of Minutes of Special
Joint Meeting with Redevelopment
Agency, and Regular Meeting of
February 6, 1984 (CC)
Resolution of Findings for Certifi-
cates of Compliance for Two Lots
on Santa Margarita Drive; R. Bernt
& Sons, Owners; A.P. 10-262-21 &
22 (Pl) - File 2-7
Report on Bid Openings and Awards
of Contracts (PW):
a. Pump Station Modification Vicin-
ity 555 Francisco Blvd. East -
File 4-1-359
Request for Authorization of
Expenditure from J. Harold Dollar
Trust for Falkirk Restoration (Lib) -
File 8-19
Resolutions of Findings Re Appeals
of Handicapped Access Requirements:
(PW) - File 13-1-1
a. 633 Del Ganado Road
b. 260 Northgate I (Hunt's Donuts)
Resolution of Findings for Issuance
of Certificate of Public Convenience
to Radio Cab Company (Fin) - File 9-9
12. Planning Commission Referral of
Canalways Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) (Pl) - File 5-1-288
13. Claims for Damage:
2.
a. Frederick P.Schwab, Jr. -
File 3-1-853
b. Greta Fagerland - File 3-1-856
c. New York -Cal Industrial Corp.
(Jerome C. Draper) - File 3-1-857
d. Barbara Julian - File 3-1-858
Recommended Action
Approved as submitted.
RESOLUTION NO. 6739 - GRANTING
APPROVAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLIANCE FOR 334 AND 340 SANTA
MARGARITA DRIVE (Lots 23 and 24,
Record Map -Book 6, Page 16)
RESOLUTION NO. 6740 - AWARD OF
CONTRACT FOR PUMP MODIFICATION
VICINITY 555 FRANCISCO BLVD.
EAST -PROJECT NO. 19-1998957 (to
Maggiora & Ghilotti, low bidder,
in amount of $12,199.50).
RESOLUTION NO. 6743 - AUTHORIZING
EXPENDITURE FROM J. HAROLD DOLLAR
TRUST (In amount of $6,000 for
Falkirk Phase I I I Restoration)
RESOLUTION NO. 6745 - CITY COUNCIL
(IN ITS CAPACITY AS BOARD OF
APPEALS) GRANTING APPEAL FROM
STATE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS - 633
DEL GANADO ROAD, UNIT 4
RESOLUTION NO. 6746 - CITY COUNCIL
(IN ITS CAPACITY AS BOARD OF
APPEALS) DENYING APPEAL FROM STATE
ACCESS REQUIREMENTS -260 NORTHGATE L
RESOLUTION NO. 6747 - ISSUING A
CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY TO RADIO CAB COMPANY
Set date of March 19, 1984 for
public hearing on Certification
of the Canalways Final EIR.
Approved George Hills Co., Inc.
recommendations for denial of
claims.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT GRANT REQUESTS FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS (CM) - File 147
Mayor Mulryan questioned the amount of monies requested compared to the
amount of monies available, finding a difference of about $24,000. Staff
to review figures.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 1
SRCC Minutes (n.egular) 2/21/84 Page 2
After discussion, Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner
seconded, to approve staff recommendation.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 3(19'
4. REPORT ON BID OPENINGS AND AWARDS OF CONTRACTS (PW) - File 4-1-.2#6
5
b. Fifth Avenue Walkway Improvement.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that the Resolution recommending that the
bid be awarded to Bresnan-Dalecio, Inc. for the Fifth Avenue walkway
improvement in amount of $23,624.90 is for an asphalt walkway instead
of concrete, which is better. Public Works Director Bernardi stated
that the bidders were given a choice to submit bids for asphalt or
concrete, and that the low bidder - using asphalt - offered a bid for
$4,500 less. A short discussion followed on the subject of safety,
maintenance costs, etc., and City Manager Beyer suggested that some
history from the Neighborhood Plan should be given to Council.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to con-
tinue this item to the next meeting of March 5, 1984, at which time
staff will provide background history and price information.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION - ABANDONMENT OF PORTION OF JACOBY STREET (PW) -
File 2-12
Councilmember Frugoli asked how many acres would be abandoned and
whether the City would have to give up the easement. City Manager Beyer
indicated 7 or 8. Public Works Director Bernardi explained that on the
property labeled San Rafael Redevelopment Agency Strip, when the sub-
divisions were enacted two years ago, the properties were acquired in -fee.
So the City has the fee title on the Agency strips. On the PG&E property,
there is a 30 -foot wide roadway easement. The City does not have the fee
title on it. In abandoning the right-of-way Jacoby strip, the City is
abandoning the interests in that easement, and there is a difference be-
tween easement ownership and fee ownership.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to adopt
the Resolution of Intention to Vacate a portion of Jacoby Street and to
set a public hearing to consider the matter for March 19, 1984.
RESOLUTION NO. 6741 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER VACATION OF
PORTION OF JACOBY STREET, SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
BASIC LIFE SUPPORT (BLS) AMBULANCE CONTRACT (FD) - File 4-3-105
Councilmember Brein�er questioned Paragraph 3B on Page 3 of the contract,
stating that the City shall pay Contractor $50 per ambulance trip made
for an emergency initiated through the San Rafael Fire Dispatch Center
that does not result in the transportation of a patient. She stated
that $1,200 per year seemed excessive. Fire Chief Marcucci explained
that when the paramedic service was implemented, one of the conditions
was that, based on the County of Marin Health Officer who certified
the City paramedic and health program, in addition to providing para-
medic service advance life support, the City had to also provide Basic
Life Support (BLS). In order to increase the level of service and to
get something from the private sector provider, we entered into an
agreement with him - he provides us the high level of service, we pay
the driver and fees. Fire Chief Marcucci further indicated that the
cost has not been $1,200, but probably it has been closer to $600 per
year.
RESOLUTION NO. 6742 -
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AUTHORIZING -THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT WITH UNITED
AMBULANCE SERVICE TO PROVIDE BASIC LIFE SUPPORT
EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE TO PARAMEDIC AREA B.
(12 -Mo. Contract with United Ambulance Service with
30 -Day Termination Notice by Either Party)
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
None
None
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 2
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 3
8. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO FILE LETTERS OF INTENT FOR SEVERAL
PROJECTS TO SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION (Lib/Cultural Affairs) - File 202
Mayor Mulryan asked when the Neighborhood 30 RFP would be ready.
Planning Director Moore replied that the draft was partly done, and
would be submitted to the San Francisco Foundation and the Canal
Community Alliance for review, after it was finished.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to
approve staff recommendation to submit Letters of Intent to the
San Francisco Foundation for several projects as listed in the staff
report.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
9. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH
ORCA SWIM CLUB (Rec) - File 4-10-172
Councilmember Breiner remarked that the maintenance costs are going
up from $600 to $1,200, and Recreation Director Jauch explained that
the figures have been checked with the Terra Linda Recreation Center
Board, and that the actual cost of running the pool is $9.00 per hour,
while the City has been charging only about $3.00 per hour.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to
adopt a Resolution authorizing the renewal of a Memorandum of Under-
standing with Terra Linda Orca Swim Club/1984 (for one year).
RESOLUTION NO. 6744 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT, LEASE
OR AGREEMENT (Renewal of Memorandum of Under-
standing with Terra Linda ORCA Swim Club/1984 -
for one year - rate increase from $600 to $1,200
per year, pool maintenance costs).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
14. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS FOR MERVYN'S
DEPARTMENT STORE IN NORTHGATE MALL (CM) - File 8-22
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
City Manager Beyer briefed Council on this item, stating that the
public hearing is required by the Internal Revenue Code, which requires
that notice be published and a public hearing be held prior to the
issuance of the bonds.
With no comments from the public, the hearing was closed.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
adopt a Resolution authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of
City of San Rafael Commercial Revenue Bonds (Mervyn's Project) 1984
Series A.
RESOLUTION NO. 6748 - AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY
OF CITY OF SAN RAFAEL COMMERCIAL REVENUE BONDS
(MERVYN'S PROJECT) 1984 SERIES A.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 4
15. PUBLIC HEARING - UP80-59(b) a ED83-119 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR SHARED DRIVEWAY AND ENLARGED OFFICE; Arthur D.
Faibisch, owner and appellant; John Hokanson, representative;
A.P. 11-103-07 (P1) - File 10-5.
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Anne Moore briefed Council on this application
stating that the applicant wishes to raise a 1,100 square foot build-
ing by three feet to allow use of the sub -standard sized basement and
expand the office use to 2,200 square feet. However, staff is con-
cerned about access to the site. There is an 11 -foot wide driveway
on the south side of the lot which serves the rear parking area.
Staff recommends that the owner grant a reciprocal access agreement
and pave the driveway to the property line so that a joint 18 -foot
wide two-way driveway can ultimately be worked out with the adjacent
property owner who would also otherwise have a 10 -foot wide access.
The applicant objected on the basis of conflict with the adjacent
residential use and loss of security. The staff recommendation and
the Planning Commission decision was really based on taking a very
long-range view of all the properties along Lincoln Avenue, which
was originally pretty much a single family residential street. Most
of the lots are 50 -feet wide, served by individual driveways, and it
is one of the heaviest traveled arterials in San Rafael. Traffic is. only
going to increase in the future. In the P.M. peak right now, Lincoln
Avenue really serves an an extension of the on-ramp at the top of
Puerto Suello Hill - Highway 101. The staff recommendation was based
on the rationale that over the next 10 to 20 years, when individual
properties come in for various Planning permits, there is an oppor-
tunity for consolidation of lots and elimination of a number of
driveways and really improving the driveway situation, to decrease
the amount of side traffic and interference from driveways with the
high traffic levels on the street.
To address the applicant's concerns with potential loss of security,
etc., the Commission recommended that the consolidated driveway be
subject to a one year trial. At the end of the trial period, if the
joint driveway is unsatisfactory to either owner, the subject will be
brought back to the Planning Commission. The applicant is not
satisfied with the "trial period" modification to the condition. He
wants the driveway condition eliminated altogether and has, there-
fore, appealed the condition to the City Council.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that he had driven into the parking space
and had no problem turning around instead of backing out. He asked
how many spaces were available and said that he counted 9. Ms. Moore
replied that the use requires 8, and there could possibly be one or
two extra parking spaces. The number of parking spaces is adequate
and there is no problem at all about that. The problem seems to be
the fact that there is no way for the accommodation of two vehicles,
one coming out and one coming in at the same time. Presumably, the
vehicle coming in would queue on Lincoln Avenue, holding up traffic.
Councilmember Russom asked Ms. Moore what the status of the building
next door at 1454 Lincoln was, as the staff report mentioned that it
was planned for a 5 -apartment building. He also asked how many
parking spaces are required, whether it is one per unit or two.
Planning Director Moore stated that the approval have expired. Cur-
rently the owners of the property are having some financial difficulty,
and the project approval would have to come back to the City.
Councilmember Breiner stated that it seemed that with the removal of
some landscaping, there could be enough width for two cars to pass.
There could be a larger concrete pad so that the queuing effect would
be eliminated. Ms. Moore replied that is an option, but the object
is not to eliminate a driveway which is a major part of the rationale
for the original staff recommendation and that we would end up with
one driveway for the two properties where there are now two. It
doesn't address the combination of driveways, and it would probably
also result in the loss of an on -street parking space.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 5
Councilmember Frugoli referred to the condition that the combination
of driveways should be tried for one year, and if not satisfactory
it could come back to the Planning Commission. He stated that this
seemed unfair to the applicant and the potential buyer of the adjacent
building. Ms. Moore stated that the Planning Commission agreed with
staff regarding the possibility that this combined driveway may not
work out, and with that in mind made the change and offered the pos-
sibility that the item could be reconsidered after one year trial.
Mayor Mulryan asked whether there were any such problems with other
shared driveways on Lincoln Avenue, or security problems, and Ms. Moore
stated that she was not aware of any.
Mr. Gary Ragghianti, Attorney representing the applicant, submitted a
set of photographs to Council which demonstrate the location and size
of the present driveway as it relates to the two buildings, the appli-
cant's and the one at 1454 Lincoln Avenue. With reference to the
building at 1454 Lincoln Avenue, Mr. Ragghianti stated that it is his
understanding that Mr. Foti owned it a year ago, perhaps more. The
building went into foreclosure and later the foreclosure proceedings
were stopped by petitioning bankruptcy. The building has been un-
occupied and is in a state of disrepair. It contains two 2 -bedroom
units, and three 1 -bedroom units. It is obvious that if those are
low-income units, as they were intended to be, they will be occupied
by some children; and the place where the children will play is in
the rear and in the driveway. Persons coming to Mr. Faibisch's place
of business will not expect children in the driveway. Therefore,
there will be a serious hazard.
In addition, there is no driveway for Mr. Faibisch to consolidate with.
The driveway to 1454 Lincoln Avenue is way to the south on the op-
posite side of 1454, and this is important to consider at this time.
What the Planning staff have recommended, and what the Planning Com-
mission has suggested and ruled require Mr. Faibisch to acquire an
interest in someone else's property. It requires the other property
owner to agree. We don't know who the property owner is, we don't
know when he will be able to negotiate. In addition to being imprac-
tical, Mr. Ragghianti stated that he doubted this was legally permis-
sible.
Also, while it is technically possible for this driveway to be con-
solidated, there does not seem to be sufficient space to permit two
reasonably sized cars to pass safely. The windows of the bedrooms in
the adjacent building face onto the driveway. Cars going in and out
will disrupt the peace and quiet of the occupants of that building,
and that ought not to be allowed. On.the contrary, to permit privacy,
some screening or landscaping should be provided in that space, and
this applies also to foot traffic.
Other potential problems are those of security, not only to the build-
ings but to the vehicles parked in the back. Mr. Faibisch's personnel
work from 5:30 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. The parking space in the rear is a
fairly safe place for the cars to be parked. Mr. Ragghianti also
stated that he conducted a survey of similar driveway combinations in
the area and found that there were some differences. For example, at
1410 Lincoln Avenue, there is a 6 -unit residential apartment which
has 12 enclosed parking spaces (or 2 spaces per unit). It shares the
driveway with an office building containing 6 different businesses
which has 10 spaces. The driveway is 25 feet wide. Mr. Faibisch's
driveway is 11 feet wide. Even if it were opened up to the full ex-
tent and paved all the way to the wall of 1454, it would only be 17
to 19 feet.
At 1322 and 1318, where there are two small apartments, the driveway
is shared only part way and ends in two garages on 1322 Lincoln Avenue
and a small parking lot with 4 legal spaces. At 1741, where the third
cited merger is located, it doesn't seem to share its driveway with any
other property. The fourth, is a sharing by 2 businesses, a law
office at 1748 and the Berkeley Psychic Institute at 1752, with 14
spaces available. When the check was conducted at 2:00 P.M., the lot
was vacant and the institute seemed to be closed. Finally, at 1451
Lincoln, there is a single building which doesn't seem to share the
driveway with anyone else. The driveway is on Prospect, not on Lincoln.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 6
Mr. Ragghianti stated that he felt the Planning Commission in this
case made a mistake and that the traffic problems of Lincoln Avenue
will not be solved by this condition of approval of Mr. Faibisch's
application. He stated_ that somewhere we have lost sight of the fact that a]
Mr. Faibisch wanted to do, and which he has evidently been permitted
to do, is raise his building 3 feet in order to increase the square
footage from 1,100 to 2,200 feet.
With no further comments from the public, the hearing was closed.
Mayor Mulryan asked Planning Director Moore if the City had made any
attempts to discuss the shared driveway proposal with the owner of
the adjacent property. Ms. Moore replied that it was not done be-
cause of the status of the bankruptcy.
Councilmember Frugoli asked if the Planning Commission knew who owns
the property, and Ms. Moore said that it was not known at this time.
Councilmember Frugoli moved, and Councilmember Breiner seconded to
grant the appeal and allow Mr. Faibisch to expand his office use.
Councilmember Russom stated that he will support the motion but
that he wanted to state that the basic plan is a good one and that
Planning should continue to look toward consolidating driveways.
He added that upon checking the properties in relation with this
appeal, he felt that carrying the pavement up to the side would be
a serious detriment to both properties, but he did not agree with
Mr. Ragghianti that the Planning Commission made a mistake, and that
they took the proper action of upholding the planning policy.
Councilmember Breiner stated that she, too, supported the concept in
theory, but in this lot it did not seem particularly appropriate be-
cause of the security and the space ramifications.
Councilmember Nave stated that he agreed with the Planning Commission
in its endeavor to consolidate driveways on Lincoln Avenue, but in
this particular site there would be a security problem in addition to
the present space being too narrow for two cars, and the fact that
there might be some children in the area.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
16. EAST SAN RAFAEL ISSUES (P1) - File 10-2 x 218 x (SRRA) R-189
(a) Traffic Level of Service
Planning Director Moore briefed Council and stated that the first
item is a resolution proposed for Council adoption which sets forth
the Council consensus that Level of Service D be identified as a goal
for East San Rafael traffic operations. There is some language in the
draft resolution that really commits the City to identify the short
and long-range transportation improvements needed to attain that goal,
with the City to secure Federal, State and local funding to construct
those improvements.
Mayor Mulryan asked Ms. Moore, as City Planner, if City Council
adopted this wording, what change, if any, would you say the adoption
of this resolution would have for Planning direction. Ms. Moore re-
plied that Planning would come back to Council with specifics on the
long-range transportation permit. Planning would have to demonstrate
to Council how the latest projections show that there is a match be -
ween land use and the future transportation, and how the Level of
Service D can be achieved in San Rafael.
Councilmember Russom had a question as to whether staff sees the goal
of Level D as the minimum acceptable. Ms. Moore said that is correct.
Councilmember Nave stated that there has been continual conflict, and
that what this is doing is providing a better flow of traffic.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 7
Councilmember Breiner stated that she understood that by the adoption
of the resolution, if it passes, there would be self-monitoring.
Councilmember Frugoli said that he was encouraged by the material at-
tached to the packet which indicated that Caltrans is involved in this
project. He stated that he felt the City should continue to give high
priority to seeking funding for the Bellam-101 Corridor and Highway 17
to help meet the goals of traffic Level D.
Councilmember Nave moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt
the resolution adopting the goal of traffic Level of Service D for
East San Rafael.
RESOLUTION NO. 6749 - ADOPTING THE GOAL OF TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE D
FOR EAST SAN RAFAEL.
Councilmember Russom stated that he had received a lot of calls from
concerned citizens on this proposal. He wanted to state that to con-
tinue with the policy of not going above Level D would be a moratorium
on further development in the area, and that he was not prepared to
impose a moratorium on the major part of the City. At the same time,
he felt Council was being very clear in the direction to staff that
this is the objective and that traffic movements are not to get any
worse, and it will be important to -make sure that Council is careful
in making decisions on this project.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom and Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
(b) Consideration of Development Processing.
Planning Director Moore stated that there are two items under consider-
ation, one is a resolution of intent to consider modifying the existinc;
C-2 and M Districts so that during the preparation of the neighborhood
plan there will be some use permit review apropos intensification of
use. There has been much discussion on this matter, and Council was
concerned as to how this would function. Staff is proposing that Council
give staff some additional time to come back with proposals and a prac-
tical approach. This is the area that our recent traffic study has
shown to have a significant traffic increase. This is because there has
been an intensification of the many uses. Much of the intensification
is not subject to direct City Planning control because of the wide
range of uses "by right". Staff is requestingthat it be permitted to
have more use permit control over the uses during the preparation of
the neighborhood plan.
The second item is criteria that the Planning Commission and City
Council can use when evaluating development applications prior and
during preparation of the neighborhood plan. There wasn't enough
time to prepare something for Council to look at in such a short time,
and it was a difficult subject. It would seem more logical to start
with the 15 policies and the general plan. Ms. Moore stated that she
had hoped to have an exhibit ready tonight to demonstrate how the
project would be evaluated, but there wasn't enough time to prepare it.
There is a resolution with an exhibit which has been drafted which
has all of the existing general plan policies. Each one of these
policies would eventually be listed on a checklist and the individual
applications would then be evaluated.
Councilmember Nave referred to the second item above, and stated that
on the 13th of February, with reference to ".....criteria for consider-
ing whether a specific development project should proceed through the
planning review process....", he felt that this would a disservice to
the City Council, and he would prefer to see Planning set a criteria,
have a hearing, and use the criteria as a tool when the applications
are processed.
In reply to Mayor Mulryan's request for an explanation of the above,
City Manager Beyer stated that the intent is to keep everything very
simple, and to allow just a quick review of the application to determine
whether it meets a certain set of criteria. If it does, it just goes
through the normal process. The practical problem is that when a
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 8
project is studied in depth and many questions arise, it seems better
to go through the normal process. Asked further to explain the above
as it relates to the resolution, Mr. Beyer replied that his inclination
would be that if the majority of City Council feels the projects should
go through the normal process and be evaluated on their merit, which is in
the general plan already, then there is no need to adopt this resolu-
tion, but to provide just a statement or a substitute resolution which
says "during the process project will go through the normal review
process." However, if Council wishes to adopt the process which is
being proposed here, then Council can adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Breiner asked for more clarification on what happens if
a specific development project starts through the system, the criteria
established are set and Planning Commission and staff feel that it
should not go any further. Ms. Moore replied that the Planning Commis-
sion is the final decision-making body; it could deny that project with
or without prejudice and it would have to make findings. There is then
an appeal process, and Council would make the final decision upon re-
ceiving recommendations from the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Russom stated that the reason staff was asked to present
this kind of criteria was to give the developer an early warning, if
the proposed development was, in Council's and Planning Commission's
view, in conflict with the neighborhood plan. He would like to see
Council approve this resolution, but more work needs to be done on
the rating system or evaluation. In practice, it would give the City
more in-depth criteria for both the City and the developers to look at.
Councilmember Nave stated that in reading the sentence "....whether
a specific development project should proceed through the planning re-
view process..." he felt this had legal implications. The Planning
Commission might interpret that exactly as it reads, and as a result
they might stop a project before the Council has seen it.
Mayor Mulryan suggested a rewording of the submitted resolution, and
City Manager Beyer stated that the problem is that if they file an
application which is deemed complete, under State law, there is a limit
of time within which the application must be processed, irrespective
of what the resolution says.
The proposed change would be in the third resolution, last paragraph
which would state "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Rafael
City Council directs staff to prepare recommendation on the criteria
to be utilized for evaluating development proposals while the East San
Rafael Neighborhood Plan is being prepared
Kathy Campbell, Executive Director of the Canal Community Alliance,
stated that she would prefer to see the statement stay as it is, with-
out changes, and that she agrees with the rest of the resolution. How-
ever she had a question on Page 3 of the staff report which stated
adopt a resolution of intention to consider modifying the C-2
and M Districtsin the East San Rafael neighborhood to expand the City's
use permit review authority., The draft resolution further directs
that the Planning Commission consider such modifications at a duly
noticed public hearing...." Miss Campbell stated that she did not see
these last words in the resolution. Ms. Moore indicated that this is
a State law, that the hearing be publicly noticed.
Councilmember Breiner stated that the above proposed change in the
resolution which was indicated on the first page, should also be re-
flected on the second page.
Councilmember Russom moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to
adopt the resolution regarding criteria for evaluating development
applications during preparation of the East San Rafael Neighborhood
Plan, as amended.
RESOLUTION NO. 6751 - REGARDING CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATIONS DURING PREPARATION OF THE EAST SAN
RAFAEL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (as amended).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 9
Councilmember Nave stated that, referring to use permits, he would
like to have the Planning Department make a study of the use permits
issued for that area.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to
adopt the Resolution of Intent to consider modifying the C-2 and M
Districts in East San Rafael During preparation of the Neighborhood
Plan.
RESOLUTION NO. 6750 - RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO CONSIDER MODIFYING THE C-2
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND M (HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND
MANUFACTURING) DISTRICTS IN EAST SAN RAFAEL DURING
PREPARATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
(c) Adoption of Traffic Mitigation Fee Program
Councilmember Frugoli stated that Council should have a public hearing
on this item.
Councilmember Nave also stated that there should be a public hearing
because again Council is looking at a criteria for East San Rafael.
There should be explanations of the reasons for presenting the fees,
and why this is being done in this fashion.
Councilmember Russom stated that, if this item is to come back at a
later date, he would like to see work done on the possibility of
having either a rebate or additional fee after the fact, because it
seems that the fairest way to apply mitigation fees is to have some
mechanism by which we can explain how they are arrived at.
After further discussion by councilmembers, City Manager Beyer sug-
gested that the item be scheduled for the next meeting of March 5,
1984. Mayor Mulryan stated that he would be absent for that meeting.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Russom seconded, to set
a public hearing on March 19, 1984 to consider Adoption of Traffic
Mitigation Fee Program for East San Rafael.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
17. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1476 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM
R -1-B-2 AND R-1-B-.3DISTRICTS TO P -D DISTRICT (IRWIN STREET WEST OF
BRET HARTE VILLAGE) (Pl) - File 5-1-287 x 10-3
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ORDINANCE 1476 OF
THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTED FEBRUARY 6, 1984,
SO AS TO AMEND CONDITION OF APPROVAL (b)(6) OF EXHIBIT "A" (Irwin
Street , West of Bret Harte Village)
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer
to it by title only for the first reading and pass Charter Ordi-
nance No. 1478 to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 9
W
19.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84
Page 10
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS RE PARKING STRUCTURE - THIRD AND A STREETS
(RA) - File 140 x (SRRA) R-195
City Manager Beyer stated that there are two aspects to the improve-
ments to be made at the parking structure: (1) to identify the build-
ing with off-site direction markings, (2) to make better identification
of spaces within the parking structure. A third consideration is to
improve the lighting to provide more security and control some of the
vandalism.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that the problem with this structure
seems to be one of identification, and he asked if anything was being
done about that. Redevelopment Program Manager Ours replied that
there will be a sign at both entrances indicating where the entrance
is.
Councilmember Russom asked whether more painting could be done inside
the structure to spruce up and make it more appealing. He also said
that he did not intend this to be an item for this meeting, but he
would like very much to see the possibility of an entrance on Third
Street pursued. City Manager Beyer stated that this could be agendized.
After a short discussion on new rates and new hours of operation,
the following action was taken.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to
instruct staff to proceed with the signing and lighting programs.
Additionally, staff to prepare a resolution establishing a new rate
schedule and hours of operation to be put in place April 1, 1984,
which will call for rates of $25.00 a month for the 94 uncovered
parking spaces and $35.00 a month for the 106 covered parking spaces
and operation hours from 10:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
LEASE OF A PORTION OF PUBLIC REAL PROPERTY - SHELL OIL COMPANY, LINCOLN
AVENUE AND SECOND STREET (RA) - File 2-8-12
City Manager Beyer briefed Council stating that the City would have
preferred a 3 -year lease with Shell, but because of the expense of
remodeling the station,it would not allow Shell time to amortize the
cost; therefore, Shell prefers a 6 -yr. lease, with cancellation after_5 yrs.
by giving 180 days' notice. The remodeling would include installa.tion , of__._
underground fiberglass tanks and installation of a right turn lane
on Lincoln Avenue into Second Street. In addition to the rent being
higher, there is an additional bonus for the City based on cents/gal-
lon and on a high volume of business, this would be very profitable.
Councilmember Nave asked whether the overage or bonus on the $6,000
per year was based on 1z cents per gallon. Redevelopment Program
Manager Ours replied that it is based on 2 cents per gallon.
Councilmember Breiner referred to a sentence in Paragraph 13, Page 5,
stating "capping of any and all abandoned sanitary sewers encountered
on the lot". Mr. Beyer said that this is in the present lease.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PRO-
VIDING FOR THE LEASE OF A PORTION OF PUBLIC REAL PROPERTY AT
LINCOLN AVENUE AND SECOND STREET TO THE SHELL OIL COMPANY"
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, zo
dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer
to it by title only for the first reading and pass Charter Ordinance
No. 1479 to print, by the following vote, to wit:
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84
Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 11
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
20. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION - ORDINANCE NO 1477 - PROVIDING FOR
THE SALE AND CONVEYANCE OF PUBLIC REAL PROPERTY �at Andersen Drive
and Bellam Boulevard to Marin Square Partners). (RA) - File 2-7
21.
22
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE SALE AND CONVEYANCE OF PUBLIC
REAL PROPERTY AT ANDERSEN DRIVE/BELLAM BOULEVARD TO MARIN
SQUARE PARTNERS"
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Russom seconded, to
dispense with the reading, to refer to it by title only, and adopt
Charter Ordinance No. 1477 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CONSIDERATION OF ACTION BY CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RE BUCK TRUST LITIGATION
(CA) - File 202
City Attorney Muzio briefed Council stating that there are essentially
two petitions before the Probate Court, one is by the San Francisco
Foundation to modify the terms of the Buck Trust Fund to permit some
of the funds to be used outside of the County; the other is a County
petition to remove the San Francisco Foundation as trustee. These
petitions will be heard together in a single trial in November, after
an extensive amount of discovery and extra witnesses will have to be
retained because there are some very important points of law being
raised. The County of Marin is a party in the law suit and is being
represented by the County Counsel's office as well as outside private
counsel. The Marin County Bar Association is and has been for the
last couple of years in the law suit as a friend of the Court.
The issues of the County of Marin representing the citizens of the
County who are the beneficiaries of the Buck Trust are substantially
the same as those of the citizens of the City of San Rafael. After
speaking with both Douglas Maloney, representing the County, and Marshall
Krause, Attorney representing the Bar Association, and observing their
appearance in court at the scheduling conference which was held with
regard to these matters last week, it was concluded that those two
attorneys can forcefully present the points of view that the citizens
of San Rafael would want to have presented. The conclusion is that
a separate amicus brief from the City of San Rafael was not necessary.
However, it would be helpful for Council to pass a resolution support-
ing the County, and staff could prepare a list of unmet needs to
assist the County.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to
ask City Attorney to formulate a resolution of support for the efforts
of the County of Marin and the Marin County Bar Association, and that
it be brought back to Council at the next meeting of March 5, 1984.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
RECOMMENDATION TO REALLOCATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT HOUSING
FUNDS FROM PG&E SITE TO CITY PRu.PEH,i' Y ON BELLAM BOULEVARD (CM) -
File 147 x (SRRA) R-187
City Manager Beyer reported to Council that the sum of $250,000 of
CDBG funds has been allocated to the City for the purpose of providing
low and moderate income housing as a part of the PG&E relocation pro-
ject. According to the agreement with Equitec, it looks like the City
will not be able to use these funds until 1985, assuming that the
relocation of PG&E service yard takes place. If it doesn't, it would be
necessary to wait until 1986 to use these funds.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 12
The City owns a parcel at the end of Bellam Boulevard and recently
the Marin County Housing Authority asked the City to participate
in creating affordable housing on this site. The site could accom-
modate 160 units and would assist in meeting additional community
affordable housing needs. In a call to Equitec, it was learned that
they are in the process of hiring an architectural firm for this
project. Therefore, the City Manager's recommendation is that Council
approve a request to the San Rafael Planning Area Committee and the
Marin County Priority Setting Committee for the CDBG housing funds
in the amount of $250,000, to be reallocated to th6'City property -at
the end of Bellam Boulevard.
Councilmember Breiner asked if it could be possible to contact Marin
County Housing Authority for a method to be worked out by which
some of the units could be on a priority basis for City employees
such as police, fire, public works, etc., who, at the present time, cannot
afford to live in the area, but who are vitally needed in case of
emergency, such as earthquakes, large fires, etc.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that at one time he and Mr. Beyer met
with a group of developers regarding the feasibility of installing
portable housing for public works, police, fire, -etc., personnel.
City Attorney Muzio stated that some type of preliminary work would
have to be done on the legality of this.
Mr. John Wilson Bugbee, Ecumenical Association for Housing, commented
on the fact that the PG&E site has been for some time designated as
low and moderate income housing. He said that he would like to hear
some type of commitment from the City, since this was written in the
Disposition and Development Agreement. This isnot to say that he is
not in favor of using those funds to make things work at Bellam. -
Councilmember Frugoli stated that at one time the people from Equitec
were willing to increase the number of units from 240 to 300 for low
and moderate income housing. So, they are in favor of this commitment.
Mr. Bugbee then said that he would like to make sure that their defi-
nition of what affordable housing_is, and the definition of affordable
housing for the people who live in this community are similar. It
would seem that the difference between the two is about $40,000.
City Manager Beyer stated that he would like to be clear that we are
talking about affordable housing and not necessarily low and moderate
income housing. There is a difference.
Abraham Yang, President of San Rafael Housing Corporation, stated that
he had some concerns about the allocation of the Block Grant money
and wanted to know what makes the Bellam site any more appropriate
than the PG&E site in terms of the Block Grant money, which has to be
used before the end of 1985. The concern is that the money may be
tied up instead of used for some kind of housing before the time ex-
pired. Mr. Yang stated that the San Rafael Housing Corporation sup-
ported the application for the Block Grant money for the PG&E site.
It would make it very difficult for the Corporation to continue sup-
porting monies for which there is no appeal in terms of time when that
money is going to used.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that work is being done right now on the
project and that poles will be in place within the next two or three
months.
Dick Blood-Bornholdt, Consultant to the Housing Authority, stated
that he has been involved in a number of "affordable" housing projects
with and without private developers. In reply to comments from Mr.
Bugbee, he said that affordable is determined by just what the level
of income ranges the City (in this case, San Rafael) would like to ad-
dress as far as affordability. The definition of low and moderate
income has to be set so that what the families can afford can be known.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 12.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84
Page 13
Anise Turina, Ecumenical Association for Housing, stated that she is
disappointed after hearing all the arguments about the PG&E site
because it is the best possible site and suitable for low and moderate
income housing and it has potential for growth. She stated that she is
worried that low and moderate housing will never materialize.
Councilmember Breiner indicated that she would like Council to re -affirm
its commitment to that site, and following Mr. Blood-Bornholdt, specify
the range of low and moderate income. Mayor Mulryan replied that it
would be possible to discuss these items with Equitecat:th6ir next meeting.
Ms. Breiner stated that since this had been discussed at a previous
meeting, it might be appropriate to bring back the minutes of that
meeting where the affordable housing was discussed.
Councilmember Russom stated that this would be very helpful to him also,
and that a report of the above-mentioned meeting with Equitec would
also be helpful.
Councilmember Breiner said that since she is going to be representing
the Council at the CDBG meeting, she would appreciate some details
from staff before the meeting.
Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to request
from the San Rafael Planning Area Committee and the Marin County
Priority Setting Committee reallocation of the CDBG funds in the
amount of $250,000 from the PG&E site to Be airi _Bo�evara �-
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
23. UP83-106 and ED83-113 - PLANNING COMMISSION REFERRAL RE WENDY'S
RESTAURANT; ANDERSEN DRIVE AND JACOBY STREET; EDWARD GILMORE, OWNER;
G. THOMAS TELFER, REPRESENTATIVE; AP''18-143=11 (P1) - File 10-2
Planning Director Moore briefed Council stating that there are two
items to be considered, one is the timing of commencement of con-
struction, and the other is the mitigation fee. The staff report
indicates that the time lag between occupancy of Wendy's and comple-
tion of the improvements will be only a few months. The traffic
mitigation fee recommendations are tied to an earlier staff report.
One way to address this this evening might be to try to identify
what the Council would expect to be in the way of a traffic miti-
gation fee, which according to the. Lee Saylor Index adjustment would be
$55,200.
Councilmember Russom asked whether sales tax is charged on take-out
food.
Bill Bullard on behalf of Mr. Gilmore, and Wendy's, stated that the
staff report recommendations are consistent with the report recom-
mending that the building permit be allowed to go ahead, and that the
traffic mitigations fees, would have to be bonded for, or a deposit
would have to be made in escrow, and the final amount would have to
be determined at the time that Council compute the final fees. The
time is very critical, and if there is no impediment to the building
permit, Mr. Gilmore will agree in some manner to the ultimate miti-
gation fees, although it is hard to agree to something when we don't
know what the final figures will be.
Councilmember Frugoli stated that the figure shown in the staff report
would be the maximum. Councilmember Nave said that in his opinion,
considering the size of the building, the minimum amount of traffic
problem that this project will cause and the revenue to the City, he
felt that amountwas a little high. Councilmember Russom asked if
what Council was doing tonight was setting a maximum mitigation fee
for Wendy's, and whether this might be considered as setting a pre-
cedent.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 13
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 14
Mr. Bullard asked if the discussion meant that Council would hold up
the building permit until the fee has been determined or the permit
will be issued subject to this maximum, so that Mr. Gilmore can pro-
ceed.
Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Nave seconded, to
authorize issuance of building permit consistent with all other
Planning Commission conditions of approval, and establish a traffic
mitigation fee for the Wendy's Restaurant of $55,200 maximum, subject
to the Lee Saylor Index adjustment.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ADD ITEM:
Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Mayor Mulryan
MARIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF MAYORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS - RE TASK FORCE
NEEDS REPORT - File 113
Councilmember Breiner referred to MCCMC and stated that a report is
needed for the dinner meeting of February 22, 1984 regarding Task
Force needs. She indicated that Councilmembers who are not attending the
dinner may pass on their comments to her.
24. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION - File 3-1-825
The Council adjourned to Closed Session to discuss pending litigation,
then reconvened in public and unanimously approved denial of Appli-
cation for Lease to Present Late Claim - Louise Sousa, Claim No.
3-1-825.
J- R-F,_M. LEONCIM Ciiy C erk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1984
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 2/21/84 Page 14