HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2000-04-03SRCC MINUTES (F,>qular) 4/3/2000 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRjLL 3, 2000 AT 8:00 PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Absent
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
CLOSED SESSION:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
RE: CITY CELEBRATIONS - File 104 x 1-1
Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember
8:00 PM
Walker Vaninq, resident of San Rafael, discussed past parties and celebrations that had
been held in San Rafael, presenting Council with copies of newspaper articles, event
programs, and an accounting of some of the expenses.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the following
Consent Calendar items:
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 1
ITEM
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1.
Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday,
Minutes approved as
March 6, 2000 (CC)
submitted.
2.
Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM)
Approved staff recommendation:
- File 116 x 9-1
AB 2624 (Cox), State Mandate.
Local Programs, Reform:
SUPPORT; AB 2412 (Migden and
Aroner), Internet Sales.
Nexus: SUPPORT; AB 2188
(Baldwin), Internet Sales Tax.
Exemptions: OPPOSE; SB 1377
(Haynes), Internet Sales Tax.
Exemptions: OPPOSE.
3.
Monthly Investment Report (MS) - File 8-18 x 8-9
Accepted Monthly Investment
Report for month ending
February, 2000, as presented.
4.
Resolution Authorizing an Agreement with Caporicci,
RESOLUTION NO. 10617 -
Cropper & Larson, LLP, Certified Public
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN
Accountants, to Provide Auditing Services for the
AGREEMENT WITH CAPORICCI,
Years Ending June 30, 2000 Through June 30, 2002,
CROPPER & LARSON, LLP,
with Options for Years Ended June 30, 2003 and
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS,
June 30, 2004 (MS) - File 8-1 x (SRRA) R-62
TO PROVIDE AUDITING SERVICES
FOR THE YEARS ENDING JUNE 30,
2000 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2002,
WITH OPTIONS FOR THE YEARS
ENDING JUNE 30, 2003 AND JUNE
30, 2004.
5.
Resolution Changing the City's Long -Term Disability
RESOLUTION NO. 10618 -
and Term Life Insurance Providers (MS)
RESOLUTION TO CHANGE THE
- File 7-1-43
CITY'S LONG-TERM DISABILITY
AND TERM LIFE INSURANCE
PROVIDERS TO CANADA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Pggular) 4/3/2000 Page 2
6. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
Approved final adoption of
NO. 10615 - Resolution of the San Rafael City
Resolution No. 10615:
Council Approving an Amendment to the San Rafael
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL
General Plan 2000 to: a) Amend the Housing Element
CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN
(Policies H-19 and H-20 and Programs H -C, H -DD and
AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAFAEL
H -EE), Land Use Element (Policy LU -10B), East
GENERAL PLAN 2000 TO:
San Rafael (Policy ESR -6), Appendix A (Glossary)
A) AMEND THE HOUSING ELEMENT
and the Housing Element Background Report to Lower
(POLICIES H-19 AND H-20 AND
the Affordable Housing Standards for New Below
PROGRAMS H -C, H -DD AND H -EE),
Market Rate Rental Units (GPA 99-5): b) Amend the
LAND USE ELEMENT (POLICY
Land Use Map of the Land Use Element Redesignating
LU -10B), EAST SAN RAFAEL
Three Acres of Land from Light Industrial/Office to
(POLICY ESR -6), APPENDIX A
Public/Quasi-Public Land Use Designation Located at
(GLOSSARY) AND THE HOUSING
2350 Kerner Boulevard/200 Morphew Street (GPA 99-2):
ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT TO
and c) Update Appendix B - Land Use Traffic
LOWER THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Allocations (GPA 99-4) (CD)
STANDARDS FOR NEW BELOW MARKET
- File 115 x 229 x 13-16
RATE RENTAL UNITS (GPA 99-5);
B) AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF
THE LAND USE ELEMENT
REDESIGNATING THREE ACRES OF
LAND FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/
OFFICE TO PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC
LAND USE DESIGNATION LOCATED
AT 2350 KERNER BOULEVARD/200
MORPHEW STREET (GPA 99-2); AND
C) UPDATE APPENDIX B - LAND
USE TRAFFIC ALLOCATIONS (GPA
99-4).
7. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE
Approved final adoption of
NO. 1749 - "An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael
Ordinance No. 1749:
Amending Title 14 of the San Rafael Municipal Code
'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
(City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance), Chapter 16,
SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14
Section 14.16.030 (Affordable Housing Requirements)
OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL
to Lower the Affordable Housing Standards for New
CODE (CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
Below Market Rate (BMR) Rental Units (ZC 99-8) (CD)
ZONING ORDINANCE), CHAPTER 16,
- File 115 x 229 x 13-16
SECTION 14.16.030 (AFFORDABLE
HOUSING REQUIREMENTS) TO LOWER
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
STANDARDS FOR NEW BELOW MARKET
RATE (BMR) RENTAL UNITS
(ZC 99-8).
8. SECOND READING AND FINAL OPTION OF ORDINANCE
Approved final adoption of
NO. 1750 - An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael
Ordinance No. 1750 -
Amending the Zoning Map of the City of San Rafael,
'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
California, Adopted by Reference, by Section
SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING
14.01.020 of the Municipal Code of San Rafael,
MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL,
California, so as to Reclassify Certain Real
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY
Property from PD (Planned Development) District
REFERENCE, BY SECTION
and LI/O (Light Industrial/Office) District to
14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL
PD (Planned Development) District for the Fasken
CODE OF SAN RAFAEL,
Property Master Plan, City Corporation Yard and
CALIFORNIA. SO AS TO
Commercial Office Complex Development (RE: ZC 99-5,
RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL
2350 Kerner Boulevard and 200 Morphew Street,
PROPERTY FROM THE PD
AP Nos. 009-291-10, 31, 32, and 34 [ptn]) (CD)
(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)
- File 115 x 10-1
DISTRICT AND LI/O (LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE) DISTRICT TO
THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD
ORDINANCE NO. 1750) DISTRICT
FOR THE FASKEN PROPERTY MASTER
PLAN, CITY CORPORATION YARD
AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE COMPLEX
DEVELOPMENT (RE: ZC 99-5. 2350
KERNER BOULEVARD AND 200
MORPHEW STREET; AP NOS. 009-
291-10, 31, 32 AND 34 EPTN]'.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (r'-,gular) 4/3/2000 Page 3
9. Report on Bid Opening and Adoption of Resolution
Awarding Contract for City Hall Third Floor
Community Development Furniture to Coordinated
Resources, Inc. (Project No. CDD 2000-02; Re -Bid
Opening Held on Monday, 3/20/2000) (CD)
- File 4-2-301
10. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Agreement with
Marin Bocce Federation for Use and Operation of the
San Rafael Bocce Courts in Albert Park (Current
Agreement Through 12/31/99) (CS)
File 202 x 9-3-66 x 12-5
11. Resolution of Appreciation to Peacock Garden Club
to Commemorate Arbor Day 2000 Re: Tree Planting
at Gerstle Park (PW)
- File 102 x 109 x 9-3-40 x 9-3-66
12. Resolution Making Findings Required by Health and
Safety Code Section 33445, Committing Funds for
Construction of Certain School Facilities and Taking
Related Actions (RA) - File 140 x (SRRA) R-6
RtSOLUTION NO. 10619 -
RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF
CONTRACT FOR CITY HALL THIRD
FLOOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FURNITURE (RE -BID) TO
COORDINATED RESOURCES, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $80,893.81 (Only
bidder).
RESOLUTION NO. 10620 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF THE AMENDED
FACILITY USE AND MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR THE ALBERT PARK
BOCCE BALL COMPLEX (from
1/1/2000 through 12/31/2005).
RESOLUTION NO. 10621 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
PEACOCK GARDEN CLUB TO
COMMEMORATE ARBOR DAY 2000 RE:
TREE PLANTING AT GERSTLE PARK.
RESOLUTION NO. 10622 -
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS
REQUIRED BY HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE SECTION 33445, RELATING
TO FUNDING OF CERTAIN SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENTS AND TAKING
RELATED ACTIONS (to allow the
San Rafael Schools to expend
Redevelopment Agency funds on
capital equipment at schools
located within the Project
Area or serving Project Area
residents).
13. Resolution Authorizing Street Closures for the RESOLUTION NO. 10623 -
11th Season of the Weekly Downtown Farmers' RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Market Festival (RA) - File 11-19 x (SRRA) R-181 TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CITY
STREETS FOR THE WEEKLY
DOWNTOWN FARMERS' MARKET
FESTIVAL (Court Street from
4:30 PM to 10:00 PM on
Thursdays from May 4th through
September 28th; Fourth Street
from "B" Street to Cijos from
5:00 PM to 10:00 PM on
Thursdays from May 4th through
September 28th; 'A" Street
between Fifth Avenue and the
entry to the Parking structure
at Lootens between Fifth
Avenue and Commercial from
5:00 PM to 10:00 PM on
Thursdays from May 4th through
September 28th).
14. Resolution Authorizing Street Closures for the
Second Season of the Weekly Mercado del Canal
(RA) - File 11-19 x 251
RESOLUTION NO. 10624 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CITY
STREETS FOR THE WEEKLY MERCADO
DEL CANAL (Alto Street between
Belvedere and Larkspur Streets
from 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM on
Tuesdays from June 6, 2000
through September 26, 2000).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (from Aqenda Items #6, V. and #8 only, due
to absence from the meetinq of March 20, 2000, at
which these items were introduced).
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES ("agular) 4/3/2000 Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING:
15. APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A,
TWO-YEAR TIME EXTENSION TO THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD TO COMPLY WITH CITY COUNCIL,
ORDINANCE 1740 LIMITING HOUSEHOLDS TO NO MORE THAN TEN ADULT CATS AT 881 LAS OVEJAS
AVENUE: APN 178-221-50: FILE NUMBER UP99-56: SINGLE FAMILY (R-10) ZONING DISTRICT:,
DON BURY. APPELLANT (CD) - File 10-10 x 10-2 x 13-3
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff report.
Community Development Director Bob Brown recalled that last August the Council
approved Ordinance changes that expanded the City's list of domestic animals subject
to animal -keeping regulations to include the keeping of cats. Mr. Brown explained
the limitation now allows up to ten cats per property, with a Use Permit required
for more than ten. Mr. Brown noted the Ordinance included an amortization period
that would allow residents ninety days to come into compliance with the Ordinance,
or to apply for a Use Permit for keeping more than the ten permitted cats. Mr.
Brown pointed out there was also an option to apply for an extension of the
amortization period, to establish a more reasonable period "commensurate with the
investment involved".
Mr. Brown reported that on December 30th of last year, staff received an application
for a two-year extension of the amortization period from Don Bury, 881 Las Ovejas
Avenue. In his letter of application, Mr. Bury indicated his two-year request was
based upon a desire to relocate to a new residence outside San Rafael, so he and his
wife could continue their cat rescue operations. Mr. Brown reported that as
required by the Ordinance, he conducted a hearing on January 18th, and at that
hearing he offered the Bury's the opportunity to submit evidence of their financial
investments toward cat -keeping. He reported the Bury's submitted an appraisal of
their property, which established a value based on its use as a single-family
dwelling; however, it did not set an incremental amount, either plus or minus, due
to cat -keeping use or improvements.
Mr. Brown stated he offered the Bury's additional time to submit substantiated
evidence of property improvements made specifically for cat -keeping. Mr. Brown
noted Mr. Bury submitted a breakdown of improvements totaling $12,750, which
included fencing, outdoor enclosures and patio covers, and tree removal to keep the
cats on the property. Mr. Brown reported he viewed the improvements on-site, and
requested documentation to substantiate the costs, particularly what their outside
labor costs included, as well as the dates of the improvements, in order to
determine whether they had been made prior to, or after, the introduction of the
Ordinance last August. Mr. Bury was unable to provide such documentation, and after
a consultation with the City Attorney's office, Mr. Brown stated he concluded the
lack of such documentation, given that the Ordinance places the burden of evidence
on the applicant, precluded its consideration in his decision.
Mr. Brown reported that on February 8th, he rendered the decision denying the
request, basing that denial on three factors. First, the evidence submitted by the
applicant did not support the conclusion that additional time was required to obtain
value from the property improvements made for the keeping of more than ten cats. He
noted it was apparent from his site visit that some improvements had been made for
that purpose, particularly nylon mesh material used to keep the cats on the
property, which would be useless if the cat -keeping was discontinued. He pointed
out that other improvements, such as awnings, would have value for typical
residential use, and might also have use for a household maintaining the allowable
number of cats, or by the current property owners, who still have the option of
submitting an application for a Use Permit for cat -keeping in excess of the
Ordinance limits. Mr. Brown noted, in any event, the applicant was unable to
document the actual expenses, or the dates of improvements.
The second factor in the denial was the applicant's stated desire for a two-year
time frame to relocate, which did not relate to obtaining reasonable use of the
improvements that were made for cat -keeping, but rather related to the applicant's
desire to relocate to another residence. Mr. Brown stated that reason did not
factor into the required Findings, established in the Ordinance, for granting an
extension. Third, while the applicants had made considerable strides in reducing
the impacts on the general neighborhood, by both reducing the number of cats they
are keeping on-site, from approximately 75 to 43, and by keeping the cats on the
subject property, there still remained impacts, such as odors and the attraction of
flies, which affect the immediately adjacent properties.
Mr. Brown noted Mr. Bury had also submitted three additional letters, prior to this
meeting, and copies had been given to the Council.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the amortization and asked, if improvements were
made after the adoption of the Ordinance, did the City have to factor amortization
of those improvements, or were they only required to allow a reasonable period for
amortizing improvements made prior to the Ordinance? Deputy City Attorney Eric
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (p^qular) 4/3/2000 Page 5
Davis explained the Ordinance addressed only the improvements and investments that
pre -date the Ordinance, not improvements made after the Ordinance. Mr. Davis noted
that in looking at the evidence, the Council should also review when the investments
were made, and whether they were made prior to the Ordinance, because the City had
to look at a reasonable period for amortization, depending upon the date the
improvements were made, if they were made. In addition, he pointed out there may
have been some improvements on the property for some period of time, and they may
have already had an opportunity to be amortized in their use.
Mayor Boro invited Don Bury to address the Council.
Don Bury, applicant, explained his dilemma was rooted in his belief that people
should not be killing these animals, which he acknowledged would be an expedient
solution, but one which would destroy his wife, as she has such a huge emotional
investment in these animals. He stated that as they try to follow the letter of the
law, he hoped this meeting would include the human side of the story.
Mr. Bury explained the most appropriate response he had felt he could come up with
was to leave town, and he has been determined to do that since the Ordinance passed.
Mr. Bury pointed out he and his wife had been silent during the entire period of the
Ordinance discussions, and as he had stated during the hearing in Mr. Brown's
office, the reason for that was because the basis upon which the proposal was made
to pass the Ordinance had not been unfounded, acknowledging that what they had been
doing had gotten out of hand, and needed to be reined in. Therefore, he and his
wife let the process take its course, and watched the motions take place. He stated
he and his wife were deeply committed to complying with the law, and they were
begging for some time to do this in a way that does not get drastic.
Mr. Bury felt the fact that he has lived on Las Ovejas for twenty-eight years, and
his wife for more than twenty -years, indicated both he and his wife were San Rafael
people who were committed to being here, and he stated it was going to be a huge
disruption for them to move; however, they also recognized the responsibility they
have to take care of their neighbors and honor their rights and needs, although they
had, inadvertently, not been conscious of those needs. He explained the
neighborhood had been quite stable for a long period of time, noting for example,
their next door neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Russell, had been there for decades. He
believed it became a problem, and was apparent the situation had to change, when the
new neighbors started moving in, and rightly so. He noted he and his wife had not
challenged that at any point, but he now felt as if he was being "driven into the
sea". He stated they were trying, and were in the middle of a number of
negotiations he believed could materialize into solutions. However, the challenge
they were facing in trying to relocate was that there were so many forces beyond
their control, with contingencies and waiting for other people to move, and he did
not know how long it was going to take. He stated if it was within his power, and
if they could have accomplished it by now, they would have done so, so everyone
could have been spared this public hearing.
Mr. Bury noted they had even had a dialogue going to establish a date, and Mr. Brown
had offered to give the Bury's until October; however, as of October 1st they would
have had to have only ten cats or less, and there could be no application for a
permit. Mr. Bury stated he had been very tempted to engage in that agreement,
because it would have been likely that he could have filled that commitment without
killing animals. However, within the past eight to twelve weeks, it became apparent
to him that the challenge of relocating was perhaps a little more difficult than
might have been expected, because of the (housing) inventory situation. He stated
he was being told that inventories were 25% less than they were a couple of years
ago, and buyers were converging on properties when they hit the market. He stated
he was in a situation where he had ample financial reserves, and he was looking at
real estate and was ready to make his move. He acknowledged those situations were
outside the issues of the law; however, he felt he had to make enough of his points
for the record, as he believed it was less than clear that the law had been
completely interpreted in a balanced way. He believed completely disallowing his
investment in cat -keeping because of the lack of receipts was perhaps a little
heavy-handed, noting he had been surprised to learn the value of the dwelling was
going to be disallowed, because the law clearly refers to a dwelling unit for
animal -keeping.
Mr. Bury stated the Council could make this whole problem go away by allowing an
extension, and he promised he would do everything in his power to never have to come
back before the Council. He noted, as Mr. Brown had stated in various conversations
with him, the concern was that if an extension was granted, Mr. Bury could come back
at the end of the extension period and they would have to go through the entire
process again, with multiple hearings. Mr. Burt/ believed Mr. Brown had weighed into
his decision the matter of due process, loading into his decision the fact that Mr.
Bury could apply for a permit at the end of the extension period.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Paqular) 4/3/2000 Page 6
Deputy City Attorney Davis asked if Mr. Bury had brought any expenditure documents
with him? Mr. Bury stated he had not, noting he felt that $12,000 was not a "hill
of beans" and could easily be amortized away, which was why he had not spent his
extremely valuable time to get into this. He noted that if the Council was going to
do this to him, they were going to do it, and they could just go ahead and wipe him
out on the amortization. Mr. Davis stated the expenditure documents would show how
much he paid for what, to whom, and when improvements were done; however, that
information had not been provided by Mr. Bury, although he has that burden in this
case. Mr. Davis asked if Mr. Bury had contractors do the work? Mr. Bury stated he
had not. Mr. Davis asked who Mr. Bury had paid to do the work? Mr. Bury. stated the
work had been done over a period of several years, with relatives and laborers doing
the installation of the various phases. Mr. Davis asked if Mr. Bury could provide
the Council with some idea as to how much was done two or three years ago, and how
much was done more recently, explaining the difficulty was that there was no
indication of how long some of the improvements had been in place. Mr. Bury stated
some of the work had been done in response to their sudden awareness of all the
complaints; therefore, in looking back over the schedule of events, he could
identify when the heat started getting turned up on them, which was when they
started experimenting with how to keep the animals on the property, noting they
tried and failed a number of times, and then finally reached a point where they
attained some success. Mr. Bury acknowledged he did not have specific data that
would be appropriate; however, he believed 80% of the work had been done during the
past three years. Mr. Davis stated he gathered from what Mr. Bury had stated in
some of the documentation that the improvements they made had been successful in
keeping the cats on their property. Mr. Bury stated he believed that was true. Mr.
Davis asked if it was correct that the utility of the improvements that were made on
the property for keeping the cats would continue when they are restricted to the ten
cats, or perhaps more if the Bury's apply for a Use Permit, and would continue to
serve and provide some utility in keeping those cats from leaving the property? Mr.
Bury stated their intention was to rent the property to tenants, and all of the
improvements would have to be torn out. Mr. Davis asked, so long as Mr. Bury was on
the property and restricted to ten cats, or more if he applies for a Use Permit,
would there still be some continued utility? Mr. Bury stated there would be a
capacity to contain cats with that material.
Debbie Rafael, 887 Las Ovejas, recalled that on Saturday it had been very warm, and
the smell of ammonia had been so overpowering that it was very frustrating for them
to open their windows. She stated the main reason her family chose to move to Marin
County was because of the open space, the beauty of the outdoors, and the ability to
have a home where they can be both indoors and outdoors; however, she felt that had
been taken away from them by the odor and flies. Ms. Rafael acknowledged the
progress that has been made in containing the cats, noting she was definitely
grateful for that. In addition, she acknowledged the fact that the Bury's had lived
there much longer than she, and she took no joy in seeing them leave. She stated
she would welcome them as her neighbors, she just did not want to live next door to
a cat litterbox that supports, at this time, forty-three cats.
Ms. Rafael stated her problem with a two-year extension was that regardless of how
long it might take the Bury's to find a new property, she could not imagine it would
be fair to her family to put them through this for another two years. She stated
she did not see that as being reasonable, nor did she see how the law was served by
an interpretation of the amortization period.
Barbara Monte, 796 Beechnut Court, noted this was her third appearance before the
City Council regarding this same issue, and she had also appeared at two Planning
Commission meetings, a hearing conducted by Community Development Director Bob
Brown, and a community meeting conducted by Assistant to the City Manager Lydia
Romero. She also acknowledged there has been considerable progress in containing
the cats during the day, although they are still out at night. However, she noted
the issue of the cat feces continued, as did the issues of the flies and the smell,
and while the cats are not so much out on the street now, they still have feces,
flies, and the smell, and the situation still exists. Ms. Monte recalled they had
begun this process in June, 1998, and they were still stuck with the same situation.
She stated she was against any extension of time, noting the Ordinance had passed
with overwhelming neighborhood support in August, which was eight months ago. She
pointed out that some people had been dealing with this problem for the past twenty
years.
Ms. Monte stated several of the neighbors who had been unable to attend this meeting
had signed a petition, which was submitted to Bob Brown. She reported there were
twenty-nine signatures on the petition, from neighbors on Las Ovejas, Beechnut, and
Montecillo, and all of these neighbors were against any continuation of the
cat shelter in a residential area, and against any continuation of any time, as they
believed this should have been done a long time ago. Ms. Monte reiterated that the
problem does still exist.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (P-qular) 4/3/2000 Page 7
Dan Paicopulos, 880 Las Ovejas, stated he lives across the street from the Bury's,
and with all respect to his neighbors, and his willingness to get along with them,
he was ashamed of himself for not having spoken up sooner, when this Ordinance was
being considered. Mr. Paicopulos acknowledged there was a problem, noting he
supported the Ordinance. However, he stated he was before the Council in support of
an extension, although he felt a two-year extension was too long. He felt a six-
month extension, or something in that range, would be appropriate, given his own
experience with the current tight real estate market. Mr. Paicopulos noted he had
suggested that to Mr. Brown, who had stated it was within his power to recommend a
shorter extension, and Mr. Paicopulos asked Council to consider it for three or four
reasons. First, concerning the Bury's themselves, he noted that even the critics
to the Bury's having cats agreed to the fact that they have made considerable
progress, not eliminating the problem, but certainly reducing it. He pointed out
they have gone through considerable emotional, financial, and personal expense,
noting he could not stand that they would be leaving the neighborhood, as they have
been his friends and neighbors for thirteen years, and in their home for decades.
However, he acknowledged that this was a choice they were going to make, given their
lifestyle choice, even though they could choose to have only ten cats, and they
could stay. Mr. Paicopulos recalled Councilmember Cohen, at an earlier meeting, had
noted that if all the people who had spoken against the Ordinance had come through
and taken two of the cats, they would not have been talking about this during a
Council meeting, as the Bury's would have had only ten cats left, and that would be
that. Mr. Paicopulos stated the fact was the Bury's had gone down from 75 cats to
closer to 40, and he saw no reason why that would not continue. He reported Mrs.
Bury had stopped taking cats, there were no cats being born, and every effort was
being made to place them. In addition, he stated Mrs. Bury's efforts at indoor and
outdoor clean-up were rigorous, the Bury's have spent time and money, and they were
looking for another home, and may have even found a property they can put an offer
on. Therefore, Mr. Paicopulos stated he knew the effort was continuing, and their
behavior indicated a good faith effort, and he would like to see the City respond in
kind.
Secondly, Mr. Paicopulos explained he lived, driveway to driveway, closer than any
of the other neighbors, while the most impacted house likely belonged to Debbie
Rafael. He acknowledged that there were signatures from twenty-nine neighbors:
however, he invited the Councilmembers and staff to come to his home and allow him
to give them a tour of the neighborhood and show them where those neighbors live.
He believed there might be seven or eight houses within eyesight, and perhaps smell -
sight, of this problem. He stated he was as close as they come, except for Ms.
Rafael, and he did not see that there was such a critical emergency as to cause
people who have lived there for decades to have to leave in an ungraceful manner.
He pointed out that even the neighbor on the other side of the Bury's had written a
letter stating everything was fine, and that they supported an extension. He
acknowledged the Bury's were trying to leave, and that they would leave, and he
believed it was within the City's power to help them leave gracefully and correctly.
Mr. Paicopulos stated he wanted to live in a City in which the law was applied
evenly, with the same compassion shown to the Bury's that has been shown to the
neighbors who have come forward and asked the Council to pass the Ordinance. He
noted, in his experience, the Council had always done that, and he was hoping they
would do that again. He noted he simply did not see any evidence, pointing out
there was no plague of toxoplasmosis, or plague of any other kind of illness he was
aware of. He stated he does not see the cats walking around in any significant
manner in the daytime or the night time anymore, and he is retired and home all day
long. He noted he does see twenty or thirty deer, wild turkeys, squirrels,
raccoons, skunks, and possums, and asked how they knew it was the cats causing feces
to be dropped? Mr. Paicopulos stated that in the thirteen years he has lived in the
neighborhood, every one of the houses have had dogs or cats living in them. He
noted many of the people who signed the petition have cats and dogs, and walk their
dogs in the neighborhood, and he has never seen anyone walking on the streets with a
pooper scooper. He stated that even acknowledging the problem was still going on,
he did not see that there was a medical emergency that could not allow for a
reasonable extension of perhaps six months, in order for the Bury's to leave
properly.
Mr. Paicopulos stated his third concern was the way the law had been passed. He
noted it was not as if the law had been passed, and then the Bury's moved in and
created a hazard. He noted these were not bad people, pointing out they had not set
up a motorcycle repair shop, or a business that was bringing undue traffic to the
neighborhood. He stated they had a lifestyle that already existed, the law was
passed, and they were now trying to respond to that law by moving out of town. He
asked the Council to give them time to do that in a reasonable manner.
Mr. Paicopulos explained his final reason for addressing the Council was that he,
personally and selfishly, wanted to live in a City that was built on compassion. He
noted he had spoken before the Council in the past regarding such issues of
homelessness, saving affordable housing for seniors, and child care centers, and the
Council has always stood up and been there, and acted in a compassionate and
sensitive manner. He stated he was asking them to do that again. Mr. Paicopulos
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (r^qular) 4/3/2000 Page 8
acknowledged this was difficult, that there were twenty-nine voters, and then just
himself standing there; however, he did not believe the Council was doing this
because of the votes. He agreed there was a genuine problem that needed to be
ameliorated, but noted all he was asking was that the Council give the Bury's six
more months, which he felt was reasonable to ask.
Aqnes Aquilino, 788 Beechnut Court, stated the neighbors were not saying the Bury's
did not deserve some time; however, she pointed out that her family had moved in
three years ago, and they had been nicely asking Mrs. Bury to keep the cats on her
property, as had a lot of other people. She noted this had been going on for more
than twenty years, with people asking Mrs. Bury to do this, and Mrs. Bury just
brushing people off, so the neighbors have to come to the City to ask her to do
something about the problem, and then Mrs. Bury gets angry when they take such steps
and try do things in the proper way. Ms. Aquilino stated Mrs. Bury could have her
six months, or whatever it might be, but she felt two years was too long. She
stated the neighbors did not have anything against Mrs. Bury, it was just that the
whole thing was taking too long, and taking away from the neighbors' family time.
She believed that before Mrs. Bury starts living at another location with the cats,
she should see what the consequences are to everyone, and think about what she would
be doing to the new neighbors if she takes the cats with her. Ms. Aquilino asked
why she would burden everyone with something she knows is a burden? She
acknowledged Mrs. Bury loved her animals, pointing out she could love ten and give
the others way, noting there were even a couple of the neighbors who have said they
would take one or two of the cats into their homes. However, she noted a lot of
Mrs. Bury's friends kept delivering cats, and big loads of cat food are delivered
all the time; therefore, she did not believe Mrs. Bury was really trying that hard.
Ms. Aquilino stated the neighbors were not certain the Bury's were really going to
move, and they worried that once this process was over, they would open their gates
and let all the cats out again. She stated she still sees Mrs. Bury's cats in her
yard, and while she acknowledged she does occasionally see a skunk or a raccoon, 70%
of the time it is one of Mrs. Bury's cats. She also noted that it has not always
been just the forty cats they were dealing with now, at times there have been a
hundred cats, and they spray and cause damage. Ms. Aquilino stated they should not
run a shelter from their home, and noted the people who drop off cats should also
realize what they are doing to the neighborhood. She stated Mrs. Bury burns feces
in her fireplace, which is totally unsanitary, and each day that she does, Mrs.
Aguilino's lungs and eyes burn, as do her children's. In addition, she reported the
flies were horrendous, and she was not able to keep her doors open because masses of
flies come in.
Ms. Aquilino stated she could not go through another two years of this, noting that
if Mrs. Bury does get a new place, she should find out if the new neighbors will
allow this, and ask before she puts herself through more stress. Ms. Aquilino
stated Mrs. Bury was putting all the neighbors through a lot of stress, and they
were all hurting, noting her children want animals, but she has told them they have
to wait until things in the neighborhood calm down.
Leslie Chatham, 787 Montecillo, stated the thing that had attracted her family to
their home three and a half years ago was a beautiful zen garden, which had been
filled with gravel; however, she explained it had taken them about a week to
discover it was the biggest cat box in Terra Linda. She noted she had read Mr.
Bury's letters, and had been moved by them, and compelled to come before the Council
to tell them Mr. Bury has done an excellent job. She noted she used to have to dig
stuff up five or six times a day, and now it was only once a week, and she could not
even prove that it is from his cat. Ms. Chatham stated it used to be more of a
problem, and had become much less of a problem in the three and a half years she has
lived in the neighborhood; therefore, she wanted to say something on the Bury's
behalf.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Cohen felt the Ordinance Council adopted was fairly clear regarding
the basis for granting an extension, and he did not believe that test had been met,
and in fact, as Mr. Bury stated in his testimony, even he discounted the claim of
$12,000 as something that needed to be amortized. Mr. Cohen stated his thoughts
were in a different direction, noting the Council had heard some very articulate
arguments from Mr. Paicopulos, and even one of the other neighbors had said there
had been movement in the right direction, and perhaps a small period of time to
bring this issue to an end would be reasonable, although not a two-year extension.
Therefore, Mr. Cohen asked staff if there was some way the City could negotiate a
resolution to this problem? He stated he would not be comfortable merely saying
okay to a two-year extension, or even a six-month extension, noting that while he
recognized there had been some improvement, he believed that improvement had come
only because the City had taken an extremely hard line on this issue, and he was not
looking to back -off of that. However, he wondered if the City could negotiate? He
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (r-jular) 4/3/2000 Page 9
noted that in one of Mr. Bury's letters he implied there had been a comment from Mr.
Brown that there might be some way to do some kind of settlement agreement, which
Mr. Cohen presumed would be after a Finding of violation of the Ordinance, noting
that point seemed to be one that Mr. Bury found particularly objectionable. Mr.
Cohen asked if the City could negotiate a settlement agreement prior to actually
having to go to the property and find a violation?
Deputy City Attorney Davis stated that was not part of what the Council's function
was at this time, noting their function was to determine whether or not there should
be an amortization period, and what it should be. He pointed out the amortization
period, as built into the Ordinance, had expired on January 7th, which meant they
were looking at almost three months after the amortization period provided for in
the Ordinance. Mr. Davis stated that if the Council were to deny the extension, and
the Bury's were not to apply for a Use Permit, a violation condition would exist,
and staff would have to determine what to do. He pointed out staff obviously had
some options, noting one of the options would be to initiate a Notice and Order of
Administrative Hearing, which could go to a hearing and impose penalties and fines
if the Bury's did not correct within a time period the Code Enforcement people
designated. Another option would be to go to Court to seek enforcement of the
City's Zoning Ordinance. He stated those sorts of enforcement actions could, and on
occasion do, lead to a settlement agreement in other circumstances, and while he was
not certain that would happen in this instance, it was always a possibility, because
it was always better to settle these sorts of things so as not to expend undue time
and expense to go through the procedures to eventually reach the result you want.
Mr. Davis stated there was always the potential for settlement of a Code Enforcement
action, but he clarified we were not there yet, noting there had to be a decision as
to whether or not there was going to be any kind of extension, and then the Council
would have to look at the facts and the evidence, and decide whether or not they
wished to extend beyond the January 7th period, which had already passed, based upon
what they had heard this evening.
Mayor Boro reported he had spoken with Mr. Davis earlier in the afternoon regarding
this issue. He pointed out that January 7th had been three months after the
Ordinance had been passed, and it was now into the second three month period, or six
months after the Ordinance was passed. Mayor Boro stated he understood Mr.
Paicopulos' comments, and he believed the Council had tried to be as reasonable as
possible. He pointed out that Mr. Bury had stated at one point that he had thought
about the October 1st deadline, but noted he had not even done that.
Mayor Boro stated he believed the Council had to act and make Findings that the
amortization was not an issue, and follow staff's recommendation. He felt it was a
matter of being fair with everyone, and believed the neighbors had suffered enough.
He stated that while the corrective action taken over the past six months was
commendable, the City did have an Ordinance, and the intent of the Ordinance was to
reduce the number to ten cats, and that had not happened. He stated he would not
feel comfortable negotiating an extension, noting it would go against what the
Council had decided to do after having substantial hearings and Findings. He noted
it was not that he was not supportive of the work that was being done to protect the
animals; however, he felt the Council was there to protect the interests of the
entire community, and in this case, he believed that would be done by upholding
staff's recommendation.
Councilmember Heller agreed, stating she did not believe the Council could carry
this issue forward any longer. She felt the Bury's, while their actions may be
commendable, were perhaps living in the wrong area to try to have a facility such as
this.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution
denying the appeal.
RESOLUTION NO. 10625 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO DENY AN EXTENSION TO THE
AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE 1740
ESTABLISHING LIMITS ON NON-COMMERCIAL KEEPING OF ANIMALS AT
811 LAS OVEJAS AVENUE; AP NO. 178-221-50.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (RPnular) 4/3/2000 Page 10
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
16. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (CM) - File 9-3-11
City Manager Gould asked City Attorney Gary Ragghianti to apprise Council of the
status of a hearing to take place tomorrow morning, regarding the matter of Gideon
Sorokin versus the City of San Rafael.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated he would appear in Court tomorrow morning with Mr.
Sorokin and his attorney. He noted he had received an executed Change of Plea form,
reporting Dr. Sorokin will enter pleas to twenty-five counts tomorrow; he will be
placed on one year's probation; and he will pay tomorrow, in cash, the sum of
$13,500 to Mr. Ragghianti for delivery to the City as reimbursement of City staff's
time, and for all the investigative costs that had been incurred in connection with
this matter. In addition, Dr. Sorokin will be placed on probation for a period of
one year, and during that period of time he will be ordered to abide by all the laws
respecting zoning, housing, fire, and other codes applicable to any properties he
owns in the City of San Rafael.
Mr. Ragghianti stated he was pleased to say this should resolve the matter
completely, and he was happy this had been accomplished in an efficient manner, and
pointed out the seriousness of the situation that caused the City to initiate
criminal proceedings, rather than to initiate civil proceedings, as well as the fact
that it was resolved in a manner that allowed the City to recover 100% of all the
costs expended in connection with this matter.
Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Ragghianti for his report, and for such a timely and decisive
settlement.
Councilmember Cohen asked, once this takes place, was there any reason the City
could not issue a press release clarifying this issue? He noted the matter had
received a lot of press prior to this, and wondered if the City was precluded from
discussing it, once it is settled in Court tomorrow? Mr. Ragghianti stated the City
was not precluded from discussing it, noting he intended to give a statement to the
City Manager, anticipating the City Manager would release it tomorrow or the next
day.
Mr. Ragghianti referred to the pertinent provisions of the press release he intended
to make, noting it would state that the agreed upon pleas and sentence satisfied
him, and that justice had been more than adequately served. Reading from a draft of
the release he quoted, "The seriousness of the conditions found existing in the
properties involved in these proceedings were horrific, and this warranted the
filing of a criminal complaint, rather than the initiation of civil proceedings.
Pleas have been entered to a significant number of counts relating to all involved
properties, and resulting in a finding of 'guilty' for Sorokin's violation of City
Zoning, Building, Housing and Fire Codes. All of the subject properties either have
been renovated or are currently in the process of renovation, in removal of all Code
violations. Further inspections of the property (and one occurred today) will
assure all Codes have been complied with. The City will recover 100% of its costs
associated with the investigation and prosecution of this case. Should Mr. Sorokin
violate any of the City's Building, Fire, Zoning, or Housing Codes during the period
of probation imposed by the Court, the City will ask the Court to revoke probation
and impose an even harsher penalty. I believe an important message has been sent to
all property owners in the City by our vigorous criminal prosecution of this case.
This type of conduct by any property owner will not be tolerated, and will be
quickly attacked by our office in the future". Mr. Ragghianti stated he expected to
have that press release to the City Manager tomorrow morning.
Councilmember Cohen added his congratulations to Mr. Ragghianti.
Councilmember Miller asked if the inspections also had included the Canal Street
property? Mr. Ragghianti stated the Canal Street property, while it was not
involved in the criminal proceedings, was involved in the settlement agreement,
noting Dr. Sorokin would pay approximately $3,500 to the City in connection with the
civil penalties involved in the Notice of Violation sent to him in connection with
that property.
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
17. None.
There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:25 PM.
JEANNEV. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2000
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 10