Loading...
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