Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1999-05-03SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 3, 1999 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Vice -Mayor Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: PM RE: MEMORIAL FOR FORMER CITY COUNCILMEMBER JOHN MISKIMEN - File 105 8:08 Dick Sadler, resident of San Rafael, addressed the Council on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association. He reported he had represented the Association when he attended a Park and Recreation meeting last January, and asked if consideration could be given to a memorial for John Miskimen, who served multiple terms as a City Councilmember, and who died last year. Mr. Sadler stated that at the meeting, he pointed out Mr. Miskimen had first served three years on the Planning Commission, from 1964 to 1967, and then four successive terms on the City Council, from 1967 until 1983. He noted Mr. Miskimen had been a prime "mover" in acquiring the 539 acres residents now enjoy as San Rafael's largest Open Space, and in the mid -701s, the acquisition of Pickleweed Park. Mr. Sadler stated Mr. Miskimen was a strong park supporter, and the Association felt it was appropriate that some type of memorial be granted. He reported the Park and Recreation Commission recommended a memorial bench and bronze placque be constructed for placement in a memorial park (Barbier Park), and indicated the cost would be $500. Mr. Sadler stated he had received $100 from the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association and $200 from the County of Marin. He asked Council to consider a grant of $200 for an individual he believed many people thought was an outstanding Councilman. He stated in view of Mr. Miskimen's advocacy for Open Space, and the fact that he had lived in the Dominican area for 26 years, he felt this was an appropriate request. Mayor Boro referred this matter to the City Manager, asking that he try to find a way to make this happen. Mayor Boro acknowledged Councilmember Miskimen was an advocate for Open Space, and had been instrumental in the acquisition of what was now known as Barbier Park. Mayor Boro asked City Manager Gould to pursue this with Mr. Sadler. RE: RESTRICTIONS ON PARKED CARS WITH "FOR SALE" SIGNS - File 11-8 X 9-3-30 Mark Dale, resident of Santa Venetia, stated he was addressing Council upon the recommendation of Eleanor Spader-Block, a mediation counsellor who had heard his case, and suggested he come before the Council. Mr. Dale reported in June of last year his Dodge minivan was ticketed for being parked with a "for sale" sign on it, and the ticket was for $103. He explained his van had been parked eastbound on North San Pedro Road, near the Marin Civic Center, and noted there was no signage at that location. In addition, as he interpreted the Municipal Code, a warning was supposed to be placed on the vehicle; however, he stated he had not received a warning. Mr. Dale noted each step of the way, as he has gone through the process, he has been told by the Police Department that their hands were tied; however, in looking at the dollar amount for other types of tickets, he pointed out someone could have their car towed and receive a $50 ticket, but if there is a "for sale" sign on a parked car it is $103. He felt something was "out of whack", and he wanted to bring this to the attention of the Council. He suggested the City have signage, such as they have in Strawberry Village, stating he felt that would be fair. Mr. Dale stated he had lived in Santa Venetia for five years, and had never before seen a car ticketed for having a "for sale" sign on it, even though that is an area where there are many such cars. Mayor Boro invited San Rafael Police Lieutenant John Rohrbacher to respond. Lieutenant Rohrbacher stated the policy and practice of the Police Department was that they do not issue a citation for a vehicle such as this until they actually place a warning notice on it, return six hours later, as provided by SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 2 the provisions of the City's Municipal Code, retrieve the warning notice, and then leave a citation on the vehicle. Lieutenant Rohrbacher stated all of the Police Officers have been instructed not to ticket vehicles such as this until after they know it has been there for six hours, as provided in the Municipal Code. Mayor Boro clarified that Lieutenant Rohrbacher was stating Mr. Dale's vehicle had been noticed with a warning notice, and an Officer came back six hours later, saw the vehicle was still there, removed the warning notice, and applied the citation? Lieutenant Rohrbacher stated that was correct, pointing out no other signage was required under the Municipal Code, and this was a Citywide Ordinance. Mr. Dale reported the ticket had been issued at 3:00 AM; therefore, it was obvious there was not a good chance he would have seen a warning on the van. Mr. Dale stated if someone was doing business and illegally selling vehicles, that was an entirely different problem than a private citizen who has one vehicle with a "for sale" sign on it, and he wanted to bring this to Council's attention. Mayor Boro asked City Manager Gould to speak with Police Chief Sanchez, and ask him to develop a way for people who receive such a ticket to understand that the vehicle had been observed for over six hours. RE: COMPLAINT CONCERNING DAMAGED PROPERTY ON "J" STREET - File 13-1 X 13-9 jonn Brignam, bl winasor avenue, srarea ne naa sent a letter ro Builaing manager Fred Vincenti, with a copy to Council, regarding the Ackerman property on "J" Street, which he believed was not up to the California State Building Code. He asked who, other than Council, he should go to in order to set a deadline for the Ackermans to either rebuild or demolish the house. Mayor Boro clarified this was a house that had burned on "J" Street. Mr. Brigham noted it had burned three and a half years ago. City Manager Gould stated he would like Mr. Brigham to set an appointment to speak with either himself or Community Development Director Bob Brown. Mr. Brigham indicated he would contact Mr. Gould's office the next morning. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, April 19, 1999 (CC) 2. Request for City of San Rafael Amicus Participation: (CA) - File 9-3-16 Circle K Ranch Corn. v. Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six; Case No. B124996 4. Monthly Investment Report (MS) - File 8-18 x 8-9 RECOMMENDED ACTION Minutes approved as submitted. 5. Resolution Authorizing Extension of Time for Completion of Improvement Work in the Subdivision of Lands of Laurel Properties - Four -Lot Subdivision Located on Fairhills Drive at Idlewood Place (PW) - File 5-1-316 Approved amicus participation. Accepted Monthly Investment Report for month ending March, 1999, as presented. RESOLUTION NO. 10400 RESOLUTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT WORK - "SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF LAUREL PROPERTIES" (FAIRHILLS DRIVE AT IDLEWOOD PLACE - A 4 LOT SUBDIVISION). 7. Resolution Authorizing the Public Works Director RESOLUTION NO. 10401 - to File an Application for TEA21 (25%) Surface RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Transportation Funds in the Amount of $50,000 for PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO FILE SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 3 the Bellam Corridor Traffic Signal Interconnect Improvements (PW) - File 11-10 X 11-15 X 11-1 AN APPLICATION FOR TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21st CENTURY (TEA 21)-25% SURFACE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 FOR THE BELLAM CORRIDOR SIGNAL INTERCONNECT IMPROVEMENTS. THIS RESOLUTION COMMITS THE NECESSARY LOCAL MATCH FOR THE PROJECTS, AND ALSO STATES THE ASSURANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO COMPLETE THE PROJECTS. 8. Resolution Authorizing Purchase and Installation RESOLUTION NO. 10402 - of Modular Classroom at Gallinas Child Care Center RESOLUTION APPROVING AN (CS) - File 4-7-30 X 9-3-65 EXPENDITURE FOR THE INSTALLATION AND PURCHASE OF A RELOCATABLE CLASSROOM FOR GALLINAS CHILDREN'S CENTER. 9. An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael Amending Ordinance No. 1735 passed to Title 4 of the Municipal Code of the City of print: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE San Rafael, Adopting the 1997 Uniform Fire Code CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING with Amendments and Prescribing Regulations TITLE 4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE Governing Conditions Hazardous to Life and OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, Property from Fire, Explosion and Other Dangers,ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE and Establishing a Fire Prevention Bureau and CODE, 1997 EDITION, WITH Providing Officers Therefor, and Defining Their Duties and Powers (FD) - File 1-6-4 X 9-3-31 AMENDMENTS, AND PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE, EXPLOSION AND OTHER DANGERS, AND ESTABLISHING A FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU AND PROVIDING OFFICERS THEREFOR, AND DEFINING THEIR DUTIES AND POWERS. Public Hearing to be held on May 17, 1999. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen (from the minutes of April 19, 1999 only, due to absence from meeting). The following items were removed from the agenda for further discussion: 3. CITY'S EXERCISE OF MARIN HOUSING AUTHORITY'S OPTIONS TO PURCHASE TWO BELOW MARKET RATE ("BMR") UNITS AT THE MARIN LAGOON CONDOMINIUM PROJECT: 33 MARINERS CIRCLE AND 29 MARINERS CIRCLE (CA) - File 229 X 9-3-16 Mayor Boro stated Council had declined to exercise its option on several of these units, due to problems with construction at that site. He explained that as a result of faulty construction, the properties were not selling, and they have been involved in a lawsuit. Mayor Boro stated he had learned the lawsuit with respect to the condominiums had been resolved, and supposedly, funding would be made available to repair those condominium units. Mayor Boro stated he had counted approximately eighteen units of this type, and to date, the City had let nine of them go. He noted, according to the staff report, these two units were not due to expire until June and July, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 4 and he suggested the matter be referred back to staff for at least two weeks, to determine whether or not funds would actually be available for repair. He stated if that is the case, the Housing consultants could then give the City an indication as to whether or not they felt, with that happening, that these units would be viable to maintain as affordable stock. Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan stated he had spoken with the attorney for the Plaintiff in the lawsuit, and had also spoken with Ida Baugh, President of the Homeowners Association, and with Mr. Maurice Wolohan of the Marin Housing Authority, who is managing this particular BMR project. Mr. Guinan stated when he spoke to them last week, there had been a tentative oral agreement, and one draft of a settlement agreement; however, that had not been finalized, and no one seemed anxious to tell him how much money had been put up to resolve the case; however, based upon what Ms. Baugh had told him, he assumed it was between $2 million and $3 million. Mr. Guinan stated Ms. Baugh had also informed him that the legal costs and fees, as well as the fees for experts and testing that had been done over the past several years of the litigation, now totalled over $1.5 million. Mr. Guinan reported the homeowners were concerned that if they kept going, it was going to cost more, with no certainty of the result, and they wanted to settle the case because they wanted to get enough money just to fix the leaks in the roofs. Mr. Guinan noted this still left some of the compromise structure, including dry rot that had been found, as well as the settling problems, in need of fixing; however, it was unsure, and probably unlikely, that the funding source would cover those problems. In addition, in speaking with Mr. Wolohan, he indicated that because of the ongoing problems and construction defects with the complex, financing has been very difficult to get, and there have been minimums of 20% to 30% downpayments required, which has virtually priced the "affordable" people out of this project. Mr. Guinan stated it was very unfortunate this had happened, as this had been a very strong project, and a good resource of affordable housing; unfortunately, it appeared that it would not be for very long. Mr. Guinan offered to pursue his sources for additional information for Council. Mayor Boro stated there were eighteen units which the City had placed in the BMR program, and four additional units which were sold to Ecumenical Association for Housing, for a total of 22 units. He noted, to date, twelve of them have come off the program and gone to the free market. He stated he would like to take at least two weeks to review this issue, noting one unit would expire on June 28th, and the other on July 25th. Mr. Guinan stated he would invite Mr. Wolohan to be present when this issue comes back before Council. Mayor Boro stated he would like to know what happened to the twelve units, who bought them, and what they sold for. He noted with the market the way it is in Marin County at this time, he was not comfortable with Council continuing to do this, stating it seemed expedient to the sellers, and the City was defeating the purpose of its Below Market Rate program. He stated he would like to know what was projected for these units, and why, if there was a potential settlement on the horizon, they could not go forward. He noted he would also like to see if the City could get more information about the settlement, as well. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to carry this item over for two weeks (to May 17, 1999). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 6. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH BAYMETRICS TO CONDUCT TRAFFIC COUNTS IN NORTH SAN RAFAEL, THE DOWNTOWN, AND EAST SAN RAFAEL (PW) - File 4-3-358 X 11-13 Councilmember Cohen asked about the status of the City's analysis of the Freitas Interchange, what was Caltrans' position on the interim solution, and if this would finally provide the City with the counts to take a serious look at whether that was going to be workable? Public Works Director David Bernardi stated that was correct, reporting one of the pieces of information Caltrans was requesting was current counts in the interchange, and noting staff was coordinating that with the land use data being compiled by Community Development staff. He stated a package would be completed and given to Caltrans within 90 days. Mr. Cohen asked when Council could expect to see this information? Mr. Bernardi stated it would be brought to Council with the PPP (Priority Projects Procedure) process in July. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 5 Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 19403 - RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH BAYMETRICS TO CONDUCT TRAFFIC COUNTS IN NORTH SAN RAFAEL, THE DOWNTOWN, AND EAST SAN RAFAEL. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY'S CARD ROOM ORDINANCE (SRMC 10.36) RE: COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE GAMBLING CONTROL ACT (BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 19851) (CA) - File 9-10 x 13-8 x 1-5 Mayor Boro announced this item would be continued to the meeting of 6/7/99, at the request of staff. 11. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF DESIGN REVIEW AND USE PERMIT FOR A SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT 14 BROADVIEW COURT, SAN RAFAEL; EDWARD AND PAULA WEISS, OWNERS; MIKE PALUMBO, REPRESENTATIVE (CD) - File 10-5 X 10-7 X 10-13 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and stated this item was being continued from the meeting of January 19, 1999. Associate Planner Bill Tuikka clarified Council was being asked to uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Use Permit. Mr. Tuikka reported the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the Use Permit and Design Review Permit on October 13, 1998, basing its denial on the analysis that the driveway entering from Jewell Street could present a public hazard, and was unsafe. He stated the Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the property owners, Edward and Paula Weiss, and was heard by the Council on January 19th, at which time Council concluded the Planning Commission was correct, stating the Jewell Street driveway could, indeed, create potential safety hazards. Council directed the applicants to resolve potential safety issues by considering other driveway locations for the entrance to this project. Mr. Tuikka stated the applicant had considered several other driveway options, such as entering further west on Jewell Street, had been considered. However, that option had high retaining walls, which provided poor visibility, and the City's Traffic Engineer stated that plan was unacceptable, due to safety concerns. Mr. Tuikka reported that plan was abandoned, and the one now before Council was prepared. He explained this revision shows the applicant proposes to utilize the existing driveway, from Broadview Court, to access the additional parking spaces below the house. He noted two new covered parking spaces were being proposed, as well as one to replace the existing space in the carport, which will now be used for a passthrough to reach the backyard area. Therefore, there will be a total of three covered spaces in the proposal. Mr. Tuikka reported staff had evaluated the plan and concluded it was the least disruptive to the neighborhood, resulting in no visible changes from either Jewell Street or Broadview Court. He noted it was in harmony with recommendations the Planning Commission felt would be more appropriate, and provide less impact to the neighborhood, and also resolved any safety concerns the Planning Commission had. Mr. Tuikka pointed out that early in the hearing process, this access had also been recommended by the neighborhood, the Planning Commission, and City staff as the alternative that would have the least impact to surrounding properties. Mr. Tuikka stated since the last Council review, a neighborhood meeting was held, and one of the major issues involved parking and traffic. He reported the City Traffic Engineer visited the Broadview Drive and Broadview Court areas several times, and determined this proposal would function successfully, and that there were no unusual safety issues in that area. Mr. Tuikka reported in 1982, the California State Legislature required cities and counties to adopt a Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, explaining the Legislature had found there was a tremendous, unmet need for new housing, and existing housing resources were vastly under-utilized. He SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 6 stated today that need was greater than ever, and as a result, staff believed this proposal was appropriate, with only a slight impact on the neighborhood. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Tuikka to summarize the questions and concerns expressed by one of the neighbors, Mr. Bailiss, in his letter to Mayor Boro last March, and comment on the staff's response to Mr. Bailiss' letter. Mr. Tuikka reiterated many of the concerns had to do with traffic and parking. He reported Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian met with the neighbors and visited the neighborhood several times, determining the neighborhood had no greater parking impacts than any of the other neighborhoods in the City, and that this unit would create very little impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Tuikka stated one of the complaints was that only one alternate access had been explored, while Council had asked for more. Mr. Tuikka noted the applicant had explored many other alternatives, but only one other had been worth considering, and the City's Traffic Engineer determined the other alternative would be a safety hazard because of the retaining walls. In addition, the designs of the Montecito Neighborhood Plan would have prohibited the other alternative, because the large retaining walls would have been very visible from the surrounding properties. He reported the neighbors had also stated the increased density and safety problems would be contrary to the City's Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance; however, this proposal met all the requirements of the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, and staff believed it did not pose any undue hazards to the neighbors. He pointed out the parking would be screened, the existing driveway was being used, and there would be no other building on the site to create visual impact on the surrounding properties. Addressing safety issues, Mr. Tuikka stated that after speaking with Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian and reviewing his safety analysis, it was felt the front driveway did solve the safety issues. Mr. Tuikka noted Mr. Bailiss' letter also stated the City had not recognized that second dwelling units add density to a neighborhood; however, he stated there were very few second dwelling unit proposals in this neighborhood, and staff did not find that having one second dwelling unit started a precedent of others being created in that area. He stated staff believed this was an appropriate proposal, and would not result in a landslide of other units being applied for in that area. Mr. Tuikka explained the purpose of the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance was to assure that the neighborhood character was retained, and in trying to restrict people from creating illegal units, the City offered the opportunity to have a legal second dwelling unit, where the City was in control, and could monitor and control the conditions of approval, and how the project is put together. Mayor Boro asked the Assistant City Attorney to address the issue of residency. Assistant City Attorney Guinan noted one of the issues raised the last time this matter was before Council concerned a letter from Sally Kibbee, President of the Montecito Neighborhood Association, in which she raised two issues, one of which was that the applicant would not adhere to the owner occupant requirement. Mr. Guinan stated he had reviewed the definition of owner occupancy, explaining it meant that the person who owns property is going to reside there in that dwelling, and use it as his primary residence. He noted the definition of primary residence was really a matter of intent, and the intent could only be shown by facts, such as where the person registered to vote, what address was listed as his home address with the DMV, where was the homeowner's exemption filed, and where the person resides when not at work. He stated questions like those were the types asked to determine whether the quantum of evidence was sufficient to establish that the individual had a particular location as his or her primary residence. Mr. Guinan felt, in this instance, with the factors raised by Ms. Kibbee, only two of her four points actually related to the issue of residency; one was the homeowner's exemption, which apparently had been filed in Sonoma County from 1992 to 1998. Mr. Guinan stated it was his belief that this had expired; however, even if it had not, it was only one indicia of where his primary residence was. He stated to try to make that determination prior to the time that occupancy was required, which is only after the permits have been granted and the building permit pulled, it becomes even more difficult. Mr. Guinan stated that if the applicant had indicated it was his intent to reside in one of the two units as his primary residence, and there was no indication or insufficient evidence to establish to the contrary, then it was a matter of the intent being established, and the intent he expressed was the one that had to be presumed to be true. Mr. Guinan stated this did not SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 7 preclude, on any future occasion, individuals coming forward with evidence to the contrary, noting the Use Permit could be revoked if, in fact, there was evidence to support that he was not residing in one of the two dwellings as his primary residence. Mr. Guinan explained it would then become a matter for the Code Enforcement Officer to investigate, and for the Planning Department to notice a hearing before the Planning Commission to revoke the Use Permit. Mr. Guinan stated the other issue raised by Ms. Kibbee was that the applicant had been less than constant in his truthfulness in making legal decisions, or living by society's rules. Mr. Guinan noted that might be so, but it was not a factor to determine whether or not a Use Permit should be granted for a second dwelling unit. He acknowledged her letter raised some interesting issues, which might be looked into, and might give cause for concern in the future; however, it did not establish anything sufficient to deny a Use Permit for a second dwelling unit in this instance. Mayor Boro noted Mr. Guinan stated that in the future, if the neighbors felt the residency requirement was not being met, they could bring the issue to the City, and ask that the permit be revoked. He asked if there was some way, at the time the unit was complete and ready for final approval, that the City could have some assurance the owner occupancy requirement was being met, prior to issuing a Condition of Approval, allowing the City to hold the approval of occupancy of the second unit? Mr. Guinan stated, to the extent that the Code Enforcement Officer or another City official could look at the residence and speak with the applicant, he did not see a problem with that. However, in terms of putting some burden of proof on the owner, he stated he would be concerned about the effect on the "Due Process" requirement for this process. He stated there were a couple of other options, noting the City could require that the applicant provide a written notice of intent to occupy one of the two dwellings, and/or the City could include a six month review, to determine that all the conditions of the Use Permit were being complied with. Councilmember Heller asked what happens, physically, if a Use Permit is revoked, and whether the apartment was allowed to stay, and simply could not be occupied? Mr. Guinan stated that was usually the case, and if there was refusal on the part of the owner to vacate the second unit, the City could take action as a Nuisance Abatement, or through the City's Administrative Hearing procedure, just as any other violation of the Municipal Code. Ms. Heller asked, if the City did revoke the permit, was she correct that the second unit would then not be bringing in additional income? Mr. Guinan stated certainly not legally, as it would no longer constitute a legal second unit. Stan Bailiss and Robert Peacock addressed the Council concerning the traffic/parking issues. Mr. Bailiss noted that in an IJ article of March, 1999 addressing second units, Councilmember Phillips was quoted as stating, "Every neighborhood has concerns. I would not back off an issue that is significant to a neighborhood". Mr. Bailiss stated his neighborhood did have serious concerns about the proposed second unit at 14 Broadview, and as the twenty-three signatures on their most recent petition to the Mayor and City Council indicated, the neighbors were not about to back off. He reported the IJ article further stated residents of various neighborhoods who shared their concern express the problem as "parking, parking, parking". Mr. Bailiss stated they agreed; however, they believed parking was an indicator of the much more basic problems of safety and use, problems rooted in a set of basic factors, including the number of residents; the number of residentially associated uses, such as visiting; the number and size of vehicles; and the width and configuration of roadways and sidewalks. He stated, in order to describe their sense of these problems, the neighbors had put together a group of photographs and a map of the neighborhood affected by this proposal, in particular, Broadview Court and Broadview Drive. Mr. Bailiss referred to specific locations on the map, which he distributed to the Councilmembers, and Mr. Peacock displayed photographs of the various locations being described. Mr. Bailiss reported there were six houses on Broadview Court, in which fifteen people reside, and fifteen vehicles associated with those houses. He noted four of the vehicles were oversized sports utility vehicles and vans, and of those four, three were usually parked on the Court, perhaps because the vehicles are inconvenient or awkward to maneuver in existing residential driveways. Mr. Bailiss reported there were also fifteen houses along Broadview Drive, with approximately another twenty-five residents, and a like number of vehicles. He noted they were relative to the neighbors' concerns because all the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 8 households and vehicles of Broadview Court and Broadview Drive had the portion of Broadview Drive that comes up from Jewell Street as their only access. Mr. Bailiss pointed out his map was not accurate with respect to the shape of Broadview Drive, noting the steep hill had a more radical, reversed "S" shape than the map shows. He stated, as a result of that shape, cars at the top and bottom of Broadview Drive cannot see each other, even when there are no cars parked on the Drive, until they are approximately 100 feet apart. Mr. Bailiss pointed out other areas on Broadview Drive, from Jewell Street to Broadview Court, which the neighbors felt were particularly hazardous, and also noted photographs of the way cars are typically parked along that drive. He explained that when cars are parked on Broadview Drive, visibility is further diminished, and besides making cars invisible to each other, the parked cars also make people and animals walking out from behind the parked cars invisible until the last minute, noting that on this steep street, which requires very strong acceleration, the last minute is crucial. He noted people did not have a choice, they had to walk out from behind parked cars, because there were no sidewalks. Mr. Bailiss stated there were similar problems for Broadview Court, noting the neck of the Court was only twenty feet wide. He referred to photographs which showed parked cars and trucks, noting the parking pattern made parking on Broadview Drive more difficult, as the pattern forced cars exiting the Court to be on the wrong side of the street. In addition, he noted cars coming up Broadview Drive were coming through a blind corner, and if there are cars parked on the right hand side, looking down, the cars coming up have to stay to the extreme right, resulting in two drivers in the same lane, who cannot see each other, coming head-on. Mr. Bailiss believed, with regard to the cars, the neighbors were already at the limit, at a point where they were coping only more or less well with a hazardous and inconvenient situation. He believed that beyond that limit, they were entering into very dangerous situations, and he asked why Council would allow that? He stated the neighbors had been told repeatedly that this proposal called for "just one more car"; however, he believed that was merely an assumption, and not necessarily a reasonable one. He pointed out it was possible there could be two adults, with two vehicles, sharing the unit, and their vehicles could be very large. He noted it was also possible they could opt not to use their provided parking spaces, which he stated did look a bit awkward to negotiate. He noted they could also be very social people with a lot of visitors. Mr. Bailiss asked if the neighbors could be spared any of those eventualities? Mr. Bailiss noted they had been told the parking component of the neighbors' problem could be solved by red -lining curbs; however, they felt that was a way of making their neighborhood less useful to the people who are already there. He stated, were they not already in a marginal situation with respect to safety and utility, these might be small issues; however, in the experience of people who lived on these streets, they were at that margin, noting they experience frequent near misses, they are pressed for space, and with this proposal, they believed they faced an increase in the number of users of their neighborhood, which they felt could only make the situation worse. Sarah Bailiss, 4 Broadview Court, stated her neighbor, Peggy Parks, 21 Broadview Drive, had been unable to attend this meeting, and asked Mrs. Bailiss to read the following statement for the record, on her behalf. "I am a resident of 21 Broadview Drive. I have lived here for fourteen years. One of the most appealing aspects of living in this neighborhood is the feature of a dead-end street. There is no drive-through traffic. We assumed, when we bought our house, that this would be an ideal neighborhood for children, because of this feature. My husband and I have two little girls, 4 years and 8 years old. They know many of our neighbors, and they enjoy visiting them. However, there is so much traffic on our street now, that I am reluctant to let them leave our driveway without me accompanying them to assure their safety. Cars speed up and down our hill as if it is a major thoroughfare, threatening the security of my children. Additionally, the top of our hill is a blind corner. In order to enter our driveway, it is necessary to drive to the top of the hill, turn around, and descend to our driveway. I am always extremely careful in this maneuver. Many times cars have been cutting that corner so sharply that I have had near collisions. Six months ago a friend was coming to visit. As she was ascending the hill to turn around, someone cut the corner too sharp and too fast. The collision resulted in damage to her car and her body. She was out of work for several months. This situation will not be improved by allowing more residential space, and hence, more cars to be allowed into our neighborhood. Please, do the right thing and refuse to increase the potential for injury or death in our neighborhood". SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 9 Jane Tofaletti, 34 Broadview Drive, stated she lived at the intersection of Broadview Court and Broadview Drive, and agreed with everything that had been stated. She noted her husband had been involved in an accident at the top of the hill, as he was going up the hill and a resident of the Court started down the hill, and they collided. She reported approximately six months ago she was walking in the Court and heard a bang, caused when a resident of the Court had driven down Broadview Drive on the left side, as explained by Mr. Bailiss, and collided with a car coming up the Drive. Loma Burgess, 55 Broadview Drive, read a letter from Patricia Mahoney, 22 Broadview Drive, who was unable to attend the meeting. "Contrary to the response to our letter, Broadview Drive is not safe. Almost every driveway is angled so that cars must back out onto the street. This is a dangerous situation on a street where there are many places where only one car can be driven at a time. In the thirty years I have lived on Broadview Drive I have, with babies in the car, been struck by a car speeding down the hill as I exited my driveway, and there have been many near misses. Adding another unit, even with parking provisions, is going to increase the danger to families on Broadview Drive. It also will increase business traffic, such as UPS vehicles, which double park on the street". Bob Peacock, resident of 15 Broadview Court, stated if this application was approved, he was concerned the applicants might relocate, and rent their home and the second unit. He noted the City's standards for second units, Section 14.17.120C2 would allow them to do this because of illness or employment, if granted by the City Council. Mr. Peacock asked if Council could give him assurance that this would not happen, otherwise, they would have a rental duplex at 14 Broadview Court, and if two or three other homeowners were to do this, they would have a neighborhood of rental duplexes instead of single-family residences. Mr. Peacock stated the current application, with the driveway from Broadview Court, was a substantial change from the previous submittals, and he felt it should be reviewed by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. He believed there would be major effects on traffic, safety, and parking, and also major changes to the driveway, where home foundations would have to be demolished and reconstructed. In addition, he stated it did not appear from the plans that the geometry of the driveway would make it easy to park in the proposed carports, particularly with large vehicles, which meant there would be more cars parked on the street. He noted the previous plan, submitted with the driveway from Jewell Street, had been presented to the Design Review Board three times, and once to the Planning Commission, and in each case, it had been approved by City staff. However, it was rejected twice by the Design Review Board and once by the Planning Commission. Mr. Peacock believed that to be fair to the residents of Broadview Court and Broadview Drive, this new proposal needed to be reviewed by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. Edward Weiss, applicant, stated everyone was talking about increased traffic, but the fact was they have had someone living downstairs in the unit for most of twenty years, noting sometimes it has been his mother, his wife's mother, his uncle, his wife's brother, and sometimes they have even had two people staying there, and no one ever said a thing about traffic at that point. He stated they were not proposing any increased traffic at all, noting the traffic would not increase, explaining there would not be any more people staying there than there has been for twenty years. Carol Peacock, 15 Broadview Court, stated she was before Council to plead for her neighborhood. She stated the reason she and her neighbors were concerned was simple, they wanted to preserve their neighborhood. She noted they have always enjoyed living there, and would like to continue to do so. She stated theirs was a nice neighborhood, noting the residents have invested in their neighborhood of single-family dwellings, and did not want to see it changed into an area with traffic, safety and rental problems. She stated they resided in an area with solid citizens, which was just what San Rafael needed. She asked if the City wanted to lose these stable residents? She stated San Rafael could ill afford to let neighborhoods become run down, and asked Mayor Boro and the Council to keep their neighborhood the way it is, a single-family dwelling area, and to vote no on this proposal. Ian Sammus, Attorney, noted he was a businessman in the neighborhood, and a member of the Affordable Housing Consortium. He stated what he had heard was a little like "Chicken Little, the sky is falling". He believed the traffic problems delineated by the neighbors have been of their own making, and people living on Broadview Court have been causing the accidents. He noted the applicant indicated there had been no change in the traffic flow SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 10 for the past twenty years; therefore, they were looking at a problem that has always existed, and if it has always existed, it has been the result of the neighborhood. Mr. Sammus noted the second recurring point he had heard was that this one unit, which was now becoming a legal unit, was going to change the entire character of the neighborhood, and everyone was going to flee San Rafael. He stated that was not realistic, noting the fact that there is a legal unit, which can be regulated, with legal means of checking on the owner to make certain he is complying with the rules and regulations, was in the best interest of the entire City. On that basis, he believed this application should be approved. Steve Patterson, representing the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, noted the Federation supported the creation of legal second units. He stated the Federation was interested in this particular issue because they felt, at some point, the City's Housing Element would be reviewed and revised, and the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance was part of the Housing Element. He reported the Federation had also been asked by the neighbors to become involved in this particular issue. He believed one issue of particular importance was that Council not lose sight of the fact that an incredible amount of time and energy had been spent in the development of the Montecito Neighborhood Plan, part of which dealt with density and saturation, and to not consider that issue, with regard to this application, would seem to be a real disconnect. Mr. Patterson noted there had also been some real issues with regard to owner occupancy. He stated if Council should decide to approve this unit, he hoped the City would create some kind of apparatus to ensure there would be continued owner occupancy, so the owner would not move out. He also hoped the Councilmembers had the opportunity to drive up Broadview Drive and Broadview Court, pointing out it was a very tight and tense situation, and there clearly were some real safety issues. Mr. Patterson acknowledged there was pressure for the City to create affordable housing; however, he believed there were some real safety issues here. He noted this particular application had gone on for a very long time, and he felt the owner occupancy issue was one the Council could not afford to overlook. Anise Turina, Housing Advocate, stated she hoped the City did not discourage any additional affordable housing in the community. She sympathized with the neighbors who seemed to believe there was such a safety issue; however, as had been pointed out, the extra unit was not going to cause a safety issue, and she felt the people living on that street needed to be more careful drivers, so they did not have so many accidents. Ms. Turina noted this unit had been occupied all these years, and she could not see that it was going to make any difference, making it a legal unit. She stated the City needed all the affordable housing it could get, and certainly could not afford to lose any. Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, noted everyone has been working on the issue of affordable housing for years; however, she felt they were now at a point where they just cannot win. She stated people do not want sprawl, they do not want houses built outside certain boundaries, and they do not want density. Therefore, she asked, what are they to do? She noted it was clear that now the call was to try to build as much housing as possible within existing towns, pointing out second units were a big portion of the affordable housing stock. She recalled speaking with the Superintendent of Schools who complained the District gets new teachers, they stay for three years and become trained, and then they leave for a community where they can find housing, because they cannot afford to live here. Ms. Giambastiani stated it was going to get worse, and what she felt the neighbors were really concerned about was that there would be more people in our communities. She acknowledged there were going to be more people in our communities, stating we had to find places for them, particularly those people who were providing us with the services we want, such as teachers, and those who provide safety and medical care. Ms. Giambastiani stated it was her understanding the Montecito Neighborhood Association had already been down -zoned, from approximately 300 units to 50. She asked what would happen if a family of five teenagers moved into the neighborhood, would the City tell them they could not have cars? Ms. Giambastiani asked Council not to set a precedent, pointing out State law stated legal. She make their it can, she second unit the City was supposed to be allowing second units that are noted the Weisses have come forward and stated they want to unit legal, and as the City needed to have all the second units would hate to see Council set a precedent, and not allow the because the neighborhood was opposed to it. Ms. Giambastiani SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 11 stated if it works, if the applicant follows all the rules, and if the Planning Department feels it is all right, then she believed Council needed to approve the unit. Leslie Klor agreed with Ms. Giambastiani, noting if the Weisses have lived on this street for the past twenty years, and rented their unit, then there should be no increase in traffic. She stated she did not believe the dangerous traffic problem was because of that unit. Ms. Klor felt that if the Weisses had gone to the trouble of consulting with the neighbors in determining the kind of driveway to install that would be safe, tried to reach a consensus, and complied with the conditions, then they should be granted the right to do this. She stated we could not keep limiting everyone's freedom, and if the Weisses are complying with what they are supposed to do, it should be allowed. She agreed more housing units were needed in the City. Dirk Brinckerhoff, resident of San Rafael, recalled that as a child, he had become very upset when a subdivision started going up on a hillside he thought was his play area, noting if, at the time, he had known the term, he would have been saying, as the neighbors were saying tonight, "There goes the neighborhood". He stated it ruined the Open Space, and it brought more traffic. However, this was now where he lived, and he was glad he had not gotten what he wished for. Mr. Brinckerhoff agreed we need more housing, for ourselves, our families, and our society, and urged Council to allow this to go forward. Bob Semple, 84 Jewell Street, stated a situation like that described by a previous speaker, in which five teenagers moved into the neighborhood, with five more cars on that nasty hill, was not reasonable. He agreed there needed to be more low-cost housing, and suggested Council approve commercial units, such as the one going in across from United Market, and placing apartments and businesses in the same area, instead of putting them into the neighborhoods. He stated the residents bought their houses because they liked the location, and they liked the way it was, with the peace and quiet, and the lack of a lot of cars. He noted a lot of that had disappeared, and they would not like to see it deteriorate any further. He felt there were far better ways to do low-cost housing than to cram more places into the neighborhoods, especially those with traffic problems. Mayor Boro stated the City was doing that as much as it can Downtown, noting the Macy's unit would have 110 residential units, in addition to the retail, and the building at Fourth Street and Lincoln Avenue would have 125 units above the retail. He stated wherever the City can have that type of Mixed Use in a neighborhood that will support it, the City would try to do that. Mr. Semple congratulated Council for that. Betty Padget addressed the Council on behalf of the Marin Housing Council, a body of housing advocates, non -profits, and funders. She stated the Housing Council supported the staff recommendation on this item, and supported legal second units. She noted it had been their experience that second units did not necessarily intensify neighborhoods, because most of the use was by a couple or a single person household that has been reduced, the house was under-utilized, and one or two people lived in the second unit, so the overall density or intensification simply was not a reality. She stated the people who live in second units many times are an elderly parent, adult children, or young professionals who are starting out and cannot find any place else in Marin County. Ms. Padget stated they supported second units as a way of making our neighborhoods viable, because those who are part of our families and part of our community can live with us, at an affordable amount. She stated where there was no evidence that health and safety issues were involved, then grandfathering in existing second units was an important way in which to continue the use of some of our larger homes for single people, who could not otherwise afford to rent. Jan Robinson, 104 Jewell Street, stated she had not planned to address Council, as she felt the Broadview neighbors had done an eloquent job. However, she noted that in the comments presented, it was not pointed out that there had not been an application since CC & R's have been in effect in such places as Peacock Estates and Marin Bay Park, where such things were not allowed. She felt perhaps she and her neighbors had bought on the wrong side of the tracks, and because they were just middle-class people, and had not established the CC & R's and rules for their neighborhoods that would have put deed restrictions on to begin with, now they were being penalized. She asked if the City Attorney's report had been sent to the Sonoma County Tax Assessor's office, noting that office had provided her with quite different information. Mr. Guinan stated it had not been sent to them. Ms. Robinson noted her neighbors' concerns have always been with the fire hazard, the mile high weeds and Pampas Grass, and the general SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 12 "mis-keep" of the Jewell Street side of the Weiss' property. She stated that for approximately the past thirty years, the neighbors have taken care of the mowing, because after Proposition 13, the Fire Department informed the neighbors they could no longer require the Weisses to clear their property, because of a lack of funds. Ms. Robinson recalled that when she first lived in the neighborhood, the Fire Department would order the property cleared, and if it was not, they cleared it and charged the owner; however, the budget funds were now so limited they could no longer do that. She stated the neighbors were no longer allowed to go onto the property, and the neighbors were concerned that if the proposal is approved, particularly with a fence that will block the level portion of the property from the rest of the hill, there was no longer any chance of getting the weeds cut. She stated they were concerned about how they were going to be able to protect their properties from fire, and just from the general appearance of the overgrowth. She noted the Weisses had everything taken care of before the first application; however, it has now been almost two years, so everything has grown back, and it has not been cleared. Ms. Robinson requested that if Council were to approve this proposal, there be something requiring that the property not become another fire hazard. Bob McAllister noted his house was directly across the street from the driveway presented in the initial proposal, and while he agreed he should be delighted the driveway has been moved away from his child and his family, there were some things which still disturbed him. He felt assumptions had been made by staff, and one seemed to be that if it was a one bedroom unit, there was only one car; another assumption was that the car would park in the parking space and nowhere else; and yet another assumption was that if the owners should move, residency of the second unit would end, and Mr. McAllister did not believe that would be true, noting he believed it would be very easy to get around that. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro asked staff to respond to the question concerning why staff was not recommending this project go back to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. Community Development Director Bob Brown stated when Council considered continuing this item to look at alternative access, the City Attorney had noted the item was on appeal to the Council, therefore, Council remained the final decision maker. He stated Council had the authority to refer the item back to any of the Boards or Commissions for advice; however, the decision remained with the Council, in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Mayor Boro noted Mr. Robinson raised the issue of CC & R's possibly protecting more affluent neighborhoods. He assured Mr. Robinson the City has had instances in neighborhoods with CC & R's where the neighbors tried to use those to block second units, and that had not happened, the second units had gone forward. He stated the City was not trying to play favorites with any one neighborhood, or disadvantage another. In response to another concern, Mayor Boro clarified that if there was a site that was overgrown, and was a hazard, the City did have funds to go in and abate that site, take care of the problem, and bill the property owner. Therefore, if it was brought to the City's attention, and if it was true, the Fire Chief had the ability to do that. Fire Chief Marcucci concurred. Mayor Boro noted a very valid question had been raised concerning the issue of residency. He noted the Assistant City Attorney had discussed this earlier, and suggested there could be a six-month review. Mayor Boro asked what would happen if the owner moved out, how could the City prevent this property from becoming a two -unit rental? Mr. Brown stated that to eliminate the residence requirement would require a Use Permit hearing before the City Council, and for Council to waive that requirement for a specified cause. However, if that was not done, the requirement remained in effect, both for the current property owner, or any future property owner. He acknowledged the City could do a six-month review; however, subsequent to that, when the property turns over, if there are any questions among the neighbors regarding residency, the City could investigate. Mayor Boro stated it was his belief that under the current Ordinance the Council did not have a lot of discretion, to deny it if this was a legal site. On the other hand, he asked how wide Council's discretion was if the person applied for an exception, and whether Council could simply not approve the exception? Assistant City Attorney Guinan stated Council did have that discretion. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 13 Community Development Director Brown noted another question had been raised regarding allegations of an illegal unit at 17 Broadview Court. He stated that since the last meeting, Code Enforcement Officer Larry Salvisberg had inspected that building, and reported the construction that had occurred there created a family room, explaining there was no kitchen, and no second unit. Mr. Brown also pointed out it had all been done with legal building permits. Councilmember Cohen asked staff if they were aware of the City ever granting a waiver? Mr. Tuikka stated he had reviewed this, and had been unable to find where that had ever taken place. Councilmember Cohen noted he had been on the City Council for eight years, and he could not recall anyone ever asking for one. Councilmember Cohen stated he wished to ask Mr. Weiss a couple of questions, in order to settle the record. He asked Mr. Weiss if 14 Broadview Court, San Rafael, was his primary residence? Mr. Weiss stated it had been for twenty years, with the exception of approximately a year and a half to two years, when he lived in Sonoma County. Mr. Cohen asked if it was now his primary residence? Mr. Weiss stated it was, and had been for the past five years. Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Weiss if he understood that in the future, if that should change, unless the Council were to give Mr. Weiss a waiver, the legal status he was applying for would be revoked? Mr. Weiss stated he understood. In response to a question by Councilmember Heller, Assistant City Attorney Guinan explained the City could require that a certain number of parking spaces be available per unit; however, restricting individuals, because they happen to be renting in a second unit, from parking on the street would likely give rise to Constitutional questions, which he would feel somewhat leery about trying to defend. He stated that while he understood where Ms. Heller was going with her question, he did not believe it was possible to do that. Councilmember Phillips asked, as part of the permit, was there any way the Council could limit the number of automobiles by residents occupying the second unit? Community Development Director Brown stated he believed the answer to that would be identical to Mr. Guinan's previous answer. He noted, just as in the case of any single-family home, the City requires that parking provisions be made on-site; however, the City does not require that those parking provisions be utilized. He pointed out someone could store equipment in their garage, rather than use it for parking. He stated the City maintains that the space be made available, so there is no permanent or physical impairment to using it, but the City does not police that, or actively require that residents use their garage parking; therefore, he believed the same provisions would apply in this instance. He stated the City could not limit occupancy, except under the Uniform Building and Housing Code, and the City did not limit the number of vehicles or people residing. Mayor Boro stated he had a suggestion to the neighbors, regardless of how Council's vote turned out. He noted the City has had instances in other neighborhoods, where there have been unsafe conditions, noting there had been one instance where there had been a fire on a very narrow street, and someone died. He recalled the Fire Department equipment had a very hard time getting there, and the neighbors then decided to sit down, because they were the ones who were the problem, and worked out something they could all live with, as far as having red zones, and other ways to make their street safe. Mayor Boro stated Fire Chief Marcucci would be more than willing, regardless of how the vote on this particular project turns out, to address that issue with the neighbors, if they would like him to do SO. Mayor Boro noted Mr. Bailiss had commented earlier that red zones had been offered, but they made the street less useful to the residents. However, Mayor Boro pointed out that if the streets are potentially injurious to the residents, and if there is a way to deal with a solution they could all live with, he felt it would be worthwhile to pursue it. He stated the Fire Department had done this before, and Fire Chief Marcucci and Police Chief Sanchez would be happy to meet with them. Councilmember Cohen stated he had listened carefully to the neighbors' concerns, and recognized them as being valid; however, they also seemed to be existing conditions that would continue to be difficult, regardless of what Council decided tonight. He noted Council had heard that, whether there was an illegal second unit here, or extended family members staying at the residence, it appeared as though the number of people living at the home had been somewhat extended for quite some time. He noted the City had recently adopted language concerning traffic calming techniques, and while he did not know whether this particular unit was going to increase or SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 14 decrease the number of people who speed down the hill and around a blind corner, perhaps there were other things the City could do to help encourage the neighbors to stop doing that, because one of the biggest contributors to accidents was traveling too fast when there are short sight lines. Councilmember Cohen stated he was very comfortable with the decision Council had made concerning safety issues the last time this item was before Council, and had not felt at all uncomfortable with the analysis of the impacts of the driveway. He stated, despite the testimony that had been heard tonight, he found it hard to make that same finding with the application that was now before Council. He noted there was less of a design impact from what had been originally proposed, and he felt there was much less of a safety impact. He stated there was, no doubt, a traffic impact, perhaps from additional vehicles, although from Mr. Weiss' comments, there might not really be an addition. He believed the design approach now being taken had addressed a lot of the issues. Mr. Cohen stated he was pleased to have heard Mr. Patterson state the Federation supported legal second units, because he felt that was the flip side of what Council had been doing in working with them, trying to deal with the issue of illegal second units. Mr. Cohen acknowledged that perhaps the City should consider issues such as saturation and density, in terms of the location of second units, as well as broader traffic issues, when Council and staff re -visit the Housing Element. However, from what he had been able to read, and certainly from past policy, the City did not have anything, at this time, that directed Council to use as a basis. He noted that despite the testimony, he had a hard time making a finding that this single additional unit created a safety impact. Councilmember Cohen stated some valid questions had been asked, which he would like to answer from his prospective, and to the best of his ability, ensure that this happens. He noted the question was asked, "Will the City regulate the owner occupancy requirement pertaining to this unit?" Mr. Cohen stated, "Absolutely, yes", noting the City needed to do a better job enforcing illegal units. He reported there has been a lot of discussion about that with members of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, and it remained a challenge for the City; however, the City was committed to finding a solution to that problem, and was committed to enforcing the owner occupancy requirement. Regarding whether the City would approve the owner moving out, due to sickness or employment, Mr. Cohen felt that was extremely unlikely, and reiterated neither he nor staff could recall anyone applying for such an exemption, let alone getting one. Mr. Cohen believed that would be an extremely dangerous precedent. He recalled Council had this same discussion concerning other second unit applications, and he had made the same point then, noting he felt the Council had to be very leery of ever approving an application like that, because the process was never intended to be, nor should it be, a way to create a duplex. Councilmember Cohen added his voice to that of the Mayor, in stating this absolutely was not happening because the neighborhood was on the "wrong side of the tracks". He noted people in other neighborhoods have come to the City and said, "You should not have it in our neighborhoods, do it in Gerstle Park", and implying the Montecito neighborhood as well. He stated the Council rejected that argument, noting the policy of the City of San Rafael has been that legal second units which meet the criteria will be supported in whatever neighborhood from which a person wishes to come forward and apply. He stated that was the policy the City follows, noting there were legal second units in Fairhills, as well. Councilmember Cohen stated he was satisfied with Mr. Weiss' response, on the record, to his direct questions regarding the issue of residency. He noted that might change in the future, and he was certain some of the neighbors would bring it to Council's attention if they believed it had changed. However, he had asked direct questions and gotten direct answers on the issue of residency. Councilmember Cohen felt a number of valid concerns about the neighborhood had been raised; however, he believed the City had done a lot to address concerns about the neighborhood, by responding to the Neighborhood Plan and down -zoning many of the potential for denser uses that still existed. He stated this particular project had actually come out the way it has through this process, and was a fairly good model of what second unit applications should look like. He noted he wished the City had been able to complete this more quickly, and had been able to reach more consensus within the neighborhood. Councilmember Phillips noted that no matter how the decision came down, there were going to be some unhappy people; therefore, that could not be SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 15 the driving force. He stated the Council has supported the concept of second units for some time in the City of San Rafael, to provide housing that was sorely needed for those who provide our services, and for our children, and he was a little taken aback by some of the characterizations of the people who might reside in second units. Councilmember Phillips noted he was struck by the fact that, while illegal, nevertheless, the unit had been in existence for some time, apparently for twenty years, and occupied in various ways. He stated he was persuaded, at least to some degree, that the incremental impact might not be that significant, when compared to the current occupancy status. He noted if it were new, he would have had other kinds of concerns and questions; however, that did not seem to be the case. Mr. Phillips noted one of Council's concerns had been the owner occupancy issue, and he, too, was satisfied that test had been applied and properly met. He stated, with the State mandate, and the City's direction, his inclination was to allow the legal second unit. He felt staff had done a commendable job in bringing this issue back and forth to Council, noting it had not been an easy one. He believed the solution now being presented was preferable to the original design, and addressed some of the safety concerns. He felt that using the existing driveway would be at least as safe as it was before. Councilmember Heller concurred with Councilmembers Phillips and Cohen. She stated she originally had concerns regarding the safety issues on Jewell Street; however, she did not have those same concerns with the driveway on Broadview, noting this was a much better design. Councilmember Miller stated he had visited the site on at least three occasions, and visited today with Fire Chief Marcucci to make certain there would be sufficient ways to get hoses to the property, and that Fire Engines could get up there. He noted he was most concerned with the areas of traffic, and the safety issues regarding the traffic. He believed that by utilizing what this City does best, through Community Fire Servicing and Community Policing, and working together with the neighbors and the Public Works Department, adequate ways could be found to improve the traffic situation on Broadview Court. He believed it could be resolved if everyone got together as a community, and worked toward a common solution. Mayor Boro agreed this application met the requirements of the City's Ordinance, and did not jeopardize the health or safety of the neighborhood. He suggested the motion for a Resolution include wording that specified a six-month review. Once the review was done, if necessary, the issue would come back to Council for a hearing. However, if things were satisfactory, there would be no hearing. He noted the neighbors would be notified, in any event, at the six-month period. Councilmember Cohen noted another concern had been raised in a number of hearings regarding second unit applications, which was that Council's approval of an application would cause a flood of other applications, and set a precedent for the neighborhood. Mr. Cohen stated, given the information from staff that there have only been 60 of these in the sixteen years the program has been in place, there had hardly been a flood of these anywhere. He recalled having heard that argument before in a number of different second unit hearings, and it had never led to a flood of applications in the immediate area. He believed these applications tended to continue to be isolated incidents in neighborhoods spread throughout the City. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution upholding the appeal and approving the project, as amended to include a condition requiring a six-month review after the granting of the permit for occupancy. In addition, the Fire Department is to investigate the condition of the outdoor vegetation, and advise the owner of any unsafe conditions. RESOLUTION NO. 10404 - RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT (ED97-41 & UP 97-67) TO CONVERT AN 848 SQUARE FOOT LOWER LEVEL INTO A SECOND DWELLING UNIT; 14 BROADVIEW COURT, APN 014-033-04 (Conditions of Approval as amended to include six-month review of the Use Permit conditions, including verification of compliance with owner occupancy requirements. Inspection of the outdoor vegetation shall be performed by the Fire Department, to identify any unsafe conditions). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 16 NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None OLD BUSINESS: 12. UPDATE ON ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA TASK FORCE PROCESS (CD) - File 9-2-45 Community Development Director Bob Brown reported that for the better part of two meetings in March and April, the Task Force conducted extensive brainstorming sessions regarding options for the property, and from that, staff felt it was at the point where they should take those ideas, and develop conceptual land plan alternatives for the Task Force to review, not to endorse any one of the plans, but to stimulate more thinking, and in a more concrete and graphic way. He stated the Task Force also asked Shapell, the option holder/developer for St. Vincent's, to come forward with a preferred plan, which they did. All of the plans were presented at a Task Force meeting last Saturday, and they succeeded in creating some reactions from the members of the Task Force. Mr. Brown then explained what he felt had caused a polarization, at least initially, between some of the Task Force members. He stated much of it related to the proposal put forth by the Shapell representatives, particularly three aspects of the proposal, which he believed had caught some of the members by surprise, or caused them difficulty. One, which they knew was to be proposed, was the location of a relocated St. Vincent's campus for the boys, which includes the residences, school, CYO facilities, and a fairly extensive recreational complex, on the east side of the railroad tracks; however, the MOU and current General Plan speak to keeping development on the west side of the tracks. He stated the Task Force was aware that was coming, as St. Vincent's had indicated the need to physically separate the boys from the remainder of the development, yet they still want it close to their existing complex. Mr. Brown noted St. Vincent's also wants to free -up the majority of the property for a higher economic use. Mr. Brown reported Shapell showed a variety and mixture of housing types, a little commercial use near the freeway, and re -use of the H Complex as a town square; however, he noted some aspects of their proposal led to some of the polarization. He stated they believed very strongly that given the financial requirements of the project to create an endowment for St. Vincent's School, to recreate the campus, and to rehabilitate the 1930's H Complex, there was a lot of cost involved, and to make the project balance out, they felt there was a need for some lower density single-family view lots, which tend to be more profitable. Their proposal would locate a number of view lots on some of the higher aspects of the property, including the mid -point of Pacheco Ridge, and Mr. Brown believed that had caused some concern. Mr. Brown reported as part of Shapell's proposal, they would like to do some form of development in the valley area between the 101 Knoll and Pacheco Ridge. He noted there are some wetlands that make up part of that valley, and it was very visible from Highway 101, and was a noise environment. He stated the Shapell proposal would locate recreational fields, an elementary school, and housing in that area, and Mr. Brown believed this had caused some concern for the environmentalists, who were hoping to have a network of open spaces, interconnected, which would include the ability for species to move from Pacheco Ridge all the way to Miller Creek, as they viewed this as an ideal corridor for that type of habitat. Mr. Brown stated, on a very positive note, the Task Force members remained extremely committed to working on a consensus solution, and since the meeting there have been many discussions that have continued between the various constituency groups; therefore, he did not doubt they would continue to digest Shapell's notions, although they continued to point out that was only one option for consideration. He stated they would continue to try to reconcile that with their economic needs, and what he felt were some of the other directions from the Task Force, in terms of areas to be set aside for preservation. Councilmember Heller asked what was happening at the Honor Farm, and how much land area they were asking for in terms of the school? Mr. Brown stated the only proposals for the Honor Farm were those which had been generated by staff, noting in all cases, they had shown an office development in that location. He stated the MOU speaks to redeveloping the site east of the tracks, and they also felt, given the proximity to the Las Gallinas Sanitary District facilities, that residential would be inappropriate there. Therefore, he believed that was an area where the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 17 Silveiras could get a fairly high economic return. In terms of the St. Vincent's campus, Mr. Brown stated they have indicated the need for approximately 50 acres, with at least half of that being for an equestrian center and recreational uses, and the remainder for buildings and facilities. Ms. Heller noted the area designated for that was approximately 431 acres. Mr. Brown believed the total of those St. Vincent's holdings, which are now oat and hay fields on the east side of the tracks, was closer to 550 acres, and they were proposing approximately 10% of that. Ms. Heller acknowledged they were asking for a very small area. Mayor Boro stated he shared Mr. Brown's feelings that the Task Force was trying to accomplish the goal that has been given them, and come up with a recommendation to Council and the County Board of Supervisors as to what the future use of the site might be. Mayor Boro noted he and Mr. Brown had met last week with Supervisor Kress and Nona Dennis, and spoke to the Sierra Club about the status, and Mayor Boro told them this was the way the property should be planned, by the people in the community, and that it was much better than Council and the Board of Supervisors holding separate meetings for many months, with each of them trying to decide what to do. Mayor Boro believed this was a way to get some coordinated planning between the two agencies, which they had a responsibility to do. He noted there had been some concern about the time, and pointed out the goal had been to complete by June; however, he stated he had a sense, from some of the Task Force members, that they did not think they could accomplish that, and they would need more time. Mayor Boro stated everyone had invested quite a bit of money into this project, and to throw it all out, and start all over again with separate processes by the City and the County would not be a good investment in the future. He believed, assuming the Task Force was willing, that they should continue, and see if the group can bring closure to it. Councilmember Cohen stated he had mixed feelings about the proposal to locate the campus east of the railroad tracks, not about the potential for its approval, but in the sense that he was glad it was finally on the table, pointing out this was something that has been known, and had been "out there" since the Council adopted the General Plan in 1988. He noted the position the City had been consistent in, with regard to that, was that the railroad tracks represented a dividing line. Mr. Cohen stated it was fascinating that one of the pieces of information that had come out during the process was that this had always represented the dividing line in terms of the City's policies, noting he had always supported that position, while recognizing, at some level, it was somewhat arbitrary. He stated a piece of information that had come forward during this process, which was absolutely fascinating, was that the San Francisco Bay Estuary Institute did a study of historic baylands, and while they found the line was not actually quite as straight, it was really a very good approximation of the historic baylands. He explained the railroad tracks run at the edge of the historic baylands, and while the baylands wander a little, and some portions even wander west of the railroad tracks, if someone had to draw a line on a map in order to understand where to put the dividing line, the railroad tracks turned out to be a really good one, from a factual basis, and this was not just an arbitrary line, as he had mistakenly thought in the past. He noted it actually made sense, explaining that when they put the railroad in, they did not want to build it on bay mud, so they put it as far out toward the bay as they could put it, because they did not want to put it through good land, and that was why the railroad tracks run right along the historic baylands. Mr. Cohen stated there were some good, solid reasons to be leery of changing the policy and allowing any structures out there. He believed it might be appropriate for continued agricultural use, and perhaps some recreational uses; however, he would remain very leery, and believed everyone should be very leery, of allowing any structures. He stated this was a major issue, noting that when talking about the consensus building that was trying to happen, one also had to recognize it was also a very major issue for a lot of people, and unless this proposal actually came from the Task Force, which he did not expect to happen, he did not think it could be workable. He stated he believed there were other options that needed to be considered. Councilmember Cohen noted the good thing was that St. Vincent's could now talk openly about their interests, the need for separation, the need for a buffer, what their facility needs are, and what the buffer needs are; and the Task Force could begin to look at whether there were ways to address St. Vincent's interests, both in maximizing their endowment, and in finding a suitable site for the school in this area, in a location that would be acceptable. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 18 Councilmember Cohen noted that at a prior meeting the four groups took part in an exercise in which they drew circles on the map, indicating areas of development, and he pointed out they had all been remarkably similar. He stated he understood there was to have been an effort to begin to overlay those maps, to see if the Committee could reach an agreement, and asked for the status on that. Mr. Brown stated those had been the basis of the staff proposals, attempting to limit development to those areas for which the Task Force had indicated concurrence. Mr. Brown believed the difficulty was that in the meeting, Shapell had stated those options were not financially feasible, principally because the amount of acreage shown would push higher densities, with small -lot single-family, townhomes, and apartments for the most part. Shapell had indicated it was not so much a matter of unit count, as the type and mix of the housing, and that was the failure they saw in the scheme, based on the "straw footprints" the Task Force did. Sandy Greenblatt, Task Force member, reported that although the meetings, at times, have been contentious and onerous, to his knowledge, all fourteen members of the Task Force were still committed to continuing the process. He noted that perhaps if it were to go through the Summer they would take a break during the Summer months, and if it continued into the Fall, they were committed to do that, too. Mr. Greenblatt agreed that to let this down, and have the process start all over again, through the public process and the application process, would take two to four more years, and that was silly; therefore, they hoped to complete it, and they were totally committed to do so. Mr. Greenblatt stated they had all encouraged Shapell to come forward, because they needed a face on the project, and needed to know what Shapell, St. Vincent's, and CYO saw for the area, in order to better judge things, and understand what their footprint needs were. He noted they have a similar problem in that the Silveira family has no plans for development at this time, and no plans to develop a map; however, they are interested in the densities, and their rights as property owners, which translates into what their return might be. Mr. Greenblatt stated the Task Force was working in a bit of a vacuum, trying to be fair to both property owners when they have a project to look at on one side, and, for the moment, a non -project on the other side. He felt, on a scale of 1 to 100, they were at 70 in solving the issues, and concentrating on a much narrower field. He stated he believed they were going to resolve it. Councilmember Heller asked if Shapell was ready to go with a plan when this all comes together, or if they were simply out there with a preliminary "want list" or "wish list"? Mr. Brown stated they indicated they had been looking at the property very seriously for a couple of years, noting they had at least one office that was full of plans. Therefore, Mr. Brown believed they were fairly ready to submit. He noted they would obviously want to come in with something that was consistent with the Task Force recommendation, for ease of process; however, he also believed their expectation was to come in very quickly. He stated that since they have had good success working with the Task Force in smaller, cross -constituency groups, and doing the straw mapping, staff's next work with the Task Force over the next two weeks would be doing the same exercise, but trying to put land uses on those straw maps, to see where they are in terms of consensus. Mayor Boro explained he and Supervisor Kress had now been excused from the Task Force meetings because they were making decisions; therefore, they could not be there. He believed the whole issue has always been that the property is called the St. Vincent's/Silveira property, and regardless of who the actual owner is, from a public point of view it is one, and the plan has to be as though there is one owner. He stated, unfortunately, if there is one owner who is reluctant to participate, then something was going to have to happen that we may or may not like; however, it was going to have to be planned as a total site. He believed people were looking for answers, and where this was going to go, noting the City had been accused the other night of wanting to develop this because the City wanted 360,000 square feet of commercial space, in order to get sales tax. He stated he had assured those who believed that statement that the City was not looking for that kind of space, and the commercial space would more likely be for an office complex, and that the City was not looking for another shopping center. He stated he truly believed the Task Force was committed to the issue of protecting the environment, and at the same time, committed to the property rights and being fair to the owners. However, unless the owners could get together and really work as a team, it was going to make it very difficult on the Committee, on staff, and ultimately, on the two elected bodies, which meant they would have to act, as they saw it, without that cooperation. Mayor Boro stated if the Task Force could get these owners to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 19 work together, some of the land use problems could be resolved by transferring them elsewhere, and he believed it would work quite nicely. He stated, at some point, decisions were going to have to be made, and he truly believed this had to be looked at as one parcel, with the ownerships being incidental, noting that when it was all over, we would want it to look like one development, not multiple developments. Councilmember Phillips stated Mr. Brown had mentioned a school, and asked how much of a planned or stand-alone community was being considered? He noted they had discussed houses and offices, and asked if it would be extending beyond that, to include such things as schools and shopping? Mr. Brown stated it was. He reported the School District had indicated the need for an additional school, given a certain population on the site, which staff believed would easily be achieved. Therefore, he stated it had been very beneficial that Shapell brought the issue to the table, indicating their interest in creating an elementary school, constructing it, and contributing to it. Mr. Brown stated some limited neighborhood serving retail uses needed to be provided, and noted there had been some discussion about ideal locations. He stated this needed to be, if not an entirely self-contained community, certainly a new, urban type community that is walkable, and has those services to discourage automobile use. Councilmember Phillips stated there were some interesting ideas going on, noting he had attended a meeting at which the former Mayor of Davis, California had talked about his "village", and Mr. Phillips believed there were some very interesting approaches to a self -sustained community. He acknowledged it was hard to do a comprehensive plan if both property owners were not on the same page, but he hoped, somewhere in the development stage we would use considerable imagination when it comes to the project. He agreed with Mr. Cohen's statements concerning the land east of the tracks. Councilmember Heller asked if there were any opportunities for public benefit buildings, such as Library space? Mr. Brown stated those types of things had not come up, specifically; however, in speaking with St. Vincent's about the H Complex and what would become of it, they did talk about leasing a space for community service uses, so those things would all be possible. 13. RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS ON THE SECOND STREET WIDENING AND LINDARO STREET RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY PROJECT FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 6.03 OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND DIRECT STAFF TO RE -BID THE PROJECT (PW) - File 4-1-501 X 12-18-12 X 11-15 X 4-3-342 Public Works Director Bernardi reported that on Tuesday, April 27th staff opened bids, and upon analysis of those bids, it became apparent the contractors had unbalanced the bids. He noted, in looking at the first item on the Bid Summary Sheet, the Engineer's Estimate for "Clearing and Grubbing" was $10,000, the low bidder's bid for the same item was $1,248,000, and the second bidder's bid was $674,000. He explained the bidders had obviously put all of their profit and overhead into the first bid item, which gets paid first, and basically, they were expecting the City to finance their job for them. Mr. Bernardi stated it clearly was not in the City's best interest, and the contract specifications prohibit that kind of unbalancing of the bids; therefore, staff recommended Council reject the bids. He reported staff was currently in the process, with Council's concurrence, of re -advertising the project, and expected a short turnaround, allowing staff to return to Council in approximately a month, hopefully with an award of contract recommendation. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution to reject all bids, and direct staff to re -bid the project. RESOLUTION NO. 10405 - RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS ON THE SECOND STREET WIDENING AND LINDARO STREET RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT PROJECT FOR NON- COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 6.03 OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND DIRECT STAFF TO RE -BID THE PROJECT. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None MONTHLY REPORTS: SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 20 14. City Manager's Report - File 9-3-11 x 9-3-30 City Manager Gould reported last week had been a bad week for safety in San Rafael, noting the shooting in broad daylight on East Francisco Boulevard, which has been characterized as a gang shooting; and the incident on the San Rafael High School campus involving a student who had a list of fellow students he claimed he wished to kill, which was also shocking to the community. Mr. Gould stated the Police were well along in the investigation of the shooting, and believed they would be able to identify the shooter and make an arrest, and the young man who made the terrorists threats was in custody. Mr. Gould felt this would be a good time to discuss gang activity in San Rafael, and violence on our school campuses. He noted Chief Sanchez had just come from a meeting at Pickleweed Community Center, which had been attended by approximately 100 residents of the Canal neighborhoods, who were very concerned about violence in their neighborhoods. Mr. Gould stated there have been several conversations recently concerning the City's strategy with regard to both of these critical issues, and he asked Chief Sanchez to address the Council, giving thoughts and perspective on both these topics, and the Police Department's strategies for dealing with them. Police Chief Cam Sanchez distributed a report to Council and staff. Reporting on the meeting he had just attended, Chief Sanchez noted between 80 and 100 residents from the Canal neighborhoods had attended, and they were fed -up with being intimidated by young men and women. He stated they were afraid to go into their carports or to walk down the streets, at times feeling they had to walk across the street just to get to their residences. Chief Sanchez stated that was unacceptable to him, and certainly unacceptable to them. He noted many of them were asking for more Police patrols, and anything else the Police Department can do. Referring to the incident involving the young man with the WEB site, Chief Sanchez reported he was still in custody, and he believed the School District and the Courts were going to take the incident very seriously, in light of the tragedy in Colorado two weeks ago. Chief Sanchez stated this incident had been a very disturbing thing, and what had bothered him, and School Superintendent Barbara Smith, was that several other kids had seen the letter on the WEB site months ago; however, they had felt it was a joke, so they did not say anything about it to anyone. Chief Sanchez reported the day after the Colorado incident, there was a call to the Police Department's Dispatch Center, stating there was a man with a rifle walking on the San Rafael High School campus. He noted that happened around Noon, and the Police Department immediately responded, with the first unit arriving within approximately ten seconds, because he happened to be right around the corner. Chief Sanchez explained they shut the school down, with all the kids in the classroom, and the Police Department was there for quite a while, searching every closet and every room, but finding nothing. He reported that with the assistance of the FBI, they were able to identify where the call came from, and the Department would be interviewing the young man tomorrow morning. He stated in this instance it had worked out, but it was still a scary and very disturbing thought, that these things were occurring. Chief Sanchez explained that in order to relieve a little of the anxiety, he had placed Corporal Harry Barbier as the "on -school" Police Officer at both campuses, noting there have been several bomb threats at Terra Linda High School. Chief Sanchez noted the report he had distributed to Council contained three years of the Department's statistics on gangs, with comments and explanations. He stated over the past eight to ten months, San Rafael's gang issue had escalated, perhaps not in number, but certainly in the type of violence, something we were not used to seeing in our community, and was a concern to everyone. He acknowledged we do have gangs in San Rafael, just as most cities do. He reported that over the past three years the Police Department has handled over 130,000 calls for service, Citywide, and of those calls for service, 302 have been gang related, which was approximately 1%. He stated that while that number may seem insignificant, he believed it was still a problem, because it was occurring in our community, and therefore, it was a problem that had to be addressed. Chief Sanchez noted on Pages 9, 10, and 11 he had listed the major incidents which have occurred over the past nine or ten months, pointing out that in most of those incidents, the participants were from out of town. He reported that recently, the Department was dealing with young men coming from Richmond and San Francisco, and there have been some very violent acts in our community, mostly in the Canal neighborhoods. Chief Sanchez stated people were upset and fed -up, and wanted to know what the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 21 Police Department's policy was. He stated, basically, the Department has a zero tolerance policy for gang -related crime in the City, and will do everything possible to prevent that crime from occurring. Referring to the Police Department's strategies, Chief Sanchez reported that since March, 1998, the Department has refocused the Street Crime Unit, noting that while they do deal with some of the narcotics and prostitution issues, the biggest issue was gang violence. Chief Sanchez explained one part of the Department's strategy was that the Street Crime Officers, while still crime enforcement officers, are spending two days per week at Bahia Vista and San Pedro Schools with the second, third, and fourth grade students, to talk to them about gangs and consequences. Chief Sanchez believed this was the right age to begin talking with them about some of the role models they may be looking at in their neighborhoods, and about the dangers of violence and joining gangs. Chief Sanchez stated the Department's strategy was to continue the SCU (Street Crime Unit) focus, noting they were there every night, and very rarely were they taken out of the Canal neighborhoods. He reported the Department had also been working with the COPE Team, the County's Coordination of Probation Enforcement team, which gets a list of gang members who have been released from CYA camps or Juvenile Halls, and are on probation. Chief Sanchez explained the first two or three conditions of probation for a juvenile, if they are gang members, is that they will no longer associate with gang members, they will not congregate in areas where gang members congregate, and they will go to school. He reported COPE checks on these young men all week long, and if they violate their probation, they go back to Juvenile Hall. Chief Sanchez stated that while that may sound like a very small thing, it was actually very large, because law enforcement is getting the kids back to school and off the street in the middle of the day. He stated the Police Department believed this was a good investment, noting the Department had really been working with this program since the shooting last week. Chief Sanchez stated partnerships with surrounding agencies was another part of the Police Department's strategy, noting the Department had made it a point to begin developing those partnerships even stronger. In addition, his Department was currently working with the San Francisco Police Department on San Rafael's two latest gang incidents, in which San Francisco gang members were participants, either as victims or as suspects. He pointed out the Police Department's relationship with the District Attorney's office was very good, noting District Attorney Paula Kamena had attended the meeting at Pickleweed Community Center with Chief Sanchez earlier this evening, and spoke about what the District Attorney's office was committed to. He stated her office was committed to prosecute, to the hilt, every gang crime that comes across her desk. Chief Sanchez stated members of the community talked with District Attorney Kamena about instances where they see the young men who have committed crimes, back on the street within a week, with very little, if any, consequence for their action, and the citizens, in turn, become victims of retaliation for even reporting a crime. Chief Sanchez stated some of the residents of the Canal neighborhoods stressed they were having a hard time being cooperative with the Police Department and the District Attorney because of the retaliation, and because, as one woman expressed it, the Police make such a big issue of it, the District Attorney's office makes a big deal of it, then they go to Court, and the next week the person is back on the street. Chief Sanchez noted District Attorney Kamena heard these comments, and in speaking with Chief Sanchez after the meeting, she committed to going after the gang members. He stated that would be a big part of the strategy to stop gang violence. Chief Sanchez stated another important strategy was continuing to work with the schools, reporting Superintendent Barbara Smith had also attended the meeting at Pickleweed, and spoke to the community about the partnership between the schools and the Police Department. Chief Sanchez stated there was also an issue regarding apartment locations, reporting one of the problems the Department had was when they eradicate a gang problem in a certain building, it pops up somewhere else. He noted one of the problems they have had during the past eighteen months is the cooperation of apartment building owners, many of whom openly and freely rent to groups of gang members, and are only mildly interested in working with the Police Department. He stated the Code Enforcement Officers did a fine job in working with the Police Department, noting that during the next budget year, he was going to assign one or two Patrol Officers to work with Code Enforcement to address some of those locations the Police Department believes will take more than a Code Enforcement Officer to enforce. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 22 Chief Sanchez reported the Police Department was working with the School District's Office of Elementary Education in connection with a grant called Safe Schools - Healthy Students. He explained this grant funds full-time resource Officers at elementary schools, which is part of the Department's strategy. In addition, the Police Department was continuing its current policing efforts in meeting with property owners, managers and tenants. He believed many of these activities were critical. Referring to some of the other things the Police Department will continue to do, as part of its strategy, Chief Sanchez reported the Department had an outstanding system for first-time offenders, which involves Pat Carson and her crew of three family and child psychologists, to whom the Department sends all of its first-time arrestees. He stated over 150 families, more than 80 of them from the Canal neighborhoods, were currently taking advantage of some of the family counselling sessions. He noted all of them were gang members, pointing out there was not one kid they have spoken to during the past six months who was not a known gang member in the Police Department's file. Chief Sanchez stated the Police Department believed the parents had to play a big part in the lives of these young people, especially those who were gang members. Chief Sanchez reported last week he met with Father Rossi of St. Raphael's Parish, to discuss what the churches could do, if anything. He reported this summer they would talk to all of the clergy in the City and develop a program, which would begin at St. Raphael's, and would include the parents of gang members. Chief Sanchez stated Father Rossi knew a lot of the parents whose young people were involved, yet the parents were in denial, or had absolutely no idea what to do. He noted many of the parents were immigrant families, who have noticed their sons or daughters going the way of the gang member and, for whatever reason, felt their hands were tied, and that they had no one to turn to. Chief Sanchez pointed out, in looking at the gang problems in San Rafael, the last three incidents were so violent, with one incident on Pt. San Pedro causing a death, and two recent assaults, the Police Department was worried that if it continued, and the Department did not become more aggressive, we might see innocent people get hurt, or worse. Chief Sanchez stated the Police Department's strategy needed to be hard, to focus on enforcement, identifying the gang members, and doing something with them. He believed the Department needed to do more than simply move them from one corner of the Canal to another, or one building to another. He stated some of the individuals who have committed these crimes, or have been victims of the crimes, and who, it seems, are always being victimized, would like to move out of the area. He reported the District Attorney's office had funds to relocate families who believed they were being threatened, due to gang violence. Chief Sanchez believed the Police Department needed to explore many different options. He noted District Attorney Kamena had mentioned a "Gang Injunction". Chief Sanchez explained that in a case where the City would want to obtain an injunction, the Department would get a Restraining Order to keep gang members away from certain areas of town where the general public is at great risk of bodily injury. He stated this was an option he would like to look at, and then return to Council after discussing it with City Attorney Ragghianti and District Attorney Kamena. He acknowledged it might not be for San Rafael, but he felt it deserved looking into, and a report would be given to the Council. Councilmember Heller felt what they were really talking about was actually two issues, one was gang violence, and the other was school/community violence, and she was equally concerned about both areas. She noted the City's SWAT team was leaving for training exercises at Fort Ord in Monterey, and pointed out something she had heard on television and in the press had concerned her very much, which was that the SWAT team in Colorado did not even know how to physically get into the school building, and had spent a lot of time formulating a plan. She hoped San Rafael's Police Department had a plan to go through each and every one of the City's large buildings, specifically the schools, so our force would know exactly where they were going, even blindfolded, in case there were smoke bombs. She asked how long something like that would take to put into effect? Chief Sanchez stated the SWAT team would be training in Monterey for three days, and along with other SWAT teams, they would be training on such things as entries into schools, large businesses, and city buildings. He noted, fortunately for the San Rafael Police Department, our SWAT team had maps of every school in the City, showing the location of every room, and where all the doors are. He noted when the SWAT team returns, they will immediately begin training all of the Department's Officers. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 23 Councilmember Heller stated she would like to see San Rafael explore this issue of community violence, because she did not believe it was going to go away. Chief Sanchez stated he and City Manager Gould had begun discussing the issue, and had already talked about safety in the City Hall building, as well as the Falkirk Cultural Center. Mayor Boro noted the City has a curfew law, which the Police Chief has the power to impose, and asked why the Police Department was not doing that, particularly if there were kids hanging around the bowling alley on a Friday night? Chief Sanchez did agree the Police Department probably should begin enforcing the curfew, making that part of their strategy. Mayor Boro noted the curfew would have to be Citywide, and Chief Sanchez agreed. However, as an example he pointed out in his report regarding one of the "threats against the owner" cases, the suspects were all adults, and none of those threatening the man were juveniles. Mayor Boro stated it appeared as though the violence that has happened in the schools has all happened in middle class neighborhoods with middle class kids. He quoted one of Chief Sanchez's strategies, "to work with parents on a more intimate level regarding gang issues", and noted it seemed as though the Police talk to the kids, and the schools talk to the kids, but no one was talking to the parents. He felt perhaps what the City needed to start to do in each school, in collaboration with the School District, was to have a "Parents Night", where Police and School officials would be present, to discuss not only gangs, but the whole idea of the responsibility with guns and violence, and what to look for, so the parents understand they have a role in all this. He believed there was a big "disconnect" between parents and kids, Nationwide, and we needed to "couple" them again. He noted that between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM the schools may be the ones who have the kids in their charge, but the schools are not ultimately responsible for their actions. He felt the timing was right to invigorate that issue, and asked Chief Sanchez to think about how the City might do that. Mayor Boro stated the parents were the common denominator to the schools, to the Police, and to the kids, and somehow, we needed to get them engaged. Chief Sanchez stated that was already occurring, noting there was a program called the "Parenting Academy", which the School District began sponsoring last year, and it always has a waiting list. Mayor Boro noted the Police Department was talking to kids in second and third grade about drugs and gangs, they should also be talking to their parents. He pointed out these were not kids who were in trouble, they were kids who were being informed, and the parents needed to have the same understanding, so they can reinforce what the Police Department is telling the kids. Mayor Boro stated there was so much done after the fact; however, he felt they had to reach them up front, noting the real question was how to prevent it from happening. Mayor Boro stated it had surprised him that there were landlords who would rent to gang members. He noted there are laws where, for example, if a building is used for crack, it can be taken over. He asked if the Police Department had looked into such a situation, and if, when the Department knows a property is a source of crime, can we threaten the owner that if the problem is not corrected, the City will come after them? Chief Sanchez stated the Police Department had already done this on one occasion, at an apartment building across the street from Pickleweed Park. However, instead of complying, the owner sold the building. Chief Sanchez reported the new owners came to the Police Department and asked what the Department would like them to do, and immediately evicted the three families with gang members, and installed a fence and cut the shrubbery, so when the Police Officers drive by, then can see onto the property. Mayor Boro stated he believed it was important to think beyond gangs, to think about the kids throughout the entire community, at both high schools, both junior high school, and all the grammar schools, and develop a way to reach their parents and get them coupled with their kids, to understand the reality of what is going on in the world today. He pointed out gangs were only one issue, there were also drugs, violence, and much more. He believed the parents needed a better understanding of what the kids were subjected to, and felt that if the City could do something with the schools, perhaps a Back to School night, with the Community Policing people there, and we had the opportunity to talk to these parents, he felt it would open a lot of eyes. Councilmember Cohen felt it was important to pay attention to those things, and acknowledged that, certainly, what happened in Colorado made it clear that it could not be ignored. However, he stated he did not want to look past the gang issues, because there was too much happening right here, right now. Councilmember Cohen thanked Chief Sanchez for his report, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 24 stating it was very timely and informative. Regarding coordination, Councilmember Cohen noted in his descriptions of some of the incidents, Chief Sanchez had referred to outside influences, specifically gang members from San Francisco, San Jose, and Richmond. Mr. Cohen asked if San Rafael's Police Department was coordinating with those Police Departments, working with them in identifying these people? Chief Sanchez stated they did work together, reporting the San Francisco Police Department had assisted San Rafael's Department in providing the location of one of the suspects in the stabbing incident. He stated San Rafael's Police Department worked very closely with other agencies; in fact, he reported that at that very moment, San Francisco Police Officers were at a location trying to help solve San Rafael's latest incident, because they know all the players, and know where they run to. Councilmember Cohen stated a local (Sonoma) resident had recently forwarded newspaper articles from the Press Democrat concerning gangs in his area, which Mr. Cohen noted were quite severe. Mr. Cohen reported one of the things the articles mentioned was a connection to prisons, and how some prisoners may get locked -up, but there was still a connection, which was coming out of the prison. He asked Chief Sanchez if he believed that was an accurate assessment, and if so, did that happen out of San Quentin, was there any impact to San Rafael because of the closeness of San Quentin, and was there anything we could do, in terms of coordination with the prison? Chief Sanchez stated the San Rafael Police Department did coordinate with the prison quite a bit, noting there were several 18th Street gang members who had relatives in San Quentin; therefore, there was an influence there. Chief Sanchez stated many times, as in Sonoma County several times last summer, the prison gangs recruit younger people, who are not in prison, to commit some of their crimes. Chief Sanchez stated he and the Warden of San Quentin had met earlier that night, and discussed this same issue. Councilmember Cohen noted Chief Sanchez had stated there was still a feeling in the community that there was, somewhat, a "revolving door", and people were right back out on the street. Mr. Cohen asked if there was an issue with the Judges, if they were taking it seriously? He asked, if the City was taking this matter seriously, and the District Attorney's office was taking it seriously, why were these people still walking out, and right back into the neighborhood a week later? Chief Sanchez stated, unfortunately, in California we "lead the league" in bargaining down a case. He noted that happens a lot, especially where deals are made, and they plead guilty to a lesser charge, in exchange for giving other information regarding gang activities. He stated this happened all the time, and the Judge had to weigh whether it was enough to allow a plea bargain for some of these crimes, which in many cases, it was. Chief Sanchez stated in the more violent crimes, such as murder and attempted murder, he would say "No"; however, when they are addressing charges such as assault with a deadly weapon, with great bodily injury, he noted they do sometimes bargain those down. Chief Sanchez stated this frustrated the Police Officers greatly, noting it was also an Officer safety issue. Chief Sanchez stated he did not know what the answers were; and while he did not believe the Judges in Marin County were that liberal, the Police Department had seen it happen with Misdemeanor crimes. He stated that was why the citizens were getting fed -up, noting they did not care whether it was a Misdemeanor or a Felony, they just wanted to know why the person who ripped -off their car, or wrote on the wall of their business, was not in jail longer. Councilmember Cohen referred to Mayor Boro's earlier question concerning the landlords, and stated he, too, would like the Police Department to explore that issue. He acknowledged it would have to be an extreme case, and the City would have to have good evidence if we were going to try to take a building; however, he pointed out there were a number of cases where the Council had granted the City the power to go in and do certain things, when the property owner would not, and then charge the owner the cost of that action. He stated he was struck by Chief Sanchez describing the turnaround on a couple of the apartment buildings, with the owners doing such things as installing fences and cutting back the bushes so the Police Officers could see as they went by. He asked, in situations where the City would like to have that done and the owner was unwilling to do it, was it possible for the City to go ahead and do those things, and then charge the owner the cost, plus the administrative overhead? He pointed out the City was already doing that with Fire Safety, and asked why the City could not do that here? Assistant City Attorney Guinan stated that if it reached the level of a Nuisance, then the City could do it. Councilmember Cohen asked that the City look at some of these instances, and find a way to define some of those things as nuisances, allowing the City to go after some of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 25 the owners. Councilmember Miller stated he hoped the Ordinance that was to come before Council at the next meeting would address the issues of "view", "public view", and the acceptance of the owner, noting it would certainly give Council an entre to some of the current problems. Councilmember Miller stated he would like to take it even a step further. He stated he sees kids who go through Davidson Middle School, and then San Rafael High School, pointing out the schools do not check documentation, they simply give education. However, when those students graduate from high school, all of a sudden there is nowhere for them to go, because we are checking documentation then. Mr. Miller stated there were two areas he would like to see the City move into, with regard to young adults. First, he would like the City to do something in the area of jobs, whether it be more in- depth work with the "School to Work Program", or some other approach. The second area he wished to see the City become more involved in was the area of sports. Mr. Miller believed these suggestions would give the City a way of entering into people's lives, especially those who are the most vulnerable, both through sports, and through jobs. He believed if the City could begin to think in those areas, coupling that with all the programs being done by the Police Department, the City would then have a very powerful program, also addressing causality. Councilmember Phillips stated he had been surprised to read Chief Sanchez's comments regarding gang activity, noting that with the increased activity of the Street Crime Unit and all the good work the Police Department had been doing, when the comment was made that there was actually more gang activity, he was somewhat taken aback. He noted the report states that at least a number of the incidents cited were attributed to gang members from outside the immediate area, and asked for a definition of "greater gang activity". Chief Sanchez stated "outside influence" ended up coming to fruition in our City. He stated that in talking to the kids, these things happen when they are going to a party, or they are involved in an altercation at school, or in San Francisco or another location, and it ends up coming back here. Chief Sanchez stated it needed to be remembered that prior to these big incidents that have occurred recently, most of San Rafael's gang issues were the 18th Street and MS -13 members, locally doing little bits and pieces, and the Police Department was able to jump on top of that. However, all of a sudden the Department is seeing a much more organized gang coming into our City, and really stirring things up. Chief Sanchez stated the violence had increased with the outside influence coming in, but the City's violence between San Rafael's locals, the MS -13 and the 18th Street gang, had been on the decline. Councilmember Phillips asked Chief Sanchez to explain the Department's strategy with regard to this increasing activity from the outside? He asked if there was a unique strategy addressing the outside influence, as opposed to the Street Crimes Unit addressing more local issues, whether there were different strategies, or if that was something the Department was still working on? Chief Sanchez stated the only thing being done differently because of the outside influences was making continual visits to other Police Departments where these gangs have their strongholds, trying to find out, for example, what vehicles they drive. Chief Sanchez stated as far as the outside influences, the only thing the Police Department did differently was to immediately become involved with the cities who have this large, organized crime, and try to learn from them. He noted, luckily, our local gangs were not yet that sophisticated. Mayor Boro stated he would think that one way to deal with the outside gangs was if the Police were to nail them, they really nail them, and then the word would get out that they are not going to play in the playground here unless they are willing to pay the price. He expected the Police Department would be extremely aggressive no matter who they were. Chief Sanchez stated the bank robbers have learned over the past few years that San Rafael is serious about it, noting the goal of the Police Department was to be as aggressive as possible. He stated there is zero tolerance, and the Police Department will be teaming up with the schools to address the gang members who attend school from time to time, identifying them and talking with their parents. Chief Sanchez stated he believed the Police Department's focus should be two-pronged. First, the immediate, quick neutralizing of our gang problem, noting he would consider it a gang problem if there was only one gang member in San Rafael; and second, to focus on bringing the parents in on this, whether the parents were gang members or not. He stated he believed this would be the best way to handle the situation, with aggressive, no SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 25 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 26 holds barred, and with the partnership of District Attorney Kamena. Chief Sanchez stated that was all the Police Department could do, noting the Department would continue to give 100%. Mayor Boro stated it was his understanding the numbers Chief Sanchez had identified were small, representing only a few people. Mayor Boro stated the public, in some way, needed to understand that, and not think there were hundreds of people involved. He acknowledged these were gang members, and they were local, but it was not widespread, and the City was on top of the situation. Mayor Boro stated his first thought, when Chief Sanchez mentioned the landlord renting to gang members, had been that the gang members would be kids in high school or junior high school, but now he realized they were talking about kids who did not live at home. He asked what the relationship was between the increase in people who are on the streets during the middle of the day looking for work, and where they go at night, if they are part of the equation, and if the reason the City is in trouble is because there are more people in San Rafael looking for work? Chief Sanchez noted that was an interesting question. He stated, in the past, the Police Department dealt with the issue of people on Kerner Boulevard who were looking for jobs; however, he noted they would not find a gang member standing on the street looking for a job. Mayor Boro asked, if that was not the case, then were the kids Chief Sanchez had shown him in the book of identified gang members kids who lived with families and were going to school, but had gone astray? Chief Sanchez stated that was correct. Mayor Boro thanked Chief Sanchez, asking him to let Council know how it can help him. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 15. None. There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:10 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1999 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/3/99 Page 26