Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2003-05-19 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 19, 2003 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Gary O. Phillips, Vice-Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Esther C. Beirne, Deputy City Clerk CLOSED SESSION – CONFERENCE ROOM 201: 1. a) Conference with Real Property Negotiator Government Code Section 54956.8 Property Address: Gold Hill Grade APN#s: 015-250-28; 015-250-55 Agency Negotiators: City Council, Gary Ragghianti, Rod Gould, Bob Brown, Gus Guinan Negotiating Parties: Save Gold Hill Committee, David Santistevan, Greg Fowler, Golden Forest, LLC, Marin County Open Space District, County of Marin, City of San Rafael Under Negotiation: Price and Terms b) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation – G.C. Section 54956.9(b) Facts and Circumstances Indicating a Significant Exposure to Litigation: -G.C. Section 54956.9(b)(3)(C) – Letter from Brad Sears Dated 4-4-03 -G.C. Section 54956.9(b)(3)(D) – Minutes of City Council Meetings dated 4-7-03, 4-21-03 and 5-5-03 Newspointer Dated 5-13/19-03 Copies Available for Review in the City Clerk’s Office City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:09 PM a) The Patriot Act: - File 9-1 Mayme Hubert, San Rafael resident and past Chair, Marin County Human Rights Commission, addressed the impact of the U.S. Patriot Act on local City services. She thanked City Manager Rod Gould for the seriousness with which he is addressing the details of the Patriot Act, indicating the model of first establishing a policy and protocols for City employees could provide guidance to cities throughout the country. She stated that such a policy would protect San Rafael from lawsuits resulting from an employee’s inadvertent infringement of someone’s constitutional rights. Noting two levels of concern about the Patriot Act, Ms. Hubert explained the first related to the impact on City agencies and employees, particularly in the Police and Library services. She indicated the second was understanding that the Patriot Act and other federal regulations are in conflict with long understood constitutional rights. Ms. Hubert urged Councilmembers to read the packet from Mr. Gould, particularly with respect to such issues as search without probable cause, search without notice, denying courts’ review of such services, overly broad restrictions on freedom of speech and association in order, it appeared, to suppress legitimate dissent and the curtailment of due process. She stated they respected the Council’s policy of only considering issues of local relevance and requested that the local impact of the Patriot Act be agendized in July, and voted on as soon as possible. With national momentum on this matter, Ms. Hubert stated that to share the San Rafael model, so far unique, of policies and protocols in place prior to a request, would be useful to many cities around the country. Christie Cohen, San Rafael citizen and small business owner, expressed concern as to how the Patriot Act would affect the San Rafael community. As mentioned by Ms. Hubert, Mayor Boro reported that City Manager Gould is working on policies and protocols and when he had something to bring to the City Council, it would be noticed. He indicated the City was evaluating how to address the issue from that point of view, rather than tackling a federal SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 2 document of over 300 pages. While not having much authority, Mayor Boro stated the City could offer some type of meaningful guidance to employees, rather than taking a stand and accomplishing nothing. In this regard, Councilmember Cohen stated he would appreciate an opportunity for Council to discuss a full range of options with respect to the Patriot Act at an appropriate time at the conclusion of Mr. Gould’s work. Mayor Boro stated he believed at that point, Council would have an opportunity to discuss the issue. b) Proposed Crematorium – Keaton’s Mortuary: - File 13-1 x 10-2 Peter Lagarias, attorney, indicating he owned a small Victorian on Fifth Avenue, expressed concern at this inappropriate land use for the center of the City. He believed the crematorium to be an industrial use and it was inappropriate in the cultural center of San Rafael to have an industrial blast furnace, let alone one burning human remains. He reported that other cities had passed zoning regulations that prohibit this type of location. Mr. Lagarias stated his goal this evening was to ascertain whether the City would take all available steps to study what could be done about this, noting that at the recent hearing, probably over one hundred people had spoken out against this proposal. Noting the district was named the “Fifth and Mission Residential/Office District,” Mr. Lagarias questioned how or why this type of industrial use got into the zoning, reiterating he believed it to be inappropriate. He noted the application indicated they would operate this Keaton’s/Alderwoods facility 7/24 and it was unknown whether bodies would be brought in from outside Marin. Mr. Lagarias believed that with this type of conditional use, individuals who work and are tenants in San Rafael, together with owners, should have been noticed. To solve the issue, he suggested there be an Environmental Impact Report with full noticing to allow for community input, commenting that this type of structure should not have been approved without such a report. He also suggested the zoning laws be changed by an emergency measure. He stated now was the time for this as nothing had been built, permits had not been issued and there was likely to be an appeal of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s decision. He also suggested evaluating the General Plan regarding an amendment in the Conditional Use application. In conclusion, Mr. Lagarias stated this type of facility should not be located in an historic area, near a school and church. Sufficient crematoria existed in Marin County and one was not needed in downtown San Rafael. Max Thelen Jr., appearing on behalf of attorney Peter Brekhus and the 400 people who had signed a petition developed by Mr. Brad Sears, reported they had prepared a draft resolution stating the City of San Rafael enact an emergency ordinance to preclude urban crematories within a 650-foot radius of any building which students, residents or employees of a business occupy. He indicated they would file this with the appropriate parties as soon as possible and while not stipulating this exact wording, Mr. Thelen stated he was aware through legal research, that the 650-foot radius is one that other cities had adopted. Mr. Thelen indicated they would like to meet with the appropriate City staff in an attempt to work out a practical and realistic solution to the problem. Specifically, he requested the item be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of June 2, 2003, if possible. In the meantime, he requested nothing further be done to move the application ahead, specifically, not issue a building permit, preserving the status quo until the City had the opportunity to come up with an appropriate solution. Mr. Thelen read a law review article regarding crematorium operations and its effects: “There are, however, certain features of a crematory that might be held a nuisance in the sense of an interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, and this in spite of the fact that the resulting gasses are, as the court says in the Principal case, ‘necessarily free from contagion and disease.’ The appearance of a tomb, the fixed memorial of death and decay opposite one’s window would be an immediate presence of the reminders of mortality. The hearse, the chapel, the taking in an out of bodies and knowing that the dead are there cannot help but have a depressing effect upon the mind of an average person, weakening his physical resistance and rendering him more susceptible to contagion and disease. Such matters have, in fact, been regarded as elements of a nuisance, the courts thus just recognizing in the light of psychology, the destructive effect of such things upon the emotions and sanity of people, even of normal sensibilities, not given to distorted or fanciful imaginations. There is much to be said in favor of such a doctrine as here suggested. The presence of a crematory in the midst of a populous residential district might cause actual physical discomfort to the people in the neighborhood and greatly lessen property values and so constitute a real and substantial nuisance.” Mayor Boro suggested Mr. Thelen pass any relevant information on to the City Attorney. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 3 Win Normandi, Crestwood Drive, reported that last February, when making family arrangements at Mount Tamalpais Cemetery, she questioned the funeral director about an odor wafting up from the cemetery last summer. Confirming such an odor, the funeral director stated they did have problems with the chamber, which had been repaired subsequent to staff noticing the odor, and in fact, this had to be repeated as the initial repair was unsuccessful. She explained that when there is an inversion of the air, smoke does come in the neighborhood and the funeral director indicated that other people in the Sun Valley neighborhood had brought this to his attention, and he apologized for the nuisance. Ms. Normandi questioned the need for a second crematorium in the area. Stephen Tracy, “I” Street, confirming he had submitted a letter this evening, urged the Mayor and Councilmembers to listen to constituents, as he believed 99% of San Rafael residents were against having a crematorium at the proposed location. Indicating he works with entities such as BRIDGE Housing, he stated he was fully aware of and had an appreciation for property rights of developers, believing strategic land use to be something this Council was very aware of, good at, and very successful in implementing over the years. Mr. Tracy believed the crematorium to be an inappropriate land use at this location, noting its proximity to the Library, City Hall, Marin Academy and a host of businesses and residences. He inquired whether there was a way to execute a General Plan amendment, Emergency Ordinance, or to rescind the permit. Mr. Tracy acknowledged that in so doing, there was no question the City would be sued; however, with City Attorney Gary Ragghianti, he believed the City would defend itself well. As a citizen of San Rafael, he inquired how he could help, indicating he did not wish to establish a legal fund to fight the City, rather a fund to conduct research to back up Mr. Ragghianti and the research he would have to do to defend the City. He hoped a means could be created to unify the residents of San Rafael with the City and Council to generate a solution to this issue. He believed the future of San Rafael lies in these types of microcosm decisions, of which the City Council had made many. Mr. Tracy reported that his father established an historic district in Sausalito and the residents thanked him for the rest of his life. He believed this was one of those types of decisions and hoped the City Council would consider his comments. City Attorney Gary Ragghianti explained that the applicant had submitted an application to the City for issuance of a building permit, which had not been issued. Mr. Ragghianti stated he had requested the City Manager to instruct the Building Department not to issue any permit and no permit would be issued until the Air Quality Board proceedings had become final. He stated it was his understanding that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District had determined to issue a permit and a 30-day appeal period existed. Should no appeal be filed, the permit would become final 30 days thereafter. Based on discussions with Mayor Boro and others over the last couple of weeks, Mr. Ragghianti stated he was prepared to make a report to the City Council at the meeting of June 2, 2003, on options that may be available to them. Agenda Item #3 – Reappointment of Dan Beittel, M.D. to the Marin Commission on Aging: - File 199 Doctor Dan Beittel requested that the City Council reappoint him to the Marin Commission on Aging where he had served for nine years. He indicated he had been on the Health and Legislative Committee and the work there had very much combined with that at the Emergency Medical Committee, Treatment Center, etc. He hoped the City Council would give his reappointment their serious consideration. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION Minutes approved as submitted. 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, May 5, 2003 (CC) Approved staff recommendation to 3. Reappointment of Dan Beittel, M.D., to Fill One, reappoint Dan Beittel, M.D., to Three-Year Term on the Marin Commission on another three-year term on the Marin Aging – Term to Expire End of June, 2006 (CC) Commission on Aging, to the end of – File 199 June, 2006. RESOLUTION NO. 11306 – 4. Resolutions of Appreciation for Three Members RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO of the Community: Laura Kershaw, Nina Murphy LAURA KERSHAW and Patrick Murphy (MS) – File 102 RESOLUTION NO. 11307 – RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO NINA MURPHY SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 11308 – RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO PATRICK MURPHY AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips (from minutes of 5/5/03 only, due to absence from meeting.) Mayor Boro congratulated and thanked Doctor Beittel for all his good work on the Marin Commission on Aging. Councilmember Phillips requested the following item, No. 5, be removed from the Consent Calendar, explaining he wished to abstain from voting, due to potential conflict of interest (possible client). REPORT ON BID OPENING AND RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT TO GHILOTTI 5. BROS., INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 RE SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT CONTRACT 2003-2004, PROJECT NO. 10723 (BID OPENING HELD ON THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003) (PW) – FILE 4-1-558 x 11-7 Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11309 – RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT TO GHILOTTI BROS., INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 FOR “CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT CONTRACT 2003-2004” (lowest responsible bidder) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips (due to potential conflict of interest.) SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO THREE MEMBERS OF THE 6. COMMUNITY: LAURA KERSHAW, NINA MURPHY AND PATRICK MURPHY (MS) – FILE 102 Mayor Boro announced there were three resolutions thanking and congratulating the three recipients. He quoted an excerpt from the staff report: “Periodically, individuals or groups are presented Resolutions of Appreciation to recognize their outstanding efforts on behalf of the City of San Rafael. Typically, these individuals or groups are contributing a service of some kind on a voluntary basis and therefore, receive no financial reward.” Mayor Boro stated tonight’s recipients were exemplary in what they had done and were present this evening to be formally thanked for their great work. Presenting the Resolution of Appreciation to Laura Kershaw, Mayor Boro stated it addressed the fact that apparently, since May 11, 1996, she had never missed a day of organizing the Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association cleanup volunteer table; she had put many years into the Orca Swim Club and was part of the revitalization of the Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association back in 1994. Having seen her at many events, Mayor Boro stated the author of the resolution was correct in stating she not only provides valuable insight and a cheerful can-do attitude, but also inspires others to contribute time and resources to the community. He thanked and congratulated Ms. Kershaw for the great job. Thanking everyone, Laura Kershaw stated she felt very honored by all present. Mayor Boro stated that Nina and Patrick Murphy were very great examples of a true husband and wife volunteer team working in San Rafael. He indicated that Nina Murphy’s resolution addressed the fact that she co-founded the Lincoln/ San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association and served in many capacities, currently Vice- President. She had worked on the Sound-wall Noise Abatement Committee and had taken a leadership role volunteering numerous hours towards neighborhood beautification, improvement projects such as the Annual Cleanup Days, sidewalk and street upgrades, crime prevention and he believed she was also involved with all 5,000 daffodils. Mayor Boro stated SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 5 the resolution also indicated she is a shining example of community involvement and pride, demonstrating her passion for helping people and bettering the community through hard work in her neighborhood. On behalf of all, Mayor Boro thanked and congratulated Nina Murphy. Nina Murphy stated this was a first in that she was speechless and had no idea what so say. She commented that San Rafael was a great city with wonderful people and this was a great way to meet neighbors and all of those who work in the City. Ms. Murphy thanked everyone, indicating that working with some wonderful people made it easy. Presenting the Resolution of Appreciation to Patrick Murphy, Mayor Boro noted that he along with Nina co-founded the Lincoln/San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association (currently President). He had been active in the Federation of Neighborhoods and active and very effective with CALTRANS on the design of the soundwall, getting them to do things they had not done before. Mayor Boro noted Mr. Murphy had hosted many public information forums towards many initiatives regarding public safety and beautifying the neighborhood. He commented he had been privileged to have been at the Elks Club when both Nina and Patrick had run programs promoting youth development. He congratulated and thanked Patrick Murphy for the wonderful things he had done as a volunteer for the City. Patrick Murphy indicated that yet another Murphy was speechless. He stated all were partners in this endeavor and he appreciated the recognition. Having formed a partnership with the City through their Neighborhood Association, he indicated this was just one minor result, and they appreciated being partners with the Federation, the City Council and the City of San Rafael. PUBLIC HEARING: 7. Public Hearing – CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING: 1) ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS REVISING REGULATIONS FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS AND 2) SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS ELIMINATING SECTION 15.06.030(B) RELATING TO LOT DIMENSIONS AND DEPTH (CD) – FILE 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 x 13-16 x 5-1 Community Development Director Bob Brown reported that this week and last week all over the State, cities were scurrying to modify their zoning codes to comply with state law that changed last year with AB 1866, relating to the requirements for second dwelling units. He explained it clearly is part of the state legislators’ goal to make second units easier to achieve at the local level, and this has been done by essentially requiring the cities to modify their zoning regulations. Mr. Brown stated he would explain a few of the major points and changes in the ordinance by means of a Powerpoint presentation. Mr. Brown stated the ordinance needed to be modified to comply with state law. If this was not done, state legislation would kick in and the City would lose control over how second units are permitted. Also, the City wanted to encourage second units, explaining that even before the state law was being discussed, the General Plan Steering Committee was discussing ways to encourage second units through zoning ordinance revisions. Mr. Brown commented that this had been a long-standing goal of the City; therefore, there was consistency with the goal of the legislature in that sense. He noted that the City wanted to do so without overly impacting neighborhoods, which is always a goal. In terms of second units as affordable housing, Mr. Brown believed it important to note that under current regulations, which have existed since 1983, the City had permitted 86 second units, i.e., a little over 4 per year. While there are allowances to do this, most homeowners simply do not wish to compromise their privacy by putting in second units, there are other cost considerations, or in some cases, they may not wish to do battle with their neighbors; therefore, there have not been many applications. Mr. Brown also noted that owners of second units have been surveyed repeatedly, as has Marin County, and it was found that in terms of affordability, these are indeed affordable. He explained they are affordable by design in terms of being small and secondary units, and it was ascertained that approximately one-quarter of the units in San Rafael are affordable to very low income households, a quarter are affordable to low-income households and the remaining half, to moderate income. Therefore, they are a component of the City’s affordable housing strategy. Noting that the Draft Housing Element proposes a significant increase in the annual number of SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 6 approvals of second units, Mr. Brown reported that as staff polled the public’s receptivity to adding housing in the community, not surprisingly, the idea of adding multi-family units in existing neighborhoods had not been popular. He believed, therefore, that by default, people had agreed that adding second units distributed throughout the community is a better option. Mr. Brown stated that in the City’s Draft Housing Element to the State, staff suggested increasing the number of approvals per year to approximately 34, a very significant increase. In going through the modifications, Mr. Brown encouraged Council to consider whether these changes were adequate in terms of really encouraging this level of interest in second units. Commenting that probably the biggest change was the application process, Mr. Brown explained that currently, there is both a Use Permit requirement and typically, Design Review requirement for second units. He reported that state law would change all of that, noting that basically, they intend to make most of these ministerial applications; however, there did appear to be a window for some discretionary actions, as long as the great majority goes through a ministerial process. Mr. Brown stated that staff suggests that as required by the State, most of these would be approved simply by applying for building permits and staff would then review them against the zoning criteria. Should they meet those over the counter, staff would then recommend that the Building Department issue the Building Permit if it also complies with the Building Codes. Mr. Brown indicated that staff is suggesting there be some minimal discretion for certain types of second unit locations or sizes. He explained that for example, they suggest that a unit above 800 square feet, to a maximum of 1,000 square feet, would require a Use Permit from the Planning Commission. Or, second units located in the corner of the rear and side yards (located in setback areas) would also require a Use Permit. Or, should they be in a detached building and essentially above the ground floor, they would also require a Use Permit to protect privacy. Indicating that staff also suggests Design Review be retained in some instances, Mr. Brown explained that currently, Design Review is required for second story additions to single-family homes over 500 square feet, and it appeared rather foolish not to require that of second units. He stated that in other words, should someone choose to construct a large second story addition on a single family home without a kitchen, they would be required to go through Design Review; however, should they add a kitchen, they would not. Having discussed this with representatives of the state, Mr. Brown reported they appeared to agree with that approach. He indicated staff is also suggesting that if these second units were located in the rear or side yards, they also would be subject to Design Review. With regard to owner-occupancy, Mr. Brown explained that currently owners of the property are required to occupy the site. Staff proposes to retain this and there is a provision for it in state law. Mr. Brown reported that presently, only attached units are allowed. Second units in a detached structure are not permitted, except for the provision that it could be in a detached structure as long as it is connected by a breezeway no more than ten feet long. This, he indicated, is a caveat of the Building Code utilized by staff also. However, the proposal is to allow second units, both attached and detached. Regarding the detached, should it be on a second floor, or in the rear or side setback where an accessory building would normally be permitted, staff suggests some additional discretionary process. In terms of size limits, Mr. Brown reported that currently, second units up to 1,000 square feet are permitted and the proposal is the same. He indicated staff suggests the 800 square feet could be allowed ministerially, and should anyone wish to go above that to 1,000 square feet, they would require a Planning Commission Use Permit. Mr. Brown reported that the minimum lot size is currently 5,000 square feet to qualify for a second unit (similar to the Duplex Zoning, in that to have a second unit as a duplex, 5,000 square feet is also needed) and it is proposed that this requirement be retained. In terms of the height, Mr. Brown explained that presently, there is a 30-foot height limit in the single-family district and staff proposes no change to that; however, once again, should the second unit be located on the second floor of a detached building, staff suggests this go to Design Review and Use Permit from the Planning Commission. With regard to setbacks, Mr. Brown stated that presently since they are attached units, they have the same setbacks as a single-family house; however, as there is the possibility of allowing these now in detached buildings and detached accessory buildings are allowed to be in the side or rear setbacks, subject to certain additional caveats, staff suggests essentially the same. Although, once again, Mr. Brown stated that should it be in that rear or side setback, staff believes at that point, it would be worthy of a Planning Commission examination. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 7 Mr. Brown reported that parking is probably the biggest deterrent to adding second units. He explained it has been very difficult for property owners to meet the parking requirements for several reasons. He explained that presently, there is a requirement that if the single-family home is deficient in terms of parking, it must be brought up to current code, and then additional parking added for the second unit. Mr. Brown explained that tonight’s proposal would change that, essentially not requiring the upgrading of the parking for the single-family home. He stated staff suggests the present parking requirement for the second unit be retained, i.e., one space for a studio or one bedroom unit, and two spaces for a two-bedroom or larger unit. There is also a provision that one of these spaces could be in the front or side setback, as long as the area is paved adjacent to the driveway, and staff proposed this be retained. Mr. Brown reported that state law also requires consideration of tandem parking, and staff suggests that tandem parking be allowed for one space for the second unit. This, he explained, could be uncovered, as long as the driveway itself is at least eighteen feet in length. Mr. Brown reported that the Planning Commission was concerned about this in terms of a blanket approval; therefore, their suggestion was there had to be on-street parking, so in the event the tandem situation was not practical or did not work and the renter was forced to park on the street, street parking would be available. Mr. Brown explained this was difficult to know in that there was not a database indicating which streets had allowances for on-street parking and which did not. He reported that instead, staff evaluated street widths, as data was available, with the thinking that should the street be at least 38-feet wide from curb to curb, there would be the availability of two parking isles on either side and two travel lanes. Mr. Brown indicated that when this data was played out, it was realized there were relatively few streets in San Rafael that are indeed 38-feet wide; therefore, it is not a very significant allowance, and he commented that Council might wish to discuss this at greater length. He explained that the Planning Commission did not have the benefit of actually seeing a map with these streets or having them identified; however, they requested staff to follow up on that, and the information was contained in this evening’s packet. In terms of design standards, Mr. Brown stated that presently, a Design Review permit is required; however, in most cases, these will not be required in the future. Instead, ministerial standards are proposed that can actually be checked at the counter without any knowledge of what surrounds the property. He indicated that staff suggests matching the existing home in terms of exterior materials, color, type and style of windows, roof pitch and materials, etc., to have some similarity between the structures. Mr. Brown indicated staff suggests that in the event of a second-story addition of over 500 square-feet, or the second floor of a detached accessory, or the ground floor of a detached accessory building in the rear or side setbacks, those instances would also require Design Review. Regarding the timing, Mr. Brown reported that the State Law commences on July 1, 2003. This would be trailed by one day should Council take action this evening; therefore, should substantive changes to the ordinance that require additional research or Planning Commission review be discussed, Council might wish to consider adopting something this evening and staff could return with revisions at a later time. He explained state law requires that should an ordinance not be in place, the state standards would be effective. Mr. Brown referred to two letters submitted to Council this evening: one from Sarah Kushner with five suggestions and one from the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, with whom he had met. He indicated that the Chamber of Commerce had also submitted a letter dealing with the Housing Element and second units and should Council wish, he would be happy to respond to the points raised. Mr. Brown pointed out that the ordinance had been revised to add a section, Division 10 on the last page, which deals with the fact that a Summary would be printed in the newspaper, and not the entire twelve-page ordinance. Mr. Brown identified two other suggested minor changes to the ordinance by means of a transparency. He explained that one of these was discussed by the Planning Commission, (he inadvertently had not included it), and the other was a practical suggestion made by the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, dealing with parking. Elaborating, Mr. Brown stated that when considering allowing a parking space to be located in the paved area adjacent to the driveway (in the front and side setback), the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association suggested this be limited to spaces that are parallel to the driveway. He explained their concern was that in some situations, theoretically a car could be parked perpendicular to the driveway, parallel to the street, which would make the parking space quite a bit more obvious. Mr. Brown reported that staff had never seen one like that; however, it appeared a reasonable suggestion to limit it to SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 8 ensure it was at least parallel to the driveway and somewhat less conspicuous. The other change was one the Planning Commission suggested and Mr. Brown explained that to utilize an additional paved area next to the driveway for a parking space, their suggestion was that the curb cut not be widened for that. Mr. Brown indicated this appeared to make sense as it was not intended to eliminate additional on-street parking as a result. He confirmed these two changes were suggested in Section #8 of the ordinance. Concluding, Mr. Brown indicated he was available to answer questions from Council or explain any of the changes received in the letters. Mayor Boro inquired as to the essence of the Chamber of Commerce letter. Mr. Brown stated there were three suggestions, a couple of which he believed were beyond the scope of tonight’s discussion as they were not related to zoning. He explained they suggest the City create a website to provide information anonymously regarding rules, potential amnesty, ministerial approvals, design requirements, etc., and he indicated this could be done. Another suggestion was to create a vehicle to provide no, or low interest loans that could potentially be administered by the Housing Authority. This, Mr. Brown indicated, was a broader issue regarding the City’s ability to fund such a no, or low interest loan program. Lastly, Mr. Brown stated they deal with legalization of second units and suggest that legalization of second units not include the requirement that they had to have been in existence before 1983, and this, he indicated, required some clarification. Directing Council to Section 4, Page 3 of the ordinance, Mr. Brown indicated this was existing text in the zoning ordinance and he quoted: “All new or expanded second dwelling units must comply with both the Uniform Housing Code and the Uniform Building Code.” However, Mr. Brown stated a provision was inserted back in 1983 when the Council adopted the original second unit ordinance which states: “Legalization of existing unauthorized second-dwelling units shall require compliance with the Uniform Housing Code to ensure unit habitability, provided the property owner shows proof that the unit was in existence prior to June 6, 1983.” which was the date the ordinance was adopted. Mr. Brown explained that basically this did not require that the units had to have been in existence prior to 1983 to be legalized, rather it indicated that if it could be proved it was, it was only necessary to meet the requirements of the Housing Code, not the Housing and Building Codes. Having talked to the City’s building official, Mr. Brown reported that most of the life safety and habitability requirements are indeed contained in the Housing Code also; therefore, staff does not envision an issue there. He indicated that some of the provisions of the Building Code, dealing with issues such as energy conservation, etc., all occurred post 1983; therefore, to require units that may be older to meet those requirements, could in many ways, be cost prohibitive, or impossible. This, he indicated, was the reason the provision was originally created; however, he believed the Chamber of Commerce had misread it in that it would not be necessary to prove the unit was in existence prior to 1983; however, if it was, it would only be necessary to comply with some of the codes, not all. Councilmember Cohen noted a letter was received regarding minimum size. He also noted a reference to a minimum size of 500 feet in Mr. Brown’s Powerpoint presentation, and wished to clarify that the ordinance currently did not contain a minimum size requirement for a second unit, except that it could be 500-feet even if that exceeded 40% of the principal residence. Confirming this to be accurate, Mr. Brown explained the only provision of state law regarding minimum is that it states that at least an efficiency unit has to be allowed, which is defined as 150 square-feet, and this appeared absurd to him. Regarding the issue of the building that can go to 1,000 feet (over 800-feet) under the state plan, Mayor Boro inquired as to the basis for bringing such an issue forward for Design Review. Responding, Mr. Brown reported that in questioning the representative of State HCD, (Housing and Community Development) a number of cities indicated that if forced to adopt regulations, they would tend towards being most restrictive. State law indicating units of at least 150 square-feet have to be permitted; cities indicated they might propose nothing more than a 300 square-foot second unit; however, if cities could have some discretionary view, they would choose a higher limit. Mr. Brown reported that the state representative indicated this appeared acceptable to him. Lacking much clarity from the legislature, not having any court tests and not really having any clear guidelines from HCD, Mr. Brown stated it was staff’s suggestion to adopt something like this. He indicated staff would need to send the ordinance to HCD, as do all SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 9 other cities, and should revisions be necessary, they would be made. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Dick Watts, on behalf of the Sun Valley Neighborhood Association, reported that Sun Valley was really not a NIMBY as far as second units were concerned. In surveying the 81 homes in his area of Sun Valley, he indicated he would identify seven second-dwelling units and this equated to 9% of the residential homes having second units. To include one home that was converted to a fourplex, this would result in 14% of residences having second units. Mr. Watts reported that none of these units are identified on City records. It was what he termed a “hidden density,” and he believed that other parts of Sun Valley and older, denser neighborhoods, probably had similar hidden density. He stated that older, denser neighborhoods with narrow streets, such as Sun Valley, with their hidden densities, were more sensitive to the additional demands for street parking and traffic. While accepting second units, Mr. Watts stated residents become quite upset with second unit owners who rely on other homeowners to provide renter parking in front of their homes. He indicated that this additional on-street parking demand by the owners of currently illegal units is the main impact that upsets the neighborhood and gives second units a bad name. Mr. Watts stated that with the approval of second units changing to a ministerial process, more than ever the second unit ordinance would be relied upon to ensure that second units were safe and had minimal impact on neighborhoods. Understanding until today that the second unit ordinance amendments require off-street parking for the second unit, Mr. Watts indicated he had believed that any tandem parking allowance would be for second unit residents only. However, in his review of the amendment before tonight’s meeting, Mr. Watts stated he had become confused about the new language of tandem parking, and having called the Community Development Director, Mr. Brown confirmed that the tandem parking language in the proposed amendment would provide for a renter and an owner to park in tandem on the same driveway. Having re-read the state law and while not an attorney, Mr. Watts stated his view is that the tandem parking language is in the paragraph that addresses how one would provide off-street parking when two spaces for a second unit are required. Having conducted research on the ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) website on second-unit housing this afternoon, Mr. Watts indicated he found a reference for the City of Livermore for how cities are responding to the new state law. He reported that last week, Livermore City Council approved an ordinance amendment containing the following language: “For units with two or more bedrooms, two off-street, on-site parking spaces shall be required. These two spaces may be in tandem with each other but not with the required primary unit parking spaces.” Mr. Watts stated he then called the City of Livermore and inquired whether the new ordinance would permit any tandem parking of owner and renter for a one-bedroom unit to satisfy the off- street parking requirement, and they clearly indicated “No.” He reported that most of those in Sun Valley he had surveyed on second units believe that tandem parking of the renter with the owner is a sham and merely used to obtain the permit or approval and the renter winds up parking in the street. Mr. Watts reported he had observed a neighbor with an undocumented second unit try tandem parking on two occasions with sequential renters and it did not work. He explained one habitually blocked the other in the driveway and subsequent to a few weeks attempting this, the parking arrangements were revised for the renter, using the street and half the time parking in a single space in front of another home. Mr. Watts indicated it could well be that Livermore has misinterpreted the new law; however, experience and common sense strongly suggest that allowing tandem parking of owner and renter to satisfy off-street parking requirements is unrealistic and just does not work, with on- street parking being the typical result. Mr. Watts stated the Sun Valley Neighborhood Association suggests the City revisit just what type of tandem parking is required by the new law and hopefully, the conclusion could be reached that language similar to the new Livermore ordinance could be used, or at least the 38- foot width requirement could be retained. Ewen McKechnie, Sun Valley resident, reported that Mr. Watts’ (previous speaker) area is not unique in that houses on his left and right have illegal units also, and this is a common situation. with parking being the biggest problem. Mr. McKechnie indicated the amount of illegal units in SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 10 the City was not known and he believed this should be ascertained prior to committing to something that could be regretted, based on insufficient knowledge. Nina Murphy, referring to page 2, #3 of the proposed ordinance quoted: “The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments mandated by the State would not impact the public health, safety and welfare in that the provision of scattered, small second dwelling units on single-family properties would not have a significant impact on neighborhood traffic generation; would not significantly impact the availability of on-street parking since on-site parking provisions are mandated...” Ms. Murphy requested that the first use of the word “significant” be changed to “negative” and the word “significantly” be removed. She explained that “significantly” could be interpreted in so many ways by so many different people and therefore, she favored being more specific with the use of language. Referring to page 3, Chapter 14.16.285 Second Dwelling Units A. Purpose. #1 “Implement policies of the Housing Element of the San Rafael General Plan encouraging the provision of second units as a source of affordable housing.” Ms. Murphy inquired how the City was going to regulate the affordability of the housing. Regarding Notification, Ms. Murphy noted that with the new second unit dwellings, notification is not required and she believed it important, at least for the neighborhood associations, to be notified to enable them to stay attuned to what is happening in their neighborhoods. Harry Winters, President, West End Neighborhood Association, noted reference on page 2 of the staff report to designation of areas for second units where the adequacy of water/sewer services and impact on traffic flow could be significant factors, and he inquired how this adequacy is determined. He indicated he did not see anything in the proposed provisions that identified how those impacts would be determined. He realized there could be technical means of determining the adequacy of the sewer flow and water services, and he assumed the section on parking addressed in an offhand way the traffic problem; however, he was not aware of anything in the staff report concerning traffic. Mr. Winters stated he lived on Spring Grove Avenue, which is 25-feet wide. It is an older neighborhood with single car garages and there are a number of illegal second units which do not bother people very much, except on weekends and in the evenings when it is reduced to a single lane street because of cars parked on both sides. Other than addressing off-street parking, Mr. Winters indicated his agreement with the part of the staff report which indicated that in the event a street is less than 38-feet wide, careful consideration would be given to addressing the off-street parking. Mr. Winters questioned the type of criteria being envisioned for addressing the traffic problem other than parking. Elissa Giambastiani, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated the reason this law is now in existence was because communities had not been doing the best job they could in providing homes, and in discussing second units, she indicated it should be remembered that this was an attempt to create homes. Ms. Giambastiani stated that in order to make the leap from four units a year to 34 units a year, somehow there needed to be some encouragement to create second units. She believed that at a cost of approximately $200 per square foot, to build a second unit would cost in the region of $150,000 to $160,000, and this was not something people would do lightly. Ms. Giambastiani stated all efforts should be made to encourage people to create second units. She believed there are some neighborhoods in the City that are already dense and have a legitimate concern about additional second units; however, she indicated there are lots of areas in the City that could easily take more units. To go with the recommendation of tandem parking and having 38-foot wide streets, Ms. Giambastiani stated there are only 30 streets out of the hundreds in the City to which that would apply. She did not believe the assumption could be made that to have tandem parking, people would park in the street. Hypothetically, she stated that should she build a second unit and rent it to her son, there would be absolutely no reason why they could not tandem park; therefore, excluding tandem parking from an owner and occupant did not make sense in all instances. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 11 Ms. Giambastiani stated she was very pleased and always supported the City’s intention to try to create more housing. They had been supportive of the second unit program and she appreciated the City attempting to work this out as best it could. Considering Ms. Giambastiani’s hypothesis on renting to her son, Councilmember Phillips indicated he was unclear as to what that relationship had to do with the awkwardness of such an arrangement. Ms. Giambastiani explained that the previous speaker indicated there should not be tandem parking between the resident of the property and the renter. Should the renter be a relative, she inquired as to why this would be a problem. Mayor Boro clarified that perhaps the implication was that should the tenant not be a relative of the owner and no keys were shared, it could be inconvenient. Councilmember Phillips stated he believed the awkwardness would still prevail. Mary Ellen Irwin, Fairhills, having read through the materials as thoroughly as possible, stated she agreed with the Gerstle Park letter in many of its elements, especially with regard to the width of the road. She reported their roads were 24 – 28-feet and there was no place for walking, which she indicated should be considered. Another element related to the water and the reliability of the services. Reporting that electricity was not included, Ms. Irwin stated this was the problem in Fairhills, especially the upper half in that when it rains, they lose electricity, and she believed this should be added to the analysis. Ms. Irwin believed attached, second units was a far better way to handle the situation than having a separate unit. She stated they could have fairly large homes in her area if the hill were not straight up and down and the road a little wider. She believed an entirely different neighborhood would be created by permitting two homes on the same lot as the ordinance did allow for two bedrooms and two cars, which could mean a sizeable building on the lot. Lastly, Ms. Irwin noted the problem of fire service. She explained that in many neighborhoods, such as those Council had heard from this evening, trying to get a fire engine, as well as often an ambulance, through, becomes enormously difficult and she believed the standards set by the City must allow for a wide fire engine. From her sense of tonight’s discussion, Ms. Irwin indicated this probably should be uppermost in Council’s minds; however, it was not included in tonight’s material. Ms. Irwin confirmed for Councilmember Heller that her electricity comes from three different sources: San Rafael Hill, up from Highway 101 and a normal line coming from the bottom of the hill and they often do not cooperate. Hugo Landecker, President, Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association, indicated they had forwarded a letter to the City Council and complimented City staff on the staff report. Regarding parking in the front setbacks, Mr. Landecker reported that the Planning Commission discussed and agreed that parking in the front setback could be permitted; however, no increase in the curb cut, as alluded to by Community Development Director Brown in his presentation, was an addendum. He indicated the idea was to save on street parking which is in short supply, especially in the Gerstle Park neighborhood. Mr. Landecker stated he favored a definition for second dwelling unit. He believed the inference was that the second dwelling unit was the new unit. He stated this occurred in the existing ordinance and the City Attorney ruled that the second unit could become the existing unit, or vice versa, and then a huge primary unit could be built. He reported that such a situation had occurred in the Gerstle Park neighborhood where the applicant had a 950 square foot house which he wanted to make the second unit and build a new 3,300 square foot primary residence. In planning what the community would look like in the future, Mr. Landecker stated this was not good. He indicated he favored seeing the second dwelling unit defined as the new unit, defining the primary unit as the existing. Mr. Landecker requested Council consider not allowing second dwelling units in the Gerstle Park core area. He reported that an existing Gerstle Park Neighborhood Plan would be superseded by the new General Plan 2020. He explained their core area consists of approximately 30% of the total area of the Gerstle Park neighborhood and is the area called the “lowlands” – high density, parking problems, people living close together. Mr. Landecker stated his term was “people pressure” which basically, was too much density. He reported that in 1978, the area was rezoned to a lesser density to alleviate some of the problems; however, in the meantime, there are existing second dwelling units, carrying forth into the new ordinance. In addition, he stated there were lots of illegal units, plus lots of multi-family zoned areas, which SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 12 are not built out to their maximum potential; therefore, some relief was necessary. Regarding building in the side and rear setbacks, Mr. Landecker stated this applies to detached second-dwelling units and he would like to see this not happen. Explaining, he stated the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association had been around for some time and in looking forward, they were attempting to eliminate these problems whereby, by evaluating something which was done some ten years ago, they questioned how this happened. Mr. Landecker stated his problem with building in the side and rear setbacks was not just the current impacts on adjacent properties, rather future impacts which could occur, and he believed Council should consider this. Dan Nemetz, San Rafael resident for a year, stated he had lived in two detached second units for a combined period of five years, one in the South Bay and one on the Peninsula, before relocating to San Francisco and then Gerstle Park. He indicated he sought out second units as they were more private than an apartment and a pleasant experience. He believed this worked out well for him, the owners and the neighborhood because of density, and to him, parking was a symptom, not the problem. Mr. Nemetz stated existing density was the problem and parking was how it was manifested. Indicating he lived on a single-lane street in Gerstle Park (Ross Street), Mr. Nemetz stated he shared similar concerns about emergency vehicles. Mr. Nemetz believed Community Development Director Brown and staff had done a good job with the ordinance in a short period of time; however, it was now up to the City to take into account the nature of its own neighborhoods, some which are quite dense. He stated that on his side of his street, there are eleven lots, four of which are multiple-family lots, and some are homes that have been sliced into four or five different dwellings and it was pretty tight. He questioned whether there was a way to take existing density into account, and perhaps street width was the correct proxy for this. He believed there certainly was room for second units in many of the neighborhoods in San Rafael; however, since he lived in Gerstle Park he liked Mr. Landecker’s idea of exempting the core area of Gerstle Park from more second units, at least until the illegal units had been brought under control. Regarding the old/new dwelling, Mr. Nemetz stated he lived in a mother-in-law cottage on the Peninsula at the time the “Mansion” syndrome started to pop up in cities like Palo Alto, and he believed the City needed to ensure a strange back door was not created where someone could create an old/new situation. With respect to the setbacks, Mr. Nemetz stated the existing setbacks were there to ensure structures were contained within a reasonable footprint on the lot and therefore, while he appreciated the attempt being made to accommodate second units and classifying second structures as accessory structures, he believed they were not accessory structures, rather dwellings like the principal dwelling. He would like to see the setbacks being the same for those new structures. Tom Hinman, Terra Linda, stated he was speaking as a former Planning Commission member. He had worked with staff on the long-standing goal to promote second units in the community and distribute the opportunity for housing throughout San Rafael. Mr. Hinman stated he had the opportunity over the past few years to attend numerous regional, county and local meetings where it was becoming clear that second units were, in fact, the tool to provide affordable housing, useful for workforce, students and particularly, for seniors in the community. He applauded the intent of the legislation, believing it facilitated actions at the local level; however, he did not have sense of a pent up demand to suddenly build second units. Mr. Hinman stated he would be surprised if more than 40% of the units in San Rafael fell into the criteria; nevertheless, the opportunity to facilitate that process was valuable. In his case, Mr. Hinman stated there was a real possibility he would have one of those “granny flats” as his in-laws aged, which could well be followed by returning students, as well as preserving the option for supplementing owners’ incomes as they age. He thanked the City Council for the opportunity to speak this evening and looked forward to their deliberations in this process. Patrick Murphy, President, Lincoln/San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Association, stated the tools referred to by the previous speaker were very important and would help facilitate second units. He indicated his Association did not oppose second units; however, their concern related to minimizing the negative impacts on their neighborhood and others in the City. Mr. Murphy stated there were a couple of ways to deal with this: A developer/owner who wished to build a second unit should communicate with their neighbors SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 13 and the City and formulate an acceptable and workable plan with both adjacent property owners and themselves. Mr. Murphy indicated he was somewhat derelict in his duty to work with Planning Technician Ulla Jonsson, to try to help formulate a plan to alleviate confrontation; however, they were working on it. Regarding illegal units, Mr. Murphy stated that encouragement for those who have illegal units and provision of the tools alluded to by the prior speaker are good, helping alleviate financially strapped elderly individuals and helps the homeowner facilitate his property to the best possible use; however, absolution in dealing with illegal units was a “No.” He explained that absolution for avoidance of fees, taxes and legitimate numbers for quotas, was not something that would be permissible by him. Mr. Murphy questioned how to accomplish the goal of dealing with illegal units and transcending from those to second units. He stated that in order to deal with the problem it has to be identified, and he questioned how to identify the illegal units that could be made into livable second units. Secondly, he stated the information needed to be provided to the homeowner on how to abate this and thirdly, the cooperation of the City and the homeowner would be needed to facilitate this. Indicating he has a problem with some of the wording in the proposed ordinance, Mr. Murphy alluded to the word “permissiveness” underlined in several places. He stated he did not believe the City should be permissive in the parking ordinance in dealing with second units. While it could be a symptom, it was a significant symptom and the one that pointed out the fact of an illegal unit on the block, and parking would prohibit a fire engine or ambulance from getting to the end of a street, hypothetically, to deal with an elderly person having just broken a hip. He stated there were a lot of problems to be resolved and these should be identified and worked on. Mr. Murphy stated the second unit ordinance was good and he supported it. He believed that some of the language which allows permissiveness should not be permitted and the ordinance stands for itself in the fact that the City and Planning Department recognize the fact that second units are a valuable tool in facilitating not only goals, rather also environments for people to live in. Concluding, Mr. Murphy indicated their support with some minor changes and the attitude that it should avoid any negative impact to any neighborhood, dense or not. Noble “Rocky” Birdsey, Marin Center for Independent Living, thanked the City Council and staff for bringing this ordinance forward. He indicated the Marin Center for Independent Living views the second unit ordinance as an opportunity for seniors and the disabled to live in place without being institutionalized. He indicated that second units could be an opportunity for a homeowner whose property was cash poor to construct a second unit on the property, move into that second unit and rent out the other part of the house. Mr. Birdsey stated it would also be possible to move in an attendant to have full-time care with room and board swap, etc. He indicated it would assist in traffic mitigation and assist owners who desired to have their elderly relatives reside with them. Mr. Birdsey indicated that should the 38-foot width for parking be established for the second unit, it would exclude a great number of possible second unit sites. He stated that perhaps this be evaluated by looking at the traffic capacity and volume, as with a high volume of traffic, perhaps second units should not be constructed so that emergency vehicles could get through. Regarding the driveway issue and tandem parking, Mr. Birdsey agreed with staff, favoring tandem parking. Regarding parallel parking, he suggested perhaps angling the parking; therefore, instead of fitting one car parallel to the driveway, two could be located in the same space. Lastly, Mr. Birdsey noted there are red zones in some areas in front of a person’s house away from the driveway area. He stated this area could become a driveway, not restricting parking and would afford an owner the opportunity to locate a second unit. He requested that the Planning Department consider this also. Sarah Kushner, stated she had resided at 201 Ross Street in Gerstle Park for twenty years and one month. She indicated that AB1866 looked like a good bill in that it provided the playing field and mandated that every California city must play; however, each city would get to make up its own set of rules. Changing the explicit language of AB 1866 by abolishing the term “existing single-family dwelling” and substituting “principal residence, primary residence, principal building and main single-family dwelling” changes the intent of AB 1866, which does want to preserve neighborhoods and provide affordable housing through second dwelling units. She questioned why current setbacks would be abolished, allowing accessory buildings to morph SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 14 into second-dwelling units, when it is not necessary. Ms. Kushner questioned why the requirement for a second-dwelling unit would be abolished to have a private yard area, when it was not necessary, or why give away architectural design review, which is allowed by AB1866, when it was not necessary. Ms. Kushner stated that no second-dwelling units should be placed in setbacks that exist now for new residences. Second- dwelling units without use permit and design review should be limited to 750 square feet; all others would face use permit and design review. She stated height of second dwelling units without design review should be limited to the ground floor if inside of an existing single-family dwelling and to 15-feet in height if in a separate building. Additionally, she would like for the ordinance to set an annual renewal of confirmation of owner occupancy, an agency or agent to enforce it and special legal language, including the penalty for non-compliance of this requirement. Ms. Kushner stated she would like to mandate that second dwelling units must meet low income limits as defined by HUD, including in this ordinance that tenant rent of residential second units shall not exceed 30% of total income of low income households. Jim Ganzman stated he had been a San Rafael resident of twelve years, the past ten of which he has lived in Gerstle Park at 9 Antoinette Avenue. He understood a number of people in the community viewed second units as a way to provide additional housing and in general, he agreed with this. However, he believed it to be important that those second units be located in appropriate places and limited or restricted in inappropriate places. Mr. Ganzman stated he had a number of concerns, as did others in this and similar neighborhoods in San Rafael, with second units, not only those impacted by this ordinance and the State’s mandate, but also those who would be impacted to some extent, by the 2020 General Plan to be adopted in the near future. He indicated that all of this coming together was of great concern. He stated the concerns are manifested in many different ways, including loss of privacy, increased levels of noise and safety concerns connected with additional traffic and on-street parking. While a lot of these things were not easily illustrated, Mr. Ganzman stated he had taken the trouble to generate a small presentation. He thanked Bob Brown and the Planning Staff for their help with this, also thanking the City Council for the opportunity of speaking this evening. On a slide, Mr. Ganzman identified his residence at 9 Antoinette Avenue. He explained he drew a circle around the center of his property with a radius of 375-feet and all of these parcels which fell entirely within that circle were identified on the map. He indicated there was a total of 47 parcels in the circle. There were 12 multi-family parcels, most of which are duplexes, with one triplex, which make up 26% of the total parcels in this particular neighborhood; the illegal units were identified with a red hatch mark. He explained these are units containing second kitchens. They are not all in use at the present time; however, all had been in use at one time or another in the last couple of years. Mr. Ganzman stated that currently, only two are in use, nevertheless, they are there. He indicated the abatement process typically involves removing several of the features of the kitchen; however, the unit basically remains. He noted many of these units over periods of time were in use and not in use. Mr. Ganzman stated that should the City Council wish to maintain this neighborhood as single- family, he questioned how much more could be placed as it appeared to him to be at capacity presently. He noted this was just a small area in the vicinity of his home and other areas in Gerstle Park had similar situations, as did other neighborhoods in San Rafael. Mr. Ganzman displayed photographs which he indicated illustrated the problems concerning densities and parking in the following areas:  Bayview Street, Gerstle Park  Marina Neighborhood in San Rafael  Marin Street, Gerstle Park  Montecito Road  Ross Street, Gerstle Park  Olive Street  D Street  K Street Mr. Ganzman stated it was extremely important to pass the ordinance; however, he urged the City Council to make it as restrictive as possible, at least until the new General Plan is adopted. Subsequently, if appropriate, it could be revisited; however, presently, those in Gerstle Park and other neighborhoods were very concerned about the character of the neighborhood and the impacts that additional second units would have. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 15 There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing and invited Community Development Director Bob Brown to address the issue of compliance with state law. Mr. Brown explained that in trying to understand how the state would review these ordinances, it became evident that the standards for review of second units should not be more restrictive than those for single-family homes. He noted there had been comment this evening relating to concerns about the availability of adequate sewer or water service or fire protection and he indicated it was clear to him that to send an ordinance to the state that excluded second units from certain areas because of these utility constraints: a) the City would have to make findings to that effect and b) the City would probably have to demonstrate it was restricting single-family additions similarly, i.e., in those areas bedrooms could not be added to homes because of lack of electricity or sewer capacity. Mr. Brown explained this was not the case in that the City did have the ability to serve properties throughout the City and it was only when a significantly sized development was proposed that really required a utility extension that it became problematic. Mr. Brown stated there are a few areas where allowances have been provided that are absolutely mandated by state law, one of which is tandem parking. He explained that state law indicates parking has either to be allowed in the front and side yard setbacks, which is currently done, or tandem parking. If this is not permitted, findings have to be made as to the reason. Mr. Brown stated staff interprets this as an “either / or,” not necessarily having to permit both; however, as previously mentioned, he indicated the ability to encourage second units depended mostly on the parking regulations set. Mr. Brown noted a speaker inquired as to why second units should be encouraged. He explained this is because a good faith effort has to be made to meet the state housing numbers. If this is not achieved through second units, then densification and infill in single-family neighborhood has to be promoted, and also mixed use in commercial districts. Mr. Brown believed the feedback from the public was that in comparison to those options, adding second units made sense. Commenting on specific issues raised this evening, Mr. Brown stated there were a number of questions concerning why the second unit could be deemed to be the existing home and a new single-family residence added, and he indicated he did not understand the difference in impact. He explained that to have an existing home of 750 square-feet, a property owner could submit an application to expand it to whatever size within the zoning envelope and then choose to build a second unit elsewhere on the property. Or, the property owner could choose to designate that 750 square-feet as a second unit and build a new home elsewhere and he believed this would probably be better for the neighborhood as the new home would be subject to design review. Therefore, in terms of impacts, Mr. Brown did not understand that perspective, noting he and Mr. Landecker had discussed this issue at length. On the question of whether or not to allow the second dwelling unit (a detached unit) in the side or rear setbacks, Mr. Brown stated that current regulations for accessory buildings allow an accessory building to be up to those property lines. It could be a bedroom, with a bathroom, garage, shed, etc.; however, should it have a bathroom, currently, it requires a deed restriction that indicates it cannot be a full second unit. From the City’s perspective, Mr. Brown stated there could be situations where this made sense. He explained that if a lot is particularly deep and no neighbors are around the rear portion, perhaps it could be preferable to add a ground floor second unit as far away from everything else, as opposed to adding it up on the second floor of the single-family home that could have more privacy impacts. Mr. Brown reported there could also be situations, particularly for new subdivisions, where a developer could be required to put the second unit in at the time of development. He stated the St. Vincent’s proposal had second units over the garage at zero lot lines. This maximized the rear yard space and those purchasing on either side would be aware at the outset. Mr. Brown stated that given the public hearing process and Planning Commission review, staff believed it would only be in a rare instance this would make sense. Regarding the suggestion of not permitting second units in certain areas such as the core area of Gerstle Park, while this would be a Council decision, Mr. Brown stated that basically, it had been the City’s policy not to exempt specific areas from any zoning regulations. On the question of tandem parking and whether it should be two spaces, tandem allowed, that would only be for the renter, or whether renter and occupant parking could be mixed, Mr. Brown stated that based on a 38-foot street width, it would be a rare situation where tandem would be allowed. As there could only be one tandem space, the allowance Livermore has for two tandem spaces would not be applicable in San Rafael. Mr. Brown stated his experience is similar to the supposition raised by Ms. Giambastiani, in that he had a rental unit in Palo Alto SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 15 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 16 and found he was willing to move the cars, etc., when it was for a relative; however, less willing to be inconvenienced for a renter. Councilmember Phillips sought further information on the 38-foot requirement and how it is distributed throughout the City. Mr. Brown stated he had a full-sized map in his office where these are actually mapped from the City’s GIS system. Indicating it was varied, he explained when he originally came up with the idea, his supposition was that the older neighborhoods of town, Gerstle Park, Montecito and the hillside areas would all have been less than 38-feet; however, newer subdivisions such as those in North San Rafael would have been larger, and he was wrong about that. Mr. Brown stated it is varied, explaining that probably two-thirds of those streets are in the newer areas - North San Rafael, Peacock, Glenwood - however, he indicated there were not many streets of this width. He indicated he ran an alternate version of 36-feet or wider in the belief this could make a difference and relatively few streets were added. His conclusion was there are a lot of relatively narrow streets in San Rafael. Councilmember Phillips indicated he would be interested in Mr. Brown’s opinion with regard to the number of units cited earlier, i.e., 34, and inquired whether this plan would generate that number of units. Responding, Mr. Brown stated it was pretty speculative and explained the ability to take care of the parking in alternative ways, such as tandem, would probably make the biggest difference. He stated this could probably only be judged after the first year or two. He noted that a number of those cited through Code Enforcement appeared very interested in these changes and he guessed an initial rash of legalizations would be seen for those that could. Other than that, Mr. Brown stated it was hard to say; however, staff would make a good faith effort. Councilmember Heller referred to a question raised on how to regulate the second dwelling units. Mr. Brown stated there were two questions, one pertaining to notification and the other concerned regulating affordability. He explained this was discussed extensively with the Redevelopment Agency staff and concluded it was not worth the effort, in that it would take a very significant effort to monitor affordability of these units. Mr. Brown stated that in reality, staff found they all fall in some range of affordability, from moderate to very low income; therefore, there is not much concern, believing that adding these kinds of restrictions would even make it less likely that people would choose to build a second unit where they are aware they have reporting requirements annually. Mr. Brown stated it is a big job presently for the BMR units and staff did not believe it worthwhile to essentially double that effort for second units. Regarding noticing, Mr. Brown explained it had not been the City’s policy (and he was not aware of another City that did) to notice ministerial building permits. His concern was not only the staffing implications of that, rather he believed noticing gave people a sense that they have an opportunity to comment, which was not the case here. He explained this was simply meeting some road requirements and believed it would be more frustrating than beneficial for people. Mr. Brown stated that because they are ministerial the intent is to issue them relatively quickly over the counter. To get involved in notification, he indicated the expectation would be that there be a period of notification before issuance, which would delay the process; therefore, he did not feel there was a great purpose. Should there be a real desire by homeowners associations to know about the permits after they had been granted to enable them to maintain an inventory, Mr. Brown stated this could be accomplished. Councilmember Cohen stated that a lot of the issues concerning second units related to parking, i.e., parking is the problem, not the symptom. He believed people inside their houses, generally speaking, were not the impact, rather the crowding on the street and the inability to park in front of one’s home or get down the street. He requested this issue be looked at carefully. Regarding the issue of allowing parking in the front setback and parallel to the side lot line without widening the curb cut, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether this was identified in the ordinance. Mr. Brown stated this was contained in Section 8, Page 4 of the ordinance and was one of the proposed changes he alluded to earlier, i.e., including the curb cut restriction. He read the appropriate section: “One parking space for a second-dwelling unit may be provided in the front setback provided that the parking space is located within a paved area adjacent and parallel to the driveway between the driveway and the nearest side lot line, provided the curb cut is not increased.” SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 16 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 17 Regarding tandem parking, Councilmember Cohen felt a familial relationship in these units could not be assumed. While it could well be that a mother and son could work out tandem parking arrangements, he believed most would not if they did not have to, favoring parking on the street. He sensed that in most cases, tandem parking, if that was what was provided, would not be used, rather it would be a race to see who got the available on-street parking. He indicated he had some concern with the language “that tandem parking could be used to provide all of the parking requirement for the second unit.” Councilmember Cohen stated that in some of the units they had seen, the ability to provide parking in the setback area had not been the bar and is often something that can be accommodated. Rather, the intense public scrutiny, expense and aggravation that goes with taking it through the Planning Commission had been more of a bar, as not many had smooth sailing for second unit proposals. Councilmember Cohen wondered whether it would not make more sense to indicate that the tandem space could provide a second parking place. In other words, use the side yard setback and should a second parking space be required, it would be provided through tandem parking. He believed this could be a more realistic approach in terms of specifying that people have to provide parking, as he did not believe, in most cases, that tandem parking would be used. While it would be used to qualify for the permit, he did not believe it would be used in actual fact to provide off-street parking. To clarify, Mayor Boro stated the objection to the tandem was that it would not be used because it was inconvenient, favoring parking in the street; therefore, should it be available for a second unit and not used, then two cars would be parked on the street. Councilmember Cohen stated that a more restrictive standard would be that suggested which Livermore had done, which specified that the tandem spaces would both have to be for the second unit and he was not proposing this. He noted that a two-bedroom, second unit could accommodate three or four people, each of whom could have a car, and there was not any way to control or regulate this. Councilmember Cohen stated he was not entirely comfortable with the notion that on each street listed as 38-feet wide that all the parking would be provided by specifying parking in tandem behind cars parked in the garage or in the driveway, which is what this appeared to be indicating. Mayor Boro stated that most of those present this evening were not from 38-foot wide streets; therefore, he was attempting to understand the relevance of the debate. Having grown up in a flat in San Francisco, Mayor Boro recalled tandem parking in the garage; one was a tenant and it had to be worked out somehow. He indicated that on arriving home late at night with no street space, it was great to have a driveway to park in, regardless of the inconvenience the next day, and he did not see this as an issue. Councilmember Miller inquired whether tandem parking only takes place if the street is 38-feet wide. Mr. Brown confirmed this was the Planning Commission’s suggestion. Councilmember Miller stated this then would mean there would not be tandem parking in many places, such as Gerstle Park, Spring Grove, etc. Mr. Brown stated there would be a couple of streets in Gerstle Park that would be sufficiently wide. Mr. Brown confirmed for Councilmember Heller that tandem parking could either be at the side or in the driveway, and theoretically, with a two-bedroom unit needing two spaces, it could be possible to have one of each. While unlikely to work, theoretically, it could be possible. Speaking personally, Councilmember Cohen stated he had a driveway leading to a two-car garage (theoretically); therefore, to add a two-bedroom second unit, he could argue that tandem parking was provided by the driveway, as two cars could be parked in the garage and two cars for the second unit on the driveway. This, he indicated would meet his parking requirement without actually adding any parking. Mr. Brown agreed and indicated theoretically this was so; however, technically Councilmember Cohen could say it was his driveway. Councilmember Cohen stated that for the purposes of the permit he could claim this to meet the parking requirements, subsequently informing the tenant to find parking on the street. Mr. Brown concurred. Councilmember Cohen stated this basically meant the tandem parking became the driveway without really creating any parking. This encouraged more second units and he understood the public policy benefit of so doing and he was supportive of that. He believed the alternatives were even less palatable than some people believed second units to be and he stated something had to be done to make a good faith effort. He questioned whether any parking was being added if everyone was allowed to get every parking space by claiming it to be tandem parking. Mr. Brown stated that theoretically there should be a couple of on-street spaces in front of homes, which is why staff went to the situation where with 38-feet, there should be on-street SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 17 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 18 parking on both sides of that street. Councilmember Miller stated the basic problem was with parking and believed the 38-foot rule gave sufficient protection and would encourage some second units. He agreed that by paying $200 per square foot to construct an 800 square foot dwelling and receiving $2,000 per month rent, paying this loan off would be more of a deterrent than parking. He stated he was satisfied with the way the ordinance was written. Councilmember Heller inquired whether adopting this ordinance as written would allow more illegals to legalize their dwellings. Mr. Brown stated this was the hope. Councilmember Heller stated that to meet all the internal requirements, perhaps the parking requirements could be met. Regarding identification of illegal units before adopting the ordinance, Mayor Boro inquired whether there was any relevance or relationship. Mr. Brown responded negatively and explained it was an impossibility. He indicated staff had been very aggressive in working with some of the homeowners associations to identify these on complaint and address them; however, in most cases, he indicated they were invisible. He stated first hand is almost needed to ascertain how the dwelling is being used, as in very few cases are there second mail boxes or different unit numbers on the doors. He indicated it is very difficult to find these and he did not see the City ever having a full inventory. Mayor Boro noted an amended Division 10 in the ordinance, which addressed the technicalities of publication and the effective date of the ordinance. He also noted the two changes noted by Mr. Brown earlier regarding parallel to the driveway and not increasing the curb cut. Councilmember Cohen indicated he retained his concerns; however, the ordinance would be tried to ascertain how it worked and with the language inserted concerning curb cuts, he could support it. Mayor Boro confirmed with City Attorney Gary Ragghianti that each section of the ordinance should be voted on separately. The title of the ordinance was read: “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING: 1) ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS REVISING REGULATIONS FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS AND 2) SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS ELIMINATING SECTION 15.06.030(b) RELATING TO LOT DIMENSIONS AND DEPTH” Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirely and refer to it by title only, and pass Section 1) of Charter Ordinance No. 1802 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirely and refer to it by title only, and pass Section 2) of Charter Ordinance No. 1802 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 8. None. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:21 p.m. ______________________________ JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS ______ DAY OF __________, 2003 ___________________________________ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 05/19/2003 Page 18