HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1998-09-21SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1998 AT
8:00 PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen,
Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Absent: Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Eric Davis, Deputy City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM:
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session item.
CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM:
1. Conference With Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Negotiator's Name: Daryl Chandler
Employee Organization: San Rafael Police Association
Mayor Boro announced no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:05
PM
RE: LITTER REMOVAL, & COORDINATION BETWEEN CITY/COUNTY/STATE & HIGH SCHOOLS
- File 100 x 9-3-85 x 13-9
Ray Bourhis, 301 Highland Avenue, addressed the following issues: 1) litter
removal in specific areas of the City; 2) lack of coordination between City
Public Works Department, County Public Works Department, Caltrans, and the
School District; 3) tree cutting, and people cutting down eucalyptus trees and
not removing the stumps. He suggested an Ordinance requiring the stumps be
removed; 4) fences that are not maintained, many on what he believed are City
right-of-way areas. He suggested a fence Ordinance, which requires landscaping
and set -back restrictions. Mr. Bourhis felt these issues greatly affected the
appearance of the City, as well as property values. He noted there were no
County employees responsible for litter removal, and suggested a program be
structured to create low-level jobs for welfare recipients or the homeless,
perhaps in coordination with San Quentin and the County Jail. He also suggested
an Ordinance to prevent automobile dealerships and other businesses from writing
on their windows for advertising purposes.
RE: NORTH SAN RAFAEL VISION - File 238 x 9-2-51
Jay Morse, representing the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents, stated
members of the Coalition have appreciated being part of the North San Rafael
Vision process, having taken input from all facets of their diverse community,
and developing compromises on key issues. Referring to the future of the P.G.&
E. site on North San Pedro Road, he stated it had come to their attention that
the Community Development Department had recommended that the prospective
Developer of the property convene a series of public workshops to discuss the
future of the property. He stated the Coalition had several questions as to how
the workshops would fit in with the General Plan Update process of the North San
Rafael Vision: 1) What the timetable would be for changing the General Plan to
the Update process, so the General Plan Amendment would be in place to guide the
Developer in proceeding with his proposal. 2) When and how the Vision in Action
Committee, also called the "Guardian Committee", could provide recommendations
for the General Plan Amendment regarding this property; 3) Who will draft the
General Plan Amendment, to see that it conforms with the Vision Statement; 4) If
the General Plan designation of the property is not to be changed through the
Update process, then how would it be changed, and how would the Vision Statement
for the property guide the public workshops that are about to be convened?
Mr. Morse stated the Coalition recommended the Vision Statement be sent out with
the invitations to the workshops; that they be posted on the wall, in poster
form, at the workshops; and that the public be invited to participate in the
workshops to discuss the future of that property, in the context of the Vision
Statement. Mayor Boro informed Mr. Morse that Community Development Director
Bob Brown would contact him with a response. Councilmember Cohen stated he
would be interested in seeing the response as soon as it has been prepared, and
asked that it be forwarded to the Councilmembers.
RE: WILDLIFE IN THE WEST END AREA - File 100 x 13-3 (Verbal)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 2
Robert Berner, 260 Center Street, reported his neighborhood has become overrun
at night with raccoons, noting they are on people's roofs and decks, and in
backyards, tearing up the ground. He stated he had checked with the City
Manager's office, and was informed there was no City policy to take care of this
type of problem. He contacted the SPCA; however, the SPCA suggested he put up
an electric fence, which he did not feel was practical. Mayor Boro asked City
Manager Gould to contact the SPCA and the animal prevention group, to see what
they might do to help, and respond to Mr. Berner.
RE: LOITERING IN THE CANAL AREA - File 100 x 9-3-30 (Verbal)
Linda Bradford, property owner in the Canal area, reported she had noticed an
increased presence on the streets on Friday and Saturday nights, noting it was
not only loitering, but also people drinking. She stated she had asked the
Police to help get rid of the people and tell them not to loiter, but the Police
told her the people had a "right to access". Ms. Bradford stated she could
understand a right to access, but believed loitering was against the law, as was
drinking in public. She noted because she had gotten that response from the
Police, she believed the other people had built up a tolerance, so when she
tells them she is going to call the Police, they just laugh and go on with their
business. She stated it had become very difficult for her to keep up her
property.
Ms. Bradford asked for Council's support and cooperation, stating if this went
on, there would be increased crime and litter in the neighborhood, which would
be bad for the community. Mayor Boro informed Ms. Bradford that City Manager
Gould would contact her regarding this matter.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the
following Consent Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Special, Special Joint Approved as
submitted.
Public Hearing, and Regular Meetings of Tuesday,
September 8, 1998 (CC)
3. Resolution Reconfirming City Council's Endorsement RESOLUTION NO. 10308
of Transit Tax Ballot Measures A and B, November 3, RESOLUTION
RECONFIRMING THE
1998 (CM) - File 9-4 CITY COUNCIL'S ENDORSEMENT
OF MEASURES A AND B.
4. Resolution Authorizing Extension of the Subdivision RESOLUTION NO. 10309
Agreement for "Map of Shoreline Center" (PW)
- File 5-1-324
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING
EXTENSION OF SUBDIVISION
AGREEMENT - "MAP OF
SHORELINE CENTER" (from
9/24/98 through 9/23/99).
5. Renewal of One -Year Contract with Rafael Towing,RESOLUTION NO. 10310 -
Inc., dba Terra Linda Tow for Abandoned Vehicle RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE
Towing (PD) - File 4-3-274 x 9-10-2 x 9-3-30 SIGNING OF A RENEWAL
OF AGREEMENT WITH RAFAEL
TOWING, INC., dba TERRA
LINDA TOW TO TOW ABANDONED
VEHICLES FROM SEPTEMBER
22, 1998 THROUGH JUNE 30,
1999.
6. Adoption of Police Rotation Tow Fee Schedule (PD) RESOLUTION NO. 10311
- File 9-10-2 x 9-3-30
7. Resolution Adopting Early Retirement Program
RESOLUTION SETTING
THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE
POLICE ROTATION TOW
ORDINANCE (Effective
9/22/98).
RESOLUTION NO. 10312
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 3
Qualifications and Conditions for Police RESOLUTION ADOPTING
EARLY
Captains (PD) - File 9-3-30 x 7-8-3 RETIREMENT PROGRAM
QUALIFICATIONS AND
CONDITIONS FOR
CLASSIFICATION OF POLICE
CAPTAIN.
8. Report on Citizens Advisory Committee to the Accepted report.
Chief of Police - Community Policing (PD)
- File 9-2-54 x 9-3-30
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro (from minutes of meetings of Tuesday,
9/8/98 only, due to absence from
meetings).
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
CONGRATULATIONS TO FIRE CHIEF ROBERT MARCUCCI - File 102 x 9-3-31
Mayor Boro commended Fire Chief Robert Marcucci on his thirty-eighth anniversary
with the City of San Rafael, as of September 1, 1998, including twenty-seven
years as the City's Fire Chief, as of September 20, 1998. He stated no one in
the employ of the City was held in higher regard by anyone in the community than
Chief Marcucci. Mayor Boro presented Chief Marcucci with a note of
congratulations, which included a copy of the newspaper article published when
he was appointed Fire Chief. Chief Marcucci thanked Mayor Boro and the City
Council for the opportunity to work for the City, stating that while it has been
thirty-eight years, it seemed like only yesterday, noting he was having more fun
today than he had five years ago. He stated it was a joy to work with the
Council, City Manager Gould, and the Department Directors, noting it made the
job easier. Chief Marcucci stated there were still a few projects he wished to
undertake, and thanked the Councilmembers for their support.
9. INTRODUCTIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE CHIEF OF
POLICE - COMMUNITY POLICING (PD) - File 9-2-54 x 9-3-30
Police Chief Cam Sanchez reported several months ago the Police Department
ventured into Community Policing, which the Department is calling Community
Oriented Public Service (C.O.P.S.). Part of the process has been to have
community input at all levels of this new philosophy of policing, and to
have continual dialogue and liaison with the community, the Police
Department, and all of the other City departments. He noted part of that
process was the idea of putting together a citizens committee on Community
Policing, which would serve as an ongoing focus group in the City, with all
the neighborhoods represented. He stated he had selected the members of
the committee from over forty people who signed up, noting he appreciated
all the interest the program had received.
Chief Sanchez explained this was a group of individuals who were
volunteering their time, with whom he would meet on a monthly basis to
discuss crime prevention issues in the neighborhoods, and actually begin to
set priorities, by neighborhood, so the Police Department and the rest of
the City departments can begin to address problems immediately. He stated
he was really looking forward to working with this group, half of whom
would serve for one year, and half for two years, with the process
continuing every year.
Chief Sanchez reported another goal was to include young people on this
committee, as he believed they had a voice and were important to the City,
and this was another way of including them in the governmental process. He
stated there would be one student from each of the high schools who would
represent the young people.
Chief Sanchez introduced Committee members Joshua Fryday, a student from
Terra Linda High School, and Neil Bernardi of San Rafael High School, Steve
Patterson, Larry Gaskin, Greta Fagerland, and John Thornton, all serving on
the Committee for one year, and Paul Cossaboon, Ramon Lopez, Bruce Payne,
Steven Boyer, Michelle Benoit, and Ida Passamonti, who will be serving on
the Committee for two years. He noted Dick Sadler, Charles Edwards, Mary
Brody, and Steven Price were also on the Committee, but had been unable to
attend this meeting.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 4
Chief Sanchez explained the Committee members would be working closely with
himself, the Crime Prevention Officer and C.O.P.S. Coordinator, noting this
would be a continuing dialogue about how the Police Department is doing in
the field. He pointed out they talk about qualitative and quantitative
ways of doing the job, and this would be part of the qualitative analysis,
to let Council know six months from now exactly how the Police Department
is doing, and how effective they are, or are not, at which time the
Department can look at making any changes that may be needed.
Mayor Boro thanked Chief Sanchez for presenting such a great group, and
thanked the Committee members for serving on this very worthwhile and
important Committee.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER UPDATING CITY OF SAN RAFAEL'S CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES, AS REQUIRED BY THE POLITICAL REFORM
ACT OF 1974, CALIFORNIA'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAW FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
(CC) - File 9-4-3
Mayor Boro opened the public hearing, and asked for the staff report.
City Clerk Leoncini reported the City's Conflict of Interest Code was first
adopted on June 16, 1980, and in compliance with the current requirement of
California's Fair Political Practices Commission that a public hearing be
held, and the Conflict of Interest Code be revised no later than October
1st of each even numbered year, the Code was revised on September 21, 1992,
June 20, 1994, and September 16, 1996.
City Clerk Leoncini explained the list of designated employees had been
formulated by using the criteria from the Political Reform Act, noting some
employees were required to file disclosure statements because of their
position, and others because of their duties. City Clerk Leoncini stated
the Fair Political Practices Commission had also interpreted the Act to
apply to members of all Boards and Commissions with decision-making
authority. She noted Assistant City Attorney Guinan provided guidelines,
and each City Department was contacted to provide updates for their
individual departments.
There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the
Resolution repealing Resolution No. 9707, and adopting the revised Conflict
of Interest Code for designated employees.
RESOLUTION NO. 10313 - RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 9707 AND
ADOPTING CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED
EMPLOYEES WHICH INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE THE FAIR
POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION'S STANDARD MODEL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE, INCLUDING UPDATE OF MODEL
CODE.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
11. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF CITY -INITIATED AMENDMENT OF SECTION
14.03.030 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE ZONING DEFINITIONS FOR
"DWELLING UNIT" AND "SECOND DWELLING UNIT" AND TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR
"KITCHEN" AND TO AMEND REGULATIONS FOR THE AMORTIZATION OF DWELLING UNITS
WHICH BECOME NON -CONFORMING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE. ALSO
PROPOSED IS AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 14.16.020 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL
CODE FOR RESTRICTIONS ON "DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES" (CD) - File 10-13
x 10-1 x 10-3 x 10-6 x 115
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff
report.
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated the enforcement of illegal
dwelling units was the toughest Zoning Enforcement issue the City's Code
Enforcement staff faces, noting the same was true of every other City he
was aware of. He reported the City was hampered by the California State
Supreme Court's definition of what constitutes a family, or as they refer
to it, a "housekeeping unit", and also by the legal limitations on the
City's ability to conduct inspections unless we have probable cause to
believe there may be a violation. Therefore, the City was forced to focus
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 5
on the physical aspects of the dwelling unit to prove the existence of an
illegal unit.
Mr. Brown explained the proposed Ordinance would give the City better
criteria for Code Enforcement to rely on; however, it could also result in
unintended consequences, such as reclassifying darkrooms or artists'
studios as illegal kitchens. While he believed the amendments being
proposed would help, he pointed out there really was no "silver bullet" to
deal with illegal units, noting it would continue to be necessary for Code
Enforcement staff to use their professional discretion as they look at
differentiating between separate, illegal rental units, and otherwise
innocent or permitted uses of single-family homes.
Mr. Brown stated another proposed change, which he believed would really
enhance the City's enforcement efforts, would result from the coordination
of merging Code Enforcement, Building, and Planning into one Department.
He explained they were proposing to utilize the Building Division's RBR
Process (Residential Building Record) to identify potentially illegal units
at resale, and then initiate a Code Enforcement investigation. However,
this process would also have its consequences, as it would delay or
jeopardize some property sales, where there might be illegal units
involved. Mr. Brown believed this process had resulted in very good
dialogue between staff, the Planning Commission, and neighborhood leaders,
noting staff was very much committed to improving enforcement efforts. He
stated staff was also committed to re-evaluating the effects of these
proposed changes in six months, and trying other techniques, if need be.
Senior Planner Dean Parsons reported both the Planning Commission and the
City Council had conducted workshops regarding this issue, and most
recently, the Planning Commission held public hearings on August 25th, and
September 15th, after which they recommended the City Council adopt the
proposed Ordinance amendments. He explained the proposed amendments
included a revised definition for "dwelling unit" and "second dwelling
unit"; a new definition for "kitchen", which we do not currently have; the
requirement for a Deed Restriction on detached accessory structures that
would have bathrooms, stating these structures could not be used as
dwelling units; and an amortization process for any unit that becomes
nonconforming as a result of the adoption of the Ordinance changes.
Mr. Parsons noted the principle change that was going to greatly increase
Code Enforcement's ability to enforce the Ordinance was the "kitchen"
definition. He noted we currently have people rolling out stoves prior to
an inspection, and then reinstalling them right after the inspection;
however, with the new definition, if there are two or more of the
following: a food preparation area, a sink, a cooking appliance, or a
counter that serves as a kitchen, then the new definition of "kitchen"
would be met. He stated staff felt this would have a big impact on the
ability of Code Enforcement to make progress in this area.
In addition to the Code amendments, Mr. Parsons reported the Planning
Commission was also recommending a more aggressive citation process. He
explained this would have to include an initial pre -citation, as specified
in the City's Ordinance and by the State of California, and would give the
property owner a specified amount of time to correct the violation. If the
violation has not been taken care of completely, the City can then issue an
Administrative Citation, which levies a fine of up to $500 per day. Mr.
Parsons noted this was currently in the Municipal Code, and could be done
without any amendments to the Municipal Code.
Mr. Parsons noted there had been questions from the Planning Commission and
the public regarding mandatory re -inspection, with some requesting there be
mandatory re -inspections. However, he reported the City could not do that
without just cause, noting the City must either have the property owner's
consent, or if we have just cause, we can go to court and get a warrant for
the inspection; otherwise, we cannot go in and inspect without the consent
of the property owner. He noted the Planning Commission also requested the
City pursue the removal of utilities installed in illegal dwelling units,
including gas lines and electrical lines, and reported staff did intend to
pursue that, as well.
Mr. Parsons reported staff was currently doing a Residential Building
Report for residential sales in San Rafael, explaining the Building
Department goes in and inspects the property, primarily for "buyer beware"
purposes. He noted that has been required for several years; however, the
Planning Commission recommended that during this process, the Building
Inspectors look for illegal dwelling units, and if there are any, they be
reported to Code Enforcement, after which the Code Enforcement Officers
would pursue the abatement of those units. Mr. Parsons noted the City was
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 6
not currently doing this, pointing out this was mostly based on a policy of
several years ago from City Council, primarily for "buyer beware" purposes,
and looking for health and safety violations. Therefore, staff was
recommending Council amend that policy.
Mr. Parsons stated the Planning Commission also recommended Council
consider penalties for those who do not get a Residential Building
Inspection Report. Mr. Parsons noted that if Council should decide to
pursue that issue, staff recommended Council allow them time to research
the matter, and report back with the possibilities of that. He stated
staff was recommending this be done within the next six months, at which
time they would also be reporting on how well this new Code Enforcement
process is going.
Mr. Parsons reported both the Planning Commission and staff recommended
approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendments.
Mayor Boro referred to the issue of the RBR, noting the staff report
discussed what the philosophy was in 1985 when the program began; however,
he believed part of "buyer beware" was if someone were buying a piece of
property, and it had a unit they intended to rent, they should be aware of
whether or not it is a legal unit. Therefore, he believed what the City
really wanted to accomplish was to determine if there is a second unit and
if it is legal, and if it is not legal, then the potential owner needs to
be put on record to either bring the unit up to speed, or pull it out. He
stated it seemed pretty consistent if the City wanted to use the approach
of "buyer beware".
Mayor Boro requested that over the next six months, as staff pursued this,
they work with the County Assessor's Office, and also with some of the
Title Companies in the County, to see if this could become part of the
checklist used in the closing of escrow, and determine what that would
entail. He stated this, too, would be to the benefit of the new owners,
noting the City would not only be checking the property for health and
safety, but also for Code Enforcement issues.
Councilmember Miller referred to the entire concept of disclosure, which
was part of real estate transactions, and noted this certainly should be
part of such disclosures, as it affects the value of the house; therefore,
if it was not disclosed, he did not see why someone could not come back and
sue. He agreed staff should attempt to work with the Title Companies to
make this a part of their checklists, noting there would be no government
intrusion, just simple, good business transactions.
Councilmember Cohen recalled when he lived in the Gerstle Park
neighborhood, which has many of these illegal second units, he and his wife
had considered putting their house on the market, and they were looking at
other properties. He stated a house came on the market, and after the
realtor walked them through the property, she took them outside and
downstairs, where a unit had been built in the basement, with 7 foot high
ceilings, which is illegal under the Building Code. He noted the unit was
clearly brand new, and the improvements had either just been completed or
redone. He asked the realtor if it was a legal unit, and if the owner had
obtained building permits? The realtor stated she did not know, but
informed him the owner had done this a number of times, going ahead and
just doing the improvements, and if she is caught, then she goes to the
City and applies for a permit, but most of the time the City did not say
anything about it. Mr. Cohen stated, as far as he was concerned, the
realtor was assisting in the continuance of the problem, noting realtors
have a professional obligation. He believed, particularly when discussing
how the City is going to notify people, that we should take a serious look
at notifying not only the Board of Realtors, but everyone who advertises
their services as a licensed Real Estate Broker doing business in the City
of San Rafael, and put them on notice that the City intends to enforce
this, and is formally advising them of what the policy of the City of San
Rafael is, with respect to illegal units. Then, if a property owner comes
to the City and states they bought a house and no one told them the second
unit was illegal, we can ask if a realtor was involved in the purchase, and
if so, we have a licensed person who knew, or should have known, the status
of the unit, or at least should have advised the purchaser to check into
the status of the second unit. He believed that if the realtors began to
recognize they had some legal liability unless they point these out to
potential purchases or seller of homes, it might contribute to stopping the
problem. He noted Council had to consider the people who bought these
homes without realizing the units were illegal, and while he understood
"buyer beware", he also understood that when people made the most
significant purchases of their lives, they were relying on representations,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 7
and if we tell them it's their problem, and they have to get an attorney
and sue the person who sold them the home, and sue their broker, that would
be quite a burden to place on the residents of this community who
unknowingly walked into such a situation.
Councilmember Cohen referred to probable cause, and asked whether or not it
would be possible for the City to place in the Ordinance definitions of
what constitutes probable cause? He noted that in the report it states we
would have to go by physical clues, which he assumed meant the outside of
the dwelling, and would include such things as additional power meters,
additional mail boxes, and multiple addresses, such as 23-A, 23-B, 23-C at
what is supposed to be a single-family dwelling. He reported one idea that
came up in discussion recently was advertising, noting it would seem that
if a property owner advertises a unit for rent, with wording such as, "one -
bedroom apartment, with kitchen, for rent in the Gerstle Park
neighborhood", a reasonable person would think there was probable cause to
believe there was an apartment unit for rent, and if the City's records
show the house as a single-family dwelling, with no second dwelling unit,
he would think the City would have probable cause to go to the owner and
state that we want to inspect. He felt Council might want to consider
putting this into the Ordinance, if it would give the City more leverage to
establish probable cause.
Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis explained the requirement for probable
cause was contained not only in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States, with respect to searches, but also, specifically with
respect to Inspection Warrants, in a section of the Government Code,
Section 1822, which specifies the procedures for obtaining an Inspection
Warrant, and states there has to be probable cause in order for a City, or
other jurisdiction, to inspect a property without voluntary permission.
Mr. Davis stated the court would determine what constitutes probable cause,
noting what Mr. Cohen was referring to would be evidence, which could be
included in an affidavit that the Code Enforcement Officer would use in
going to the court to seek authority to inspect the property. Mr. Davis
did not believe it would be required for the City to put something in our
Ordinance along the lines of advertising, pointing out that would clearly
be a piece of evidence, along with other pieces of evidence, that we would
use to convince the court there was a probability of a violation, and that
we needed an Inspection Warrant to confirm it.
Mayor Boro asked, rather than trying to put this into an Ordinance, and
more into practice, if the City deemed such units illegal and was committed
to trying to abate them, if there is an advertisement, what would be wrong
with someone from the City following-up on the advertisement, and just
showing up and looking at the unit? Code Enforcement Officer Nimat
Shakoor-Grantham stated this had been done in the past, noting sometimes
when people have made complaints about illegal units, in addition to
telling staff why they feel it is an illegal unit, which is a question that
is used as part of the process to establish probable cause, they also
provide Code Enforcement staff with newspaper ads. Staff has then taken
the ads, called the owner and pretended to be renters, and gone out to look
at the property.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the difficult issue of broadening the
definitions to get away from such things as the "rollaway stove", noting we
run the risk of making the definition overly broad, and capturing the
definition of such things as darkrooms and artists studios. He suggested
some kind of permitting process, where the City might allow residents who
have a room in their home, which under the new definition, might look like
an illegal second dwelling unit, to come to City Hall and request a permit
to leave a sink and counter in their artist studio or darkroom, and in
return for the City giving them the permit, they would agree to grant the
City access, upon 24 hours notice, at any time the City may wish to
inspect, and make certain the room has not been turned into an illegal
unit. He felt there had to be some kind of alternative between not having
that in the definition at all, which has clearly not been workable, or
stating we do not care if the unit is obviously a darkroom or art studio,
we have a new definition now, and by that definition, it is an illegal unit
and they have to tear it out. He did not believe that would serve the
public policy very well. He noted there had to be a way, even if it had to
be done on a case by case basis, to allow for those valid reasons for
people to have an additional sink and counter space, or whatever it might
be, that would put them under this definition, even though what they have
is not a dwelling unit.
Mr. Parsons stated staff had considered this at one point, noting they had
discussed a Deed Restriction for such uses as an art studio or a workshop
in the home, in cases where there is no through access to the rest of the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 8
house. However, staff felt that if they created the loophole, it would be
just that, a loophole for people to install illegal units, with building
permits, under the guise of a workshop or darkroom, and then later convert
it. He stated they were not able to come up with restrictive language that
allowed such uses; however, they did recommend that people be able to apply
for Use Permits for such uses, or apply for an amortization, which would
give them time to get rid of an illegal unit. He stated staff would try
again to come up with language that would address this issue, if Council so
directed.
Community Development Director Brown reported that in earlier discussions
with the City Attorney's office, it was noted that the biggest problem was
not having hard and fast criteria; therefore, they asked how the City could
determine whether something was an innocuous artist studio, versus
something that someone was going to convert illegally, and, in which case
would the City grant a permit, yet deny one in another case? Mr. Brown
acknowledged there was certainly an opportunity to review plans, and as
Councilmember Cohen pointed out, have the ability to inspect, noting that
would be an advantage. However, he would be concerned if the City tried to
deny some of these requests, based on the expectation that it looked like
they may be converted. He stated once the City got into this type of
public process, he could envision that the neighbors would want all of the
requests denied. Therefore, staff had run into difficulty with this issue,
and the lack of physical criteria to be able to differentiate that which is
innocent from that which is illegal.
Councilmember Cohen believed this was an issue which needed further study,
because to state it was too complicated to figure out a way to do it was no
justification for telling someone they could not have a darkroom in San
Rafael, and that it was now illegal. He acknowledged it would be
difficult, but stated we had to find a way to address the issue before
declaring all such uses illegal.
Councilmember Cohen reported a specific question had arisen recently with
regard to legalizing second units. He noted he was shown what he was told
was an illegal second unit, and one of the things he noticed about the
property was that there was a two -car garage and a driveway, which would
presumably meet the legal requirement for providing the parking for the
unit. In addition, there was also a pad adjacent to the driveway, with a
full-sized vehicle parked on it. Mr. Cohen noted at the time it appeared
as though it could at least meet the requirement for off-street parking;
therefore, presumably it was a unit that could be legalized, assuming the
main part of the house was owner occupied. Mr. Cohen noted the person who
showed him the unit told him he thought there could not be a parking space
where the driver had to back out onto the street. Mr. Cohen stated it was
his understanding you could, and given certain setback requirements, if
someone could create a single, off-street parking unit for a second
dwelling unit, that met the legal requirements for parking. Ms. Delimont
stated that was correct, noting it could be in the sideyard setback, and
the driver could back into the street.
Councilmember Heller referred to the Residential Building Record, and asked
if the City charged for that service, noting it could become quite a
substantial cost. Mr. Parsons reported the City does charge for the
service, but noted the cost was not excessive, as the City liked to
encourage them.
Councilmember Miller noted another issue in defining a second unit was in
the case of a duplex being converted to a single unit, placing the
staircase on the inside. He asked if that had been approved, because they
would have access throughout the entire house? As an example, he noted
someone with a duplex having one unit upstairs and one unit downstairs
could decide they wanted to use the entire house and open it up; however,
at a later date they could decide to close it back up, and change it back
to two separate units. He asked if they would be clear in opening it up
and changing it to one unit, because there would now be an indoor stairway,
allowing total access to the house? Mr. Parsons stated the way the
Ordinance was drafted for a second dwelling unit, as long as there is
through access to the house, there can be a second kitchen and living area;
however, if it were blocked off in any way it would be illegal, and would
have to be abated, or the owner would have to seek a Use Permit for a
second dwelling unit. Mr. Miller asked what would happen if someone were
to simply put a door through from the second unit to the primary unit, in
order to make it legal? Mr. Parsons stated that could be done; however, he
pointed out the door would have to be operable, it could not have a
deadbolt on it, and furniture could not be placed in front of it. He
pointed out that in coming up with the Ordinance changes, they went through
a lot of scenarios of what constituted a kitchen in a dwelling unit, noting
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 9
a lot of master bedrooms have what would constitute a dwelling unit, but
there was through access; the same was true of a family room. Referring to
Mr. Miller's example, Mr. Parsons stated a dwelling unit with through
access to the rest of the house would be legal by these definition changes.
Linda Bellatore, Co -Chair of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods,
thanked Community Development Director Brown, City Manager Gould, the
Planning Commission, and staff for their interest in this matter, and
Councilmembers Heller, Miller, and Cohen for accepting the Federation's
invitation to tour some of the illegal unit sites in San Rafael.
Ms. Bellatore stated the Federation was looking for solutions to help the
City eliminate blatant violators, whose basic disregard for the City's
Codes and Ordinances made their neighbors' lives very unhappy. She
reported she had been asked by many if the proposed, new definition would
solve the problem, and if it would work. She stated she did not know;
however, she did believe the expanded definition would be an enabling tool,
and one that might make the Code Enforcement Officer's job easier. She
felt other options needed to be explored and recommended, options that
would put some teeth into the Ordinance.
Ms. Bellatore asked Council to consider the following items in their
deliberation. First, she noted perhaps there needed to be another
definition in the Zoning Ordinance for "dwelling unit/rental", stating
suggested wording might be, "An area with the intent to occupy, as a living
space, for profit". She believed this could help solve the issue regarding
a wetbar, darkroom, or artist's studio, and might also address some of the
impacts of these units, such as parking, density, and noise, noting it had
always been those issues, not the cooking, that seemed to be the main
issues. Second, she asked Council to consider setting a number of days in
the Ordinance for the Code Enforcement Officer to enter the unit, if denied
initial access. Third, she referred to the removal of gas and water
connections into the wall or at the source, suggesting these be sheetrocked
over, in order to make it more expensive to reinstall. She felt this could
be a big deterrent, and perhaps deter some of those people who think it is
just a quick fix to simply take a few of the appliances out. Fourth, she
asked that there be a citation if the appliances are reinstalled, or if the
unit has not been removed during the allotted time. She felt it was
important to make sure to devise a way this does happen, and that the fine
be continued per day. Fifth, she asked Council to consider the concept of
a small trial area for parking permits, with the approval of the residents.
She explained this did not mean no cars on the street, it meant permitted
parking, perhaps with stickers, noting it could be enforced on a complaint
basis. She believed this could really get at the parking problem. In
addition, Ms. Bellatore stated that when this issue comes back for review
in six months, she would also like to have a specific plan for the boarding
house issue, so work can begin immediately.
Ms. Bellatore asked the Councilmembers to remember who had elected them,
and why they ran for office, noting sometimes it was easy to lose sight of
the basic elements and values of everyday living. She acknowledged that
they, as the City Council, faced a large number of overwhelming issues,
including the Downtown revitalization, economic sustainability, the Canal,
the Highway 101 corridor, and local traffic; however, the one thing they
needed to remember was that the average person was not involved in these
matters, and the one thing the average person cared about most deeply was
their home and family, and that was what they should not lose sight of
tonight. She reported there were residents who had more than one of these
violators on their block, and suffered from an immense number of negative
impacts, noting these situations have been ongoing for many years. She
stated these were the same people the Councilmembers needed to consider and
help, not the violators, pointing out that right now, the good guys were
losing. Ms. Bellatore stated they, as a Council, in their wisdom and
policy-making capacity, needed to find solutions and effective deterrents.
She acknowledged this was a very challenging situation, stating the
Federation was asking for Council's help in finding a solution.
Steve Patterson, Co -Chair of the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods,
distributed to Mayor Boro and City Manager Gould a list of the residences
they had toured with Councilmembers Cohen, Heller, and Miller, noting that
if this Ordinance should not be passed this evening, he was extending an
invitation to Mayor Boro and Councilmember Phillips to take this tour,
pointing out it represented a way to create a level of awareness for the
nature and types of illegal units that exist in a variety of different
neighborhoods, and in a variety of different structures. Mr. Patterson
believed this was a critical problem for a lot of neighborhoods, and the
tour was just the "tip of the iceberg".
Mr. Patterson thanked City Manager Gould for deciding this was truly an
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 10
important issue when he met with the Federation a year ago, and also
Community Development Director Brown for his energy, and the energy of his
staff, stating the Federation and all its members really felt as though
this was an epidemic within San Rafael. He stated the Federation had a
diverse group of members, with a lot of different interests and a lot of
different perspectives, and it was rare for them to agree unanimously on
any one issue, which was why they generally operated on consensus.
However, on this particular issue, there was 100% unanimity about the
threat that this represents to the social fabric and the quality of their
neighborhoods. He reported the Steering Committee had felt so strongly
about this issue that approximately a year ago they drafted a written
statement, and the entire Steering Committee signed it.
Mr. Patterson stated great progress had been made with this proposed
Ordinance, and he was extremely appreciative of the direction in which they
were heading. He noted there have been a lot of meetings; Federation
meetings, committee meetings within the Federation, two workshops, a
Planning Commission workshop, and City Council workshop, and three regular
Planning Commission meetings. While he acknowledged this issue would be
reviewed in six months to determine how it was working, he asked that it be
made complete, bullet-proof, and tough now, because six months from now he
saw it as only a process for hopefully fine-tuning.
Mr. Patterson believed there were two key issues addressed by this
Ordinance, the definition of a kitchen, and the amortization process;
however, there were also numerous other issues that were vital to the
implementation of this Ordinance, and it was unclear why they were not part
of the Ordinance itself. He felt the Ordinance must also serve as a
deterrent to keep potential violators from installing, or even thinking
about the creation or maintenance of an illegal unit. As a point of
clarification, Mr. Patterson noted the term, "illegal second units" kept
coming up; however, he noted this could include more than just illegal
second units, and could refer to an illegal third unit, or fourth unit, or
several illegal units on a property. He noted that was why the tour he
mentioned earlier had been suggested, as a way to create a level of
awareness to get everyone on the same page.
Mr. Patterson noted that in the proposed Ordinance the definition of a
"kitchen" would now be expanded to include a stove, a sink, a refrigerator,
a food preparation area that could include a countertop or kitchen
cabinets, and if any two of these were present, that constituted a kitchen.
Mr. Patterson pointed out that in most illegal units, all four of these
were present, and he believed there should be consequences for the illegal
unit and the kitchen; therefore, he proposed that if an illegal kitchen
with all four components was found, the owner be required to take out all
four components, not just three, but all four. He noted Ms. Bellatore had
addressed the ability to gain access, to confirm whether or not an illegal
unit was, in fact, present. He stated it was his understanding that Code
Enforcement was only required to give 24 hours notice, given reasonable
cause, to gain access; however, there have been owners who have put off the
Code Enforcement Officers for weeks and months, and what often happens is
the inspection is done at the convenience of the owner, often times after a
tenant has moved out, and they can easily, under the present Ordinance,
simply remove the stove, and play the "rollaway stove" game. Mr. Patterson
stated we should not think that the rollaway game was not going to
continue, because now the stakes were high, and it would elevate from the
rollaway stove" game to a "rollaway kitchen" game, and the game would be
difficult to interrupt if there is no way to gain inspection, unless it is
with the permission of the owner, or on the owner's terms. He believed
there had to be a more aggressive way to do inspections, and noted he
completely agreed with a $500 per day fine for violators. He reported that
when the Town of San Anselmo discovers an illegal unit, they take what it
would normally cost to obtain a lawful permit, which is approximately
$2,500, and they double it, so the fine for an illegal unit in San Anselmo
is $5,000 He stated that was a deterrent that had some consequences
attached to it, and kept people from even thinking about it.
Addressing the issue of re -inspections, which Mr. Patterson hoped could
also be part of the Ordinance, he noted the City Attorney's office had
stated that without strong reasonable cause the City could not do re -
inspections. He stated that was a big problem, because once a pre -citation
is given, an inspection is done by a Code Enforcement Officer, and
something is removed so there is no longer an illegal unit, often times the
impact, the use, and the tenant are still in place. He believed there
should be a way for the Code Enforcement Officer to go back for re-
inspection.
Regarding utilities, Mr. Patterson reported the Town of Larkspur currently
makes the owners rip out gas and electrical outlets back to the meter, upon
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 11
the first violation. San Anselmo requires they be taken off and capped off
inside the wall, and then sheetrocked over. He felt this was a critical
element to the abating of these units, and something he hoped could be
included in the Ordinance. He also hoped these actions could be conducted
after the first violation, as it was almost impossible for re -inspections
to take place over and over again.
Referring to the RBR's, Mr. Patterson explained this program had been in
place for over fifteen years, and for some reason was never used to
identify and abate illegal units, noting there are people who sell their
property and never order an RBR. He stated that while it was reported that
staff did look at a two-month snapshot, and had determined the RBR's did
correlate with the number of sales in San Rafael, the fact was this did not
always happen. He believed if there was a tougher Ordinance that had
consequences and penalties for violators, many of the violators would never
request an RBR for their property. He felt it was important a monitoring
device be in place, which might be done by working with the County
Recorder, the Tax Assessor's Office, or various Title Companies.
Mr. Patterson stated one thing he wanted to point out was the amortization
process. Referring to Item #E on Page 3 of the Ordinance, he noted it
addressed the criteria in which an extension beyond the amortization
process could be granted to a potential owner of an illegal unit who was
attempting to either abate it, or make it legal. He felt this was going to
be a very challenging situation for the City, and for the owners who find
themselves in this predicament, and suggested the City think about ways of
acknowledging different types of owners. For example, there were "first
generation owners" of illegal units, people who had actually created the
unit itself, and were responsible for its existence. In these cases, he
believed the City should take a tougher stance, in a much more aggressive
way. He noted there were also "second generation owners", who had
purchased the property, and had not created the unit, and might not even
know the unit is illegal. He pointed out these owners paid fair market
value, and may have even paid a premium, and felt those people deserved
some consideration, and should not be "held over the same flame" as the
person who had created the unit.
Mr. Patterson thanked the Councilmembers, noting the Federation appreciated
their rigorous consideration of this new Ordinance.
Don Soldavini, President of the Picnic Valley Neighborhood Association and
Member of the Board of Directors of the Federation of San Rafael
Neighborhoods, thanked Code Enforcement Officer Nimat Shakoor-Grantham, who
found an illegal unit in his neighborhood, and cited them, noting he hoped
they were now shut down for good. Mr. Soldavini reported there have been
problems with illegal units in his neighborhood for over ten years, and
during that time he has worked with five Code Enforcement Officers, three
Department Heads, and two City Managers; however, the situation still
exists, and has become even worse. He stated three homes have turned into
rooming houses, and one house has become a triplex. Mr. Soldavini believed
that rewriting the Zoning Ordinance was long overdue, although it was only
the first step in addressing the problem, noting more options were needed.
Mr. Soldavini stated the City must first show a genuine will to address the
problem, and he did not believe this had been shown in the past. He noted
a Parking Ordinance was not meant to be exclusionary, explaining the
issuing of permits for any legitimate reason would sidestep the game of
removing the stove or refrigerator, and the problem of gaining access in
the first place. He stated parking was the single most annoying problem
stemming from illegal use. He reported he had recently seen an article in
the newspaper which stated the City was going to go after people selling
cars on the street, and putting "For Sale" signs on their cars. He noted
this would require the City to go out and issue a warning ticket, and come
back six hours later and tag the car, which would mean a $110 or $120 fine.
He stated if the City could do that, it could handle a Parking Ordinance.
Mr. Soldavini stated the City must regulate how many units are allowed in a
neighborhood, such as the Town of San Anselmo does, in order to keep
density in check. He also believed business licenses should be issued,
noting this would result in much needed revenue for the City. He pointed
out there were taxes issued by the City, such as the Paramedic Tax, which
were per unit taxes, and the City was also losing the added property taxes
that would result from the reassessment of these units. Mr. Soldavini
reported San Rafael's Single-family Zoning regulation, Chapter 14, states,
"The Codes are to protect and enhance the existing neighborhoods, maintain
their integrity, and provide low density single-family residential
development". In addition, San Rafael's Mission Statement states, "...to
enhance the quality of life, and to provide for a safe, healthy, prosperous
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 12
and livable environment, in partnership with the community". Mr.
believed that if the options he had stated were achieved, the City
ability to make these statements meaningful, and not just colorful
Soldavini
had the
words.
Sandra Miller stated she had been a resident of Dominican Heights since
1975, and was currently a member of the Board of Directors of the Black
Canyon Neighborhood Association, and Treasurer of the Federation of San
Rafael Neighborhoods. She thanked Councilmembers Barbara Heller, Cyr
Miller, and Paul Cohen, for taking the time to drive by the properties in
San Rafael which they believe are in violation of City Code. She referred
to a letter she had written, with an attachment of ads obtained from the
Marin Independent Journal, under "Rooms for Rent", dating from 1989 to the
present date, which referred to the subject property in her neighborhood.
Ms. Miller stated she chose to raise her family in San Rafael, because it
was similar to the neighborhood in which she grew up in the Midwest, where
her children played freely and the neighbors all left their doors open, and
had frequent contact. She reported that ten years ago, the neighborhood
changed dramatically, when the owner of 4 Aquinas Drive began renting rooms
in his residence. She stated they no longer left their doors open,
children were not allowed to play on their street, and they no longer knew
their neighbors, nor did they have any desire to associate with the various
stream of strangers moving in and moving out. She stated they feared for
their safety, and were extremely frustrated and angry to have to live under
these conditions for this length of time. Ms. Miller reported they had
filed complaints with the City several times over the past several years;
however, the response from the City has either been, "We have more
important issues", "We are short staffed", or "We will look into it". She
stated the residents of her cul-de-sac produced testimony from a former
renter and photographs of the property, and Code Enforcement spent over a
year investigating the property, which resulted in the conclusion that
while there were five to eight tenants living there at any given time, they
were living as a family, and the case was closed. Ms. Miller stated that
for the past twenty years, because of the subject property next door to
her, members of her family have been personally exposed to pornography and
lewd conduct, interrogated by the IRS, the San Rafael Police Department
regarding domestic violence and drugs, the owner's insurance agent for
theft claims, and the San Rafael School District because the owner's
children received free school lunches, while being driven to school in a
Cadillac limousine. Ms. Miller stated she paid to have a fence erected for
privacy, because the renters would walk past her house to enter the side of
their garage, through an outside door the owner had installed. She noted
the fence also hid the rat infested garbage, and the toxic containers and
other debris stored on the side of the house, which was also her front
yard. She stated she no longer sees the garbage, but it is still there,
and she has not opened the windows on that side of her house in several
years, because of the stench that drifts into her living room.
Ms. Miller stated she recently had the opportunity to tour 4 Aquinas Drive
with the current renter, while the owner was in Europe, reporting she
observed tenants in the small dining area of the kitchen, the three
bedrooms, the dining room, and the family room, and also observed the
garage, with a king-sized bed where the owner sleeps amongst paint cans and
other debris. She reported there had been a sign on one bathroom door
which asked, because of all the tenants taking showers in the morning, that
the tenants be respectful of the time and water use, and preferably try to
bathe just once a week. Ms. Miller stated this property was clearly
operating as a boarding house, and there was no provision for parking;
therefore, the cul-de-sac is filled with dilapidated cars. She noted they
were now also receiving complaints from the residents on Dominican Drive,
because the owner has instructed the tenants to also park on that street.
Ms. Miller stated she realized she had choices in this matter; she could
move, although her house had now been appraised at below Fair Market Value
because of the condition of this property; she could rent out six or seven
rooms, and generate considerably more tax-free income than she is currently
earning at her job; or, all the neighbors could rent out five to seven
rooms, which would result in over thirty-five cars parked in their small
cul-de-sac. Instead, she had chosen to become involved in her Neighborhood
Association and the Federation, to make San Rafael a better place to live,
and hoped Council would join her in this effort. She stated they had
tolerated this situation for ten years, and were not willing to wait
another six months or longer for Council's review of a boarding house City
Code; therefore, they were in the process of consulting with an attorney,
to assist them in working with the City toward a speedy resolution to this
long overdue problem.
Hugo Landecker, resident of the Gerstle Park neighborhood, stated he was
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 13
not certain the proposed Ordinance, as it was worded, would solve many of
the problems. He noted they kept hearing about the "rollaway stove" and
the "rollaway kitchen"; however, he stated the kitchens were not really the
problem, the people were the problem, resulting in density, parking, and
noise problems. He stated the way the proposed Ordinance was written, a
microwave oven or small refrigerator might be considered a kitchen, and he
was concerned about that because then, instead of just a "rollaway kitchen"
there would be a "walkaway kitchen". He stated he was also concerned about
the RBR process, noting one thing that had always come up over the years
when someone is informed they have an illegal unit, was they state they
bought the property that way. He stated no one really knows when the
illegal unit came into existence, and the unit is just "grandfathered" in
because it has been there so long; however, that was not necessarily the
case. He pointed out they know of a lot of cases where the units have just
been put in, within the past few years, yet people state they bought the
property that way fifteen years ago. Mr. Landecker believed the RBR
process should take care of that problem.
Mr. Landecker stated he did not know if the RBR specified how many units
exist on a property, and that was a concern. He noted an inspector looks
at the property to see if the ceilings are the right height and the
electrical outlets are proper, but beyond that, he did not know what was
included in the report, and felt it should include how many units exist.
In addition, he believed it would be helpful to take photographs of what is
currently there, as documentation when someone states they bought the
property with the illegal unit already there. Mr. Landecker stated the
City had to get this problem under control.
Tom Martin, resident of Prospect Drive, reported that five or six years ago
one of his neighbors bought a house and converted a single-family, three
bedroom house into what is now three apartments. He stated that while it
was under construction, he called the Building Department to determine
whether there was a building permit, and if so, what the permit was for;
however, there was no building permit, and the City did nothing about it.
He reported once construction was finished, he again complained to the
City, and went to the Planning Department and pulled the file, pointing out
there were no permits. Mr. Martin stated one thing that disturbed him,
which had been mentioned several times by earlier speakers, was that while
it was all very well to have the requirement of having a building permit,
there were City officials who paid no attention to that, and he asked how
that problem could be addressed? He stated he had been very discouraged
and disheartened about this situation, and hoped something could be done to
get the City to enforce the regulations we already had.
Mr. Martin asked, once the proposed Ordinance is passed, could he go back
to the Building Department and ask that the apartments built without a
permit be removed? Mayor Boro stated the City did not need to wait for the
proposed Ordinance to be approved in order to do that. He suggested if Mr.
Martin had a complaint that he give his name to Code Enforcement Officer
Nimat Shakoor-Grantham, who will contact Mr. Martin, and the City will
pursue the matter.
Joan Leoni, resident of Alpine Street, stated she lives across the street
from two of these homes. She reported that in the case of the first home,
she came down to City Hall to look at the permit, noting it had been given
under the pretense that this was going to be a storage room; however, it
had been turned into two apartments, one above the garage, and one
underneath the garage. She stated the person who built this had moved, and
the people who bought the property could not afford it, but the real estate
agent convinced them that if they rented the other units, they would be
able to afford the house. She also reported a woman who lives on Fifth
Avenue owns the house directly across the street from her, and the woman
allowed her son to move into the house. She stated the son had built eight
or nine rooms, two over the garage, and she now had six cars directly
across the street from her, and there was no place for her to park her car.
She noted these people were given a permit, which benefited their family,
but the rest of the neighbors had to suffer, because they cannot park their
cars. Ms. Leoni pointed out their home was going to be worth a lot of
money, but her home was not going to be worth anything, noting no one would
want to come and look at her house, because they would not be able to park.
Mayor Boro asked Ms. Leoni if she had contacted the City's Code
Enforcement Officer? Ms. Leoni stated she had, and had seen an inspector
go to the house. Ms. Leoni stated another problem was that all of the work
being done to this house takes place on the weekends, and the neighbors
have no peace. Mayor Boro asked Code Enforcement Officer Shakoor-Grantham
to speak with Ms. Leoni and get the locations of the houses. He noted
there appeared to be two specific issues the City needed to deal with; one
with respect to the house that apparently has units above and below a
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 14
garage, and another with respect to the work going on at the other house,
and whether there is a permit for that work.
Bob McAllister, resident of Jewell Street, stated his biggest concern was
the door and access issue, noting he was afraid we may substitute the
"rollaway stove" and replace that with the "unlocked door", and this seemed
like an issue that could turn out to be a very big loophole. Noting his
other concern, Mr. McAllister stated he had been looking at an Open House
in his neighborhood, which was advertised with, "Downstairs bedroom, bath,
and kitchen, with separate entrance; not legal, but it's been a rental
studio for years".
Rhonda Cutter, 21 Francis Street, stated she had a lot of sympathy for the
people she had heard speak. She believed people would always make illegal
units, and felt it would be more effective to make it easy for people to
get a legal permit, advertising and making it clear how to go about this
process, how to follow the City's guidelines, and making it simple so
people could follow the law. She noted it sounded as though there were
already plenty of laws in place, and wondered why it was so hard to enforce
them? Ms. Cutter also stated she felt it was important to have affordable
housing, noting if the City did adopt this Ordinance, she would be
concerned about the people who would be evicted, and asked Council to take
that into consideration.
Claudia Ciucci, lifelong resident of San Rafael, referred to the difficulty
in defining and distinguishing darkrooms and artist studios, noting a staff
member had stated that getting too precise about defining that was going to
become very difficult, and create a loophole. Ms. Ciucci stated she still
believed there was room for something like common sense, to be exercised
professionally by staff, noting as long as there was a strong, assertive
policy, clearly stated in the Municipal Code, then staff would know they
had the authority to make those common sense decisions. She stated she
believed someone could tell the difference when they looked at a darkroom
versus living quarters.
Regarding parking, Ms. Ciucci stated parking was the largest and worst
manifestation of all the density problems that occur, including increased
traffic, increased drainage and runoff because of greater paved areas,
parking problems, fire hazards, overuse of under -improved infrastructure.
She noted parking was the most egregious and horrendous visual blight for
those who lived with it day in and day out. She acknowledged San Francisco
still had many illegal units, but one thing they did use very effectively
was a very stringent parking system, noting residents must show proof that
they live in a specific area in order to get a parking permit. She
believed there might also be a way to raise revenue, if the City had
someone driving the streets, ticketing illegally parked cars in the
neighborhoods.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public
hearing.
Councilmember Cohen noted when he took the tour, and also in times past, he
had seen some outrageous examples of illegal units. In at least one
instance, the circumstances really referred to the boarding house issue,
and he did not know, at this point, how the City would deal with that,
given what the Supreme Court has stated. Mr. Cohen pointed out there were
limits on the City's powers, although he acknowledged the City needed to
continue to look at this issue, and find a way to deal with it, because he
believed that in many cases, the worst issues were the boarding houses.
Councilmember Cohen stated the City clearly had insufficient tools to deal
with the problem, and felt we needed to balance that a little bit. He also
acknowledged Ms. Bellatore's earlier comment that the Councilmembers needed
to remember who elected them, and who they represented, noting it was also
important for the Councilmembers to remember they represented not only the
people in the Council Chamber, but all the citizens of San Rafael. He
recalled when he and his wife first moved back to Marin County, they lived
in what had to have been, upon reflection, an illegal unit, noting it was
the only thing they could afford until they became established. He stated
it had provided a way for them to get started, and if someone had come
along and told them they had to be out because it was an illegal unit, it
would have been a real setback for them, and that was something he felt
they should all keep in the back of their minds. He stated he was not
proposing they just forget about it, and allow all the illegal units to be
in place; however, he believed they did need to temper the issue a little.
Councilmember Cohen stated one of his concerns was that for an issue that
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 15
had the potential to impact the living space and income of so many people
in the community, albeit illegal under the City's Code, the audience was
kind of sparse tonight. He noted the staff report stated that once this
Ordinance is adopted, the City should do an aggressive public outreach
program, and although he acknowledged it would not be popular to those who
were already impatient with the delay, he suggested Council consider doing
that aggressive public outreach program before adopting the changes. He
explained that even though there have been workshops with the Council and
Planning Commission, he did not believe most people were paying attention,
and while he believed the City did a good job of public noticing, under the
law, most people concerned with their home and family, their living space,
and getting to work every day, did not pay attention to what the Council
does inside the Council Chamber until it comes and "slaps them in the
face".
Councilmember Cohen stated he was a little concerned that the City had not
heard from everyone. Mayor Boro asked if Mr. Cohen was stating he was
concerned that the people who had illegal units were not before Council
asking to keep their illegal unit? Mr. Cohen stated there might be a lot
of people who would come out and say that, many of whom might come before
Council and state they had been told when they purchased their home that
the unit had been rented for the past thirty years, or state that they
needed to have the unit for income. Mr. Cohen stated Council had to be
able to look those people in the eye and state, "Yes, but it is illegal",
and tell them that while the City has tried to find a way for them to
amortize it over time, they are going to have to make that illegal unit go
away. Mr. Cohen agreed the units were illegal, and he was not stating we
should condone them, nor was he disagreeing with the staff report and the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, noting, in fact, he supported
it. However, he felt that if Council were going to direct staff to be much
more aggressive in pursuing and abating all illegal units in San Rafael, we
had to remember they were not just talking about the most egregious
examples referred to this evening, or that they had seen on the tour, they
were talking about all of them. He stated if the City was going to go
after these units, then presumably that was going to apply to all of them,
and that may mean a significant impact; therefore, he suggested the City
make a strong effort to let people know what we were about to do.
Councilmember Cohen stated he also had concerns about inspection, noting
several speakers had asked Council to deal with the issue of re -inspection.
Mr. Cohen believed there were valid reasons for the Constitutional
protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and felt the City
needed to be careful, in pursuit of the good goal of eliminating illegal
units, of running roughshod over those Constitutional protections. He
reiterated there were limits on the City's powers, and limits on
government's power, which he believed was a good thing, noting the City had
to be careful in the way we approach this. Mr. Cohen stated one of the
things he would like the City to do is to pick some of the most egregious
units, go to court and get a warrant, and not wait for six months while
trying to negotiate with the property owner. He suggested we talk to the
judges in this County, explain how this is an issue, and try to get a
warrant, and then after doing a couple of these, many other people would
take it more seriously, and let the City have access in a more timely
manner. He pointed out one of the original concepts of Community Policing
was involving a number of agencies in addressing a problem, and he believed
one of the things we needed to do was figure out how to get to the court
system, and the judges in particular, so that if we need to, we can get a
warrant. Mr. Cohen stated some of the places he saw on the tour were
clearly places the City needed to get in and inspect, noting with some of
them it did not take much to figure out that there were illegal units
there, which needed to be addressed.
Councilmember Cohen felt Council should consider a little more public
discussion of this issue. He noted he was comfortable with the staff
recommendations, pointing out they were recommending we do this for six
months and see how it works, and he believed that with staff, Code
Enforcement, and the Building Inspectors understanding that getting a grip
on this problem was a serious priority for the Council, they would
aggressively and effectively use the tools Council was putting in place.
He noted if they come back to Council in six months and state it still is
not enough for them to get the job done, then Council could consider
tightening it up, and he felt that would be the appropriate time to do it.
Mr. Cohen stated he did recognize this as a serious problem, one that had
a serious impact on people's quality of life, and on their property, and
was something Council needed to address; therefore, he supported the staff
recommendations.
Councilmember Miller stated he, too, supported the staff recommendations,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 16
noting he felt this was a great beginning. He believed this was a "down
home" issue, pointing out the reason people live in San Rafael is because
of the quality of life, and felt this would allow the City to ensure and
continue that quality of life. He stated he agreed the City needed to
become more aggressive concerning this issue, pointing out from his own
experience of working with the Code Enforcement Officers that they work
very hard and go after these units in every legal manner, and in the most
aggressive way they possibly can. However, Mr. Miller stated he had gone
back and read the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, pointing out we
make our homes our sanctuaries, and stated he would not want to see any
Code Enforcement that would ever violate that great sanctity. He agreed
the City had to try to educate the courts so these warrants could be more
readily given, stating perhaps it was in that evidentiary process that we
could look at what types of things were a tip-off that there was a
compelling reason and probable cause. He felt that perhaps we should be
involving the courts in that kind of dialogue, so we all get together to
see what we are doing, and really handle the problem, but handle it within
the parameters of what makes this Country great, our Constitution.
Councilmember Miller stated he believed the boarding house issue was
probably an even bigger problem, because in order to live in this County, a
lot of young people join together, as do groups of women and single
parents, and that was the way people rent their homes these days. He also
believed if there was an established relationship, the City needed to look
into the definition of "family" and "boarder". Mr. Miller agreed the City
needed to get the information out to the public, including the
Constitutional issues, as well as the definitions that prohibit an illegal
unit.
Councilmember Miller stated he supported the report 100%, and would like to
see Council go forward with it.
Mayor Boro stated he, too, believed Council should go forward with this.
He pointed out the staff report stated this was to improve Code
Enforcement; therefore, he did not see any need to go back out to the
public, or hold another hearing to decide whether or not the City wanted to
enforce its laws. He felt that within reason, the City wanted to enforce
and enhance the Code Enforcement Officers' ability to go out and do a
reasonable job with Code Enforcement, and he did not believe anyone was
intending that the City was going to have battering rams, and knock
people's doors down. He stated there were some very simple things the City
could start with, noting Council could start by adopting what was before
them this evening. Mayor Boro stated it was very clear the RBR inspection
was to put the buyer on notice, explaining that if there was an illegal
unit the buyer needed to know that. He stated that if they have been told,
as some of the advertisements portray, that this is a way they could afford
to live there, they needed to understand that the unit had better be legal,
and if not, it was going to be abated, and they needed to know that before
buying the house. Mayor Boro believed the City had every right to
intervene in the closing of an escrow, and be assured this would be dealt
with. He stated we could do this through the Board of Realtors, through
Title Companies, or the County Assessor's Office, noting we needed to look
at that loop and find out how we could get in there. He believed that
would stop this from going forward. With respect to people who now find
they have a problem, he stated we would have to deal with that, which was
what amortization was all about. He noted we always have the balance of
the need for affordable housing, and the need for people's ability to
react, and live in a neighborhood that is peaceful and not overcrowded.
Mayor Boro stated he believed Council needed to go forward with this, and
be very aggressive about the RBR. He noted he had spoken with Ms.
Bellatore about the issue of capping the electrical and water hook-ups, and
asked staff to return to Council with recommendations for that, pointing
out it would be another positive way to show the City was serious about
this, and also to make it costly for violators to start it up again, with a
follow-up penalty if they do it a second time.
Mayor Boro stated the heart of the issue, which Councilmembers Cohen and
Miller addressed earlier, was the issue of "expectations" versus what the
City could do with respect to accessibility and reinspection. He believed
the City needed to have both the City Attorney's Office and Code
Enforcement staff look at what is realistic; what criteria we need to have
when we want to inspect a property; and when we go before a judge, whether
we need to have dialogue with the courts to let them understand what we are
attempting to do, and what they will look at as a minimum test, so when we
do go to see them, they will grant us the ability to go in. He felt these
were all issues we needed to look at.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 17
Mayor Boro wholeheartedly agreed the City had to respect people's property
rights, and their Fourth Amendment rights, stating that was critical;
however, at the same time, he noted the City also had to respect the needs
of the people who live in the community.
Councilmember Heller agreed the City should move forward on this issue,
that we needed to work through the RBR process, and to work with the County
Assessor's Office, and needed to tighten up the problem of capping the
utilities. Regarding the housekeeping versus rooming house issues, she
believed it would be great if the City could look at that from a health and
safety aspect, noting it certainly was a problem, and was the overriding
problem of illegal units. She stated she would like to have staff go back
to some of those units on the list, which were clearly abated at one point
in the past, and see why they are still out there, what the legal
ramifications are, and why they are still being rented.
Referring to the problems of parking, density, and noise, Councilmember
Heller stated she did not know if those would all be mitigated, by anything
the City did. She noted many of the City's neighborhoods were old,
pointing out some had no garages, and some had one -car garages; therefore,
she felt we had to look at the overall neighborhood, and see if it was
reasonable to expect that cars be off the street. She noted Council had
stated at a previous workshop that they would be happy to try a parking
permit in one of the neighborhoods, but they needed to get a certain amount
of acceptance from the neighborhood before trying it. She stated she was
willing to try this to see if it meets the expectations, although she was
afraid that it would not, because when looking at a family, the more
children they have, the more cars they have, and we would be looking at
families with four, five, and six cars. She stated there would be a great
deal of problems in just figuring out how many permits to give each house,
noting it could be a nightmare. She suggested this be a small trial, just
to see if it was really something the community wanted to live with.
Councilmember Heller stated the City needed to put together a fairly simple
legal document for people to understand what a "housekeeping unit" is, why
that might qualify as being a "roommate", and why the City cannot go in and
abate a rooming house, because legally those people are roommates, and the
City cannot change that law, which falls under the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court. Ms. Heller agreed there should be more public discussion on
this issue, so everyone is able to understand what the definitions and
terms are.
City Manager Gould, speaking for staff, stated nothing pained them more
than sitting through hearings such as this and listening to residents
register very valid and real concerns regarding the quality of life in
their neighborhoods, caused by illegal units, or boarding house situations.
He believed each of the previous speakers had acknowledged, or would
acknowledge, that in recent times there has been a greater level of staff
activity to try to abate these situations. He noted that when Council
tripled the number of Code Enforcement Officers employed by the City, when
they directed the Deputy City Attorney to spend the great majority of his
time enforcing the Municipal Codes, and when they set up the Hearing
Officer process to begin to short-cut the court system to give the City
more tools, they signaled the Council's direction to step up Code
Enforcement priority in the City of San Rafael. He reported the City had
been able to cut into the backlog of calls and complaints for Code
Enforcement, and made real strides in enforcing Health and Safety, and
Building Codes in the City, and would continue to do so. He pointed out
this was the most vexing area of Code Enforcement, and the problems Council
had heard tonight were by no means confined to the City of San Rafael. He
noted many of these problems stemmed from the privacy rights innate in the
Constitution, and the definitions of "family", as based in State Law. Mr.
Gould stated he would like to re -commit the City, working with the
Federation and Coalition, to incrementally improving our system of
enforcement, from the Codes to the processes and procedures we use to get
at them. He noted, as pointed out by Mayor Boro, we have to set
expectations, noting there was no set of laws or procedures that any City
had developed that eliminated this problem. He stated staff would continue
to canvass other cities to find out the leading edge solutions or
variations on a theme that had provided them with additional tools to get
at the problems. Mr. Gould noted if Council took action to amend the
Ordinance, that did not mean it was over, noting staff would continue to
bring back the suggestions generated from staff and the residents, to fine-
tune this. He noted Council should not, for a moment, believe there was
any lack of will on the part of City staff to get at these problems. He
stated he was very proud of what staff had been able to do, noting they
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 17
Fla
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 18
were as frustrated as many of the residents with the inability to eliminate
some of the problems that had been described.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would like additional direction to staff
included as part of the motion to adopt the Ordinance: either at the 6 -
month hearing or before, depending on staff's ability to achieve these
goals prior to that date. He noted the following steps were to be taken,
and a report brought back to Council concerning: 1) as a follow-up to a
comment in the staff report, he would like to hear the specifics regarding
what it would take for Council to adopt a penalty for failure to get a
Residential Building Report when a house is put on the market for sale; 2)
a review or matrix of fines and abatement procedures in surrounding
communities. He noted Council had heard reference tonight concerning the
fines in San Anselmo, and procedures in Larkspur, and he believed there
were other good ideas in other communities, for such things as capping the
pipes. He stated he would like to see a summary of what other communities
have done, above and beyond what the City is contemplating, and which we
might have the opportunity to consider adopting in the future; 3) more
information regarding a Parking Permit Program, noting he would like staff
to consider how the City could move from stating we are willing to consider
it, to actually doing a pilot program somewhere, whether it is in a
neighborhood, or a defined area within a neighborhood, such as Gerstle
Park. He stated he would like staff to look at how parking programs work,
and how they might work in San Rafael, and if we get a group of neighbors
who are willing to try that, then discuss how we implement that, and what
the staff impacts would be of doing it; 4) review, in practice, the issue
of exceptions to the "kitchen" definition. He stated he really liked the
idea of "common sense exercised professionally", noting perhaps we could
incorporate that definition, and it would solve our problem. He stated the
City needed to be aware that this was an ongoing issue, and we did not want
to "hammer" people who were making other use of their homes that was
perfectly legitimate; 5) review our process for second dwelling unit
permits, and look at ways to streamline that, to encourage people to
legalize those units that can be legalized. He noted the City was going to
make it more onerous to have an illegal unit, and therefore, he wanted to
have a positive side, with positive reinforcement, making it easier and
encouraging people to legalize those units that can be legalized.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE SAN RAFAEL
MUNICIPAL CODE (CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE), TO AMEND SECTION
14.03.030 (DEFINITIONS) FOR DWELLING UNIT AND SECOND DWELLING UNIT AND TO
ADD A DEFINITION FOR KITCHEN; AND AMEND SECTION 14.16.020 (ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES); AND AMEND SECTION 14.16.275 (SITE AND USE REGULATIONS) TO
INCLUDE THE PROVISION FOR THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING DWELLING UNITS
CREATED BY THE REVISED DEFINITIONS".
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title
only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1731 to print, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC LANDMARK STATUS FOR TWO SIGNS
LOCATED AT THE FORMER "BERMUDA PALMS" MOTEL LOCATED AT 737 FRANCISCO
BOULEVARD EAST, APN 14-204-11 (CD) - File 13-14-2 x 125 x 10-6 x 10-11
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff
report.
Associate Planner Bill Tuikka explained this application was for historic
status for two signs located at 737 Francisco Boulevard East the site of
the former Bermuda Palms Motel. He stated the property owners were
requesting that Council grant Landmark status for the rooftop Litchfield's
sign, and the changeable marquee located in front of what was once the
dance hall at the Litchfield site.
Mr. Tuikka reported that in December, 1997, the Planning Commission
approved an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow design upgrades
and changes in order for the Bermuda Palms to become a Days Inn. At that
hearing the property owner stated he desired to retain the roof top sign
and the marquee, and the Planning Commission, in their approval, added a
condition which stated existing signs may be retained based on two
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 19
requirements: 1) that Historical Landmark status be requested and approved
by the Cultural Affairs Commission and City Council; and 2) that any signs
approved for Historical Status be included in a Sign Program. The Planning
Commission also stated any sign not recommended for Historic Landmark
Status shall not become part of the Sign Program, and shall be removed
before the Days Inn sign is installed.
Mr. Tuikka reported applications for Historic Landmark status must first be
reviewed by the Cultural Affairs Commission, and then approved by Council.
He noted the Cultural Affairs Commission reviewed the project in March,
considered the criteria listed on Page 2 of the staff report, and agreed
both signs signified the cultural and social history of Post War San
Rafael, and were good examples of the type of neon lighting and changeable
signs that were in vogue during the 1940's and 1950's. Mr. Tuikka reported
the Commission recommended the rooftop Litchfield's sign and the changeable
marquee were eligible for Historic Landmark Status; however, the
Commission stated restoration and maintenance were necessary for them to be
considered Landmarks, and that the City should have assurance that the
marquee would be used a certain percentage of the time for messages posted
by non-profit agencies, although the Cultural Affairs Commission did not
specify what percentage that should be. Mr. Tuikka reported that on August
25th the Commission approved a Sign Program that included both the
Litchfield's sign and the changeable marquee, and as part of that program,
the Commission stated that the changeable marquee must show messages
created by area non-profit agencies at least 50% of the time, or 15 days
per month.
Mr. Tuikka reported the Planning Commission approved the Sign Program, but
noted that approval was subject to Council granting Landmark Status to both
signs; if one or both of the signs are not recommended for Landmark Status,
the Sign Program would need to be reconsidered. Mayor Boro noted the staff
report also states that if both of the signs are approved, they would be
included in the new Days Inn Sign Program; however, if one of the signs is
not approved, the Sign Program must be redone. He pointed out the Days Inn
Sign Program was completed, and the item before Council was whether or not
they were going to consider these two signs as Historical Landmarks;
therefore, he asked why, if one or both of these signs were denied Historic
Landmark Status, would they have to reconsider the Sign Program? Mr.
Tuikka stated the Planning Commission approval of the Sign Program included
both of these signs, so if neither of them were granted Historic Landmark
Status, the Sign Program would have to be reviewed and revised; if Council
denied approval of Landmark Status for both signs, the Sign Program would
be revised to include none of the signs; or, if Council approved Landmark
Status for one of the signs, the Sign Program would be revised to include
only that one sign. Planning Manager Sheila Delimont explained the
Condition stated an alternative Sign Program would need to be reviewed if
the marquee sign was not approved for Historic Landmark Status; however, if
the Litchfield's sign was not approved, they would need only to delete that
from the Sign Program, and the sign would be removed. She pointed out this
was because the marquee sign had part of the Days Inn signage incorporated
into it.
Mayor Boro invited public comment.
Ronald Silveira, Attorney, appearing on behalf of the Litchfield family,
stated he had formerly represented Mr. Litchfield during his lifetime, as
well as the estate of Irving Litchfield. He reported that in December,
1997 he generated correspondence to the Planning Commission in furtherance
of Landmark Status for these two particular signs, doing so with a
commitment to the Litchfield family, and a commitment to the memory of Mr.
Litchfield, who felt very strongly with respect to the integrity of the two
signs. Mr. Silveira explained the application had been made on a very
specific three-point reference: the signage was worthy of Council's
consideration with reference to Mr. Litchfield, in his personage as a
noteworthy member of the Marin County community; the facility itself was
part and parcel of the signage, which exemplifies the Post -War enthusiasm
and vigor of the community, and was most worthy of memorialization; the
design and motif of the signage were very worthy of retention and
memorialization.
In furtherance of the application, Mr. Silveira pointed out Mr.
Litchfield's son, Perry Litchfield, would address the Council, as would
sign consultant Robert Rogers.
Perry Litchfield stated this had been a long process, which he and his
family had embarked upon when their father passed away, to determine what
to do with the property, and to try to improve an area and a motel which
were ready for improvement. He noted they went through the process of
entertaining different ideas from people who were interested in putting
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 20
businesses along Francisco Boulevard, pointing out the "big box" retailers
were very interested in developing on this site; however, the family made
the decision that they were not interested in changing the use of the
property their father built in the 1940's. Mr. Litchfield reported that at
the time the property was built, it was heralded as a resort hotel, and was
a destination resort for people coming from all over the Country,
frequented by many movie stars during the 1950's and 1960's. He reported
that when the area changed in the 1970's and 19801s, the motel changed, as
well; however, he stated there were still many features of the property
that were worthy of preservation, and he and his family believed very
strongly that the signs were something that brought back, to many people in
the City and the County, memories of that period of time in the 19401s,
1950's, and 19601s, when this was a growing community. Aside from that,
Mr. Litchfield noted just the neon appearance was unique, and they believed
it was a better approach into San Rafael to see a sign such as that, as
compared to what was seen in other cities, which had become very typical of
"big box" retail. He pointed out we had a unique entrance to San Rafael,
and this added to it.
Mr. Litchfield reported people often tell him that when they come back to
San Rafael after going on a trip, the first thing they see when they come
into town is the flashing neon sign, noting this makes him and his family
feel very good, because that sign was his father's signature, on the
property that he built, and they felt it was important to preserve that for
their family, and for the community. He stated they truly believed it was
historic in nature.
Regarding the marquee, Mr. Litchfield noted one disadvantage they had with
the marquee was that it had been uncertain, with the applications pending
for quite some time, whether there would be an opportunity to preserve it;
therefore, it has lacked in maintenance. He stated that upon approval,
they intended to fully restore it to the way it was when it was first put
up in the 19401s. He pointed out the marquee had many architectural
characteristics that were not apparent to the eye at this time, because the
lighting, which shines as an arrow pointing toward the building, had not
been maintained lately. He stated it would be a considerable expense to
bring the marquee back up to the standards necessary to maintain it, but
people would then be able to see the design characteristics. He reported
new lettering would also be ordered, and part of the Conditions of Approval
was that the signs would be maintained, and not suffer from the deferred
maintenance which, unfortunately, was in place right now. Mr. Litchfield
stated there was a commitment of the family, and the operators who have
leased the hotel, to restore the signs, much in the way the City was
restoring the Rafael Theatre marquee. He stated they did not see any
difference between that marquee and this marquee, pointing out they both
served a purpose to the community, and have been considered "historic". He
noted this sign went beyond just the architectural characteristics, because
his father had implemented a policy after he closed down the night club, of
using that sign almost exclusively for non-profit and charitable
organizations. He stated it was well known to most of the leaders of the
charitable organizations within the County that they merely needed to call
if they had a fundraiser, event, or other community service, and they could
get their announcement on that sign. Mr. Litchfield stated that when they
leased the property to the new operator, they made it a condition that at
least 25% of the time be dedicated to charitable or non-profit organization
announcements, noting that has been increased to 50%, without any objection
from either the owners or operator of Days Inn.
Mr. Litchfield stated that from a practical standpoint, as far as what the
marquee would be used for during the 50% of the time when it was not being
used to announce some type of charitable event, he believed a mix of
announcements would be seen, primarily announcements dealing with hotel
functions, and groups that were being welcomed to the hotel. He stated the
board itself, and the arrow that points to the building, pointed to the
night club, noting the night club was still there, a 13,000 square foot
night club still in its original condition. He stated there was a
possibility the night club would be opening in the future, noting they have
had discussions with the City regarding Uses, and he felt it would be a
natural for the sign to advertise or announce the activities that would be
occurring inside the night club. Therefore, the sign could not only
function to truly serve the community as a whole, but also take on the
traditional role of what it was used for originally in 1949, to announce
what was going on inside the building.
Mr. Litchfield stated he hoped they could have Council's support on this,
noting it had been a long process. He reported Days Inn was anxious to get
their operations underway, having spent a considerable amount of time,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 21
energy, and money renovating the property, and they were ready to put up
their signs. He stated the only thing holding them up was this process.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the use of the marquee, and asked if Mr.
Litchfield was comfortable with the language, which states no other forms
of advertising would be allowed on the marquee, except that pertaining to
Days Inn, or other uses on the site? Mr. Litchfield stated that was
correct, noting it had never been intended for commercial advertisement
beyond the facility, or the other uses they had indicated, and they were
comfortable with that condition.
Robert Rogers, sign contractor, noted this project had been before the
Design Review Board several times, with modifications being made to reduce
the height of the signs and the reduction of overall scope, and with the
affirmation of that body it went to the Planning Commission, with
additional conditions incorporated into the project. He pointed out Barber
Sign Company had been very excited about this project, noting it was a
tremendous challenge for them, as they were trying to incorporate two
totally different situations, mixing the modern with the more traditional.
He stated they felt that, working collectively with the City, they had
accomplished that.
Dan Connor, resident of the community, stated he had a lot of memories of
the Litchfield's sign and the Bermuda Palms sign, particularly coming over
the hill and knowing that he was close to home. He stated the idea of
these signs being taken down, and replaced with Days Inn signs, looking
more like Rohnert Park with a corporate, "cookie -cutter" type feeling, did
not really seem right. He referred to the Rafael Theatre, noting no one
would think of changing that marquee, and he saw the Litchfield's and
Bermuda Palms signs the same way, pointing out signs such as those were not
seen anywhere else. Mr. Connor noted if the marquee were to be restored it
would be much more attractive than another "Super 8" motel sign, those
signs one sees on any freeway, in any town nationwide.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the public
hearing.
Councilmember Miller stated this project had been brought through the
process, all the Commissions and Boards had reviewed and considered it, and
there had been a great community process. He noted one sign he found less
persuasive was the reader board sign, although he had been struck by Mr.
Litchfield's statement concerning what his father did, pointing out it had
been used almost exclusively for charitable and community events. Mr.
Miller stated he would like to pick up from that thought, and that heart,
noting he would like to see the sign kept, but would like to see it kept
using it 100% of the time for the community, in memory of Mr. Litchfield.
He stated that was what made the sign so unique, noting he did not find it
terribly unique the way it was now. He stated it was a wonderful thing for
our community to show that it was a compassionate community, and that was
what the board would really say to everyone passing by, looking at the
great works that go on in our community. He stated he would propose this
as part of the Resolution.
Mayor Boro asked to see a rendering of what the reader board sign was
projected to look like in this Sign Program. Mr. Silveira provided a
rendering of the sign. Mayor Boro clarified Mr. Miller was recommending
the Days Inn logo would go above the top of the marquee, and the messages
on the reader board sign itself would be
limited to community events and activities? Mr. Miller stated that was
correct.
Councilmember Heller reported she had read minutes of some of the
Commission meetings, and really tried to understand that these two signs
could be part of our history in the City of San Rafael; however, she was
having a problem with one of them. She stated she understood about the
Litchfield's sign, noting it certainly had a warm spot in many people's
hearts as they drive into San Rafael, and believed it would qualify as a
Historical Landmark, as long as the building was there. She pointed out
both signs "missed the bullet" a few years ago when the Sign Ordinance
first came in, noting they remained, while others were taken down.
However, she stated she could not support the marquee, noting she did not
believe it should be there with a modern Days Inn sign over it, as that
took away any historical or cultural importance. She stated she would like
to see just the one Litchfield's sign retained, and the marquee not
retained.
Mayor Boro stated he agreed the Litchfield's sign was definitely historic,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 21
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 22
noting that in looking at the criteria the Cultural Affairs Commission
utilized in determining its historical and cultural importance, it was
clear it definitely had that. He noted he had recently told Mr. Litchfield
there was nothing he liked better than coming into town and seeing that
sign lit up and operating at night. However, he felt the marquee itself
fell way below that, and forgetting the condition it is in, he did not see
it as anything historic. Mayor Boro pointed out the City used to have
billboards in the County, but we did not leave any billboards up just to
remember what they looked like. He stated one of his concerns had been the
type of advertising that would be on the sign, acknowledging that
Councilmember Miller's recommendation might have some merit; however, he
felt that if it was going to advertise the hotel, he did not believe it
made sense to have a sign coming into San Rafael advertising "Days Inn -
Rooms $49 per night". He stated the City would have no control over what
goes on the board once it goes up, and he did not believe that part of the
Sign Program was historical, and although he definitely did feel the
Litchfield's sign was historical, he saw no merit for maintaining the
changeable sign. Referring to the Rafael Theatre, Mayor Boro stated he did
not believe the marquee on the theater had been considered non -conforming
or illegal, because of the nature of the sign in relation to the use of the
building. He pointed out this free-standing sign, and others like it
around town, at one time were declared illegal. However, he noted Council
was not being asked to determine whether it was legal, but whether it was
historic, and he did not necessarily see the reader board sign as having
historical significance. He acknowledged its use might be considered
historical, in which case Councilmember Miller's comment would have some
merit; however, he also agreed with Councilmember Heller's comment that to
put a Days Inn sign on top of it certainly made it "unhistoric".
Councilmember Cohen stated he agreed with the Litchfield's sign, agreeing
with Mr. Connor's earlier comments, and noting we could be drowned in
corporate sameness if we were not careful. He stated he had really
wrestled with the issue of the reader board, and some of the issues
addressed by Councilmember Miller. He noted the issue before Council was
whether or not they were going to designate this an Historical Landmark,
and he believed that if it were designated Historical, it ought to be
without regard to the specific content on the sign itself, noting he was a
little uncomfortable with the idea of regulating what would be on the sign.
He stated Councilmember Miller had made the best argument for that, noting
the historic nature of the sign was its use on behalf of non -profits,
although he did not know if he was really swayed by that. He noted he
might be a little more sympathetic with the idea that it was part of the
historic signage of the Bermuda Palms, and while he acknowledged part of
that would go away when the Bermuda Palms was replaced with Days Inn, he
stated that would likely be the argument that might sway him more than a
restriction that the content of the use sign be 100% for non-profit or
community -serving messages. Mr. Cohen stated he would be interested in
hearing what Mr. Litchfield had to say about that suggestion.
Mayor Boro asked if Councilmember Cohen's statement had been that with the
Days Inn sign on top of the historic sign, it made the sign no longer
historical? Mr. Cohen stated it diluted the notion that the whole Sign
Program was historic, noting there was a sense of uniqueness with the free-
standing Bermuda Palms sign, not quite on a par with the Litchfield's sign,
but they both did harken back to an earlier era; however, some of that
would go away if the sign were to be replaced with a Days Inn sign. Mr.
Cohen believed an argument could be made that the marquee, and the neon
arrow around it, go with the Litchfield's sign, as far as having some
historical value.
Community Development Director Bob Brown referred to the signage on the
marquee, and the proportion of time it would be available for commercial
speech versus non-commercial speech. He noted that while the Conditions of
Approval of the Sign Program were included in the staff report for
Council's information, that application was not before Council, noting it
had been acted upon by the Planning Commission. He stated the Condition
reads that the sign would be available for non -profits at least 50% of the
time, and noted it would take Mr. Litchfield voluntarily agreeing to amend
that Condition through the Planning Commission process to increase the
amount of time, or agreeing that it would be much more than 50%. However,
Council would not have the ability, through the historic designation
process, to amend that Condition.
Mayor Boro asked what the logic had been of the Cultural Affairs Commission
when they deemed this historic, and then to allow a modern sign on top of
it? He noted there seemed to be a contradiction there, because if
something is historic, you preserve it. Mr. Tuikka stated the Cultural
Affairs Commission realized that, and expressed some concern about it;
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 22
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 23
however, they felt that since there had once been a 11$14 Motel" sign, this
would not be drastically departing from that style, and had no objection to
having the Days Inn sign on top. He noted they also felt the 25% non-
profit advertising was consistent with the historic use of the sign.
Mr. Litchfield stated he was at a disadvantage, as the representatives of
Days Inn were not present, noting that to follow-up on Council's request
would take their cooperation, because even though he and his family owned
the property, they had an agreement with Days Inn, and before they could
make a commitment such as Council had asked for, they would have to have a
discussion with Days Inn. Therefore, he could not give an unequivocal
"Yes" to Councilmember Miller's request. Mr. Litchfield noted it had been
the family's request, when negotiating with Days Inn, to insist upon a
percentage being allocated for that purpose, and they were certainly in
favor of that; however, Days Inn did have their own considerations.
Referring to the sign above the marquee, Mr. Litchfield stated all of the
sign changes since the beginning of the Sign Program had been to try to
develop a sign for freeway exposure, as well as a sign for monument or
street access. He noted that, traditionally, for the freeway it was the
motel sign above the marquee, and the Bermuda Palms sign, a large monument
sign, was the one for Francisco Boulevard. He reported they had begun with
a 21 foot Days Inn sign where the Bermuda Palms sign was now, and it has
gone from there down to 8 feet, noting if they were to take away the sign
above the marquee, under this plan they would be left with an 8 foot
monument sign, designating "Days Inn", and nothing else, which would be
very difficult for anyone to see from the freeway. He noted that was why
they had the signs the way they were, so there could be freeway exposure,
as well as the monument sign. He pointed out it was after a lot of
analysis by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission that they came
up with this scheme.
Councilmember Cohen stated he understood Mr. Litchfield could not make any
commitments on behalf of Days Inn; however, putting that aside, he asked
whether Mr. Litchfield had any comment to Councilmember Miller's
suggestion? Mr. Litchfield responded that he did, stating he would like to
be able to speak with his family about the issue, as well as the
representatives from Days Inn. He stated that while he would not want to
delay the project, if it came down to the option of losing the sign that
has been there for 50 years, or working out an agreement, they would rather
try to work out an agreement than just walking out of the Council meeting
having lost the sign. He acknowledged he did not know if it could be
worked out, but if it were to come down to that being the option, he would
rather explore the issue between now and the next meeting. Mayor Boro
stated if this item were to be continued, it would have to be continued for
two meetings, to October 19th, because he would not be present at the next
meeting, and he wanted to be present for the discussion of this item. Mr.
Litchfield stated, with all due respect, that he knew Days Inn was anxious,
noting they had been trying to get a sign up for a long time, but that had
been held up because of the issue of whether there would be historic signs,
and how they would be handled; therefore, they would not know what to put
there, until Council grants a final approval. Mr. Litchfield stated they
were ready to install a Days Inn sign, but without final resolution, they
did not know what to put in, nor could they put anything in, based on the
conditions to this point. Mr. Litchfield stated he still wanted to work
with the City in any way he could, in order to come up with a reasonable
solution if there is a compromise that can be made, but without the
representatives from Days Inn, it was difficult to do that at this time.
Councilmember Heller noted the current proposal included an 8 foot monument
sign, and asked Community Development Director Brown if the marquee was
taken out of the mix, would that automatically give them more space to make
a larger monument sign? Mr. Brown stated the Sign Program allowed them a
great deal of flexibility, in any event, but his assumption was that if the
reader board was not approved, they would be back to the drawing board, in
terms of their final design. Mr. Litchfield stated that would be almost
the "worse nightmare" from the Days Inn's standpoint, noting they were used
to going to a City, and just going up to the counter and getting a sign
approved. He reported they were quite taken aback by the fact that they
have been involved in a process that has taken over six months, and was now
approaching a year, and they still could not get their signs up. Mr.
Litchfield noted that was not to cast any doubt or blame anywhere, but
merely to explain that they were frustrated.
Councilmember Heller asked Mr. Litchfield if the
and if not, when the opening date would be? Mr.
motel was opened, although it was not officially
Days Inn was now opened,
Litchfield reported the
a Days Inn as yet,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 23
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 24
explaining it would be a Days Inn when the signs go in, but at this point,
it was still the Bermuda Palms. Ms. Heller asked if the Days Inn was
operating the motel, or whether it was being operated as the Bermuda Palms?
Mr. Litchfield stated as he understood it, they were operating the motel
as the Bermuda Palms, which would then become a Days Inn. He explained
Days Inn would be the operators of the business, while he and his family
own the property.
Mayor Boro stated it appeared as though Council was split 2-2 at this
point, with he and Councilmember Heller fairly strong on the marquee sign.
He noted Councilmember Miller had come up with an alternative for the
marquee sign, but acknowledged Mr.
Litchfield could not respond to that for Days Inn. Mayor Boro stated he
might be willing to entertain Mr. Miller's suggestion, but short of that,
he did not see anything else Council could do this evening.
Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to divide the question.
Mayor Boro noted that passing this Resolution would not really do anything
for Days Inn, because they had been told that if the Council did not
approve both signs, it would have to go back to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Cohen acknowledged that, but explained it took that issue off
the table.
Councilmember Cohen stated that in seeking a solution to the rest of this
issue, the marquee, it appeared as though some of the Councilmembers would
be willing to consider Historic Status if it was significantly devoted, or
100% devoted, to non-profit and community purposes, as suggested by
Councilmember Miller; however, the applicant had made it clear he could not
make a decision on that without consulting with the representatives from
Days Inn. Therefore, Councilmember Cohen stated he would offer them the
choice of whether or not to come back at a subsequent Council meeting, and
pursue Historic Status, or go ahead and apply for a revised Sign Program,
which would go back to the Planning Commission rather than the Council.
Mr. Cohen pointed out this would allow the representatives from Days Inn to
discuss the issue and make a decision, and allow Mr. Litchfield to speak
with his family, noting the representatives from Days Inn may decide they
do not want to pursue this any further, and they want an expanded Days Inn
Sign Program, and that would be the end of Council's consideration. If
that were to be the case, the issue would never have to come back before
Council, and that was why he felt the Litchfield's sign action should go
ahead and happen. He noted that on the other hand, they might be able to
work out an agreement they felt they could live with, and want to bring it
before Council to see whether or not the majority of the Council would be
willing to grant Historic Status to the marquee sign, under specific
conditions, presumably significantly different than what was now in front
of them. Mr. Cohen stated he was trying to find a way to allow Mr.
Litchfield and the representatives from Days Inn to discuss this and
decide, and if they should decide to go forward with a revised Sign
Program, without an Historic designation for the marquee, then Council was
finished with this issue, as long as they had already approved his first
motion for adoption of a Resolution granting Historic Status to the
Litchfield's sign. He explained his first motion would be to approve the
Litchfield's sign Historic Status, and the second would be to continue the
discussion of Historic Status for the marquee, and then if Mr. Litchfield
chose to withdraw that application and apply for a revised Sign Program, he
would be free to do so.
Councilmember Cohen stated he did not see any other way of handling the
issue this evening, pointing out to Mr. Litchfield that he did not have the
votes he needed this evening, at least as the application was proposed.
Mr. Cohen acknowledged it would be a further delay, but he saw no other
solution.
Mr. Litchfield understood this would give them the option of going either
one way or the other, and he appreciated that. He stated he could
understand some concern about having the marquee advertise such things as
the price of the motel room, but asked, along with community events and
messages for charitable organizations, if it could also include events
occurring on the property? As an example, he noted when the night club was
opened, the marquee was used to announce the shows, and he wondered if Mr.
Miller was trying to limit the marquee from announcing events that might be
occurring on the property? Councilmember Miller stated the weakest
argument for Historical quality was the marquee; however, in looking at it
historically, and at what Mr. Litchfield's father was so desirous to do,
underneath all the flash and color, a great deal of compassion was being
shown, noting that was the historical quality he saw, which would support
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 24
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 25
the weaker argument for the marquee. Councilmember Miller stated he was
not trying to stop this from going forward; however, because he felt that
sign was so significant, if it would take another two months, he was
willing to take that long, because this was a very significant sign, and he
was not swayed by the fact that Council would have to wait until the Mayor
was in attendance. He stated he understood Days Inn's position, from a
purely financial point of view, but he was looking at this in terms of the
City, and the community's interest in this. Councilmember Miller stated he
could likely accept some compromise, noting the major issue to him was that
the marquee be predominantly used to show the compassion that had
historically been shown on that sign.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution, modified to designate Historical Status to the Litchfield's
sign only, and deleting all reference to the changeable marquee.
RESOLUTION NO. 10314 - RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE "LITCHFIELD'S" ROOF -
MOUNTED SIGN AT 737 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST AS AN
HISTORICAL LANDMARK, AP NO. 14-204-11 (as amended to
delete reference to the changeable marquee).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
Councilmember Cohen moved to continue consideration of Historic Status for
the remainder of the Sign Program, specifically the marquee reader board,
with the understanding that if the applicants wish to withdraw the
application for Historic Status, they have the option of going back to the
Planning Commission for a revised sign program; otherwise, Council would
see if there is another solution that could be worked out.
Deputy City Attorney Eric Davis asked if that motion was being made to keep
the public hearing open? Councilmember Cohen stated it was to keep the
public hearing open; however, he also wanted specifically to state that if
the applicants come to the City and say they are going to withdraw their
application for Historic Status, and would now like to process an amendment
to the Sign Program reflecting that change, that they be allowed to do so,
and not have to wait until after it first comes before the Council, in
order to close the public hearing. He stated he wanted to do this in a way
that would enable them to decide whether or not to continue to go forward
with this, or to give up and just revise the Sign Program at the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Davis stated that since Mayor Boro had already closed the public
hearing, he suggested the Mayor re -open the public hearing, and continue it
to a date certain, giving them the opportunity to withdraw their
application, if they choose to do so, provided they amend their Sign
Program.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to re -open the
public hearing, and continue consideration of Historic Status of the
marquee to the regular City Council meeting of Monday, October 19, 1998,
with the understanding that the applicants can withdraw the application, if
they so desire.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
Councilmember Cohen stated he had attended concerts at the Bermuda Palms
during the early 19701s, noting that certainly, at such time as there was
ever a night club open there again, he would be very receptive to the idea
that the marquee should be used to advertise the acts at that night club.
OLD BUSINESS:
Due to the lateness of the hour, Councilmember Cohen suggested Council take
Agenda Item #15 out of order, and hear that item next, as there were several
people in the audience wishing to address the item. Mayor Boro announced Agenda
Item #15 would be heard next.
15. REPORT ON CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY, 1122 FOURTH
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 25
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 26
STREET, LINEXPRESS CAFE (CD) - File 9-3-85 x 9-3-30
Mayor Boro announced this item had been carried over from the City Council
meeting of Tuesday, September 8, 1998, noting he had not been in attendance
at that meeting, but reported he had read the extensive minutes of that
meeting, and had a good sense of what had happened at the meeting.
Mayor Boro invited the applicant to address the Council, noting it was his
understanding the applicant had not had the opportunity to speak at the
last Council meeting.
Michael Judson, applicant, stated he had lived in San Rafael for nearly a
quarter of a century, and enjoyed the benefits the City has to offer,
pointing out it offers the best of both worlds, having all the benefits of
a small town, and of a big city. He stated the last thing he would want to
do would be to put a business in the Downtown area that would ruin the
character that makes San Rafael unique. Mr. Judson stated that in opening
the Linexpress Cyber Lounge, the vision was to create a place where people
could come to learn about computers, and the emerging form of communication
of the Internet. He noted it was also intended as a social gathering place
where people could relax and talk amongst friends, that was why Linexpress
worked well in conjunction with Cafe Veleska, and why cyber cafes
proliferate around the Country, and around the world.
Mr. Judson stated the Internet was inherently a social medium, noting it
was originally designed as a method of communication, and it would only
seem natural that the same people who enjoy the social benefits of
communicating with people around the world would also enjoy socializing in
an environment such as a coffee shop, pointing out coffee shops have always
been a place of social gathering, not just a place to drink coffee. He
believed people came to coffee shops to talk amongst friends, partake in
stimulating, intellectual conversation, and discuss world events, which
they would learn about from the various publications offered within the
coffee shop. With the growing popularity of computer networks, starting
first with the bulletin board systems, and then later with the Internet, he
noted computers were taking over the roll of newspapers offered within the
coffee shop. However, people who use the Internet were just regular
people, and sometimes those people wanted to relax with a glass of wine or
beer, not just coffee. He stated this was the idea behind the beer and
wine lounge for Linexpress.
Mr. Judson reported the concept was not just to create another bar, but
rather a social environment catering to a more sophisticated, intellectual
crowd, who wanted to relax with an alcoholic beverage, rather than just go
to a place to merely get intoxicated. He pointed out the layout of the
lounge reflected that concept, noting there were no rows of tables, or a
long bar with a row of barstools, and there was no loud music playing in
the background. Instead, the floor was carpeted, there were couches where
people could relax, artwork local artists hung on the walls, and lastly,
there were several computers with which to access the Internet, noting it
was a far cry from just another bar. Mr. Judson pointed out that in the
Downtown area of San Rafael there were no other establishments serving
alcohol that had the same characteristics that would be offered there. He
reported that same criteria needed to be met in order to be approved for a
Certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity, and he noted those criteria
had either been met, or addressed as issues that would not have a negative
impact.
Mr. Judson reported Criterion #1 stated there can only be a certain number
of liquor licenses within a particular census tract, noting this census
tract currently allows for four licenses, yet there are already eleven
licenses in the area. He acknowledged this license would indeed exceed the
number allowed for the census tract; however, the concept of the bar was
not to generate intense amounts of traffic, or to serve glass after glass
of alcohol to customers; rather, the clientele was geared toward a social
drinking clientele, explaining the intention was not to create a place
where people would go to drink alcohol, but where they would go to
congregate in a social environment, and perhaps have a glass of wine or
beer.
Mr. Judson stated Criterion #2 required that the proposed establishment
serve a segment of the population not already served by the existing
business, noting this was clearly the situation with the proposed lounge.
He pointed out that as stated in the description, the proposed bar was a
unique type of business that did not already exist in San Rafael, noting
there was no other establishment serving alcohol in the Downtown area that
was designed as a more quiet, relaxed atmosphere. Furthermore, there were
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 26
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 27
no other establishments that had access to the Internet.
Describing Criterion #3 as addressing the issue of incompatible facilities
being within a 1,000 foot radius of the establishment, such as a school or
church, Mr. Judson acknowledged there were several such facilities nearby;
however, he pointed out that due to the nature of the business, this should
not cause a problem. The bar would not open until 4:00 PM, which was well
beyond the hours of operation of the school. The rear entrance of the bar,
which was closest to St. Raphael's, was an alley, which would probably not
have foot traffic from the students at the school.
Mr. Judson reported Criterion #4 addressed crime in the surrounding area.
He stated the proposed bar was not intended to generate large, noisy,
drunken crowds, but rather a small, quieter, socially responsible drinking
crowd. He pointed out Councilmember Miller had stated objections to the
proposed bar, stating it had failed the four fundamental guidelines. Mr.
Judson agreed it would increase the total number of licenses within the
Census Tract, acknowledging this was a fact that could not be argued. He
noted the Census Tract only allowed four licenses, yet there were already
eleven licenses; however, one more license could not be considered
excessive beyond the number allowed in this Census Tract, considering the
current number of licenses was already 300% of the recommendation.
Mr. Judson stated the second Criterion could not be considered as failing
because the business was quite unique in its offering. He pointed out the
guidelines asked whether the business, by reason of its location,
character, manner of operation, merchandise, or potential clientele, would
serve a segment of the City's businesses or residents not presently being
served. He stated that even as just a lounge, there were no other
establishments that served alcohol that were designed with a quiet, relaxed
atmosphere. He noted there were plenty of sports bars, music oriented
bars, bars and restaurants, but there were no other lounges in the Downtown
area. Mr. Judson pointed out it had been stated that, "People could go
innumerable places up and down the street in order to take advantage of
having discussions, and while the ambience may be different, nevertheless,
it was still essentially a lounge area". Mr. Judson stated it was the
issue of the words, "while the ambience might be different", which made
this particular bar unique in its offerings. He stated people wanted
variety, noting the ambience was indeed going to be different, and that was
why some people would choose this particular bar over another bar. He
pointed out that while some people would want to congregate in a sports
oriented bar, or a music oriented bar, others would want the quiet, relaxed
atmosphere this particular bar was going to offer. More importantly, this
bar was not just a bar or lounge, it was designed as a cyber bar, where
people could come to "surf the Net", while drinking a glass of wine or
beer. Mr. Judson stated there was no place else in the Downtown that could
offer this, and this, indeed, satisfied Criterion #2.
Mr. Judson explained the third Criterion addressed the issue of the
business being located within close proximity to a school and church. He
acknowledged that fact could not be argued; however, as had been stated,
the hours of operation did not coincide with the hours of operation of the
school. Furthermore, he pointed out there were two other establishments
which served alcohol, just one door and two doors away, on the same side of
the block. Mr. Judson pointed out the City Council approved those two
licenses, despite both of them being open during lunch time, which was
during the time school is in session. He noted it had also been stated
that the movie theater (the Rafael Theatre) would be an educational
facility, which would bus students to the rear of the theater, right next
to the entrance to the bar. Again, he explained the hours of operation
would generally preclude students from being around the bar when it is
open.
Mr. Judson referred to Criterion #4, regarding the issue of crime, noting
San Rafael Police Captain Boyd had pointed out in his report to the City
Council that reports of crime in the area were mostly theft related, and
that alcohol related crimes were actually down.
Mr. Judson noted Councilmember Miller had addressed other issues, noting he
had also expressed concern about a recent study which reported that the use
of computers created isolation, not socialization, and that excessive use
of computers brought on depression. However, Mr. Judson believed there was
a question of correlation which had to be addressed in such a study,
pointing out that perhaps depressed, anti -social individuals were more
inclined to use computers and the Internet, not that computers and the
Internet cause anti -social behavior and depression. Mr. Judson noted,
however, that in order to use the computers and the Internet at Linexpress,
individuals must, in fact, be social, because the computers would be in a
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 27
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 28
social environment. He pointed out an individual would have to get out of
their house, go Downtown, go into the Cafe, and speak to the person at the
check-in desk. He stated this generally was not anti -social behavior for
individuals who wanted to use the computers and Internet.
Mr. Judson noted Councilmember Miller had also stated he did not believe
this application was consistent with the "Alive After Five" concept. Mr.
Judson felt that certainly must be disputed, because the bar only opens in
the later afternoon, and generally stays open until nighttime, and the
targeted clientele would be those who are getting off work at the end of
the day and want to relax with a glass of wine or beer, and perhaps "surf
the Net". He noted other targeted clientele would include those who had
perhaps just spent a night on the town, either coming back from dinner, or
another event, such as a movie next door. He noted that having one more
activity to do before going home for the night would certainly encourage
people to stay in the Downtown area after 5:00 PM.
Mr. Judson noted Councilmember Miller had stated he did not believe alcohol
had to be an integral part of socialization in this particular spot;
however, Mr. Judson felt that could be said of any restaurant that serves
alcohol, noting alcohol was not integral to eating, but it did make the
experience more enjoyable for some patrons, not because they wanted to
become inebriated, but because they wanted to drink something that tastes
good, and goes well with their particular meal. He stated this was the
same situation with the cyber cafe and cyber bar, noting people would often
sit for extended periods of time, surfing the WEB, sending E -Mail, chatting
online, or playing games on the computer. He noted that having a cup of
coffee enhanced the experience; however some people would prefer to relax
with a glass of wine, rather than get too wired with a cup of espresso, and
serving wine or beer allows a customer more choice in what they can drink,
while using the computers. Mr. Judson noted Councilmember Miller also
stated that approving this license would set an awful precedence, asking
how they could ever refuse someone at the book center if they wanted to
serve wine while people read books; however, Mr. Judson believed just the
opposite would occur, noting any proposed application must go through the
same procedures, and meet the same criteria Linexpress was required to
meet. He stated the most important criteria in terms of setting a
precedence was that of Criterion #2, "This proposed establishment must
serve a portion of the population not already being served by an existing
establishment". Mr. Judson noted that if the license for Linexpress was
approved, then the nature of any similar business, such as a bookstore
requesting a license, would not be unique, and would fail Criterion #2.
Thus, just the opposite would occur, and it would not set a precedent
allowing other similar establishments pre -approval of liquor licenses,
rather they would have to demonstrate a very different character of
business in order to meet Criterion #2.
Dan Connor, resident of San Rafael, stated he had been thinking about going
with friends to the Rafael Theatre when it opens, seeing a movie, and then
being able to come out of the movie and walk right next door and go
upstairs. He agreed the nice thing about the way the lounge was set up is
that it is not just barstools lined up at a bar, where the patrons have to
look down a row; the customers can actually sit on a cushy couch, with a
coffee table in front of them, and a computer where the theatre patrons
could look up reviews of the movie they had just seen, and have an informed
conversation about it, over a glass of wine or beer, noting there was
really no other place where someone could do this. Therefore, he felt it
would be a useful environment, where someone could just sit back, relax,
and have one or two drinks.
Mr. Connor also noted that with the work of a new artist every month, it
might be nice to be able to go in and look at the art, and perhaps have a
glass of wine, and talk about the art. He noted those were the things one
could not do in a bar where there was a juke box going full bore, or there
were people who had been sitting there drinking since six in the morning,
and were hooting and hollering, which he pointed out does happen. He
stated it would not be the case in this environment, because it was a
relatively quiet environment, with plants, soft music, and a much more
relaxed environment, which Mr. Connor did not believe currently existed
Downtown. He also felt this kept within the theme of the Rafael Theatre,
and the whole revitalization of the Downtown, creating another environment
where someone could go to have a conversation.
Mr. Connor pointed out the alcohol would just be an added thing, noting
people could still go there to have a cup of coffee and play on the
computer; however, to be able to have a beer with a friend after work, and
kick back on a cushy couch or big easy chair would be a nice thing, almost
like being at home, except not stuck at your house, rather you are actually
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 28
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 29
out somewhere, and if a person decides they want to go to dinner after
that, they are right Downtown. Mr. Connor felt many of Mr. Judson's points
were very valid, and agreed this would be something that would be useful to
the community.
Joe Salama, resident of San Rafael, stated Linexpress was a very unique
service, it complimented a lot of the services Downtown, there was a
uniqueness in its convenience, and it would attract a unique audience of
visitors, in that it was a more mainstream audience than found in most of
the other bars Downtown.
Mr. Salama reported Mr. Judson's establishment had only been opened for two
years, yet he had already been written up in the Marin Independent Journal,
the San Francisco Chronicle, and most recently, he was on CNN, spotlighting
the uniqueness of the cyber cafe. Mr. Salama believed that if Mr. Judson
were allowed to serve alcohol, that would make it that much more unique,
and there would be that much more exposure for Downtown San Rafael. He
also agreed that particularly being next to the Rafael Theatre, Linexpress
complimented a lot of services in the Downtown, noting a person could plan
a whole evening. He recalled when he had grown up in San Rafael, it had
not been a place where it was much fun to hang out, and while he was not
stating Linexpress should appeal to high school students, he reported that,
even now, when he wants to do something, he will go to Sam's in Tiburon, or
to San Francisco, noting he cannot invite many of his friends from San
Francisco to San Rafael, because there is not much in the way of a social
hang-out place that will appeal to everyone.
Mr. Salama pointed out there was also the issue of driving home after one
has been drinking, noting the fact that it is in Downtown San Rafael makes
it more cost effective to take a cab home, and to not have to drive home.
Regarding the kind of people Linexpress would attract, Mr. Salama pointed
out the customers at New George's, noting everyone who is there likes the
particular bands, and if they do not like bands, it is not a cool place to
be; likewise, if someone is not into sports, then T & T is just not a fun
place to hang out. However, he pointed out that in the audience tonight
there was an attorney, a financial analyst, an artist, and a photographer,
and they all had one thing in common, the Internet, and they all came
together based upon that. He stated this would be the kind of crowd, which
might not otherwise come together, but would come together if a liquor
license were to be issued to Linexpress Cyber Cafe.
Mr. Salama noted the Internet was not a trend, one that in a year or two
would no longer appeal to anyone. He stated it was becoming a part of
everyone's life, and this would give San Rafael the opportunity to be in
the forefront of this cutting edge technology, and to take a step toward
the future.
Shawn Rickeron, Manager of Engineering at Berkeley Systems, stated he
commutes to Berkeley every day, and visits the Cyber lounge, noting it is a
very relaxed atmosphere, very much like his own living room, except he
meets other people there. He stated there was no other experience in Marin
that could compare with the potential for him going there to get a beer,
noting he believed that would add a lot.
Harley Baldwin, resident of Fourth Street, stated she had easy access to
all the bars and restaurants on Fourth Street, although she did not
frequent any of them, because they were too loud, and the crowds were too
obnoxious. She stated she looked forward very much to going into a place
like Linexpress, getting a glass of wine, perhaps doing a little research,
and talking to people and relaxing. She urged Council to approve this
application.
Petrina Muldros, owner of Cafe Veleska, stated she has operated the cafe
for the past three and a half years, noting both Councilmembers Heller and
Miller have been in her business, and know the kind of atmosphere they are
trying to promote. She noted they were basically attempting to create a
social place for people to go, noting she did not believe that if they
added a bar upstairs it would be a place that promoted alcoholism, or
anything loud or obnoxious. On a personal note, she stated she lived and
worked on Fourth Street, pointing out she could not think of a single place
that she would want to go and unwind after work, and noting there was no
other place such as this where someone could hang out, check their E -Mail,
relax and look at the new art, and actually be able to talk with their
friends and be able to hear what they are saying. She noted most of the
places people go into you cannot actually have a conversation. She stated
she was very aware of the social and community aspects of her cafe, and
that was what she really enjoyed about the cafe. She believed the Cyber
lounge could only add another dimension, which would promote this type of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 29
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 30
aspect in a truly unique arena.
Councilmember Miller stated he went back to his original position on this
issue, in terms of the control of an addictive substance, noting that was
such a serious obligation, that only by compelling reason should the City
Council be able to proliferate liquor licenses. He stated Council had been
given criteria, and he believed this application failed on all four
criteria. Mr. Miller stated he believed this was merely another lounge, or
bar, perhaps with a different ambience, but still another bar. He pointed
out there were already eleven licenses in a Census Tract which only allows
four licenses, and asked how the Council would be able to refuse anyone
else who wanted one, noting this seemed to be part of a marketing effort.
He stated this application did not add up to his sense of responsibility,
which he believed had been given to local government, with guidelines given
by the State, in order to control an addictive substance.
Councilmember Miller stated Mr. Judson's argumentation was excellent,
although Mr. Miller pointed out his "Alive After Five" argument had really
been meant to be in terms of the Vision, pointing out the Vision along
Julia Street did not include the aspect Mr. Judson was trying to place on
it.
Councilmember Heller stated she disagreed with Councilmember Miller, noting
she had not changed her opinion, and still believed this application met
the conditions. She pointed out that this was the Downtown, and liked to
see the City offer as many opportunities for social gatherings as we could.
She believed this would be a nice place for young people, as well as
people going to the movies, to gather and talk, and have a beer or glass of
wine. She stated she would vote to approve a Certificate of Public
Convenience.
Mayor Boro stated that although he had not been present at the last Council
meeting, he had read the minutes of that meeting concerning this issue. He
noted it struck him that Council was being asked to approve a bar with a
gimmick, the gimmick being the Internet. Mayor Boro noted the applicant
had stated this would be characteristically different than any other bar in
San Rafael, and that was what Council was being asked to approve; however,
it was still a bar. He noted, as the City Attorney had pointed out, the
permit would go with the land, so if Council approved the bar on this site,
then in the future this supposed very quiet, very interactive, restful
environment could close up, and someone else could come in and open up a
sports bar on the site. He felt that was where Council's discretion came
in, and why they had the opportunity to make a Finding. Mayor Boro stated
he did not believe this was a use that was not already there, noting there
were plenty of bars on Fourth Street, and although he acknowledged that
what happens inside the bar might be different, it was still a bar, and
another bar on Fourth Street, upstairs, next to the theater, did not make
sense to him. He noted the next thing would be the Use Permit, and all the
conditions, asking what would happen if they do not work, or if this
business goes under and another bar comes in? He stated they would be
setting a precedent on the site, and it did not make sense to him, unless
everyone felt the City needed another bar. Mayor Boro also pointed out the
staff
report states there are already eleven bars in this Census Tract;
therefore, he believed the need was already being served greatly in the
Downtown, and he did not see any need for an additional use.
Councilmember Cohen stated he had thought a lot about this issue, and
listened to all of the comments, and had even met with Mr. Judson earlier
in the day and looked at the upstairs area. Mr. Cohen believed the City
was ill served by the Liquor Lobby and State regulation, noting if what the
City was approving was a liquor license for the purpose Mr. Judson was
describing, and it was limited only to that use, he would be more
comfortable with the decision; however, once the license is granted, Mr.
Judson, or someone else, could change their mind and start having loud rock
and roll or change the nature of the bar, and the license would have
already been granted, and the City's ability to have any control over that
would be fundamentally nonexistent. Mr. Cohen did not believe the
connection between the Internet and the access to computers and alcohol was
so strong as to convince him that there is a compelling need not being
served by anyone else, or strong enough to distinguish this from someone
else coming in next week and saying they would be the only laundromat where
people could get a beer while their clothes get cleaned. He agreed with
Councilmember Miller that this would be a dangerous road to go down. Mr.
Cohen agreed the atmosphere there now was pleasant, and the verbal picture
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 30
13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 31
that was drawn for Council was a compelling one; however, he simply could
not make the Finding under Criterion #2 that Public Convenience and
Necessity had been met.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the
Resolution denying a Certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity for an
on -sale liquor license.
RESOLUTION NO. 10315 - RESOLUTION DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR AN ON -SALE LIQUOR
LICENSE AT 1122 FOURTH STREET, LINEXPRESS CAFE.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORK PROGRAM (P98-4) (CD) - File 115
Community Development Director Bob Brown presented the General Plan Update
work program, and focused on the opportunities for public involvement. He
reported staff had heard very clearly from the Planning Commission and the
public that they hoped for a level of public involvement comparable to the
1974 General Plan, noting that expectation drove much of the timing and the
cost of the Update. He stated staff had planned numerous opportunities for
public input and participation, reporting that as part of the education
process, they planned a Community Speakers Series; a number of meetings and
the appointment of a Steering Committee by the Council; they have proposed
Council appoint citizens to task groups, and these would then provide
opportunities for more members of the public, who could assist and focus on
very specific topical issues; three Town Meetings have been proposed, which
would provide for larger audiences, and help staff identify community
values and goals to develop the policies for specific development sites
that are likely to be controversial, and to provide feedback on the draft
plan, itself.
Mr. Brown reported staff also intended to use many forms of publicity and
outreach, including our fairly new City Newsletter, a WEB site that will be
created for the General Plan Update, and presentations to many community
groups.
Councilmember Heller stated this was an excellent report, and she was
looking forward to taking part in her first General Plan Update. She noted
she has had some inquiries from members of the public, asking about the
Steering Committee, and what the process would be. Ms. Heller noted the
staff report stated applications would be solicited in the Fall, and asked
that this process be very public, with notices in the newspaper and City
Newsletter. She asked if a timeline had been established? Mr. Brown
stated the solicitation process would likely begin after the first of the
year, as they wanted to make certain they were not concurrently running the
St. Vincent's/Silveira process, and starting up with the Steering Committee
for the General Plan, noting they really needed to deal with only one major
public process at a time. He noted they expected to begin solicitations in
January or February, hopefully have the appointments in March, and then
begin the process in May.
Mayor Boro referred to the Task Groups, noting they were described as
having up to fifteen members. He asked how many Task Groups were planned?
Mr. Brown stated they have been considering four, primarily due to the
logistics and availability of staff. He stated a lot would depend on the
general themes that come out of the General Plan, noting such things as
mobility, sustainability, and housing issues would be fairly universal, and
staff felt this would be a good opportunity for public input.
Mayor Boro stated at some point in the future, when this item is brought
back before the Council, he would like to have further discussion regarding
cost, noting the figure was staggering. He pointed out staff had
referenced the 1974 General Plan, and noted he was trying to recall the
public involvement, reporting they had thrown out the plan the Consultant
prepared, and he, John Starkweather, and one other person basically wrote
the 1974 Plan, and then held public hearings. He asked if staff were going
to write the Plan, or if we were going to have a Consultant who would do
that? He stated he understood about the Steering Committee and the series
of events that were being planned, and applauded those things, but asked
Mr. Brown to define the process of putting the Plan together, and
specifically who would write the Plan? Mr. Brown stated staff would write
the Plan, and the only use of Consultants would be in technical areas.
Councilmember Miller noted the Work Plan showed this had been a most
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 31
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 32
inclusive outreach, in order to come to this Plan, noting Senior Planner
Linda Jackson attended many group meetings so that everyone had the
opportunity to come to the table, in order to develop the Plan. He noted
this outreach showed the openness of the City to all of its citizens, and
complimented Ms. Jackson, Mr. Brown, and their staff.
Mayor Boro stated this was such a good report, he would suggest it be used
as a starting point when staff brings the item back to Council, noting they
could add to it, but it would be a good "anchor" to have as they move
forward with this project.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to accept the
Proposed Work Program for the update of San Rafael's General Plan.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
Councilmember Cohen stated that while he was delighted to hear that Mr.
Brown believed the St. Vincent's/Silveira process would actually be over in
March, he was not convinced this would be the case, noting that even if the
Committee had concluded its work, there would be extensive public hearings
and debates. Therefore, at some point the City may have to grapple with
whatever demands that places on us, which may mean we have to keep both of
these items going on parallel tracks. He pointed out the timeline Council
was about to approve was so long, that if the City waited much longer than
was anticipated in the report, it would really put the City way out there
in terms of actually getting through the process.
In addition, Councilmember Cohen felt the City needed to respond to the
issue that had been raised regarding the P.G.& E. site in North San Rafael,
noting that was going to come up in other places, as well. He pointed out
this was an issue the
City had grappled with before, where we have such a long timeline for the
General Plan Update. He asked how the City was going to address those
properties that fall through the cracks, where there is so much economic
activity going on now, that someone is going to want to come in and pursue
development opportunities? He noted the City states, "No, wait, stop,
moratorium, not an idea we support"; however, he would like more
information on how the City can steer and direct people to take advantage
of work that has already been done, or ensure that as they go through the
process, we are also tracking what is going on in the General Plan Update.
He stated he would like staff to share with the Council some thoughts on
how the City is going to address this, as he did not believe it was the
last time this would come up.
14. SECOND AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: (RA) - File 140 x (SRRA) R-140 XVII
(1998)
1) RESOLUTION ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN
COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF
THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL
SAN RAFAEL PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363.
2) RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT IN THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE SECOND AMENDED AND
RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL PROJECT.
3) ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL PROJECT ("SECOND
AMENDED PLAN"), APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION PREPARED
FOR THE SECOND AMENDED PLAN, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Economic Development Director Jake Ours explained the two Resolutions and
the Ordinance now before Council were for the adoption of the Redevelopment
Agency's amended Redevelopment Plan, noting approval would add more
authority with regard to some of the changing laws. Mr. Ours pointed out
there had been only two comments to the proposed amended Plan, one stating
the Agency should not have the authority to fund anti -graffiti programs,
and the other from a resident asking if they were located within the
Redevelopment area; therefore, this was almost a "non-event" as far as
public comment, although it had been sent out to almost 10,000 different
parcels.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 32
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 33
Resolution adopting written Findings and responses to written comments
received in connection with the Second Amended and Restated Redevelopment
Plan.
RESOLUTION NO. 10316 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS AND
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS RECEIVED
IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE SECOND
AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE SECTION 33363.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the
Resolution making Findings required by the California Environmental Quality
Act in the approval and adoption of the Second Amended and Restated
Redevelopment Plan for the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 10317 - RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN THE APPROVAL
AND ADOPTION OF THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APPROVING AND
ADOPTING THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN ("SECOND AMENDED PLAN"), APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SECOND AMENDED PLAN, AND MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA".
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title
only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1732 to print, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
MONTHLY REPORT:
16. DEPARTMENT REPORT - DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES (MS) - Fiile 237 x
9-3-20
This item carried was over to the meeting of 10/5/98, due to the lateness
of the hour.
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
17. a. UPDATE ON ST. VINCENT'S DINING ROOM - File 9-2-49 x 4-4-4 (Verbal)
Mayor Boro asked City Manager Gould to provide an update concerning
the relocation of the St. Vincent's Dining Room.
City Manager Gould reported the City's discussions with Pacific Gas &
Electric Company had resulted in agreement on a number of points. He
stated P.G. & E. would allow the City to take the lead in marketing
this site for re -use, noting this would be done cooperatively. Mr.
Gould explained it was the City's feeling that the highest and best
use of the site could be realized by a Master Plan approach toward
the entire 3 plus acres on the site; therefore, as a minor variation,
but significant change to what was agreed to on July 9th, staff was
requesting that Council allow them to proceed with a Request for
Proposals, that did not precisely identify the location of the St.
Vincent Dining Hall facility on the P.G. & E. site at this time;
instead, the City would ask interested Developers and purchasers to
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 33
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 34
identify where the facility might be located, in conjunction with a
full-service hotel.
Mr. Gould stated staff believed, and P.G. & E. agreed, this would
probably be the best use for this site, given the traffic impacts and
the surrounding traffic grid. He stated staff believed there would
be significant Developer interest in bringing that use to this site,
and by use of proper design techniques, we may be able to meld the
hotel and new St. Vincent's facility in a way that is mutually
beneficial. Mr. Gould reported St. Vincent's representatives have
been made aware of this suggested approach, and they have expressed
interest in it. He noted he had been invited to speak to the new
Board of Directors of St. Vincent's on November 11th concerning this
approach.
Mr. Gould reported the City had also received letters from Fair,
Isaac expressing their concerns regarding any development of the P.G.
& E. site on Brooks Street. Mr. Gould stated St. Vincent's Attorneys
have indicated they are in the process of extending invitations to
various groups to name representatives to a Neighborhood Education
and Outreach Committee, to commence operations on or about October
1st. He reported the City has requested that the first order of
business of this new Committee be to address the security program for
the existing facility and the future facility, as well as the Code of
Conduct, consistent with the guidelines approved by the Council on
July 9th. Mr. Gould noted Fair, Isaac had been asked to participate
on this Committee, which he was pleased about; however, he was
disturbed and saddened to see that Ritter House had not been asked to
be involved with the new Committee.
Mayor Boro stated he was very pleased there had been discussions with
both St. Vincent's and P.G. & E., and that they were in agreement as
to looking at the total site in terms of the relocation. He felt
that since this discussion was already underway, it would seem
prudent if sometime toward the end of this year St. Vincent's would
put together a site plan, noting that regardless of where it goes on
the site, it was important for the City to get a sense of what was
being proposed, and the size of it. Mayor Boro stated this would
serve to provide a couple of things, noting it would show some
movement, and at the same time, in the event this issue with P.G. &
E. is not as successful as we would hope, then the City would want to
pursue the original option of a location between Second and Third
Streets on Lindaro Street.
Mayor Boro asked Mr. Gould to speak with St. Vincent's about coming
back in the near future with a site plan. Mr. Gould stated last week
he had made that request of St. Vincent's Attorneys, as staff needs
that information for the Request for Proposals. He noted the City
wants to be able to make it clear to any prospective buyers what the
parameters would be for the new facility, and also be able to show
even a conceptual design. He stated he hoped that information would
be forthcoming.
b. ST. VINCENT'S/SILVEIRA PROPERTY - File 9-2-45 x 115 x 10-2 (Verbal)
Mayor Boro asked Community Development Director Brown to prepare an
update regarding the issue of the St. Vincent's/Silveira property for
the Council meeting of October 19th, which would be after the second
meeting of the St. Vincent's/Silveira Committee. Mayor Boro reported
he and Councilmember Cohen had attended a Committee meeting on
Saturday, and it went quite well, noting the Committee seemed to have
a good sense about working together on this. He stated there had
been good public participation, and there was a very aggressive
schedule. He suggested perhaps Mr. Brown could bring a copy of the
schedule to the meeting of October 19th, and walk Council through the
schedule and give them an update, so there are no surprises at the
end.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:00 Midnight.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 34
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 35
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1998
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 10/5/98 Page 35