Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-04-19SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1993, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No Closed Session was held. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1993, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE I.MAINTENANCE OF MEDIAN LINEAR PARK FROM MONTECITO SHOPPING CENTER TO PEACOCK GAP - File 11-1 x 9-3-40 Robert Kohs, resident of 34 Brentwood Drive, expressed his concern about the generally decrepit condition of the Linear Park that extended from Montecito Shopping Center to Peacock Gap on South San Pedro Road. He asked that something be done about this problem. II.SAN RAFAEL FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION'S CONCERN RE: SAFETY ISSUES - File 7-8-2 Christopher Desmond, representative of the San Rafael Firefighters' Association, read a letter submitted to the Council indicating their concern regarding the safety implications and dangers of the Fire Chief's promotional/reclassification proposal. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEMS 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 15, 1993, and Special Meeting of April 5, 1993 (CC) 3. Resolution Accepting Proposal From Book Publishing Company for Supplement Service to the Municipal Code for Two Years (7/1/93 - 6/30/95) - File 1-5-1 x 9-3-14 8. Authorization to Call for Bids - Oleander Park Improvements (PW) - File 4-1-462 x 12-5 x 9-3-66 9. Resolution of Intention to Vacate Easement - Baypoint Lagoons (PW) - File 2-12 x 5-1-292 Page 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION Approved as submitted. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8874 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A PROPOSAL WITH BOOK PUBLISHING COMPANY FOR SUPPLEMENT SERVICE TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (TWO- YEAR PERIOD - $22.00/PAGE FOR A PERIOD FROM 7/1/93 - 6/30/95) Approved staff recommendation to call for bids for Oleander Park improvements. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8875 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO VACATE PORTION OF EXISTING EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING, REPAIRING, MAINTAINING AND OPERATING A DIKE AND APPURTENANT DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS - BAYPOINT LAGOONS UNIT TWO, AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR 5/17/93 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 2 10. Conceptual Approval for Canal CommunityApproved staff recommendation for Festival on Saturday, September 18, 1993 conceptual approval of Canal (RA) - File 11-19 x 104 Community Festival and associated street closures. 11. Resolution of Appreciation to Clifford P. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8876 - Elbing, Fire Commissioner (FD) - File 102 x RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO 9-2-5 CLIFFORD P. ELBING, SAN RAFAEL FIRE COMMISSIONER, ON HIS RETIREMENT FROM THE FIRE COMMISSION 12. Resolution Approving Agreement With Clean ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8877 - Bay (FD) - File 4-3-262 x 9-3-31 AUTHORIZING THE FIRE CHIEF TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH CLEAN BAY TO STORE AN OIL SPILL MITIGATION CONTAINER 14. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) - Approved staff recommendation to: File 9-1 OPPOSE SB 1114 & SCA 22 (MADDY) - Public Safety OPPOSE SB 1313 (BROWN) - Sales and Use Taxes: Exemptions: Manufacturing AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen The following Consent Calendar items were removed for discussion: 4.REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SUN VALLEY PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION (PW) - File 4-1-461 x 9-3-66 Councilmember Thayer noted that the lowest bidder was way below the Engineer's Estimate, however after a detailed review of this bid items and discussions held with the low bidder revealed that some omissions were made in their bid and Mrs. Thayer asked if this particular bid met all the specifications. Public Works Director Bernardi responded affirmatively. He stated staff checked some of the work that this contractor had done for other jurisdictions and all the reports they received were very positive, in that their bids were low and they completed their projects within the bid amounts. Mrs. Thayer then asked if the errors and omissions made may have caused them to underestimate. Mr. Bernardi responded that on the bid sheet there were some mistakes in multiplication, but they did not materially affect the outcome of the bid. Mrs. Thayer asked if this might become an abandoned project because of the problems in the figures and Mr. Bernardi responded negatively, that the contractor submitted a bond which would cover any costs should they decide not to complete the project. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to approve adoption of the Resolution awarding the contract to Premier Gardening and Landscaping. RESOLUTION NO. 8878 - AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SUN VALLEY PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION (PROJECT NO. 020-66900682) TO PREMIER GARDENING AND LANDSCAPING, LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER (in the amount of $74,203.55) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 5.RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS GRANTING VARIANCE FROM UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SECTION 504 - 445 FRANCISCO BLVD. (PW) - File 1-6-1 x 9-3-32 Item pulled from agenda - to be brought back to meeting of May 3, 1993. 6.REPORT ON BID OPENING AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE TWO USED VEHICLES (Gen.Svs.) - File 4-2-271 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-30 Councilmember Breiner asked what the mileage was on the used vehicles and a comparison of the miles per gallon on these vehicles, also. Mr. Bernardi responded the maximum mileage for used vehicles was 20,000 miles and the vehicles have to meet the EPA standards for fuel consumption, so he felt they met all the specifications. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 3 Mrs. Breiner stated her concern about picking a used vehicle in the amount of $12,333 versus a new one for $13,600, which appeared to be a better investment. Mr. Bernardi stated the used vehicle from Don Collins Buick had 15,000 miles on it and the Marin Dodge vehicle had 20,000. Mayor Boro stated because this had been a past concern and the price between the used and new vehicles was so close, staff could do further analysis and justification based on the mileage and difference in cost as to why they were recommending the used vehicles. Councilmember Breiner asked for information regarding the warranty issues when staff returned with this further report. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to hold the item over to the meeting of May 3, 1993. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 7.AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE RECONDITIONED WATER TRUCK AND USED STREET SWEEPER ON LEASE/PURCHASE PROGRAM (PW) - File 4-2-272 x 9-3-40 Councilmember Breiner asked if the funds borrowed from the Redevelopment Agency for these vehicles could be paid back by the City as opposed to the lease/purchase agreement which would entail $7,500 the City would be paying in interest. She stated that if they had to pay interest, she would rather they be paying it to a some part of the City. She then asked if both of these would be used somewhere within the Redevelopment Agency? Mr. Bernardi responded the street sweeper would be used almost exclusively within the Redevelopment Agency boundaries, the downtown Canal area under the new street sweeping program. He then noted that with this new street sweeper they would be able to vacuum out all of the catch bases rather than have the individuals use special shovels. Redevelopment Assistant Executive Director Ours stated they would have problems funding this as a maintenance vehicle. He stated that, with regard to the loaning of the money, as long as they received some interest for it, this would be an acceptable idea. He did note, however, that the actual purchase of equipment for maintenance alone was not allowed. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Bernardi about the prior question with regard to the financing. Mr. Bernardi responded staff would talk to Finance Director Coleman about the details of the financing project. City Manager Nicolai stated they could look at the comparative analysis of interest rates for an outside agency versus an arrangement of doing it from one of the City's funds. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution as amended to reflect the authorization to Public Works to sign a purchase agreement for the reconditioned water truck and street sweeper and confer with the Finance Director on the means of financing for a total cost minus $7,500 interest, from the figure that is given in the staff report. RESOLUTION NO. 8879 - AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PURCHASE A RECONDITIONED WATER TRUCK AND STREET SWEEPER FROM RICKER MACHINERY COMPANY AND CONFER WITH THE FINANCE DIRECTOR ON THE MEANS OF FINANCING FOR A TOTAL COST OF $135,006.30 (as amended) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 13.RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH FIRST MED MARIN MEDICAL CLINIC FOR HEPATITIS B SERIES INOCULATION SERVICES (CM) - File 7-1-38 x 13-1 Councilmember Breiner stated that in private matters with this issue, doctors usually recommend a follow-up test for antibodies to see if the vaccine had been effective and had discussed with Assistant City Manager Golt the possibility of a random check of 5% or 100 of the personnel vaccinated to make sure the vaccine was effectual. She stated she would like to have this follow-up language put into the agreement with First Med Marin Medical Clinic. Ms. Golt responded this would be possible to do and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 4 stated Dr. Landfield, who will be doing these inoculations, has found that the three SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 5 shot series has about a 97% ratio of effectiveness and to have everyone tested would not be acceptable, so she suggested that having 10% of the original group checked would be a reasonable thing to do. Mrs. Breiner asked where the vaccine was being obtained from? Ms. Golt responded they purchased the vaccine through a Federal contract, which has been done at a savings of almost half the price they would have paid on the open market. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 8880 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH FIRST MED MARIN MEDICAL CLINIC TO PROVIDE HEPATITIS B SERIES INOCULATION SERVICES, WITH A FOLLOW-UP, RANDOM TESTING OF APPROXIMATELY 10% OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO RECEIVE THIS INOCULATION AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 15.PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO CLIFFORD P. ELBING, FIRE COMMISSIONER (FD) - File 102 x 9-2-5 Mayor Boro presented the Resolution of Appreciation to Clifford P. Elbing stating Mr. Elbing was appointed to the San Rafael Fire Commission on February 7, 1977 and has served as a Fire Commissioner for nearly 17 years, serving as Chairman as well, and noted Mr. Elbing had been involved in the implementation of the Paramedic program, and the adoption of the sprinkler system and smoke detection ordinances. Mayor Boro also noted this was Mr. Elbing's 86th birthday. Mr. Elbing stated his appreciation for the Resolution. 16.PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF MARCH 23, 1993, RE: APPROVAL OF ED93-15 AND UP93-16 - USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER TO PROVIDE DAY SERVICES FOR THE HOMELESS; 14 Ritter Street; AP #11-272-13; Richard C. Bottarini, Owner; Rob Simon, Human Concern Center, Applicant and Rep. (Pl) - File 5-1-322 x 10-5 x 10-6 x 9-3-17 x 13-16 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley briefed the City Council, stating he would first summarize the report to the Planning Commission, and then respond to the points under appeal. He explained that on March 23, 1993 the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit for a Day Services Center at 14 Ritter Street. He noted the application had been submitted by the Human Concern Center. Several days after the Planning Commission meeting, on March 25th, Dr. Gideon Sorokin, representing the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee, appealed, and that is why the issue was being heard tonight. Mr. Pendoley described the site as being on the south side of Ritter Street, and is presently paved and unimproved. He stated that the Applicant and proposed operator, the Human Concern Center (HCC), has been located at the property next door, 16 Ritter Street, since 1980. He explained that the HCC provides services to persons in need, particularly emergency subsistence, and with the objective of helping people to make positive changes in their lives. He added they offer emergency clothing, furniture and household items, and sometimes assist with emergency financial needs. They also provide crisis support counseling and act as a referral agency to other social services agencies in the community. Mr. Pendoley stated that the proposal which the HCC put before the Planning Commission was an outgrowth of efforts by the Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, as well as the County Homelessness Commission and the San Rafael Area Task Force on Homelessness. These groups had called for a Countywide strategy which would include shelters and day service centers which would provide programs to assist the homeless. He explained that this proposal was to operate a Day Services Center (DSC) in an 1,100 sq. ft. modular building or trailer. This facility would operate every day of the year from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, and the services would include laundry, showers, bathrooms, mail pickup, telephones, as well as a variety of counseling services. It would be designed to service approximately 40 people a day. Mr. Pendoley noted that the program presented to the Planning Commission called for close monitoring. Clients would be monitored to assure they were not under the influence SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 6 of drugs or alcohol. People would not be allowed to hang around in the general vicinity of the operation. A night watchman would be on site after the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 7 facility closes in the evening. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that the proposal is for two years, with the possibility of a one-year extension. This would coincide with a lease which the HCC has on the property. Mr. Pendoley explained that the Planning Commission has applied over 50 conditions to the permit. He highlighted several of the more important ones: The operation will be from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM. There will be no storage outside of the building itself. The HCC would be responsible for establishing an outreach task force, consisting of HCC board members, as well as neighborhood representatives. The HCC will be responsible for preparing a plan with proposed membership, and a charge to the Task Force which would be approved by the Planning Commission. The Task Force would report back to the Commission at the end of six months, so the Commission could determine whether the facility is meeting the conditions, and possibly require new conditions. The HCC would operate an anti -litter program and strict rules of operation would be required and would have to be read and signed by all clients. Screening for alcohol and drug abuse will be required, and a security program would be required. The initial two years of the permit would begin upon the issuance of a Building Permit. Mr. Pendoley added that HCC would like to apply for a Building Permit immediately. Mr. Pendoley reported that the appeal before the Council raises ten points, and he would summarize them very briefly: 1) The appeal alleges that the hearing notices for the Planning Commission hearing were inadequate. Mr. Pendoley explained he had checked the record, and the noticing meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) The appeal states that the modular building will not meet any of the present codes. Mr. Pendoley stated that the conditions of the permit require that it meet all of the Building and Fire Codes. 3) The appeal alleges that parking for the proposed amount of traffic is inadequate. Mr. Pendoley explained that because this site is within the Parking District, no parking is required for a ground floor use. However, the HCC will provide six on-site parking spaces, and that will exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 4) The appeal expresses concern that crime in the area has increased and the neighboring businesses have been vandalized. Mr. Pendoley stated that the San Rafael Police Department reports that overall, crime is generally lower in San Rafael over the past few years. He stated he did discuss this very specifically with the Chief of Police, and he said he did not have a concern about it in terms of Police services. Mr. Pendoley added that the parent facility, HCC, has operated for a number of years without significant problems for the Police Department. 5) Mr. Pendoley stated that the fifth point is a concern that this facility could go on indefinitely. He noted that the Planning Commission has set a very strict time limit and if the term is to go beyond the two years requested, that would require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. He added that the Commission had stated its intent to grant a maximum of three years for this temporary structure. 6) The Appellant stated a concern about the waste of public funds. Mr. Pendoley explained that the City has no funds involved in this project, since all of the funds are from grants and private donations. 7) The Appellant states that modular structures should not be permitted in commercially zoned districts. Mr. Pendoley explained that the Zoning Ordinance does permit modulars, with strict Use Permit controls, and many are approved throughout the year. In fact, a modular building was approved for a used car lot on this property. 8) The Appellant states that the Downtown merchants and businesses are on the verge of economic collapse because of competition and the overall State economy. Mr. Pendoley noted that this is not the subject of the Use Permit; however, he pointed out that there have been many new businesses located in the Downtown area during the past year. 9)& Expressed concerns regarding public safety, a deteriorating shopping atmosphere 10) attributable to the homeless, and that this program would tend to attract additional people into the Downtown area. Mr. Pendoley explained that the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 8 Planning Commission had discussed this at some length, and were particularly swayed by the HCC's good record for operations in the neighborhood. They stated SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 8 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 clearly that they felt this was a positive approach toward helping the homeless get off the streets permanently. Mr. Pendoley noted that several days after the appeal letter, Dr. Sorokin had sent another letter to the City Council, dated March 28, 1993, in which he pointed out that it might be possible to operate such a facility at 56 Harbor Street or at St. Vincent's School. Mr. Pendoley noted that the subject before the Council tonight was the Use Permit application. He explained that 56 Harbor Street has a Use Permit at present, for services to the homeless. It consists of night time shelter, and at this time does not allow daytime services. Also, St. Vincent's School is outside the City limits. In conclusion, Mr. Pendoley recommended that the Planning Commission's decision be upheld, and added that a large part of their recommendation was because of the excellent track record of the HCC as a good neighbor in the Downtown area. He added that he and Associate Planner Tuikka, who drafted the report, are available to answer questions. Councilmember Shippey stated he read that this DSC is not to be the only one in the County, but was part of the County Commission's proposal. Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. He explained that the strategy which emerged from the County Commission and the Task Force is that San Rafael would offer day services at two locations, this site as well as at 56 Harbor Street. He stated he understands that the Marin Housing Center which operates 56 Harbor Street are filing an application to provide day services for the clients who reside at the 56 Harbor homeless shelter. He stated he understands that service would be different from the one being discussed tonight, in that it would only be available to enrolled clients who have committed to participation for an extended period of time, so it would be for a small limited group and not be open to the general homeless population. Councilmember Shippey inquired if there would be other cities outside of San Rafael participating. Mr. Pendoley responded that the Countywide strategy calls for day services centers in all of five of the supervisorial districts. Councilmember Thayer inquired about the parking, noting that Mr. Pendoley stated it was inside the Assessment District and therefore the six spaces for on-site parking were adequate. She asked if the parking in the area, in general, was adequate, and were the parking structures currently utilized? Mr. Pendoley responded there are several which are easily accessible from this site, and they are not heavily utilized, even during the Christmas Season. He added that this application thoroughly satisfies the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, in that the Ordinance would require no parking spaces for this use at this location, and the planned parking is more than adequate for this activity. Mrs. Thayer noted that currently the HCC serves a variety of needs, and inquired what was their clientele now; how many people appear there now for the services they are currently offering? Mr. Pendoley stated he could not answer in detail, but one of the questions raised had been, "What kind of client parking is needed?", and the HCC advised staff that most of their clients, and certainly the clients of the DSC, do not drive to the site because they do not have cars. He stated that Rob Simon, who operates HCC, could give the information requested. Mrs. Thayer stated she had studied the conditions, and inquired if there was any kind of alarm system required, in addition to the night watchman. Mr. Pendoley responded that a burglar alarm is not required, but a fire alarm is required. Mayor Boro announced he would now start the public testimony part of the hearing, and he knew there were many people who wished to be heard, so he would set the ground rules. He stated he would start with Dr. Sorokin, who would have 10 minutes to speak, and then the Council would hear from Mr. Simon, who would be running the Center, and who would also have 10 minutes to speak, and all others who wished to speak would have 3 minutes, and to try not to be redundant. Mayor Boro stated he had been told that Mr. Foley has a video he wished to show Council, but they would not view it; however, if someone wanted to describe what was on it, they could do so. Dr. Gideon Sorokin, Appellant, stated he was not appealing in his own name, but he had 150 signatures to present to the Council. He stated he understood homelessness, since he was homeless for two years and lived in a shack. He stated that neither he nor the 150 people who signed the petition are against homeless people, but have compassion. He noted that he had stated in a private meeting with Mayor Boro, "We all are looking for a good solution". He then stated, contrary to what Mayor Boro said to him, that the previous administration had done nothing, and added let us do SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 10 something, even if it is wrong. He stated that, as a doctor, he could tell them they all agree on the diagnosis, and there was not one person in the room who did not SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 11 agree that they were in a "mess" and had to help, but he told Council they would be a very bad doctor if they prescribed the wrong prescription and made the condition worse, and that was why he was at the meeting. He stated there were 150 merchants there who felt that their livelihood was on the line and that was the reason why they were all here. He stated he did not dispute what the head of the Planning Commission said in many ways, but the bottom line was their security and their livelihoods were at stake. Dr. Sorokin stated that in order to present this in the proper way without being redundant and in a civilized manner, he stated he would like to present their team. Rudolph Rentzel, attorney for Dr. Sorokin and for the Downtown group, stated they would like to ask for more than 10 minutes, which is allowed by the State law and which City Attorney Ragghianti can confirm. He pointed out that it said on the notice that anything they wanted to bring up, they have to bring up at this meeting, because any issues not brought up at this meeting could not be brought up in court. He stated he understood the time constraints, but because of that requirement in State law, and because of the wording on the notice, he was asking they be allowed more than 10 minutes for the speakers for the Appellants. Mayor Boro explained that what he had said was Dr. Sorokin is the Appellant, not everyone in this room, and therefore he was entitled to 10 minutes. Anyone else could speak and they would have 3 minutes, so the people who wished to speak could come up and make their points; if they were significant they could make them in three minutes. Mr. Rentzel stated the Doctor was the Appellant on behalf of the Downtown Committee, and the speakers they were talking about were four speakers he had lined up from the Downtown Committee. Those were the only ones for which they were asking additional time. Mayor Boro explained it was not a matter of additional time. Everyone in the room wished to speak and he had to be fair to everyone. He asked for their presentation to proceed and he would keep track of the time. Mrs. Cheryl Foley, whose husband owns a business in downtown San Rafael, stated that downtown San Rafael was a complex of 395 retail stores and 471 business offices which offered a variety of services and products. She noted that this meant a total of 866 revenue producing, tax producing, growth oriented entities struggling in hard times. She pointed out the money and effort which had gone into creating a Vision 2000 for Downtown San Rafael, and the hub is the Lindaro Street area. She stated that the proposed location of the Day Services Center is less than 300 feet from this intersection. She noted that the Planning Commission has approved the installation of a 30 -year-old trailer, moved from Muir Woods, which will be screened. She stated that 350 meals a day are being served at the Dining Room on "B" Street, and many of the people would be taking advantage of the expanded services from this installation. Mrs. Foley spoke of the intimidation people have experienced in the downtown area from the homeless, and business has continued to slide. She stated the people are being forced by the panhandlers to go to the malls, and this has in effect created a form of unfair competition. She added that times are changing and downtown San Rafael is eight and one-half times the size of the largest shopping mall in the area, in Corte Madera with 97 stores. She asked why are we being the sacrificial lamb when its tax revenues along with its tax paying citizens provide the financial base for this area? She stated that the decision to expand Ritter House with the type of services proposed with hurt San Rafael business, and she urged Council to reject this short- term thinking and reject this proposal on behalf of their community. John Foley, San Rafael businessman, stated there were two General Plan policies impacted by this approval. He noted that the Planning Commission's Policy UP93-16 stated that this project would not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. He noted that in Policy ED93-15, the Planning Commission stated that the project design minimizes adverse impacts and that the project design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that the proposed use will be temporary for a maximum of two or three years. He asked, who will be the one to close the Human Concern Center in two to three years? He stated that according to the Planning Commission their decision to approve this proposal was in good part made because, in their opinion, the Human Concern Center has demonstrated a willingness to be a good neighbor to the City and the Downtown area, by monitoring the site. Mr. Foley stated he would like to know, under what format the Planning Commission made these conclusions. He stated they did not ask him if Ritter House was a good neighbor; they did not repair the vandalized vehicles or clean up the feces and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 12 trash; they did not ask the nearby businesses, whose parking SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 13 lots have become a thoroughfare for Ritter House clients, and whose businesses have suffered from parking problems. He noted that a nearby drive-in was forced to install a locked dumpster to avoid daily cleanup of picked -through garbage. He stated the Commission did not ask Klein TV, Kragen Auto, the Union Station, California Cooperage, or the House of Brakes. He stated the merchants have been the good neighbors, and they all had stories but had not complained until tonight. Mr. Foley noted that the Planning Department has implemented restrictions, such as, "All exterior lighting will be sufficient to establish a sense of well being to the pedestrian. Type and placement of lighting shall be to the satisfaction of the Police Department". He stated that this, and seven other restrictions, from one -inch dead -bolts to windows with secondary locks, have been stipulated. He noted that the Planning Department has stipulated that no overnight live-in use of the facility shall be allowed, a stipulation violated practically every day as the Ritter House currently exists. Mr. Foley noted that the only person allowed overnight use will be the person functioning as the night watch -person. He asked, for what? Also, why do the Police have to approve the lighting? Why all the extra hardware on doors and windows? He stated it is because they expect trouble, and added that if they let Ritter House build this, more would come. He stated they have reached the saturation point. He stated that no city, no county in this nation has embraced social agencies, all 131 of them, such as the group which represents the population of Marin in the room tonight. He stated that recent decisions, made in our behalf, gave us cause for alarm. He added that some of our decision -makers are replacing the health, the welfare and safety of the people of the City, including some homeless, with risk. He stated they were being placed in a dangerous position socially and economically also. He added that, not to realize this is the case exhibits an unrealistic view of our City's economic and social decline. He stated some of our decision -makers are treating us like they were the problem, when in fact Council asked them to pay more for solutions. Mr. Foley concluded by respectfully requesting the Council table this proposal, rather than to rubber-stamp the inaccurate findings of the Planning Commission. He stated this project is bad for business, and is bad for San Rafael. Dr. Sorokin stated that since there were many legal implications, the Committee had hired a lawyer and he wanted him to speak. Rudolph Rentzel, attorney, stated he had two issues: The first is that this proposed use does not meet certain zoning requirements; the second is that the Planning Commission did not make certain findings which are required by the Zoning Code. Mr. Rentzel explained that a Day Service Center is allowed in a Commercial/Office District; however, there is nothing in the definition of a DSC which includes permanent facilities such as laundry and showers. He stated that the Zoning Code indicates that laundry and shower facilities are permanent facilities, and temporary emergency shelters will not have permanent facilities such as laundry and showers. He stated that he felt it would be a good idea to use some of the standards of a permanent emergency shelter which include that establishment of emergency shelters for the homeless do not adversely impact adjacent lots or the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that is important, and one of the concerns of people present. Mr. Rentzel noted that the Zoning Code also requires for any conditional Use Permit that one of the findings which has to be made is that the proposed use will not be materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. He stated that the findings by the Planning staff contained no such findings. He noted the only finding which is similar is that the project design will not be injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, but it did not mention the proposed use being injurious. Mr. Rentzel noted that as to the project design, the only thing it says in the findings is that because it is of a temporary nature and will be screened behind a fence. He stated that the decision by the Planning Commission should be overruled on this basis alone, that this finding has to be made, and it should be returned for further consideration of evidence from some of the surrounding businesses that this proposal would be injurious to the surrounding properties and to the vicinity. Mr. Rentzel noted that the HCC did not have a Use Permit since 1973; and when they converted to an office, which use does not need a Use Permit most of the time - Ritter House is much more than an office use, and Mr. Foley has observed evidence which suggests that Ritter House allows people to stay there overnight, and that is not included in any Use Permits since 1992. Mr. Rentzel recommended that the proposal be returned to the Planning Commission, to make a specific finding as to whether the project as proposed would be injurious to the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 14 surrounding properties and vicinity. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 15 Mr. Tony Diosi, a commercial real estate agent with H & L Commercial Real Estate, a member of the Downtown Community Plan Steering Committee and a member of the Board of Directors of the Business Improvement District, presented petitions to the City Clerk. He then stated it does not make sense to expand services to the homeless in Marin County in the County's central business district. He stated that since Downtown San Rafael is handling a problem which belongs to every community in Marin County, it makes more sense to provide the services at the County's Civic Center area without having a negative affect on the local business community. Mr. Diosi stated that helping the homeless there would have the least impact on the area. He recommended that the second choice would be within the confines of one or more of our industrial areas, such as Northgate and the Canal areas. He noted there will be opposition to be expected from any area, but the City should have the facilities in areas which are the least negatively impacted. Mr. Diosi noted that in the industrial areas the people would not be intimidated by the homeless. Mr. Diosi stated he would be glad to volunteer to serve on a committee to find Ritter House a site to their advantage without causing substantial hardship to their neighbors. He asked, why would our civic leaders be willing to further disrupt Downtown San Rafael's business operators, property owners, work force and patrons, in exchange for a temporary solution to Marin County's homeless population? Dr. Sorokin stated he would like to sum up the issues, because their backs were to the wall. He cited the probability of diminished property values. He stated all of the ten stores which are his tenants are suffering, and one is bankrupt. He noted that he has respect and compassion for Mr. Simon, and realizes he has a handicap, but asked what will happen if he rejects an alcohol or drug abuser from his facility, and where they will go? He informed the Council that his group is willing to work with them, but asked that they not rubber-stamp this ill-advised approval by the Planning Commission. He stated our future is at stake. Mayor Boro noted that the Appellants have taken 25 minutes for their presentation, and Mr. Simon may have that much time if he wishes. Mr. Rob Simon, Director of the Human Concern Center, stated that people do not stay overnight at the HCC. He stated they were not a hotel, as had been identified in some letters. He explained HCC has been providing emergency services to low income families for 13 years. He also explained that what they are trying to do is set up a Day Services Center for people to have a place to go to the bathroom. He noted there is no place in Downtown San Rafael for someone to go to the bathroom. He explained they want to have a place for people to do their laundry, for people to get a start back into life. He noted Dr. Sorokin's reference to his disability, and stated that for years people with disabilities were called the handicapped, the crippled, the disabled. He stated that for years they fought to become people with disabilities, and he wants people to remember that we are talking about people who do not have housing. He stated we are talking about homeless human beings who needed help. Mr. Simon referred to an April Marin Independent -Journal article about a young girl living at Bermuda Palms with her mother and attending San Rafael High School, who managed to get a trip to Hawaii. He explained that was the sort of person they wanted to help, and have been helping for 13 years. Mr. Simon reported that he had walked up and down Fourth Street, from Highway 101 to "E" Street, when he saw the fliers that Bob Berry had put out, which he knew were not the truth. The fliers said they were trying to open another soup kitchen and homeless shelter, and was confusing to many people in the Downtown area. He also went on many of the side streets, and went into many businesses, and found that the entire Downtown San Rafael was not opposed to this project. He stated he found a lot of support, and collected signatures from 32 businesses in the Downtown, 19 from the Kiwanis Club and 701 signatures from San Rafael residents. He gave them to the City Clerk. Mr. Simon added that they had set up a booth at the Farmers' Market to talk to people about the plans, and in all the time he was there no one expressed fear to him about being in the Downtown area. He stated that 990 of the people thought the DSC was a good idea. Mr. Simon reported that he had spoken with the San Rafael Police Department and the head of the Police Association, to let them know about the proposal. Also, he had gone to Palo Alto to visit their Day Center, similar to the one being planned. He stated it is as close to the Downtown area as this one is proposed to be. He added that what they have learned to do down there is work with the business community. There were similar centers in Santa Rosa, Richmond and San Francisco. Mr. Simon stated it was ludicrous to think they will attract people from the areas where they already have services. He explained this was a self-help facility for people to shower, do their wash and talk with counselors, to help people get up and out. He noted it was not a hangout facility, and it will take a person about an hour to take care of their cleanup, and another hour to talk with a SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 16 counselor. He stated they will be working with strict rules and will have appointments for people. Mr. Simon stated he had spoken with Dr. Tom Pierce, the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 16 Page 17 head of the Health and Human Services, on a weekly basis and someone from agreement with job training people staff how to do job referrals. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 and they are working toward having a nurse on duty the Mental Health services. He added he has an so they will have a presence there and teach the Mr. Simon stated they will have security. They have room for a night watchperson, and the Planning Commission has recommended that they have security. He reported he sent a letter to the Business Improvement District (BID) and talked to several Downtown business people who would be willing to serve on an oversight committee. He noted that this process has been very public, all the way through and was an outcome of the San Rafael Task Force with the public involved all the way along. Mr. Simon stated that as they have gone through this process, he and Sue Brown, his associate at HCC, have found they have had older people coming in asking for help, and that is the kind of person they want to provide services for, people who have spent their lives in this County and for a variety of reasons have found themselves homeless. He mentioned the major causes of homelessness as domestic violence, loss of jobs, loss of a financial partner, and alcohol and drug problems. He stated they help about 1,300 people per month, and of that about 15% were people who were homeless, which amounts to about 200 people. Mr. Simon stated this would be a goal -oriented service. People will come in, go through an intake process, they would set up a plan and give them time when they come in for their showers and laundry facilities. He stated he has run shelters before and has a good idea of how they can have a very tight program. In conclusion, Mr. Simon urged the Council to see this as a service to help human beings get out of a very desperate situation. He noted that as he went through Downtown many people were confused about what was being planned because of the propaganda which was passed out. He mentioned a letter in the agenda packets, from Mr. Caletti who represented the property adjacent to Ritter House, from City Car Radio and Walters Union '76 Station. He was not clear about what they were doing at the moment, and was talking about them being a hotel. He pointed out that many people did not understand what was going on, and that was the reason he took the time to walk the entire length of Fourth Street. Mr. Simon asked Mr. Jim Phoenix to read a letter received from Greg Borelli of San Rafael Loan. The letter responded to innuendos in the flier circulated (by the BID), "Help Save Downtown San Rafael". The letter noted that with the increase in the City's Hispanic population, the Mayor had visited a successful program in Brea, California, and public meetings were held in which all sides of the issue were debated. It stated that as the Mayor took action in a very pro -active manner he is suddenly castigated with the limp threat of recall, and this scenario repeats itself with the furor over the Downtown homeless center. Mr. Borelli stated he has been a merchant on Fourth Street for 22 years and has been involved in the homeless since 1988 and felt qualified to offer his unsolicited opinion on the impact of such a center downtown. He noted that Marin County, California, America, and indeed the entire world, was metaphorically just one paycheck away from the position of many of Ritter House's clients find themselves in. He stated that knowing this, it was pretentious to take an "us and them" position. He noted that many of those who complain do not offer intelligent or humanistic solutions, and they continue to be part of the problem. NIMBY is again the battle cry. He stated that as the gap continues to widen between the "haves" and "have nots" desperate people take desperate actions. He stated the family of man is all-inclusive, and he asked that the Council continue to celebrate our unique City by supporting the Human Concern Center. Mayor Boro stated the Council would now take public comment, rotating between those Pro and Con. Marie Shapiro briefed a letter from Karin Morris, Coordinator of the Marin Countywide Coalition on Homelessness, offering strong support for the HCC's proposal for the DSC, which will meet the critical needs of the homeless community in San Rafael. The letter stressed various positive points, such as providing people with an off-street site where their energy and time can be spent constructively; providing them with access to critical resources which they need in maintaining their sense of self - dignity and to find permanent housing and employment. The letter stated that the argument that the Center would act as a magnet had no basis in anecdotal research evidence, and the argument was a smoke -screen which obscures the moral obligation of a community to take care of those members who are less fortunate and privileged. Betty Hammond, Board member of MUTA (Marin United Taxpayers Association), member of the Canal Area Property and Business Owners Association and now the President of "Stop SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 18 It", which stands for "Stop The Out -of -Control Problems of Immigration Today" SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 19 spoke stating that "Stop It" was formed in January of this year with 126 members and in three months they now have 453 members not just in Marin County, but across California. She stated there is a definite need being recognized in our State out - of -control problem of immigration today. She stated they are not opposed to any services being offered to American citizens with taxpayers' money, but "Stop It" does object to those services which are given to illegal aliens in our society who, by legal definition, are criminals. She explained that anyone who enters our country at a point other than that designated by the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) is guilty of a misdemeanor with a $500 fine, one year in jail, or both. She noted that if they are apprehended again it is a felony according to the laws of the United States. Ms. Hammond then read a letter, stating that recently the City had made a decision regarding a Job Center in San Rafael which would provide jobs for illegal aliens who, by definition, were criminals. She stated the second decision is the reason for this public hearing, the establishment of another Ritter House in Downtown San Rafael which, if existing policy is continued, will again aid and abet criminals in our society, since a percentage of Ritter House clients are illegal aliens. She then referred to an article in the Pacific Sun regarding drugs in Marin County which stated that most black tar heroin in Marin is controlled by Mexican and Guatemalan immigrants living in the Canal area. The article also stated that in Sonoma, where a large percentage of Marin's workforce lives, Mexican black tar heroin is everywhere and gangs and gunplay have followed in its wake. Ms. Hammond stated "Stop It" demands that the City Council explain to the citizens of San Rafael their justification for their recent decisions, when they must know the impact of their decisions. She stated that anything which goes against the laws of our nation is a crime. She stated that "Stop It" gives its support to the business people and anyone else in the community who feels they have been impacted by out -of - control problems in the community today. Cyr Miller, of owner of a business on Kerner Boulevard, a director of the West End Neighborhoods Association and a member of the Federation of Neighborhoods, and of the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Community Plan Committee, stated he had previously submitted material in support of the Day Services Center for the Homeless, and asked that on line 5 of the first paragraph, the word "Care" should be deleted. Mr. Miller then summarized his position. He stated that the Day Center for people without homes is not a soup kitchen or shelter; is not a threat to school children; is not a social service which burdens the neighborhood; is not a magnet that draws people downtown; is not the cause of violent or antisocial behavior; is not a government dole for the undeserving; is not incompatible with the downtown retail area; is not a nasty neighbor; is not an eyesore that turns development away; and, is not a sure bet. He stated the Day Center for people without homes is the entry point for the homeless to get on track to employment and housing, to personal and personnel services. He stated it is ideally located in a secluded area away from schools and close by transportation. He stated it is the work of the community in providing efficient and economical strategy to assist the homeless. He stated it will serve the homeless people who are already downtown, but only those who wish help, and are capable of lifting themselves up from adversity. It targets services to those who were homeless by circumstance, not by choice, and is an integral part of the diverse downtown community. He stated it transforms an unkempt used car lot into a landscaped parcel with a portable building enhanced with trellises and facade improvements; draws homeless from the streets and sends them away from the retail area in search of opportunity; and it is a measured, thoughtful, professional approach, contributing to the solution of the problem of the homeless in the downtown. Mr. Miller concluded by stating that the Day Center for the homeless is the right project, in the right place, at the right time. He asked the Council to do the right thing, deny the appeal and support the unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. Mr. Marty Avner stated he has been in business for 25 years, at Electronics Plus. He added he feels he does a lot to contribute to the community. He inquired where did the facts come from, noting someone said the parking was under-utilized, but that was not a fact. He noted that Rob Simon said he had talked to the business people, but not to him. He added that Mr. Simon said he has 32 signatures in favor of the proposal, but Avner has 170 against. He stated he is not against helping the homeless people. He added that somewhere along the line there has to be a definition: What you consider homeless, what they consider bums. He stated that, unfortunately, the bums who take advantage of the nice people are the ones who are bothering the Downtown San Rafael businesses. He said that what Council considers homeless are not the ones who were bothering them, but it was the ones who go there, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 20 get whatever they can get, and the next thing you know they are on Lincoln, and on Fourth, and wherever, begging people for what they can get. He stated he has even SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 21 offered a couple of them jobs, and they refused, since they could make more just standing on the street bothering people. He asked that the two issues not be confused. He stated that what has happened here, was that you are grouping homeless with what we consider to be the problem. The problem is not so much the homeless, and he does not see a problem with the illegals, and he has never seen them begging or bothering people; but it is the people who come from the other services, and he has pictures of them sleeping in the back of the Ritter House. He stated those are the people who come after they get fed, bothering people in the Downtown and other areas, and causing problems for the business people. He asked that this not be allowed to continue. Ms. Linda King, a member of the Board of Directors of the Human Concern Center, stated they did not want to confuse the issue, and if Council does not approve this Center the people they would hurt were the homeless, not the bums. Mrs. Sandy Lollini, President of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA) which borders the Downtown, read a letter on behalf of the Board of Directors of GPNA. She stated the purpose of the letter was to offer formal opposition for the expansion and alteration of the HCC into a Day Services Center. She stated the continued decline of the retail base has been of acute concern to the Gerstle Park neighborhood. Since the neighborhood borders the Downtown, she noted the decline affects the quality of the neighborhood environment. She pointed out the transition of the Downtown from a retail base to a social service base. She noted that while many of them, Centerpoint, the Free Dining Room, and Ritter House, provide a valuable service, they did not generate taxable sales. She stated that while San Rafael is making a vigorous attempt to attract new retail facilities, they believed that the expansion of another social service agency sends the wrong message to potential new Downtown business. She noted the decline in retail sales, and with the proposed parcel tax it would be irresponsible to allow the expansion of another social service program. In conclusion, Mrs. Lollini stated they appreciated the humanitarian concept of providing multi -tiered social service programs - food, shelter, clothing and counseling for the needy; however, they did not appreciate the concentration of these programs in San Rafael, specifically Downtown. She stated that such a concentration is not conducive to the economic health of the Downtown retail base. She stated these retailers are the taxable base from which the City draws income to support programs which provide for the needs of all San Rafael citizens. Mr. Daniel Soulman, a Gerstle Park resident and member of the Central Committee of the Green Party of Marin, stated he works and shops in San Rafael and his children go to Davidson School. He stated he does not shop in the malls. Mr. Soulman stated his grandparents came here with nothing, but got through because their friends and neighbors helped them out. He stated that is what makes a community. He noted we are a community if we reach out to those who have less than us in our community, and give them a hand when we know they need it. If we do not do that, we are not a community; we are just a warehouse of people who do not know each other. He stated we are not talking about just the homeless; we are talking about human beings who are part of our community and who are not going to go away. They live here, even though they do not have a roof over their heads. He stated that homelessness can go away if we give people a chance and a job. He noted it is hard to get a job if you cannot get a shower. He stated he agrees with what people have said about it not being all concentrated in San Rafael, and noted that Novato and Corte Madera and other cities should be doing their share. He stated that this Center, with 40 people as a goal, is a drop in the bucket, but we need to start here and we need to push the other communities in Marin to do their share, too. He stated he would ask everyone here tonight to think about where your grandparents were during the depression, or when they came here. Who helped them out? If you ever had a friend or family member who was destitute, how did they get by? They worked because someone gave them a job. That is all we are asking for tonight. Mr. Roy Oakley, owner of four pieces of property in San Rafael, all within walking distance of City Hall and Ritter House, stated that someone mentioned the Ritter House people walking through their parking lot. He stated that even though they have a security guard, people will park there anyway. He said he went down to buy paint and could not get out of the lot because of the people around Ritter House. He stated he thinks the Council is being hoodwinked. They are talking about 40 people a day, but one morning there were 40 people at least, and 6 or 7 cars. He stated his property was burglarized and people are sleeping in Boyd Park and San Rafael Hill. He noted the people looking for work on Lincoln Avenue, and stated the Council should look into this business of 40 people, because there will be a lot more than that. Mr. Oakley mentioned that Ritter Street was named after his wife's father, and if Council SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 22 let this happen it would be a sad day for San Rafael. He stated that he SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 23 walked across town and was panhandled twice. He walked through San Rafael at 5:30 AM and there were homeless sleeping all over. He stated that a lot of people need help, but this is not the way to get it to them. He stated he thought they would have these people walking all over town. He stated he did not go into Perry's on Lincoln Avenue any more because there are too many vagrants standing around. Mr. Joseph O'Shaughnessy, resident of San Anselmo, stated he has seen mention that the homeless are illegal aliens and vagrants. He noted the Ritter House clients are in most cases long-time residents and for many it is the first time they are requesting help, many of them because of spousal abuse or broken homes. He stated that if people are concerned about people urinating in the streets, it would be better to have a facility with bathrooms. He noted they needed to be clean to get a job. He noted that in Bel Marin Keys we have a million dollar facility to take care of animals, and we can not take care of the people. He asked that the Council seriously consider allowing this project. Mike Daffeo, owner of City Car Radio, stated that their property is used as a passageway and parking lot, and he is accosted daily when he comes to work. He noted that Mr. Simon says no one sleeps there, but there was a fire some years ago in a home-made shack, with someone sleeping there. He asked the Council to reconsider, since this proposal is affecting all the businesses in the area, and he considers half of the loss of his business to these people. He stated they have destroyed a couple of cars which he actually had to repair. He added that their present building is all being done on a volunteer basis, with no independent contractor. He stated that what is going on in this area is very embarrassing, not only for the men but also for the women. Mr. Frank Scott, who lives Downtown, stated he had been at meetings here four times recently, with good people being divided because of local government having to react and come up with a short-term solution to massive national problems. He stated that the longer they try to solve these things by fighting with one another and not understanding that these are national problems, the more trouble they are going to have. He urged the people present to consider how much of this is related to the nation, and that they have to deal with problems of poverty and people who are homeless and people who are vagrants, and people who are drunk, because of breakdowns nationally. He cited the way Germany was dealing with their problem by allocating substantial funds for repairing their infrastructure, and that our government is attempting to do the same but is being opposed. He stated that if this Ritter House extension becomes a magnet, it would be a better magnet which would allow people to come in and take showers and do laundry. He stated we should not take this facility away from the people who would use it, and he hoped the Council would approve this proposal because all of us will benefit by helping those who need it. Mr. Mario Ghilotti, resident for 70 years and local businessman, stated he does not think they are arguing the merits of Ritter House. He pointed out the projects in San Rafael such as Martinelli House, Rotary Manor and Centertown to house low income people. Also, there is the Dining Room on "B" Street. He stated that San Rafael property owners and businessmen can hold their heads up high. He stated this is a County problem and noted he owns property on Fourth Street, as well as being a businessman in San Rafael. He noted that recently the City spent $200,000 on a consultant to help Fourth Street, and now we are going to put a Ritter House type situation very close to Fourth Street, and probably close to the PG&E site which may, some day, give us some tax money. He stated we all knew the City of San Rafael has never been as broke as it is now, and we are looking at citizens and taxpayers who have businesses which the City relies on, not only for the money those employers and employees spend here, but also these businessmen here are probably the biggest contributors to various charities. He stated that shows they are not against the homeless or Hispanic people, or anybody else, as long as they do what is right and obey the laws. He noted there was mention of having a place where they could talk about job placement, and noted they have an employment office here already. He stated that with this facility and the proposed Job Center, there are three places they could go to find employment, and he thought they have to think of the businessmen and not the concept. He stated this could be put in Novato where it belongs, or Tiburon or Belvedere or Kent Woodlands. He stated he thinks San Rafael has done its share and we have to think about the businessmen on Fourth Street. He implored the Council not to listen to the Planning Commission's idea, but think of the Fourth Street business people. Mr. Rick Beeman, President of the Board of the HCC and Chairman of the Ross Valley Commission on Homelessness, stated that San Rafael was now carrying its burden pretty much alone. However, Novato is opening a Day Services Center and Ross Valley is working on one, both of these with the same profile as this one being proposed. He SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 24 stated that Ross Valley is probably looking at a year or so before they would open. Mr. Beeman stated that this kind of program is in the works, and San Rafael will not SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 25 be carrying this burden alone, since there will eventually be five Centers in the County. Mr. Willy Marcaceau, owner of an office building on Lincoln Avenue, stated the homeless have been breaking into the toilet, and into the office to sleep. He noted they had not been stealing, just sleeping. He stated his janitor was threatened by one who said he was a U.S. citizen and could sleep anywhere he wants. He stated they live by the railroad tracks, and break his fence and leave bottles around. He added he has called the police seven times, but could never identify anyone. He stated this proposed facility should be somewhere else, because it is too close to Downtown. Ms. Aloha Adams, of WestAmerica Bank, stated she walks on Fourth Street and on Lincoln Avenue early in the morning, and has never been panhandled. She stated there are a number of homeless people who walk up and down "B" Street regularly, going to and from Boyd Park, and her office is located on that street. She stated she has encountered many of them and has never been threatened nor harmed. She asked that the Council please uphold the Planning Commission's approval so people can get the help they need to build a new life and solve this problem. Mayor Boro noted they have had 22 speakers in one and one-half hours, and asked if anyone has anything to speak about which had not already been discussed. Several people indicated they did. Thomas Holden, who is a co-owner of the building at 739 "A" Street, stated he wanted to point out a flaw. He stated that the governmental action here which the Council may affirm erroneously would be arbitrary and capricious, because the Planning Commission, and perhaps the Planners themselves, gave no thought whatsoever to what will happen to these homeless, the disenfranchised people, when the facility closes after 6:00 PM. He stated they have no cars, and the area will be barricaded at night. Where do they go? To the Downtown area - that is the reality. He stated that is the flaw in the plan and he feels it is the reason the Council should overturn the decision of the Planning Commission, because they have ignored the obvious. Ms. Diana Conti, Executive Director of the Novato Human Needs Center, stated they are planning a very similar program to the HCC's and they are in the process of putting together a Day Services Center. She stated they have a site, approved by the City Council, and they were working on the funding. They feel the implementation is about six months away. She noted she is also working with the Mayor of Novato on a task force for the relocation of World College West. She urged the Council to support this proposal, and noted that every community wants to do something about the problem, and every community is afraid to, but if we do not do anything it will not go away, and the bottom line is that this kind of service works because it gives people the tools they need to build a new life and solve the problem. Mr. Don Landworth, who used to work Downtown until this year, and is now an independent businessman, stated he is opposed to the plan. He complained about the women being tolerated, standing around Bellam Boulevard, selling their bodies. He stated he took issue with the Planning Department when they were expanding their home on San Rafael Hill and were told they had to have lattice to screen the deck from the neighbors, although there are no neighbors above the house. He stated they reported a fire about one and one-half years ago and no one responded, and they almost lost their house. Mr. Landworth noted that the City recently spent a lot of time on signage at the entrances to the City, and next to the signs are people panhandling. He added they walk away after getting money, and leave their litter and garbage. He stated Council should get rid of the Centers because we are attracting the wrong people. He stated he loves to get out of this area, to the beautiful towns, because San Rafael looks like a garbage dump, and he does not like what he has seen. He said it is the same mistake, after the same mistake. He stated we should stop it here. Mr. Warren Newton, owner of property in Gerstle Park on Francis Street, stated a few years ago the convalescent home was being converted to a drug rehabilitation center and the neighborhood objected. He stated he came to the meeting and decided there was a definite need for the rehabilitation center and he did not object. He stated there has been no problem whatsoever with the rehabilitation center, and perhaps these people will change their minds. Mr. Gene Yates stated that until recently he was the owner of commercial property in San Rafael. He noted the poor will always be with us. He stated the things these people are opposing are that we were trying to keep the people off the streets and do something for the City. He stated the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this, and he hoped the Council would too. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 25 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 26 Ms. Gale Viera, owner of a record shop in San Rafael, stated she does not think anyone feels that people without a roof over their heads should not have an opportunity, but she has spoken to many business people and there are at least 10 or 12 who are planning to leave the area. She stated that women customers do not want to walk in the area around Third and "B" Streets. Ms. Viera noted that years ago the Independent -Journal had an article saying the soup kitchen was going to be relocated, but it is still there. She noted that customers say they feel safer walking around San Francisco than in her shop, with panhandlers coming in daily. She stated this is a City which is really suffering. Mr. Brian Cahill stated he has lived in San Rafael quite a few years, and the real problem here is that they are all very frustrated because what has been happening is beyond our control. He noted the problems commencing with closing of the mental hospitals by Governor Reagan, and illegal aliens being arrested. He stated if an illegal action is taking place the police should be called. He stated that Ritter House will help people. They are not responsible for illegals, or all the ills we have in our society, not only in Downtown San Rafael, but in every schoolyard in the area. He stated he works in San Francisco and it is worse there. He urged the Council to approve the proposal. Maurice Hahn, a San Rafael resident and Manager of the House of Brakes on Second Street, right next to Ritter House, stated that no one has mentioned he had to come down in the middle of the night because people were breaking into customers' cars and they had to call the Police Department many times. He added that he had to pay for the damages done to his customers' cars. Also, in the mornings he has to be there and pick up all the stuff those people picked up at Ritter House and apparently they did not like it so they throw it in his lot. He stated he wished the Council could discontinue all of that. Ms. Jean Taylor, a resident of San Rafael for 30 years and Chair of the Marin Commission on Homelessness, as well as San Rafael's Advisory Committee for Homeless and formerly served on the Task Force in San Rafael, stated she is here both as a citizen of San Rafael and as a Commissioner to encourage the Council to endorse this proposal. She stated the Commission itself endorsed it as one of the essential services which needs to be provided in this community to assist the homeless in moving beyond homelessness. She stated she understands the fears which are coming from the community, and explained that in the research which was very diligently and painstakingly done by the task forces, commissions and advisory committees, they talked with the communities in which similar services are now being provided. Every Community had experienced the same fear that we are experiencing; however, they are three, five and 10 years ahead of us so they could tell us what has happened since they had the courage to go ahead and put such services in their communities. She stated that Santa Rosa, Palo Alto and East Bay communities have all said that citizens and business community leaders were afraid that it would be a magnet and would bring an unsavory element into their communities and ruin businesses. Ms. Taylor reported that in talking to these people, they have all explained that now, three, five and 10 years later, people are working to help support these centers because they see the good work which has been accomplished and they realize that their fears luckily were not founded. Ms. Taylor stated that this proposal is a significant case of the essential services that the Commission has supported throughout the County, and she has heard from both Novato and the Ross Valley corridor that they, too, are going forward, but they are not as far along in their planning as the San Rafael group is. She stated that once again San Rafael has had the courage and the leadership to do it first and Council was to be commended for getting it to this stage. Ms. Taylor stated that in addition to the proposed services being offered by the DSC, they were hoping it will provide the homeless and those at risk of being homeless with a greater sense of self worth, dignity, and hope. She stated there are lots of different faces of the homeless, and most of them are not the ones that we see on Fourth Street, or "B" Street, or Lincoln Avenue. She stated most of them are young people whose lives have been destroyed because of job loss, illness, and other things which have compounded to put them in a situation where they no longer can afford to have a home for their families. She stated that, unfortunately, we cannot help everybody, and the vagrants will still be there because they would not want to avail themselves of these services. Ms. Taylor stated she feels it is really important that we put faces with these people - they are our people - the statistics bear that out. So, she is asking the Council, and praising them at the same time, for having the courage and leadership to look into this and support it because throughout the history of the world, the United States, and even sometimes the history of this community, there have been those who have been disenfranchised, misunderstood and despised. She stated she hopes the Council has SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 26 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 27 the courage and leadership to support this proposal so that the people of San Rafael can be recognized as a community where our compassion is greater than our fears. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 27 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 28 Mayor Boro noted that we have heard 31 speakers in 2 hours, and said we will have two more speakers. Mr. John Callahan stated he is a two-year resident of San Rafael and noted that while they were talking historically, the first order of government is the protection of property. He stated he is concerned because the speakers were talking about the issue of homelessness, but they were not from the private sector and the private sector drives everything. He stated all of the people who spoke were essentially from nonprofit organizations and, while all of us might have ideals, they introduced themselves as being associated with them. Mayor Boro explained that does not mean that they essentially work there. Mr. Callahan stated that the point he was making was that as a father of two children he is concerned about the proximity of the schools to a homeless center, only because it is our first obligation as parents to protect the innocence of our children, and we all know that one or two encounters with someone who is basically much larger physically and may be much more aggressive can traumatize a child. He stated his point is that we must protect the values of our properties and our community so that the revenue generation amply provides for the human ideal. Mr. Rich Bottarini, a landowner, thanked the staff for a very concise report with specific findings and conditions which are related to this application. He stated we have heard a lot of testimony this evening and as one speaker said, the issue is not really Ritter House, but the homeless. He stated the Use Permit process is actually the Ritter House and the use before Council. He noted the Appellant has indicated that in Council's opinion, the use is permitted in the area. That is a major threshold and once we have resolved that issue that it is a use which can be permitted in the area, it is Council's job to determine what conditions are appropriate to the use, California State land use -wise, which are very specific on this. He noted that staff has come up with numerous conditions of approval, and actually did their job very well and took into account all possibilities which could occur on the site. He noted they asked for a six-month review. Mr. Bottarini noted that the Appellant has not appealed the conditions, and the Use Permit is the issue before Council. He noted the temporary use is not long enough to amortize the property in three years. Mr. Bottarini asked the Council to provide for the long term goals for the City and approve this with the long term goals. He requested that the Council approve the Use Permit and override the Appeal. Mr. Chuck Foy, manager of a business on Fourth Street, noted that the Ad Hoc Committee says they are representing the merchants, but he knew nothing of this until he received the flier from the BID. He stated Mr. Simon had come in and they talked. Mr. Foy stated Mr. Simon has a right to do his thing, but he did not want the Council to think everyone here was aware of it. He stated economically times have been hard, and the last quarter was the best for him in two years. He stated that the homeless are not interferring with his business. He noted that he is block captain for a bike ride in July and was notified already, but for this proposal he was not. (The meeting adjourned for a five-minute break.) Mr. John Foley described his video, stating that it was taken three days last week, four hours each, and it is a visual performance and exhibit of exactly what is going on at Ritter House. He stated there is a misrepresentation of numbers of the people being served by Ritter House, and the 1,200 per month would break down to 40 people per day. Mayor Boro stated he feels Mr. Foley misunderstood the numbers. He noted Mr. Simon explained they served 1,300 families per month. Mr. Foley responded that, regardless of these numbers, they are serving hundreds of people a day. He stated this has been here forever, and in all of the Planning Commission studies and meetings he has attended, we are not going to have 40 people per day, plus 40; we are going to have 100 to 250 people per day, plus 40. He stated the Council cannot make this decision based on the numbers Mr. Simon has produced since they are not correct, and he suggested this be reviewed before Council made a decision. Mayor Boro addressed City Attorney Ragghianti, noting that the attorney for the Appellant had brought up a point earlier in the proceedings about findings and zoning codes, etc. He asked for comment on those issues. City Attorney Ragghianti responded that when a matter comes to the Council on appeal from the Planning Commission, it comes to the Council in what we call a de novo posture, which means that the Council has the right to hear this matter as it has this evening, as though the Commission never heard it, so the Planning Commission's decision really loses all legal significance except for historical perspective as to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 28 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 29 what they did. He added that Council has the right to grant this appeal or deny this appeal, or to modify what the Planning Commission did, if it chooses to do so on the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 29 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 30 basis of the evidence hears this evening. He added that the findings which are required in order to grant the Use Permit are set forth in our Zoning Code. Mr. Ragghianti called attention to Section 14.22.080(b) which reads in part, Land use requires a finding that the use is not materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity". He stated that if it is the consensus of the Council to deny the appeal, he would recommend that the Council include that finding as is required in our code, in rendering its decision. Mayor Boro asked for comments or questions from the Council. Councilmember Breiner stated that issue was her main concern. However, she also had questions for Mr. Simon, and was curious about a need for a microwave on the premises if they are not serving food. Also, she asked how many at one time would be accommodated? She stated she understood there would be appointments, but people may come in without actually having an appointment to use the facilities or put their clothes away. Mr. Simon explained that the microwave was in the first proposal, and he left it in because the person living on the premises would use it. However, only coffee will be served to clients. In response to the question about numbers served, Mr. Simon stated they could have 10 people at a time in the facility, and probably would not have more than that. Councilmember Thayer stated, for the record, Mr. Simon had stated they serve 1,300 families per month. Mr. Simon agreed, stating that is 1,300 families, which is more than 1,300 people. Councilmember Thayer then inquired, what control would they have if this is approved, about people who are not desirable? She noted that when World College West had their program they had a lot of controls and a regular program designed to prevent some problems. Mr. Simon responded that he had met with John Wilson-Bugbee, Chris Harrison and Bob Puett, who put that program together, about their intake process where staff sits down with a person. He noted that, obviously, some people are going to come in to use the bathroom. He added that since there are no bathrooms in Downtown San Rafael they will not be denied that simple service to people. He stated that for people who really want to get involved and have a regular appointment, shower time and working through the program, HCC staff will sit down with them, get them involved with the job training people, have regular counseling time, and regular shower and laundry time. He stated they are in the process of working out that whole system right now. Councilmember Thayer then inquired, how would Mr. Simon control the numbers, since there is a lot of fear in the Downtown community that this will be just another stopping off place for the people who are using the soup kitchen, and that the people will just be shuffling back and forth across the Downtown area. She asked how would Mr. Simon address the capacity issue? Mr. Simon responded that it would be difficult to accommodate more than 40 people a day. He noted there was a rule sheet included in the agenda packets, which a person will sign when they enter the program, which will say they will participate in the rules which include no loitering, no panhandling, no coming and going except at appointed times, so that they will not have people just wandering in and out. He noted there will be a security person there to enforce that. Councilmember Thayer stated she knows there will be people coming in for basic things such as phone calls, etc., and asked if there will be a limit on the amount of time that one individual can use the facility? Mr. Simon inquired if she was referring to about a 15 minute stay, and Mrs. Thayer stated that was the long range, but she was thinking of the short term. Mr. Simon stated that would be a couple of hours, taking a shower and doing laundry and talking to a job counselor or meeting with a nurse or mental health person. Councilmember Thayer noted that someone had said the soup kitchen was going to send food over to the Center. Mr. Simon responded that sometime ago the subject came up, but he met with the St. Vincent de Paul people and told them we have no intention of serving food. He noted that is a condition from the Planning Commission. He added he does not want to get involved with food. Councilmember Thayer inquired if Mr. Simon has any idea of the number of calls to the Police, over the years? Mr. Simon stated that from January 1, 1991 to March 15th of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 30 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 31 this year there were 66 calls, everything from abandoned cars to people they had to ask to leave. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 31 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 32 Mayor Boro stated he had one concern in reading through the conditions, when this Service Center was talked about it was for people who want to help themselves. He stated he is interested in knowing how World College West tracked their clients to see who had made a success. Mr. Simon responded that with World College West there was a large number of people employed and assumably received housing. He stated he intends to track the clients and give the City the information within six months. Mayor Boro inquired, how do they intend to run the Center? He stated he assumes it will not be a place for people to hang out, but to get their act together and get along with their lives. Mr. Simon stated that is correct. Councilmember Breiner observed that if you have more than 40 people, how will you decide who to help? Mr. Simon replied first it will be women and children, people who did not have any alternatives, and then people who are working through the job training program - those who have an actual plan. If we have more than we can accommodate, the 40 people, that is how we will prioritize. Mrs. Breiner inquired if there would be any prioritizing for people who are long term residents of San Rafael? Mr. Simon responded this is seen as a Center for San Rafael residents, and they hoped to serve San Rafael residents, to the best of our ability. Mrs. Breiner inquired, will you be asking for their background? Mr. Simon replied they will be asked where they were born and how long they have been living in Marin, and how long they have lived in San Rafael. Mrs. Breiner then asked if the Oversight Committee will give a report to the Council? Mr. Simon replied they will be setting up a system of tracking all of the information, and if the Council adopts the same conditions as the Planning Commission, they must provide a report at the end of the six-month period. Councilmember Shippey noted that the Appellant's attorney had addressed two points and City Attorney Ragghianti had addressed only one of them. He asked Mr. Ragghianti about the issue that the Use Permit applied for included permanent facilities which are not allowed under the existing Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ragghianti stated he does not agree with that, and during the intermission he had talked with the Planning Director. He stated he thinks the attorney was attempting to take some of the definitions in continuing portions of the City code which deal with permanent shelters. He stated this is a Day Services Center, and there is a definition in our code with regard to that, and he would like the Planning Director to respond to that. Planning Director Pendoley stated that a Day Services Center is simply described as a program which provides a wide variety of counseling referrals and other non-medical interim services daily to more than 12 persons. Councilmember Shippey inquired of Mr. Pendoley if this is well secured so it will not turn into another soup kitchen? Mr. Pendoley responded that the St. Vincent de Paul kitchen is a free dining room and does not require a Use Permit because it was not required when it was started. He explained that this facility will require a Use Permit and certain reports are required as long as it is operating. He noted there will be a review period of six months, and the Planning Commission is also requiring an Oversight Committee to be approved by the Planning Commission, as well as the charge to the Committee, and will include a series of status reports. The Planning Commission will determine how well it has or has not worked, and if additional conditions should be added. He noted that Mr. Simon will have to bring back a report on the number of people served and details of the operations. Mr. Pendoley reported that the Zoning Ordinance you have today gives you a full set of controls. The Planning Commission has gone through this and developed a thorough set of conditions, and the Council has the ability to apply more over time if they think they need to. Mayor Boro stated that someone had asked during the break how many phone calls Council had received. He stated there were quite a few phone calls, both at home and at City Hall, and we have a list of all the phone calls received at City Hall, both pro and con. He added we have received a substantial amount of correspondence on the subject, both pro and con, and he has personally read every letter and is sure the rest of the Councilmembers have. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 32 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 33 Mayor Boro stated this is obviously a highly emotional issue with a lot of people, on both sides, and what we are trying to do here is get to the truth, and attempt to do SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 33 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 34 something which is right for this community and fair to everyone in this community. Mayor Boro stated he really believes that is what this Council is going to attempt to do. Mayor Boro stated that over the past several weeks he had met with a few of the merchants who have reported that our Downtown is dying, that it is going to pot, and people have said that tonight. He stated he has been told that he, personally, and this Council are trying to destroy the Downtown. He stated he personally does not believe that at all. He noted we have four goals for this City which we have agreed to as a Council. One of them is the continuation and success of our Downtown. He stated Council saw that as the heart of our City, and to that end we started two years ago on the Downtown Plan. He noted that Councilmember Thayer and he have served on that committee. He stated they have a Vision for this Downtown and he believed they have a very strong Downtown. Mayor Boro stated we have a number of new businesses coming into Downtown recently, which he was sure the audience was aware of. He stated they have had the Royal Ground Coffee Shop, Larry's, a Brew Pub opening up and have a Billiard Parlor. He stated we have also had people investing a lot of money into these businesses. He added he has statistics given to him by Macy's Manager, and noted the Independent -Journal article about Macy's moving across the street, and stated that Macy's on that site on the south side of Fourth Street, out of 52 similar home centers in that entire chain, ranks No. 8 in gross sales. He stated it indicates to him that somebody must be coming Downtown, if that 30,000 sq. ft. location can generate that kind of volume in a chain as big as Macy's. He added he believes there are only two downtown centers left in the Macy's entire chain. He noted someone said earlier that people are going to the malls but someone is obviously coming downtown. He stated that when he spoke to Macy's Manager he was told that one department in the store had ranked No. 4 out of 52, and another department had ranked No. 7. Mayor Boro stated that Macy's made a choice, and decided for whatever reason, they did not want to stay in dry goods nor clothing, but wanted to stay where they would make money and apparently are making money in the stereo equipment, the carpets, home sales, the sheets and bedding. He stated that when he hears the merchants say people are not coming into Downtown, that does not track. He stated the Macy's experience means that some people are coming Downtown, and what it might also mean was that some of the property owners and some of the businesses might have to change what they are doing. He stated the City cannot tell you how to run your businesses and all he could tell you is that it is the role of the City to make our streets safe and create an environment where people will like to come and shop. He stated he has talked to merchants on Fourth Street who have said they are doing well. He added he also knows that some merchants are not doing well, but noted this country is in a major recession. He stated that with the new businesses coming in and with the Rafael Theatre about to be rehabilitated and reopened, it seems to him that Downtown is vital and alive. Mayor Boro stated the next question is: Does this use cause the City a problem? He referred to Dr. Sorokin's comment earlier, and stated that what he had said to him was that he finds it ironic - he had not said this, but had been told - that the prior administration never did anything and that is why we have all the problems. He stated this administration is trying to do something and is being criticized for doing something. He stated that all he is trying to say is, he feels we had best try, in view of this issue, to treat these people, because if they did nothing the homeless are not going to go away. He added that this is an approach to deal with the problem. Mayor Boro stated he has some concerns regarding the Human Concern Center, and he has discussed them privately with Mr. Simon and will say it again tonight. He stated he is concerned about the homeless people and the attitude which is being displayed. He noted there are people who do not want help, for whatever reason. He stated we should not support that lifestyle in this City. He added that as far as he is concerned, when a City has the services we have, we should have in the stores signs we have seen in stores in other cities, saying, "Do Not Support Panhandling. If Someone Needs Help, Here is Where to go:. . .". He said we should not make it comfortable for people who do not want to help themselves, to get help. He added he is looking for a success rate if this goes through, and that things are getting better and that it is actually working. He stated he does not want to hear that someone who has been there for one and one-half years keeps coming back. He stated that after a certain period of time, people should move on with their lives, or try something else, but he is looking for this concept to really help people who want help to get their lives going. In reply to a question from the audience, Mayor Boro stated that if the Council is willing to endorse the concept as brought to the Council by the Planning Commission, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 34 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 35 he would suggest rather than a six-month review period that we have a review period every six months for the two years of this particular operation. He stated he feels it is important that we continue to monitor on an ongoing basis, and that we hold hearings to hear results and see the results. He stated that if the Council is so inclined to approve this proposal, he would support it if we can have a review period for the two-year projected life cycle of this operation. Councilmember Breiner stated we have heard a lot tonight, and everyone's opinion has carried a lot of weight. She stated they have had conflicting opinions, obviously, but everyone has heard all of the arguments, pro and con, and she wanted to repeat that they were here tonight, to a certain extent, because the suggestion for such a Day Service Center grew out of the Blue Ribbon Committee which was an inter - jurisdictional group with members of Councils throughout the County, and this was not something which came from San Rafael residents alone. This is a Committee that looked at the needs of the homeless throughout the County and came up with the idea for the five service centers needed in the County. She added that San Rafael has moved more quickly than the other communities. Mrs. Breiner stated that one of her concerns was that, ideally, such a facility would be farther away from the Downtown. She stated that the worries many businessmen and women have raised are legitimate. She stated she would suggest a six-month Use Permit, because that was a very short leash and gives us the chance to see very quickly if it is not being run properly, if it is not achieving its goal, and if there is a problem then in six months Council will assess the impact on the community at that time, what it is doing to the neighborhood, and Council will then get a chance to say it is not working. On the contrary, she noted, if it is well run and is achieving the goals Council wanted to see achieved, then everybody will feel much happier. She stated by having a six-month Use Permit as opposed to a two-year Use Permit with a six-month review, then it is a totally different kind of review. She noted if we had to revoke a Use Permit it is a lengthier, more difficult process and she feels that the business community would feel much more comfortable with that type of Use Permit because it would build in the accountability we all want to see, if we are willing to give it a chance. She stated this proposal does warrant that type of opportunity, to see if they can prove themselves in this location without creating problems. Councilmember Thayer stated there are a lot of good people here tonight on both sides. She added she does not think homelessness is a character defect, but lack of tenacity might be. She noted that a lot has been added to the Downtown. She noted we have two Police Officers on foot patrol; we have the Downtown Plan, and the Transportation Center. She stated that right now we are suffering from a serious recession. She pointed out there will always be a hard core among the homeless, which will not be stopped, and this particular program being offered by Ritter House is not like the soup kitchen. It is not a give-away program but it is a means of allowing people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Sate stated she has heard about people going to the bathroom in public, because there are no bathrooms. She stated this program would give them a chance. Mrs. Thayer stated she has concerns about the location, and it would be nice to combine the Day Center with the soup kitchen and have it on the outskirts of town. She pointed out that the short Use Permit might be the way to go, and we could work with them on a day-to-day basis. She noted that other Day Service Centers have worked, such as Palo Alto and Santa Rosa, and other communities in Marin are willing to go forward. Mrs. Thayer pointed out that this is the only city in Marin with an urban core, and it offers a lot in terms of retail and social services and pro-fessional offices. She stated she would like to see the number of people using the facility tracked, and have the Police Department track the number of calls from that Center. She would like to see a six-month Use Permit and wants a hearing every six months. Councilmember Shippey stated he had agonized over this. He noted the Council has heard of the problems with vagrants and the Council will rationalize their action based on the interests of the City of San Rafael. He stated other issues are the increased use of Ritter House, and the issue of panhandlers in Downtown San Rafael. He stated the best approach the City can take is the "carrot and stick" with the social service organizations, and perhaps the Police patrol should be increased. He mentioned the possibility of an anti -solicitation ordinance. Mr. Shippey stated we are doing what we can and, as far as the specific use, it was hard for him to discard the recommendation of the Homelessness Commission. He stated this facility is one of the outcomes of that Commission's activities. He pointed out that we are only talking about a six-month Use Permit, and everyone can be assured that the permit will be pulled if it turns out to be a problem. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 35 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 36 Councilmember Breiner stated she is counting six months from the day the Center actually opens, not from the date of the approval. Mayor Boro stated he has a concern about the adjoining property owners, about the abuses from the current Human Concern Center. He noted there is a condition of approval for the DSC about picking up litter, and it seemed to him that if it is going on a six- month Use Permit they could go beyond 200 feet regarding litter pickup. He added that the people getting back on their feet should not cut through the adjoining properties to reach the Center, and that should be mitigated because the adjoining property owners have suffered because of that. He recommended that as part of this approval, the litter pickup should not be limited to 200 feet, and that the clients do not go through private property. Councilmember Thayer stated that someone had mentioned there were several cars parked so that they were unable to leave their property because of them. She stated something should be done to mitigate that impact, regardless of the Day Services Center. Mr. Simon stated that one of the things they tried to do, and were turned down, would be a loading zone and not a parking zone in front of Ritter House. He stated they would be happy to have that space in front changed to a loading zone. Mayor Boro stated that could be pursued, so the cars can come and go. Mr. Diosi inquired if the six-month review would be public. Mayor Boro responded that it would come back for a public meeting. Mrs. Foley inquired if their voices will be heard in the review process, and how can they track it to see whether it has been successful or not? She noted there are problems all the way from Macy's to Lincoln Avenue. Mayor Boro responded one way would be to solve the problem of people crossing their property. He stated there are issues on "B" Street, not just from Macy's to Lincoln Avenue. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Pendoley if he felt the conditions are reasonable and fair. Mr. Pendoley stated they are and that the Planning Commission wanted the Oversight Committee and the program for it would be developed to the satisfaction of the Commission. He inquired, if there is going to be a vote on this, is the Council asking that the Planning Commission conduct the hearing at the end of six months? Mayor Boro responded that the Oversight Committee should be formed from proponents and opponents, and they should develop their program with the Planning Commission. Councilmember Shippey stated he does not know what effect changing the Use Permit from a two-year permit to six months might have on the Applicant. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, that the appeal be denyed, but the conditions of approval as set by the Planning Commission be amended to reflect a six-month Use Permit starting from the date that the Day Services Center opens and somewhere in the conditions it also be included that the Oversight Committee would be reviewing Police Department calls and tracking of the clients and other pertinent data, as it draws its report which would then go to the Planning Commission first and then to the Council. Mayor Boro asked that the finding suggested by City Attorney Ragghianti be included and Mrs. Breiner included the finding that with the conditions, as stated, the use will not be materially injurious to the surrounding properties and improvements in the vicinity. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Pendoley if the Oversight Committee will be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Pendoley responded that is the recommendation. Mayor Boro stated he is comfortable with that, and inquired if the rest of the Council concurs. The Councilmembers agreed. Mayor Boro confirmed that the report will go to the Planning Commission and the Council. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen Mayor Boro thanked everyone for their patience and their interest and stated they were doing something tonight which was positive and, hopefully, will work well for all of the citizens of San Rafael. 17.PROPOSED FINANCING REVISIONS ON BOYD COURT PROJECT (RA) - File 5-1-322 x (SRRA) R-1'7'� Redevelopment Assistant Executive Director Ours stated before the Council tonight was a SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 36 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 37 change in the financing concepts for the Boyd Court project. He explained when the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 37 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 38 project was initially approved it was a leasehold project; however, since that time there have been problems with developing the lease per the requirements of the State of California and what staff was presenting tonight was a straight land purchase condominium project with affordable units. Mr. Ours explained the affordability in this new concept would remain the same, with two units affordable to people with 700 of the median and six units which would be affordable to 90% median income in which the City is investing funds for those units. He stated 17 units would be affordable to moderate households at 1100. He noted these were the same percentage concepts within the original proposal and stated the difference was that the land is being purchased rather than leased and the total monthly payments for this concept remain the same as under the leasehold concept, meaning that the buyer purchasing the unit is paying the same amount as they would have in the original proposal. Mr. Ours stated there was one difference in the 17 units in that they were proposing a new idea called a "silent second" program, which has been in Novato through the EAH. He stated staff was proposing the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency have that silent second. He noted the original price of the unit goes to the market price, the Redevelopment Agency would take a second mortgage back which would be held payable to the Redevelopment Agency, and noted this was just a paper transaction. Mr. Ours stated that if at the time of the sale this unit is resold at, for example, $68,000 and then resold at $68,000, $15,000 would be in the pocket of the Redevelopment Agency, rather than going to the developer, and at that time they could resell the property with the second note so that the net affect would be $53,000. He noted Dick Bornholdt who has been involved in some of these projects was present for any questions and/or explanations. Dick Bornholdt noted that the concept was the net price to all the individuals would remain the same under both the sale and lease project, and he stated staff was working on obtaining Fanny Mae financing for this and it would mean that the down payment to the purchaser could be reduced to as low as 40, which would even be more affordable if they were able to use this type of financing. Mayor Boro asked if the original lease proposal had fallen apart and now the buyers have to purchase the property. Mr. Bornholdt responded affirmatively. Mayor Boro then asked if he was correct in understanding that the original two below market units for $86,300 were now being priced at $108,000, that the payment for the $86,300 included the payment toward the mortgage as well as a payment toward the lease? Mr. Bornholdt responded affirmatively. Mayor Boro confirmed there was no difference to the buyer, even though the price has changed to $108,000. Mr. Bornholdt responded affirmatively and stated the lease payment was to be approximately $110 per month which would be included in the homeowners fee; however, they took the $110 per month and are now using this as a mortgage payment which borrows more money making the price higher, but still affordable. Mr. Bornholdt explained this applies to all of the units so nobody would be leasing the land, they would own it. He stated the units are different prices and there has been an appraisal which is almost complete of this project that the lenders require, and they are estimating that the market price of these units around $168,000. He noted that the highest price units, which are those affordable to 1100 of the median, will be approximately $153,000. He noted the experience had been with this below market rate program to date in Marin, through the Housing Authority mostly over the last five years, was as the price of the below market rate unit approaches the market rate price buyers are reluctant to purchase the units with the deed restriction on the resale price which limits the appreciation someone might be able to get. Mayor Boro stated the cornerstone of the project had been to maintain all 26 units as affordable. Mr. Bornholdt responded affirmatively and stated that between the market rate price and below market rate price, the buyers will still think this would be a good deal. Mr. Bornholdt stated it may be that not all of these 17 units would be sold within the time frame under the program, in which case the units are available at the below market rate price for a period of 90 days and if these units are not sold within the 90 days the developer has the right to sell the unit at the market price, then the City recaptures 75% of the differential in cash, which is the standard agreement and how all these projects have been working to date; however, this has not come up yet with any prior project, but it is felt that this could come up this time, that not all the 17 affordable units will be sold within the 90 days. Mayor Boro asked for an explanation of the term "recapture 75%". Mr. Bornholdt responded for example, a below market rate unit for $150,000 and the market rate price is $160,000. He explained that if they do not get sold and the developer sells them for $160,000 the difference is $10,000, of which the City recaptures $7,500 in cash of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 38 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 39 the $10,000 difference and $2,500 goes to the developer, which is the agreement up front in this project. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 39 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 40 Councilmember Breiner asked with regard to Mr. Bornholdt's statement that there was no future restriction on resale price, so ultimately they really do not have any affordable units. Mr. Bornholdt responded that if under the above described scenario a below market rate unit is sold at market price and the City gets a cash payment and the unit is sold with no restrictions, that is gone. He stated the idea was that then the recaptured amount could be used to get another affordable unit somewhere. He noted, however, at that low price it would not be likely to happen. Mr. Bornholdt stated the other option in resale of these units there were two ways to do this: 1) a deed restriction that actually controls the price by some formula, or 2) by a financial means which is what the silent second is all about. He noted the way this would work was the unit would be sold at market price by the developer for $168,000, following this example. He stated the below market rate price is $153,000 and the City ends up with a note and deed of trust against the unit for $15,000 which is the differential, meaning the buyer would be paying $168,000 and the City would be, in effect, loaning the buyer $15,000 and taking a second making the purchase price $153,000, which is the amount the buyers put their 10% down on and qualify for the mortgage. Mr. Bornholdt explained the result of the silent second yields a price to the buyer which would be the same. Mayor Boro asked what would happen if the buyer was hesitant to purchase this unit because it is so close to market rate and what would the difference be? Mr. Bornholdt responded the difference was that there was no restriction on the resale price when they go to sell it. Mayor Boro asked if the City then lost control of the unit. Mr. Bornholdt responded affirmatively and stated the City still would be receiving the $15,000, plus some appreciation. Mayor Boro asked what the developer would be getting from the sale of $168,000 unit? Mr. Bornholdt responded the developer would end up with $153,000 because there is a note for $15,000, with a no cash transaction, so the developer would still be selling it at the same price. He noted that at the time of resale the City would have $15,000 and is paid back by the first buyer and the second buyer could be requalified and the money could be reloaned to that buyer, thus reducing the price again to an affordable price. He stated this was the method to maintain the affordability without a control on the resale price. Councilmember Thayer asked, with regard to the resale differential, depending on the market it could be much more than $15,000 and the City could be a lender for that amount of money which would increase the City's liability with the Redevelopment Agency. Would the City be placed in the position of anybody with a second deed of trust and the City having to foreclose if the buyer could not pay for this unit? Mr. Bornholdt responded negatively, that the City would not be placed in this position because there are no monthly payments and the loan is only repaid at the time of resale, when it becomes due and payable at the time the first buyer decides to sell the unit. City Manager Nicolai stated in addition to the $15,000 that the Redevelopment Agency would be taking in from the first-time buyer, when they resold, not only does the note become due and payable, but does not the Agency share in any growth in the value of that unit? Mr. Bornholdt responded affirmatively. Mr. Ours stated the Agency's share of the appreciation would be 49% and the purchaser's share of the appreciation would be 51%. He noted if the purchaser put down a lower down payment the Agency would share in more of the appreciation. He stated the Agency's ability to make the unit affordable grows with the unit. Planning Director Pendoley stated in looking at how other communities do this, they typically handle their below market rate programs in two ways: 1) the rental programs are done similarly to San Rafael's, but 2) the for sale programs are usually made to work by becoming financially involved. He noted it was very difficult, as Mr. Bornholdt and Mr. Ours were suggesting, to do this with a complete resale control because the market does not work well that way. Councilmember Breiner asked how this formula would work, if it is done depending on what the buyer down payment was? Mr. Bornholdt responded that the way these were restructured was that the Agency and the buyer are really providing the equity money, or the down payment, together and according to this example, the Agency is putting in $15,000 and the buyer, for example, puts in $15,000 cash, then the total will be $30,000 and both the Agency and buyer share 50% in the appreciation value. Mayor Boro asked about the term Mr. Bornholdt used, "we are putting the money in"? Mr. Bornholdt responded negatively that what they were doing was creating the $15,000 by negotiating the below market rate price with the developer. Mayor Boro then asked if the unit sold at $190,000, originally sold for $168,000, and the loan is SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 40 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 41 down to $130,000 leaving $60,000 between the loan the buyer has and the sale price, what happens then? Mr. Bornholdt responded they split the $60,000 - the Agency gets $30,000 and the buyer gets $30,000. Councilmember Breiner asked it would be cumbersome to be tracking all of this? Mr. Bornholdt responded negatively because it would only come up at the time of resale. Mr. Ours added that there were not that many resales. Mr. Pendoley stated that no matter how they did this, they would rely on a contract with the Housing Authority that would oversee the sales and resales. City Manager Nicolai stated the Housing Authority would be tracking the same unit, anyway, and if it were up for resale, making sure it was being marketed at the limited amount and the same monitoring has to be done no matter how it is financed. Mrs. Breiner asked if any sale had to go through the Housing Authority? Ms. Nicolai responded that any of the below market rate units that have any controls on them do go through this procedure. Mr. Bornholdt stated on all the units there was a notice recorded so that at the time of sale the Housing Authority is notified. He added that when a title company becomes aware that there is a possibility of a sale, it triggers a notice at the title search and they are notified then, too. Mrs. Breiner asked if there was a way for the City to be notified at the same time. Mr. Bornholdt responded this could be a duplicate notice to the Agency, who will probably be the holder of the note. Mayor Boro stated he felt the basic premise of this project had been changed after it was approved. Ms. Nicolai responded she understood that one of the concerns the Council had at the time the original proposal went through them, was the fact that this property was being leased. Mayor Boro responded that Council was assured that this was okay to do. Mr. Bornholdt then explained some of the problems encountered which had to do with the Department of Real Estate, who had to approve the lease and how it would work, and the issue with a lease of what happens if the owner defaults on a lease payment and not the mortgage payment, and who forecloses and how, etc. He noted it got very complex very fast, which they found out once they started moving ahead with this project and the legal costs were getting pretty significant, which is the basic nature of the problems they encountered. Councilmember Breiner stated, in her opinion, Council anticipated this early on and that she had some doubt about the value of it. She noted this might be better for the consumer. Mr. Bornholdt responded affirmatively and noted it would be better tax wise for the consumer. Mr. Ours stated they have kept the same level of affordability within this process. Mayor Boro asked what would happen if the unit resold for a lower price. Mr. Bornholdt responded the $15,000 note would still be due, as would be the first mortgage. Councilmember Shippey asked if the affordable price is set by negotiations between the Agency and the developer? Mr. Bornholdt responded affirmatively. Mr. Shippey stated then the silent second at the time of sale becomes a negotiable note, and asked how they do establish the original purchase price because that would be what sets the value of the note. Mr. Bornholdt responded the original purchase price is established by the agreement that these units are for sale at 110% of the median and so they can calculate the price by determining what somebody can afford to pay. Councilmember Breiner asked what if the buyer did not want to be involved in this way. Mr. Bornholdt responded they will have to buy another unit. Mayor Boro clarified this by stating for 90 days they will try to market these units at $153,000 and the buyers will be told their mortgage will be $137,000, approximately, then if for some reason the unit is not sold within this time frame the developer will bring the price up to $168,000, but the buyer will be given a free second loan and will not have to worry about it unless they sell, and the payments are still the same. Mr. Bornholdt stated this would start at 90 days at $168,000, but the actual price to the buyer is $153,000. Ms. Nicolai stated that because there was such a large concern that the differential would not be as great, that most of the units will not sell for the 90 days and the City could lose the units under the old procedure, but the new proposal would insure we keep the units affordable, make a higher probability that they do get sold, but the procedure starts from the beginning of this process. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, approval of the concept of financing revisions, reflecting there will be no added benefit to the developer. Bill Smith, San Rafael resident, asked if the City was providing an interest free loan for many years through this program. Mrs. Breiner and Mr. Shippey responded affirmatively. Mr. Smith then asked if the owner elects to pay off the loan, will SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 41 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 42 they be able to do so? Mr. Ours responded they wanted to keep the unit in an affordable configuration, so the City would probably respond they do not want this paid off. Mr. Bornholdt stated the buyer, in this instance, would have to pay off the Housing Authority, too. He then stated the note is due and payable only upon sale or transfer of title, but if the first mortgage is paid off, theoretically the title gets transferred to the owner. The City then has the money to create another affordable unit at some other address. Mr. Bornholdt stated that if the loan is paid off it is not a resale of the property, and stated the note they have is not due until resale. Councilmember Breiner expressed her concern with this process, in that the City could lose some of the affordable units. Mr. Pendoley responded this was something to be worked out in the final language of the Below Market Rate contract. Councilmember Breiner then withdrew her motion due to the fact that she was not ready to move ahead with this until these questions were resolved. She stated their goal for this project was affordable units. Mr. Ours stated, in his opinion, he would like to see the note unable to be paid off, which he felt could be worked into an agreement where that note remains with the property and when it is resold, the Agency has the option. Mr. Pendoley asked if there was a way to keep, as a last resort, a resale control. Mr. Bornholdt responded they could use a "first right of refusal" to buy it at the market price. Mayor Boro then asked what would happen if this were a 30 year note and the buyers live there 30 years, would they then own the unit and the Agency has lost it? Mr. Bornholdt responded 30 years of affordability would be a good deal, actually. Ms. Nicolai suggested getting back to the original concern that if it is not done now, there will be no affordable units left and in all probability if this loan could be made too difficult to pay off any time soon and suggested this should be brought back to the Council with further research on the wording in the agreement. Mayor Boro indicated his concern about this project was that suddenly the burden is falling upon the City to make these more affordable, instead of the developer. He felt this was not the understanding the Council had with the original proposal. Ms. Nicolai in looking at how the City was leveraging its housing money, this was not such a bad way to do this, it was giving an extra $15,000 to write down some units for a while so we would not lose the units. Mayor Boro asked that a new staff report be brought back to the next meeting on May 3, 1993, with further information on the language in this agreement. Mr. Ours stated the point was they wanted to maintain the affordability and maintain that $15,000, even someone could pay this off soon. Mr. Bornholdt agreed with this and commented and then if someone is unexpectedly able to pay off the loan sooner than the time period allotted, they will do something with the $15,000. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to carry this item over to the meeting of May 3, 1993. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 18.FORMATION OF BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE (CM) - File 8-5 x 9-2-42 City Manager Nicolai gave a summary of the staff report stating that during their meetings with the Revenue Options Committee, as they were developing a ballot measure, it came up in several contexts that they should create a Budget Oversight Committee. She stated that, in general, the concept was that you create a committee which includes community members with specific expertise that would then work with City Staff on a basically ongoing basis, not just reviewing the numbers and line items of the Budget, but looking at concepts of how to do things more efficiently, follow through with some of the recommendations from the Hughes Heiss Study and/or look at other ideas that were not even addressed in the Hughes Heiss Study over whatever period of time Council determines this Committee should perform these duties. She noted there would be more citizen involvement, but it was not just a random pick of anyone who wanted to apply; it would be more like looking into our community for people like the CEO's that have special expertise that Council would want to draw upon. Ms. Nicolai stated this was a good idea, but would have a workload impact on everyone, but most of these issues were to be reviewed in any case. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 42 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 43 Mayor Boro added to this by stating he and Councilmember Cohen discussed this with the Revenue Options Committee and then, afterward, had a meeting with the President of the Fleece Association in which this subject was brought up where there was some interest indicated by this individual to be part of this process. He stated he recommended having one person from all three represented groups - Police, Fire and MAPE. Ms. Nicolai stated there were three units within the MAPF, along with Police Mid -Management, Fire and Police. Mayor Boro stated his suggestion was having one person who would represent the people who are represented by the three unions collectively and one person represents management. He then suggested two employees in addition to whatever Council decides is reasonable and seven people from the community who have capabilities and expertise in either running companies or retirees from businesses with these types of experiences. Ms. Nicolai indicated she did not know how this would be done, and Mayor Boro stated he thought it could be offered and it would be good to have a smaller group which is more workable. Ms. Nicolai asked the Council what his recommendation was as to what method to use to find the community members, as well? She stated she felt it would need to be somebody who not only has the expertise, but understands the scope of what they will be talking about and what kind of involvement and time commitments can be made by these individuals. She suggested Council let her know what their ideas and/or suggestions at a later time. Councilmember Breiner asked for clarification of the number of people they were looking for. Mayor Boro responded there would be five from the public sector plus two representing employee bodies equalling a group of seven. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, creating the committee, as suggested. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 19. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro None Cohen a. DISCUSSION OF SAN QUENTIN EXPANSION (Pl) - File 10-2 x 9-3-17 Mayor Boro stated this item was put on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Thayer. Councilmember Thayer stated the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers have taken a position on this particular topic with regard to the expansion of San Quentin. She stated their legislative committee recommended to the body and the body, in turn voted that there be further hearings at the State level, the Department of Corrections level with regard to the EIR, etc. She stated it was also suggested by Harry Winters and various interested groups that we would also like to have the County reconsider its position which, in affect, it has almost done, but she stated they would like to support that effort in finding alternatives to the honor farm. She noted it has grown to be the largest penial colony in the Western world and will increase the level of traffic service rather drastically and there are some environmental concerns, although of a lesser import. She stated they would be expanding their employee groups by several hundred employees, but only 70 of these people would be living in Marin County which further issue that further the jobs imbalance here. Mrs. Thayer this would have bad side affects not only on San Rafael, but also Corte Madera, Larkspur and other cities. She stated she would like to see further hearings with the County and the State Department of Corrections. Harry Winters, representative of the West End Neighborhood Association, stated Council had received a letter from them on this issue and the one thing he wanted to emphasize is that it is important to send a message to the State Department of Corrections supporting the other municipalities. to reopen the hearing on the Environmental Impact Report, particularly since San Rafael did make comments on that and identified negatives; however, he thought it was equally important that the City ask the Supervisors of the County to hold a public hearing themselves to re-examine their position taken three years ago before the EIR was even written and any of these negative impacts were identified, and since they have been identified he felt it was important to also ask the County Supervisors to re- examine their support. He noted the State Department of Corrections has SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 43 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 44 indicated they do not move into a County and build a facility unless they have an SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 44 Page 45 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 expression of acceptance from that County, which they state is the three-year old vote of the County Board of Supervisors. Councilmember Breiner stated, as Mr. Winters suggested, they should definitely contact the Board of Supervisors by letter and enclosed a copy of the staff report that Council received tonight because it spelled out fairly clearly much of the impact which they are concerned with. Councilmember Shippey stated he agreed with this and suggested this letter should go both to the State Department of Corrections and the County Supervisors. He stated another issue was the financial outcome with regard to the County taxpayers. Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, sending the suggested letter to both the State Department of Corrections and the Marin County Board of Supervisors. Mayor Boro, under discussion, asked if the State Department of Corrections had responded to the letter the City already sent with regard to the EIR? Mr. Pendoley responded the State had not yet published their final Environmental Impact Report, so staff does not know what their response is. Mayor Boro stated they have submitted the City's problems to the State and he thought they should reiterate their concerns and ask for an answer to our concerns and indicate that the City was asked the Board of Supervisors to reconsider. Mayor Boro stated that one of the big motivations of the Marin County Board of Supervisors to do this was the location of the Honor Farm, that they thought they had found a non -controversial location for it. He stated the next big issue would probably be where to put the Honor Farm if this is reconsidered. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen b. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS' (ABAG) REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL 398 - THE PLATFORM MANAGEMENT (CM) - File 111 Mayor Boro stated this item was put on the agenda by request of Councilmember Breiner. Councilmember Breiner stated in terms of any types of growth management, this was probably a reasonable one. Councilmember Thayer stated the MCCMC Legislative Committee took a position against this because they felt it wasn't very fair with regard to regional government interfering into local planning decisions. She noted they felt there are not enough safeguards yet. Councilmember Breiner stated Assemblymember Valerie Brown who put this Bill together was from Sonoma and they have been very opposed to any of the growth management proposals. Mayor Boro asked if this was going to come up with MCCMC initially? Councilmember Thayer responded affirmatively. Mayor Boro then suggested Mr. Pendoley bring a report on this back to the Council. Ms. Nicolai stated this would be a problem concerning the date because the hearing for this was scheduled for April 28, 1993, so it could probably be brought into the next committee. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:35 AM (4/20/93). JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1993 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 45 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 46 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93 Page 46