HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-04-19 - REVISED(REVISED) SRCC 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
11-6 x 9-3-40 x 9-3-66 x 100
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 x
9-3-31
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
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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 1
(REVISED) 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.
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 2
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 3
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 4
stated Dr. Landfield, who will be doing these inoculations, has found that the three
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 4
(REVISED) 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 10-5 x 10-7 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 5
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 6
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 7
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 8
Page 9
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 9
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 10
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 11
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 12
trash; they did not ask the nearby businesses, whose parking
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 12
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 13
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 14
surrounding properties and vicinity.
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 14
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 15
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) 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.
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 17
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 18
It", which stands for "Stop The Out -of -Control Problems of Immigration Today"
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 18
(REVISED) 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,
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 19
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 20
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 21
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 22
let this happen it would be a sad day for San Rafael. He stated that he
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 22
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 23
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 24
(REVISED) 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.
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 25
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 26
(REVISED) 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.
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 27
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 28
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 29
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 30
(REVISED) 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.
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 31
(REVISED) 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.
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 32
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 33
(REVISED) 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,
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 34
(REVISED) 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.
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 35
(REVISED) 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 denied,
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 229 x
(SRRA) R-173
Redevelopment Assistant Executive Director Ours stated before the Council tonight was a
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 36
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 37
change in the financing concepts for the Boyd Court project. He explained when the
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 37
(REVISED) 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
the $10,000 difference and $2,500 goes to the developer, which is the agreement up
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 38
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 39
front in this project.
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 39
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 40
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 41
(REVISED) 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.
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 42
(REVISED) 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 43
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 44
indicated they do not move into a County and build a facility unless they have an
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 44
Page 45
(REVISED) 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 at 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 equitable 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
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 45
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 46
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
(REVISED) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/19/93
Page 46