Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-11-15SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1993, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 93-21 (a) - #1 - DeAnza Assets, Inc. et al, vs. CSR. No reportable action was taken. No. 93-21 (b) - #7 - Not discussed. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1993, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember David Zappetini, Councilmember Absent: None Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney David Walker, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE RE: STATE LEGISLATURE MATTERS - File 116 Dee Fraites stated that she will be attending the City Council meetings representing State Assemblywoman Vivien Bronschvag, and if the Council has questions at any time regarding Statewide matters, she will be happy to take them back to Assemblywoman Bronschvag. Councilmember Thayer inquired if Ms. Fraites has to go to all Council meetings, County- wide. Ms. Fraites replied she will be attending the meetings at Novato, Larkspur and Corte Madera as well as San Rafael. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 18, 1993 (CC) 3. Report on Bid Openings and Authorization to Purchase: (Fin) - File 4-2-277 a. Two Police Motorcycles b. Two 1994 Four Door Sedans RECOMMENDED ACTION Approved as submitted. RESOLUTION NO. 9062 - AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO NEW 1993 KAWA- SAKI POLICE MOTORCYCLES FROM HAYWARD KAWASAKI AND TWO NEW 1994 FORD TAURUS SEDANS FROM FOLSOM LAKE FORD (Motorcycles, $14,121.61; Sedans, $28,944.63) (Lowest respon- sible bidders) 5. Call for Applications to Fill Vacancy on Approved staff recommendation: Planning Commission due to Election of Deadline for applications 12/7/93 at Barbara Heller to City Council (CC) - 12:00 noon in City Clerk's Office; File 9-2-6 interviews at Special Council Meeting at 6:30 p.m. 12/20/93. 6. Resolution Authorizing the San Rafael Public Library to Submit a Joint Application with the Marin County Library to the U.S. Depart- ment of Education for a Library Services and Construction Act, Title VI Grant to Support Library Literacy Services for Fiscal Year 1994/1995 (Lib) - File 4-13-86 x 9-3-61 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 9063 - AUTHORIZING THE SAN RAFAEL PUBLIC LIBRARY TO SUBMIT A JOINT APPLICATION WITH THE MARIN COUNTY LIBRARY TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR A LIBRARY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ACT, (TITLE VI) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,000 FOR A "SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNER" COMPONENT FOR THE EXISTING LIBRARY LITERACY PROGRAM FOR THE YEAR 1994/1995 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 2 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller and Zappetini from minutes of October 18, 1993 only, due to nonattendance as meeting. The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 4.REQUEST FROM MCCMC FOR CONSULTING SERVICES ON CABLE TV IN AMOUNT OF $8,634 (CM - File 4-13-88 x 9-7-4 x 2-11 x 8-5 Councilmember Thayer noted that the original request from MCCMC (Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers) for a consultant to review the franchise agreement and advise the Councilmembers on any negotiations with Viacom, was only $4,317, and asked why has it doubled and what additional services are they going to provide? City Manager Nicolai explained that a subcommittee of the MCCMC Viacom Committee developed what they thought were specifications, and interviewed various consulting firms wanting to bid on it. When we originally approved it a couple of meetings ago, their estimate at that time was close to $15,000 and would be split up among the jurisdictions. In the course of the interviews, one of the original tasks which was going to be asked of the consultants was an evaluation of the pros and cons as to whether to regulate or not regulate. In the course of the discussions, it turned out that it was fairly clear that we should regulate, because absent any regulation at the local level, the FCC will not really be interested in regulating Viacom. That task, which was the original first step, was eliminated, and they focused on using the consulting firm to redraft our Master Franchise Agreement with Viacom to include regulation. For that reason, it is a slightly larger task than was originally inclu- ded in the interviews. Ms. Nicolai added that former Councilmember Breiner attended a meeting of the full committee where this was presented and was in agreement with it. It was brought up at the last dinner meeting of MCCMC and voted on, so it is before the Council tonight. Councilmember Thayer inquired what kind of firm is Miller & Holbrooke. Ms. Nicolai replied she is pretty sure it is a law firm out of Washington D.C. She added that they are working for several other jurisdictions in California on redrafting fran- chise agreements to include regulating Cable TV again. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the staff recommendation. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 7.EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS - THE GABLES (PW) - File 5-1-321 Councilmember Zappetini stated he has a conflict of interest since he is a subcon- tractor on that project, so he will not vote. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolu- tion for extension of time for subdivision improvements for The Gables. RESOLUTION NO. 9064 - EXTENDING TIME FOR COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT WORK - THE GABLES SUBDIVISION (EXTENDED TO AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER 4, 1995) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: SPECIAL PRESENTATION Cohen, Heller, Thayer & Mayor Boro None None Zappetini (due to Conflict of Interest) 8.PRESENTATION OF CANAL AREA INSPECTION PROGRAM CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO GABRIELLA RICCI, PROPERTY OWNER OF 509 CANAL STREET (P1) - File 10-2 x 9-3-17 x 13-1 Mayor Boro presented the Certificate of Compliance to Gabriella and Louis Ricci. He explained for the benefit of the new Councilmembers and the audience about the pro- gram conducted by the Code Enforcement Officer, to bring buildings up to Code with regard to health and safety. He stated this is the ninth or tenth time he has made one of these awards to property owners who have been very cooperative with the City in bringing their buildings into compliance. Mayor Boro stated he was impressed when he read the report which stated the owners had SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 3 started working with the Code Enforcement Officer in early June and had completed all of the work by October. He thanked Mr. and Mrs. Ricci and congratulated them. Mayor Boro announced that he was taking the Public Hearings out of the agenda order because the Assistant City Attorney, who is the attorney for Agenda Item 10, has another engagement. 10.PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20, MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE, TO AMEND AND CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FOR THE RENT STABILIZATION PROGRAM INCLUDING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, PURCHASER'S RIGHTS, BASE RENT AND FREEZE PROVISIONS (CA) - File 13-7-1 x 9-3-16 x 13-16 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and asked for comments from the Assistant City Attorney. Assistant City Attorney David Walker recalled that about ten months ago the City Council amended the Ordinance to provide vacancy control. After that Ordinance was enacted, the park owner of one of the mobilehome parks in the City sued the City, and in connection with the lawsuit, the Council authorized the City Attorney's office to stipulate with the park's owner that we would amend our Ordinance to make clear that there was no intent to roll back the rents by reason of our vacancy control and freeze provisions of the new Ordinance; also, that the Ordinance would have prospec- tive application only. At the time this was discussed, a recent case made our hearing provisions invalid in that they provided for binding arbitration which had been de- clared by the Appellate Court of California to be no longer valid. Staff reviewed the Ordinance and made the amendment which accomplished those issues and clarified the language as to base rent, notice, and freeze provisions and amended out the binding arbitration. Mr. Walker stated he believes that we have lived up to the agreement made with the park owners' attorney with regard to those matters. Councilmember Cohen stated the Council received a letter this evening from the attorney representing DeAnza and requesting a couple of changes. Mr. Walker responded that it is the position of the City Attorney's Office that Items 1, 2 and 3 in the attorney's letter are essentially items which they raised in their court proceedings and the court upheld the City's Ordinance as presently constituted. He added that with regard to Items 6 and 7, they raised the question of whether or not the penal- ties and retaliation provisions are appropriate. It is his feeling that Civil Code Section 1942.5 relates to dwellings and not to mobilehome space rent, so he does not believe their objections are valid on those items. He added that in Item 4, they raise the question about maybe requiring more time in order to conduct a hearing. He explained that in the amendment, under the Hearing Process, it has been provided that either the homeowner or the park owner could request a continuance of the hearing for ten days. He added he did not expressly provide that the arbitrator could continue the matter as well. He believes it would be reasonable to say that the arbitrator could continue the hearing for a reasonable time upon the showing of good cause. Mayor Boro asked about Item 9 in the attorney's letter, which has to do with misde- meanors. It states that Attorney Spangberg felt that an understanding had been reached on this issue. Mayor Boro asked for clarification. Mr. Walker responded that he recalls saying he would consider it, but does not think he had agreed to a binding agreement to seek to have the Council change the Ordinance to make it an infraction or something similar. He stated that after discussion, his associates decided to retain the present language. Mayor Boro called on DeAnza attorney Gail Easton for a presentation. Gail Easton, attorney with Spangberg & Associates, who represented DeAnza Assets and Realty Business Partners in the lawsuit, stated that the letter provided today set forth most of their concerns. She added that the letter also identifies areas in which they have been discussing settlement of the lawsuit which has been continued on to the Court of Appeals. She stated that Item 1 of the letter was not part of the underlying lawsuit and has been under discussion in settlement negotiations which they have entered into with the City, as an allowance to the park to receive some enhanced revenues which they otherwise would be foregoing under the freeze provisions and also under the provisions which allow prospective purchasers the same rights as homeowners under the amended Ordinance. Ms. Easton stated that Item 2 is in litigation right now and is an issue in the appeal. Item 3 was not involved in the underlying litigation, and she believes there is some use of "owners" and "operators" in the amended Ordinance language which is confusing and needs to be revised before final enactment of the amendment. Ms. Easton stated she believes that Item 7, although that statute does apply to dwel- lings, is applicable to a mobilehome park. With regard to Item 6, she stated that Mr. Walker has assured her that the language regarding attorneys' fees has been dele- SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 4 ted. Regarding Item 9, Ms. Easton stated she spoke with Mr. Spangberg today, and it is his understanding that there was still negotiation which would take place regard- ing whether a violation of the Ordinance would be a misdemeanor or an infraction, and he has been assured by Mr. Walker that with regard to provisions of Ordinance No. 1644, that occur after the arbitration provisions, there are still negotiations and wrinkles which have to be ironed out; and that the main concern for amending the Ordinance which is being presented to the City Council tonight was to address the provisions of Ordinance No. 1644 which occur before the arbitration provisions, mainly the notice provision, the homeowner/prospective purchaser rights in the Ordinance. Ms. Easton stated she would like to briefly address those issues. She stated that Mr. Walker has done an excellent job in clarifying that the Ordinance does not apply retroactively and is given only to prospective applications and that there are no roll -back provisions. However, there are still certain flaws in the amendment to Ordinance No. 1644 which survive and are subject to litigation in the Court of Appeals. The first is 20.03.050, which continues to extend to prospective purchasers the right to receive a rent agreement of one year or less. She stated she believes that this conflicts with the Mobilehome Residency Law and is preempted by State Law, and that the intent of the legislation in enacting the Mobilehome Residency Law was to protect the existing homeowners in mobilehome parks and not prospective purchasers who are coming in. She stated her second concern is the proposed amendment provision 20.03.040 which continues to inform prospective purchasers of certain rights they are allowed under the Mobilehome Residency Law when, in fact, the Mobilehome Residency Law does not grant those rights to prospective purchasers; namely, the provision that under State Law a purchaser has the right to be offered a month-to-month rental agreement, and the provision which states that a prospective purchaser has the right to reject an agreement within 72 hours after signing it. She noted that the Mobile - home Residency Law, Civil Code 79817-B(4) allows that right only to an existing homeowner. Finally, the freeze provision in 20.04.040 E which states that a freeze on rent increases will apply to certain tenant spaces in the Park, is contrary to the Mobilehome Residency Law, specifically Civil Code Sec. 79817-A, which allows that upon the expiration of an exempt lease, the existing rent is the base rent on which future increases under the local Ordinance will be based. There is no rent increase provision in the Mobilehome Residency Law, and she thinks that the Ordinance is pre- empted by State Law. Mayor Boro stated to Mr. Walker that he has given the Council his position on the letter. There were three Code sections pulled out specifically, and asked if he wanted to comment on them. Mr. Walker responded that as far as the issues after arbitration, he is certainly willing to negotiate and is always open to a reasonable settlement if some should come forward. He believes that the notice provision applying to prospective pur- chasers was litigated in Superior Court, and it is still a matter of litigation. He realizes it is their position that it was preempted in conflict. He believes that is not so. Mayor Boro asked is Mr. Walker comfortable with the other three sections mentioned. Mr. Walker stated that he is. Stan Yates, representing Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park, expressed a warm welcome to the two new Councilmembers, Barbara Heller and David Zappetini. On behalf of the homeowners of Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park, Mr. Yates expressed thanks to the City Council and the staff for recognizing the urgency of their problems at Contempo Marin. He especially thanked Mr. Walker for the many hours he spent giving them the benefit of his experience and expertise. He stated that the proposed amendments to the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance have been found to be acceptable, and he believes they will help toward the goal of maintaining the affordability of homes in the Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park. Therefore, the residents support the passage of the amendments by the City Council as presented. We believe the Ordinance to be a fair and equitable proposal, as it would give a fair and equitable return to the owner of the land upon which the mobilehome park is situated, and it should limit the exorbitant rent increases imposed upon the homeowners, thereby maintaining the affordability of living in Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park. In closing, Mr. Yates extended personal and heartfelt thanks to all of the organizations and individuals who have come to their aid when they called for help, and also appreciate all the support and understanding received from the community at large. There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REPEALING SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20, MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE, AND REENACTING AND AMENDING CHAPTER 20, RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE, TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FOR THE RENT STABILIZATION PROGRAM INCLUDING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, PURCHASERS' RIGHTS, BASE RENT AND FREEZE PROVISIONS." SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 5 Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1654 to print, with the change as mentioned by Mr. Walker regarding the arbitrator's ability to continue hearings upon showing a need, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None (Mr. Walker left the meeting.) 9.PUBLIC HEARING - GPA93-2, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY GENERAL PLAN POLICY PROVISIONS TO ALLOW DENSITY BONUSES FOR AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECTS IN LOW DENSITY AND USE DESIGNATIONS; ZONE CHANGE FROM THE PD DISTRICT TO THE PD DISTRICT WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, USE PERMIT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, SUBDIVISION INTO TWO LOTS, AND TRIP PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING 62 AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING UNITS on 2.67 ACRES (ST. ISABELLA's); 1 Trinity Way; AP175- 181-26; Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, Owner; Jane M. Graf, c/o Catholic Charities, Representative (P1) - File 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 x 10-2 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. He noted this item was before the Council at a prior meeting, and it was sent back to staff for discussion on the approaches to amendment to the General Plan. He asked for an update by Planning Director Pendoley. Planning Director Pendoley reported that the Council had last heard this item on October 18, 1993, and at that time the Mayor opened the Public Hearing and had input on the General Plan amendment only. At the conclusion of the hearing on that part of the application, the Council discussed the staff and Planning Commission recommenda- tions and asked staff to come back with alternatives. Mr. Pendoley explained for the benefit of the audience the reason why the General Plan amendment is before the Council. He stated that basically the permit applica- tions before the Council are for a proposed 62 unit affordable senior housing project on property owned by St. Isabella's parish. He noted this project was originally approved in 1992, the issue was litigated and the local Superior Court found that the City had misinterpreted density bonus provisions of our General Plan. He explained that the project applicant, Catholic Charities, then filed for an amendment to the General Plan which would deal with the issue identified by the Court. Staff has recommended to the Council an amendment to three policies in the General Plan, and the Council agreed. That was the sum and substance of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Pendoley stated it is important that everyone understand that the General Plan has very broad policies and all of the land use decisions such as rezoning, use permits and design review must be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Pendoley asked that the Council decide which of the options before them is appro- priate. He stated that staff and the Planning Commission, in the recommendation which was forwarded for consideration at the previous Council meeting, had recommended policy language which would change the policies and specify very specific circumstan- ces in which a density bonus could be allowed for affordable senior housing projects in areas which are designated as low density single family. He noted that at the end of the Council's discussion they asked for two alternatives which would further clarify those standards. The particular concern was to include in this new language standards which are currently in General Plan policy H-37 which talks about when density bonuses can be given for senior housing projects. He stated that was defined in the course of discussion as a policy alternative. The second alternative that the Council asked staff to draft would be more specific. In addition to all of the other standards in which the Council is interested, they asked staff to include language which would be very specific to this property, and that has been done. He explained that the basic distinctions between the two alternatives is that one is fairly broad and could apply to other properties in certain circumstances in low density areas. Alternative 2 is quite specific to the St. Isabella's site. Mr. Pendoley noted that several Councilmembers were interested in retaining the notion of designing in consideration of neighborhood scale, and that is found in the present policy H-37, and is recommended for inclusion in either alternative. He stated staff has elaborated on it a little, to say that means among other things the limitation of building height to 30 feet, and using design techniques to deal with an apparent massing of a project, to achieve compatibility with the surrounding neigh- borhood. He stated those are design issues regarding neighborhood scale in the proposed language. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 6 Mr. Pendoley noted that the Council had also asked for language which would retain the requirement for adequate parking found in H-37, and that is proposed under both alternatives. Also, the Council asked for appropriate references to trip alloca- tions, and that has been done. Staff has stated that not only must the bonus be consistent with the trip allocations for the property, but any bonus trip allocations which may be available and the Council may choose to grant. He noted several Council - members questioned whether there should be a formula for the density bonus. Staff would recommend that if the Council thinks a formula is appropriate, it would be most appropriate to tie in with available trips, and that is what the language would do. Mr. Pendoley explained that Alternative 2 differs from Alternative 1 in that it makes a very specific reference to the proposed 62 unit senior housing project on the St. Isabella's property. Another important provision of Alternative 2 which differs from Alternative 1 is that is would require the Council to make very specific findings. Those findings go back to some of the standards just outlined. Regarding process, Mr. Pendoley stated that if the Council chooses either Alternative 1 or 2 tonight, it is not appropriate for the Council to actually act on either one of them because they are not in a position to approve it tonight. They must, under the law, refer the issue back to the Planning Commission who would hold hearings on the new language, as well as conduct further environmental review. He added it is probably appropriate, under either alternative, to revise and recirculate the Nega- tive Declaration. Once that process is complete, it will come back to the Council, and they will continue hearings on the General Plan amendment and, if the Council finally decides to amend the General Plan, they would then open discussion on the rezoning and all of the subsidiary permits. Councilmember Thayer stated she has a little concern with Alternative 2. If we are going to eliminate H-37, which is site specific, on any other project which would come before the Council, neighborhood scale would no longer be present. In other words, if Alternative 2 was the one selected by the Council, she feels that H-37 should still remain in the General Plan, because this excludes it from every single project but this particular one. Mr. Pendoley responded that policy H-37 is really redundant to other policies which are already in the General Plan. However, there is nothing wrong with being redun- dant, so if the Council would like to retain H-37, it could be done. That would mean that if Alternative 2 is referred back to the Planning Commission, the Council should also ask the Commission to consider retaining H-37. The Council has that option. Councilmember Thayer noted that even when dealing with medium and high density areas, scale still comes into view and therefore H-37 is still applicable to other types of projects other than those in residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Thayer noted she has a letter with regard to a proposal by Alan Titus for a formula for density bonuses. She asked if the staff had analyzed that pro- posal. She noted the letter was dated October 14, 1993, and page 2 of the letter says, "Lastly, I would suggest that for all density bonuses, not just affordable senior bonuses, bonuses be limited to no greater than 300% of otherwise allowable density in low density areas, 200% in medium density areas, and 100% in high density areas." Mr. Pendoley responded you can do that. However, that requires a more extensive series of General Plan amendments than has been proposed. He stated, as he had advised the Council previously, one of the real successes in this General Plan has been the density bonus program which, because it does not have a specific formula beyond traffic availability, gives you great latitude in negotiating a project. He stated staff would not recommend a formula beyond what has been recommended in this language, which ties to traffic availability. Councilmember Zappetini inquired, on Alternative 2 where it points out there will be no other low density properties which will be eligible for the density bonus, what if something comes up of which we are unaware at this point, in five years or so? What would we do then if we adopted this? Mr. Pendoley responded that if, five years from now a nonprofit comes in and they have acquired a two -acre parcel of vacant land, or they have made it vacant, in a single family area, and it begins to look reasonable to have the Council and commu- nity members to give a density bonus, you would have to amend the General Plan to provide for that. You could amend it with another very specific amendment for that property only, or a broader one as being considered here. Councilmember Cohen stated he wanted to clarify in terms of the way Mr. Pendoley presented Alternative 1, the proposed amendment to LU -10. He asked, if we were to adopt Alternative 1, would it include the regular text which is the current text for the General Plan, and the underlined text which is the proposal from the Planning Commission and also the bold print as a further addition? Mr. Pendoley responded SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 7 that is correct. Mayor Boro stated he appreciates very much the work Mr. Pendoley and his staff have done on this item. They have really clarified the issues, and he likes the charts presented and also the analysis on the justification for some of the factors such as the 1500 feet, the 1/2 acre, etc. He asked about page 8 of the staff report, which speaks about potential flat sites in low density neighborhoods, which may be impacted by this whether the Council goes with the original recommendation from the Planning Commission or Alternative 1. These particular sites could at some point in time come into play. He is assuming staff has pretty well examined the rest of the City and feels there are no other sites out there, and that each of the sites has qualifica- tions on them at this time as noted in the staff report. Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. He stated there are certainly other sites in the City which are at some greater distance from shopping for instance, but this analysis came out of their study of different alternatives for distance. They questioned what happens at a quarter of a mile, or at half a mile or somewhere in between. If there was a site over a half mile, it would not have been included. He added there are school sites which are presently occupied and seem to be fully utilized, and they were not included in this, but could have been. Staff felt this was a reasonable list. Councilmember Thayer stated it could happen that if someone put in a shopping center or store which was closer to these sites, then the picture could change. Mr. Pendoley agreed. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that before we commence the hearings, one other process matter is necessary. He stated that by virtue of the newly -elected Council- members, each of them should state publicly that they have familiarized themselves with the material which was presented to the Council on October 18th. He noted that in Councilmember Heller's instance, since she was a member of the Planning Commission before, she is familiar with the issues. But Mr. Zappetini should state that he has sufficiently familiarized himself with the material involved in this matter to vote on it. Councilmember Heller stated she is familiar with the reports from the Planning Commission, and also the report this evening. Councilmember Zappetini stated he has not read the whole stack of papers but believes he is up-to-date on the issues. Mayor Boro asked if the applicants would like to give a presentation. Merle Malakoff of Catholic Charities, project manager for the St. Isabella's project, stated he would like to acknowledge once again the tremendous support which continues to show up for the meetings and noted the number of people at tonight's meeting. He stated that either manner in which the Council decides to proceed on the issues to- night is acceptable. They would like to see more general language proposed, to keep open the options for future development of affordable housing. He noted this is a specific site and a specific project and is a wonderful site, and they are most interested at this point in doing what is necessary for the St. Isabella's site, and they will trust the judgment of the Council. Mr. Malakoff commented on Mr. Titus' proposal regarding the formula for density bonus. He pointed out that a senior unit is very different from other facilities, with one bedroom, 540 sq. ft., such as those being proposed. They are very different from a single family house unit which may be 1500 to 1800 sq. ft. and have multiple cars and multiple drivers, and the Council would probably wish to give more thought to making a direct correlation between units and the density bonus. He noted the St. Isabella's site is allowed 8 units to be developed because of the trips which are allowed. If there was a 300% limit on the density bonus, you would allow 24 senior housing units, and even those people who are most opposed to the size of the proposed project recognize that something almost twice that size is more than comfortable for them. He stated he feels it is more appropriate to look at the impact of the project, such as traffic, size, and integration into the community. Those are appropriate standards to use when considering how to define a density bonus, and his group con- curs with the staff's position. Mr. Malakoff added that their attorney is present, and also the project architect in case there are any questions about the project. Tay Via, land use attorney representing the applicants, stated that she would like to reserve a few minutes at the end of the public comment period to address specific concerns on any legal issues which are raised, and respond directly to them. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Alan Titus if he wishes to address the Council. Mr. Alan Titus first addressed Alternative 2. He stated he is bothered by the specific language. He stated that for the last year and a half we have been told that affordable senior housing is something which is good and wonderful, and actually the people who have opposed this project have agreed with that proposition. However, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 8 what the specific proposal does is to say that the only time you are going to allow a project in a low density neighborhood is this kind. He stated that is inconsistent with the General Plan. Regarding both Alternatives, Mr. Titus questioned that the project has to be within 1500 feet of services such as a grocery or pharmacy. He noted that on page 8 of the staff report you are looking at the other sites being considered, and Site #6 is ruled out because it is more than 1/2 mile to shopping. He stated that is not accurate, and he thinks that at the October 18th hearing Mr. Pendoley actually addressed that site. What is being said here is that the Northgate Mall site is not being considered as shopping services because it does not have a grocery market. He stated that this site is within 1500 feet of the Northgate Mall, which is how staff is saying you should count. He noted that PayLess Pharmacy is at Northgate Mall. He stated the language says "such as grocery or pharmacy", and we have the pharmacy. It seems that the Planning staff is interpreting this now by saying you have to have a grocery, but the language does not say that. He would suspect that someone could come before the Council and make that point if they have a pharmacy nearby, and expect approval. Mr. Titus stated he still has a concern about spot zoning, and he does not want to let that pass. He does not think you can do with a General Plan amendment what you are not allowed to do in zoning. There is a serious legal question there which he thinks deserves better comment and better report before the Council goes ahead and adopts this. Regarding Alternative 1, Mr. Titus stated he does not think that is replacing H-37. He previously made known his position that when H-37 was adopted and the language in it said you had to be consistent with the trip allocations, that was referring to the specific trip allocations which in this case are 8, which here would mean 40 units. He stated that when H-37 was adopted, assuming that some or perhaps most of the Councilmembers did intend that it would apply in low density areas, he has to believe it was also intended to be limited, and the density bonus allowed be limited to that allowed under the density. He stated now this is being changed, and you are allowed to get a density bonus based on the trip bonus which is being allowed. He stated this is a subtle change which has worked its way into the General Plan over the last year and a half, since he first brought up this issue. The City changed policy C-4 in reaction to his position and now is being asked to change H-37. These changes make a big difference, and he does not think it should be done through the back door that way. Mr. Titus commented on Mr. Malakoff's comment regarding the formula. He explained when he suggested the 300%, 200%, 100% formula, he was somewhat vague. He was doing it with the thought that he and the other opponents of this do favor a 40 -unit project. The problem is that when you allow 300% bonus as he is proposing, he does not know what it is 300% of. Mr. Malakoff said it would be of 8 units, and previously in the sessions with the City, we have been told that someone could come along and build as many as 17 units or 15 units on this site. When he proposed the 300%, it was more "off the cuff" than a serious number, and he would like to know how you count how many units are allowed when the General Plan really does not do that. He stated his formula makes sense and is appropriate. High density areas get less of a bonus, low density areas get more of a bonus, but 300% is a big bonus and the 600% being asked for here is really too much of a bonus. Jeffrey Kirchmann noted for the record that the Northgate/Terra Linda Zoning Map of the City shows that the County Office of Education parcel at the corner of Las Gallinas and Las Colindas is, in fact, within 1500 feet of the Northgate 1 Shopping Center where Safeway is located. He also noted that no notice of any City Council hearing on this matter this year has been posted at the County Clerk's Office as of mid-day today. Mr. Kirchmann stated the Council is aware of his belief that it is not good policy to permit density bonuses in a low density area. However, if the Council is inclined to approve one of the Alternatives before them tonight, he feels it would be a mistake to approve the Alternative 2 which is site specific and which would provide at most for 61 affordable senior units at this one location and, in fact, would only assure that 24 units would be affordable, and only 5 of those would be affordable for low income households. Also as Councilmember Thayer has pointed out, if you choose Alternative 2 and delete housing policy H-37, you would no longer have any specific density bonus provisions in the General Plan for senior housing. He stated that, most importantly, the General Plan is meant to be a policy document which expresses the planning policy of the City, rather than simply ratifying specific projects for specific parcels, and he urged the Council to make a policy decision. Robert Nalducci from Terra Linda used the overhead to explain his three areas of concern. He noted that the project sponsor has requested amendments to the General Plan which would delete housing policy H-37. He noted H-37 provides specific cri- teria for SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 9 allowing density bonuses in projects in medium and high density areas, and provides important limitations for the use of density bonuses and requires consis- tency with neighborhood scale. It is consistent with other policies: H-34, RES -1, LU -19 and LU -34. He noted that H-34 encourages affordable housing designed to meet local demographic needs and compliment existing neighborhoods. RES -1 speaks to protection and conserving of existing residential neighborhoods by requiring new development to be harmoniously integrated. LU -19 requires projects to be designed in relation to surrounding areas. LU -34 requires that new development respect and enhance existing residential development through appropriate building scale and design. Mr. Nalducci reported he put together a matrix of senior housing projects in Marin County. He visited all of them, and they are very fine facilities. He described Martinelli house, 54 units, in a medium density area; Parnow House, 66 units, medium density, with the Jewish Community Center and Church grounds in the area; Bennett House is 70 units in a medium density area with stores and two-story houses in the vicinity. St. Isabella's project, low density area, one story. He then showed pictures on the overhead of the various facilities and pointed out their location on the sites and businesses in the neighborhoods. Mr. Nalducci noted an article in the Independent -Journal which described the St. Isabella's facility as 7 buildings, and pointed out it is not 7 buildings, but only 2. One building will have 58 units and one small building will have 4 units. He stated the second floor is equivalent to 10 single family homes. The project is 30 times the size of the house which is 15 feet away. To give an idea of the size of the building, he showed a picture on the overhead of the Smith Ranch Health Care Center near McInnis Park, which is 300 ft. long and 2 stories. He stated if you added 75 feet on each end, it would give you an idea of the St. Isabella's building. He stated this project is not in scale with a low density residential area. With regard to H-37, Mr. Nalducci stated the City has established these policies and goals to protect the residential areas, and it should not be deleted. Merle Malakoff noted there are a number of single family homes adjacent to Bennett House, as was shown on the pictures. He added that this is not a single family house, that is true, and perhaps it is the wish of the Council to approve only single family homes. He stated the applicants believe that affordable housing is important, and it is clearly stated as a priority in the General Plan, and to achieve quality afford- able housing requires allowance for development of a project that can pencil out economically, however, this is not the appropriate time for that issue. Mayor Boro agreed that we must stay with the General Plan amendment issue tonight. Tay Via addressed a few points raised by Mr. Titus and Mr. Kirchmann about the pro- ject. Mr. Titus stated that senior housing is such a wonderful thing that it would be inconsistent with the General Plan and with the policies to disapprove a more site specific amendment. She stated that because senior housing is wonderful, sometimes you have to do what you have to do to approve a project which you know is consistent with the General Plan out of respect for such a project. The General Plan is a living document, and if certain projects come forward in the future which also meet these criteria, then certainly it would be appropriate to consider them. Although Catholic Charities would prefer broader alternatives because of the importance of senior housing, they would be happy to see either alternative approved. Regarding Mr. Kirchmann's comments about posting of notices, Ms. Via stated they disagree with his interpretation of the law in the first instance, but she wants to clarify that the notice provision he is referring to is a provision of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and applies only in a case where you would be considering taking final action on environmental review, which we are not doing this evening. You are simply considering the General Plan amendment and are not taking final action on it in any way. Ms. Via addressed the issue of spot zoning, which has been raised several times, but no authority has been cited. She stated that from all of the research she has done on the issue, it simply does not apply in this case. By State law, the General Plan provides certain basic policies, and in considering a General Plan amendment, the City is required to consider carefully on each change and ensure that it is related to policy decisions. In this case, there is no "spot", and there is no zoning. In the first instance, the two broader policies the Council is looking at would apply to all properties in the City, and even in the case of the more specific site amendment, it is based on policy considerations which require specific findings about scale and trip allocations and parking. She gave an example of spot zoning: all of the spot zoning cases of which she is aware involve a landowner who claims his constitutional rights have been violated because of an arbitrary decision regarding zoning which renders his or her property worthless or significantly devalued. For example, if you own a vacant parcel surrounded by industrial development and you want to develop it and the City says they want it to be open space, and you are basically an island in an industrial area, that would be spot zoning. That does not apply in this case, and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 10 no one can state that their property will be rendered worthless on the basis of the Council's decision. There are no cases on that point which would apply it outside of the zoning context in any event, and which would apply to the General Plan. There being no further public input, Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing closed. He called for Council discussion and noted the goal tonight is to either approve the original alternative from the Planning Commission or Alternative 1 as modified which we can call the policy approach, or Alternative 2, which is site specific. Councilmember Zappetini stated that on page 7 of the staff report, everything which is referred to under the Planning Commission recommendations refers to H-37, and then it says "addressed elsewhere in the General Plan." In other words, if we go into Alternative 1 or 2, and eliminate H-37, it is already covered somewhere else anyway. He asked if that is a correct interpretation. Mr. Pendoley responded that is staff's recommendation. Mayor Boro noted the original proposal talked about eliminating H-37 because it is covered elsewhere. The new proposals talk about retaining H-37. Mr. Pendoley explained the Council has that option if they choose to; however, the language recommended would delete H-37, but it pulls all of the standards in H-37 having to do with neighborhood scale, parking, etc., into the Alternatives. He noted that Councilmember Thayer has been a little concerned because under Alternative 2, H-37 would be deleted, and there is a potential for some other senior project, perhaps in a medium density area, and she might feel uncomfortable if we did not have H-37 as a fallback. If that is how the Council feels, they should ask the Commission to consider keeping H-37 in, but staff would state that H-37 is redundant. Councilmember Thayer stated she was a little confused when people referred to H-37, especially with the argument that density bonuses are not allowed if you already have trip allocations, because she does not read H-37 that way. It says "low and moderately priced senior housing may be developed in residentially designated flat sites within walking distance of services and transit routes. Density bonuses above General Plan densities may be conserved for senior projects with trip allocations for the site, in North or East San Rafael, considering projects, parking and neighborhood scale." She stated that is the current edition of H-37. That would suggest to her that you could have density bonuses on top of the trip allocations. Mr. Pendoley replied that has always been staff's interpretation. Councilmember Cohen asked if Councilmember Thayer is arguing that it is therefore not appropriate to actuate a density bonus using a bonus trip allocation in addition to the trip allocation designated in the General Plan? Councilmember Thayer replied that to use the trip allocation in the General Plan for the St. Isabella's project, we would only have 40 units. Therefore, the argument has been made that that is all the density bonus which should be allowed, and this bonus trip allocation is the bonus itself. She stated that is essentially the way she has heard this argument. What she is saying is that she reads H-37 differently than Mr. Titus and reads it as allowing for a density bonus in addition to the trip allocation for the site. Councilmember Cohen stated he agrees and wanted to clarify the issue. He stated that when we were drafting the General Plan, the thing which drove the General Plan modelling was the notion of trip allocations. When they drafted the General Plan, they did as much as they could in what they thought was a rational fashion. They allocated trips to different properties in different areas of the City, based on current and future anticipated traffic capacities. Out of that allocation, they left themselves little groups of trips and did not specify them to any specific properties so they could be allocated at a future time consistent with public policy goals. That is exactly what we are doing here. Based on that, you then apply the other policies in the General Plan. Councilmember Thayer stated these are essentially free-floating trips because not all of the parcels are going to use their trips. However, they are not particularly indigenous to the sites, except for the ones which were allocated to the sites. Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct, and that has been the staff's inter- pretation since they first looked at this application. Nevertheless, when the issue came up, because they were not concerned about this project but worried that there could be a misinterpretation on other applications Citywide, when staff did last year's cleanup General Plan amendments, they made modifications to policies C-4 and C-6 in the Circulation Element to simply state that. Trip allocations will include bonus trips as well. Councilmember Heller stated she certainly likes the fact that this chart was provi- ded, which is helpful. She stated she prefers a broader interpretation rather than making it narrower. She stated it leaves the City a little more flexibility in the future planning, but that will probably be discussed later. Mayor Boro stated he feels that is about where we are right now, as to which Alternative we would like to send back SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 11 to the Planning Commission for consideration. Councilmember Cohen stated we heard from the applicant's attorney, but he would like to hear from staff as well about the issue which Mr. Kirchmann has raised twice, regarding the inadequacy of the City's noticing on the hearings, and he would like it clarified. Mr. Pendoley stated it is the City's position that we have adequately noticed these hearings, and even if there was an issue, it would be moot if this were referred back to the Planning Commission and a new Negative Declaration were pre- pared, which would be the case under Alternative 1 or 2. Councilmember Cohen stated he agrees with Councilmember Heller that it makes more sense to adopt general policies in a General Plan when they are consistent with the General Plan, and we can find good reason to do so, not because of the issues which were raised about spot zoning and others, but each time we have a project in front of us we ought to be able to approve it and encourage it to go forward for the reason that it is consistent with the policies in the General Plan, or as modified if necessary, but not because we have to rewrite the General Plan specifically to that project. He feels the Council would set a dangerous precedent. Each time we have a project there could be the question of amending the General Plan for that specific project. He does not feel that should be done unless the Council has a compelling reason to do SO. Councilmember Cohen stated that the concerns he raised at the previous hearings about the recommendation from the Planning Commission are adequately answered in Alterna- tive 1, although he hesitates to drag it out and send it back for another round of comments from the Planning Commission. He stated that the chart comparing the Alternatives which is on page 7 of the staff report is very helpful. The specific differences between the Planning Commission recommendation and Alternative 1 are important. It is important to retain the discretion of parking needs, and in the land use discussions, the notion of neighborhood scale and neighborhood compatibil- ity. He feels that the language helps to achieve more clarity on the idea of bonus trips. He stated he knows that is redundant, but it is important to have all the issues in one location, even if they are duplicated elsewhere in the General Plan. He stated for that reason he would support Alternative 1 and recommend to the Council that they vote to adopt that policy and refer it back to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Councilmember Zappetini stated he concurs with Councilmember Cohen. He stated that this is a very important and critical issue and a very sensitive issue in the neigh- borhood. He stated that reading the General Plan is almost like reading the Bible, it is subject to interpretation. He added he thinks that on this project we need a little clarification, and he would like to see that done. He stated he would like to see Alternative 1 policy approach. Councilmember Thayer stated she favors Alternative 1. She stated she feels the question before the Council tonight is whether we are going to allow density bonuses in low density areas for the purpose of affordable housing and, if so, which of the three alternatives should we choose. She agrees with Councilmembers Cohen and Zappetini that it makes better sense to go with Alternative 1. She feels there is enough in our General Plan to tell us that affordable housing for senior citizens is certainly a priority. She stated the statistics in the report on the requirement for senior housing in future years are mind-boggling. For that reason, she is for this project; however, she does like Alternative 1 with several modifications. She would increase the lot size to one acre, as was suggested in the plan. She would also, for safety sake, retain policy H-37 and bring it back because she feels this is a big concern in the community. Mayor Boro commented that when the Council discussed this last month, they talked about these options; and he had asked that we look at site specific because he wanted to look at the issues we might be able to deal with. He stated he is somewhat con- cerned about what happened elsewhere with this approach, but on the other hand, he feels that it does send a positive message. In answer to Mr. Titus' comment, not to say that this housing is good only here and nowhere else in the City, he thinks it is the policy of this Council to encourage affordable housing throughout our City. He stated he would not want to send out a signal that we do not support that concept. He does feel, however, that there are safeguards in the process which we have, where there is no direct entitlement to any one site, that if a site meets some of these qualifications which have developed, whether it be 1/2 acre, 1 acre or the 1500 feet or whatever the case might be, based on the traffic and the type of housing proposed, that applicant would have to make their case. He noted the Council is not guarantee- ing anything as far as specifics, but we are through a broad policy stating that we are supporting this concept, and if the appropriate parcel comes before us, we would be willing to consider it. He stated he thinks that sends a positive signal, and he is also willing to support Alternative 1. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 12 Councilmember Cohen stated he feels that the one acre standard makes more sense; it is consistently pointed out in the staff report, and he supports that change. He then asked Mr. Pendoley is there any reason not to retain policy H-37. Mr. Pendoley replied he does not think there is any problem with retaining H-37. He stated staff was simply recommending that it be taken out; however, if the Council sends this back to the Planning Commission with a request that they consider deleting H-37 and a problem does appear in the course of studying that, the Council will get a recommen- dation to that effect. He stated he does not think there is a problem. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to refer Alternative 1 as presented by staff this evening back to the Planning Commission for their consideration as an amendment to the General Plan with the appropriate policies as laid out in the staff report, with the change that the reference to 1/2 acre be changed to 1 acre and that policy H-37 be retained. Councilmember Heller stated that her preference is for the broadest interpretation that we have; however, she is very comfortable with Alternative 1. She would like the Planning Director to look at it to put forth no building heights limit. She stated it is 30 feet, and we should not lock ourselves into something in the event we at some time may want 31 feet. She wondered if that could be left open. Mr. Pendoley stated that if the Council concurs, he would like to take that as a direction to bring back a pro and con analysis on the 30 feet height limit. Councilmember Cohen noted there are some good reasons to retain that. He feels it provides additional standards, and he feels comfortable with it. He pointed out that if the Council found themselves in a situation where, for some reason, 31 feet would be critical to make a project go, then we could examine that issue. He stated in most cases the 30 feet is sufficient, given the way building heights are measured. Also, one of the benefits of this is that it does retain some of the issues of scale, which would relate to the height. He stated he would prefer to see it retained, but the Council could certainly ask that the Commission discuss that issue. His purpose would be to leave it as recommended by staff. Mayor Boro supported it, especially when he looks at the analysis of the comment on 30 feet, where it says that the proposed 30 foot height limit is consistent with the development standards for single family zoning district Citywide. He stated if there is an exception we can look at it, but to open it up would give the Council another variable to deal with, and he does not feel they need it since they are looking to have consistency within the zoning. Councilmember Thayer stated she would like to keep the 30 foot limit for the reasons previously stated. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 11.PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF HANDICAPPED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS - 1607 FIFTH AVENUE (JENNIFER DONNELLAN) (PW) - File 13-1-1 x 1-6-1 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened and asked for a report from staff. Public Works Director Bernardi reported that the State of California, Title 24, requires that whenever a city issues a building permit that handicapped access be provided in the area of construction. It also provides that the Council, sitting as the Board of Appeals, can waive those access requirements for a number of reasons. The primary reason is due to unreasonable hardship. He stated that in this particu- lar case, Jennifer Donnellan is proposing to lease a small commercial space at 1607 Fifth Avenue. The property is near Fifth and Cottage and has nine residential units above, and a small unit below of approximately 216 sq. ft. Currently, the bathroom which is there has about 24 sq. ft. If that were to be converted to a handicapped accessible space, it would take approximately 25% of the total square footage which is available for rent. The use is proposed as a solely operated hair salon, and some minor remodeling is proposed which would be limited to a shampoo sink and a short wall addition. The actual amount of work which would require a building permit is about $800. The total cost of the improvements being planned including the chair and some other improvements amount to about $5,000. Staff has estimated that the cost to make the bathroom accessible, as well as providing a ramp to this site which has six stairs, would be between $10,000 and $15,000. Given the unusual conditions in this case, staff feels that justification of unreasonable hardship is, in fact, warranted and requests the Council, after hearing any other testimony tonight, to adopt a Resolution to that effect. Mayor Boro inquired if the applicant would like to address the Council, and if there is anyone else who wishes to address the Council on this issue. No one came forward. Mayor Boro inquired if staff had notified the appropriate people involved with this issue. Mr. Bernardi responded that staff had notified the Marin Center for Indepen- dent Living. They notified staff on this, and on another issue which was going to SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 13 come before the Council but was resolved, that they do not want to take a position on any appeals which come before the Council. Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing closed and brought the item back to the Council for discussion. Mayor Boro stated that the staff's recommendation makes sense, that this would really be a hardship on the applicant; however, as we go forward, it is important that as best we can we must comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) as buildings remodel. He stated he believes that the responsibility rests with the property owner and not the tenant, to work it out, and it is important that that policy be transmit- ted to the owners. He noted the City is mandated by law under ADA to provide the access, but in some cases the hardship was passed directly to the applicant. Mr. Bernardi stated that staff has relayed those concerns of the Council to the various applicants who come to the Public Works Department for permits, and very few appeals have come before the Council for that very reason. Councilmember Zappetini asked if what staff is saying is that this is a residential unit and they are going to switch it over to a commercial unit? Mr. Bernardi explained that it is a commercial unit right now, with nine residential units above. Councilmember Zappetini inquired if there had been a previous tenant, why had the ramp not been put in before? Mr. Bernardi explained that the previous use had been there for some time prior to the requirements of the State law. Councilmember Zappetini asked, was this triggered because of the building permit, and Mr. Bernardi replied that is correct. Councilmember Thayer stated the property owner should be responsible for renovating, but in this particular site, the Council should make an exception since it would be a hardship at that location. She noted it would take 50 to 60 feet for a ramp, which could not be installed without interfering with the parking, and on the basis of practicality, she would recommend that we create an exception in this case. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, that the Council, sitting as the Board of Appeals, create an exception in this case and direct the item back to staff for appropriate Resolution and findings. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Thayer, Zappetini & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mr. Bernardi stated he will bring the Resolution with Findings back to the Council at their next meeting. 12.REPORT ON HOMELESS IN SAN RAFAEL (PD) - File 233 x 13-16 Mayor Boro stated this item was discussed at the last meeting. Police Chief Krolak was not present, but his staff passed back to him some of the concerns raised. He stated he very much appreciates the report furnished by Chief Krolak and also appre- ciates the time he took to research what is happening in San Francisco and the result we see here in San Rafael. Mayor Boro stated we have seen an increase in the number of homeless people in Downtown over the past month or two, and the report points out that we have some options. He asked that Chief Krolak discuss in particular what is the relationship with the City Attorney's Office when citations are issued, and how do we plan to proceed in the future. He added he would also like to know more about Chief Krolak's idea about dealing with Center Point and some of the options which might be possible. Police Chief Krolak reported that after the citations are issued, they are routed through the City Attorney's Office. The problem they have had is the lack of staffing in the City Attorney's Office, and that is the reason why he and many other depart- ment heads support the Deputy City Attorney position being funded for the remainder of this Fiscal Year, into next year. He stated that process is going forward. The recruitment has been done, but the selection has not yet been made. That will assist the Police Department immensely. With regard to Center Point, Chief Krolak reported that in talking with Tom Fairwell recently, they have been successful in getting a grant from the Federal Government to enhance their facilities. He explained that the police take people to Lincoln House on Fifth Avenue, a detox facility, and this grant will greatly enhance their ability to maintain people there and provide the services they need. This would take the place of the police having to book such individuals into the County jail. Center Point will be getting a nurse practitioner to provide the ability to deal with people who are on medication or in need of minor medical assistance. At this point, they cannot be accepted and have to be taken to the jail or to the hospital, which is a long, time-consuming process. Mr. Fairwell expects the new process to start taking SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 14 place the first of the year. They expect also to receive a grant which will take care of getting some mental health outreach people so there will be outreach counseling available to people with alcohol and drug abuse problems, after they leave Lincoln House. This should eventually help to alleviate the problem. Councilmember Thayer stated that obviously this will save the City money because when the people have to be put in jail, the booking fee is $94 and going up to $119. This program with Lincoln House would be less costly, from $50 to $75 a person. She asked how long does Lincoln House keep people, as opposed to the County jail? Chief Krolak responded that the County jail keeps them for 4 hours, until they sober up. Council - member Thayer observed we would be paying $119 for 4 hours in jail. Chief Krolak stated that is correct, and some people are literally booked in 3 times a day. At Lincoln House they are kept as long as possible, for a period of time to enter them into the counselling program which is presently in-house. With the grant money they will be able to do outreach as well. He further explained that the $50 to $75 is merely a proposal he has been discussing with Mr. Fairwell, and has not been firmed up. Since they are limited in their funds, this would help them in their effort for leasing or buying additional facilities to enable them to expand their facility in San Rafael, and enable not only San Rafael but other law enforcement agencies in the County to utilize those facilities rather than the County jail. Councilmember Thayer noted that in his report Chief Krolak had stated that the loitering laws had been found unconstitutional years ago by the Supreme Court. She inquired about the aggressive panhandling, people who actually accost people. Chief Krolak replied they can deal with the aggressive panhandling. It is the "passive" panhandling which has been ruled as a first amendment right, and they cannot do anything about it. The aggressive ones usually end up with a charge of battery, assault or disturbing the peace. Councilmember Thayer then addressed the subject of additional foot patrols downtown and asked if Chief Krolak feels we need more in the downtown area to enforce the drinking in public or obnoxious behavior. Chief Krolak replied they do need more officers; however, two officers were funded through the Parking Authority 2-1/2 years ago. He noted that for additional staffing, it is a matter of trying to find the funds. He stated that overall the walking beat in the downtown area has been a very successful program, and he would like to add a couple more officers there if he could. Councilmember Thayer stated this will be a big challenge to the Council, and she urged that they take a look at the staffing levels toward adding 5 to 8 new officers. She stated she feels that is something the Council should work toward for the future. Councilmember Heller inquired, when someone is picked up and a citation is given, what happens? Chief Krolak responded that the City Attorney's office sends it to Municipal Court. They send out a letter and try to collect the money. He stated they hope that when the Deputy City Attorney is hired, we will then have the Deputy or someone from the City Attorney's office be the prosecutor in these cases so we can do something with the Courts. He noted that the District Attorney's Office will not prosecute Municipal Code violations. He stated that at present, City Attorney Ragghianti simply does not have the staffing to follow through within the Courts. Councilmember Heller inquired, if someone is given a citation, is there a jail term? Chief Krolak responded that generally it is a fine. Councilmember Heller observed that for a homeless person it would not be likely they could pay a fine. Chief Krolak responded that for the most part, the people in the downtown area are homeless street people, and they are the same ones. If the Police Department has warrants they know who the people are and where they are for the most part, and they are easy to find. He noted that in San Francisco, since it is a City/County entity, it is easier for them to deal with that kind of issue. Councilmember Zappetini spoke of a group of businessmen trying to put together a project called New Beginnings, to establish a home and shelter with a business back- ing. He asked what type of expansion would Lincoln House be doing, and would it be another facility or expanding their location. Chief Krolak explained that they are looking for other facilities in San Rafael or throughout the County where they can provide their services in a more expanded fashion. Councilmember Zappetini inquired has there ever been an effort to combine the amount of community services which are out there, rather than have these little facilities, and try to bring them into one philosophy and have one major facility? Chief Krolak explained that Lincoln House is a County -run facility and is a service which has been operating over the years. Mayor Boro stated there is an effort by the County, in their responsibility to provide shelter for homeless. They do have a Countywide Plan where they are now opening up a shelter in Novato which will be a 24-hour facility. They will also have rehabilitation services as well as housing for people in need, and they will accom- modate between 60 and 100 people at that location. That is in addition to the two or three facilities we have here in San Rafael which are run in an ongoing manner, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 15 specifically 56 Harbor Street and the Mission Avenue facility. He stated there are about 33 agencies which provide services to the homeless, and they have a director who oversees all of them. They attempt to find ways to work together and not compete with each other. He stated that we, as a City, do not get directly involved in, whereas as pointed out by Chief Krolak, in San Francisco the City and County are under one Board of Supervisors and can handle their facilities differently. Councilmember Zappetini inquired if the different jurisdictions have tried to pull together and come up with an Ordinance which would work, and then fund it with each jurisdiction coming up with "X" number of dollars, to put it all together so we could monitor what is going on? Mayor Boro replied that they have worked through the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers to raise the level of awareness that homelessness is not a San Rafael problem, but a Countywide problem. There is now the facility being constructed in Novato, and there are homeless committees in Ross Valley as well as Southern Marin, and they are looking at what they might do, and there has been a similar task force in San Rafael. The cities have been quite clear that they will not attempt to fund homeless services, that by law that is the respon- sibility of the County and we are looking for the County to take the lead in that. City Manager Nicolai added that the cities all contributed toward doing the original study, and there is a Countywide Committee which recommended that there be five different locations. She noted there has been quite a bit of discussion on the pros and cons of trying to have everything in one location, versus having the multiple service providers in various locations. She stated there are different schools of thought, but there is a lot of feeling that to have them dispersed is better than having everything in one location. In San Rafael, we are concerned about having everything in one location, because it would probably end up being in San Rafael. We are trying to create pressure on the other jurisdictions that they should address these problems as well. She stated San Rafael has been frustrated for several years with the problem of public drunkenness, since Lincoln House is not only small, but they have certain people they will not accept. There is also the problem of people from other jurisdictions arresting people for public drunkenness, bringing them back to the jail, and when they are released they are not taken back to where they were found. She stated she would prefer that staff works with Lincoln House to make sure there are multiple locations in the County, so the people will not all end up on San Rafael's streets. The other important point is the cost of the booking fees, where the people are later released in our jurisdiction and left there. Councilmember Cohen noted that in the staff report Chief Krolak states that there are 10 to 15 new homeless here as a result of the MATRIX program in San Francisco. He asked if he has an idea of the number of homeless in the Downtown core? Chief Krolak replied that he does not. Councilmember Cohen stated that the increase may be only 10 to 15 people, but it feels like a lot. The ambience of the Downtown area he feels has been impacted. Councilmember Cohen stated that the staff report mentions that San Francisco has a policy of addressing the "quality of life", and asked to what extent do we have a policy like that. Chief Krolak stated our policy basically is to address the problem as aggressively as possible, given the present laws which we can enforce. He stated that if someone is drunk in public, we deal with that issue, but we deal with the particular circumstances as they arise. He noted a lot of the problem comes from the fact that many people need other kinds of services which the City cannot provide. He noted that San Francisco has a Psychological Unit which is part of their Police Department with officers specially trained. He stated that if our officers come in contact with someone who is a danger to themselves or others based on their mental actions, they take them to the Crisis Unit at Marin General Hospital. He stated that many of the offenses unfortunately are those which are more annoying than anything else, such as lying around the parks or sitting at street corners, and they are not really violating specific laws which would allow the police to have an aggressive enforcement program with them. They enforce the laws that they can when at all possible, either by complaints or from the officers viewing a situation. Council - member Zappetini stated that what Chief Krolak is saying is that we need to have some different laws. Chief Krolak responded he is not sure we have the wherewithal to pass more stringent laws, but he feels we need laws which will allow the kind of enforcement we are looking for. Ms. Nicolai noted a lot of the laws used to be on the books which have been declared unconstitutional, and it is unlikely that they would be reinstated. She stated that to her, the biggest problem in dealing with the homeless is that it is a misnomer. She noted that 500 of the people are substance abusers or mentally ill, and a shelter over them is not the solution to the problem. She feels that the MATRIX program in San Francisco is not just a law enforcement approach, but the people are being given social service programs. She noted a lot of the quality of life issues are not a law enforcement issue but are a symptom of some other problem, and that is what we have to come back to. We are seeing a long-term impact of cutbacks at State, Federal and SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 16 County, which affected these individuals who are now on the street and being addressed as a homeless problem. Mayor Boro stated he had this subject brought up tonight mainly for the benefit of new Councilmembers Heller and Zappetini. He stated he had received complaints recently from several homeowners in the Albert Park area about people trespassing into their yards, and he asked Chief Krolak to make the report he submitted tonight. He stated he would appreciate monitoring of the problem, and also especially any calls from neighborhoods. He noted we are guided by laws which he calls the invis- ible line, where the homeless have certain rights, and the rest of the citizens have certain rights; but once people cross the line and start to infringe on other peoples' rights, something has to be done. He stated if we can get our Deputy City Attorney on board to issue citations and prosecute those in a judicious manner and get the message out, that might help. He added that when he talked to the merchants, they have been very supportive of the Downtown foot patrol, and the fact that the officers know the merchants and know who the homeless people are, that is the kind of environment we want to create. He asked that Chief Krolak pursue and come back with a report on how the mountain bikes the Police Department now has could be used in the Downtown. He feels that would help to move the officers around a little faster. Councilmember Zappetini inquired if Chief Krolak is interviewing for new officers. Chief Krolak responded they are not interviewing as yet. They just had the written test the last two weekends, and as soon as they know the results of the test they are planning to interview. Councilmember Zappetini inquired if one of the criteria would be bilingual? Chief Krolak responded not specifically, but if they have that ability it would certainly be in their favor. The City Council accepted the report and thanked Chief Krolak for his input. 13. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: I. ATTENDANCE AT ABAG MEETING - File 111 Mayor Boro announced that there will be an ABAG (Association of Bay Area Govern- ments) meeting on Thursday, November 18, in San Francisco at the Hyatt Regency, starting at 11:30 a.m. He noted that former Councilmember Dottie Briener was the Council's delegate and he was the alternate, however, he will not be able to attend this meeting. Councilmember Thayer stated she has a conflict, but noted this is a very important post. Mayor Boro noted that the new committee assign- ments for the Council will be coming out very soon. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1993 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 11/15/93 Page 16