Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1989-07-17SRCC MINUTES (Regular 7/17/89 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 17, 1989, AT 7:00 PM. Regular Meeting: CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 89-12 (a) - (#7). No. 89-12 (b) - (#5) 346 Mountain View Avenue. No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 17, 1989, AT 8:00 PM. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Gary R. Frugoli, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager; Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Frugoli moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: Item 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meetings of June 19, and July 3, 1989 and Special Meeting (Closed Session) of July 10, 1989 (CC) 3. Approval of Orca Swim Team Agreement (Rec) - File 4-10-172 4. 5. 21 Renewal of Contract for Property & Workers' Compensation Excess Insurance Through California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (Fin) - File 4-10-202 x 7-1-31 x 9-6-3 Request from Downtown Merchants Association for Closure of City Streets for Subaru Cycling Event on Sunday, August 6, 1989 from 7:00 AM to 4:30 PM (RA) - File 11-19 x (SRRA) R-140 #7 Request for Approval to Close Library from August 21, through August 26, 1989 for Computer Bar -Code Labeling of Book Collection (Lib) - File 9-3-61 7. Approval of Extension of Agree- ment with Bryan & Murphy Associates (Pl) - File 4-3-185 Recommended Action Approved as submitted. RESOLUTION NO. 8001 - AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF AGREEMENT WITH TERRA LINDA ORCA SWIM CLUB, (From August 7-31, 1989 - 7-9:30 AM) RESOLUTION NO. 8002 - AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO CONTRACT FOR PROPERTY INSURANCE AND EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERAGE THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY Approved staff recommendation for partial closure of Fourth, Fifth, "A", "B", "C" and Julia Streets. Approved staff recommendation. RESOLUTION NO. 8003 - AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH BRYAN AND MURPHY ASSOCIATES, INC. (To December 31, 1989) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 7/17/89 Page 2 8. Resolutions of Appreciation RESOLUTION NO. 8004 - RESOLUTION for: (Pl) OF APPRECIATION FOR PETER F. a. Peter F. Walz, Planning WALZ, PLANNING COMMISSION Commission - File 102 x 9-2-6 b. Digne de Lenea, Design Review RESOLUTION NO. 8005 - RESOLUTION Board - File 102 x 9-2-39 OF APPRECIATION FOR DIGNE DE LENEA, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 9. Acceptance of Resignation of Approved staff recommendation. James L. Hudgins, from the Mr. Boughey appointed to serve Cultural Affairs Commission and unexpired term to the end of Appointment of James Boughey, April, 1991. Currently Serving as Alternate (CC) - File 9-2-24 10. Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CC) - File 9-1 11. Claim for Damages: a. Corvette Richardson (PD) Claim No. 3-1-1409 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Approved staff recommendation: OPPOSED SB 552 - Franchise Fees for Oil Pipelines. OPPOSED SB 1082 - (Kopp) - Broad- moor Police Protection District. Approved City Attorney's recommendation for denial of Claim a. Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan 12. PRESENTATIONS OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO: a. PETER F. WALZ, PLANNING COMMISSION b. DIGNE De LENEA, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Mayor Mulryan presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Peter F. Walz, who has served on the Planning Commission since December 21, 1987. Mr. De Lenea, who served on the Design Review Board from July 18, 1988, was not present. 13. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION WITH FINDINGS TO REVOKE USE PERMIT ISSUED FOR THREE KLICKS OUT NIGHTCLUB; 555 FRANCISCO BLVD., EAST, HARBOR CENTER PARTNERS (DLM INVESTMENTS) OWNERS; MICHAEL MARITZEN, APPELLANT, REP., JON P. RANKIN, ATTORNEY; AP 14-152-28 (Pl) - File 10-5 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened, noting this was a continued public hearing. Planning Director Pendoley stated on February 28, 1989, Planning Commission voted to revoke the Use Permit for Three Klicks Out (TKO) based largely on evidence presented by the San Rafael Police Department. The decision was appealed to the City Council and on June 5, 1989, Council considered a Stipulated Agreement which proposed to amend the Use Permit to address issues of concern to the Police Department,and then referred it to the Planning Commission. On June 27, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the Stipulated Agreement and referred it back to Council with recommendation for approval. Mr. Pendoley stated most of the points relate to issues concerning the Police Department, noting if Council concurred with the Planning Department's analysis, Council should uphold the appeal and amend the Use Permit to include the conditions in the Stipulated Agreement. In response to Councilmember Boro's question if the closing time is 3:00 AM, Police Chief Ingwersen answered affirmatively, indicating it was part of the agreement that last call should begin at 12:45 AM with last service of alcoholic beverage at 1:00 AM. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regulai 7/17/89 Page 3 Councilmember Thayer referred to noise when the band practiced with the door opened, and Police Chief Ingwersen stated the noise issue is one of the primary concerns along with the consumption of alcoholic beverages, and noted the owners are aware of these issues. Michael Maritzen, owner, stated the noise problem is being taken care of. Councilmember Breiner referred :to page 4 of the Resolution, under (j), Entertainment, to clarify that the Use Permit will be dxtended for six months or until January 17, 1990. Mr. Al Allison, tenant at San Rafael Yacht Harbor, stated he did not have many arguments with the Stipulated Agreement but wanted to know if the noise was sufficiently mitigated, and whether additional insulation to the door had been added. Mr. Maritzen responded it is in place. Mr. Allison asked that the noise issue be monitored and if more mitigation is needed that it be addressed, noting this was the only concern he now had. There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 8006 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD- ING APPEAL AND MODIFYING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THROUGH ACCEPTANCE OF A STIPULATED AGREEMENT FOR OPERATION OF THREE KLICKS OUT NIGHTCLUB (UP83-94(a-i) (Use Permit extended to January 17, 1990) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF JUNE 27, 1989, RE: APPROVING UP89-12, USE PERMIT FOR A 40 BED DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHABILIATION FACILITY ON THE SITE OF THE MARIN MANOR RETIREMENT FACILITY; 603 "D" ST.; APPELLANT: STEVE PATTERSON, CHAIRMAN, GERSTLE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION; CENTER POINT INC., OWNER; DR. SUSHMA TAYLOR, REP.; AP 12-072-25 (Pl) - File 10-5 Councilmember Frugoli disqualifed himself because the company he is affiliated with is involved with the real estate transaction on the property, and left the Council Chambers. Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Planning Director Pendoley stated the application was for a 40 -bed drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility at 603 "D" Street, currently the site of the Marin Manor Retirement Center. He noted the Marin Manor Retirement Care Home was originally constructed in 1968 when a Use Permit was granted, noting the building has 22 rooms and could take an occupancy of up to 44 people. It is currently licensed for 38 people and at this time has 36 patients. He noted it provides for a variety of health care needs, servicing ambulatory and non-ambu- latory adults, and is co-educational. He noted patients include retired people as well as persons with psychiatric problems, with some having drug and alcohol problems, and that no medical treatment is given at the facility at this time. Mr. Pendoley stated Center Point proposes to relocate its current operation, which is about two blocks away. He said Center Point has a long history dating back to 1969. Since that time they have operated a drug rehabilitation facility providing residential care and counseling. Center Point proposes to operate a highly structered, closely supervised range of services that would extend for a six month period, and that all patients are volunteers. The facility would service 40 patients with only drug or alcohol problems, and is limited to the age 18 to 65 years old group. Mr. Pendoley stated staff analyzed the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and the City's Environmental Determination and found it complies on all three counts. Regarding parking, staff recommended and the Planning Commission concurred, that there was no additional impact from parking SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regulai 7/17/89 Page 4 since patients are not allowed to have vehicles, and they will have need for one less staff parking space than the current operation. The Planning Commission, in reviewing the issue, received extensive testimony that lasted into the early morning hours on June 28, 1989. Mr. Pendoley stated the Planning Commission reached its decision based on the testimony as to the need and success record of Center Point's operation, and the fact that this operation is similar to the Marin Manor facility. Mr. Pendoley stated the appeal (which was filed by Steve Patterson on behalf of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association) is filed on four grounds: 1) Intensity and Density of the program, 2) Inadequate Use Permit Conditions, 3 ) Specifics of On Site. Nie.etings not resolved and 3) Inequitable Hearing Time, and then responded to the four grounds on appeal. 1) Intensity and Density of the program - staff recommended the change is not significant since Marin Manor is currently licensed for 38 people and the proposal is to add only two patients. 2) Inadequate Use Permit Conditions - he noted staff did not have specifics in the appeal, therefore it was difficult to respond to. The Planning Commission added five conditions to the seven recommended by staff. 3) Specific On Site Meetings - Planning Commission heard testimony that this operation is very tightly controlled and visitors are strictly limited, noting the public may not simply walk onto the facility and there are no drop-in activities. 4) Inequitable Hearing Time - The hearing began at Midnight, however, Planning Commission felt that many people in the audience had waited long and it would have been unfair to continue the hearing and send them away. The Commission also felt it heard a fair cross section of opinions and their ability to make a decision was not impaired by the late hour. Mayor Mulryan asked City Attorney Ragghianti for his legal opinion regarding a letter received from Albert Bianchi, Center Point's attorney, which stated that in effect the Council does not have the legal ability to say "No" to the Use Permit because the present Use Permit is valid and current and is generally consistent with the proposed use and because Use Permits run with such land. City Attorney Ragghianti stated he agreed with Mr. Bianchi's opinion, noting it was his opinion that the Use Permit, which was issued in 1968 for the proposed predecessor, is sufficient to encompass this particular use as well. Mayor Mulryan asked therefore if the Council, in its decision making power, is limited to conditions on such a use and Mr. Ragghianti replied he believed that to be the case, adding the applicant may be willing to agree that the Use Permit, which was recommended to be issued, supercedes the one presently in place and that the conditions which the Planning Commission imposed on the use also be attached to it, noting the applicant's attorney should be asked whether that is the case. Finally, Mr. Ragghianti stated that it is true that use permits, just as variances, run with the land and do not cease to exist when property passes from one ownership to another. In response to Mayor Mulryan's query after hearing City Attorney Ragghianti's opinion, Attorney Albert Bianchi representing Center Point, replied they are willing to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors, City Council and Planning Commission regarding the conditions but did not agree with the 13th condition. He read the following: "This Use Permit is valid for two years or until July 17, 1991 unless extended or revoked". He noted his client had no objection to a review of its operation every year but objected to the potential expiration of the Use Permit after any specific period of time. Mr. Bianchi explained, in order to utilize a facility of this type, it is necessary to expend monies upon the improvements and work, and to do this one must borrow money and amortize the money over a period of time that represents the useful life of those improvements. He noted two years SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 7/17/89 Page 5 is not enough time in which they could amortize the investment. Also, Mr. Bianchi stated with financing for the improvements to be made and the costs to be expended over a period of time, it will not be possible to use any part of the property to secure any financing if there is a limitation for two years. He said no lending institution will give a loan knowing that in two years time that property may no longer be usable for that purpose. Mr. Bianchi concluded, they don't think they need a new Use Permit, but stated they reserve their right to contend that in an appropriate form if necessary, but are willing to accept the conditions set forth by the Planning Commis- sion with the one exception. Mr. Bianchi addressed some of the 12 other conditions they are willing to accept: 1) Limit of 40 residents in a location where 38 residents are already authorized. 2) Compliance at all times with not only State requirements but also with City review. Mr. Bianchi stated they have no objection to ongoing periodic City review. 3) Proposed Outreach Program, noting this is a program where they go out into the surrounding neighborhoods in the community to include on the Board of Directors of the Center Point Program, an appointed resident of Gerstle Park Neighborhood. 4) Strict rules regarding Noise and Loitering. 5) Adequate staffing in order to assure safety and security at all times. 6) No automobiles will be permitted for any of the residents. Mr. Bianchi indicated these conditions expressed by Planning staff and Planning Commission, and in the form of conditions that must be met by Center Point at all times in order to continue to survive, will be accepted by Center Point, subject to only the reservation mentioned. Councilmember Thayer stated Mr. Bianchi had addressed a very important point, that is if those Conditions of Approval were violated then that Use Permit would be in question. Mr. Bianchi responded this is true under the existing Use Permit and under any conditions imposed consistent with what the Planning Commission has done. Mr. Steve Patterson, Appellant and President of Gertle Park Neighbor- hood Association stated the dynamics of the Center Point application left him with a bad feeling, noting the whole issue was handled poorly. He did not feel the nature of the complete Center Point program was thoroughly analyzed with all the impacts on the neighborhood, and felt the Planning Commission, at 2:00 AM in the morning, was not in an analytical frame of mind. He noted most of the conditions listed for the Use Permit were added at the suggestion of Linda Bellatorre and Sushma Taylor. He mentioned he felt Dr. Taylor's presentation revolved around emotional and touching testimonials by graduates of Center Point about overcoming substance and alcohol abuse. Mr. Patterson stated this is a very good program, but noted the issue is and always will be, land use and not drug use, and it is not about being in their backyard, but that it is about having enough in their backyard. Mr. Patterson stated Marin Manor operates with a Use Permit for 38 people but in fact has only 24 residents. The neighborhood has become accustomed to 24 older, more subdued, non -intimidating individuals, and indicated if Center Point were to operate with an equal number of 24 recovering drug/alcohol abusers, this is a different type of population. Mr. Patterson asked Council to listen to the neighbors who live close to the facility and who have rejuvenated the neighborhood in the last five years. Ms. Linda Bellatorre, with Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association and resident for 15 years, stated everyone agrees there is a need for a drug/alcohol rehabilitation program. She asked Council to reex- amine the specifics of the application. 1) Use Permit and appropriateness for the site. Ms. Bellatorre noted staff report states the new use will come under the same Licensing Classification as the current occupant of 603 "D" Street, Marin Manor. She noted Licensing Classification and actual use should be looked SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 PAGE 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regulai 7/17/89 Page 6 at separately and be distinct and not lumped together under the title of "Health Care Facility." She stated that the population averaging age 29 should be housed in a facility providing some outdoor living and exercise area; that there should be a buffer zone around the facility which would help to alleviate the every day noise. 2) Proposed number of 40. Ms. Bellatorre stated, during the hearing process the numbers ranged from 24 to 34 or 44 by Center Point. She noted the Marin Manor lot is only a little larger than her lot, and stated her neighbors would not like the idea of 40 people living next door to them nor absorb the impact of such a situation. She did not think maximum or near maximum of people should be allowed even though it is set to accommodate the numbers. She stated the number of facilities already in the area, the intensity of the program and the charactor of the neighborhood should be taken into considera- tion when the decision is made. 3) Ms. Bellatorre spoke about the number of allowable residents and noted Center Point mentioned a waiting list of 200 and stated perhaps this overwhelming need figured into the decision to allow 40 clients and noted there is no way Center Point will be able to help or accom- modate the entire waiting list for this facility. She said therefore, reduction in number will only insignificantly reduce their effectiveness but would significantly relieve the neighborhood. 4) Ms. Bellatorre stated at the Planning Commission meeting she asked for a one year Use Permit, noting Center Point has been located up to this point in commercial districts, indicating they do not know how they will meld into a residential one. Ms. Bellatorre responded to Mr. Bianchi's statement made earlier regarding the time limit and stated in working with previous facili- ties, a time limit was set to the Use Permit, and noted she did not understand why there would be an exception in this case. In closing, Ms. Bellatorre stated Center Point's merits and program success have been based in tribute to Dr. Taylor's excellent reputation, and wondered if for some reason Dr. Taylor left the program, if her successor would be as effective and accomplished. Mr. Huqo Landecker, 21 year resident of Gerstle Park, spoke against the facility, citing a lack of landscaping maintenance at another Center Point facility at 812 B Street; on-site meetings not having enough parking; he requested that Center Point not have any signs and the Use Permit be reviewed after one year. A resident in the area spoke against the facility, and supported the appeal, noting he preferred the facility to be left as a rest home; also mentioned he read at night only one staff person would be on duty for 40 people. He asked that the use be left as its present use or with a maximum of 20 patients. Ms. Maryann Harris, resident across from the proposed Center Point, spoke against the facility, stating she was concerned about her teenaged children. Ms. Doree Parr, 609 "C" Street, spoke against the facility, noting the neighborhood is overloaded with such facilities. Dr. Shushma Taylor, Executive Director of Center Point, stated she was not here to respond to issues neighbors have regarding the facility at Grove Street. She noted this is a land use issue which has been legally addressed and asked Council to consider the appropriateness of the use for the facility. Dr. Taylor noted Marin County has 33,000 people who have a drug or alcohol problem, indicating they have been in the neighborhood since 1969 trying to combat these problems, citing their waiting list has exceeded 200 persons. Dr. Taylor stated they have looked for other facilities but found Marin Manor ideal for their use, on the outskirts of the residential area, with other facilities around it being commer- cial or mixed, and finally, the facility was built for shared living, noting it will not be an office or condominium building. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 7/17/89 Page 7 Regarding the clients currently being served, Dr. Taylor stated the owners of Marin Manor wish to retire and will relocate the residents to another facility. Dr. Taylor stated for the past 20 years, their services stand for themselves, noting they have an excellent relationship with the San Rafael Police Department. They are not going to impact on traffic or parking. She noted obviously there is considerable support for their project, noting not only the people who wrote, phoned or are present tonight, but mentioned over 1,300 signatures of support have been submitted to the Council. Dr. Taylor stated they have attempted to compromise with the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association and to mediate some of their concerns. She spoke of the complaint of intensification of use but found this difficult to understand, noting there are 38 people approved for residence in the Marin Manor, and they are proposing 40 people, asking how two more people could intensify current use. Regarding the uses being similar or not, Dr. Taylor referred to a City Code cited by Attorney Bianchi. Regarding licensing, she noted this is a State issue, and referred the appellant to the Division of Community Care, the same department that licenses Marin Manor, and which approved Center Point's license. Regarding inadequacies of the Use Permit conditions, Dr. Taylor stated 13 conditions are not inadequate, noting they have compromised and accepted many of the concerns and indicated they are concerned about a special Outreach Program. In conversation with Linda Bellatorre, Dr. Taylor suggested that Center Point and the Gerstle Park Neighbor- hood Association work together to develop an Outreach Program to reduce the homelessness, drunk and disorderly in Gerstle Park. She noted they have volunteers doing this in the Canal area, who have had an impact with location of their non-residential program in the Canal area and wish to do this in Gerstle Park. Dr. Taylor noted they are a solution to the existing problem. Dr. Taylor stated she believes in order to return the former drug user back into the community, they must locate in the community and use the same transportation system, same ancillary social and medical system the rest of .the community does, noting they are a community based program and wish to locate in the community. Dr. Taylor stated they are talking about neighbors, friends, brothers and sisters, noting treatment does work but cannot work unless there is a mandate from the community and she is seeking this from the community, City Council and funding sources, this being the role model they are attempting for their clients. They are attempting once they make the effort and commitment, to turn them around and the community will accept them. Mayor Mulryan asked Dr. Taylor to clarify the meetings on-site and how this small property will accommodate cars that may come from non-residents. Dr. Taylor responded they do not have meetings on- site that are open to the public, noting only authorized visitors are permitted and that there are only eight on-site parking spaces. She explained because of Federal confidentiality, their program operates like a closed program and people coming and going are monitored. Dr. Taylor agreed to the sign condition, and responded to Mayor Mulryan regarding the one staff person on duty for a number of people, and stated this is not true, noting there was an additional staff report submitted to Council speaking to their staffing patterns. She noted there are four staff members up to 8:00 PM, two staff members up to Midnight and one staff person from Midnight to 8:00 AM. In response to Councilmember Thayer's question as to the number of facilities she runs, Dr. Taylor clarified there are two houses, one at 805 and one at 812 "B" Street housing approximately 24 of the 33 allowed and noted they have a Use Permit for housing 33 people for both houses. She stated they plan to take the existing facility that will be their transitional housing facility with fewer resi- dents per square footage, and move the main program to the 603 "D" Street facility. The other houses would be used as satellites. Council - member Thayer stated various figures were mentioned regarding the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regula_ 7/17/89 Page 8 number now at Marin Manor, from 24 to 36, and asked Dr. Taylor what the percentage is now on location having alcohol or drug abuse or mental problems. Dr. Taylor stated 430. Councilmember Boro referred to the younger age group of patients and the neighbors' concerns as to any form of recreation on the site. Dr. Taylor replied the duration of the program is six months. The first three months, they are in group educational activities, counsel- ing activities and attend the YMCA three times a week and the College of Marin two times a week. The people in the re-entry stage of the program are out working or seeking employment. Therefore, they do not have 40 people in doors during the day at any time, but they do sleep there. She also stated they have a series of structured activities, approximately 60 hours of educational or group activities are underway, noting the problem is extensive and time is limited. Councilmember Boro clarified that in the first three months the move- ment of the people in the program is well controlled and after three months they transition back to a more normal approach. Dr. Taylor responded after three months they are in a vocational phase and they are working with the Department of Rehabilitation to get the people jobs, job training or job skills. She noted they are still under supervision and have a weekly plan of their activities and are also allowed to go out but with prior permission and review. Councilmember Boro referred to the Use Permit and the time restraint on it, also mentioning the current facilities at 805 and 812 "B" Street, noting the Use Permits are to expire in August of this year, and asked about the other facilities, the Detoxification Center and Community Center. He asked if these Centers also have a time restraint on the Use Permit. Dr. Taylor responded there is no time limit on the "detox" facility on Fifth Avenue, or one at the Canal facility,stating it is a nonresidential facility. Councilmember Boro indicated it has been his experience over the years that health care facilities have had time review periods and potential expiration dates. Councilmember Boro stated he was concerned about a statement in the staff report, ..."The Agency plans to use the present 805-812 "B" Street facilities for satellite and transitional housing for its graduates and alumnae. This would be allowed under the existing Use Permits for these dwellings." Councilmember Boro stated he would challenge this and say, any use on those sites should come before the Planning Commission and City Council for review, because it sounds like a transitional use and graduate students is a different use that what is there now, and would have other impacts on the neighbor- hood. He stated he is looking for full review of whatever they plan to do with that site and not consider an extension of what is currently happening. Dr. Taylor referred to the Minutes of the Zoning Administrator hearing, stating it speaks to Center Point operating a Group Care Facility/Room- ing House/Drug Treatment Program, noting when the satellite facility was converted in 1984 this was brought before the Zoning Administrator and staff had detailed explanation of their plans and it was approved. Councilmember Boro understood this, but stated the current facility is running a program similar to what is proposed for the new facility and Dr. Taylor was now talking about a different type of use at the old facility, and felt this should be reviewed publicly at the appro- priate time. Councilmember Breiner asked for clarification of alumnae meetings at the site, and Dr. Taylor stated the alumnae do not meet there per se but come to offer their support and role modeling for the clients. She noted they do not have groups of 20 or more people coming to the facility at any one time, including visitors day, and noted they stagger people coming and going because of their own staff- ing requirement and the supervision they require. In response to Councilmember Breiner's request for clarification on the amount of beds permitted, she asked whether Council could reserve the right to say the use for some reason may be too intense and they could be able to cut back should problems arise; City Attorney Ragghianti responded affirmatively. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular. 7/17/89 Page 9 Mayor Mulryan asked Dr. Taylor if the alumnae visits would be limited in numbers so they could be park on-site, and she answered affirma- tively. Dr. Vernon Cox, Advocate Specialist with the Center for Independent Living, thanked Council for hearing about the vital opportunity the City of San Rafael has to benefit the disabled population in Marin County. He stated at this time there are no drug or alcohol detoxifi- cation or socialization centers accessible to people in wheelchairs. He noted with this new proposed facility, this will be an acomplish- ment, stating the Marin Center for Independent Living would laud the opportunity to serve the disabled population with a drug or alcohol facility. Russ Mills, Director of the County of Marin Alcohol and Drug Program, pointed out that the County Health Department provides health services to many of the cities of Marin County, and is responsible for provid- ing a comprehensive alcohol and drug program delivery system in the County. He noted the problems of locating new facilities, acquiring licenses and zoning, etc. Mr. Mills stated alcohol and drug related problems are the result of a reciprocal relationship which takes place between the individual alcohol and drug user and the environment in which they live. He noted in Marin County, one liquor outlet is approved for every 329 people,and.there is an enormous environmental problem that contributes to alcohol problems and the same kind of problem happens on street corners where dope is being sold. Mr. Mills pointed out that these things are inextricably interrelated and one cannot separate alcohol and addicts from the community and neighborhoods and families in which they live, which is an important element. Mr. Mills stated he estimates there are 24,000 people in Marin County having alcohol problems; 16,500 people in Marin County having drug problems. He does not know what the overlap is. He noted the drug users being discussed include 3,445 people who use drugs intravenously indicating this is a very serious problem. He indicated the waiting list of 200 is only a drop in the bucket to resolving the waiting list problem. He reiterated what Dr. Cox pointed out, the disability access issue. Mr. Mills said there has been in the Statutes of the State of California for a number of years, language enforcing the guarantee of accessibility for those in the public sector who utilize Federal and State revenues to build alcohol and drug programs throughout the State. Mr. Mills stated in Marin County we have not been successful at this, noting many of the facilities are totally inaccessible to disabled people, and indicating this grants the first inroad of the residential program level, which is key and significant and highly important in our system. Mr. Mills stated as the person responsible for the fiscal, progra- matic and integrity of the alcohol and drug programs in the County that are publicly funded, he pointed out that Center Point, as with all the contractors in the County, is exposed to two formal monitoring visits by his office, annually. They are also subject to a State certification review of programatic review according to State standards, subject to State licensing review under the California Administrative Code, and in all of these evaluations of their contract objectives, Center Point consistently performs in a superlative way. Mr. Mills concluded in his two and one half years on the job, he has yet to receive a complaint against any of Center Point's facilities from any resident in the community in Marin County. Fran Smith, recovered drug and alcohol addict, stated she has worked in the field of mental health since World War II, for 46 years; worked in the field of substance abuse professionally for 20 years, is a Board member for San Bernardino County on Alcoholism and in Riverside and is currently a member of Marin's Alcohol Advisory Committee. Ms. Smith stated she knows Center Point and its programs and wondered what the objections of having a drug rehabilitation facility is in a certain neighborhood. Ms. Smith stated these facilities are to help people with alcohol and drug problems to recover. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 7/17/89 Page 10 Danny Glover, who has a family member in Center Point, stated he was here for a personal reason because of his concern for a member of his family who had, because of Center Point, taken responsibility for his own life. Mr. Glover stated there was a time when he did not think this person, who is 30 years old, would make it, stating he has been in constant contact with him since he enrolled in the program and is proud of his achievements. This person is now in the vocational stage, is working and still struggling with his problem but has truly made an impact on his life because of the program at Center Point. Mr. Glover concluded by saying, "If you open your heart, you open your mind". Rod Simon of 120 Miramar, with the Marin Center for Independent Living, and as a resident of Gerstle Park, endorsed the Center Point program. Diana Conte, Chair of the Marin County Drug Abuse Advisory Board, stated their Board is mandated by the State and their members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. They are charged with advising them about the substance abuse needs in the County and on monitoring substance abuse services. She urged Council to support the Use Permit for Center Point and its program. Pam O'Donnell, resident of Gerstle Park since 1974, and a current member of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Park Association, stated people should ask themselves, what are they afraid of, noting she is for the Center Point program. Renee Volk, resident of Gerstle Park, stated Center Point and Marin Manor are both situated half a block from her, noting none of the people of these facilities have annoyed her, but instead have been polite and gracious. Dr. Taylor suggested in order to save time in testimony that the alumnae members of Center Point and its supporters stand. Albert Bianchi, Attorney responded to Councilmember Boro's inquiry about some facilities having a time limit imposed upon them, stating they had no objection to repeat their performance before Council as often as Council wished and being inspected in the interim. He stated each permit should be looked at individually, noting some of the newer permits have time limits and others perhaps do not and said the one issued here under the laws of California and Ordinances of the City of San Rafael, has no such time limit. He stated it is for that reason and other reasons stated earlier, that they do not wish to have a time limit imposed at this time. But, insofar as adding conditions, they are prepared to come back with full reservations of all rights, and if there are problems, they will be addressed and resolved in the same good faith as demonstrated this evening. There being no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Thayer stated due to Attorney Bianchi's efforts, Council is now looking at conditions as opposed to a new Use Permit. She stated in her opinion, if they did not approve this project, where is their compassion for the down and out who are trying to pick them- selves up again, and that both logic and compassion in this case dictate approval of the project. She noted staff prepared an excellent report, citing the existing use of Marin Manor which is not so differ- ent from what is proposed. She noted Center Point has an excellent reputation, has been in the same neighborhood since 1969, but never been a source of problems for the police, and has been a good neighbor. Councilmember Thayer stated the expansion proposed for Center Point itself is minimal. There is a license for 33 for the two other houses on "B" Street, and this only requires 40, 7 over what is now permitted. The project is consistent with several conditions of the General Plan, H10, H30 and LU9, all of which deal with special care facilities. In conclusion, Councilmember Thayer asked if Center Point is not allowed to occupy Marin Manor, who will? She preferred the community do what it could for those who are trying to help themselves. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Boro seconded, to deny the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Conditional Approval of UP89-12. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 7/17/89 Page 11 Councilmember Boro agreed with Councilmember Thayer and stated the presentations were well prepared, but that Council should think in the long term about the Gerstle Park Neighborhood and other neighbor- hoods in the City of San Rafael. He noted Gerstle Park was the first to have a neighborhood plan in 1974/76 and the residents have worked diligently in improving and turning the neighborhood around. He applauded Center Point's track record but stated Council needs to be responsive to the long term and can no longer consider this type of facility as incidental, noting the City needs to plan for these types of faci- lities so the people can determine what level they want, where these facilities should be located and how it should interact in their community. Mayor Mulryan stated he supports the motion, noting this is a well run program with a vigilant neighborhood and well run neighborhood association. He indicated having a member from the neighborhood association on the Board should help parts of the community in conti- nuing to work well together. Councilmember Breiner asked if the motion was to strike Condition M from the Resolution and to substitute public review annually. Councilmember Thayer answered affirmatively. Mayor Mulryan clarified for the maker of the motion (Councilmember Thayer) and the second (Councilmember Boro) that Condition M should read, the Use Permit is subject to periodic or annual review to. determine compliance with the Conditions imposed and the effect on the community as opposed to being a particular time limit. RESOLUTION NO. 8007 - DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF UP89-12, 40 -BED DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHABILITATION FACILITY ON THE SITE OF THE "MARIN MANOR" RETIREMENT FACILITY AT 603 "D" STREET AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan Frugoli (Councilmember Fruqoli returned to the meetinq). 15. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A MOBILHOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE (CM) - File 13-7-1 x 115 (SRRA) R-173 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Richard Bornholdt, President of Richard Bornholdt Consulting Group stated on July 5, 1989, Council directed staff to prepare a Rent Stabilization Ordinance for review. He stated a number of ordinances were reviewed in the State of California and he discussed -implementation and administration of the ordinances with the various jurisidictions in both cities and counties. He noted this ordinance is based on an ordinance from the City of Vacaville which has been in place for some time and has been fairly successful. Mr. Bornholdt noted the ordinance applies to the following: 1) Ten or more spaces. 2) A minimal annual increase in rents based upon the CPI (Consumer Price Index). 3) Establishes guidelines for determining reasonable rent increases other than the minimum. 4) Exempts rent increases on spaces that have executed the lease where 500 or more of the residents have executed that lease. Mr. Bornholdt stated if there is a rent increase that is beyond that allowed by the ordinance, then the resident can petition the City to review that particular increase, which needs to be in writing from more than 500 of the spaces that are affected by the increase. Upon receipt of the petition, the City would then turn it over to Marin Mediation Services for review. In the event that process is not successful, a resolution of the situation would go to binding arbitration under the American Arbitration Rules. He noted there are civil penalties written into the ordinance for violation. He also noted there are two mobilehome parks in the City of San Rafael, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regulai, 7/17/89 Page 12 Contempo Marin, off Smith Ranch Road, with approximately 396 spaces, and B -Bar -A, with 45 spaces, located on Francisco Boulevard. Mr. Bornholdt stated they primarily looked at the situation as being the residents' and owners' responsibility for resolution and in the event that was not possible, then they could petition for some assistance. He noted the City is not contemplating checking on rents in the absence of any petition, indicating if the City is not notified by the residents that there is a problem, the_City-would not be actively involved. Mayor Mulryan clarified that the ordinance is designed to be self -polic- ing as much as possible and not keep the City directly involved on a day-to-day basis, and Mr. Bornholdt answered affirmatively. Mayor Mulryan stated he was struck by the number of communities having mobilehome stabilization programs which do not have rent controls on other residential. Mr. Bornholdt stated there is a significant number around the State that have ordinances that apply only to mobile - homes and not the conventional apartments. Councilmember Frugoli asked if the B -Bar -A was considered a mobilehome park or trailer park, noting he was informed that in order for a park to be a mobilehome park the trailor would need a permit to move on the highway and would need to be 40 feet long and 8 feet wide. He stated the residents at B -Bar -A have had stable rents for almost 10 years. He noted there is transient parking in that area also and asked if this particular park could be exempt. He stated he would like the City Attorney to look at the legality of this. Councilmember Boro referred to Mr. Bornholdt's findings and the San Rafael Housing Corporation letter and noted San Rafael Housing Corpo- ration mentioned more strongly the real purpose of why the City needs to have this ordinance is that the General Plan 2000's goal of the City is to protect this level of moderate housing in the City. He asked that this be reflected in its purpose when the ordinance comes back to Council. Mr. Bornholdt agreed. Councilmember Boro referred to arbitration, asking if there was an agreement to the CPI formula as Mr. Bornholdt outlined, that arbitra- tion would be more along the lines of capital improvements, whether they be replacements or additions, and Mr. Bornholdt answered affirma- tively. On page 3 of the ordinance, Councilmember Boro referred to Debt Service and asked what if the park is sold and a new owner comes in with a substantially larger loan at a higher rate, if Mr. Bornholdt expected the higher rate to be passed to the homeowners and how would they be protected? Mr. Bornholdt replied there are certain conditions outlined that are to be considered as to whether that would be allowed or not. He stated that would be a decision to be reached either through mediation or by the arbitrator, noting it is not automatic. He agreed with Councilmember Boro that he is looking for mediation to somehow monitor those extraordinary situations. Councilmember Thayer referred to page 7 of the ordinance calculating the amounts of increase allowed with regard to the CPI, asking if people who are paying less now might end up paying more than the current CPI? Mr. Bornholdt answered that is possible if the average rent approach is used. He stated if the low rent was $400 with the high $550, and this is averaged with the increase at 50, the lowest would be paying 5.6% and the high would pay 4.1%. He noted it would not be the same percentage amount,it would be the same dollar increase. In response to Councilmember Thayer's question as to how many people will be affected by the rent increase who are paying less and who might have different expectations, Mr. Bornholdt replied they did not do a detailed analysis of all of the spaces and what each resident was paying. Referring to the ordinance, page 7, Division 20.07.070, Councilmember Thayer stated it seems that 50% of the tenants could mediate increases within the formula above. Mr. Bornholdt responded if the formula is followed, then that increase is exempt from the ordinance; so those increases are allowed and are not open for question. Council - member Thayer clarified the exemptions are, but that 20.07.070 does SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular, 7/17/89 Page 13 not refer to the actual calculation of how the rent increases are to be calculated, but speaks in terms, except for those not covered by 20.04.040 which are the exemptions, in other words, the tenant cannot contest those but can contest those within the formula set forth on page 7, and Mr. Bornholdt answered affirmatively. Councilmember Thayer referred to page 15 of the ordinance, stating a concern expressed to her is that an owner could refinance that property for purposes of pulling out some of the equity for purposes of investing in something else, and basically borrow up to the maximum against the property. She noted she did not see a mechanism in the ordinance or any exception that would preclude this type of borrowing and perhaps jeopardize the rates. Mr. Bornholdt replied there is nothing to prevent a person from borrowing against the property if they choose to pass the cost of that borrowing along in terms of increased rents and that increase exceeds the base calculation of the CPI, then that increase goes through the process of mediation and arbitration. Councilmember Boro suggested if the operator of the park intends to refinance and recoup the expenses, that would somehow be reviewed before it happened, rather than do it and then say, "I now have a hardship and I need the money." Councilmember Thayer agreed, stating one could create his own hardship, noting that is why she was upset by that clause. Councilmember Breiner referred to the chart speaking to different ordinances and statistics being used in terms of the allowable CPI and percent of increase, noting many are using a portion of the CPI or saying the lesser, and wondered if what they are talking about would be 100% of CPI, and Mr. Bornholdt replied this one is a sliding scale, noting if the CPI is 5% or less, it is 100% of the CPI, but if the CPI increases to between 5% and 10%, it is 75% of the CPI and if it increases to over 10%, it is 66% of the CPI; therefore as the CPI goes up the amount of the increase percentage wise starts to go down. Councilmember Thayer stated she thought this was the exemptions, which on page 7 is basically 100% of CPI based upon the formula for averaging, and Mr. Bornholdt explained, you take the CPI and if it is 5% or less, the increase can be 100% of that. For example, if one has a 5% increase, you take the average rent and increase that by 5% and you come with $25, therefore, everyone's rent is increased by $25. If the CPI is between 5% and 10%, then one does not take 100% of the CIP but only 75% of it and apply that to the average and come up with a dollar figure and that is what the rents are all increased by. So it is not a basic 100% but is only 100% up to a 5% increase in the CPI. Also, it is exempted because it is allowed. Councilmember Breiner referred to page 5, stating she understood #2, following a vacation or sale turnover rental space, but noted it could be misinterpreted, and asked that better wording be inserted, such as a"vacancy, and Mr. Bornholdt replied he would make the correc- tion. Mayor Mulryan suggested "a vacation of or a sale turnover of a rental space." Mr. Stan Yates, President of Contempo Marin Homeowners Corporation speaking on behalf of the homeowners, expressed their thanks to the City Council, staff and Consultant Richard Bornholdt for recognizing the urgency of their problem with the exorbitant rent increases at Contempo Marin. He stated the Board of Contempo Marin Homeowners Corporation has reviewed the Mobilehome Stabilization Ordinance and found it to be acceptable, believing it will serve toward maintaining affordable housing, and supports the passage of the ordinance. He thanked all those agencies who came to their aid, including the Marin County Board of Realtors. Mr. Irwin Williams,President of the San Rafael Housing Corporation, stated they have been an advocate of affordable housing for many years and are concerned about losing the great resource they have in Contempo Marin for affordable housing, and support the adoption of the ordinance. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 7/17/89 Page 14 Mrs. Elizabeth Moody, of the Ecumencial Association for Housing, stated their Board of Directors supports the efforts to serve the affordability of Contempo Marin and noted although they -had a "hands off" position on any rent control, the Board feels this is an excep- tional situation and very unique, noting the homeowners are in danger in not only losing the affordability of their homes but also the equity. She mentioned the homeowners have almost twice the amount of equity than the landowners do and need to be protected against the threat of rent gouging. Lucille Richardson, resident of Contempo Marin since 1979, stated she is currently a member of the Contempo Marin Mobilehome Corporation which has been instrumental in proposing this ordinance to be passed. She stated since 1986 when DeAnza Corporation purchased the park, - they have had four years of leases which are due to expire in total at the end of 1989. During these four years, they have had a combined cumula- tive total increase of 45%, based on 12% the first year, 9% the second year, 9% the third year and again this year. The lease will expire in December and they have had no indication of what they are looking at for next year. She noted a neighbor next to her is moving because she can no longer afford to live there, and others are terrified as well. She noted there are numerous coaches for sale now and are affordable at prices of $35,000 to $80,000/$85,000, however, if anyone had to move from there and got top dollar, there is not a soul out there who could take that equity and place it into a home that is affordable nor could they qualify. They have found that many of the people who live in Contempo Marin are.single, one -family income, and 33% of the people are on set incomes. She stated many of the people who are buying, are first time buyers, and the park is starging to become a family oriented park, however, they are faced with the dilemma that by the time they have a mortgage of $700 or $800 or more a month, plus a $400 to $500 a month rental space, they cannot afford it nor qualify for some of the loans that are available for the coaches. Ms. Richardson stated recently the Corporation of Contempo Marin had a feasibility study done by an outside consultant which showed the standard for affordable housing through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was 30% of the income. Their study was circulated to 372 residents and 90% of those residents responded. It was found that 55% of the people are paying more than 30% of their income (30% is the standard for rent). 20% of the people paid more than 50% of their income for the rent of their coaches and 6% are paying 100% of their monthly income for rent. She noted they also found that there are others who are paying more by using their assets to compensate their income. She pointed out that the average income at Contempo Marin, based on the survey done last year in July, showed 18% of the people who responded (90%) earned less than $13,500, below the poverty level, 23% of those responded are in the $13,500 to the $22,000 income range and these ranges are lower than the U.S. Depart- ment of HUD statistics for 1989 standards for very low income. The large amount of rents now being applied, is found to have the average rent at $436 per month. She noted, when she -moved into Contempo in 1979, her rent was $175 per month, and her rent at the end of December 1989, will probably be well over $500 if the increases continue at the rate it has been going over the last four years. She noted the rate now is in the average of $374 to $505 per month. She pleaded with the Council to pass the ordinance before them, mentioning for the record, there are 1,068 parks in the State of California with Mobilehome Ordinances, which means 112,000 spaces are under some kind of an ordinance related to parks. Liz Walker, Executive Director of Marin Property Owners Association stated the City will be involved in a dispute if they pass the ordinance, stating that is the nature of rent control. She stated they are very sympathetic with the needs of the Marin Contempo homeowners and the City's needs to preserve affordable housing, citing herself as a renter and aware of the plight of affordable housing, however, urged that their action take into account, the need to preclude rent control from spreading Citywide to other kinds of housing. She noted San Rafael citizens voted against rent control Citywide, and urged that a resolution to this matter be pursued, noting there has not been a full round table discussion with the park owner and others SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 7/17/89 Page 15 interested such as Marin Property Owners Association to help resolve the matter, short of rent control. She suggested that a 60-90 day delay take place before adopting the ordinance to allow time for all parties concerned to discuss it, volunteering to assist in discus- sions. Mayor Mulryan asked City Attorney Ragghianti what the calendar schedule would be if the ordinance was passed to print tonight and he replied if it goes to print tonight, it could be scheduled for the next meeting for a second reading and adoption, becoming effective 30 days there- after. here- after. Mr. Barry McCabe, President of DeAnza Assets, stated they operate the only mobilehome park with more than 50 spaces in the City, Contempo Marin, mentioning he has read the ordinance. He stated the ordinance may not be necessary, stating in 1985 DeAnza acquired Contempo Marin and did a survey of its facilities and market for comparable mobilehome parks in California. The results astonished them at first, noting the facilities needed a great deal of refurbishment; they had trouble accepting the survey which stated the rent level at that time was 36% below market, noting they did not have the nerve to put in a 36% increase. They announced to the residents and the Board an 18% increase followed by two years of 52%. The Board of the Homeowners Association told them the 18% bump was too much to handle. Mr. McCabe pointed out Eleanor Spader of the County Mediation Service met with the residents and prepared them for a mediation session and themselves for one or two sessions and worked out another lease which did not have a large initial raise but larger second and third years. They were told some of the people did not like the options and they once again met with Councilmember Frugoli and former Council - member Nave who were present along with Marin County Supervisor Bob Roumiguiere and Tom Hendricks from the County Counsel's Office and an advisory person from the County Mediation Service and they came out with another lease based out over four years. After that meeting, he stated they agreed it was best when people can communicate rather than having government intervene. The mediation then offered the leases and of the 395 spaces, 343 signed leases and the mediation services released a memorandum announcing the results, "Management and the residents were pleased with the overall outcome of the mediation." He noted they spent $700,000 to upgrade the park and did not pass through the cost to the residents. Recently, they agreed with the negotiating committee, that they are going to meet on leases for this year and for subsequent years. Soon after this, he was contacted by Mr. Bornholdt and told that he was working on a study for the City and asked for input and then received a notice of the hearing, finding an ordinance. He stated every year when the rent increase notices go out, there is a paragraph in the letter that says, "If this increase causes you a severe economic hardship, you are invited to let us know about it and we will see what we can do to work something out for you on the increase." This year 17 people applied for assistance on the increase and 17 people received assistance on the increases. He stated there is no limit to the amount that they will allow in a park to assist people who are economically hurt by a rent increase, noting they do this in every mobilehome park they have in the country. Mr. McCabe stated they would prefer to do this rather than bring rents to the lowest common denominator. During these last four years, rents where the leases have gone up, 44% and for some 450, during that same period of time, their records indicate the average sale price of homes has gone from $39,400 to $56,373, an increase of 430. He acknowledged that the cost of living in Marin County and California has increased drastically, but that at the same time, the increase and the cost of living at Contempo Marin has gone up less than anywhere else, meaning surrounding housing in Marin County generally. The increase in rents is reflected in the increase in housing prices and roughly 350 of the people in the park over the last four years have sold their homes and taken the profits and moved on. Mr. McCabe suggested there is an equitable balance between the landlord and the tenant, and asked Council to put off consideration of the ordinance until communications, negotiation and free enterprise have a chance to work. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 7/17/89 Page 16 Allen Stansbur , Director of Governmental Relations for the Marin County Board of Realtors spoke, introducing Zel Bauer of Zel Bauer Realty in Larkspur. He stated there appears to be a start of negotia- tions for purchase by the Contempo Marin Homeowners Association with the owners. He noted several weeks ago they were approached by the group by letter and phone calls to be involved in these negotiations for their perspectives and for them to convey their point of view of this matter. In doing so, he let several members of the Council know they were starting these discussions and at least three meetings have taken place including meetings with Richard Bornholdt. He stated they were hoping to head off this moment, but representatives of Contempo Marin were adamant in keeping this timetable because of the ordinance being introduced tonight. This last Friday morning, a full session was held with their Governmental Relations Committee, Zel Bauer, Stan Yates and several tenants who were also members of their Board of Realtors, including Richard Bornholdt representing the City and Meg Miranda from the Western Mobilehome Park Association. The following recommendations were made to the Board of Directors: 1. "After a number of meetings with representatives from the Mobilehome owners, Contempo Marin and the City of San Rafael and others, and after an indepth review of this sensitive situation concerning the mobilehome owners of Contempo Marin, we therefore recommend to our Board of Directors, that we acknowledge the problems of tenants and owners and understand their position concerning past rent increases as well as the difficulty in avoiding these rent increases. 2. We support their efforts toward the purchase of the mobilehome park if feasible, from the curent owners, DeAnza Corporation. 3. We reaffirm our previous position on rent control, that the Marin County Board of Realtors opposes rent control in all forms, and that this approach is not the most effective way to create or preserve affordable housing." Mr. Stansbury noted, in their discussions with various Board members, they had assurances that rent control would probably remain with Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park, but he indicated that does not mean that a future City Council might want to extend rent control throughout other areas of the community, and they hoped this would not happen. He stated when discussions were held, they understood that the ordinance would deal only for Contempo Marin, but they now know that it is for both the mobilehome parks in San Rafael. He noted it has been their experience that as this gets "played up" in the press, the investors of small properties, single family homes, duplexes/fourplexes, start to get extremely concerned and before you know it, you will have rent increases throughout the community. He noted this has been shown in the early 1980's when this issue was in the forefront. In conclusion and most importantly, Mr. Stansbury said their observation is that there are only two courses of action involved, either to continue to lease the properties or to negotiate for a purchase. He stated it seemed to him that the City Council is negotiating for a long-term lease on behalf of the tenants; that is to say, by enacting a rent control ordinance, you have already enacted the most favorable terms, rate increases at CPI and all the other various provisions of that ordinance. Mr. Stansbury stated that is the reason their committee has come to this decision. Zel Bauer, President of Marin County Board of Realtors, stated she sympathized with the tenants at Contempo Marin, and stated it is a different situation than most real estate. She stated in Marin County there is a small area of land leases, but noted they are long term land leases, but this situation has land leases on short terms. Ms. Bauer said these people have a serious problem, owning their homes but are not in a position of negotiating leases. Ms. Bauer agreed, however, with the President of DeAnza Corporation that the Council is rushing ahead with the ordinance before everyone has met to negotiate the leases. What concerned her are the people in the park who are at the poverty level or below, and she stated with rent control, concessions will no longer be given but will bring a harder burden to those who are in the poverty position or below. She stated when the ordinance is put into effect, whatever the CPI is, that will be the increase, whereas there are many landlords in Marin County, herself included, who do not raise rents if they have good tenants who take care of the property, allowing owners to make their own SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 16 SRCC MINUTS (Regular; 7/17/89 Page 17 determination if there should be an increase or not. She did state that rent increases do come when property turns over and is sold because costs are higher. Ms. Bauer stated they offered to sit down with Contempo Marin to see what they could do to help them to purchase the property as an ultimate solution if it could be done. She urged the people involved to meet with DeAnza Corporation first, noting they are not in favor of rent control. Ida Johnson, past President of the Contempo Homeowners' Board and the Corpora- tion, stated she has been directly involved in the negotiations. She said not one of those people objecting to this ordinance live in the park or has lived under this oppression, or have seen their property values decrease or the deterioration of services. Ms. Johnson stated she sat in on the negotiations four years ago, noting they were "between a rock and a hard place," citing the negotiations were unfair and they were trying to make something out of nothing. She stated they asked by letter in February of this year to meet with DeAnza to negotiate the upcoming leases, but stated now they are willing to meet. She urged Council to pass the ordinance, because it would protect the tenants. Mayor Mulryan then closed the public hearing, stating the proposed ordinance is to encourage productive negotiations, noting this Council has repeatedly opposed rent control outside of the limited circumstances being discussed tonight. Councilmember Boro commented he was surprised when trying to follow some of the logic made by the owner of the park, when he mentioned that his first thought was to get up to market at 36% which did not work, yet in over four years, he has far exceeded that. He felt this issue has been before Council for many months, stating when he ran for office two years ago this was a subject discussed at the mobilehome park and these people have been trying to work with DeAnza all this time. Councilmember Boro indicated if this is what it takes to get this moving, the Council should at least pass the ordinance, stating rent control should apply strictly to the mobilehome park. He noted there are over 1,000 mobilehome parks in California having this type of control, therefore, San Rafael is not blazing any new trails, but in one way is behind times and should go forward. Councilmember Boro mentioned the issue of refinancing, stating that wording should be worked out to make it clearer, but stated he is supporting the recommendation to pass the ordinance. Councilmember Boro moved to pass the Ordinance to print, limiting it to 50 spaces and that refinancing be incorporated in this motion. City Manager Nicolai clarified the legal definition made by City Attorney Ragghianti, stating if in fact it does meet the criteria of the mobilehome park, it cannot be excluded. She noted if they do not have 500 or more of the tenants complaining about the rent increase this would not have happened. However, Ms. Nicolai noted they do need to find out the legal definition of a trailer versus a mobilehome to see if it falls under that definition. She indicated when the City went through this process several years ago and rent control was discussed with a committee from Contempo Marin, this was researched and included the B -Bar -A owner and tenants because it was found that they did qualify. Councilmember Frugoli stated in 1981 he ran on the same issue and noted the ballot had rent control which he opposed, noting he still opposes rent control for apartments. He stated he endorses the ordinance only on mobilehomes and that it not spread to other rentals. Councilmember Frugoli seconded the motion made by Councilmember Boro, adding that it apply only to Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park. Councilmember Breiner wanted to be certain they have taken care of the Debt Service issue wording. Councilmember Boro stated the wording he recommended earlier is that an acknowledgement be made up front that before it happens, that SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regula: 7/17/89 Page 18 the person doing the refinancing would have to have this reviewed to make sure it is meeting the requirements, and that it would go to mediation or arbitration at that time. In other words, they would do the test before it goes in rather than after it goes in, therefore avoiding a hardship. Mr. Bornholdt clarified that they could rewrite a section requiring notification of a refinancing prior to that which would trigger the reviews that are in the ordinance ahead of time rather than after. Councilmember Thayer stated a refinancing that might cause a rent increase that could possibly lead to a rent increase. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - CHAPTER 20, A MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE" Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Frugoli seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1564 to print, as amended, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 16. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER "A" STREET TWO-WAY TRAFFIC CONVERSION: (PW) - File 11-15 x 11-15-1 x R-132 Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened. Public Works Director Bernardi stated the action tonight concern the conversion of "A" Street from one-way to two-way, noting this is a City street although the action was originally directed by the Redevelopment Agency. He stated in October of 1988, the Redevelopment Agency directed staff to evaluate the feasibility of converting "A" Street to two-way and a survey was conducted and a report was brought back to the Agency in June 1989. The report indicated that the level of service to convert "A" Street to two-way prior to construction of Andersen Drive would create no impacts. Based on that, an initial study was prepared and it was found there were no significant effects regard- ing the conversion before Andersen Drive was constructed. Subsequent to the construction of Andersen Drive however, Mr. Bernardi stated there will be some impacts concerning the levels of service at Second and "A" Streets as well as Third and "A" Streets. He stated they have included these impacts in the Andersen Drive Environmental Impact Report, noting they were asking Council tonight to adopt a resolution certify- ing the Negative Declaration to convert "A" Street to two-way for an interim period until Andersen Drive is constructed and the ultimate use of "A" Street will be looked at for Andersen Drive. Other than receiving one letter and one telephone comment asking why this was not done sooner, there have been no other comments. Councilmember Breiner asked to have scrutiny of the length of the parking spaces, particularly between Fourth and Fifth, noting there should be a slot for a number of motocycles. She said there seems to be a lot of wasted space. Mr. Bernardi stated part of this project is to relocate the parking metersto accommodate the two-way traffic, noting staff will look into this to see what the minimum stall sizes are and if either a compact space or motorcycle spaces could be added. Mayor Mulryan stated he does not like to waste space, but noted he feels parking should be made so one can get in and out of parking spaces easily. There being no comments from the public, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution Certifying the Negative Declaration. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular 7/17/89 Page 19 RESOLUTION NO. 8008 - APPROVING RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CONVERSION OF TRAFFIC FLOW ON "A" STREET TO TWO-WAY (Until such time a determination is made on the Andersen Drive Extension Project) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution Approving the Change to a Two -Way Traffic Flow on "A" Street; and authorizing staff to implement the conversion of "A" Street to two-way traffic._ RESOLUTION NO. 8009 - APPROVING THE CONVERSION OF TRAFFIC FLOW ON "A" STREET FROM ONE-WAY TO TWO-WAY FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE STREET (Until such time a determination is made on the Andersen Drive Extension Project) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 17. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF ZONING REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL - File 10-1 x 13-1 Mayor Mulryan stated Councilmember Boro asked that this item be placed on the agenda, for Council to review the level of care facilities such as was discussed tonight to find some way of measuring those. Councilmember Boro stated this was triggered after the Planning Commis- sion hearing and discussions with people from Gerstle Park neighbor- hood. He noted it is time for Council to step back and plan for these types of facilities, indicating they are no longer incidental in the community but will be more of a demand. He noted the facilities should be inventoried, those requiring permits from the City as well as those for 6 or less that do not require permits per State law, stating collectively they have impacts in communities. He asked that Council also review where San Rafael stands in relationship to other cities in Marin County, and see what is being done in other communities in the State, also nationally, to see what kind of criteria or measure- ment can be used by San Rafael. Councilmember Boro stated he recommended starting with an immediate 90 day freeze, but was told by City Attorney Ragghianti that possibly the Council may not want to enact this measure quite that way tonight, but if the majority feels so inclined, they would direct staff to come back at the next meeting and a 45 -day moratorium would be imposed on new applications so that a new ordinance could be drafted. Councilmember Thayer agreed with the concept, stating people in various areas of the City and neighborhoods, do have concerns about an inunda- tion of facilities in their area and this is a concern also shared by Terra Linda which has quite a few care facilities. She stated our City has assumed 39% of the burden as opposed to 7% in Novato and the County with other cities assuming the remainder of the burden. She also stated planning and preserving neighborhoods relate to the point brought up tonight about solid planning, noting facilities should not be concentrated in one or two areas of the City. Councilmember Breiner stated this is long overdue and there should be an up-to-date map of where all the group facilities are, includ- ing those not requiring use permits from the City. City Manager Nicolai stated there are many treatment facilities that are not necessarily residential that have use permits, such as those along Lincoln Avenue and in the downtown area. She stated the whole picture should be broadened to include the whole spectrum of social services. In response to Councilmember Thayer's query if this would require SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regula 7/17/89 Page 20 any change to the General Plan, Planning Director Pendoley replied he would look into this. City Attorney Ragghianti suggested that if the Council wishes, Council could direct staff to prepare an ordinance to be brought to Council on August 7, 1989 and at that time the Ordinance would be adopted under Government Code Section 65858 that would impose the moratorium, for the purposes that have been stated, for 45 days. On or before the expiration of the 45th day, Council has the right to extend it for up to 10 months 15 days and then again for another year. Councilmember Boro moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to have staff prepare an Interim (Urgency) Ordinance for Council meeting of August 7, 1989, to be adopted to impose a moratorium of 45 -days on acceptance and processing of new applications for residential care facilities to apply to the broad spectrum of social services, including residential/treatment care facilities; staff to check if the General Plan will require any changes; on or before expiration of 45 days, Council has the right to extend the Ordinance up to 10 months and 15 days, and again for another year. City Attorney Ragghianti pointed out that this ordinance will require a 4/5ths vote of the Council in order to pass. Ms. Linda Bellatorre, resident of Gerstle Park, urged adoption of all three recommendations, and volunteered to serve on an Advisory Committee, in the drafting of the Ordinance. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Member Breiner asked if the motion included the other two items, and Councilmember Boro responded it is implied as far as item two is concerned, regarding Planning staff contacting communi- ties throughout the Bay Area and the State of California, as well as the American Planning Association to determine what has been enacted by other agencies in this area. For number three, an Advisory Committee made up of two Planning Commissioners, two City Councilmembers and three citizens from the community at large be appointed to work with the Planning staff to prepare a draft ordinance on this matter, Council - member Boro suggested Council think about this and if they agree, it could be adopted in three weeks. 18. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1548 (PARAMEDIC SERVICE SPECIAL TAX) AND SETTING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (Fin) - File 9-3-31 x 8-5 The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1548 (PARAMEDIC SERVICE SPECIAL TAX) AND SETTING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES" Councilmember Breiner 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. 1565 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Boro, Breiner, Frugoli, Thayer & Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 PM. JEANNE � LEONCI�_,ty Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/17/89 Page 20