HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 1988-04-20SRCC MINUTES (Special, 4/20/88 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL
20, 1988 AT 7:30 PM.
SPECIAL 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, Mary Casey, Assistant City Attorney & Jeanne
M. Leoncini, City Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING - DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2000 - HOUSING AND RECREATION
SECTIONS - File 115
Mayor Mulryan declared the public hearing opened.
Planning Director Moore stated tonight is the first public hearing on
the Community Development Section of the Plan and announced dates for
the following topics:
May 3, 1988 - Circulation
May 9 & 17, 1988 - Land Use, Specific Areas and Implementing Program
May 23, 1988 - Optional, if needed on Community Development
She indicated staff expects the Land Use, Specific Areas and Implementing
Program to allow for two and possibly three public hearings.
BACKGROUND
Senior Planner Jean Freitas stated the Housing Element of the General
Plan covers the City's goals, Policies and Implementation Program to meet
City housing needs, particularly affordable housing. She stated that the
Housing Policies address protecting and conserving existing housing, encour-
aging new market rate and below market rate housing units, and also addresses
special housing needs, such as low and moderate income household, disabled
and senior housing.
The Recreation Element emphasizes development of active use and public
park facilities but is tied to the Open Space Element in that the Public
Open Space areas can provide passive recreational opportunities such as
hiking and picnicking. The Recreation Element also identifies existing
and potential park sites, trails and schools which provide important com-
munity recreation facilities and shoreline park band areas. Map GP -9 is
the Recreation Element Map that identifies existing and proposed recreation
facilities.
She stated many changes to the Housing and Recreation Sections occurred
as part of the Planning Commission's review of the Plan over the last
year, referring to pages 2 and 3 of the staff report, which identifies
more of the substantive changes to the policies.
She stated Housing Policies 19 and 20 were changed to define below market
rate as being affordable to low and moderate income households, and H-19
was modified to require rather than encourage 10 percent below market
rate units in all residential projects of 10 units or more. She stated
this requirement was based on seven years' experience that 10 percent
is a reasonable requirement housing projects in San Rafael have been able
to provide. Policy 20 was modified to note projects with high percentages
of units affordable to both low and moderate income households are priority
projects and eligible for certain incentives, including density bonuses.
Other policies mentioned were H-28 and H-39.
Ms. Freitas stated many other good changes have taken place as a result
of prior public comments to both sections, noting the purpose of the public
hearing tonight is for the public to make further recommendations about
the Housing and Recreation Sections of the draft General Plan 2000.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 4/20/88 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Special 4/20/88 Page 2
MAYOR MULRYAN CALLED FOR COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Mr. Larry Rich, member of the Dixie School Board of Trustees, stated they
wished to go on record indicating strong objection to the limitations
placed on the District by the following language; LU -58, page 29, Use
of Closed School Sites Retained by the Districts. "Closed school sites
retained by the District shall be used for public and quasi -public uses
such as child care programs, education, recreation, cultural and religious
classes, programs and activities, administrative offices instrumental
to educational service uses, churches, counseling groups and similar uses."
He stated this language limits their District, indicating they have six
school sites closed and believed there are other uses compatible with
the community. They would like to see an additional phrase as follows:..."and
other uses outside those itemized on the Master Use Permit to be considered
on a case by case basis". He said they are thinking of having attorneys
or accountants lease their classrooms and not being limited to leasing for
specifically educational kinds of uses of their facilities.
Councilmember Thayer agreed with Mr. Rich,stating when one is obliged
to lease to social agencies for educational purposes, the School Districts
cannot get enough revenue to maintain those vacant school sites, and she
asked Council to look at this request to allow for some additions.
Mr. Ned Turkington, resident of San Rafael, asked if he and others present
could speak about having a Tree Ordinance and Mayor Mulryan granted
their request.
Mr. Turkington stated they are concerned that a Tree Ordinance be adopted
to address preserving heritage trees and preserving air, light and view
corridors to help conserve property values.
Mrs. Mary Carpou of 165 Peacock Drive, Chairman of the Architectural Review
Committee of the Peacock Gap Homeowners Association, stated they have
had many complaints in terms of trees blocking views of homes located
at the top of San Marino Drive, McNear Drive and Fernwood Drive, indicating
the houses on the top are privileged with views and the houses below neglect
their trees allowing them to grow and block the views of the people on
the top. She stated that the CC&Rs deal with this but unfortunately were
written by the developer and have no cure for this.. They are appealing
to the neighborhood letting them know they should not do this and should
join in with the people being affected and trim the trees. She stated
Peacock Gap now has eight parcels of land that will have 800 homes after
total buildout, indicating that each one of these parcels is a separate
subdivision and each subdivision has a separate set of covenants, and
one subdivision cannot impose its restrictions upon another.
Mrs. Carpou stated Loch Lomond has this same problem indicating she is
delighted with the construction in San Rafael but questioned what happens
to these people who pay $400,000 and up for their homes and asked who
has the jurisdiction of trees being allowed to grow. She noted if San
Rafael has a Tree Ordinance stating one should not obstruct the view,
light and air corridors, they would then have a single body to enforce
all of these laws and protect the people who move here.
Mrs. Margaret Turkington, 114 Fernwood Drive, and a member of the Peacock
Gap Homeowners Association spoke in favor of the Air, Light and View Ordi-
nance.
(City Attorney Ragghianti arrived at the meeting at 8:05 PM).
Attorney William Bullard, representing Al Lamperti of Lamperti, Inc.,
owners of the remainder of the San Pedro Cove development project, referred
to Policy H-19, the Below Market Rate Housing Policy requirement, indicating
it is inappropriate for his client's development. He referred to Ms. Freitas'
comments made earlier that Policy H-19 requires a 10 percent below market
rate requirement for projects of 10 or more or a payment of in -lieu fees.
He wanted to make it clear that Mr. Lamperti endorses the intent and the
goals of this policy but believes that its application in certain circum-
stances is inappropriate. He stated all of the development land uses
were granted to the San Pedro Cove development in 1977, including the
tentative map, use permit and the Master Plan for the entire subdivision.
He stated the final map was recorded for the first phase in 1978 and indi-
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 4/20/88 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Special 4/20/88 Page 3
cated that the tentative map for Phase II had expired. When Mr. Lamperti
bought the San Pedro Cove subdivision, he came in to seek a new tentative
map which happened to be on the eve of the moratorium and was advised
to wait which he did. He subsequently filed for a new tentative map for
Unit II last August, which is now pending. He stated that staff advised
one new condition of approval was that the subdivision would need to be
in compliance with Policy H-19 and this would cost $132,000.
Mr. Bullard stated that Policy H-19 is inappropriate in situations like
this, indicating that the relavent land use decisions have already been
made. He said that the Master Plan approved in 1977 is still valid and
stated any new tentative map must conform to that Master Plan. He stated
that important and relavent public works decisions have been made, indicat-
ing that the improvement plan has been improved, all the major infrastructure
has been done,including the major grading and roadways, drainage improvements
and utilities are in. He said Council should consider all of the public
access improvements that have not been installed but deferred until Unit
II was constructed because it is to be built along the Bay. In conclusion,
Mr. Bullard stated it seemed this subdivision was approved 10 or 11 years
ago and policies were different then.
Mr. Bullard's proposal is to add language to Policy H-19..."where develop-
ment is going to be in substantial conformance to a previously approved
although now expired tentative map; where development is in substantial
conformance to a valid and current Master Plan and where substantial infra-
structure has already been constructed and is in place".
Mr. Bullard stated Mr. Lamperti endorses the goals of Policy H-19 and
offers to provide some expertise or assistance or guidance to the City
or designated representatives to review nor. -profit and below market rate
housing opportunities or projects.
Mr. Don Dickenson, representing the Marin Conservation League and resident
of San Rafael read a statement endorsed strongly by the Conservation League
Board, stating they believe the policies will not only affect the future
of San Rafael but have impacts on the character and quality of life in
the rest of the County.
He stated the Plan has a significant imbalance between jobs and housing
with increased traffic congestion as a result of this imbalance. The Plan
proposes approximately 50 percent more jobs than housing units through
the year 2000 and anticipates that the number of housing units may be
reduced further.
The Marin Conservation League recommended that Council consider a variation
on Alternative One, the Minimal Growth/Maximum Environmental protection
Alternative from the Draft EIR to place higher priority on environmental
protection than the current Plan.
Mr. Gordon Terrell, resident at 100 Fernwood Drive in San Rafael spoke
in support of a Tree Ordinance in San Rafael.
Ms. Janice Newhall, resident in Peacock, spoke in support of a Tree ordi-
nance in San Rafael.
Mr. Michael Marovich, General Director of Catholic Youth Organization,
parent corporation for St. Vincent's School for Boys, stated that his
comments could be incorporated by those of Mr. Jim Stark, a consultant
they have asked to give them assistance in the review of the implications
of the General Plan as it relates to their property.
Mr. Jim Stark, of 134 Sears Street, San Francisco, spoke to the Housing
Portion of the General Plan Update as it relates to the St. Vincents'
property. He referred to the jobs/housing balance in the City of San Rafael
indicating that St. Vincents is in support of this goal. They find that
the Land Use recommendations for housing on that property are extensive
to the exclusion of other land uses with the exception of a small neighbor-
hood commercial area. He stated they would like Council to consider the
fully developed residential areas in the St. Vincents/Silveira neighborhood
which would be contrary to the balance of what the City is trying to achieve.
Although they understand the use of this area for housing goals, he stated
the goals of mixed use should not be forgotten and should be a work/live/en-
tertain/school and recreation use in the neighborhood or sub -community.
He suggested that Council consider a mixed-use in this area, particularly
along the lines of a plan that St. Vincents have developed.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 4/20/88 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Specia_ 4/20/88 Page 4
Mr. Stark stated that one of the negative aspects noted in the community
survey was the need to get on the highway to go from residential areas
to other areas. He said extensive residential uses in the St. Vincents/Sil-
veira neighborhood would exacerbate that access problem. Additionally,
the placement of housing adjacent to Highway 101 requires mitigation for
the noise implication, and an appropriate solution would be to have alter-
native uses, particularly adjacent to Highway 101. He noted the December
update of the Land Use Plan for the General Plan has a note indicating
that the land uses in the St. Vincents/Silveira area are schematic. He
believed they are in a fluid process and that they will be submitting
their plan. He also mentioned that the schematic aspects of the Land
Use Plan are important to them stating there should be some flexibility
in the boundaries of area 2 as shown on the plan.
Mr. David Coldoff, past president of the Building Industry Association,
stated that the Northern Division of the Association, the local arm of
the National Association of Home Builders, stated that the Building Industry
Association provides about 75 percent of the new housing units in the
State and that they deal with the inclusionary zoning aspects on a daily
basis. He stated they are pleased to find the basic requirements are a
number of incentives they found to be valuable, referring to H-19 .... the
use of possible in -lieu fees and the possiblity of off-site units; H-20 ... the
density traffic bonuses and the waiver of fees for projects over 15 percent;
H -C ... the fast track processing; H-H...the streamlining processing and
in particularly, H -K ... where the General Plan invites the Building Industry
to meet with the Planning staff and members of the community to develop
a more detailed process to provide affordable housing.
Mr. Coldoff offered their encouragement of this kind of process and their
availability through their membership and staff to participate in this
process at any time the City deems it appropriate.
Regarding the Canalways item, Mr. Coldoff commented on the identification
of the two housing opportunity areas; City owned property on Bellam of
6 acres and the Sanitation site of two and one half acres which they felt
works well with development for housing on Canalways which is adjacent
to these two sites, and stated that in the future all three areas could
be combined into a single project providing significant levels of affordable
housing.
Mr. Dennis Horne of Seaport Development, referred to H-19, Spinnaker Point,
Phase V indicating that all tentative map approvals made back in 1975
have for some reason elapsed. He stated they would like Phase V to be
"grandfathered" in, using the same language as that proposed by Mr. Bullard.
Mr. Don Foster of Bahia de Rafael Homeowners Association in the East San
Rafael area, stated when the Draft General Plan started a provision was
included which was reasonable but has been removed. He stated it had to
do with low cost and medium cost housing that should be spread evenly
throughout the community rather than have it concentrated in one particular
area. He agreed with this thought and asked Council to have it placed
back into the General Plan 2000.
Mr. Foster recommended using the -Redevelopment Agency as a mechanism for
producing low and moderate income housing to try to upgrade the neighborhoods.
Mr. Dwayne Bunn of Canal Community Alliance, spoke to the Bridge "Centertown"
project, and asked if someone built a 12 unit apartment rental project
three stories high and a fourth floor was included to have four units
affordable to low income households, would that be fulfilling the criteria
in the letter submitted by the Redevelopment Agency?
Planning Director Moore responded that the letter was submitted by the
Redevelopment Agency staff who could speak to the intent rather than the
Planning staff. She stated there was a concern that affordable housing
projects meeting at least a 25 percent low income household units be allowed
to consider an additional floor. She indicated this would be a way of
achieving a high percentage of low income housing in a given project.
She stated whether it would be the units on the extra floor or the total
percentage is unclear at this time, and would be clarified.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 4/20/88 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Specia-, 4/20/88 Page 5
Mr. Hunn stated that most of the comments made point to traffic, jobs/housing
balance, and stem from the need for more housing. He indicated that some
comments are reiterating the possibility of a mixed use overlay at St.
Vincents to allow dense building near the right-of-way and open space
as a buffer.
He commented on having a trust fund which has been started in Novato, and
such funding mechanism could be used by the Redevelopment Agencv including
developer in -lieu fees as related to Policy H -DD, suggesting that money
in the Redevelopment Agency should not sit but be used every year. He
referred to East San Rafael, where Canal Community Alliance is concerned
since the Canal generates tremendous tax revenues to the City and has
the most densely populated area, stating that a percentage of that money
should be used in the Canal.
Ms. Terry DeMartini, Chair of the Housing Action Committee of Ecumenical
Association for Housing and resident for San Rafael complimented the Plan-
ning Commission and the Planning staff for the many months of technical
work and their efforts in having the community involved in the General
Plan. She stated they support the goal of a jobs/housing balance, Policies
H-11, 12 & 13 in the Plan. She recommended purchase and operation of inclu-
sionary units by non -profits.
Mr. Rich Berger, representing Canal Community Alliance spoke on the Housing
Element, Inclusionary Policy, Redevelopment Agency and the Bellam site
relation to housing. He stated that East San Rafael is the most densely
populated area and developed neighborhood in San Rafael. He indicated
they support the revised Draft General Plan 2000 recognition of a desirability
in working toward the jobs/housing balance in order to ease traffic, provide
rental and ownership housing cosh in line with income generated by nearby
job opportunities.
He said the Inclusionary program would most likely yield affordable housing
to those in the 120 percent of medium income. He stated for a family of
three, 120 percent of medium income equals $43,000 per year or under $1,100
per month for all housing costs. They support the Inclusionary Policy
but stressed the need to emphasize the use of in -lieu fees in East San
Rafael. They believe the purchase of existing housing units and complexes
would have a greater impact in providing and sustaining below market rate
units and striving for the jobs/housing balance.
Referring to page 53, H-gga, where the Bellam site could be designated
as a housing opportunity site, Mr. Berger stated it is a good idea in
trying to maximize the amount of affordable housing units, realizing the
fact that the City owns that and controls the land price. However, he
noted it may be difficult to produce a substantial amount of lower and
moderate income housing on that site due to site constraints, improvements
needed and the unknowns of hazardous and toxics materials. He indicated
they, the Ecumenical Housing Association and the San Rafael Housing Corpo-
ration have discussed this site for a long time, and mentioned having
a super market/pharmacy and child care placed there. They asked that Council
consider designating the Bellam site for neighborhood serving uses. He
stated the following: The City should determine the extent of toxics and
other hazardous materials on the site along with appropriate mitigation
measures; seek a developer to develop the site for a supermarket, pharmacy
and other neighborhood serving uses and study and review additional uses
such as child care and recreation opportunities based on input from the
neighborhood. He stated the City could allocate the proceeds from either
the sale or lease of the site to the Housing Fund for use in assisting
other below market rate projects in East San Rafael.
Mr. Tom Lollini, 39 Octavia Street, Gerstle Park and a member of the Design
Review Board, stated there is an implied aspect of the Circulation Policy
to link circulation improvements to development timing that will accelerate
development in the downtown area, stating it has the greatest capacity
to accept additional development. He stated there is a policy to see the
downtown area as a mixed use neighborhood, increasing the amount of housing
in that area that could be an intergral component of revitalizing downtown
while adding the retail project at the PG&E site.
He said policies have not been fully thought out regarding the down zoning
of the downtown area and the inclusion of housing in the FAR limitation.
He felt a consideration would be to exclude housing from the FARs as an
incentive for the development of housing. He stated the parking requirements
SRCC MINUTES (Speical) 4/20/88 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Special. 4/20/88 Page 6
for housing regardless of where it is located, are the same throughout
the City and consideration should be given on how shared parking can be
used. He stated that policies regarding FARs and height limits in the
downtown area should be reconsidered in light of other policies relating
to housing.
Mr. Jack McDonough, resident in East San Rafael, stated they do have a
problem between jobs and housing, and indicated the City's first priority
is not to determine the number of cars that would be on the street at
a particular time, but to provide housing, then follow up with whatever
has to be done to allow people to move in and out of that housing.
Mr. Segfried Dalwitz, stated properties of Ghilotti, Morphew and Fred
Grange came to his attention; and when some people bought their properties
a few years ago and mortgaged their homes, it did not seem fair that a
moratorium was made and they cannot do anything with it and felt there
should be some compensation made.
Mr. Gilbert Spurr of 132 Fernwood in the Peacock area, stated he wanted
his name added in support of a Tree Ordinance.
Hearing no further comments, Mayor Mulryan closed the public hearing.
Planning Director Moore stated two Ordinances were advocated, one, a Tree
Protection Ordinance, which is a program that is in the General Plan and
listed as a Priority II, the other, a View Protection Ordinance which
is not only different but can sometimes work in opposite direction. She
indicated the program included in the Plan is a Tree Preservation Ordinance
and not a View Protection Ordinance and that staff will be coming back
to Council with specific suggestions on a study that the City should do
because it is different to administer as opposed to a Tree Protection
Ordinance.
Ms. Moore, referring to Mr. Lollini's comments stated that housing units
are excluded in the FARs downtown. She said FARs apply to the non-residen-
tial portion of the mixed use projects but not to residential uses.
Councilmember Thayer asked if Density Bonuses are allowed for affordable
housing.
Ms. Moore responded that the policy indicating that additional development
needs to be consistent with existing development overrides, and there
would always need to be an affirmative finding made by the City that a
development was appropriate in the neighborhood or setting. She stated
this will vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and from site to site.
Ms. Thayer stated Policy H-38, allowing 30 units per acre or more if 20
percent of the units are affordable for low and moderate income housing
in perpetuity is too high. She stated that for a person working as a retail
clerk, affording a unit at $100,000 is not possible because of the earnings
factor, and the City would have to look at providing better jobs in this
area which will cut down on the retail sales tax or much lower income
housing, indicating she did not know if this is possible.
Councilmember Thayer mentioned H-31 should include "single parents".
Councilmember Breiner referred to page 49, reference to the San Francisco
Foundation, stating it should reflect the newer terminology, the Marin
Community Foundation; same page, there is an inconsistency between H -C,
page 49 and H-20,page 46-7 in terms of waiver or reduced fees. She recommened
that the City not automatically waive fees; same page, should include
the time expectations that those units would be below market rate housing.
Page 51, mentioning threshold beyond which condominium conversions could
occur, she stated the current Ordinance does not have the percentage in
but that the Housing Element did. Page 53, H-dd makes the assumption that
second units are all below market rate, and affordable to moderate income
households. She stated somewhere the implementation of the Housing Section
should track the affordability of those units.
Councilmember Frugoli referred to Rich Berger's comments on City owned
property, stating he would like to see it be in site specific or wherever
it should be in the Plan that that one area be given to a neighborhood
shopping center to be used as a shopping market or pharmacy. He stated
they could use the Bellam site or look at having one of the property owners
put in that type of use for the residents of the Canal area.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 4/20/88 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 4/20/88 Page 7
Councilmember Boro referred to comments made by Ms. DeMartini in relation-
ship to H-20 and the issue of 20 years, stating when this was discussed
by the Planning Commission, they went along with it because it seemed
to be a funding requirement on the part of lenders. However, from what
he has been reading, with the housing needs they have today and will need
20 years from now, he would prefer having a perpetuity clause longer than
20 years.
Regarding the letter submitted by the Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Boro asked
if this could be treated as a site specific for Centertown rather than
trying to spread it across the community, and asked Planning staff to
review this.
Mr. Boro supported the Tree Ordinance and asked staff to look at it as
a dual rather than single issue.
Mr. Boro mentioned the Dixie School Board letter and asked to hear from
the San Rafael School Board regarding how they feel about the proposed
policy LU -58.
Regarding the Bellam site use, Mr. Boro stated it has great merit as there
is a need for some retail serving commercial and he urged staff to evaluate
it.
Mr. Boro stated a note should be made somewhere relating to second units
when the update of the Ordinance is made, that when the units are sold,
the resident requirement carries forward. Regarding jobs/housing balance,
the City still has to strive for this in the planning process. He stated
they could try to get a higher grade job through the "beauty contest";
if a development is going forward it should have some benefits that the
kind of jobs provided would provide income for people so they could live
close to work.
Councilmember Thayer stated that the Plan as now conceived does not address
the fact that each and every neighborhood should have its fair share of
affordable housing and equitable distribution. She stated a lot of this
is directed to the East San Rafael neighborhood and that this is very
important.
Councilmember Breiner referred to page 219, stating out of the condomiums
in San Rafael, that half of the units are occupied by renters and will
be more costly rental units and they should review this. She mentioned
as a goal in new construction of multi -family units, that preference be
given for rental as opposed to condominium construction.
Mrs. Breiner referred to pages 237/244, stating she is confused as to
how the density bonus incentive works with the below market rate units,
and asked for clarification.
Regarding the implementation, Mrs. Breiner favored infill of downtown
to have some housing in the downtown area; but to be aware that there
may be conflicts and this should be addressed.
On page 244, Mrs. Breiner referred to wording on C-9 asking that it be
deleted; middle of the page..."evaluation of the owner occupancy provision
would occur as far as any second dwelling unit ordinance revision".
Councilmember Breiner asked to delete this sentence, and that a vote be
taken at an appropriate time.
Mrs. Breiner referred to page 246, item C under Policy Considerations,
..."there will be an over -supply of large expensive housing units"...
and asked who is to say that there are not a lot of people looking for
this type of units. She felt this should be a judgment call.
In reference to the letter submitted by Redevelopment, Mrs. Breiner stated
Centertown should be site specific. She said she would like to include
some recommendations made by the Marin Conservation League. She said that
Mr. Foster's recommendation of distribution of the low and moderate housing
throughout the community should be reinstated and agreed with the dual
Tree Ordinance.
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 4/20/88 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Special 4/20/88 Page 8
In response to Mayor Mulryan's question on how disbursal of low and moderate
income housing would occur throughout the community, Ms. Moore stated
some of the neighborhoods are completely "built out" or only have surplus
school or steep hillside sites left, and if this were to be stated as
policy it could not be achieved. She indicated in some neighborhoods
there would be no residential developments, therefore, how could affordable
housing be built into those neighborhoods.
Councilmember Boro noted that the City's BMR programs have resulted in
some BMR units being built throughout the City.
Councilmember Thayer stated that any development process should be stream-
lined and the terminology "fast tracking" has an implication that the
City might allow a poorly designed project.
Ms. Moore clarified the terminology by stating that if a project qualifies
for the "fast tracking" provision, it goes to the top of the list for
development applications being handled,having priority of staff time and
agenda time over other development applications and goes through all policies
and City Ordinances as applied.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
JEANNE Oh /.-LEONCINI , i�ty�Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1988
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Special) 4/20/88 Page 8