HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission 2012-11-13 (4)LAW OFFICES OF
GEORGE J. SILVESTRI, JR.
ATFORNE.YS AT LAW
250 REL iMARIN KEYS DOVLEVARD. BLDG. F, SUITE 200
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 97979-5727
GEORGE J. SILVESTRI, JR. TELEPHONE: (415)88)8800 FAX: (715)883-8818
EMAIL; Siheslnlm.!a ggLcom
August 15, 2012
VIA EMAIL: rob@epsteinlawyer.com
Robert F. Epstein, Esq.
San Rafael City Attorney
VIA EMAIL: lisa.goldfien@cityofsanrafael.org
Lisa A. Goldfien, Esq.
Deputy City Attorney
VIA EMAIL: paul.jensen@cityofsanrafael.org
Mr. Paul A. Jensen
Community Development Director
Re: Group Homes Proposed Regulations/
Comments on Behalf of Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association
Dear Rob, Lisa, and Paul,
This letter is sent in response to Rob's request at the conclusion of the remarks I
delivered on behalf of the Gerstle Park Neighborhood Association at your July 25, 2012
community meeting at City Hall,
My comments and suggestions relate specifically to the draft recommendations
circulated by Planning Manager, Raffi Boloyan, to myself and other interested neighborhood
representatives by email on June 29, 2012. The draft then circulated was dated June 25,
2012 and the page numbers specified below, reference the page numbers of that draft.
Introductory Provisions: We believe it would be helpful to have a map of the City
depicting the locations of existing and proposed facilities that are subject to the proposed
regulations. How else would applicants, regulators, and members of the public otherwise be
able to determine whether there are unmet needs or already sufficient services available in a
given community? In my experience, when trying to confirm the identity of known, existing
facilities in a given San Rafael neighborhood, reference to the operator's website has led only
to an office address of the operator, but not the location of the facility itself.
Page 2: The reference in lines 5 and 6 to a "commercial group residential use," we
believe should be broadened to include noncommercial uses as well.
Page 24, Section 14.16.365 D.2: The limitation qualifying the review process as a
"ministerial action" should be expanded to include "discretionary" actions as well, except to
the extent that the review process is limited to the determination of compliance with actions
customarily categorized as "ministerial," such as building code compliance matters. The
review of discretionary actions should be subject to public notice and appeal opportunities.
Exhibit 6-1
Robert P. Epstein, Esq.
Lisa A. Goldfien, Esq.
Mr. Paul A. Jensen
August 1S, 2012
Page 2
Appeal rights applicable to the review of any discretionary action should be no different than
the standards customarily applied to establish appeal rights customarily applicable to the
appeal of any discretionary actions by the City.
Page 25, Section 14.17.100 C.7: This section should be expanded to read as follows:
"Location of new residential units shall consider existing surrounding uses in
order to minimize impacts from and to existing uses."
Pages 25 and 26, Section 14.17.100 C.S: A provision should also be added to this
requirement pertaining to the boarding houses that addresses the safety of the residents of
the boarding house to avoid any reoccurrence of the infamous "Lodge Fire" that tragically
claimed the lives of eight residents in the Gerstle Park neighborhood, on March 9, 1954.
Page 26, Section 9a: This section should be expanded to apply not only to tenancies
involving a "lease agreement," but also to month-to-month tenancies not involving a formal
"lease agreement."
Pages 31 and 32, Section 14.26.020: These sections should be expanded to include a
requirement for public notice, hearings, and appellate rights.
Pages 32 and 33: The various references therein to "community development
director" should be capitalized.
Page 33, Section 14.26.060 AA: Before the phrase, "direct threat" in the first line
thereof, the phrase, "realistic likelihood of a" should be inserted.
Page 33, Section 14.26.060 A.5: After the word, "city" the phrase, "or others" should
be inserted.
1 trust these suggestions are clear and helpful, but if you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
George J. Silvestri, Jr., Esq.
cc
Board of Directors
Gerstle Neighborhood Association
c/o Ms. Amy Likover, President
VIA EMAIL: alikover@aol.com
Exhibit 6-2
Page I of 2
Raffi Boloyan
From: Paul Jensen
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:38 PM
To: Raffi Boloyan; Lisa Goldfien; Rob Epstein
Subject: FW: Notice of Planning Commission Hearing- Regulations for Group Homes
Paul A. Jensen, AICP
Community Development Director
City of San Rafael
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
415.485.5064
paul.'ensen@cityofsonrafael.org
From: Noren Schmitt[mailto:noren@innovativedesignsolution.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 4:41 PM
To: Paul Jensen
Cc: Sanrafael Mayor; Forbes Neighborhood HOA
Subject: Notice of Planning Commission Hearing- Regulations for Group Homes
Dear Mr. Jensen,
I would like to state my strong opposition to the proposed changes for regulations for Group
Homes.
I don't believe the City should allow Group Homes in our residential neighborhoods.
I can't believe the City of San Rafael would propose or agree to these changes, allowing large
Group Homes into our neighborhoods especially without regulations.
We pay property taxes for two properties in San Rafael. I can only hope that somebody is going
to stop this ill conceived proposal.
Now I understand why many of my neighbors are thinking of relocating, and some have already
sold their homes due to these ill policies.
I think it is the City of San Rafael's duty to protect our neighborhoods and living conditions.
What a shame to do this to our city.
I guess we need to remember this at election time as well.
Sincerely,
Noren Schmitt
62 Forbes Ave.
Exhibit 6-3
11/1/2012
Page 1 of I
Raffi Boloyan
From:
Sanjay Bagai [sanjay.bagai@gmail.com]
Sent:
Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:47 AM
To:
'Forbes Neighborhood HOA'
Cc:
Paul Jensen; Raffi Boloyan; Esther Beirne
Subject: Notice of Planning Commission Hearing- Regulations for Group Homes
The home; the only place in the world which I trust to be the safest place in the world for my family. I
spend 30 years paying for a piece of property, four walls within which my family and I have complete
control and expectations of safety, security, happiness and memories. The environment around my
home is typically what I can afford based on my income or savings. I choose my home and its location so
that while I am within my home I feel protected from what I consider to be risks. The picture of home is
typically associated with laughter, joy, children growing up into adults, like minded neighbors,
thanksgiving, Christmas, Halloween all with families and most importantly safety.
In California, when pedophiles are released from prisons, they have to report their location and continue
to do so for the rest of their life. This is because society and science has determined that Pedophilia is a
kind of behavior that is not a choice, but a disease, which can reappear without warning. The same is
true for alcoholism, drugs or addictive behavior of any type. It can reappear at any time without the
addict having much control of the outcome of such behavior.
Why would the San Rafael planning commission choose to allow rehabilitation or half way homes with
the city of San Rafael. For what purpose? These are rehab homes are profit making businesses, they
have resources to relocate and conduct their business in areas where the risks associated with a relapse
of an addict can be mitigated, why choose family oriented communities like San Rafael with open
campus high schools? Under the guise of rehabilitation homes, you are allowing commercial, profit
making businesses within what is zoned residential districts. So the next step would be to allow a
software company, a law firm an insurance company all in my neighborhood. I don't understand the
logic of this, what about my expectation of my neighborhood being all homes in which families with or
without children live? How did you decide that my neighborhood can now be zoned for commercial
profit businesses and that too to house addicts with drugs like methamphetamine or alcohol related
addictions?
My family and I are 100% against allowing rehabilitation and or recovery homes within residential
districts. We are 100% against any commercial enterprise within residential districts other than the work
at home sole proprietor model. If however for some odd reason my voice is the minority, then they
need to have armed guards and video cameras and bracelets to ensure that their residents or paying
customers do not violate m y privacy or my freedom to enjoy my life and rest assured we will start to
look for a new home in a community that does not increase the risks faced by my family by residing in
that community.
Exhibit 6-4
11/1/2012