HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2000-02-22SRCC MINUTES (RF—lar) 2/22/2000 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, FEBKUARY 22, 2000 AT 8:00 PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Barbara Heller, Vice -Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember
Also Present: Kenneth Nordhoff, Assistant City Manager
Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 PM
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items.
CLOSED SESSION:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
a. City of San Rafael v. Kimball C. Kaufman, Jr. et al
Marin County Courts Case No. CV 991572
b. City of San Rafael v. Leonard D. Stein, et al.
Marin County Courts Case No. CV 991571
C. City of San Rafael v. Christopher Bradshaw, et al..
Marin County Courts Case No. CV 991569
Assistant City Attorney Guinan announced no reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
8:00 PM
MTBE GASOLINE ADDITIVE - File 13-12 x 13-1 x 13-4
Bruce Bullard, Environmental Analyst, reported it had been brought to his attention that
there was a 2,000 foot plume at Hamilton Air Force Base, which is undergoing study, and
there were variances disallowing drilling. He stated this could be followed-up with the
City of Novato. He believed this plume would likely have some influence on land valuation
and usage. In addition, he stated a study by USGS (United States Geological Survey) would
be coming out on March 8th, which would show how MTBE travels. He noted the report would
also be posted on a web site. Mr. Bullard requested that Council agendize this item,
noting he had spoken with City Manager Gould about this issue, and they agreed to discuss
it again after sixty days, giving the City Manager sufficient time to accumulate data.
Assistant City Manager Ken Nordhoff stated he had spoken with City Manager Gould regarding
this issue: however, he pointed out most of the regulations regarding MTBE were handled at
the State or Federal level. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff would bring the item back before
the Council within sixty days after investigation, showing what actions the City can and
cannot take. Mayor Boro asked that Mr. Bullard be advised when this issue comes back
before the Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the following
Consent Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Workshop with Minutes approved as
Planning Commission of Thursday, August 5, 1999 and submitted.
Special Public Hearing of Tuesday, December 7, 1999
(CC)
3. Call for Applications and Appointment to Fill One,
Four -Year Term on the Fire Commission Due to
Expiration of Term of Charles I. Daniels, Jr.
(Term to Expire End of March, 2004) (CC)
- File 9-2-5
Approved staff recommendation:
a) Called for applications for
appointment to fill one, four-
year term on the Fire
Commission to the end of
March, 2004: b) Set date for
receipt of applications for
Tuesday, March 14, 2000 at
12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's
Office, Room 209: and c) Set
date for interviews of
applicants at a Special City
Council meeting to be held on
Monday, March 20, 2000,
commencing at 6:30 PM.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (RP—lar) 2/22/2000 Page 2
4.
Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael
Approved staff recommendation:
- File 9-1 x 116
AB 1821 (Mazzoni), Excess
Property Tax Revenue: SUPPORT;
AB 1740 (Ducheny), State
Budget Appropriations:
SUPPORT; AB 1303 (Florez),
Highways, Local Projects,
Funding: SUPPORT; AB 1612
(Florez & Torlakson),
Transportation, Congestion
Relief, Local Road
Improvements: SUPPORT.
5.
Monthly Investment Report (MS) - File 8-18 x 8-9
Accepted Monthly Investment
Report for month ending
December, 1999.
6.
Confirmation of Volunteer Program Advisory
Approved staff recommendation:
Committee Appointees Jacek Sochan and Susan
Confirmed the appointments of
Berns for Two -Year Terms, and Reappointment of
Jacek Sochan and Suzan Berns
Student Connor Kamada for an Additional One-
for Two -Year Terms (to expire
Year Term (CC) - File 9-2-53 x 235
2/2002) and the Reappointment
of Student Connor Kamada for
an Additional One -Year Term
(to expire 2/2001) on the
Volunteer Program Advisory
Committee.
7.
Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding
RESOLUTION NO. 10588 -
the Contract to Maggiora and Ghilotti, Inc. in
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE
the Amount of $83,495.00 for Oakwood Drive
CONTRACT FOR THE OAKWOOD DRIVE
Slide Repair Project, Project No. 110-4421-656-
SLIDE REPAIR PROJECT TO
8000 (Bid Opening Held on Thursday, 2/10/2000)
MAGGIORA AND GHILOTTI, INC. IN
(PW) - File 4-1-516 x 12-16
THE AMOUNT OF $83,495.00
(Lowest Resaonsible Bidder).
8.
Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute
RESOLUTION NO. 10589 -
to Execute an Agreement Between the City of
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
San Rafael and Ms. Holly Ford Regarding Future
MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
Annexation of Real Property to the City of
BETWEEN THE CITY AND MS. HOLLY
San Rafael; 240 Highland Avenue, APN 016-021-02
FORD REGARDING FUTURE
(PW) - File 5-2-94 x 149
PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION OF
REAL PROPERTY AT 240 HIGHLAND
AVENUE, APN 016-021-02, TO THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL.
9.
Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding
RESOLUTION NO. 10590 -
Contract to Blythe & Associates in the Amount of
RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF
$122,220.00 for City Hall Third Floor Community
CONTRACT FOR CITY HALL THIRD
Development Remodel; Project No. CDD 2000-01
FLOOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(Bid Opening Held on Wedensday, 2/9/2000) (CD)
REMODEL TO BLYTHE & ASSOCIATES
- File 4-1-517 x 12-2
IN THE AMOUNT OF $122,220.00
(Lowest ResDonsible Bidder).
10.
Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding
This item was removed from the
Contract to Russell Nobles Construction in the
Aqenda at the request of
Amount of $67,000.00 for City Hall Third Floor
staff.
Community Development Furniture; Project
No. CDD 2000-02 (Bid Opening Held on Wednesday,
2/9/2000) (CD) - File 4-2-301
11.
Consultant Contracts with Facilitator Steve Barber
RESOLUTION NO. 10591 -
and Landscape Architect Ken Kay for Facilitation
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
and Design Assistance for the St. Vincent's/
CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN
Silveira Advisory Task Force (P98-10) (CD)
AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL
- File 4-10-304 x 9-2-45 x 10-2
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BARBER
AND GONZALES CONSULTING GROUP
TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE
AGREEMENT (amended to
terminate on June 1. 2000)
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (RP^ -alar) 2/22/2000 Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 10592 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN
AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KENKAY
ASSOCIATES TO EXTEND THE TERM
OF THE AGREEMENT (amended to
terminate on June 1. 2000)
12. Resolution Renewing Agreement with Orca Swim Club
RESOLUTION NO. 10593 -
for Use of the Terra Linda Recreation Center Pool
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
for the 2000 Swim Season (CS)
EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT
- File 4-10-172 x 9-3-65
WITH ORCA SWIM CLUB FOR THE
2000 SWIM SEASON.
13. Resolution Authorizing the Use of Supplemental Law
RESOLUTION NO. 10594 -
Enforcement Services Fund ("SLESF") Money for
RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF
Police Overtime for Community Oriented Policing
STATE C.O.P.S. PROGRAM
(PD) - File 9-3-30
SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES FUNDS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $121,153.34 FOR
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller,
Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion:
14. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING $15.357 TO BE EXPENDED BY THE
COUNTY OF MARIN TO ESTABLISH A,
JUVENILE DRUG COURT (PD) - File 9-3-30
Councilmember Miller stated he would like further explanation regarding this issue,
noting he thought it was a wonderful idea. Police Chief Cam Sanchez reported that a
couple of years ago, he and the County of Marin and the City of Novato decided that
one of the pro -active things they could do Countywide, for young people, was to
establish a Juvenile Drug Court, which Judge Dufficy initiated two years ago.
Specific funding for the project was not available at that time, but fortunately,
there were other funds of approximately $15,000 given to San Rafael, Novato, and the
County. Because Chief Sanchez, the County Sheriff, and Police Chief Brady of Novato
felt there was a great need to have another diversion program, so young people under
eighteen can be diverted to a drug court and find assistance for themselves and
their families, they felt it would be appropriate for San Rafael, Novato, and the
County not to utilize those funds for their individual departments, but rather use
them to assist, Countywide, in partnering on the Juvenile Drug Court, which has been
a very big success in the past twelve to thirteen months. He stated it was now time
to again receive $15,300. Chief Sanchez stated he, the Sheriff, and Chief Brady
felt this was an outstanding program in the court system for young people and their
families, for those who are first-time offenders and need diversion more than
Juvenile Hall or jail, and for their families, who also needed an additional
resource. Therefore, they each wished to utilize their $15,000 to continue the
Juvenile Drug Court Countywide.
Councilmember Heller asked if this was ongoing funding, and the $15,000 would be
provided annually? She noted the report stated that only the two cities and the
County were eligible, and asked for clarification. Chief Sanchez stated the City of
San Rafael, the Sheriff's Department, and the City of Novato were the only agencies
in the County that had good diversion programs for young people and first time
offenders, which have been in effect for over twelve years. He stated the funds
would continue to come in every year. He noted that since the Police Department
already had the funds for its other programs, such as the Boy Scouts and Camp
Champs, he felt that being part of the Juvenile Drug Court, Countywide, would really
help the City, and provide an opportunity to pro -actively help a lot of people.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution authorizing $15,357 to be expended by the County of Marin to establish a
Juvenile Drug Court.
RESOLUTION NO. 10595 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
DECLINING TO DIRECTLY ACCEPT FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH
THE JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK GRANT (JAIBG)
PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
PLANNING AND AUTHORIZING THE FUNDS TO BE EXPENDED BY THE
COUNTY OF MARIN FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF BOTH UNITS OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY ESTABLISHING A JUVENILE DRUG COURT.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES Mr- lar) 2/22/2000 Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING:
15. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE SAN,
RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE), BY AMENDING SECTION
14.16.220F (HOME OCCUPATIONS) TO PROHIBIT FIREARMS DEALER AS A HOME OCCUPATION:,
ADDING SECTION 14.17.075.C4 (PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - GUN SHOPS) TO PROHIBIT GUN
SHOPS FROM OPERATING NEAR SENSITIVE LAND USES, AND AMENDING SECTION 14.03.030,
(DEFINITIONS) TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR GUN SHOP AND FIREARMS DEALER (CD).
- File 10-3 X 10-5 X 10-1 X 10-2 x 9-3-30
Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing, and asked for the staff report.
Micah Hinckle, Planning Intern, explained the proposed Ordinance would prohibit
firearms dealer as a home occupation, prohibit gun shops from operating within 300
feet from sensitive land uses, and add definitions for gun shop and firearms dealer.
Mr. Hinckle noted that on November 15, 1999, the Council held a Public Hearing to
consider the adoption of Ordinances to prohibit the sale of "Saturday Night
Specials" and to add regulations to firearms dealers. During that hearing,
Planning Division staff was directed by Council to bring forth zoning law changes to
prohibit firearms dealers in residential neighborhoods, and prohibiting firearms
dealers from operating near sensitive land uses, such as day care facilities,
churches and schools. On January 25th, the Planning Commission held a Public
Hearing and recommended approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment. Mr. Hinckle
reported the current Zoning Ordinance does not prohibit firearms dealers as a home
occupation, nor does it prohibit gun shops from operating near sensitive land uses.
However, the current Ordinance does require gun shops to obtain approval for a Use
Permit, and Use Permit approval is subject to gun shop performance standards, which
are shown as Exhibit "D" in the staff report.
Mr. Hinckle explained the proposed Zoning Ordinance would amend three sections.
First, Section 14.03.030, Definitions, to add, "Gun Shop: an establishment or person
engaged in the sale, lease or transfer of firearms pursuant to California Penal Code
Section 12071 (a)(1)", and to add, "Firearms Dealer: any person licensed to sell,
lease or transfer firearms pursuant to California Penal Code Section 12071 (a)(1)".
It would also amend Section 14.16.220F, Site and Use Regulations, to add firearms
dealer to home occupations that are prohibited, and amend Section 14.17.075 Gun Shop
Performance Standards, to add a location performance standard that would prohibit
new gun shops from operating 300 feet from day care facilities, churches and
schools. Noting typographical errors in the staff report, Mr. Hinckle clarified
that Exhibit 1. Division 1 should read, "Gun Shop: an establishment or person
engaged in the sale, lease or transfer of firearms pursuant to California Penal Code
Section 12071 (a)(1)", and "Firearms Dealer: any person licensed to sell, lease or
transfer firearms pursuant to California Penal Code Section 12071 (a)(1)".
Mayor Boro stated it was his understanding this Ordinance would grandfather the
existing six gun dealers currently in the City, allowing them to operate from their
homes. Mr. Hinckle stated that was correct.
Councilmember Phillips referred to Provision A, Standard "C", regarding location
within 300 feet of a day care facility, church or school, and asked how common that
practice was in California? Mr. Hinckle reported he had researched half the cities
that regulated gun shops, and did not find this type of limitation on locations.
Mr. Phillips asked for the rationale of this type of provision. Economic
Development Director Bob Brown reported that during the Planning Commission hearing,
the question was raised as to whether there had been any kind of problems with
existing gun dealers, or violence in the immediate vicinity of gun shops or gun
dealers. Although there had not been, the Planning Commission felt it would be
worthwhile to enact this provision, as there are many others in the Zoning Ordinance
that are essentially pre-emptive in their nature. He explained the intent was to
localize the location in which gun dealers can be located, to try to give some
distance from sensitive land uses, which are those principally related to children,
so that if there is an outbreak of violence, such as breaking into a gun shop, or by
someone who recently purchased a weapon, it would not occur in the midst of
children.
Councilmember Miller referred to the six firearms dealers that would be
grandfathered, and asked what it would take not to grandfather them? Mr. Brown
explained the City would have to include some kind of amortization provision in the
Ordinance. He noted the City Attorney's office and Planning staff would have to
work on something that had some kind of rationale in terms of allowing existing
operators to realize financial return from any improvements or goodwill in their
business. Staff would than have to return to Council with the Ordinance, establish
an appropriate period for the amortization, and more than likely, some sort of
process, such as was done with the Animal Keeping Ordinance, to allow extensions to
that amortization period.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Re— lar) 2/22/2000 Page 5
Mayor Boro invited public comment.
Harry Winters, President of the West End Neighborhood Association, noted he had
submitted a letter to the Council on behalf of the Association, expressing their
support for the proposed Ordinance prohibiting gun dealing as a home-based activity.
He stated that at the November 15, 1999 Council meeting, they had asked to add such
provision to those adopted at that time. He noted that while gun dealers operate
under Federal and State regulation, that regulation was silent on the issues covered
in this proposed Ordinance, leaving such issues in the purview of local cities;
therefore, there should be no question regarding the legality of this Ordinance as
it is proposed. Mr. Winters stated the members of the Association were gratified at
the prompt response of the City to their requests, and the City's direction to staff
at the November meeting to develop these proposals for Council's consideration at
this time. He urged the Council to adopt the Ordinance.
Mr. Winters recalled that at the Planning Commission meeting in January, when the
Commission unanimously recommended these provisions, a statement had been made from
the floor that there was no need for restricting gun dealing as a home occupation.
Mr. Winters believed there certainly was such a need, as evidenced by the requests
from his Association and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods. He noted there
were a number of activities that were not appropriate in a domestic, family
environment, and so were prohibited. He believed that dealing in weapons that are
designed with the primary purpose and function of killing human beings must
certainly be such a business.
Linda Bellatorre, resident of San Rafael and member of the Federation of San Rafael
Neighborhoods and the West End Neighborhood Association, thanked Council for
bringing this issue back during a Public Hearing so quickly. She asked, given the
fact that Use Permits run with the land, how this would be handled, whether a Use
Permit would go with the dealer if he decided to relocate to another residence
within San Rafael, or if it would only apply to the dealer if he should do business
at his current address? In addition, she noted it had been briefly mentioned that
gun shop owners were held to performance standards, and asked if the same standards
applied to residential gun dealers? Mayor Boro asked Mr. Brown to note those
questions, and answer them at the end of the discussion.
Fieldinq Greaves, resident of San Rafael, stated he was speaking in opposition of
the proposed gun control changes. Mr. Greaves noted Mr. Winters had spoken of the
need for this; however, he felt there was no such need, and believed Mr. Winters was
speaking about the emotional turmoil in the minds of people who have an unreasoning
fear or hatred of guns. Mr. Greaves pointed out City staff had testified there was
no cause for considering such an Ordinance, and that there had been no problems. He
felt the Councilmembers' action, if they were to support such an Ordinance, would be
totally unjustified, because the City did not have a problem, and they were elected
to take care of problems, not to enforce new restrictions on law-abiding citizens
who were conducting a perfectly lawful activity. Mr. Greaves stated he appreciated
the question Mr. Phillips had asked, noting he believed it was very important that
all the ramifications be taken into account, not just individual emotional attitudes
toward firearms. He referred to a newspaper article which described how an 83 year-
old man had used an old revolver to kill an intruder at 2:00 in the morning, noting
that was one aspect of guns the Council was not considering. Another aspect was
that home gun dealers were a resource, as many of them are able to provide training
in gun safety, and can also legally provide temporary safe storage for a nearby
family who may be in a crisis of some sort, and wants to get a gun out of the house
right away. Mr. Greaves stated he had been given to believe that was not something
the Police Department was able to do, and was a service they did not provide. Mr.
Greaves stated that if the City limited their abilities by limiting the number of
home gun dealers, it would be knocking out one of the resources available for public
safety, and which might serve in an emergency situation.
Mr. Greaves felt the best way to describe this was as a non -problem, and he believed
there was no reason for the legislation.
Peter Richmond acknowledged the Second Amendment states that everyone has the right
to keep and bear arms, provided it is relative to a militia; however, he did not see
anywhere in that amendment a provision stating people could have gun shops wherever
they want, or that they could sell in any area, including a residential area or next
to a school. Mr. Richmond noted it was not unusual to consider regulating an
industry and limiting it geographically to certain parts of a town or city. He
pointed out we regulate all other types of industry, regulating commercial uses to
certain business sections of town, toxic -producing chemical companies to certain
areas, and in towns where there are such things as adult book stores, zoning and use
permits are used to regulate those, so they cannot get too close to schools or
neighborhoods. He noted trucking and transportation are also regulated to certain
areas, particularly bus or train stations, and no one gets upset about that, because
it is the right thing to do. He stated a city is taking into consideration the uses
and needs of all citizens when it regulates the location of a particular business;
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES Mr—alar) 2/22/2000 Page 6
therefore, he asked why this should not be done with the gun dealers? He believed
it was reasonable to try to keep guns, for the time being in the form of gun
dealers, away from areas where they are more sensitive to do damage to children,
elderly people, schools, and hospitals, and to put in controls to limit the
proliferation of these weapons, where we might otherwise not prefer them to be. He
acknowledged some people talk about home defense, and he agreed that if someone
breaks into your house you have the right to defend yourself. However, just as the
gentleman Mr. Greaves referred to had been lucky and killed an intruder, the exact
opposite could have happened. He believed if all these things were kept in mind, it
would be worth seriously considering at least the geographical limitation of such
gun shops.
Carole Ha.yashino, member of the Marin County Human Rights Commission, stated they
know violence threatens the health of young Californians, more than any other
disease or illegal drug; and in fact, hand guns are the leading cause of death among
young people age 19 or younger. She reported that in 1992, more than a third of the
Californians killed by firearms were young people, age 10 to 25.
Ms. Ha.yashino reported that in September, 1999, the Marin County Human Rights
Commission adopted a Resolution to urge the Marin County Board of Supervisors to
adopt a gun control Ordinance banning the sale of "Saturday Night Specials, and
limiting gun access in the County. She noted the Commission's Resolution
specifically asked that the County and cities require firearms dealers to register
with the County Sheriff and/or their local Police Departments, to prohibit firearms
dealers from operating in residential neighborhoods and public facilities near
neighborhood sensitive areas, such as schools, churches, and day care centers, and
to prohibit gun shows on County property. Ms. Ha.yashino stated that following the
passage of that Resolution, the Human Rights Commission has worked with concerned
Marin residents to organize the Marin Chapter of the Bell Campaign, an organization
committed to helping the victims of gun violence, and to reduce gun death and
injury. Despite the gun lobby claims that there are too many gun laws, the reality
is that gun sales are essentially unregulated. The Human Rights Commission and the
Bell Campaign support the adoption of responsible limits on gun access, and advocate
reasonable gun control Ordinances in the County, and in cities like San Rafael,
Tiburon, and San Anselmo. She stated they will be committed in their effort until
every city in this County passes a gun control Ordinance, in order to ensure the
health and safety of our children, schools, and communities. On behalf of the Human
Rights Commission and the Bell Campaign, she urged the Council to take another
important step to make San Rafael a safer community, and adopt the amendments now
before them.
Donna Bjorn, President of the League of Women Voters in Marin County, stated the
League strongly supported the passage of the additional zoning Ordinance, as a
follow-up to Council's action taken last November. She explained their support was
based on a position adopted by the National League at their National Convention in
1992 as a health and safety issue. Ms. Bjorn read the League's position for the
public record, quoting, "The League of Women Voters of the United States believes
that the proliferation of hand guns and semi-automatic assault weapons in the United
States is a major health and safety threat to its citizens. The League supports
strong Federal measures to limit the accessibility and regulate the ownership of
these weapons by private citizens. The League supports licensing procedures for gun
ownership by private citizens to include waiting periods for background checks,
personal identity verification, guns safety education, and annual license renewal.
The League supports a ban on "Saturday Night Specials", enforcement of strict
penalties for the improper possession and crimes committed with hand guns, and the
allocation of resources to better regulate and monitor gun dealers. The League
acknowledges that the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts have ruled
consistently that the Second Amendment confers a right to keep and bear arms only in
connection with services in a well -regulated militia, known today as the National
Guard. Ms. Bjorn reported that following the adoption of that policy in 1990, the
League sent letters to all members of Congress urging them, at the Federal level, to
pass gun control laws. However, that was not happening, and she noted public policy
at the Federal and State levels seemed to be happening "one bullet wound at a time".
Ms. Bjorn stated the League was relying on local leaders to take the lead at the
grass-roots level, noting they applauded Council's determination, and asked that
they pass the Ordinance as a continuing method to protect the health and safety of
the people of Marin County.
David Piddle, resident of San Rafael, recalled that as a young man in South Texas,
he had been a member of the rifle and pistol team in his town, and he had carried a
handgun when he was in the Air Force. Therefore, he was not inordinately afraid of
handguns; however, as much as he might look for a reason to carry a handgun today,
he found that reason missing. He noted that when he learned this item would be
before the Council, he surveyed his friends as to what they thought, and he did not
find one person who was afraid they might not be able to find a handgun at a
legitimate business, and there seemed to be a lack of need. He noted, this being a
capitalist society, we try to supply the needs of the people, but he did not see a
need for handguns in residential areas, and neither did anyone he had spoken with.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Rp^filar) 2/22/2000 Page 7
There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closet the public hearing.
Mayor Boro asked Community Development Director Brown to comment on the two earlier
questions. Mr. Brown explained that Use Permits did run with specific properties;
therefore; if an operator of an establishment under a Use Permit seeks to relocate,
the Use Permit would be abandoned, and a new Use Permit would have to be sought for
the new location. He clarified the Use Permit runs with the land, not with a
particular dealer, or commercial business. Mayor Boro asked if, potentially,
someone could move into that residential home and apply? Mr. Brown stated that was
not the case, because this related to Use Permits for gun shops, while home
occupations were not covered by a Use Permit. However, he pointed out a home
occupation license is issued for a particular property, and if a dealer moved to a
different home, he would have to apply for a new license. Addressing the second
question concerning whether firearms dealers, operating as a home occupation, were
subject to the Gun Shop Performance Standards, Mr. Brown reported they were not. He
noted there were currently six dealers operating as a home occupation, and this
proposed Ordinance would preclude any additional dealers operating out of a
residence. Mr. Brown stated it was his understanding, in discussions with Police
Chief Sanchez, that the permitting process through the Police Department, which was
approved by the Council in November, would apply to those existing dealers.
Mayor Boro referred to a question raised by Mr. Greaves regarding the ability of a
firearms dealer to hold guns in a safe place, noting the allegation had been that
the Police Department could not do that. Police Chief Cam Sanchez stated the Police
Department holds guns for safe keeping all the time, noting it was part of the
Department's policy.
Councilmember Heller referred to the dealers operating as a home occupation, and
asked, if one of the six existing dealers moved to a new location, would they then
apply for a new Use Permit? Mr. Brown stated they would apply for a new home
occupation license, which could not be issued under the provision of this proposed
Ordinance. Therefore, if they relocate their existing home occupation, the license
would be abandoned.
Councilmember Phillips asked about the Performance Standards as they apply to gun
shops. Mr. Hinckle explained applications for gun shops are required to go through
the Zoning Administrator, and as part of the approval process, they are subject to
the Performance Standards. Mr. Phillips asked what the standards were? Mr. Brown
referred to Exhibit "D" of the staff report, noting the standards essentially
required two levels of review and compliance with specific laws. The two levels of
review included Police Department review for security and public safety measures,
and Fire Department review for appropriate hazardous material storage. In addition,
the dealer must comply with State and Federal laws.
Councilmember Miller stated his preference was not grandfathering the six existing
firearms dealers operating out of residences, although he was willing to go along
with the consensus of the Council. Councilmember Phillips asked if the Council had
that choice? Mayor Boro stated the proposed Ordinance now before the Council would,
in essence, grandfather these six existing dealers. Mr. Phillips asked if the City
had the choice of not allowing for those six to be grandfathered and, in effect,
putting them out of business? Mr. Brown believed the Council would have that
choice, although staff was not prepared to offer amortization provisions at this
time. He noted if Council wished to pursue the issue, staff would work with the
City Attorney's office. Mr. Brown believed any business could be amortized out
through zoning regulations, as long as the City provided a reasonable period of time
for the business to gain a return on their investment in the business. Mayor Boro
reminded the Council of a previous discussion regarding the people who worked from
their homes, noting the report they had received from the Police Chief had stated
the amount of activity was minimal, and the problems had been nil. He did not
believe it would necessarily be fair or right to penalize those people at this
point. He noted what the City was trying to move forward on was using the Zoning
Ordinance to regulate business and where it is located; however, he felt the Council
would be going beyond the need if they made this Ordinance retroactive to those who
have been in business and have not had any problems. He pointed out that if there
were any problems, the City would have the regulations to deal with them.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was in favor of the provision that precludes
firearms dealers in residential areas, and applying the logical extension, it would
be appropriate to have an amortization period, because if it is not appropriate to
have this in a residential area, the City should move in that direction, and he
would be able to agree to something along those lines. However, he had some concern
about the imposition of location, explaining that if a gun shop was following
certain performance standards, he saw no logical connection in applying a somewhat
arbitrary 300 foot standard, pointing out this apparently was not applied to other
communities throughout the State. Furthermore, as stated in the Planning Commission
minutes, this would virtually eliminate all possibilities throughout the City. He
noted there were approximately 100 lots out of 18,000 that would be available for a
legitimate business to locate. Therefore, on one hand he was in favor of tightening
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (R —ular) 2/22/2000 Page 8
the provision with regard to the residential area, including amortization, but on
the other hand, he was not in favor of the standard that requires the 300 foot
restriction, which he believed was illogical and overly restrictive, and somewhat
reactionary, particularly since there has been no history at all within the City of
San Rafael.
Mr. Brown clarified the point that had been made at the Planning Commission, to
which Mr. Phillips was referring, was actually a hypothetical question by the
Commissioners if they were to impose not only the 300 foot restriction from day
care, schools and churches, but also applied that 300 foot restriction from any
residential use. He noted Mr. Hinckle had responded that would mean there were only
a very limited number of parcels where a gun shop could be located, because so many
of the residential and commercial areas abut. Mr. Phillips stated he assumed the
Council would likely vote in favor of preventing gun shops in residential areas;
therefore, given that, plus the 300 foot limitation, there would be virtually no
location within the City.
Councilmember Cohen stated that was not what he understood Mr. Brown to say. Mr.
Brown stated the Ordinance before Council, which only places the 300 foot
restriction from day care, schools and churches, leaves many parcels, probably
thousands of parcels, where someone could locate a gun shop. He stated that if an
additional restriction was added of 300 feet from residential, that would be very
restrictive, and while staff had not discussed this with the City Attorney's office,
he noted it would be extremely restrictive. Councilmember Phillips believed it
would be inconsistent if the City were to state it did not want a gun shop in a
residential area, yet allow it to be within 300 feet of residential when it was not
allowed within 300 feet of the other institutions. Mr. Brown explained those other
uses were areas of high concentration, particularly of children, and that was the
difference, because while children do live in neighborhoods, the concentration is
much less, and it is not an assembly use. Mr. Phillips stated he did not consider
this to be the overriding principle, noting there was a limited number; more
significantly, in his mind, he felt the Council was over -stretching its boundary.
He stated he was as concerned as anyone about schools, kids, and safety, but to him,
this was just going a little bit too far, and he did not see the connection.
Mayor Boro pointed out the City had similar kinds of restrictions on certain types
of entertainment, such as bars with live music, and there have been other
restrictions on locations near schools, churches and the like; therefore, he did not
believe this was new ground the Council was breaking, it was something the City has
applied in the past. Mr. Brown reported there were locational restrictions for
liquor stores, cigarette retailers, and a fairly wide array of businesses. Mr.
Phillips stated the nature of the business was different, in his mind.
Councilmember Heller stated she agreed with Mayor Boro regarding the legal non-
conforming uses, and grandfathering the six existing dealers into the residential
areas, noting they have had good records, and the City has had no problems with
them.
Councilmember Cohen stated he was in favor of the Ordinance as it was proposed, and
believed there was good, solid ground for passing this Ordinance. He stated they
had heard a lot of previous discussions regarding junk guns, and felt it was
interesting there was not a lot of objection concerning this proposed Ordinance. He
pointed out the only objection the Council had heard was from Mr. Greaves, who
stated there was no justification for this Ordinance, then proceeded to offer
justification for a current practice which is, itself, hypothetical and not based in
fact, in terms of the practice of the City's Police Department. Mr. Cohen felt the
proposed Ordinance was well grounded in public policy that Council has already
debated and agreed upon.
Regarding the 300 foot limitation, Mr. Cohen stated he supported that restriction
and felt it made sense, noting he believed the City wanted to regulate uses that
were inappropriate in areas where children and people congregate. He did not see
why the City would say it was not okay to have adult book stores, but it was okay to
sell guns. He believed that if the City was going to state it was consistent to
regulate commercial uses that are overly close to where children congregate, then
this seemed to be one use that very logically fell into that category. Therefore,
he supported the recommendation from the Planning Commission and staff that Council
incorporate the 300 foot limitation. He stated he understood the point staff was
making, that if a line were drawn 300 feet from the boundary of every residential
district into every commercial district, they would end up with no places, and that
would be overly restrictive. However, he noted that was not what was before the
Council, and he believed the limitation was consistent with the City's past practice
and regulation of certain types of uses. He stated he supported the Ordinance, and
felt the Council had to take the issue of public safety very seriously, as well as
the testimony regarding young people and firearms. He stated the City had an
obligation not to wait until something happens, and not just believe that because
nothing has happened yet, there is no problem.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Re^ular) 2/22/2000 Page 9
Councilmember Cohen stated he agreed with Councilmember Miller that the City should
look at the issue of amortization, noting that if it is an inappropriate use, then
it is inappropriate whether someone has already been doing it or not. He stated he
understood it could potentially pose a hardship on people who have been operating
under the law, as it was when they began operating their business, and he agreed the
Council would have to think very carefully about what an appropriate amortization
period would be, because he did not believe it was fair to suddenly change the rules
on those people. Mr. Cohen suggested Council adopt the Ordinance now before them,
and ask staff to research the issue of amortization and return to Council with a
report at a future date. He noted, in fairness to the six dealers currently
operating, since they were not notified this issue would be discussed, the Council
should not go much further in discussing amortization without giving them fair
notice, and the opportunity to comment.
Councilmember Heller stated she would be happy to look at any reason the City might
have to consider amortization; however, at this time, she considered it punitive,
and she would not like to impose that on any of the existing businesses.
Councilmember Phillips explained he would be voting against the Ordinance because of
the location issue, and not because of the prohibition against the sale of firearms
by dealers in residential areas, noting he agreed that portion of the Ordinance was
fine. He stated he drew a clear distinction between those who frequent gun shops or
sporting good stores, as opposed to liquor shops or porno shops, noting the
individuals might be quite a bit different; therefore, he did not draw the same
distinction.
Mayor Boro directed staff to pursue the issue of amortization, and return before the
Council with a report.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE SAN RAFAEL
MUNICIPAL CODE (CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE), BY AMENDING SECTION 14.16.220f
(HOME OCCUPATIONS) TO PROHIBIT FIREARMS DEALER AS A HOME OCCUPATION: ADDING SECTION
14.17.075C.4 (PERFORMANCE STANDARDS -GUN SHOPS) TO PROHIBIT GUN SHOPS FROM OPERATING
NEAR SENSITIVE LAND USES, AND AMENDING SECTION 14.03.030 (DEFINITIONS) TO ADD A
DEFINITION FOR GUN SHOP AND FIREARMS DEALER"
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to dispense with the
reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by name only, and pass
Ordinance No. 1748 to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
16. RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE CITY OF SAUSALITO'S REOUEST FOR APPROPRIATE FUTURE USE OF
FORT BAKER (CM) - File 9-1 x 9-3-66
Mayor Boro introduced two representatives from the City of Sausalito, current Mayor
Sandra Bushmaker, and former Mayor Amy Belser. He noted there was also a
representative from the National Park Service.
Sandra Bushmaker, Mayor of Sausalito, stated the City of Sausalito had provided the
Councilmembers with a packet concerning the issues relative to East Fort Baker,
explaining there was a proposal for a conversion of the former Army base at the foot
of the north tower of the Golden Gate Bridge. She stated the City of Sausalito was
requesting that Council adopt a Resolution seeking compliance by the (NPS) National
Park Service to its own Mission Statement regarding Fort Baker development. She
reported that Mission Statement requires the Park Service to preserve the scenery,
the natural and historic objects and wildlife, and "to provide for the enjoyment of
same in a manner, and by such means, as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment
of this and future generations". Ms. Bushmaker reported the proposed development of
up to 350 rooms was too intense for the pristine site, and would lead to further
gridlock, which was already intolerable on the 101 Corridor and the Golden Gate
Bridge. In addition, the proposed plan for the site threatened the tranquility and
natural scenery and serenity of East Fort Baker.
Ms. Bushmaker stated the plan included a substantial expansion of the Discovery
Museum, kyack and bicycle rentals, and an expanded marina and restaurant facility.
As a way to lend a measuring stick to the cumulative impact of the proposed plan,
she stated the three hundred room facility would be too large, and would be larger
than any hotel in Marin, pointing out that the Embassy Suites and the Wyndham Hotel
each have 235 rooms, the Marriott Courtyard has 146 rooms, and the Tiburon Lodge has
90 rooms. For comparison, she noted the Mark Hopkins Hotel in San Francisco has 392
rooms.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Re—lar) 2/22/2000 Page 10
Ms. Bushmaker stated congestion in Marin's open spaces and travel corridors was a
major issue for the entire Bay Area, pointing out that this evening, on the ABC
Evening News, the 101 Corridor in Sonoma County was deemed to be the most congested
stretch of highway in the Bay Area. She believed congestion along the entire 101
Corridor was very real for everyone, on a daily basis. Ms. Bushmaker reported the
National Park Service estimated that if this project were approved and built -out, it
would add 2,000 people per day in that facility.
Ms. Bushmaker stated Sausalito's position regarding East Fort Baker has been
consistent, noting they did not oppose the concept of a conference or retreat
center; however, they have always opposed 350 rooms as being just too big, noting
that creating problems and deferring solutions was not acceptable. She reported the
City Councils of Belvedere, Mill Valley, Novato, Ross, Tiburon, the Marin Bicycle
Coalition, and the Marin County Supervisors have already lent their support to
Sausalito's request that the National Park Service reduce the over -development of
this site by the proposed plan.
Ms. Bushmaker stated the City of Sausalito requested that the City of San Rafael
hold the National Park Service not only to the letter of its Mission Statement, but
to the spirit, as well, by passing the proposed Resolution.
Steve Kasierski, National Park Service, stated he was representing National Park
Service Superintendent Brian O'Neal. Mr. Kasierski noted there had been three years
of planning, many public meetings in which they received public testimony, hundreds
of pages of public and technical documents, ending in a final Environmental Impact
Statement, and more than 70 mitigations related to the Fort Baker Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement.
Mr. Kasierski stated the Fort Baker Plan, and the use of a retreat and conference
center as a component of that plan, was selected precisely because it minimizes
impact to the site, and provides for the preservation of the historic, cultural, and
natural resources of Fort Baker, and the important park lands that more than two
decades ago the President and Congress decided would be appropriate for inclusion in
the National Park System for protection for future generations. He stated it was
precisely why the Park Service, after a long and extensive planning and
environmental impact process, determined that the conference and retreat center
would minimize environmental impacts to this site, compared with other uses which,
although they may be attractive in some ways, would in every case have substantially
more impacts than a very manageable conference and retreat center.
Mr. Kasierski stated the Park Service was as concerned about natural, cultural, and
historic resource protection, preservation, interpretation and education as everyone
else. The conference and retreat center, along with the other components of the
Plan, including an expansion of the nationally recognized Bay Area Discovery Museum,
improvement of waterfront access, and habitat enhancement restoration, went a long
way toward satisfying the fundamental requirements of their Mission Statement, the
enabling legislation, the legislation mandate which created the Golden Gate National
Recreation area, and the myriad of important regulations and policies that govern
use of park lands, including the National Environmental Protection Act, Antiquities
Act, Historic Preservation Act, and all the other Natural Resource Preservation
Acts. Mr. Kasierski stated they were satisfied the Plan was a sound one, noting it
had gone through extensive public impact and public scoping processes, and had
responded, particularly in its final Environmental Impact Statement, to the very
concern brought up by the City of Sausalito on the final day of the comment period
of that Environmental Impact process.
Mr. Kasierski stated the Park Service, along with its partners, has been and
continues to be, an important participant in understanding, planning for, and
solving integrated transportation problems in southern Marin County, including
aggressive searching by the Park Service for Federal and other granting sources, in
order to understand what is happening in the southern part of the County, and how
the Park Service's actions can be minimized, so its contribution to the existing
problems are minimal, and they can participate in a comprehensive solution.
Mr. Kasierski urged the Councilmembers to take advantage of the Park Service's
invitation to sit down for a more technical briefing of the intricacies and fine
points of their Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, noting they address
specific effects on traffic and how the mitigations deal with those efforts, and
also how the ongoing plans for a conference and retreat center are going to satisfy
the joint concerns that it be as small as can be programmatically and financially
feasible. He reported they had recently received initial responses to their Request
for Qualifications to develop and operate the center, and those responses indicated
initial interest in a range of rooms, from 150 to 300, which was significantly less
than the 350 room cap identified for analysis in the final Environmental Impact
Statement. Mr. Kasierski stated they were confident in the direction they were
taking, and welcomed an opportunity to work with the Councilmembers, and with
others, to answer specific questions. He stated he would be happy to do so at this
time, or to respond to specific questions, in writing, later this week.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (RP^•lar) 2/22/2000 Page 11
Mayor Boro invited further public comment, and there was none.
Mayor Boro noted Mr. Kasierski had mentioned their sensitivity to the environment,
noting those in San Rafael were very concerned about the environment, and were
dealing with a number of locations where that was an issue. However, he pointed out
that Mr. Kasierski had not said much about the environment and the position of the
people who live around this area, and the impact the proposed plan might have on
their lifestyles and their environment. Mayor Boro stated that seemed to be the
main issue before the Council, noting he had received a letter from Marin County
Supervisor Kinsey, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, referring to the impact
that could possibly affect all residents of Marin County, as well as visitors to
Marin, and the thousands of people trying to go through southern and northern Marin
to get to the seashore itself.
Mayor Boro felt there was no question that the Park Service was also being sensitive
to the lands that it has, and wanted to protect and develop them in a positive way
for the use of future generations. However, Mayor Boro believed the issue that
concerned the City of Sausalito, and the reason they were now before the Council,
was the concern regarding the impact this will have directly on their community, and
on the rest of Marin County and its residents as the center becomes operational.
Mr. Kasierski stated the Park Service certainly understood that activities within
the park, and within the GGNRA (Golden Gate National Recreational Area), had an
effect on adjacent municipalities, noting it was appropriate for adjacent
municipalities, and all the people in Marin County, to be concerned about and
interested in what happens within the parks. He stated no one within the Park
Service would criticize anyone for being interested in activities in the parks, and
how that affects adjacent communities.
Mr. Kasierski stated they believed they had done a good job with their Environmental
Impact Assessment process, in attempting to model within the scope of that document
the potential effects on traffic in southern Marin, particularly on Highway 101, and
the fact that those effects are minimal in the percentage of additional traffic
before mitigation. He noted they were also confident that with those mitigations,
in particular the likely size of the conference and retreat center as it develops
through a proposal stage, everyone would be very comfortable with the end result.
He reported the Park Service was also involved in ongoing partnerships with
municipalities and regional transit agencies on studies and actual implementation of
efforts to reduce traffic demands within the park, which will also contribute to
lessening traffic overall, in Marin County. Mr. Kasierski offered to send the
Councilmembers a complete listing of those efforts, how they are funded, and how the
Park Service may be participating with the City of San Rafael on that.
Councilmember Miller stated he felt local jurisdictions were the ones that had the
broad public interest over land use in their areas. He acknowledged that was an
awesome responsibility, and an awesome task, to see how all the systems relate to
one another as they go along. Mr. Miller noted the City of Sausalito, the County
and a number of other cities felt that perhaps the direct interests of the Park
Service were not aligned sufficiently with the common good and the common interest
in the land use, in and of itself. Mr. Miller pointed out that this was an obvious
statement given by the City of Sausalito, by those who had been elected by the
people to represent them. He stated, in many ways, he looked upon the Park Service,
in this particular project, as the Developer, going after their best interest, while
doing the best they can according to the law and their Mission Statement; and he saw
the City of Sausalito asking that this interest be placed within the context of the
common interest and common good. Therefore, Mr. Miller stated he was very much in
favor of the Resolution, and in supporting the City of Sausalito and the citizens of
this County in their rightful role and responsibility of seeing that all interests
are aligned with the common good.
Councilmember Cohen acknowledged the Park Service has a challenging task, to figure
out how to develop and fund some of these improvements, particularly with the Golden
Gate National Recreational Area. He felt Councilmember Miller's analysis was
correct, that to a certain extent, this project put the Park Service into the role
of the Developer, and he believed that when they played that role, they needed to be
evaluated by the same standards. While he understood there was some public benefit
to maintaining the park and enhancing what is there, he also believed it was
appropriate for the City of Sausalito and surrounding jurisdictions to evaluate
that. Mr. Cohen stated he did not know how the City would react to a Developer who
came in and stated he knew there were some transportation concerns, and was working
to solve those regional issues, noting that would not be good enough for a project
that came before the Council, and he did not blame the City of Sausalito for stating
it was not good enough for them.
Councilmember Phillips noted he was torn on this issue. He stated he agreed with
the comments of Councilmembers Cohen and Miller. However, he was concerned with the
references that were made to "a Developer", noting all the Councilmembers had
experience as Planning Commissioners, and at this point in time, with the
information provided, if he were on the Planning Commission, he would have a very
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Re—lar) 2/22/2000 Page 12
difficult time making the type of recommendation decision for a "go, no go" that, as
a Planning Commissioner, he would be called upon to make. He stated he was holding
himself to that same standard, because that was his background and experience, at
least in this type of setting, and noted that with regard to the kind of in-depth
analysis, EIR review, and public input, the Council had not had that opportunity.
He stated he was going to abstain, because he did not believe he had enough
information to make the kind of decision he would feel comfortable with.
Councilmember Heller stated she was not completely satisfied with what the traffic
mitigation would be, given the size of the project. She believed this would likely
unfold as it moves forward, and the Council hears more from the City of Sausalito.
She stated she was satisfied in urging that they look to the National Park Service
Mission Statement.
Mayor Boro stated he fully supported the Resolution before the Council. He noted he
had a similar reaction as Councilmember Cohen s, and when he heard from the National
Park Service, it seemed as though he was hearing from a Developer. He stated there
was a site in San Rafael the City has been working on for seven years, yet the level
of intensification was minimal compared to this. Mayor Boro did not believe the
City of Sausalito was stating they were opposed to anything happening there:
however, they wanted it done on a scale that would not impact their community to the
extent this project would. He felt the National Park Service needed to be sensitive
to that, and build something that would not only meet the needs of their visitors,
but also the needs of the surrounding community.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution
as presented, making the request that development of the Fort Baker site be viewed
through the lens of the National Park Service Mission Statement, and meeting the
community on that common ground.
RESOLUTION NO. 10596 - RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE CITY OF SAUSALITO'S REQUEST FOR
APPROPRIATE FUTURE USE OF FORT BAKER.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
17. RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TWO-YEAR BUDGET FOR,
1999/2001 (MS) - File 8-5 x R-414
Assistant City Manager Kenneth Nordhoff explained this was a mid -year financial
report. He recalled that at a study session on February 7th, he went through a
number of recommended changes regarding revenues and expenditures. He noted a fair
number of those changes involved the General Fund, the City's largest fund, and
there were also other changes in funds that provide services for equipment and
specialized funding. Mr. Nordhoff stated he was presenting a codified report of all
the changes, and had prepared several exhibits, particularly exhibits 1, 2, and 3,
which reflected a detailed listing of changes in revenues and expenditures, and what
the effect on the total funds appropriations would be for the City.
Mr. Nordhoff referred to some of the items that had come up during the study
session, and how he had addressed those for Council's consideration. First, he
noted that at the bottom of Page 3 and the first half of Page 4, several items had
been left as "Consideration". He stated he had taken into account the surpluses and
tax revenues from the prior year, as well as a net increase in revenues over
expenditures for this current year, noting there was approximately $1.6 million
available in discretionary funds. Mr. Nordhoff recalled the first items he had laid
out for the Council at the February 7th study session, and which he had incorporated
into the recommendations, related to the costs for emergency preparedness, Year 2000
issues, and EOC staffing on New Year's Eve. He reported the Council had initially
appropriated $90,000; however, the actual cost of operating the emergency center on
New Year's Eve, as well as making Year 2000 readiness preparations and developing a
couple of portable trailer units through the Public Works Department, totaled
approximately $150,000. Therefore, in the report now before the Council, staff was
requesting additional appropriations of $50,634.
Secondly, Council had felt staff should provide some information regarding the
Millennium Party, and how it was planned and organized, which was information that
has been provided to the press, as of last month. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff had put
together Exhibit "A", coordinated through Brigitte Moran and Nancy Mackle of the
Redevelopment Department, which was included with the staff report, as well as
related exhibits and press releases. Mr. Nordhoff noted ticket sales were the
issue, and staff adjusted the budget by $1.2 million to recognize the fact that the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Rete' -lar) 2/22/2000 Page 13
City had not achieved that goal, although the party was a success on many other
levels. Mr. Nordhoff also pointed out that taking this action would not compromise
any services the Council funded in the two-year budget, nor would it compromise any
projects the Council has approved to date.
Mr. Nordhoff stated that after taking those two actions, there was approximately
$366,000 of discretionary funds, which they had also discussed on February 7th.
Staff put forth several options, along with one additional request since the 7th.
Reviewing these requests, Mr. Nordhoff stated one of the items for consideration was
the remaining funding to upgrade the improvements for the benefit of the public in
the Council Chamber. He noted $60,000 had been requested in the staff report from
Assistant to the City Manager, Lydia Romero, and this was shown as Exhibit "B" in
the staff report. He noted the Council had recommended the second of the three
options for this project. Mr. Nordhoff referred to Exhibit "C", which included a
brief note from Fire Chief Marcucci, noting they had discussed at length the health
and safety reasons for installing exhaust systems at all Fire Stations. He reported
staff was requesting an additional $60,000 for that item.
At Council's request, and after discussions regarding Information Technology, more
specifically, the updating of the Strategic Plan, there remained an $865,000 deficit
that has not been funded with respect to replacing the Police, Fire and Finance
systems. He stated staff had put together, as part of Exhibit "D", a timeline
identifying the major elements over a two-year calendar period running from January
1st of this year through December of 2001, and also identifying, as best they could,
where the dollars were currently available, and what was needed in order to fund
that replacement. He pointed out that on the front page of this exhibit there are a
lot of needs assessment, negotiation, bidding, and contract processing to do, and
that would essentially take the first year of this two-year period. He noted the
Council had already set aside $450,000 of General Fund money, as well as allocating
$70,000 of interest earnings from Revenue Anticipation Notes, which put it at
$520,000. He stated there was a need of approximately $1,525,000, which would be
the cost to replace the three information systems. He noted it was hoped that by
issuing the revenue notes over the next couple of years, that would bring total
available funds to $660,000, and comparing that to the $1,525,000 that is needed,
$864,000 remains. Mr. Nordhoff stated that although it is clear those funds would
not be needed within the next six months, as the City gets to the point of awarding
contracts, and vendors ask how much the City has set aside to do the various
projects, the City would be able to show there are sufficient funds available to do
the work.
Mr. Nordhoff reported the Police Department had put forth a request, which at the
time of the request two weeks ago was $110,000, but now totaled $69,000, the
reduction largely due to grant funding from the Department of Justice for tactical
equipment related to emergency responses. He noted Chief Sanchez and Captain Cronin
had put together information regarding this request, and Captain Cronin was
available to answer any questions the Councilmembers might have.
Mr. Nordhoff stated there had been requests on behalf of the Peacock Gap Homeowners
Association for cost items and services related to lagoon management and pump
station renovation in the Peacock Gap area. He reported Mr. Bernardi had put
together a brief response; however, Mr. Nordhoff noted many of these issues had come
before the Council two weeks ago, at which time Council directed Mr. Bernardi to
take 60 days to more fully respond to those issues. Mr. Nordhoff stated those
requests and Mr. Bernardi's response were included for Council's consideration.
Reviewing staff's recommendations to Council, Mr. Nordhoff stated staff believed the
City should complete the exhaust fan installation, noting that had already been
incorporated as an appropriation in the mid -year budget. Although the upgrades to
the Council Chamber are important, staff recommended that item be deferred until
Spring, when staff returns to review available funds, either those that may remain
this year, beyond what has been estimated to date, or what may be available in the
next twelve-month cycle of this two-year budget. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff
recommended, at Chief Sanchez' direction, that Council fund the tactical equipment
and proceed with that endeavor. In addition, given the fact that Mr. Bernardi has
60 days to respond to some of the Peacock Gap concerns, and he has demonstrated that
some progress is underway, Mr. Nordhoff suggested this item be held until Council
has heard a more complete response, and that the item be brought back at the Spring
budget hearing, so if there are large cost items, particularly if they are large
Capital Replacement items, staff will have had the chance to compare those requests
with other projects, and give Council a complete recommendation that the remaining
Discretionary Funds, approximately $237,000, be used toward the BRC system
replacement, which would leave approximately $638,000 unfunded to date. He pointed
out the City had been picking this off a little bit at a time, and this item would
also be brought back to Council in the Spring.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Re lar) 2/22/2000 Page 14
Councilmember Phillips referred to Page 2, Property Taxes, and asked Mr. Nordhoff to
explain the second sentence, which states, "The County's portion represents our
share of excess taxes not needed to fully fund the school system". Mr. Nordhoff
reported this referred to 1992 and 1993 when the State diverted taxes, explaining
there was a formula in place, identified as AB 8, whereby the amount of money
diverted from San Rafael and all the agencies within the County, including the
County, have to fund the school systems within the County to a certain level. He
stated this was the only county in the State where if the State -applied formula was
used, there was excess funding, and the amount of money that must be given up
exceeds the amount of money necessary to fund the schools. He stated there had been
a five-year bill in place, which lapsed in 1997, that returned those excess dollars
back to the County and all the agencies within the County. That bill was not
successful in the prior two fiscal years, but was re -approved this past year, after
the City had already adopted its budget and taken its actions. He stated that as
one of the bills approved by the Governor and State Legislature, they are returning
that money to San Rafael on a one-time basis. Mr. Nordhoff reported the City's
share would be $310,000.
Councilmember Cohen referred to Mr. Nordhoff's recommendation concerning Peacock
Gap, asking him to clarify what he was recommending. Mr. Nordhoff stated there were
a variety of requests, some fairly routine or operational in nature, and some that
required plan development or capital improvements. He proposed Mr. Bernardi and his
staff be given a full opportunity to respond to the concerns raised two weeks ago,
as well as these issues. Referring to the pump replacement as an example, which
might run approximately $250,000, he noted that was currently not a capital funded
need, as the City looks at the limited funds available for those types of uses.
Therefore, if the City was going to consider that, staff would like to bring it back
to the Council in the context of what projects they have funded, why those were made
a higher priority that this one, and what adjustment might be recommended in that
prioritization. Mr. Cohen noted the request had been made that Council fund some of
it now, yet Mr. Nordhoff was stating the Council should wait. He asked, if they
came back at the end of the 60 -day period and recommended the City proceed with a
Flood Management Plan that required allocating funds, would the Council be precluded
from doing so at that time, based upon what was being recommended this evening? Mr.
Nordhoff stated they would not be.
Mayor Boro invited public comment.
Suzanne Mabardj, representing the Peacock Gap Neighborhood Association, thanked the
Councilmembers for their time and interest, noting the residents were following
Public Works Director Bernardi's recommendation that the community lobby for
Council's attention, so that their needs are heard.
Ms. Mabard_y stated the residents have been working with the Public Works Department
for several weeks, trying to resolve their issues, and had been meeting with Mr.
Bernardi monthly since November. She noted that while Mr. Bernardi's letter,
Exhibit "G" in the staff report, was thorough, it was now obsolete in content. She
stated the projects the neighborhood was requesting were only those he had
recommended to the City Council in December, 1996, noting nothing had changed since
then, and they were asking that those projects be initiated promptly.
Ms. Mabard.y stated the Public Works Department continued to express a "no
responsibility" position regarding the water quality and pollution of the lagoon.
She reported the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board had pushed
this position by issuing the 30 -day Notice to Comply. She stated the Water Quality
Control Board knows who owns and operates the pump station, and knows that if the
water is held for more than one week in its present condition, it is considered
polluted, and the Board also knows that the City flushed the lagoon into San
Francisco Bay only four to five times during 1999. She stated the Board has stated
the City must flush once a week so polluted water is not emitted into the Bay, or,
the City can route the polluted water into the sewer system, and then to the sewage
treatment plant. She stated it was the City's choice, but noted the City could not
continue holding the water in the Peacock Gap lagoon and then emitting it in a
polluted condition. Ms. Mabardv noted the City does not believe the water is
polluted; however, she pointed out there had been two fish kills because of the
severe algae bloom, which eats up the oxygen, causing the water to become stagnant.
She referred to Item 6 of Exhibit "G", which states the lagoon has only occasional
algae bloom, noting this was incorrect information, and the Water Quality Control
Board knows it.
Ms. Mabardv stated the residents were again asking the Council to do the right thing
and allocate the funds to at least flush the lagoon for the Summer and Fall of the
year 2000, and to survey the levee. In addition, she asked the Council to match her
in a financial duel. She reported she had raised $6,200 in private grant funds to
fix this problem; however, the Public Works Department wanted to use her grant money
to educate the community in a joint venture, which she did not believe made any
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Rer—lar) 2/22/2000 Page 15
sense. She asked the council to challenge her in this uuel, and at least fund
$6,200 to flush the lagoon; otherwise the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board will make its decision on what is in the water, and what to do with
the pump station.
Mayor Boro recalled that when this item was discussed two weeks ago, Mr. Bernardi
was given sixty days to complete the fact survey and return to the Council, noting
Councilmember Cohen had pointed out the Council would have the option, at that time,
to begin whatever projects it wished to undertake. He believed the Council was
still operating in that spirit, and suggested they go forward with what they agreed
to two weeks ago. He stated he intended to have Mr. Bernardi return to Council in
May with the results of his study, and then the Council could move forward with what
they choose to fund. Ms. Mabardy stated she appreciated Mayor Boro's protocol;
however, she stated the items in the staff report before the Council were now
obsolete under the guidance of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Mayor Boro recalled there had been some debate on that issue, pointing out
that would be one of the things Mr. Bernardi would address in a more current
fashion. Ms. Mabardy noted the Water Quality Control Board was now stating the City
was a responsible party in the water quality management, and that was a separate
funding issue, for the pumping and flushing of the lagoon water into the Bay on a
weekly basis, not four times a year. She stated Council needed to realize this
issue was now above them, and was with the Water Control Board, noting that since
the Board had already issued a 30 -day Notice to Comply, if the flushing was not
scheduled and completed by the owners and operators of the pump station, they would
continue with their procedures in order to protect the waterways under the Clean
Water Act.
Public Works Director Bernardi stated that was not correct. He explained that the
Regional Water Control Board staff had issued a 30 -day Notice to Comply to the City
and to the Golf Course. The City was required to respond as to what it was doing
with regard to the management of the watershed, and the City did respond to that,
based upon what the Regional Board had approved in the overall Countywide Storm
Water Management Program. Regarding the Golf Course, Mr. Bernardi stated they were
required to provide a plan to the Regional Board that would lay out the timetable
for when they will prepare a Lagoon Management Plan; however, it was Mr. Bernardi's
understanding that they did not have to prepare the Lagoon Management Plan within
this 30 -day time period. He noted he specifically remembered that, because he had
spoken with a Regional Board staff member, and when he had asked if the Plan had to
be prepared within 30 days, he was told it did not, that the Board simply wanted to
know what the Golf Course was going to do about it and how they were going to
prepare the Plan, primarily because if it was going to take them a year to prepare
the Plan, that would be unacceptable to the Regional Board staff. Therefore, Mr.
Bernardi stated this was an issue that was very clear to him.
Regarding the weekly flushing of the lagoon, Mr. Bernardi recalled that in all of
his discussions with Regional Board staff, there was no mention made of a mandatory
flushing of the lagoon once a week. He noted that during the Summer, this was done
approximately very four weeks, and he did not recommend changing that until the
Lagoon Management Plan is prepared, reviewed, and adopted by the Regional Water
Control Board as a reasonable plan. He felt it was arbitrary to say that it should
be done once a week, pointing out that until the Golf Course does its Management
Plan, it could not be determined whether once a week or once a month was needed.
Councilmember Heller referred to the issue of the height of the levee wall, and
asked for background information. Mr. Bernardi recalled that in 1986, which had
been a very heavy winter, there had been a lot of discussion concerning the height
of the levee, and whether it should be part of the flood control measures. At the
time the matter was brought before the Council, it was reported that the levee was
two feet too low, and the reason for that had been to preserve the views of the Bay.
Mr. Bernardi reported a conscious decision had been made at that time, after input
from the residents of the neighborhood, that the levee should remain at that
elevation. Mr. Bernardi pointed out that at subsequent annual meetings,
particularly in Peacock Gap, he made mention of the fact that the levee was too low,
and everyone seemed to know that. He also informed them there needed to be some
consensus as to whether or not they wanted the levee to be raised an additional two
feet to meet the City's elevation and levee requirement. His sense of the general
tone of the meeting was that there was no consensus, and that some thought raising
the levee was a good idea, while others did not. Mr. Bernardi recalled he had told
them that if they wanted the City Council to fund the project, there had to be
consensus from the community as to whether they wanted the levee raised, and if they
were willing to live with it if it was raised. Mr. Bernardi stated that consensus
still needed to be developed. Councilmember Heller asked if Mr. Bernardi had an
estimate as to what the cost would be? He stated he did not, but he would prepare
an estimate.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Rete lar) 2/22/2000 Page 16
Councilmember Cohen stated he assumed the Councilmembers were going to receive
information on all the points that were raised two weeks ago, as well as those now
being discussed. Mr. Nordhoff stated everything would be covered. Mr. Cohen noted
he had understood Mr. Bernardi to state that to the best of his knowledge, the City
was, at the present time, fully in compliance with all requirements presented to the
City by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Mr. Bernardi stated that was
correct. Mr. Cohen asked if there were any outstanding issues, or anything Mr.
Bernardi felt would cause the Regional Board to come down on the City? Mr. Bernardi
stated staff had not yet received a response from the Regional Board regarding what
the City had submitted. Mr. Cohen asked if the City could request the Board to
respond, indicating whether or not the City had met their requirements? Mr.
Bernardi stated he would make that request. Mr. Cohen noted that if the City was
not in compliance, that was something the City needed to take very seriously;
therefore, he would like Mr. Bernardi to ask the Board to respond to what has been
submitted, so if the Board does not consider it sufficient, the City will still be
able to respond within their deadline. Mayor Boro stated it would be very important
for Mr. Bernardi to include the Board's response when he comes back before the
Council. Mr. Cohen stated that when Mr. Bernardi receives the Board's written
response, he would like a copy sent to the Council, because if the City is not in
compliance, that was something that needed to be addressed right away.
Ted Johnson, Member of the Board of Directors of the Peacock Gap Homeowners
Association, thanked Mr. Bernardi for providing a dedicated generator for their
area. Mr. Johnson encouraged the Council to adopt the amendments to the City's
budget. He stated it was his understanding, from what had been said during this
meeting, that they would be dealing with a comprehensive plan for all the issues,
including flood and water quality issues, and it would not just be left to the
Country Club to take the lead. He also noted it was his impression that the Notice
the City received from the Water Quality Control Board was telling both the City and
the Country Club they had to work together and come up with a plan. He stated, if
it would be helpful to the Council during the 45 -day period, representatives from
the Peacock Gap Homeowners Association could come down and meet with Mr. Bernardi,
and try to arrive at an outline of what the projects are, and develop a priority
list and timelines as to when they would want to see them completed. Mayor Boro
noted Mr. Bernardi had worked with the Association in the past, and would continue
to do so. He believed it would be worthwhile to understand the Association's
priorities, because their priorities had to fit in with the rest of the priorities
in the City.
Councilmember Cohen noted he had received a telephone call when this item was put on
the agenda, and he wanted to raise an issue he felt the Council should consider at
the end of the fiscal year, when the next round of reviews are underway. Referring
to North San Rafael and the issue of the promenade, Mr. Cohen stated the issue that
had been raised to him, and which he felt the Council should consider, was the
funding of the design of the promenade; not the construction, but the design. He
noted the Council had already begun to see references to this, and he believed that
in the future it was likely there would be projects coming forward where part of the
public benefit offering would be contributing an amount toward construction of
portions of the promenade, and enhancing the pedestrian -friendly nature of that
community. He felt it would be hard to evaluate that if the City did not have a
sense of what the design would look like, and it would be difficult to determine
what the City was "buying" if they did not know exactly what we were trying to buy.
Mr. Cohen suggested earmarking at least some money toward design, beyond the concept
stage, of the promenade. He noted the city had an easier time in Downtown San
Rafael once the Downtown Vision was completed, because there were some real funds to
work with, and the Redevelopment Agency to drive the Vision. He pointed out the
City knew, even going in with the North San Rafael Vision, that those kinds of
resources were going to be hard to come by, and the City was going to have to pick
and choose what the City could do, and what would be beyond the City's capacity to
do. Mr. Cohen believed the design issue was one the Council should think about, and
he wanted to get it into their collective consciousness. He felt this was something
they should discuss during the next round, to see if it could be incorporated. Mr.
Nordhoff stated he would work with Community Development Director Bob Brown and
develop a cost estimate for Council's consideration. Mayor Boro suggested staff
might also want to work with some of the mitigation monies that will be collected
for some of the North San Rafael projects, and possibly identify some of them as
sources of funding for this effort.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution amending the 1999/2000 budget (to a Revised Sum of $61,354,054).
RESOLUTION NO. 10597 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE
1999/2000 BUDGET.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Rei lar) 2/22/2000 Page 17
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
18. a. MAYORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DEPARTMENT - LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
- File 9-11-1 X 9-1 (Verbal)
Councilmember Heller announced the Executive Forum would be held on July 28th
and 29th in Monterey, and the Annual Conference would be held September 7th
through the 9th at the Anaheim Convention Center.
b. MARIN ECONOMIC COMMISSION - File 252 x 9-1 (Verbal)
Councilmember Cohen stated the Marin Economic Commission held a joint meeting
with Sonoma's Economic Commission, and they recognized there were several
issues that should be looked at regionally, noting the Sonoma Commission may
now be open to addressing such issues as transportation and housing. Mr.
Cohen stated he would set up a meeting with staff and the Chair of the Sonoma
Commission. He also believed the area of tourism might be something the
Commissions should focus on, noting particularly if San Rafael gets a Downtown
hotel, and with the kind of entertainment we want to have, they should see how
those things might factor. Mr. Cohen noted Sonoma has a County Film
Commissioner, and they had some very interesting figures on the economic
impact. He felt San Rafael might want to look at what Sonoma County has been
doing in that area, and believed it would be worthwhile for the two
Commissions to meet.
There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM.
JEANNE LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2000
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/22/2000 Page 17