Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1997-04-21SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1997 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: REDWOOD TREES - PART OF ALBERT PARK PROJECT - File 9-3-66 x 12-5 8:00 PM Sunny Bell, resident of San Rafael, presented Council with a list of six requests on behalf of the Albert Park Redwood Alliance (APRA), noting the Alliance has struggled very hard to keep 21 redwoods in the ground after they had been removed from the parking lot of the Recreation Center without prior knowledge of the residents. She also presented a petition signed by 137 residents. Ms. Bell specified the APRA's requests: A) Written promise that the remaining 21 Redwood trees, on the northern end of Albert Park, will stay in their present locations, and will be protected during construction; B) Clarification on when and how the residents in the immediate vicinity of the park were notified about this project, and in what way was their participation solicited by the City and/or Park Commission; C) When and where were public hearings held on this specific project and who was in attendance; D) Copies of the Master plan for not only the Recreation Center's parking lot, but also the park itself; E) Clarification on exactly what agencies are funding this particular project. Are they City, State, or Federal funds? If funds were allocated by more than one agency, how much, from which, and for what?; F) The neighborhood is less than pleased with Don Blaney's present planting scheme. Many feel play areas take priority over expensive palm trees and therefore, residents are asking for a town meeting to review the plans before any planting is done. Mayor Boro assured Ms. Bell that City Manager Gould and Park and Recreation would review the issue and get back to her with answers to her questions. CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Meetings of Wednesday, February 5, 1997 (with San Rafael City Schools and Dixie School District) and Thursday, March 13, 1997 (with Design Review Board), and Special and Regular Meetings of Monday, April 7, 1997 (CC) 2. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) Agenda. - File 9-1 4. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE Approved as submitted. This item removed from Approved final adoption NO. 1709 - An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael of Ordinance No. 1709. Amending Section 6.10.050 of the San Rafael Municipal Code Concerning Penalties for Animal Control Violations (PD) - File 4-13-54 x 9-3-30 5. Resolution Adopting Certificate of Public RESOLUTION NO. 9818 - Convenience and Necessity, 75 Pelican Way, RESOLUTION APPROVING Celebrations Wine Club (PD) - File 9-3-30 CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IN ISSUANCE OF OFF -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE AT 75 PELICAN WAY, CELEBRATIONS WINE CLUB. 6. Monthly Investment Report (Admin. Svcs.) Report Accepted Investment SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 1 - File 8-18 x 8-9 1997, as presented. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 2 for the month ending March, 7. Report on Recommendations Re: Budget Oversight Approved staff recommendation Committee (Admin. Svcs.) - File 9-2-48 to extend the commitment of the original budget Oversight Committee appointees until July 31, 1997. 8. Resolution Authorizing the Director of Public RESOLUTION NO. 9819 - Works to Execute a Contract with the County RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE of Marin to Provide a Creek Naturalist for SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT MCSTOPPP (PW) - File 4-4-6b WITH THE COUNTY OF MARIN FOR THE PROVISIONS OF A CREEK NATURALIST FOR THE MSLAJPA'S STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (MCSTOPPP). 9. Resolution Authorizing the Waiver of Planning RESOLUTION NO. 9820 - and Building Permit Fees for the Baypoint Lagoons RESOLUTION GRANTING A Housing Project Below Market Rate Units and that WAIVER OF BUILDING AND Traffic Mitigation Fees Not Be Waived (PW) PLANNING FEES AND DENYING - File 229 x 5-1-292 x 9-3-40 A WAIVER OF TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES FOR FOUR B.M.R. 96, AND 97). UNITS LOCATED AT BAYPOINT LAGOONS (LOTS 94, 95, 10. Agreement Between the City of San Rafael and RESOLUTION NO. 9821 - Herbert A. Crocker & Company and William R. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE McDevitt for the Development and Maintenance SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT of Two Parcels of Public Real Property Fronting BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL the San Rafael Canal, Including Beach Park (Rec) AND HERBERT A. CROCKER & - File 4-10-300 x 4-10-287 x 9-3-66 x 12-5 x 12-10 COMPANY AND WILLIAM R. McDEVITT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF TWO PARCELS OF PUBLIC REAL PROPERTY FRONTING THE SAN RAFAEL CANAL, INCLUDING BEACH PARK. 11. Appointment of Elissa Giambastiani to the North Approved staff recommendation. San Rafael Vision Steering Committee (P1) - File 9-2-51 12. Resolution of Appreciation to William Palmer, RESOLUTION NO. 9822 - Retired Code Enforcement Officer (P1) RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - File 102 x 9-3-17 x 240 TO WILLIAM PALMER, RETIRED CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips (from the minutes of the meeting of 4/7/97 only, due to absence from the meeting). The following item was removed from the Agenda for further discussion: 3. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1708 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO ADD CHAPTER 8.35 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING GRAFFITI AND THE POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTS, ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS (CM) - File 13-9 x 9-3-16 Councilmember Heller reported Assistant City Manager Golt had written a letter to the Editor, which was published in the Marin Independent Journal, which stated members of the public were invited to attend the Council meeting to address this issue. Mayor Boro invited members of the audience to address this item, and there was no public comment. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO ADD CHAPTER 8.35 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING GRAFFITI AND THE POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTS, ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS". SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 3 Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and to approve final adoption of Charter Ordinance No. 1708 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 13. INTRODUCTION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND TWO ASSISTANT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS: (Pl) - File 240 x 9-3-17 a. NIMAT SHAKOOR-GRANTHAM, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER b. DANIEL FINK, ASSISTANT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER c. FLORIE ROBNETT, ASSISTANT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Planning Director Robert Pendoley reported the Council voted in November to approve staff's recommendation to create the Comprehensive Code Enforcement Program, noting the first task was to hire additional staff. Mr. Pendoley then introduced the new Code Enforcement team: Nimat Shakoor-Grantham, Code Enforcement Officer; Florie Robnett, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer; and Daniel Fink, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Pendoley reported these three employees were extremely qualified, noting the Planning Department had an application pool of over seventy candidates. He stated Ms. Shakoor-Grantham was a graduate of San Francisco State, and has a BA degree in Planning and a Masters Degree in Public Administration, and noted she is certified by the International Conference of Building Officials to do both building inspections and housing code inspections. Ms. Shakoor-Grantham worked for the City of Gilroy for three years, where she was a Building and Light Safety Inspector, as well as a Housing Rehabilitation Specialist. He noted she also spent ten years working for the City of Hayward and the City of Palo Alto, where she did a variety of inspection and enforcement activities. Mr. Pendoley stated Ms. Shakoor-Grantham would be the lead Code Enforcement Officer and a working supervisor, supervising her two assistants, and carrying a workload of her own in supervising Code Enforcement City-wide and in the Canal neighborhood. Mr. Pendoley reported Florie Robnett attended Santa Monica College and Cal State Northridge, noting her most recent experience was as a Field Inspector and Enforcement Officer for the City of Berkeley. Prior to that she worked in the private sector, where she did a variety of research, investigation, and compliance activities. Mr. Pendoley reported Ms. Robnett's principal assignment would be in the Canal neighborhood, doing housing Code Enforcement. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that Ms. Robnett speaks and writes fluent Spanish, noting she had already done a great job on Thursday night at a meeting in the Canal, translating and representing the program. Mr. Pendoley stated Dan Fink was working on a BA degree in Political Science at Sonoma State, was a Police Technician for three years with the Santa Rosa Police Department, and three years prior to that worked as a Firefighter with the California Division of Forestry. 14. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO WILLIAM PALMER, RETIRED CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (P1) - File 102 x 9-3-17 Mayor Boro introduced William Palmer, retiring Code Enforcement Officer, noting this was the third time he had retired. He explained Mr. Palmer first retired in 1994, and again in 1995, and each time the City asked him to return to help with problems in the Department. On behalf of the City of San Rafael, Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Palmer for the wonderful job he has done for the City, and wished him much enjoyment in his retirement. Mr. Palmer stated he had enjoyed working for the City, and with the people of San Rafael, particularly the staff, the Planning Department, the attorneys, new City Manager Rod Gould, and the Mayor and Council, stating it had been a privilege working with these people and having their support. Mr. Palmer recalled that when he returned in July, Planning Director Pendoley had in mind changing the City's Code Enforcement organization and operation, noting Mr. Pendoley had worked very hard in putting together a package that was approved by City Manager Gould, the other Department Heads, and eventually, the Council. Mr. Palmer pointed out the City Attorney's Office worked on such things as revising some of the Ordinances and preparing Operating Procedures. Mr. Palmer stated there had been a lot of involvement and effort put into this new reorganization, and with the new staff of very competent Code Enforcement Officers, he was confident there would be a very positive change for the City as a result of all this effort, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 4 and he was pleased to have been a part of it. PUBLIC HEARING: 15. Public Hearing - CONSIDERATION OF: (CA) - File 10-3 x 9-3-16 (1) a. URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE SAN RAFAEL ZONING ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 14.17.078 TO CHAPTER 17 AND AMENDING SECTION 14.06.020 OF CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE 14, ESTABLISHING ZONING AND USE REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES, AND AMENDING SECTION 14.16.220(F) OF TITLE 14 TO PROHIBIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY AS A HOME OCCUPATION, AND SETTING FORTH THE FACTS CONSTITUTING SUCH URGENCY; (1) b. RESOLUTION INITIATING PROCEEDINGS ON ITS OWN MOTION TO AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING SECTION 14.17.078 TO CHAPTER 17 AND AMENDING SECTION 16.060.020 OF CHAPTER 6 TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND AMENDING SECTION 14 . 16.220 (F) OF TITLE 14 TO PROHIBIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY AS A HOME OCCUPATION. ALTERNATIVELY (2) a. URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADDING CHAPTER 30 OF TITLE 14 TO PROHIBIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY AS AN ALLOWABLE USE OR A HOME OCCUPATION AND SETTING FORTH THE FACTS CONSTITUTING SUCH URGENCY; (2) b. RESOLUTION INITIATING PROCEEDINGS ON ITS OWN MOTION TO AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING CHAPTER 30 TO PROHIBIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY AS AN ALLOWABLE USE OR A HOME OCCUPATION AND SETTING FORTH THE FACTS CONSTITUTING SUCH URGENCY. Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. City Attorney Ragghianti stated two separate alternative Urgency Ordinances were being presented, noting adoption of either Ordinance would require a 4/5ths vote of the Council. Mr. Ragghianti reported that in November, 1996 the people of the State of California approved Proposition 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, or the Medical Marijuana Initiative. He stated this Measure, now codified and held in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5, exempts from criminal prosecution those qualifying individuals who possess or cultivate marijuana for their own personal use for medicinal purposes, on the written or oral recommendation of a physician. Mr. Ragghianti stated that while Proposition 215 was quite clear in regard to the exemptions granted for personal use, and cultivation for personal use for medicinal purposes, the subject of distribution and sale in order to implement the legislation was anything but clear. As an example, he reported one sub -section of the Initiative states, "To encourage the Federal and State governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana", noting there has been no definitive opinion by any Appellate Court in California as to whether or not any enterprise, such as individuals currently operating within Marin County and those proposing to operate within the City of San Rafael, fall within the umbrella of Proposition 215. Mr. Ragghianti reported the reason this matter now comes before Council is because in early April the City received several inquiries from individuals asking what regulations the City had in place with respect to medical marijuana dispensaries, places which distribute marijuana to individuals who come within the exempt class set forth in Proposition 215. Mr. Ragghianti stated the answer given to the inquiries was that the City had no regulations, noting most cities in California did not have regulations in place at that time, and most still do not. Mr. Ragghianti reported he expressed his concern that with the number of inquiries the City was receiving, the City should address this policy issue and adopt legislation regulating this use, if that policy decision was one the Council wished to make, and then later alternatively consider whether or not they wished to impose a regulation which simply prohibits this particular use, pending a decision from an Appellate Court. Mr. Ragghianti reported Urgency Ordinance No. 1 was a regulatory scheme which permits medical marijuana dispensaries to operate within the City of San Rafael upon the issuance of a special Use Permit. Mr. Ragghianti stated he had defined the specific details set forth in that Ordinance, and prior to bringing it before the Council he distributed it to the Planning Department, the Police Department, and the City Manager. Mr. Ragghianti noted it was mirrored on the current Ordinance which was adopted unanimously by the San Jose City Council, and is SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 5 currently in effect there. Mr. Ragghianti pointed out that when San Jose adopted their Ordinance, they also adopted a contemporaneous Resolution, which sent it to their Planning Commission for review and comment, with respect to the provisions for incorporation into a final version of the Ordinance. He stated to his knowledge, this had not come back before San Jose's City Council, and at the present time the Police Department in San Jose is in the process of compiling regulations for use in connection with the supervision of these particular dispensaries. Mr. Ragghianti reported the Use Permit regulator scheme sets distances from which this type of Use must be located from particular types of areas of our City, and indicates that such types of Uses are only permitted in certain areas of the City; must be operated at all times in strict compliance with the regulations that are to be adopted by the Chief of Police; and all medical marijuana is required to be dispensed directly to the patient or to a designated primary care giver, which is a specific term defined in Proposition 215. He stated it prohibits all onsight cultivation of medical marijuana, it does not permit deliveries of medical marijuana, it does not permit anyone under the age of 18 years old on the premises, it does not permit Home Occupation dispensaries, and it requires the Police Department to come up with a set of regulations for use in connection with the operation of this enterprise. He noted it also requires anyone who seeks to operate such a Use within the City to have the owner of the property on which such Use is proposed to be located countersign the application. Mr. Ragghianti stated this Ordinance contains a Resolution as well, which would send this particular Ordinance back to the Planning Commission for their review and comment, and recommendations on what final provisions should be included. He stated one of the chief legal concerns his office had with regard to this matter involved the issues of Non -conforming Use status, noting they were concerned that since we had no regulations in place, someone who embarked upon the operation of such an enterprise could claim they had Non -conforming Use status, since at the time they commenced operation of the dispensary, there were no regulations in place in the City of San Rafael. Mr. Ragghianti noted that during the time the Ordinance was being considered, considerable discussion took place with the Chief of Police, City Manager, District Attorney, Sheriff of Marin County, representatives of the City Attorney's Office in San Jose, San Jose Police Chief, the Attorney General, and with individuals in San Francisco, where at the present time there is a case pending Oral Argument in the Court of Appeal concerning a cannabis club that was raided after it was opened, and a Judge who refused to shut it down. Mr. Ragghianti noted that matter is currently awaiting decision in the Court of Appeal. Mr. Ragghianti reported that in the middle of April one of the individuals, Allen Helschein, who has contacted the City Attorney's Office on several occasions, attended a meeting with Chief Sanchez and the Sheriff of Marin County, and was very cordial in connection with explaining what he proposed to do here in the City of San Rafael. Mr. Ragghianti noted that between April 2nd and April 14th, when this meeting took place, the Police Chief and Mr. Ragghianti engaged in several conversations, which culminated in Chief Sanchez' decision and instruction to Mr. Ragghianti to prepare Ordinance No. 2, which simply prohibits such Uses in every district of this City, as well as operating as a Home Occupation. Mr. Ragghianti pointed out that his concerns, as a Land Use lawyer, regarding the Non -conforming Use are handled through adoption of either one of these Ordinances being presented. Mr. Ragghianti pointed out Proposition 215 exempts from prosecution the possession and cultivation of marijuana to patients and to patients' primary care givers, who possess or cultivate the substance for personal medical purposes, assuming the patient has the written or oral recommendation of a physician. He noted the last sub -section of Proposition 215 defines primary care giver as, "An individual designated by the person exempted under this section, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person". Mr. Ragghianti stated one of the legal issues currently being debated around the State is whether or not the operation of an enterprise such as that proposed to open in San Rafael can be considered a primary caretaker within the meaning of this legislation. He pointed out that no one knows the answer to that question yet, noting if someone were to state they know the answer to that question during this meeting, he urged Council to view that with great suspicion. Mr. Ragghianti stated this was a difficult legal issue, not yet decided by our Courts, and consequently, cities were being asked to make policy decisions, noting San Jose had made one, and other cities are considering it. He noted he was bringing this matter before Council at this time because the City is continuing to receive requests from individuals seeking to know how the City proposes to regulate this new Use, given the adoption of Proposition 215. Mr. Ragghianti noted either Ordinance could be adopted by the Council, and if either SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 6 Ordinance is adopted, it would require four votes. He stated it was his recommendation that if either Ordinance is adopted, it be sent forthwith to the Planning Commission for their review, and recommendations and written comment. Mr. Ragghianti pointed out that someone had asked him what would happen if the City did nothing, and stated the problem with that was what caused him to bring this issue before the Council, noting that when there are no regulations, the City then runs into the Non -conforming Use problem, as well as Police problems, which Chief Sanchez will address. Police Chief Sanchez stated this was a difficult issue for all Police Chiefs, pointing out the issue being considered was very unclear regarding cultivation, transportation, and the sale of marijuana for medicinal purposes by those other than the patient or the authorized care giver, noting this was where he and the Police Department had a problem with this. Chief Sanchez stated this was not an issue of the credibility of Mr. Helschein, or anyone else who has chosen to bring this issue to the City, noting Mr. Helschein has been very gracious in all of their meetings, and they have had very good communication, discussing at length some of the issues and concerns Chief Sanchez has had. Chief Sanchez stated there were three main issues of his concern, reporting the Penal Code states that the sale or transportation of any controlled substance is a felony, and cultivation, by those other than caregivers, is also a felony. He noted the San Francisco case, which is currently being heard in the Appellant Court and should be decided upon within the next five to eight months, is also an issue. Chief Sanchez stated his main concerns center on these three issues. Chief Sanchez stated he did not have a plan or strategy, if this were to occur in our City, to raid or arrest people who are patients and fall under Proposition 215. He noted his issue, and what he wishes to present to Council, is that this is clearly a very ambiguous Proposition, with regard to those individuals other than the caregiver or the patient. As an example, he pointed out the growers are going to have to sell their product, they are also going to have to cultivate it, store it, and transport it into our City. Chief Sanchez noted the transporting is a felony, unless it is a caregiver or a patient; however, Proposition 215 fails to address that, it only addresses who cannot, not who can. Because of that, Chief Sanchez felt the City needed to wait until the Appellate Court case is settled before we, as a City, decide to open this up for anyone to come into our City and distribute marijuana. Chief Sanchez stated the Police Department would clearly abide by the decision made in the Appellate Court, and by the Attorney General's Office, noting one of the things he and Mr. Helschein agree on is that this Proposition is truly unclear. Chief Sanchez stated the Police Department is not a department that is uncompassionate, noting they understand there are people with pain, and understand there are different issues regarding medicinal marijuana. Chief Sanchez acknowledged he was not a doctor, and had not done any personal research; however, he did know what the Penal Code states he must do, and his job as a Police Chief is to see that the Penal Code is abided by. He stated the issues of transportation, cultivation and sale are still currently against the law, even though dispensaries are not. Chief Sanchez stated this was the biggest issue and his main concern, and he asked Council to take this into consideration. Referring to the storage of marijuana, Chief Sanchez asked if we were to allow this within the City of San Rafael, what would the storage issues be, where would it be stored, would we then have robberies or burglaries of those locations, or of those people who are doing this in the right manner, transporting the marijuana to San Rafael? Chief Sanchez stated this really concerned him, and he felt the City needed to look at the whole picture, noting he believed we were compassionate people in this town; however, right now Proposition 215, with regard to these three issues, is very unclear and very ambiguous, and he believed the City needed to wait and see what the Appellate Court does with the San Francisco case, and also wait and see what the Attorney General's Office is going to tell us, by way of crystallizing this interpretation. Councilmember Phillips referred to the timeframe, and noted the existing case was expected to take five to eight months in the Appellate Court. He noted there were a number of legal issues which needed to be addressed, as pointed out by Chief Sanchez, and often legal matters take a great deal of time to be resolved. He asked how long it would take before many of these issues were resolved? City Attorney Ragghianti stated he did not know, pointing out that this was an initiative, and its interpretation was different than a statute the Legislature may have adopted, noting it could not be amended without another vote of the people. However, there is a section in this Initiative that seems to suggest the State of California is supposed to implement a safe and affordable plan to distribute SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 7 marijuana for medical needs, but no one knows what that means, and until the Court indicates that it means medical marijuana dispensaries are Uses which should be permitted, and that they are reasonable in implementing that section of the Initiative, we must wait. Mr. Ragghianti stated he believed that before the end of 1997 we would see an Appellate Court opinion; however, whether that Appellate Court decision would be final, and if the California Supreme Court will take the matter up, he did not know; therefore, he could not tell Mr. Phillips how long it would be, but he expected there would be a decision from the Court of Appeal by the end of this year. Councilmember Heller asked Chief Sanchez if the City of San Jose was going to be looking at the same areas he was concerned with, now that they have passed their Urgency Ordinance, or were they simply going to ignore the movement of marijuana in and out of the City? Chief Sanchez stated he really did not know what the City of San Jose was going to do, noting they had made a decision to do this prior to actually establishing a real policy in regard to these areas of concern. However, Chief Sanchez pointed out it clearly states in the Initiative that any caregiver or patient would not be arrested if they have the proper authorization. He noted he did not have any problem with that, he was worried about those who are not authorized, transporting narcotics into our City. He stated he was also concerned about price wars, and whether the growers will bring their disagreements into our City. Chief Sanchez stated the bottom line was to remember that this has to be monitored from Point A. As an example, if the City of San Rafael was Point B, the product is going to come from someone, and Chief Sanchez stated he wants to know who that someone is, noting at the current time he has no resources to find that out, and he believed it was up to the Legislators to tell us who is going to monitor the growth and the transportation so there are no victims, such as those who may have their locations burglarized, or those who may be robbed for the material. He acknowledged San Jose had not had any problems yet, but noted their Ordinance was only a month old. Councilmember Heller asked if this would open up within every City and County in the State of California the ability of private citizens to grow and cultivate marijuana in their own homes, and transport it back and forth? City Attorney Ragghianti stated it would not, stating it was important to understand that the exemptions this Initiative provides for possession or cultivation for personal use only apply if it is being used for medicinal purposes, if they fall within the class of individuals set forth in the Initiative, and if there is an oral or written recommendation from the physician; absent that, it is still a crime to possess and cultivate marijuana. Councilmember Heller noted that still left local government as the police force to ensure that all of this is overseen, so local government bears the greatest burden. Chief Sanchez stated that was correct. Councilmember Phillips asked how the Federal laws apply to Proposition 215, and how the City's allegiance falls, and if the City would feel compelled to fall under Federal law. which prohibits some of the activities as addressed in Proposition 215, or if the City would be compelled to follow State law? Chief Sanchez stated his position was not to enforce Federal law. Mr. Phillips asked if there would be overriding Federal jurisdiction? Chief Sanchez stated there would be if there were some type of interstate transportation, but other than that, there would not be. Chief Sanchez noted the Federal government was, in some ways, ignoring Proposition 215 and allowing the States to worry about it and figure out how they are going to put this all together and make it work. Chief Sanchez stated he and the Sheriff have spoken about this at length, and they are of the same opinion that until the Attorney General's Office issues guidelines and the Appellate Court rules on the case in San Francisco, they will continue to enforce the State law which prohibits the cultivation, transportation, and sale of marijuana. Councilmember Phillips noted the Drug Enforcement Agency had busted a dispensary in San Francisco earlier today. City Attorney Ragghianti stated that did not mean the City did not have to make a decision with respect to the local Land Use regulations, pointing out he needed something to tell the people who are asking him what regulations the City has to deal with this. Mr. Ragghianti stated this was a timely subject which needed to be addressed. Councilmember Cohen stated Mr. Ragghianti had noted the Federal government seems to be content to let the State of California wrestle with this issue, and the State of California seems content to let the local jurisdictions wrestle with it; however, he did not believe it was appropriate for the Council to try to set policies on the legal issues. Mr. Cohen stated he did not know if he was prepared to ban this outright as an allowed Use, but on the other hand, he did not know what kind of conditions the City would put on it, pointing out a Use Permit normally carries conditions including those recommended by the Police Department, and Chief Sanchez has made clear he has no basis to recommend conditions, because the law SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 8 is unclear on how this is to be enforced. Based on this, Councilmember Cohen asked if Council could adopt the Ordinance stating this was to be a regulated use, and then adopt a moratorium on issuing any Use Permits for three to six months until some of the legal issues are clarified? City Attorney Ragghianti stated he did not believe this could be done, noting if Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1, they would be adopting a regulatory scheme that permits someone to apply for the operation, and they could not adopt an Ordinance authorizing it, and then adopt a moratorium that says we are not going to issue any Use Permits. Mr. Ragghianti noted the City could adopt a moratorium under Government Code Section 65858 while we study the issue, but that is not what is before the Council at this time. Councilmember Cohen asked Mr. Ragghianti to explain this further. Mr. Ragghianti reported that when he and Chief Sanchez originally spoke in early April, Chief Sanchez felt these types of Uses might well be the type that should be closely monitored, so he would know who sought to come into the City of San Rafael to operate one of these enterprises. However, the more they got into it, the more information they received, and the more people they talked to, the more confusion there seemed to be apparent throughout the State on whether these types of enterprises are legal, and the more varied the opinions of the District Attorneys, Attorneys General, and Police Officers, the more he and Chief Sanchez discussed what the City should do. He reported Chief Sanchez informed him he did not feel comfortable, from a Police perspective and for the reasons he has stated, recommending the Ordinance be adopted, and asked Mr. Ragghianti to prepare Ordinance No. 2. Mr. Ragghianti stated he could not urge the adoption of a Land Use Ordinance when the Police Chief has stated that as soon as a permit is issued the permitee is going to be arrested. Mr. Ragghianti stated in the face of Chief Sanchez' position, he advised that the Land Use issue he was concerned about, namely something to tell applicants, and the Non -conforming Use status issues were covered just as well in Ordinance No. 2 as in Ordinance No. 1. Referring to a moratorium, which would simply delay acting on this while the City studied it, Mr. Ragghianti believed it would be a number of months until the Appellate Court decides this issue, noting what the City was really looking at was not a Land Use issue, but a legal issue. He stated someone needed to tell the people in California whether it is lawful to operate a dispensary under the terms and conditions of this Initiative. Mayor Boro invited members of the public to address the Council. Allen Helschein 7559 Mill Creek Road, Healdsburg, acknowledged this issue had not been solved 100%. He stated Proposition 215 was the will of the people, and they had stated people should no longer suffer, and they wanted to make marijuana available to people who, in the late stages of their illnesses, are in such dire pain they do not have a voice any longer. Mr. Helschein stated Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use of Marijuana Law does, in effect, deal with this, although he acknowledged Proposition 215 did not really define how marijuana should be transported, or the legality of sales. Mr Helschein acknowledged marijuana and drugs may have caused pain, or in some way negatively touched our lives, noting some have lost children or loved ones to addiction, and that needed to be honored and respected. However, he stated that right here, right now, we needed to focus on people who need our help. Mr. Helschein stated there is a part of our civilization that is in such extreme pain they are not even capable of attending this meeting and speaking for themselves. He asked everyone to show compassion for their fellow man, people who are in such pain that no drug alleviates it, and who are at the end of their rope, having tried everything that is legal and finding nothing that works. Mr. Helschein asked those who believed medicinal marijuana was wrong to take up the banner and insist the pharmaceutical companies and research departments go immediately to the task of finding something for these people to take, because as soon as there is something else for them that will alleviate the pain that is with them with every breath, then he will fight with those who are against marijuana to have it taken off the books. Mr. Helschein noted that because it was currently illegal, he was not asking that marijuana be made available to everyone in the community, only those for whom the diagnosis has been made that this substance could help them. Mr. Helschein asked that the laws be strict, if Council were to pass them, and the rules governing such laws also be strict, so nothing and no one could come through the holes. He stated he was standing in front of the Council for each person to be as pain free as possible today, in the hope that tomorrow the pharmaceutical companies will step forward with a discovery that will make a drug available to people that will help them and make their lives more productive, bringing them a quality of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 8 Mr SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 9 life they have not known in a long time. Mr. Helschein stated these people were innocent, they just had pain, and there is nothing on the market to deal with that. Helschein stated through the courage of many neighboring city governments, this was already happening, successfully allowing community members in extreme pain the options they so dearly need, and also helping to keep an ongoing dialogue between people, government, and law enforcement, to work together compassionately with each other to solve this community problem. He stated that is what government for the people and by the people was all about, and he saluted their effort. Mr. Helschein pointed out the women of Marin County have the highest incidence of breast cancer in all of the United States, and no one knows why. He stated these courageous women are fighting for their lives with chemotherapy and radiation treatments, whose side effects include intense and incredible nausea, stomach pains so severe that at times they pray to die rather than to live with the pain they have. He asked if the Council were ready to say, "No" to a substance that would alleviate them of this pain and suffering, and if that was really the message this Council wanted to send in response to the outcry in this community. Mr. Mr Helschein stated he agreed 100% with Chief Sanchez regarding the abuse of this drug; however, medicinal marijuana use was not about the abusive use or distribution of this drug. He stated what law enforcement failed to see was that there was an appropriate use of a drug that needs to be administered, so we must make strict laws and guidelines so we can protect those afflicted, as well as the community. Mr. Helschein stated they intend to sell only to those persons who have tried everything else, and from their physician's point of view, must now use this drug because all others have failed. Helschein stated they intend to be a not for profit business, which means after all of their expenses are paid, they will give any profit they make back to the people who cannot afford their services. He approximated that in Marin County alone, services are needed by at least 5,000 people, which is potentially 5,000 less people on the street going to crime's underbelly to purchase their medication. He noted with that many people off the street, able to purchase marijuana in a legal way, it will make law enforcement easier, and this implication alone was worthy of a closer look. Mr. Helschein stated Proposition 215 and its passage failed to emphatically define how marijuana would be sold or transported, but the intent and implications were 100% clear; the people have voted this into law, so those who are suffering will suffer no longer. He urged the Council to join in working to enact this with competent courage, and join together as a community in the name of compassion, and make this the law, giving that quality of life we all take for granted back to those who need it the most. Lance Williams, 325 Bull Avenue, stated he was representing the Marin Alliance located in Fairfax, pointing out their club has been in Marin County prior to Proposition 215, and this was a very complex issue, noting marijuana was classified as a Class 1 drug, and needed to be controlled. He referred to the Methadone clinic in San Rafael, stating he had observed the dispensing team and the regulations they go through, noting it is very intense. Mr. Williams acknowledged the Marin Alliance was just waiting, and did not have any idea what was going to happen with regard to Proposition 215. Mr. Williams acknowledged the Police Department was being placed under a lot of pressure, which he did not think was fair, stating plans needed to be written. He reported that at the Marin Alliance they have over 300 members, people who really need medical marijuana, noting this has been a tough time, and there is still a stigma attached to it, and people cannot walk in and know that there is really a law. Mr. Williams stated he would like to hear that something can be worked out with the communities and the Police Department. He agreed children should not be involved, pointing out there are no children at the Methadone clinic, and stating he did not believe anyone would be hurt by this. He acknowledged this was a sticky situation, and was not like the Methadone clinic, where that drug is used by only 5% of the population, noting in Marin County it could be much higher. He agreed control was needed desperately, but felt this could be done at this juncture. Helen Durand, resident of San Rafael, congratulated Chief Sanchez for standing up for the law, noting it was a Federal offense to transport and cultivate marijuana. She stated she had the greatest compassion for those who are ill, noting there are places very close to San Rafael where marijuana is being distributed, such as Fairfax and San Francisco. She stated she knows of people with cancer who SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 10 go as far as Mexico for marijuana, and she believed there were other resources. Ms. Durand stated that until the Federal government has answered our questions, we should go along with Chief Sanchez, and stand by him. She noted the Council had hired him to obey the law, and he needs to be an example for us. She noted that since Mr. Helschein had referred to God three times, she wanted to state that God is our great physician. Ms. Durand urged the Council to vote with Chief Sanchez until we know exactly what the Federal government is going to do, and thanked Chief Sanchez for thinking about the best interest of the entire community, not just those who are ill, but also those who are well. Dr. Dan Beittel, a physician in the community, referred to an article in the current issue of Consumer's Report, which reports on the medical use of marijuana. He stated he had taken care of patients with terminal illnesses, some of whom had gained definite benefit from the illegal use of medical marijuana, noting he has had occasion to recommend that use to them, but was unable to tell them where they could find the drug. Dr. Beittel acknowledged he had not read the initial proposal, and did not know what the correct action should be at this time; however, he urged the Council to take some action to make marijuana available to terminally ill patients. He stated too much emphasis had been given to pain in the use of marijuana, noting it does produce a high, which is very much sought by many people. However, he felt that might be the other side of managing pain, in seeking a drug that would give a lift in mood, and he did not feel this should be the primary issue. Dr. Beittel stated we needed to find a way to make the drug available to terminally ill patients, and encouraged the Council to do so. Ron King, resident of Sebastapol, reported he was a recovering addict and alcoholic, with almost fourteen years of recovery from the abusive use of substances, noting he had been on the other side of the law most of his life. He stated he now sponsors several men in their recovery from addiction, and has spoken with numerous people in the recovery community about the issue of medical marijuana for those suffering. He stated most of the consensus of those with long-term sobriety is that medical marijuana has nothing to do with addiction. He stated any addicts he ever knew did not need a dispensary to get their drug, and they do not use the system. Mr. King stated he was concerned about an opinion expressed earlier that perhaps by the end of the year the Appellate Court will reach some kind of conclusion, and maybe offer some answers. Mr. King stated he was not willing to take that gamble, noting this matter might be tied up for the next five years. He did not believe it was a State issue at this point, it was a City issue. He pointed out this was San Rafael, not San Francisco, and this was a decision the City of San Rafael needed to make. He pointed out San Rafael would not want the City of San Francisco to make our Ordinances for us, and we should not wait for anyone else to make a decision on this issue. He stated people were suffering now, and did not have the luxury of sitting and discussing the issue. Mr. King stated he agreed with Mr. Helschein Is attempt to reach everyone's conscience, and make them realize this is an issue that must be dealt with now, as there are people who are contemplating taking their lives now, because the pain is so great. He noted that based on his research and discussions with approximately thirty people who have ten or more years of sobriety, the consensus is that this should move forward, and this issue should not be confused with the issue of addicts, addiction, drug traffickers, and those who are in this game for profit. Mr. King stated this was not a "cops and robbers" issue, this was for the people who want to legally be able to obtain marijuana. He hoped we would not get confused by hoping that some amendment might be made down the road, because nobody knows that answer, or when that might be done. John DiMatto, resident of Fairfax and former San Rafael resident, urged Council to take positive action on this issue, noting the Council represents the people, and this is the level at which it happens. He stated policy does not have to come down from above, it traditionally starts here at the local level, pointing out there was a clear mandate from the voters in the County to go ahead and make provisions for this, while keeping it under control. He felt the advice Council had received from Chief Sanchez and City Attorney Ragghianti reflected only narrow portions of civic life, and there needed to be a broader spectrum, because civic life encompasses many things, including compassion for those who are suffering. Maureen Kallins, criminal attorney, stated she had been retained by Mr. Helschein to represent him. She stated that although she did not usually advocate for her clients, she felt she had to speak to some of the legal issues regarding federal and criminal law in the State of California, and the mandate of the constituency of the people of Marin County. Ms. Kallins noted the important thing about Proposition 215 is that it was affirmatively voted on by 76% of Council's SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 11 constituents, the people who put them in office. She pointed out Proposition 215 states a safe and affordable way to distribute medical marijuana should be implemented, and noted the important issue here was timeliness. She pointed out she and City Attorney Ragghianti had both been through the Appellate system, and noted it could be two years before the City sees a decision from the Court of Appeals, and many more years before this issue goes through the system to the Supreme Court. She stated the people of California did not take this issue lightly, noting people have attempted to place this issue on the ballot in the past, but it was not until 1996 that the people of the State of California said, "Yes" to medical marijuana. She stated that is because we all know people who have suffered diseases such as AIDs or breast cancer, noting one of her close friends has cancer, and this woman has found, when she comes home at night, little parcels of marijuana people have left on her door -step to offer her. Ms. Kallins pointed out this was the type of compassion that is being offered by the people of this State, noting the people of this County want a timely solution, they have voted for it now, and they are asking for the solution now. Ms. Kallins stated the problem of transportation has been answered by other communities such as San Jose and Berkeley, but there is a false dilemma set up in having to know who the growers are. Ms. Kallins stated that is not the business of San Rafael, and while she acknowledged it is probably the concern of every Police Chief, because they would love to know who grows the marijuana, it is not the concern of San Rafael. She stated a false dilemma is set up by stating the marijuana needs to be followed from Point "All; however, the fact is that the concern of this Council is Point "B", that their constituents have told them they want medical marijuana to go to people who are suffering in this community, to alleviate pain. Ms. Kallins pointed out these people could be taking various forms of prescribed narcotics and pain medications, but stated that to end one's life in that kind of stupor was unacceptable to the people of Marin County, and the people of the State of California. She stated Point "B" was the point at which Chief Sanchez needed to concern himself, and noted the problem had already been solved by the City of San Jose, and addressed in the original Ordinance drafted by City Attorney Ragghianti. Referring to concerns regarding price wars, Ms. Kallins stated this was another false dilemma, because people were not going to have price wars here. She pointed out that price wars were for people who wanted to make a profit, and the kind of people who want to sell to an institution are not the people who are trying to make an incredible profit on their marijuana, noting that was for the people who are in the illegal businesses, while the people who are in the legal businesses are going to make little or no money. Ms Kallins stated the people of the State had spoken, and while she has not always agreed with what they have said, the fact is that no injunction has been sought, and there has been no prohibiting of Proposition 215. She noted the people have asked for a timely resolution, it is their mandate, and she urged the Council to enact it. Dan Keeler, member of a small club in San Rafael, referred to the question of Zoning, suggesting there might be two types of clubs, one would be the type of club where people could gather, and the other type strictly for distribution, much like a pharmacy, where people simply take it out and go away. Mr. Keeler stated problems he saw coming in the future concerned adequate Zoning laws, particularly regarding safety issues such as fire hazards from grow rooms, health issues regarding the chemicals put into the plants to make them more potent, and security concerns. Mr. Keeler suggested registration fees for the club members could help pay for the enforcement of all the regulations he hoped to see coming forth from the Council. Mr. Keeler stated one of his concerns, as a patient, was the number of plants he is allowed to grow. He noted he was told he only needed two or three plants, but he tried to grow four plants, and two of them died. He stated he used to be a member of the Fairfax club, but would feel more comfortable here in San Rafael . Michael Purvis, patient and Desert Storm veteran, stated he had been exposed to chemicals during the Gulf War, and the only medication he has found that works successfully for him is organically grown marijuana. He reported he has been on approximately nine to twelve major anti -psychotic and anti -depressant medications, but none of these work on what he has, and the reason he began taking marijuana was because he was going to take his own life. He stated marijuana is the only medication that works for him. Roy Benson, resident of San Rafael, stated it was a pleasure to listen to the diversity that enhances the issue being discussed tonight. He noted we all have to remind SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 12 ourselves that we are a community and have to find common ground, not to help each other, but to help the sick. He stated we should be dealing only with the issue of the people who are sick, and making sure that they do not have to find that it is illegal to go about finding help for themselves. Mr. Benson reported he had been a caregiver, and marijuana had allowed his patient respect, responsibility, and choice at the end of her life. Mr. Benson stated there was tremendous honor in the ability to help the terminally ill and the sick, and no matter how much we differ in the implementation of this initiative, he did not see how anyone would not want to have compassion. Regarding the issue of responsibility, Mr. Benson noted he could not believe he had to go out and perform illegal activities to help someone who was sick, stating he strives to be an honorable, responsible citizen of this State, and more importantly, of the City of San Rafael. He stated he did not think that was what people should have to do, and that we should be able to help our citizens help each other, not to have to find ways to get around the law. Mr. Benson stated he was asking his City Council for help, because the people speaking before them tonight were standing up and speaking for people who could not be here. As a citizen of San Rafael, Mr. Benson urged the Council to vote for the medical marijuana dispensary, and adopt the provisions stated on Pages 6 & 7 of the staff report. He stated the issue had been thoroughly investigated, and we have seen other jurisdictions where this has been implemented, noting the City of Oakland recently passed an Ordinance dealing with the very same issues now being discussed, and the difficulty we all face, as a community, to help the sick. Mr. Benson did recommend on-site growing be considered, because it would actually help protect the sick, allowing them to obtain medicine legally, and so they do not have the risk of insufficient supply because of inflated prices, scarcity, contaminated or chemically altered marijuana. Mr. Benson stated people also face arrest, fines, court costs, property forfeiture, incarceration, probation, and criminal records, when they are merely citizens trying to help the sick. Councilmember Phillips noted Fairfax has such a marijuana dispensary, and is not very far from San Rafael, asking Mr. Benson if he and those in his position could go to Fairfax to obtain marijuana? Mr. Benson stated that was a possibility, but as a citizen, he did not feel he should have to reach outside the boundaries of his own community for help. He also believed he should have a choice, and just because they are offering it, as a consumer or a patient he should have the choice, just as someone has the choice of a doctor. There being no further public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Boro stated he believed the issue of whether or not marijuana should be made available was not the issue before the Council, it was the role of the City and how we might facilitate that. He noted the staff report discusses Class 1 type drugs, as well as Class 2, which describes Methadone. Mayor Boro stated he was familiar with the way Methadone was controlled, noting when a doctor issues a prescription for a Class 2 drug it is in triplicate, with one copy staying with the doctor, and another copy going to the State, and at any time the State can go to the pharmacy, verify what they have dispensed, and they are accountable. Mayor Boro stated the issue that troubled him at this point was a comment made in the newspaper as to what this could lead to, the lack of control, and what the expectation might be for the City. He noted the comment was made that undercover Police Officers would always be welcome at the dispensaries, but he pointed out there are no undercover Police Officers in the pharmacies, health care centers, or hospitals. However, we do have a State that licenses them, and inspects and enforces the law, and he did not believe that in this instance it should be the City of San Rafael that goes out and determines if the right people are doing the right thing, if the quality of the drug is adequate, and if things are being done legally or not. Mayor Boro felt the State of California had a role in this, noting it states in a portion of the mandate that the State shall facilitate this, and he believed that needed to happen. He stated he had spoken with Assemblywoman Mazzoni, and contacted Senator Burton's office, and reported he had drafted a letter which asks the Legislature to address these issues, which he felt were State-wide issues, not local issues. He stated we should not have each city trying to come up with ways to deal with this issue, noting the cities do not have to go to drug stores to see if they are doing their job properly. Mayor Boro acknowledged the providing of marijuana is necessary, and the people have spoken for it, but he stated there was a big gap between the delivery of that and how this issue can be controlled, because this is a drug and there are problems with it, and there are still a lot of concerns about how it would be distributed. Therefore, he suggested that whichever way the Council votes on SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 13 this issue, they also consider going to the State Legislature and asking them to adopt the same kinds of controls with marijuana that they have with Class 2 drugs. He also believed that if this is something the people mandated and will be using, then there should be controls on the suppliers and sellers, so people can rest assured that these drugs are being used for the purposes intended. Mayor Boro noted Proposition 215 defines a primary caregiver and the person who can use this drug for personal purposes, and notes they are exempt under the law for both the possession and use of the drug. He asked how a third party, such as someone operating a club, is covered under the law, what their role is, and if they are exempted as well? City Attorney Ragghianti stated the argument he has heard made refers to Subdivision C of the Initiative, noting it is anticipated that there be some plan to implement the safe distribution of marijuana, and those advancing these types of enterprises being proposed around the State suggest that under Subdivision C dispensaries are the type of enterprise which the State is encouraged to approve to implement the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana. However, he pointed out Subdivision E states the law enforcement community and the Attorney General's Office take the position that a primary caregiver cannot be a business enterprise, it must be an individual, and when asked why, they point to the language in Subdivision E which states, "The primary caregiver means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section". Mr. Ragghianti stated their argument was that a business enterprise, however noble the cause, cannot be a primary caretaker. He noted that question will be resolved by the Courts someday. Councilmember Miller stated whichever Ordinance the Council chose to adopt, he concurred with attempting to direct the efforts of the State Legislature to take over the responsibility of moving this forward, noting there was obviously a lack in the Executive Branch, and encouraging the Council to go forward with those efforts. Mr. Miller stated he would like to vote for an Urgency Ordinance to establish Zoning categories and criteria for medical dispensaries, and prohibiting the dispensaries as a Home Occupation. He stated he would vote for such an Ordinance based on the principle of compassion. He noted the purpose of the Initiative was to allow people, with the advice of a physician, to use the drug marijuana to alleviate suffering and manage pain due to a serious illness, and stated the Ordinance was essentially humanitarian and libertarian. Mr. Miller reported 76% of the voters in San Rafael responded affirmatively to Proposition 215, and although fraught with Constitutional and enforcement problems, Propositions 208, 209, and 218 are going forth within a climate of uncertainty; therefore, to be consistent with the administration of the people's initiatives by the State of California, Proposition 215 should be on the same path. He stated he believed this Ordinance would allow Proposition 215, in our locale, to remain on the same track as the others. Councilmember Miller stated the message of this Ordinance was that we are to remain a humane society at a time when this value is tested, and it is a message which clearly states the plight of the suffering person is paramount. Mr. Miller saluted Chief Sanchez for bringing forth the alternative Ordinance to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries in each district within the City, as well as a Home Occupation. He stated Chief Sanchez' argument is honest, solid, reasonable, and put forth in good spirit, and states what he must do to enforce the law within the context of the criminal justice system that lacks the leadership of clear direction. Mr. Miller stated he was acting on argument from public policy and the people's choice, while Chief Sanchez was acting on argument from prudence and law enforcement. He noted both arguments were intrinsically sound, and had credibility from communities that have opted for either. He stated if his position should not prevail, and the Council brings forth an Ordinance to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries, in deference to Chief Sanchez' argument, and out of respect for his office and person, Mr. Miller stated he would not oppose the Ordinance. Councilmember Heller stated she found this a very difficult issue, because it has not been clearly set forth in the context of local government. She noted she believed the role of the City in this type of issue should not be as a health care provider, but in looking at land uses, and she was more comfortable in looking at where to put such a facility and the Uses that might be put on it. She stated this was something the State must take responsibility for, and give the City some guidelines. In looking at the language of Proposition 215, she pointed out it clearly acknowledges that distribution is not a legal entity, and it requests the State to be supportive and find a way to change the law. She believed that was where the City needed to put its efforts, to encourage Federal and State government to change it, and then that would allow the local governments to look at the Land Use issues and set up regulations for the clubs. Ms. Heller stated she was more comfortable in prohibiting the dispensaries at this time, as long as she could feel sure that within the City, and through the Planning Commission. we will begin to study this and get where we need to go. She stated she felt quite certain we would have one or more of these facilities within our community, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 14 and she was not uncomfortable with having that, but she had to have the guidelines laid out and the City well protected in its ability to have this out there for the citizens. Councilmember Phillips agreed this was a very difficult issue, and anyone with compassion for those who are afflicted with an illness that can only be eased through marijuana has to feel there is an obligation to provide for that solution for the predicament they are in. However, the one thing that concerns him, and the reason he is more in favor of the second alternative to prohibit this Use, is that he takes to heart the recommendation of the City's Police Chief, because if the City were to allow for a dispensary in San Rafael we would put Chief Sanchez in an untenable position unless the City could give him clear direction for the Police Officers to follow, and we would be doing the Police Department a great disservice. Mr. Phillips agreed Mayor Boro's suggestion to put the onus on the State for clarification was sound, noting he felt clarification would be coming because of the pressure put on California statewide, and he believed this issue would be resolved so the City could address it in a more rational manner, one in which the City is more comfortable that we can implement and enforce, where necessary. He recognized this solution may take a little longer, but he did not believe it would take an insurmountable time to do it correctly, noting he felt more comfortable in addressing this matter in a way in which the City is better served in the long-term. He stated he would be more in favor of Alternative 2 than Alternative 1. Councilmember Cohen noted Council had been provided with portions of the statute, and referred to Subsection C which states, in part, "To encourage the Federal and State governments to implement a plan to provide for safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana". He asked if there was any other text which referred to this? City Attorney Ragghianti stated the Council had the entire text of Proposition 215. Mr. Cohen stated it was quite unfortunate that those who drafted the Proposition and put it on the ballot did not address those issues. He noted one would think that passage of the Proposition would imply that there should be some safe and legal means by which primary caregivers could obtain marijuana, but nothing in the Proposition addresses that, or gives clear guidance on how that is to be done. Mr. Cohen stated he supported the intent of the Ordinance, and had no problem with the notion that where marijuana has been found to be effective in relieving pain, and has valid medicinal purposes he saw no reason why it should not be made available, pointing out other drugs that are harmful when misused are made available in circumstances where they are helpful. Councilmember Cohen agreed with Mayor Boro's statement that it did not make sense for this to be regulated city by city, and stated he was torn between the compassion urged by the eloquent speakers, and the difficult position the City would place its Police Officers in were we to adopt this, telling them that we are permitting through Land Use regulations an operation that appears at this time to be illegal under Federal law, and perhaps State law, and then asking them to figure out how to deal with this. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not want to send the wrong message, and would not want to cast a vote and have it reported in the newspapers that San Rafael had banned marijuana dispensaries, or that the City has rejected the will expressed by 76% of the voting public in San Rafael that something be done. He pointed out that 76% of the public did not vote to encourage the City of San Rafael to adopt Use Permit regulations for the opening of dispensaries, they voted to encourage the Federal and State governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana, noting there is a difference between those two things. Unfortunately, the way the Proposition is written, it does not provide clear guidance, and he did not know that we could conclude that 76% of the voters in San Rafael are urging Council to adopt this Land Use regulation. In recognition that the clear majority of the people do support the notion of the medicinal use of marijuana, he was not entirely comfortable stating he wants to ban it, and the reason for his discomfort is the failure of the State government, either through the Attorney General's Office or the Legislature, to adopt any guidelines which a Police Department could follow. Referring to his earlier question regarding a moratorium, he noted City Attorney Ragghianti had expressed the opinion that adopting the first Ordinance, and then declaring a moratorium was not a sustainable position; however, Mr. Ragghianti went on to say that a moratorium was not something that had been presented to Council. Mr. Cohen asked if there was any fashion in which Council could adopt a moratorium on such applications until such time as some of these issues are clarified? City Attorney Ragghianti stated it would be possible to adopt an interim Urgency Ordinance pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65858, noting Council could not do that this evening, but could direct staff to prepare one. Mr. Ragghianti SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 15 reported the Ordinances are Land Use tools, utilized for the purpose of freezing in place, usually, existing regulations, and prohibiting further permits from being issued pursuant to existing regulations while the Planning Department and the City undertake an examination of policy change, noting they can last up to two years. He stated that in this instance they could craft an Ordinance which imposed a moratorium on the issuance of any permits for the operation of an enterprise such as a medical marijuana dispensary while the City studies the issue. Mayor Boro asked if there was a downside to doing this, with respect to grandfathering? Mr. Ragghianti stated there was not. Councilmember Heller asked if this was the reason only these two Ordinances were being presented for Council to choose between at this time, rather than also presenting a third option of a moratorium or study period? She also asked if that was addressed in the Resolutions following each of the Ordinances, which would be sent to the Planning Commission, noting she had thought a study period would begin with the adoption of the Resolution, and they would be able to come back and change any Ordinance the Council put into effect tonight? Mr. Ragghianti stated that was not the reason, stating it became clear the Police Chief could not support Ordinance No. 1, and when Chief Sanchez asked him to draft Ordinance No. 2, Mr. Ragghianti thought the issue of proposing an interim Urgency Moratorium Ordinance was a little presumptuous on his part. He stated it could be done, noting after this public debate has taken place and focused the issue a little more, it was something that could be brought back before Council. Mr. Ragghianti reported he had been asked whether it addressed his concerns with respect to the Non -conforming Use problem, stating it did not, but pointing out Council could adopt the Ordinance which prohibits the Uses until they meet again in two weeks, at which time an Urgency Ordinance could be introduced revoking the original Ordinance, and prohibiting further Uses while the Planning Department studies the issue; however, he noted that would presume the City was going to study the Land Use implications involved in the regulation of a medical marijuana dispensary. Mayor Boro stated this was where he had a problem with that approach, noting he had not heard anyone address the Use, as such, that they are opposed to. He noted they could deal with the Land Use, but the issue that was really before them was the oversight of the regulation, and study of the Land Use will not get an answer regarding oversight and regulation, or the legalities. Mr. Ragghianti noted that left only one other option, and that was not to act at all. Councilmember Cohen did not agree, stating Paragraph 8 of Section C, "Standards" of the first Ordinance, which lays out the Use Permit process sets forth a series of conditions including the statement, "The dispensary shall be operated in strict compliance with such regulations as may be adopted by the Chief of Police, and the regulations shall address but are not limited to such issues as record keeping, identification of patients, storage of marijuana, site, on-site cultivation, maximum amount disbursed". Mr. Cohen stated Chief Sanchez has already pointed out he would have great difficulty coming up with regulations that would address his concerns, and in at least three specific areas, and Mr. Cohen felt that was at the heart of the matter. He noted there were no other Land Use issues, other than the declaration that this was not an appropriate Home Base business, and regulating where in the City it might be allowed. He stated the heart of the issue was the Police response to permitting this type of business, and how the Police Department is to formulate regulations to guide such a business, absent direction from the District Attorney, the Attorney General's Office, or the State Legislature. Mr. Cohen stated what the Council would want to study, and the reason he would call for a moratorium, was because the City does not have clarification from the appropriate authorities. Mr. Cohen stated his recommendation was for Council to pursue a moratorium, and follow-up by incorporating Mayor Boro's suggestion and write strong letters to Assemblywoman Mazzoni, State Senator Burton, the District Attorney's Office, and the State Attorney General's Office, informing them the City has received a number of inquiries about permitting dispensaries under Proposition 215, and stating the City needs guidance from their offices as to how to proceed. Mayor Boro agreed this was the real issue. He asked Chief Sanchez what regulation was provided on the Methadone clinic? Chief Sanchez stated there had not been any problems with the Methadone clinic. Mayor Boro asked if the Police Department looked at the clinic's record keeping? Chief Sanchez responded they did not. Mayor Boro felt that was the issue, and did not believe the City needed to get into the business of enforcing the distribution of this substance, noting it would be taking on a whole new role, and would be a resource, a cost, and an issue we have not had to deal with, as well as a drain on the Police Department. Mayor Boro noted every city was going to have this same drain, and he believed if the State does its job, and does it properly, as they have with Methadone and other Class 2 type drugs, then the City will not have a problem; however, for the City SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 16 to step up and assume all of this is the wrong way to go, as a City. Councilmember Phillips agreed with Mayor Boro, stating that by adopting the alternative, rather than something in between, the City was sending a very clear message in prohibiting, and at the same time giving any party that wishes, with the passage of time and the clarification of some of the issues, an opportunity to come back to Council, where they could modify this position. Mr. Phillips noted this would put the onus where it belongs, stating something in between seemed a little soft, and would not carry an impact, and he felt it was time to impact those who are primarily responsible, which is not the City of San Rafael, but rather the State of California, to resolve some of these issues for the City, for Chief Sanchez, and perhaps even for the District Attorney's Office. Mr. Phillips believed the second alternative sends that clear message. Councilmember Phillips recommended adoption of the second alternative. Councilmember Miller stated he would not oppose this Ordinance, but noted his vote in the affirmative would only be to send a message loud and clear to both the Executive and Legislative branches of California State government, that they are not doing their job, they are not fulfilling the will of the people, and they are putting the Council and the people of this community in an absolutely untenable position. He stated his vote was based on that position, and that position only. Councilmember Cohen stated he would prefer the Council pursue the options of a moratorium while seeking further direction; however, given the clear absence of support from the rest of the Council for that middle ground, and given the choice between adopting regulations and the legal morass that would engender, he would support the will of the rest Council in adopting the second alternative, particularly noting the language in the Ordinance pointed out by City Attorney Ragghianti which states, "Until further study, and until legal issues are determined by the courts, there is a need to clarify that such Use is not an allowable Use". Should there be clarification on these issues, either by the State or from the Attorney General, he stated he would be more than willing to entertain a proposal to modify this Ordinance to make such Use allowable within these guidelines. Councilmember Heller agreed with Councilmembers Cohen and Miller, stating she did not want to prohibit this, but the issue did belong to the State government, and they must step forward and give the cities guidelines, because each of the small communities is in the same bind, and while perhaps the larger cities can financially withstand getting into a legal argument over this issue, the small cities cannot. Therefore, for that reason she was voting against the dispensaries at this time. The title of the Urgency Ordinance was read: (2.a) "AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADDING CHAPTER 30 OF TITLE 14 TO PROHIBIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY AS AN ALLOWABLE USE OR A HOME OCCUPATION AND SETTING FORTH THE FACTS CONSTITUTING SUCH URGENCY". Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 1710, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution of the City Council initiating proceedings on its own motion to add Title 14 to prohibit a medical marijuana dispensary as an allowable use or a home occupation. (2.b) RESOLUTION NO. 9823 -RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL INITIATING PROCEEDINGS ON ITS OWN MOTION TO ADD TITLE 14 TO PROHIBIT A MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY AS AN ALLOWABLE USE OR A HOME OCCUPATION. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro stated correspondence to the governmental agencies discussed would follow the tone Council set during this hearing regarding the issues as the City sees them. He suggested the City write to not only the two State Legislators, but also the State Attorney General's Office and the Governor of California, stating the City needs State leadership to make this happen, and that they need to have SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 17 something ready to go when a decision is reached. He noted there were plenty of models out there, and they need only extend what they have. After a short recess, Mayor Boro reconvened the City Council meeting. MONTHLY REPORT: 16. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT (CM) Report was not given. OLD BUSINESS: 17. APPROVAL OF REPORT ON FREITAS ADVISORY GROUP'S RECOMMENDATION FOR SHORT-TERM (INTERIM) AND LONG-TERM (ULTIMATE) IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FREITAS INTERCHANGE AT US 101 AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS STAFF TO OBTAIN CALTRANS PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SHORT-TERM SOLUTION AND SOLICIT REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS (RFPs) FROM ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS TO PREPARE PROJECT REPORT (PW) - File 9-2-50 x 9-3-40 x 11-16 Public Works Director David Bernardi reported the Freitas Advisory Group was appointed by the City Council, and a number of alternatives from the proposed $6.5 million project were analyzed, creating a $1.8 million interim alternate project. He urged Council to accept this report so the Public Works Department can implement this project, which would buy the City approximately seven years of time, based on a predicted increase in traffic of 2% per year. He pointed out this would allow the City time to pursue funding for the ultimate solution, or to look at Land Use issues that would keep us within the confines of the proposed interim solution. Councilmember Heller noted the $1.8 million the City has for the interim solution, and asked if the City would be getting additional funds to implement either of the other two alternatives, stating if we spend these funds now, will it help us with either of the other two alternatives; also if there would be any State or Federal money for us? Mr. Bernardi reported we could probably save approximately 25% of the cost of the interim project improvements, and we would be able to utilize the proposed widening of the northbound offramp and salvage some of the signal equipment, but the other work would be essentially paved over. He pointed out the ultimate $6.5 million proposal was significantly different from the interim solution, so a lot of the work would be either dug out or relocated after the interim solution. Mr. Bernardi stated the likelihood of Federal or State dollars was very slight, given the other priorities in the County for traffic improvements, and the only money the City would be obtaining would be from additional developments within the Terra Linda Valley, and that would be based upon the Vision and ultimately what the Council decides under those policies. Mr. Bernardi noted the Council could identify the ultimate alternative as the solution, and then revise the Traffic Mitigation Fee Schedule to fund the ultimate solution, so instead of the mitigation fees being approximately $2,500 per PM Peak trip, they may have to be increased up to $5,000 per PM Peak trip. He noted he did not know if those were the right numbers, and these figures were given only as an example, but probably showed the true order of magnitude. Councilmember Heller asked if fees such as these would be considered under the Business Cost Study? City Manager Gould stated they would not. He stated staff would bring Council a Capital Improvement schedule, as required under the law, which would set forth the projects that need to be funded in the foreseeable future, along with fees to be adopted. He noted Mr. Bernardi was simply stating that without a tremendous increase in Traffic Mitigation Fees it was unlikely the City could fund the ultimate solution within the next seven years, given the likelihood of development in San Rafael. Councilmember Phillips asked if this meant that the interim solution was, in effect, the long-range practical solution for the foreseeable future? Mr. Bernardi stated that was correct, noting staff believed this would go a long way toward solving the current problems that we have at this interchange, and it would definitely improve the safety, and provide additional traffic capacity over the next few years for a certain amount of development to occur. However, he stated staff was not sure how much time this was going to buy the City, noting the Vision process would be part of determining whether or not this will work in the ultimate configuration. Amadeus Colenbrander addressed the Council on behalf of the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents, stating the Coalition applauded the City for its ongoing efforts toward improving the interchange. He asked how the projected 2% traffic increase over seven years translated into trips in the Land Use decision making process, SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 18 and now that we have improved traffic modeling capabilities, would we be able to rate the interchanges per direction of travel, rather than averaging out a Level of Service for the entire intersection? Mr. Bernardi stated the question of capacity at intersections in general was determined by the Council in terms of questions of delay, and not necessarily in terms of critical moves; therefore, unless the Council wants to change their policy, that was how staff would proceed. Regarding critical moves, Mr. Bernardi stated staff would look into that issue and respond back to Mr. Colenbrander. Councilmember Cohen stated the Freitas Advisory Group had looked at every conceivable configuration of this intersection, and a few that some of them felt were inconceivable. He stated he believed this interim alternative was as good as it gets for the foreseeable future, noting staff was to be commended, particularly Associate Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian, who came up with this proposal when everyone else thought it was impossible, and had managed to convince CalTrans that this was a feasible alternative. Councilmember Cohen referred to Councilmember Heller's concerns, and acknowledged the City will have to revisit the issue of what funding is appropriate for this intersection, noting in the past they had taken the position that there were no problems, and the Mitigation Fees the City was charging were sufficient to deal with it, when we were under the impression that $2 million would allow us to reconfigure the intersection. However, when we were able to really analyze the intersection, we found that $2 million would only allow us an interim solution. He stated we were not funding Capital Improvements at a level sufficient to do what we have identified as the ultimate design of this intersection. He stated staff had explored all the value engineering they could do to bring the cost down, which means the only alternative, if we are ever to get to the ultimate design, is to bring the funding level up. He noted if the intersection works today in this interim solution, and at some point fails in the future because of increased development, it would be fairly easy to make the argument that the increased development should bear the burden of the improvements needed to make the intersection continue to function when that development comes on line. Councilmember Cohen stated the primary issue really is one of safety, noting this has been an issue for a long time, and one the City needed to confront. He acknowledged this intersection is known as a very dangerous intersection, although the statistics do not bear that out, and he believed the City had just been very fortunate in that regard up to now, and noted he did not want to be here when those statistics finally catch up with us, and people start asking why the City did not do something sooner. Councilmember Cohen stated the City had the opportunity to do something now, and while it is not ideal, it meets the goals of the Advisory Group as contained in the report, which were to modify the interchange/ intersection to cost-effectively accommodate vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by providing adequate capacity without adversely affecting other streets and highways; improving safety; providing safety; providing acceptable access; and minimizing confusion. He stated the Advisory Group unanimously concluded that this alternative addressed each of these criteria. Councilmember Cohen noted there were two issues raised by the North San Rafael Coalition that he felt needed further study, although they were not necessarily related to the decision now before Council. He reported one was whether it is part of the North San Rafael Vision process or part of the second phase, where we begin to translate that into Zoning Amendments and General Plan changes, the way this is done and the seven year figure was arrived at was by estimating a 2% increase in volumes in every aspect of the intersection. He stated it was possible to come up with a number of scenarios for development that have different impacts on this intersection, and on the length of time that will be the City's standard for intersection capacity. He suggested that at some time when we have the resources and staff available, we might want to ask staff to analyze, as part of the Vision process, different scenarios where we might want to encourage development in certain areas. He noted there were certain things built into the model that are coming under study, such as the airport. Currently the model includes the assumption that the General Plan Buildout includes the trips allocated for the airport, which Mr. Cohen felt were unlikely. He noted it also includes a level of Office development on County property, which while conceivable, is highly unlikely in the seven to ten year timeframe, and likely longer than that given the County's fiscal state. He stated there were assumptions that were much more detailed than the broad 2% analysis, and he felt it would be worthwhile to look at this, because we might be buying more than seven years with this alternative. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 19 Mr. Cohen stated the second issue suggested during the discussion of the traffic model was that it gave us the ability to analyze delay at different legs of an intersection, where now we only average delay. He noted the average delay for Freitas is fairly low, but the reason for that is if you study the average delay at the PM Peak when the bulk of commuters are coming off US 101 and moving to the west side of the freeway, they do not experience very much delay and that is where the bulk of the cars are. However, for someone waiting to make a left turn, it is a much more "iffy" proposition, and involves a greater amount of delay, but there are fewer cars doing that. Therefore, when the delays are averaged, it shows the delay is not significant, but if you are waiting to make a left turn, or coming north on Civic Center Drive and trying to get across, the delays are much more significant, and to those drivers it is not the average that counts, it is whether their delay is acceptable or not. Mr. Cohen stated the new model allows us to analyze delay at different legs of an intersection, and what is being suggested is to recognize that we have that ability, and to state that there are standards for delay at certain legs of an intersection. However, he did not believe these answers needed to be found before we make a decision on Freitas, and that is not necessarily what is expected. Councilmember Cohen stated he was convinced that this was the best solution to the issues that face us at Freitas, and while this may turn out to be a lot of money to spend for ten years of access and safety, given the alternatives, he urged Council to support it. Councilmember Miller asked if Councilmember Cohen was comfortable with pedestrian access, noting there had been concern about this issue at earlier Visioning meetings on transportation? Mr. Cohen stated they had spent a lot of time discussing this issue, and the Advisory Group advised taking the following actions: implementing an interim solution to signalize the Redwood/Civic Center/Freitas/US 101 offramp, to function as an uncoordinated intersection, and to investigate revisions to the interim solution and improve pedestrian access to the existing transit stop. Mr. Cohen stated the problem was that the ultimate solution deals well with that issue, allowing the pedestrian to get directly down to the transit stop. However, the solution as proposed, and the signal timing that is proposed, lets every move go at a certain time, and when pedestrian access is included in the equation, it virtually stops every other move, and becomes an additional action that has to take place while everyone else waits. He noted an alternative that has been discussed would be a pedestrian access island somewhere in the middle, but that idea looks as though it may have some problems as well. He noted the $5 million alternative addresses those issues, but the interim alternative being proposed does not. He stated the Golden Gate Bridge District raised this concern, and it was one the Advisory Group agreed should be investigated, pointing out the signalization does not make pedestrian access worse, it simply does not fix it. Councilmember Heller asked if we were seeing a substantial increase in people using the Merrydale Overcrossing, and a decrease in the left turns at the Freitas Interchange? Mr. Bernardi stated there was a fluctuation in the traffic counts because not everyone was used to the Merrydale Overcrossing yet. He noted they take traffic counts, usually a month apart, and are finding wide variations in the turning movements. He noted the biggest issue right now is still crossing the offramp safely, reporting the cars are still backing up there. Mayor Boro stated he fully supported fixing this interchange, as it is dangerous and needs to be fixed. He asked staff to respond to the following questions at the next Council meeting: 1) Of the $1.8 million, how much of that is salvageable in the long-term, in dollars; 2) What are the odds that the short-term solution can be the long-term, and what are the consequences of that; 3) In the event, at certain times of the day, certain turns were prohibited, what impact would that have on this short-term solution, and could we still achieve the short-term solution. In addition, Mayor Boro reported that as a driver goes southbound on US 101, coming from the Northgate Shopping Center, if they encounter someone coming across the freeway from the Freitas Interchange, near the bus stop behind Longs, it seems as though the drivers are coming across at a high rate of speed at a point where there is a very short window where the two lanes merge. He pointed out you really have to be careful getting onto that ramp, because they both merge, and suggested perhaps we need some direction for the people coming off the freeway, or those coming on, to look to their left, noting the merging traffic is unexpected. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to accept the staff report on the Freitas Advisory Group's recommendation for short-term (interim) and long-term (ultimate) improvements to the Freitas Interchange at US 101; to authorize Public Works staff to obtain preliminary Caltrans approval of the short-term solution; and to authorize Public Works staff to solicit Requests For SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 20 Proposals (RFPs) from Engineering Consultants to prepare the project report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None NEW BUSINESS: 18. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSAL FOR THE CREATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION FINE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (P1) - File 9-10-2 x 10-2 This item continued to meeting of May 5, 1997 for further information. Staff to prepare summary showing what the fines were before, and clearly delineate how the City will collect and enforce these fines and forfeitures. Staff to review each item for appropriateness of the fine. 19. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: a. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS - File 111 (Verbal) Councilmember Heller reported she had attended the Association of Bay Area Governments General Assembly on Friday, April 18th in San Francisco, at which they discussed "Linking Land Use and Transportation in the Bay Area", pointing out transportation has been cited as the #1 problem in the Bay Area in the last ten to twelve years, except for crime one or two years. Lynn Sedway of The Sedway Group also highlighted the Bay Area housing trends, and the challenges facing In -fill and transit -oriented development, including the problems of "Nimbyism" of neighbors who feel the loss of property values, and the fiscalization of the Land Use policies we are all experiencing on the local level. Ms. Heller noted ABAG Planning Director Gary Binger has a slide show available to the community, showing the "more livable" neighborhoods and communities, which she felt the Planning Department might find of interest as a program for the Planning Commission. She reported Greenbelt Alliance was actively seeking In -fill projects for their endorsement. b. CANAL VOICE - File 241 (Verbal) Councilmember Miller reported that in response to the Canal Voice, the members of the Canal Development Team, which up to now has been composed primarily of members of staff, have formed committees to address the four major issues: Community Policing; Pickleweed Park; Youth & Teens; and Getting Around/ Transportation/Shopping/Public Spaces. Mr. Miller invited the Councilmembers to become active members and choose one of the committees they would like to meet with. Councilmember Heller volunteered for the Getting Around/Shopping/Public Spaces Committee, Mayor Boro for the Community Policing Committee, Councilmember Cohen for the Transportation/ Public Spaces Committee, Councilmember Phillips for the Youth & Teens Committee, and Councilmember Miller for the Pickleweed Park Committee. C. BERNARD HOFFMAN BALLFIELDS - File 4-7-28 x 220 x 9-3-65 x 9-3-66 (Verbal) Councilmember Cohen stated that Council had received a recent letter from the Dixie School District taking the City to task for not making a decision on whether or not to purchase the Bernard Hoffman ballfields or releasing the District of its "Naylor" requirements to pursue the sale or development of the fields to private parties. Mr. Cohen indicated a strong preference for either partially developing the site in order to preserve the ballfields, or allocating additional City resources to the purchase of the fields outright from the Dixie School District. He indicated that he had a conversation with a member of the District Board who was favorable to further investigating these two alternatives. Mayor Boro requested clarification as to whether or not the School District had taken a public action to declare the Bernard Hoffman Fields to be surplus. He also indicated his strong opinion that before the Council could consider allocating additional resources to preserve or purchase these fields, a public hearing should be held to alert the community of other potential projects for consideration, so that this decision would not be made in a vacuum. The Council directed staff to phone the Dixie District's Superintendent and to follow-up with a letter the next day confirming that the City wishes to consider these two alternatives, and that it has not waived its Naylor rights on this matter. The Council wishes to make clear that it has no intention of drawing out this decision unnecessarily, and recommits to expeditiously deciding the issue. d. RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS - File 120 x 9-1 (Verbal) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 21 Councilmember Cohen noted this was the first night of Jewish Passover, stating he felt it was inappropriate for the Council to meet on such a religious holiday. He asked that in the future Council consider other religious holidays, even those not specified in the City Charter, and see if the Council meeting schedule can be rearranged. Mayor Boro asked the City Clerk to pursue this matter. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1997 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 4/21/97 Page 21