Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2004-04-19SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 11:00 PM: Mayor Boro announced closed session item. Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Cyr N. Miller, Vice -Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Absent: None CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 11:00 PM: Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(b) One Case Mayor announced at 11:30 p.m. that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:18 PM 1) Kids Day America — May 16, 2004 — File 9-1 Doctor Meir Tako, San Rafael Chiropractor, stated his practice would host "Kids Day America," an international event, on May 16, 2004. This would be an awareness day for safety, environmental and health issues for children and families and also to support St. Vincent's School for Boys. As this would be the first time the event would take place in San Rafael, he hoped it would create a tradition that would be supported by the community, and he invited all to attend. Mayor Boro indicated he had signed a Proclamation today, which was available to Doctor Tako. 2) San Rafael Police Department — File 9-3-30 Mr. Hugo Landecker reported that last Thursday, by court order, a Sheriff's Deputy, assisted by the San Rafael Police Department and the Humane Society, removed from her residence a 49 year-old partially blind and neurologically impaired female, who uses a trained service dog and electric wheelchair. The dog was also removed from her and she was left on the street. Subsequent to this lady staying at his house for two days, Mr. Landecker reported that Police Officer Joel Fay, on his day off, found temporary shelter for her. He requested that this matter be investigated. On receipt of Mr. Landecker's letter today, Mayor Boro stated he had spoken with Police Chief Cronin and met with Captain John Rohrbacher. He invited Mr. Landecker to telephone Captain Rohrbacher tomorrow, Tuesday, and he would explain the circumstances, keeping the Council informed. 3) 18 Mary Street — Home Demolition — File 10-2 x 9-3-85 Marjorie Grannan, representing the tenants at 18 Mary Street, stated this property is a craftsman style bungalow built in the early 1900s with an older rose garden, fifteen huge bushes, old stonework and is in the process of being sold for the purpose of demolition. They believe the building and garden have historic value and on this basis, she requested that a demolition permit not be issued by the City of San Rafael. Ms. Grannan stated they believed the new owners of the property could not only preserve it but benefit from doing so, albeit it would not produce as much revenue as the proposed parking lot. Having gathered the support of several hundred people in the community, Ms. Grannan requested that time be allowed at the next City Council meeting, or other appropriate venue, to present their petition and bring forward speakers from other organizations interested in the preservation of San Rafael's history, and to present evidence of the property's historical merit. Community Development Director Bob Brown stated he believed the Design Review permits for the parking lot expansion for Whole Foods Market had been issued. To his knowledge, this was not a home designated as a landmark on the City's historic preservation list and did not have the protection afforded to it in terms of a prohibition on demolition. Mayor Boro invited Ms. Grannan to speak with Mr. Brown and the City Attorney's office during the week to discuss the issue. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 2 4) 9/11 — Strike First Policy — File 9-1 John Jenkel, Greighton, California, reported that he had been successful in having Dennis Kucinich sign the petition to repeal strike first policy, and he again requested Council's support on this issue. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as follows: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, Minutes approved as submitted. April 5, 2004 (CC) 3. Report on Annual Filings — Fair Political Practices Accepted report. Commission Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests for Designated Employees, Including Consultants, Geotechnical Review Board, Design Review Board, Cultural Affairs Commission and Park and Recreation Commission (CC) 54 (ZC03-005) (CD) - File 9-4-3 4. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF Approved final adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 1823 — An Ordinance of the Ordinance No. 1823. City Council of the City of San Rafael Adopting a Wireless Communication Facilities Ordinance in Title 14 (Zoning Ordinance) of the San Rafael Municipal Code (ZO03-006) (CD) — File 10-3 x 10-2 x 13-11 5. Resolution of Appreciation to David Donery, RESOLUTION NO. 11527 — Supervisor, Pickleweed Community Center, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO Employee of the Year for 2003 (CS) — DAVID DONERY, SUPERVISOR, File 102 x 9-3-65 PICKLEWEED COMMUNITY CENTER, EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR 2003 6. Acceptance of First Quarter Report on Fire Accepted report. Department 2 x 4 Work Schedule Trial Period (FD) — File 9-3-31 x 9-1-2 7. Resolution Authorizing Agreement Between the RESOLUTION NO. 11528 — County of Marin and the City of San Rafael RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Regarding the Marin Literacy Program (Lib) — MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO File 4-13-86 x 9-3-61 EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MARIN AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REGARDING THE MARIN LITERACY PROGRAM (from 7/1/03 through 6/30/04) 8. Resolution Authorizing the Signing of an RESOLUTION NO. 11529 — Agreement with Redwood Empire Municipal RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Insurance Fund for Workers' Compensation SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH Claims Administration Services (MS) — REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL File 7-1-31 x 9-6-3 INSURANCE FUND FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES (Initial term of 3 years from 7/11/04 to 6/30/07 with automatic yearly renewal thereafter unless terminated) 9. Resolution of Appreciation to Arnie Juge, Traffic RESOLUTION NO. 11530 — Sergeant, Employee of the Quarter Ending RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO March, 2004 (PD) — File 102 x 9-3-30 X 7-4 SERGEANT ARNOLD E. JUGE, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH, 2004 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 2 10. Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding Contract for Valley View Avenue Drainage Improvements, City Project No. 15001, to Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc. in the Amount of $59,280.00 (PW) — File 4-1-567 x 9-3-40 x 12-9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 11531 — RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR VALLEY VIEW AVENUE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 15001, TO MAGGIORA & GHILOTTI, INC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,280.00 (lowest responsible bidder AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAINING/ DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro (from item #4 only, due to potential conflict of interest.) SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 11. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DAVID DONERY, SUPERVISOR, PICKLEWEED COMMUNITY CENTER, EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR 2003 (CS) — FILE 102 x 9-3-65 x 7-4 Mayor Boro explained that David Donery was the Employee of the Year for 2003 and this feat was celebrated at the State of the City Dinner with the Chamber of Commerce some weeks ago. While the Resolution of Appreciation was not available at that time, Mr. Donery did receive his cash award ($500), together with accolades from all present. Indicating that Dave is the Supervisor at the Pickleweed Community Center, Mayor Boro stated he had been with the City for approximately fifteen years, was an outstanding manager and had done a great job at the Center working with the community, youth, seniors and newly arrived immigrants. Mayor Boro explained that an Employee of the Quarter is selected each quarter by fellow employees, and from these four, one employee is selected as the Employee of the Year. He congratulated Dave on being chosen Employee of the Year for 2003, noting the Resolution indicated he is affectionately titled "Big Dave." Dave Donery stated this was a tremendous honor and he thanked his mother for being present to join in the celebration. He indicated that all the success seen in the Canal district, and specifically, Pickleweed Community Center, had been due to in large part not only to his and his staff's efforts, rather also to the support received from the City Council. He acknowledged City Manager Gould who had made a world of difference in allowing staff to get their jobs done. He especially thanked Community Services Director Carlene McCart, who had been an avid supporter of all their efforts. 12. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ARNIE JUGE, TRAFFIC SERGEANT, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH, 2004 (PD) — FILE 102 x 9-3-30 x 7-4 Noting Sergeant Juge would retire soon, Mayor Boro stated this would be a great loss to the City. He explained that Arnie had been a member of the Police Department since 1977, rising through the ranks and holding numerous tasks and duties in the Department. Currently the officer responsible for the Motorcycle Patrol, Mayor Boro indicated it was reported that Sergeant Juge held the record as being the oldest person in the Department to qualify to ride a motorcycle. Mayor Boro stated that Arnie had been a tremendous representative of the City of San Rafael. In traffic control he had worked not only on activities within the City and downtown, but also in North San Rafael with the Annual County Fair. Indicating the City was very proud of him, Mayor Boro stated he had worked well with the entire community and even though he was retiring, he was eligible for Employee of the Year for 2004. On behalf of all present, Mayor Boro expressed thanks and congratulations. Thanking all involved, Sergeant Juge stated it had been a great final year at the San Rafael Police Department. Having worked in the Department for twenty-seven years, he commented it appeared as though he just started yesterday. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 4 Recalling that learning to ride a motorcycle was one of the most difficult things he had ever done, Sergeant Juge stated it was really worth the effort and the only falling down he had done was during training. He thanked his instructors, Mike Costello (retired), Chuck Tirri and Mike Mathis, all officers whom he supervised, who instructed him on how to properly ride a police motorcycle. He thanked the City Council, City Manager and citizens of the City of San Rafael for the opportunity to "hold the microphone." Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting briefly and invited all to enjoy cake and coffee in honor of David Donery and Sergeant Arnie Juge. PUBLIC HEARING: 13. Public Hearing — CONSIDERATION OF COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE AND AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE (SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 14, CHAPTERS 3 AND 19 - ZONING, DEFINITIONS AND SIGNS) (CD) — FILE 125 x 9-3-85 x 10-3 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened Contract Planner Paul Jensen announced there would be a Powerpoint presentation of approximately ten minutes duration. By way of introduction, Mr. Jensen stated that a comprehensive update of the Sign Ordinance had been a long-standing goal of the City. This update was listed as an Implementation Program in the General Plan since 1986. Reporting that the Sign Ordinance was last updated in 1992, Mr. Jensen stated this essentially was a carry-over from an ordinance adopted in the 1970s; therefore, it was obsolete, and because the existing ordinance was long and difficult to use and interpret, the goal had been to simplify the content and format. Regarding how the draft ordinance was prepared and who was consulted, Mr. Jensen stated it commenced with a public workshop in April, 2003, to solicit comments from the public as well as suggestions from the sign industry. City staff was consulted, together with consultations with the City Attorney's office. He indicated that Contract Attorney, Lisa Goldfien, who worked on preparing the draft ordinance was present to answer any questions of a legal nature. Mr. Jensen stated that meetings were held with special interest groups, other communities were surveyed for their sign ordinances and some interesting information was obtained. The draft ordinance was also reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. Summarizing the ordinance, Mr. Jensen stated the format was completely new and simplified. A lot of the sections were actually in various different sections of the current ordinance and information was consolidated. He stated there was now a proposal for an Exempt Sign section and it was also recommended that signs be regulated by zoning district. Presently, they are regulated by land use, which creates a lot of confusion. Regarding the new section addressing exempt signs, Mr. Jensen stated staff worked very carefully with the City Attorney's office. He explained that exempt signs are generally those not subject to the provisions of the code and not subject to a sign permit (building and street address signs, official flags, etc.) Referring to a photograph of a sign depicting the Shell station in Northgate, Mr. Jensen stated that the reader board showing the pricing of fuel is regulated by the State of California; therefore, that part of the sign is exempt by State law. Mr. Jensen stated changes were being recommended, albeit minor, to the sign approval process, i.e., a sign permit is required for all signs subject to the ordinance provisions, even a change in the sign face or copy. He noted a clarification in the permit review process to clearly identify the administrative approval process by the Director or Community Development staff, the Planning Commission's role in looking at major sign applications and the Design Review Board's role in an advisory capacity. Mr. Jensen stated there were two Exceptions processes proposed in the Sign Ordinance that allowed for either a deviation in the sign ordinance provisions - the adjustment process - and a variance process, which actually allows the proposal of a sign that is prohibited by the ordinance. He stated staff recommends that these two processes be replaced by an Exception process, which would allow a deviation from the code provisions. He indicated that Major Exceptions would go through the Planning Commission and the Minor Exception process would be reviewed and considered by the Community Development Director. Indicating that changes were also proposed to the Sign Program provisions, Mr. Jensen explained that Sign Programs had been used in the past to get around the sign provisions for many projects, and this has been tightened up so that it applied specifically to unique use and SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 5 property circumstances, such as shopping centers, building complexes with multiple tenants, gasoline and fueling stations, because of their special sign needs, together with automobile dealerships. Mr. Jensen stated that the photograph depicted the old San Rafael Opera House, and a Sign Program was approved for this building some years ago when there were building renovations. Mr. Jensen stated staff was also recommending the introduction of a requirement that should someone wish to build a new building, or carry out major renovations to an existing building, they must include signage in the design of their project. He indicated that in the past developers got their projects approved and returned after the fact for their signage. Mr. Jensen stated this requires that it be included in the Design Review Permit application, and it also avoided a separate Sign Permit. Noting that graphics were being introduced into the code, Mr. Jensen stated these would identify sign types as well as how to calculate sign area. Staff was also recommending some revisions to the provisions for location and placement of signs. He stated there were some very good guidelines for awning and projecting signs taken from the Downtown Design Guidelines and incorporated into the ordinance, and were supported by the Design Review Board. Mr. Jensen stated that a change was also being recommended in the freestanding sign provisions to allow for a smaller monument type sign on sites of less than 75 feet in width, and a minimum width of 50 feet. The current ordinance is written in such a way to only allow for freestanding signs if there is a 75 -foot or wider parcel, and it encourages the larger pole signs. This would afford an opportunity to have a smaller monument type sign at 6 -feet in height for a narrower site. Noting the ordinance contained a recommendation for a sign area bonus of 10% of sign area for those who selected and proposed a preferred or encouraged sign type, Mr. Jensen explained that the monument type signs are more preferred from a design standpoint than pole or pylon type signs; therefore, the 10% bonus could be taken advantage of by proposing a monument type sign. Similarly, for wall signage, the individual letters placed on a wall to comprise the sign is much more desirable visually than a canister sign with the plastic face. Mr. Jensen stated the Design Review Board was very supportive of this change. Regarding illumination standards, an issue which was brought up in the original workshops and through the hearing process where there were requests for quantitative sign illumination standards, Mr. Jensen reported that staff had recommended against that, primarily because they are too difficult to enforce. However, sign illumination was recommended to be regulated by zoning district, and staff was also recommending a provision that would require, when deemed appropriate, that once the sign was installed, a post installation inspection would be carried out to ascertain whether the illumination needed to be adjusted or toned down. Mr. Jensen noted the City already does this for new projects with exterior lighting. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Jensen stated the major change in the ordinance is that signs have historically been regulated by land use, i.e., certain square -footage limits for office use, and certain square -footage limits for commercial uses, and staff recommended that they be regulated by zoning district. He indicated that in reviewing much more recent sign ordinances from other communities, staff believed this was the way to go. Explaining the categories, Mr. Jensen stated • The first was single-family and duplex districts with the most limited amount of sign area; The second group is the multiple -family residential and residential/office districts, which would be permitted a slightly broader amount of sign area and sign type as well as illumination and number; The third and major group in the community comprises all the commercial districts, industrial/office, and the recommendation is essentially the same as what is contained in the existing code, i.e., a sliding scale of square -footage based on the width of the use frontage. Mr. Jensen stated that the ordinance recommendation is a 1:1 ratio — a foot of sign area for every one lineal foot of use or business frontage, with a minimum sign area of 25 square -feet and a maximum of 200. The minimum and maximum were from the current ordinance and staff did not propose any changes to those. Mr. Jensen pointed out that the 1:1 ratio was slightly more restrictive than the current code, which allows a range anywhere between one square -foot to 1.8 square -feet per lineal frontage. He indicated staff believed this was a much easier approach to implement, and much simpler to interpret. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 6 • Regarding the Downtown Districts, Mr. Jensen stated these districts were separated from the Commercial/Office and Industrial Districts, primarily because downtown is unique and more pedestrian oriented. He noted the same sign allowance would be proposed for downtown, except instead of two signs per frontage, three would be allowed under the new ordinance. In addition, in the downtown area, one second -floor tenant sign in the window is recommended. Mr. Jensen stated there is also a proposal to allow merchants to place one portable A or I frame sign for ground floor users up to 6 square -feet, subject to special conditions., i.e., that the sidewalk be sufficiently wide to accommodate an A frame with a four -foot minimum clearance for passage. Secondly, that general liability insurance be secured and the City be held harmless should someone trip over the sign. Mr. Jensen reiterated that attorney, Lisa Goldfien was involved in the legal issues and could respond to questions. Comparing the current provisions with the proposed ordinance, Mr. Jensen stated that with regard to the residential signage, it was generally the same. There were no changes to the size and height limits of freestanding signs, except with the introduction of the smaller monument sign for the narrower sites previously mentioned. He stated that the square -footage allowance for non-residential and commercial signs was generally the same or slightly more restrictive. Mr. Jensen stated that the major changes were in the office uses in the office district. Presently, the zoning ordinance allows 20 — 36 square -feet for an office building, which could be a large building containing many tenants or a smaller office building. He indicated that very often in the past there had either been an adjustment for additional sign area or a Sign Program had been approved for multiple tenant buildings such as the San Rafael Corporate Center. Mr. Jensen indicated that on initiating the effort staff wanted to simplify the ordinance and group office with the commercial districts; therefore, the same allowance was proposed. It was tested on two buildings, the first of which was 899 Northgate, at the corner of Northgate and Las Gallinas. He explained that the current ordinance allows 36 square -feet and the sign area on this building that was approved by a sign program is 86 square -feet. The proposed ordinance as written would allow 165 square -feet, a considerably higher amount. Mr. Jensen stated that in discussing this with staff, should a possible reduction of 50% in the allowance for office use be considered, i.e., one half square -foot for every lineal frontage, this would result in a square footage on this particular building close to that approved, which appeared to be in scale with that typically found for office buildings. The second office building tested, was the Fourth and Irwin building where the Old Republic Title Company is located. Again, Mr. Jensen reported that the current ordinance permits up to 36 square -feet and in this case, there are approximately 100 square -feet of sign area. The proposed ordinance with the 1:1 square -footage ratio would allow twice that amount, and if the allowance were cut back strictly for office use, 100 square -feet would remain. Regarding temporary signs, Mr. Jensen stated there were some changes to these provisions, the major one relating to banners. He recalled that Council last year adopted a pilot program resolution for banners for the Francisco Boulevard and downtown areas, and staff proposed to incorporate these provisions into the ordinance and amend it so they apply citywide, except for residential districts. Mr. Jensen stated the provisions would continue to limit display for 60 calendar days per year and there was a provision in this section that would allow for a free- standing banner where buildings are set back from the street. Concluding the presentation, Mr. Jensen stated there were some clean-up amendments distributed to the City Council this evening, with copies available to the public in the lobby. He explained that the first related to a concern possibly with the way the ordinance was drafted as to where a sign could be placed. He stated the issue as to whether or not the proposed ordinance would permit a sign on the back of a building, not fronting the street, but possibly fronting the highway, i.e., 1-800-41njury or Chili's Restaurant in Northgate. Mr. Jensen stated there was some clean up language in two sections that clearly notes the signage is for the front face of a building. He explained it did not preclude a request being made for an exception or having a sign program; however, it would avoid the inference that the ordinance permits this. Regarding the A frames downtown, Mr. Jensen stated staff failed to include in that section a requirement for a sign permit; therefore, minor changes were recommended to ensure this is referenced. Mr. Jensen stated the third issue was raised by the Code Enforcement staff today who noted that the provisions contained in the residential section, which allow, among others, a small sign SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 7 for home occupation at 5 square -feet, is in conflict with the home occupation provisions of the zoning ordinance which set the size limits in that section at 1 square -foot. Mr. Jensen stated staff recommended referring back to the home occupation ordinance for that more restrictive sign area. Lastly, Mr. Jensen stated that Code Enforcement staff recommended a change in what had been suggested by the City Attorney's office to include in the prohibited sign section, i.e., a period in which someone is required to remove a sign deemed to be prohibited. He stated staff had suggested that once notice was received from the City, 90 days were given; however, Code Enforcement staff indicated they usually allow 14 days and staff wished to make this correction. Regarding the A frame signs in the Downtown Districts, Councilmember Miller inquired whether this particular ordinance as written allowed for each individual store to choose to have an A frame, etc. Mr. Jensen stated this was so if they met the conditions required, i.e., the sidewalk had to be a certain width, or the sign placed in front of a business only, bringing it inside at night. Councilmember Miller confirmed there was no governance over proliferation, meaning every business, or an entire block, could choose to have A frames. Mr. Jensen added the Code recommends that to have an A frame would necessitate forfeiting one of the three allowed signs. Councilmember Miller also confirmed that the A Frame could be placed anywhere on the sidewalk provided there was a 4 -foot passage. Councilmember Miller discussed various sign configurations and designs and confirmed with Mr. Jensen that only the face of the design applied. Referring to Attachment 4B — Survey of Marin County Cities and Towns — Councilmember Miller requested confirmation on his interpretation that staff found one city allowing A frames. Mr. Jensen confirmed this to be Novato, for use in their downtown. Having carried out some internet research on eight or nine cities, mainly in the East Bay and on the Peninsula, comparable to downtown San Rafael, Councilmember Miller stated he found none of them permitted the A frame in their towns. He sought an opinion from staff as to why all of the cities he and Mr. Jensen considered, with the exception of one, did not permit this sign. Community Development Director Bob Brown stated he believed it was true that most cities did not allow A frame signs. He added that the level of active code enforcement regarding prohibitions on A frames had been quite different. For example, he explained that San Rafael had prohibited A frame signs for many years and yet they were seen on Fourth Street. Mr. Brown indicated there had not been active code enforcement for A frames and in this process, staff favored clarity from the City Council regarding these signs, which are very popular with merchants and restaurateurs. Should the choice be not to allow A frames, he indicated staff would commence rigorous enforcement, and if the City chose to create an allowance for A frames, Mr. Brown stated the situation would not be the same as currently, where there is a difference between code enforcement response and regulations. Councilmember Miller requested clarification on whether all of the cities not allowing for A frames basically permit them by lax enforcement. Mr. Brown stated he believed that in most cities with prohibitions, A frames could still be evident, much more so than other types of illegal signs. Referring to skatepark waiver and indemnifications, Councilmember Miller stated it was found this did not prevent lawsuits, and he inquired as to this particular ordinance. Attorney Lisa Goldfien stated it was probably true that it would not prevent someone from suing the City over an injury occurring on public property, and she was unsure whether this could be totally prevented when a use such as this is allowed in the public right-of-way. She indicated that staff attempted to minimize the cost to the City by requiring insurance naming the City as an additional insured, which would presumably cover the City in such a situation, and also a hold harmless indemnification from the business owner. Councilmember Miller stated the protection thereof was not as strong as it appeared on paper, as basically the City was liable, being responsible for having safe streets and sidewalks. Ms. Goldfien stated that some type of indemnification would be required to protect the City from any negligence, except for the City's sole negligence. While she was not inferring the City would actually be liable, she indicated it would not necessarily be shielded from being brought into a lawsuit and it was possible there could be some expense related to that, although the insurance indemnification was supposed to protect against that. Regarding the proposal for changing the regulation for office buildings, Councilmember Cohen SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 8 inquired whether this had been discussed with the Planning Commission. Mr. Jensen responded negatively, and explained that staff evaluated this recently and found it to be very generous. He added this arose subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Cohen noted that both examples shown were corner lots and he inquired whether the impact was happening because of counting two street frontages. Mr. Jensen stated this was true in part. He explained that the one building at Fourth and Irwin was essentially 100 x 100, i.e., 100 -feet of frontage on both streets. He stated the examples were selected randomly. Community Development Director Bob Brown concurred that this was not discussed by the Planning Commission and should the City Council believe that the draft ordinance should be revised, it would have to go back to the Planning Commission for consideration, as the change was substantive. Regarding the regulation of political signs, Councilmember Cohen noted a regulation in the ordinance indicating that no single sign could exceed 10 -square feet. He stated it had been the practice for a number of years that numerous campaigns had used 4 x 8 signs — 32 square -feet — and he inquired whether these would be outlawed by this ordinance. Mr. Jensen stated that in essence, they would. Ms. Goldfien stated she was informed this was not a change to the current ordinance and therefore, did not consider it. Mr. Brown stated he would double-check this. Regarding the A frames, Councilmember Heller inquired whether the local sign companies would be permitted or encouraged to provide the local customer with all of the information, as she believed some of the smaller companies would not come to the City inquiring as to the regulations. Mr. Jensen explained that staff attempted to include on the noticing list every conceivable sign company based in Marin, together with some outside that frequently had business in Marin, as they were the conduit to the merchants. Mr. Brown stated it was his intention following adoption of the ordinance, to send a copy of it with a cover letter discussing the code enforcement process to all sign companies locally. Regarding the A frame signs at night, Councilmember Heller inquired whether there was a recommendation that there be no signs at night, and the specific time. Mr. Jensen stated the requirement was that they be brought inside at close of business. Regarding temporary banners or signs promoting units for sale, i.e., the old Fairchild site with new commercial units for sale (Orion banner), Councilmember Phillips inquired whether this ordinance changed signs such as these in any way. Mr. Brown stated there was a provision in the code presently for real estate leasing signs. Councilmember Phillips inquired whether the ordinance contained any language that would perhaps change the period of time such signs could be utilized, etc. Mr. Jensen stated that if it were issued as a banner it would remain under the same provisions adopted a year ago as a temporary banner. He did not believe any changes were proposed to the time limits for real estate sales. Concurring with Councilmember Phillips that this did not fall under temporary banners, Mr. Brown stated that temporary banners were not permitted outside the downtown area; therefore, this was allowed under the provisions for a leasing sign. He indicated that in its current configuration it was not a permanent sign; however, the proposed provisions of the code would expand the banner provisions outside of the downtown; therefore, it would be fully permissible. Mr. Jensen stated there was no time limit on real estate sale or lease. Councilmember Phillips stated he could be interested in having some further discussion regarding this particular application as it appeared in many ways unique to him. He noted that in some ways this project benefited the City because of the opportunities it presented and perhaps the City should be more lenient in that particular case. Mr. Brown indicated that there had not been requests for leasing signs that are banners, adding the site was unusual having so much freeway frontage and a fairly good-sized sign was necessary. He commented that that sized redevelopment next to the freeway would be a rare situation. Applauding staff for the judgment shown in this situation, Councilmember Phillips questioned whether some judgment should be shown in these situations because ordinances did not cover every possibility. For future reference, he suggested that perhaps language should be built in to take unique situations into consideration. To ensure he understood, Councilmember Phillips inquired as to the language pertaining to neon signs. Mr. Jensen explained that during the last amendment in 1992, neon was re-entered as a SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 9 permitted illumination, subject to Design Review Board approval, and no changes were proposed. It would still be permitted; however, only if approved by the Design Review Board. Taking the suggested changes into consideration, Councilmember Phillips inquired as to impact of this ordinance on the downtown appearance. With regard to the typical wall, window and awning signs, Mr. Jensen stated there probably would be no change as the square -footage allowance was similar to the current ordinance. The change related to the A frame issue should there be a great demand to locate A frames out front. He believed there would be some improvement in the design of signs because some of the placement regulations had been tightened up compared to the current ordinance; however, there were no major changes that would affect square -footage amounts, etc., except for the office district. Mr. Brown noted those had generally been allowed through other means. With regard to the A signs, Councilmember Phillips inquired as to proximity. Noting these signs are not permitted north of the hill, with the exception of real estate open house signs citywide, Mr. Jensen stated the ordinance was drafted in such a manner that should someone wish to secure a permit for an A frame sign, it would need to be placed in front of their business. Councilmember Phillips stated he had reservations concerning the A frames and should Councilmember Miller have some significant opposition to them he would support that. With regard to 899 — the test case — he stated that to multiply the present square -footage by 5 would be overwhelming and inappropriate. With regard to restricting beyond that currently cited, he indicated he would support a reduction of that allowance. Indicating the Planning Commission was split on whether to prohibit searchlights, Councilmember Heller noted they were prohibited in the ordinance and she inquired as to the reasoning for this. Mr. Brown stated it was his understanding there was an instance in the downtown where the Police Department believed they were distracting, particularly in that location close to the freeway overpass and they were a potential traffic hazard. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Hugo Landecker stated he was dismayed at the 5 square -feet for a single-family or duplex residential area in the proposed ordinance. He indicated that in the multi -family or high-density residential districts, it appeared the 32 square -foot limit was excessive and being residential areas, he believed the size of the signs should be reduced. Indicating there were two nail salons in Gerstle Park, Mr. Landecker stated they had interior wall neon signs depicting the name of the business. He stated the idea of the home occupation ordinance was the fact that a building being used for home occupation should not be apparent from the street. He indicated that at night when these signs are turned on, they are very visible from the street and he believed the ordinance needed to address this more strongly. Mr. Landecker noted section 14.19.030 addressed signs within ten feet of the exterior of the building and he believed that distance needed to be expanded. Mr. Landecker stated that San Rafael at one time did have a handle on the sign ordinance as far as code enforcement was concerned, and he believed on passage of this ordinance, Code Enforcement would have a lot of work to do. Craig Murray, San Rafael expressed the hope that a fiscal officer and the City Attorney had reviewed the ordinance. He suggested reviewing the opportunities to enhance the General Fund through encroachment permits, noting quite a few larger signs, particularly downtown, encroach in the public right-of-way. Noting a lot of discussion regarding the A frame signs, he stated that slip and fall injuries were the most numerous lawsuits and he hoped this had been considered by those updating the sign ordinance. Roger Roberts, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, noted tonight's packet contained materials they forwarded to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission on this ordinance. He reiterated their position that they believe it important for the sign ordinance to have some standards associated with it. Indicating it was a better ordinance now in that it contained a provision allowing for subsequent inspection to determine whether illumination was excessive; however, he believed this could be better handled up front by establishing some maximum light intensity by district to clarify what is intended by "it shall not have excessive glare, etc." He realized many cities leave this vague; however, many do use specific standards. He noted the City had established standards for noise, and this called for a similar approach. Regarding mixed use, Mr. Roberts stated the new General Plan contemplated a considerable amount of mixed use in the future, for a number of good and valid reasons, i.e., infill, allowing SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 10 affordable housing, etc. He stated the nature of mixed use would have residential and commercial in close proximity and this ordinance was silent on how this would be handled, except for one section referring to other districts, which indicated that other districts "shall be treated in the same manner as districts of a similar nature." Mr. Roberts recalled staff indicating that a "similar nature" meant a commercial district and, therefore, those who choose to reside in a mixed-use district should have to live with commercial district signage. He believed this to be an absurd position and should be reviewed, and it would be wise in this ordinance to think ahead about how to treat mixed-use districts. Mr. Roberts suggested that perhaps the best way to do this would be to require all mixed-use districts to be subject to sign program design review. Joanne Webster, Director, Business Improvement District, stated the sign ordinance was extremely important to the businesses in San Rafael and she wished to address the A frame issue, since it affected downtown merchants. Ms. Webster stated that signage is very important and they wished to keep downtown pedestrian friendly; therefore, she requested that the City Council consider a possible trial for the A frames, similar to the temporary banners, subsequently conducting a review. She indicated that the Business Improvement District would be happy to work with the Council and Code Enforcement in terms of placement and amount of A frames over a six-month trial period. Elissa Giambastiani, President, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated she made her first comments on the San Rafael Sign Ordinance in 1987 and every year since then had been commenting on it. She indicated she had hoped to return to her office this evening and write an article stating "Council finally passes Sign Ordinance" but it was not to be tonight. Ms. Giambastiani stated she was delighted with the sign ordinance, believing it to be so much clearer, better and refined. She complimented staff, especially for working with everyone, soliciting comments and being amenable to change. Regarding the A frames, she seconded Ms. Webster's request for a six-month trial. Ms. Giambastiani stated that as discussed during the Vision, they wanted downtown to have a different type of charm and ambiance; therefore, things had been permitted in the downtown that were not allowed anywhere else, e.g., dining on the sidewalk. She recalled that when the banner ordinance was first discussed there was great concern there would be a proliferation of banners and obviously, this had not happened. She requested that something similar be done with the downtown by giving it a try to ascertain whether there would be an enormous number of A frame signs. She noted that Joanne Webster agreed to work with staff on the placement and monitoring of the signs and she believed this would be a good compromise. Ms. Giambastiani stated there had been mixed-use districts in San Rafael since the town was created, i.e., mom and pop living upstairs from their store with a sign on the store. She indicated that all of downtown is a mixed-use district; therefore, no special signage was necessary for mixed-use buildings, the policy was fine and nothing stricter was necessary for mixed-use buildings. Regarding reducing the amount of signage for office buildings, Ms. Giambastiani noted the comment was made that the two buildings used in the example had two frontages. She stated that one of the requests received perhaps two years ago was G.E. Capital wanting to put their name on the building they occupy. She noted that a managed healthcare network has their name on the building and it is pretty common presently for corporations to want to put their name on the top of buildings. She commented that particularly in Novato, a lot of office buildings have the company's name on the top. By reducing this by 50%, Ms. Giambastiani inquired whether this would preclude having G.E. Capital on that building along with Managed Healthcare Network. Responding, Mr. Jensen stated it would not, explaining this was just a change in the allowance of square -footage area, not the number of signs for office uses in the building or an anchor tenant. He instanced Fair Isaac having their name on Smith Ranch Road and the Regency Center had its own signage. He stated it would merely reduce the allowance, but would not change the number of signs permitted. Milton Davis, Davis Sign Company, inquired as to which sign companies were contacted locally. He stated he was a licensed sign contractor, contracting in the State of California and had been with the City since 1980. Having been in all other cities, he reported that the Sign Ordinance within San Rafael was the best and downtown looked good with the signage. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Heller clarified that a business having an A frame sign in front of their store would necessitate the removal of one of their other signs. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 11 Mayor Boro stated he had some concerns regarding the issues raised by Councilmember Miller, i.e., placement proliferation and no design standards; however, he was aware that applicants were required to obtain a permit. He believed the approach with the banners worked. Realizing a lot of effort had gone into this issue and in the hearts of some of the merchants it was important, Mayor Boro suggested giving it a try; however, in the process of conducting a trial, some of the issues raised should be evaluated in an effort to refine them. He reported having observed three A frames on Fourth Street (near the theater) some of which were quite messy. Mayor Boro stated that the Redevelopment Agency had spent over a million dollars installing these sidewalks, which created a nice setting in the downtown, and he did not wish to get to the point where it became `junked up." He believed the question was how to have signage responsive to the needs, while maintaining the ambience. Mayor Boro stated that one of the best Sign Programs in the downtown was at the Downtown Art Center, technically blade signs. He believed the idea of a trial was good, should Council so choose, simultaneously considering some of the issues raised. He also suggested continuing the trial on the banners since it is being expanded to North San Rafael, in order to evaluate the entire City. Regarding the office change — 1 square -foot versus '/2 square -foot — and the impact it could have, since this issue will have to go back to the Planning Commission, Mayor Boro suggested that perhaps other sites (not corner sites) could be evaluated also. Should staff's findings hold he did not believe there should be a bonanza on massive signs throughout the community, north or south. On the issues of neons, nights, political signs, light intensity and mixed use, Mayor Boro invited staff to comment. Regarding light intensity, Community Development Director Bob Brown stated the real question was to what extent the City wished to devote staff time to this because it meant sending out staff at night to check light intensity with a light meter. He indicated that this is done in a few situations; the Design Review Board had been very concerned about parking lot and service station lighting, and in those cases staff were deployed to check the lighting levels. With signs, Mr. Brown stated the question was whether to devote staff time to that as it would entail staff overtime in the evening hours, and for every sign, staff would have to verify the light intensity after its installation. For that reason, therefore, he indicated staff had not recommended this and instead used more of a qualitative standard, i.e., should it be offensive or unusually bright after installation, the City had the ability to require the owner to reduce the intensity. On the issue of mixed use, Mr. Brown concurred with Ms. Giambastiani. He explained that the downtown is essentially the mixed-use district presently and there are no separate sign provisions addressing residences incorporated in a building. He indicated the expectation was that they are living in a mixed-use environment; therefore, do tolerate some of the characteristics of a commercial district, including signage. In the new General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Brown stated a change would be made to allow residences to occur in the neighborhood/commercial and general/commercial districts. Once again, he stated those are currently commercial districts and the City does not wish to negatively impact the commerce, rather allow opportunities for those who would choose to purchase housing in those areas, understanding they are buying into a business location also. Mr. Brown stated staff did not see the need for separate regulations. Should it be in a multi -tenant situation, the opportunity for sign programs exists, which could get into a finer level of design review. Regarding the comment from Mr. Landecker concerning the neon signs in the nail salon, Mr. Brown stated these were two issues. He explained that the nail salon was a home occupation and a one square -foot, non -illuminated sign was all that was permitted; code enforcement is currently being carried out on that building. He indicated he would interpret an internal identification of that business in a home occupation illegal, since it is illuminated. Mr. Brown stated a bigger issue raised was that within a building where signing could be seen through the window, the question was how far back this should be incorporated and restricted. He instanced Seven -Eleven's cold cases on a back wall with banner logos above, and to incorporate that in signage would become pretty ludicrous. Conversely, Mr. Brown stated that with stores such as Cigarettes Cheaper, with a whole illuminated back wall, this essentially was a sign. He reported that staff had chosen in this case to attempt to regulate these within the first ten feet to avoid the unintended consequences where anything in a business visible through the front windows became sign area. Regarding an earlier comment that the current ordinance had regulations for political signs, Mr. Jensen stated this was incorrect. He indicated that the provisions contained in the ordinance SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 12 are blanketed under non-commercial signs because content could not be regulated, as suggested by the City Attorney's office. Should there be an interest in making some adjustments in the square -footage, Mr. Jensen stated these could be considered; however, staff evaluated it in the context of a bigger picture of non-commercial signs. Attorney Lisa Goldfien agreed that there was no particular size minimum being considered; however, staff would consider whatever the City Council might be interested in. She indicated they were attempting not to single out any particular type of non-commercial message, not just an election sign. On the question of A frames, Mr. Jensen agreed that perhaps stricter regulations regarding placement and design should be considered. On this issue, Councilmember Miller noted the possibility and probability of clutter, safety, liability, visual aspects, and in terms of risk management, he did not believe it wise to proceed. Councilmember Miller stated that basically, the reason for the A frame is to attract the pedestrian and he believed this could be accomplished without the A frames and with blade signs. He noted these blade signs are on the Art Center, further down Folk Art has a blade sign and immediately after is a small jewelry blade sign. He indicated these are easy to see and solve the clutter, liability and safety problems. He considered that Guide Dogs for the Blind practicing downtown having to deal with barriers was not a good use of signage. Councilmember Miller stated that the blade signs are so good and add such quality and diversity that he would provide a small blade sign free in terms of signage space allocation. He stated this would encourage people to use them and would accomplish the same as A frames. He encouraged going in this direction rather than a trial period, believing the risk to be too great and the downtown is too pretty and great to take that risk. He did not believe six -months would be a valid period. Concurring with the second half of Councilmember Miller's comment, Councilmember Cohen stated he believed creating an incentive for blade signs was an intriguing idea and he would like to see that. He would be supportive of the idea of a business receiving more square -footage for signage by using certain types of signs, and waiving the right to an A frame. On the other hand, just as with banners, he stated he would be willing to conduct a six-month trial period on the A frames and should it work, extend it for a further period of time. Should it become cluttered or an apparent danger, this would afford the opportunity to revise that section of the ordinance; however, he will willing to try. Councilmember Cohen stated that although business was doing well downtown, tough economic times still existed and not every merchant could afford to mount a blade sign on the building. Over time, he believed incentives could be created to do this; however, he favored an attempt at parading these A frames. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to see a tightening up on the issue of internal signs. While he understood Mr. Brown's comment regarding the cold case at Seven -Eleven, he did not believe this was Mr. Landecker's point; therefore, perhaps there needed to be language concerning home occupations. Should a neon sign be located inside a home in a 12 x 12 bedroom, being 2 feet further back and therefore, exempt, the business owner could infer it was just intended to be seen inside the building when clearly, it was intended to be seen outside and was being used as a form of advertising. Indicating there were two ways to approach this, Councilmember Cohen stated that one was to make the distance a little further, or try using looser language on when in the view of the Community Development Department it is intended to be seen outside, or have a different standard for home occupation on illuminated signs inside a building but visible from outside. He believed one or other of these suggestions was worth pursuing to deal with the type of circumstance Mr. Landecker brought to Council's attention. On the light intensity issue, Councilmember Cohen stated he understood the concern regarding starting out by regulating everything and therefore, having to go out and measure, and he was willing to go with that. However, he indicated he had some concern on the specific language proposed and would be more comfortable if it were something that could be reviewed subject to complaint. He instanced a hypothetical situation of approving a sign program with illumination in the belief it would not have an impact on the surrounding neighbors, and subsequently, neighbors indicated the sign was illuminating outside the property line and having an impact on adjacent properties. Councilmember Cohen stated that the language as written includes the possibility to impose as a condition of the permit the ability to investigate after the fact, meaning the City would need to know about it up front, and he did not believe this should be required. He stated the City should reserve the right to investigate the actual impact of illumination after the fact, should there be a way to do that, as unless a problem is anticipated and inserted as a condition, the ordinance as drafted does not afford staff the ability to investigate a problem once brought to their attention. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to see that section rewritten. Regarding the mixed-use issue, Councilmember Cohen commented he would rest comfortably SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 13 with the notion that new buildings and major renovations would require a sign program and those types of mixed-use buildings, by definition, would be multi -tenant. If he understood correctly, Councilmember Cohen stated that most new mixed-use or renovated buildings converted to mixed-use would require a sign program; therefore, the City would have a chance to evaluate the issues as part of the overall program on those projects. Mr. Jensen confirmed Councilmember Cohen's understanding to be correct and indicated it goes one further. He explained it requires that when those buildings go through design review, they include their signage. Councilmember Cohen confirmed that the opportunity would be afforded to look at this in the overall context of the design of the project, and he was comfortable with that. Councilmember Cohen stated he was willing to look at the issue of tighter regulations for office buildings. He did not believe he had sufficient information to make any decision on that this evening and inquired whether it should be returned to the Planning Commission or move forward with the ordinance and request the Planning Commission to consider revising that particular issue. Councilmember Cohen indicated he did not have sufficient evidence or information to cut the allocation by half; however, from some of the examples supplied, he believed it should be addressed. Councilmember Heller complimented staff on the ordinance, noting it was clear, easy to read and the graphics were an excellent addition. She believed it would assist a lot of constituents and business people. Councilmember Heller stated she had not made her mind up on the A frame signs and suggested this be brought back for further discussion. She agreed with Councilmember Cohen on his issues. Councilmember Phillips stated he was not in favor of the A frame signs, indicating he knew enough about them to draw a conclusion and did not need a trial period; although he was open to that thought and approach. He indicated he did not like the visualization that came to mind in considering these signs, believing them to be a hazard, obstructing walkways, not adding much, and inconsistent lettering; they cluttered up the downtown and did not add much, and he believed that to be that close to a business, one would be aware of what it had to offer. Indicating he was intrigued by the fact that apparently only Novato provided for A frame signs, Councilmember Phillips was unsure whether San Rafael wanted to be led by Novato when some of the other communities were not allowing them for probably good reasons; however, should there be other factors he had not considered, he would welcome those. Regarding blade signs, Councilmember Phillips stated he was not too excited about these either, believing them to be at an elevation where they would not provide very much useful information. With regard to signs on buildings being cut by half, Councilmember Phillips offered that the proposal was not to cut it by a half, rather increase it by one and a half times from what it currently is. While a number of signs on the exterior of buildings could be ego -satisfying for some companies, too many became a billboard and he did not favor seeing this on businesses downtown. Councilmember Phillips stated these were his comments regarding the elements. He concurred with Councilmember Heller's remarks that staff had done a great job and these were the exceptions. He noted the task was significant and he appreciated the effort. Mayor Boro stated his sense of the Council was that two Councilmembers would like to carry out a trial period and two were against this, with Councilmember Heller the swing vote on the A frame signs. Councilmember Heller indicated her support for a trial. Mayor Boro stated that a trial period would be structured; however, carried out with some standards and regulations. He indicated this did not prevent staff from evaluating the issue of blade signs or other types of identification. Mayor Boro believed there was some confusion among Councilmembers on the issue of commercial buildings, as he did not perceive it as cutting anything, rather maintaining it as is, based on the examples supplied with the half square -foot for the frontage. He suggested this be brought back to Council, running it through the Planning Commission at some point. To proceed, Community Development Director Bob Brown suggested the piece concerning office signage be taken back to the Planning Commission, subsequently returning the ordinance to the City Council, pulling out the banners and A frames for a resolution, since this would be a trial situation. He clarified that it was an increase in that the intent was to allow more office signage; however, staff believed they may have gone somewhat overboard. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 14 Regarding the political, non-commercial, temporary sign issue, Councilmember Cohen stated this needed more work also. While understanding it to be temporary, non-commercial signs, he stated the section indicates political on two occasions, election, two or three times, and non- commercial once. He stated the intent of that section clearly was political signs and anyone reading it would come to that conclusion. Councilmember Cohen stated that past practice should be looked at if this had not previously been regulated. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, that the item be continued with staff to bring back some specific information on the items Council discussed this evening. The issue concerning reducing the sign square -footage for office buildings to one half square - foot for each lineal footage of frontage to be referred back to the Planning Commission for their consideration at a public hearing. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The item was continued to a date uncertain. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: NEW BUSINESS: 14. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO COLLECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN MARIN SANITARY SERVICE AND CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR REFUSE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES (MS) — FILE 4-3-32 x 13-2 City Manager Rod Gould stated this resolution involved the assumption of refuse regulation in North San Rafael, indicating the reason it came about took some explanation. Going back to 1955, Mr. Gould stated the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District had regulated refuse services in what is now North San Rafael. In the 1980s North San Rafael was annexed to the City of San Rafael; however, Las Gallinas continued to regulate refuse in that area. He indicated that the City had control of refuse collection south of Puerto Suello Hill, and Las Gallinas north of Puerto Suello Hill. Mr. Gould stated that rates were slightly but not greatly different and both the City and Las Gallinas had long contracted with Marin Sanitary Service for refuse and recycling services, north and south of the hill. Mr. Gould reported that in 1997, the City Council imposed a franchise fee for refuse services. He explained that a franchise fee is payment by the franchisee or hauler for the exclusive access to the City's right-of-way. This is standard in California and was pegged at 10%, which is the most consistent and common franchise fee in California. He indicated that these fees generated approximately $800,000 annually, which at the time the City Council had been choosing to spend on additional street maintenance south of Puerto Suello Hill (Las Gallinas charges a very nominal franchise fee in its area). However, budget realities last year forced the Council to apply the franchise fees to supporting General Fund services, Police and Fire services, Park and Recreation and other basic municipal services. Mr. Gould stated this creates an inequity because in essence, people south of the hill are paying a franchise fee and those north of the hill are not; however, they receive the same levels of municipal services. Indicating that this could be dealt with in a number of ways, Mr. Gould stated staff envisioned four options: The City Council could reverse its decision of spending the franchise fees for municipal services. This would necessitate cutting a further $800,000 from the General Fund budget. He noted that $3.8 million had been cut from the General Fund in the last two years and based on the flat economy and further reductions by the State of California, Council would have to continue budget cutting in the next fiscal year. This would add to the cuts that would have to be made and begin to endanger core municipal services; • Council could ignore the inequity and allow Las Gallinas to continue to franchise refuse services north of the hill, with the City continuing its practice south of the hill. However, in essence, this would require that the 70% of residents and businesses south of the hill would subsidize municipal services for all of those north of the hill, which was patently unfair; • Level the field by lowering municipal services in North San Rafael. Allow Las Gallinas to continue to regulate rates there but lower Police, Fire and Park and Recreation services in North San Rafael to reflect the fact that people in the north had not been paying the franchise fee. In talking to community leaders about this option, they had no interest in a lower level of service than that found in the rest of the City of San Rafael; SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 15 • The option recommended by staff as part of this resolution is to equalize refuse rates and services north and south of the hill throughout the City of San Rafael, and continue to provide equal municipal services, Park and Recreation, Police and Fire and other municipal services to all of the residents and businesses in San Rafael. That would require a change and the change would be assumption of refuse regulation in North San Rafael. Mr. Gould explained that the City's Charter gives it the exclusive right to perform this function within the City's boundaries. He indicated this was the opinion of three attorneys who had evaluated this question. The City now proposed to assume this function in North San Rafael, which would equalize the rates and services throughout the City and would have no effect on the service provider, Marin Sanitary Service. Mr. Gould stated it would include the imposition of the 10% franchise fee, which is currently in effect in the remainder of San Rafael and normally this is passed on to ratepayers, which is to be expected. If it were to occur, those in North San Rafael would pay the same rates as all others in San Rafael, receive the same level of garbage service and the same municipal services as everyone else in San Rafael. Mr. Gould explained that at the current residential rates the average increase per month would be approximately $1.65 for those using the 32 -gallon can; $3.30 for a 64 -gallon can and $4.95 for a 96 -gallon can. These would be the likely rate increases for residential. On the commercial side, Mr. Gould stated that commercial rates had historically been higher in North San Rafael than the rest of San Rafael and staff would have to figure out some way to level these in the future if this were to occur. Also, should this occur, the residents in North San Rafael would receive an added benefit that accrues to people south of the hill, i.e., a coupon that allows the dumping of up to 2 cubic yards of refuse or yard waste at the Marin Resource Recovery Center once a year. Mr. Gould stated that to do this would mean changing the franchise agreement with Marin Sanitary Service to reflect the full boundaries of the City of San Rafael, and this is the purpose of this evening's meeting. He reported that Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District would hold its own hearing on Thursday, April 22, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the same question. To ensure that everyone in North San Rafael was aware of this proposed change, Mr. Gould reported that notices were sent to every property owner - some 10,000 notices - to private property owners in North San Rafael. Press releases were put out which generated several newspaper articles, additional information was put on the City's website to provide rate information and rationalization for this change, so that everyone was completely aware. Should it occur, the franchise fees in North San Rafael would amount to $350,000 of revenue that would backstop essential City services and equalize the quality and level of services north and south of the hill. Mr. Gould stated it is recognized that at no time are rate increases welcome; however, the difficulties faced by cities throughout California in these times, especially with the threat of a state facing fiscal meltdown, are such that it is necessary to consider this action. Mayor Boro invited comment from the audience Douglas Colbert, Terra Linda, stated he was one of the residents facing increases in the refuse and recycling rates. He stated that the increase, the subject of tonight's discussion, related to whether the residents really want to support it. Having handed out flyers during election campaigns for Mayor Boro and others, Mr. Colbert indicated that the most frequently raised question was "Is he going to raise my taxes." He noted that whether taxes or fees, constituents lump them all together. Indicating there were two main issues, Mr. Colbert stated one related to equality. In the flyer distributed he indicated that the City was indicating it had already increased the fees for the City of San Rafael, and this was not equal because the residents of Las Gallinas enjoyed lower fees. He stated the City was really saying that to make it equal, the fees of those in Las Gallinas would be raised and then everyone would be happy. Mr. Colbert stated the second issue related to what the fees are used for. He noted that refuse and recycling fees are used and approved for just that purpose, nothing else; however, the City was planning to use the fees raised in Las Gallinas for things other than refuse and recycling and he believed this was inequality in itself. John Gardner, Terra Linda, noted that City Manager Gould had presented a very interesting and appropriate summation of where the City stood financially; however, obtaining more money in this fashion did not make sense to him. He noted that Marin Sanitary Service now had a monopoly with no competition and would pass the fees on. Realizing the City needed the money, Mr. Gardner stated they probably would be willing to pay it; however, the way the City SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 15 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 16 was going about the issue bothered him. He believed this should be an operating expense for Marin Sanitary Service and he was opposed to the City's proposed action. Bob Lemon, Novato, stated the issue for him was that being in south Novato, his was the only community Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District and Marin Sanitary Service cover. Noting Mr. Gould's remarks regarding sending out 10,000 notices, he indicated that his community of 315 homes received no notice of this, rather he learned about the circumstance by word of mouth. Mr. Lemon explained that he resides in a mobile home community for adult residents. It is a senior park with low-income housing, many on fixed incomes and any type of increase would be an imposition. He questioned whether a raise in fees for people living in Novato to benefit San Rafael could be done, even with a contract with Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District. Mr. Lemon reported they had explored the possibility of changing their service over to the Novato Sanitary District; however, because of contracts and cost factors, this was not possible. City Manager Gould stated that the proposed transfer of regulatory authority to the City of San Rafael would not apply outside of the City's boundaries, so it would have absolutely no effect on Mr. Lemon or his neighbors in Novato. Mr. Gould explained that approximately 60% of the Las Gallinas Sanitary District boundaries are within the City of San Rafael and the 30% not within the City, in unincorporated areas or within Novato, would remain under Las Gallinas' jurisdiction and the City had no issue with that. Mr. Lemon inquired whether the increase would still be passed on as long as Marin Sanitary Service provided the service. Responding negatively, Mr. Gould explained that Las Gallinas would maintain its $6,000 annual franchise fee within its district; therefore, there would be no effect on Mr. Lemon. Mayor Boro confirmed for Mr. Lemon that the notices were sent only to those affected. Those residing outside the City of San Rafael, whether or not they were served by Las Gallinas, are not affected and therefore, a notice was not sent. Don Cummings indicated there was an elected Board in the Sanitary District since 1962 who had done a wonderful job keeping rates low and providing good sewer service, and he was not pleased to see the City of San Rafael hijacking their garbage service. Regarding the retroactive fee, he inquired as to the reason for this. Jerry Kirby, Terra Linda, stated that an option not alluded to was to match the rates in the south of San Rafael with those in North San Rafael. Mayor Boro stated he believed City Manager Gould indicated that one of the options was to eliminate the surcharge and provide less service. Similar to other speakers, Mr. Kirby believed they did not have a vote on the issue, other than attending this meeting and expressing their thoughts. Regarding the 10% franchise fee, Mr. Kirby questioned whether this was an arbitrary fee and therefore, without any input, next year could be 15% or 20%. While he pays his taxes and supports San Rafael, he did not favor this fee. Kathleen Andrianos, Terra Linda, noting that they pay a nominal fee, inquired what this was. Mr. Gould indicated that the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District charges a $6,000 annual franchise fee to Marin Sanitary Service. He confirmed for Ms. Andrianos that this amount does not go to the City. Ms. Andrianos indicated she appreciated the budget situation; however, with regard to fair services, she stated that a lot of times their school district did not receive equal service with the San Rafael School Districts. Edward Egisti stated he represented his mother, residing in Terra Linda, and his sister at Contempo Marin. Should this be a proposal to transfer part of the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District's franchise to the City to maintain equality with southern San Rafael, he questioned why the flyer indicated the City of San Rafael promised a lawsuit against Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District if they did not agree with the proposal. Noting previous speakers indicated they would not mind paying the additional cost, Mr. Egisti stated he did not believe the threat of a lawsuit was the correct way to deal with the issue. Mr. Egisti inquired as to how the rate increase addressed the issues of those on a fixed income or in low-income housing. He concurred with the speaker in connection with the retroactive payment, indicating that should the rate increase be effective from July 1, 2004, that is where it SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 16 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 17 should start On the issue of threatening a lawsuit, Mr. Gould confirmed that the City makes no mention of a lawsuit and assumed Mr. Egisti was referring to something from the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District. He indicated he had not seen that notice and therefore, could not speak for what Las Gallinas had to say about the matter. He suggested this would be a good question to put to the representatives of Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District. Mr. Gould reported having had numerous discussions with them over the years on this issue and believed the law was clear on the matter. Regarding those on fixed incomes and in low-income housing, Mr. Gould stated there were senior discounts allowed, both under San Rafael's and Las Gallinas' franchises. With regard to the retroactive rate increase, Mr. Gould explained that normally, Marin Sanitary Service requests a rate increase once a year, generally in January, and all of the cities and towns that contract with Marin Sanitary bind together to have a consultant review that request and make those adjustments, generally in January or February. He indicated that this year it had been postponed, partly due to the company and partly due to issues in the cities and towns. This was putting customers on notice that soon the rate increase that normally would have come up in January would have to be considered, and when it did go into effect it would have to be retroactive to January to keep the company whole. Mr. Gould stated this was separate from the issue of who controls garbage rates in North San Rafael and would happen regardless of whether or not the transfer of regulatory authority occurred. David Kurland stated he moved to San Rafael in July, 2004, having spent 25 years in Mill Valley. Objecting to the way this issue was being handled, he stated that having spent 25 plus years in Rotary, he learned the first question to ask is "Is it fair?" and he did not believe this to be quite fair. Mr. Kurland stated he was proud to live in the Mission City because it is the city in Marin County that is bringing people into the American system, which costs a great deal of money. He indicated that on an economic basis, sections of the City are losing money for the City on a balanced basis; however, the purpose of government is not to make money. Mr. Kurland stated that the people of Terra Linda were annexed and the City makes a great deal of money as a result of annexing Northgate, Kaiser and a lot of commercial area. Noting the lack of police and fire presence, he stated this denoted no crime and a healthy population, which indicated the City was not losing money on Terra Linda. He indicated that those who voted last week placed a tax of $145 on their homes, and most did not have children attending the Dixie school. Being responsible citizens, Mr. Kurland stated the City was picking on the wrong group at the wrong time with the wrong issue. Mark Piattti, Terra Linda, concurred with the previous speaker in that the City was going about this the wrong way. Regarding last week's vote, indicating he voted against the initiative on the first occasion, he stated he had the right to choose and chose to put his money with the school. He stated the current issue appeared to be a temporary situation due to the economy and the City was making a permanent decision for North San Rafael and it did not appear right. Mr. Piatti stated he agreed North San Rafael did not have the problems that existed south of the hill; therefore, this was not an equitable use of funds. Noting the inference of a potential lawsuit, Mr. Piatti believed that should there be opposition from Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, a lawsuit would ensue, which led him to believe that if there is money available for a lawsuit, it did not make sense, and he opposed the increase. Lydia Uribe, Terra Linda, stated she wanted to afford Mr. Gould the opportunity to respond to what appeared to be an oversight or omission. She indicated he alluded to four options, and glossed over a fifth which related to equalizing the business payments, stating that in North San Rafael and Terra Linda, businesses pay more than in the southern portion of the City. It appeared, therefore, like a very incomplete analysis or something was pending regarding what to do about the business portion and she believed this should be addressed prior to a decision being made. Ms. Uribe expressed agreement with many of the previous speakers in that there was a presumption of equal service and somehow Terra Linda is receiving more than they pay for, and she disagreed with this. She also agreed that this appeared like a stealth tax; it had been gone about in the wrong way and was rewarding inefficiency. Ms. Uribe stated that Las Gallinas had been able to provide this service at good rates and raising the rates to make everyone else's more palatable did not make sense to her. As Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District also provides their sewer service, Ms. Uribe requested clarification on this service. Joseph ...... stated he had lived in the Terra Linda area for ten years and liked it very much. As SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 17 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 18 with previous speakers, he disagreed on how the City is going about this process and produced the notice relating to an impending lawsuit. He noted that there would be a 10% raise the first year and did not mention succeeding years; therefore, the City was being given carte blanche to raise rates continuously. He noted from his summation that Mr. Gould stated the notice indicated there would be a meeting; however, no one invited the public. In the others, the public was invited to stand up for what they believed in but the City did not. Mayor Boro requested clarification. Joseph stated staff indicated there would be a meeting of the "Chamber and your Committee", whereas in the other one, they stated "come down and see what they are doing to you. If you don't say a thing, then everything will be passed and slip by you right away." He stated it appeared as though it was set up so it would just pass and the public would not be given a voice. He indicated they attended this evening because of the other notice, not the City's. Craig Murray, Terra Linda, stated that as expressed previously, in general in San Rafael, public meetings, in particular, are held after the hour of 10:00 p.m. and he inquired whether there was a reason for this. He indicated he would like to see sign -in cards so that the person running the meeting would be aware of how many wished to speak. As Marin's population becomes more elderly, Mr. Murray believed the City needed to be more courteous to members of the audience. In terms of getting people to participate in meetings, Mr. Murray inquired as to why the City was not on cable television. On the question of noticing, Mr. Murray indicated he received a letter from the City of San Rafael addressed to resident on Friday. He received a letter from Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District on Saturday, read the article on Sunday and was present today, Monday. He indicated that having checked the website, the information appeared similar to the staff report and Mr. Gould had presented this very clearly. Mr. Murray complimented the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, who made good business decisions, indicating he would echo this on Thursday. Mr. Murray expressed a willingness to work with the City Council on budget issues; however, believed the present methodology was inappropriate in treating them fairly in terms of addressing these issues. He reiterated that the encroachment permit on the public right-of-way was a means of raising revenue and noted the documentary transfer tax for Oakland and Berkeley was $15 per thousand while San Rafael's was $3. Kathleen Andrianos indicated she had been involved with the school bond oversight for the high school districts and with the ORCAs in working with the City regarding the pool, and could see a lot of attention being paid to San Rafael and not much to North San Rafael. She inquired whether the increase each year would be equal in both areas, as she believed there had been a lot more assistance in the south. She indicated she hardly ever sees a police car and should she hear a fire engine, it is usually going to the freeway. Mayor Boro stated that the crime rate was pretty standard throughout the entire City. There was excellent response service for fire in North San Rafael, not only with the fire station in Terra Linda proper, but also the one by the Civic Center. He indicated the City works under contract with some of the County jurisdictions also and provides excellent service and response, and the fact that no sirens were heard was good; however, should there be a fire they would be there. Mayor Boro stated that police patrols were out there and the same level of police service existed in North San Rafael and throughout the rest of the City on a twenty-four hour basis. Regarding the issue of whether the fees would be similar north and south, Mayor Boro stated there was no doubt in his mind that garbage service would be regulated in the same way, whether north or south, and there would be a common rate for the entire City. He indicated he was not aware of any idea to do anything differently. On the question of whether this would affect sewer rates in North San Rafael, City Manager Gould stated there was no connection between contracting for refuse service and the sanitary sewer rates charged by Las Gallinas. These were totally separate issues and would be dealt with separately. He indicated there was an allegation that somehow Las Gallinas was more efficient than the City of San Rafael and he stated it should be borne in mind that Las Gallinas had no responsibility for providing any municipal services in San Rafael, i.e., no police, fire, library, recreation or street maintenance; therefore, because Las Gallinas did not collect a franchise fee or remit it to San Rafael to provide municipal services meant there was no comparison. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 18 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 19 Regarding what the City had done to avoid taking this action, Mr. Gould explained that as mentioned in his introduction, the franchise fee was introduced in 1997 south of Puerto Suello Hill, and Council had not taken the action it could have all along to force this issue until now. Instead, cuts had been made in services, i.e., $4 in cuts for every $1 in revenue raised to attempt to maintain the City's budget balanced, and he believed this showed great determination on the part of the City Council to reduce the revenue burden on residents, while maintaining quality services. Mr. Gould stated there had been some implication that those north of the hill did not receive the same level or quality of services as south of the hill; however, as indicated by Mayor Boro, to look at the runs for the Police and Fire Departments, there was plenty of activity north of the hill. Mr. Gould indicated that the great majority of capital spending in the last six years had occurred north of the hill: • Renovation of Freitas Park and Santa Margarita Park; • $1.2 million pool in North San Rafael; • Commitment to undergrounding of utilities; • Santa Margarita Creek beautification, approved at the last City Council meeting; • New Redwood Park to be built as part of Redwood Village all of which entailed spending north of the hill, and considerably more than the rest south of the hill; therefore, Mr. Gould believed it incorrect and unfair to suggest otherwise. Regarding the implication that somehow there is no unfairness, Mr. Gould stated there was. Explaining, he indicated that should 70% of the population pay a franchise fee that helps support municipal services and 30% do not and receive a similar level of services, there was an unfairness. That was what the City was attempting to address and was the policy question before the City Council this evening. Mayor Boro invited Mr. Gould to comment on the school issues and redevelopment, and how this allows for different things to happen south rather than north of the hill. Regarding the implication that San Rafael assists the San Rafael School Districts but not the Dixie School District with after-school programs, Mr. Gould stated that the Dixie School District relies solely on the City of San Rafael to provide all of its after-school and childcare programs and is highly satisfied with the result. He indicated that no maintenance of school facilities is provided for the San Rafael School Districts. The City used to under contract; however, the school district decided to take it back. He indicated that services are provided to the Dixie schools within the City of San Rafael limits similar to the San Rafael schools. Mayor Boro stated that Mr. Gould discussed the fact that this franchise fee was implemented in 1997 and at that time, or soon thereafter, Councilmember Phillips and he (Mayor Boro) met with the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District in an open meeting and indicated the City was imposing this fee throughout the southern part of the City, with the money to be used exclusively (and it was) for street resurfacing. Mayor Boro stated they indicated that it would make sense to do the same in the north to provide the same level of service; however, the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District basically indicated they were not interested. The fee was implemented south of the hill and to date, more street resurfacing has been provided there from those fees collected. As indicated by Mr. Gould, Mayor Boro stated the situation had changed since then and the money is now directed towards General Services, from which both areas are benefiting. Mayor Boro reported that most recently Councilmembers Miller and Phillips met with the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District and addressed this issue. The issue had been discussed and was not something that had come up overnight, rather it was something the City had been working on for quite a while and at some point needed to move forward with it. Councilmember Phillips stated he has lived in Terra Linda since 1972, and to him the issue was one of equality. He questioned whether it was fair for those in Terra Linda not to pay an equal share for police, fire, library and other services received from the City of San Rafael. He believed significant services were being received, noting the Entranceway and fire station, along with the other items previously mentioned. Councilmember Phillips stated that they in North San Rafael had rightly demanded significant improvements to the area, which had been received. His question, therefore, was whether they wanted to be shortchanged with regard to future improvements. Instancing the Santa Margarita Ditch, which was substantially supported, he inquired whether next time the answer would be "No" or would it be preferable to indicate that the community had come together to support that particular partnership. He believed the community would respond affirmatively. Regarding the water park (Freitas Park), Councilmember Phillips stated he was proud of this park and was something all could be proud of. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 19 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 20 Noting the State was in dire need, which had trickled down, Councilmember Phillips indicated that a number of workshops had been held with the City Council, and he reported having complimented City Manager Gould and Assistant City Manager Nordhoff on a number of occasions for assisting in guiding the City Council through this difficult time. He indicated that the public might not have been aware of many of the items cut; however, they were significant. $3.8 million having been mentioned by City Manager Gould, Councilmember Phillips stated this translated to police, fewer library hours, less street resurfacing and a number of other improvements, and he believed further cuts were not desirable. He indicated that he had voted on a number of occasions for the bond issue with regard to Dixie School District because San Rafael in general was proud of its communities. Councilmember Phillips stated this was one mechanism brought by staff, subject to Council's prodding and their own initiative, to make things as good as possible under the current financial constraints. He applauded them for the recommendation because it did help balance many of the things the community wanted and enjoyed in the past and he believed real value had been received. Councilmember Phillips stated that budget issues had been wrestled with for a long time, and was just one piece. He noted ten or eleven people attended this evening's meeting out of 10,000, and indicated he did not expect anyone to attend to express thanks for imposing an additional fee. He believed the community would receive value for the money to be assessed and was glad to pay the $3 per month, as he was glad to pay for the Dixie bond measure. Councilmember Phillips stated he would be very much in favor of the recommendation. Councilmember Heller stated she had been disturbed each time she heard a speaker address the inequality of services between North and South San Rafael. Noting that North San Rafael had the only swimming pool in the entire City, recently rebuilt for $1.2 million, Councilmember Heller stated things such as this attempted to maintain equality. To compile a list of improvements in North San Rafael and compare this with South San Rafael, she believed the balance would be in the North's favor. As an elected City Councilmember for the entire City, Councilmember Heller stated the policy question was whether a City should have control of its municipal services, and the answer was "Yes." She stated this probably should have been shifted in the 1970s when Terra Linda was annexed; however, this was the policy question she was answering for herself. She believed the south had been paying an unequal fee for services and it was correct to make north and south equal. Councilmember Cohen stated the City Council understood no one wished to pay any more in taxes. They, themselves, did not want to pay any more; however, the Council had been charged by the voters of the City of San Rafael with providing excellent municipal services and they had to do that in the circumstances in which they found themselves. As pointed out by City Manager Gould, Councilmember Cohen reiterated that $3.8 million had been cut from the City's budget over the last eighteen months. $4 had been cut for each $1 of fees or taxes increased, and sadly, the Council Chambers had not been very full during deliberations on services provided, the cost, how these could be provided more efficiently and what decisions should be made about when to close the library, or what police or fire positions to be left unfilled. Recalling a comment that this was a temporary situation and a permanent solution should not be made by seeking to regulate garbage service in North San Rafael, similar to the remainder of the City, Councilmember Cohen stated this was not a temporary situation, nor a consequence of the economic slow down in the State of California. Rather, it was a direct consequence of the state taking money from local government, and was not going to cease. Indicating that the Governor of California succeeded in getting his bond measure passed, Councilmember Cohen stated this merely paid the debt and there was at least a $7 billion budget deficit in the forthcoming budget. He stated it was not yet known what the effects would be on local government; however, he guaranteed they would "reach into our pocket again," and despite what was being proposed tonight, further cuts would be made in the City's budget. This would result in reduced services to everyone in the City of San Rafael and this was the circumstance under which the City Council had to operate the City. Councilmember Cohen stated they volunteered for the job and understood this and he requested understanding from the community. As alluded to by Councilmember Heller, Councilmember Cohen commented that this issue had been raised periodically over the years by the City approaching Las Gallinas explaining that under the Charter this was the responsibility of City of San Rafael . It was explained that almost two-thirds of the City was regulated this way, the entire community should be regulated similarly and an offer was made to work with them to resolve the issue. Councilmember Cohen stated that those conversations over the years had been repeatedly initiated by San Rafael and rejected by Las Gallinas. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 20 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 21 Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated the fact that more progress had been made working with the current Board of the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District in discussing this and reaching mutual agreement. The fact remained that some believed the point had been reached when should asking not succeed, the City needed to assert its legal right and responsibility to all citizens of San Rafael to administer this in a fair and equitable manner. While this was a request, Councilmember Cohen indicated the City was also stating that after this they would not return in a couple of years and repeat the request, rather other methods would need to be explored. Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated the cooperation being received in terms of the City's and Las Gallinas' noticing; however, believed it would have been appropriate for the City to have been afforded a copy of the Las Gallinas notice. Touching on the notion that this was somehow stealth or underhanded, Councilmember Cohen stated that while there could be disagreement with the methodology that there are certain fees the City still has the authority to impose by a vote, the community had the authority to impose by a vote a different Council at the next election. He stated there was nothing stealth about this, or about 10,000 notices mailed to residents of the City of San Rafael, press releases and two newspaper articles about this meeting, before it happened, not after, as often is the case. Councilmember Cohen stated the City ensured that not only were the notices sent out, but also there was coverage, and he appreciated the fact that the local news outlets ensured that happened so that people were aware even if they did not open the letter. He believed the City had done everything to ensure people were aware of the vote on the issue and had an opportunity to speak before the City Council. As an aside, regarding Cable Television, Councilmember Cohen commented that it was a one- way medium that goes out to people; however, does not let them speak — attendance is needed for this purpose. He suggested reading the recent Grand Jury report concerning the City of Novato and their thoughts about the impacts of Cable T.V. on the progress of the City Council meetings, as they clearly do not believe it adds to the democratic process. Councilmember Cohen stated the City was faced with some very tough choices. It was understood that no one wanted to do this; however, having evaluated all the choices, he believed that given the circumstances, this was the least onerous. Councilmember Miller stated he viewed this as a matter of governance. He explained that this proposal was on the list at each meeting when budget discussions were initiated at least a year and a half ago. On examination, he stated it was found that the governance of the City of San Rafael was different in the North San Rafael area, and the City assumed its obligation of governance of the entire City. Councilmember Miller stated that franchise fees go into the General Fund and when the General Fund is so depleted that it can only be used for police, fire, libraries and park services, it is evident there is an inequity. He indicated that 70% of the City was paying more than the other 30% and stated the fees in North San Rafael would have to be increased accordingly. Noting the state continues to take money away from the City, County and Special Districts, Councilmember Miller stated this would continue unless the initiative to protect local funds passed. Councilmember Miller stated that putting together this whole package was a matter of governance and equity for the good of the entire City. Mayor Boro clarified that there was no impact whatsoever on the sewer service for North San Rafael. This was run by the Sanitary District and would continue to be run by them. Rates would be set by them and the community would be informed of those rate increases, if any, by that organization. Mayor Boro stated the City would in no way adjust, touch or deal with the collection for sanitary services in North San Rafael. Noting Councilmember Cohen indicated that some good discussions had taken place with the current Board, Mayor Boro stated he was somewhat disappointed. He explained that attempts had been made to send out a joint letter between the City and the District to announce both meetings. The City believed there was agreement but in realizing that apparently it was not forthcoming, sent its own letter out. Mayor Boro reported that a copy of the letter was forwarded to the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District prior to distribution to ensure they were satisfied with the contents, and he was disappointed that Las Gallinas sent a letter out, apparently containing some inflammatory information, which the City had not seen. Going back to 1997, Mayor Boro stated the City had tried to commence and continue this discussion and now needed to move on. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 21 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 22 Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11532 — RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO COLLECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN MARIN SANITARY SERVICE AND THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL FOR REFUSE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES (including North of Puerto Suello Hill) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 15. a) Ballot Initiative: - File 9-4 x 9-11-1 Councilmember Heller reported that the North Bay Division (League of California Cities) held their quarterly dinner on Thursday last (April 15) in Novato. She stated that in his address, Assemblymember Joe Nation had some very interesting remarks concerning happenings in Sacramento. On being questioned as to whether he would support the initiative the cities are placing on the ballot, he indicated he had not made up his mind even though many of his fellow assemblymembers had agreed to support it. b) Pickleweed Community Center: - File 9-3-65 x 137 Mayor Boro announced that tomorrow evening, Tuesday, he would host a get- together of individuals whom he believed could help concerning the final phase of funding for the Pickleweed Community Center. An excellent video had been put together, which would be available for viewing at the next City Council meeting. Mayor Boro reported that Board of Library Trustees member for 30 years, Beth Grasham, passed away on April 18, 2004. He indicated that Beth had been a very loyal supportive member of the Library Board. Her husband John had also been supportive, particularly in the area of finances over the years. He announced that a memorial service would be held on Saturday, April 24, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. at the Aldersgate United Methodist Church, 1 Wellbrock Heights, Terra Linda. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council Meeting in memory of Beth Grasham to Closed Session at 11:00 p.m. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12004 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/19/2004 Page 22