HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2004-06-07
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2004 AT 8:00 P.M.
Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
San Rafael City Council Cyr N. Miller, Vice-Mayor
Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBER – 7:30 PM:
None
CLOSED SESSION – CONFERENCE ROOM 201 – 7:30 PM:
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:03 PM
None
PRESENTATION OF SAN RAFAEL QUILT DEPICTING CITY BUILDINGS BY SUN VALLEY
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (MRS. COLEMAN’S 2/3 MULTI-AGE CLASS) - FILE 104 x 9-1
Mayor Boro reported that some weeks ago he had the opportunity of visiting Mrs. Coleman’s class to view a
class project where each student made a model of different buildings in the City.
Mrs. Coleman explained that the class studied San Rafael with each child choosing a site and researching
its history, location, etc., subsequently drawing a picture and with computer assistance from some parents,
they eventually produced a quilt.
Mrs. Coleman’s 2/3 multi-age class from Sun Valley Elementary School in San Rafael presented their class
quilt depicting San Rafael sites to Mayor Boro and the City of San Rafael, together with a picture of Mayor
Boro with the class on the occasion of his recent visit to their classroom and Mrs. Coleman noted the
students also generated a PowerPoint computer project on the location, history, description, together with
interesting facts about the sites depicted in the quilt, which in conjunction with the School District, is being
coordinated with the City’s website.
Mayor Boro stated the quilt would hang in the hallway at City Hall.
Mayor Boro, Vice-Mayor Miller and Councilmembers Cohen and Phillips congratulated Mrs. Coleman and
her class on this magnificent project and presented City of San Rafael pinsto the students. (Councilmember
Heller was absent from the meeting)
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar, as
follows:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Public Minutes approved as submitted.
Hearing of Monday, May 17, 2004 (CC)
2. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to RESOLUTION NO. 11559 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Execute a Professional Services Agreement with
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
Paul Jensen for Assistance Needed to:
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL
1) Update the Planning Division’s Procedures
SERVICES WITH PAUL JENSEN FOR
Manual; and 2) Complete Monitoring, Building
ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO PREPARE
Permit Review and Inspection Tasks Associated
AN UPDATE TO THE PLANNING
with Development of Redwood Village and 127
DIVISION’S PROCEDURAL MANUAL
Merrydale Road Townhomes (CD) -
AND COMPLETE MONITORING,
File 4-3-370 x 9-3-85 x 10-2
BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW AND
INSPECTION TASKS ASSOCIATED
WITH DEVELOPMENT OF REDWOOD
VILLAGE AND THE 127 MERRYDALE
ROAD TOWNHOMES PROJECT
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page
1
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page 2
(Term of Agreement: from June 8,
2004, and ending on June 7, 2006 for
an amount not to exceed $25,000)
(May be extended for an additional
period of 12 months, with approval
of the City Manager)
3. Resolution Authorizing Amendment and RESOLUTION NO. 11560 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
Extension to Agreement with General Plan 2020
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
Environmental Consultant Donald Ballanti for
DONALD BALLANTI RE: SAN
Services Ending January 31, 2005 (CD) –
RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 (P00-
File 4-3-419 x 4-17-96 x 115 (2020)
07) (Commencing on January 16,
2001 and ending on January 31, 2005,
in an amount not to exceed $6,380)
4. Resolution Authorizing Amendment and RESOLUTION NO. 11561 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
Extension to Agreement with General Plan 2020
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
Environmental Consultant Nichols Berman
NICHOLS BERMAN
Environmental Planners for Additional Services
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS RE:
Ending January 31, 2005 (CD) –
SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
File 4-3-382 x 115 (2020)
(P00-07) (Commencing on December
4, 2000 and ending on January 31,
2005, in an amount not to exceed
$97,910)
5. Resolution Authorizing Amendment and RESOLUTION NO. 11562 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
Extension to Agreement with General Plan 2020
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
Environmental Consultant Clearwater Hydrology
CLEARWATER HYDROLOGY RE:
for Services Ending January 31, 2005 (CD) –
SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
File 4-3-420 x 4-17-97 x 115 (2020)
(P00-07) (Commencing on January
16, 2001 and ending on January 31,
2005, in an amount not to exceed
$21,850
6. Resolution Authorizing Amendment and RESOLUTION NO. 11563 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
Extension to Agreement with General Plan 2020
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
Environmental Consultant Live Oak Associates,
LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC. RE:
Inc. for Additional Services Ending January 31,
SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020
2005 (CD) – File 4-3-383 x 115 (2020)
(P00-07) (Commencing on January
16, 2001 and ending on January 31,
2005, in an amount not to exceed
$34,578)
7. Resolution Authorizing Amendment and RESOLUTION NO. 11564 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
Extension to Agreement with General Plan 2020
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
Environmental Consultant Miller Pacific
MILLER PACIFIC ENGINEERING
Engineering Group for Services Ending January
GROUP RE: SAN RAFAEL GENERAL
31, 2005 (CD) – File 4-3-385 x 115 (2020)
PLAN 2020 (P00-07) (Commencing on
January 16, 2001 and ending on
January 31, 2005, in an amount not to
exceed $30,500)
8. Resolution Authorizing Amendment and RESOLUTION NO. 11565 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
Extension to Agreement with General Plan 2020
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
Environmental Consultant Rosen Goldberg & Der
ROSEN GOLDBERG & DER RE: SAN
for Services Ending January 31, 2005 (CD) –
RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 (P00-
File 4-3-421 x 115 (2020)
07) (Commencing on May 19, 2003
and ending on January 31, 2005, in
an amount not to exceed $9,520)
9. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael Approved staff recommendation:
AB 2406 Fire Safety – Assembly
(CM)- File 116 x 9-1
Member Bermudez – OPPOSE
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page
2
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page 3
10. Request from Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Approved Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee
Committee to Extend Youth Member Terms from
recommendation extending the youth
One Year to Two Years (CM) – File 9-2-55
member terms from one year to two
years.
11. Resolution Authorizing Purchase and Installation RESOLUTION NO. 11566–
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN
of a Relocatable Classroom for the Childcare
EXPENDITURE FOR THE
Program at Coleman Elementary School (CS) –
4-10-188aINSTALLATION AND PURCHASE OF
File
A RELOCATABLE CLASSROOM FOR
COLEMAN CHILDREN’S CENTER
12. Resolution Naming Los Ranchitos Park (CS) – RESOLUTION NO. 11567–
RESOLUTION NAMING LOS
File 12-5 x 9-3-66
RANCHITOS PARK
13. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending Accepted Monthly Investment Report
for month ending April, 2004, as
April 2004 (MS) – File 8-18 x 8-9
presented.
14. Approval of Plaza Permit for National Amateur Approved staff recommendation:
Approved Plaza Permit for National
Ham Radio Kids’ Day Event on June 19, 2004
Amateur Ham Radio Kids’ Day Event
and Authorization for Staff to Issue Future
on June 19, 2004, and authorized
Permits Administratively (RA) –
staff to issue future permits
File 256 x 140 x 9-1-2
administratively.
15. Resolution Authorizing Closure of Downtown City RESOLUTION NO. 11568 –
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
Streets in Connection with the San Rafael
TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CITY
Cycling Classic – Saturday, September 11, 2004
STREETS FOR THE SAN RAFAEL
from 7:30/8:00 a.m. to 3:30/5:00 p.m.: (RA) –
CYCLING CLASSIC ON SATURDAY,
File 11-19
SEPTEMBER 11, 2004, FROM 7:00
A.M. TO 4:00 P.M.
1. Fourth Street from Lootens to “A” St.
(Expo Area)
(7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)
2. “A” Street from the Parking Entrance to
Fourth Street
(7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
3. Fourth Street from “A” to “E” Street (8:00
a.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
4. Fifth Avenue from Court to “E” St. (8:00
a.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
th
5. “A” Street from Fourth Street to 5
Avenue
(8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
rd
6. “B” Street from 3 to Mission Ave. (8:00
a.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
rd
7. “C” Street from 3 to Mission Ave. (8:00
a.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
rd
8. “D” Street from 3 to Fifth Avenue (8:00
a.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page
3
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING:
16. Public Hearing – SIGN ORDINANCE UPDATE; CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL TO
UPDATE AND REVISE TITLE 14 (ZONING), CHAPTER 19 (SIGNS) AND ACCOMPANYING
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 14, CHAPTERS 3 (DEFINITIONS) AND 25 (ENVIRONMENTAL
AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS) OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE. THE
CURRENT SIGN ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED IN 1992 AND A COMPREHENSIVE
UPDATE IS OVERDUE. MAJOR CHANGES IN THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE PROPOSED
INCLUDE THE SIMPLIFICATION OF ORDINANCE FORMAT AND CONTENT, REGULATION
OF SIGNAGE BY ZONING DISTRICT AND THE INTRODUCTION OF GRAPHICS. THE CITY
COUNCIL WILL ALSO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS FOR A PILOT PROGRAM OF UP TO ONE YEAR
THAT WOULD PERMIT TEMPORARY BANNERS CITYWIDE, AND A-FRAME SIGNS IN
THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS; CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, APPLICANT; FILE NO.: ZO03-005
(CD) – FILE 125 x 9-3-85 x 10-3 x 10-7
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated this item was back before Council to deal
with a few issues returned to staff. Before inviting Contract Planner Paul Jensen to make the
presentation, Mr. Brown acknowledged Mr. Jensen’s work on the ordinance. Indicating that Mr.
Jensen always does outstanding work for the City, he stated that this time in particular, he was
very effective in working with the Chamber of Commerce, Business Improvement District,
Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, planners, code enforcement officers and the City’s
legal staff in putting all this together and finding a way to satisfy everyone’s interest.
Acknowledging Paul Jensen, Mr. Brown expressed the hope that his efforts would carry through
for the next thirty years.
Mr. Jensen reported that on April 19, 2004, the City Council held a public hearing on the Sign
Ordinance update and staff was directed to conduct follow-up on two issues: 1) regarding the
Office Land Use sign regulations; and 2) to consider generating a pilot program for allowances
regarding A-frame signs in the downtown district and implementation of temporary banners
citywide.
Regarding the Office regulations, Mr. Jensen reported that at the hearing, staff noted that
subsequent to reviewing the Office regulations, they had concerns regarding them being too
permissive. They were grouped with the other non-residential districts and staff proposed a
one-square footage sign allowance per linear foot of office frontage on a street.
Mr. Jensen stated Council directed staff to re-study and return to the Planning Commission with
this specific matter. Having completed a test of approximately six office buildings in a number
of zoning districts in the City, since the proposed ordinance is zoning based, he reported it was
found that the current sign limit of 36 square-feet worked fine and was appropriate for the
Residential/Office districts. These are the zoning districts that border or abut residential
districts, generally concentrated in the Fifth Avenue area, portions of Lincoln Avenue and also
Irwin Street. Mr. Jensen stated it was also found that the 1:1 sign area allowance for general
office use in all the other non-residential districts was too permissive and a 50% reduction was
recommended, i.e., one-half square-foot allowance per linear foot of frontage, and a reduced
number of signs for office uses in these districts. Having been reviewed by the Planning
Commission, they supported this recommendation on May 11, 2004.
Regarding the other major issue - the Pilot Program, Mr. Jensen explained this was a program
proposed for A-frame sign allowance in the downtown districts, and the temporary banners
citywide. Per Council direction, he reported that staff had lifted the provisions for these signs
from the Sign Ordinance and a resolution was before Council proposing a Pilot Program that
would allow this program for up to one year. However, the resolution as drafted would allow the
City to bring this before Council at any time within that year should there be requests for
amendments, termination or extension. Mr. Jensen stated there also was a proposed six-
month monitoring and reporting program.
Reporting no changes to the banner provisions in the draft ordinance, Mr. Jensen stated there
were substantial changes to the A-frame sign regulations for downtown. At the City Council
meeting in April, he stated concern was expressed about the sign types and their location, and
staff’s proposal was a specific set of criteria:
Should the signs be permitted they must be A-frame design only;
Specific size and material requirements;
The sign face has to be permanent and not a changeable copy or a chalkboard.
The regulations are limited to require that the sign be placed up against the store front
and not in the middle of the sidewalk or near the curb; and
Since the signs are temporary, they are recommended as such and the sign permits
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page
4
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page 5
issued would only be valid through the duration of the pilot program. Should Council
decide not to extend the program, they would become null and void; however, staff
recommends they be counted against the allowable permanent sign area for a store-
front use.
Mr. Jensen reported they worked with the Downtown Business Improvement District and the
Redevelopment Agency staff on this criteria and some photographs of the preferred sign types
were included in the staff report, together with those which would not meet the criteria, including
a number of rolling signs, I-frame type signs and plastic signs.
Complimenting Mr. Jensen, Councilmember Miller stated the permit criteria were outstanding.
Noting the area of enforcement had not been worked on, he stated that as an exercise in
community-based governance he would like to see citizens not only be in a position to plan,
advise and decide, rather also share in the implementation. He noted the BID (Business
Improvement District) takes a very active role in terms of enforcement by monitoring street
signs, and on observing signs that are not permitted, apprising owners of this fact. Should the
situation continue, the BID could inform Code Enforcement of the non-compliance, as a result
of which he indicated it would be preferable if action were taken within twenty-four hours.
Mayor Boro characterized Councilmember Miller’s suggestions as a concept of self-policing on
the part of the BID.
Regarding the attachment with respect to portable A-frame signs, Councilmember Cohen stated
his understanding of the language was that not only do these provisions specify the nature of
the signs, but also their placement.
Noting Attachment D contained a series of 4 photographs of examples of A-frame signs that
would comply with the recommended sign criteria and further examples that would not comply,
Councilmember Cohen observed that although the examples comply with respect to their
manufacture or assembly, none comply with placement, as all are either in the middle of the
sidewalk or out by the curb and the requirement is that they be placed next to the building.
Should the ordinance pass and staff wished to provide examples to applicants, he suggested
having photographic examples available of a proper sign in a proper location.
Councilmember Phillips inquired how the A-frame sign section of the ordinance would be
communicated to businesses in the downtown district.
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated it was staff’s intention that the City prepare
a one-sheet handout indicating not only the new criteria, rather also the permit process and
timeframe for the test period. Subsequently, working with the BID, he reported that the BID
Director indicated she would be willing to go business by business with this information,
explaining the importance of compliance during the trial period. Mr. Brown stated the BID
would make the initial contact; the City would give owners of existing A-frame signs probably
two months to obtain permits, and in some cases, business owners that now have A-frames or
other types of illegal signs, would have that time period to replace them and get them permitted.
He stated it was staff’s goal to have everything legal on the sidewalks by September 1, 2004.
Roger Roberts, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, stated they did not address the issue
of A-frames earlier as they had not had the opportunity of discussing it internally. He
understood City Manager Rod Gould had some informal meetings with representatives of the
Federation in his office on this issue.
With respect to A-frame signs, Mr. Roberts stated the Federation was concerned that it would
create clutter in the downtown area. They were also concerned that it could cheapen the
appearance of the downtown and the possibility that this was the thin edge of the wedge for A-
frame signs throughout the City business districts. Mr. Roberts indicated their belief that
enforcement by City staff was a major issue. Self-policing, as proposed this evening, was a
step in the right direction; however, Mr. Roberts stated it was their understanding that the
Community Development Department was stretched for enforcement presently and had very
little leeway to maintain enforcement of the ordinance. Should the City decide to have beat
officers participate, their staff time would also be diverted, and Mr. Roberts expressed concern
as to whether this would be a good use of staff time in the present economic circumstances.
To his knowledge, Mr. Roberts stated there had been no discussion as to whether these signs,
whether placed against a building or not, would be ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
compliant for the purposes of pedestrian access for those with disabilities. He was unaware
whether this had been addressed in any internal discussions with staff on the ordinance;
however, he believed it warranted a reminder.
Mr. Roberts questioned whether a one-year trial period was necessary, noting six months was
discussed previously, and he believed six months was sufficient, extending it for a further six
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page
5
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page 6
months in the absence of complaints, at which time a decision could be made as to its
permanency. Mr. Roberts expressed the hope that at this late date these suggestions and
concerns would be taken into consideration.
Joanne Webster, stated that as Director of the Business Improvement District, she proposed on
her volunteer time to assist in the notification. She explained she would send a letter to the
general membership of the BID informing them of the pilot program and providing them with the
new regulations. She would conduct a personal visit to each business currently with an illegal
A-frame sign, informing them of the situation and explaining how they could meet the criteria,
i.e., filling out the permit, placement and size of the sign, etc. Ms. Webster indicated she also
would be available to explain the criteria and assist in getting approval.
Ms. Webster stated she also volunteered to be involved in the implementation process.
Explaining, she stated that during the trial period she would be diligent about walking the Fourth
Street retail corridor and ensuring all businesses complied. She indicated she would make
known the fact that there would be serious consequences for non-compliance. She would also
send out a survey to all members requesting their assessment of the program so that at the
conclusion of the trial period, the BID could also submit a report.
Ms. Webster stated the BID was interested in making the program safe, easy and
complementary to the downtown district.
Councilmember Phillips inquired of Ms. Webster as to the principal purpose of the signs.
Responding, Ms. Webster stated it was to identify the businesses on the street, explaining that
a pedestrian walking down the sidewalk would be in a position to identify the type of business of
a given store. She indicated the A-frame sign would specify the title of the business and its
purpose.
Should this be construed to be advantageous to the downtown business community,
Councilmember Phillips inquired as to why it was restricted to the downtown and not open to
other areas of San Rafael.
Mr. Brown stated the thinking was that the downtown was more of a pedestrian oriented district
with more pedestrians on the sidewalks, and noting the sidewalks were significantly wider.
Regarding Mr. Rogers’ inquiry about ADA compliance, he explained it was necessary to have at
least four feet of clearance, which would not frequently be found on many other sidewalks,
given utilities, store fronts, etc.
Suggesting Northgate One had plenty of pedestrian traffic, Councilmember Phillips expressed
some difficulty in making a distinction, and he did not see justification in limiting it to the
downtown.
Mr. Brown repeated that the downtown was almost entirely a pedestrian oriented environment.
He stated it was a contained, definable area, easier to enforce, and to open it up Citywide, it
would be necessary to send officers to each of the individual shopping centers. He indicated
the thinking was that by doing this through a pilot program, it would be better to try it in a more
contained area to assess the ramifications.
Councilmember Phillips suspected that a Northgate One proprietor observing signs in
downtown San Rafael could think it a good idea and decide to place a sign, only to be informed
by the City it was not permitted, yet he was doing business in San Rafael, and this appeared
inconsistent. Indicating he had some problems with the entire program, Councilmember Phillips
stated he also had a significant problem with regard to what he considered to be a fairly
inconsistent policy if the principal purpose was to promote business.
Mr. Brown stated that with regard to the banner program last year, this was only allowed in the
downtown. Councilmember Phillips stated he was not certain he was convinced this was a good
idea, as it appeared inconsistent to him and he was not yet satisfied.
There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing.
Dealing with the ordinance, Mayor Boro stated it reflected discussions to date, including the
changes made to the larger signs and the districts described earlier. Concurring, Mr. Jensen
stated there were other revisions; however, these were the most significant, including the non-
commercial/political signage.
Referring to Page 3 of the staff report – Other Additional Recommended Revisions –
Councilmember Phillips inquired whether the sign could only relate to the ground-floor tenant, to
which Mr. Jensen responded affirmatively.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page
6
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page 7
Regarding 899 Northgate, he noted that Orion Partners was on the Fifth floor and had a sign
outside.
Mr. Jensen explained there was a sign program for that building, which was probably how this
was allowed. He indicated it was intended in the draft Sign Ordinance that limited signage be
proposed for ground floor tenants and any tenant on upper or lower floors would be limited to
directory signage, as in the current ordinance. He noted that 899 Northgate was an example of
a building that had a sign program, which authorized the tenant to locate their sign on the
ground floor even though they were not a ground-floor tenant. Should that building be
constructed today, Councilmember Phillips inquired whether the tenant would be able to place
their sign. Mr. Jensen stated they would with a sign program; however, just meeting the Sign
Ordinance regulations, they would not be permitted to do so.
Councilmember Phillips inquired how the sign program pre-empted the ordinance. Mr. Jensen
explained that basically, individual regulations are crafted for a multi-tenant building, taking from
one area and giving to another. This would be one example where a tenant on an upper floor
would be allowed signage on the building that normally would not be allowed. Councilmember
Phillips suggested it was fairly customary and an attractive feature to have tenant names on
larger buildings and he did not understand the logic of disallowing that.
Mr. Jensen explained the logic was really for most of the buildings in the City that do not have
sign programs, such as Fourth Street multi-story buildings where signage is pretty much limited
to the ground floor. He instanced the Albert building on Fourth Street, noting there was no
signage on the upper office floors of the building. Mr. Jensen reiterated that where major tenant
names appear on buildings, e.g., Fair Isaac at Smith Ranch, the Orion building, etc., these are
all authorized through sign programs, as they are multi-tenant buildings, and this would
continue to be allowed as a process in this ordinance.
In the event a building had a new tenant move in and part of the deal was to have their name
on the building, Councilmember Phillips inquired whether they would be allowed to submit a
request or whether it automatically would be denied because of the ordinance. Mr. Jensen
stated it would not comply with the ordinance should it be on an upper floor; however, being a
multi-tenant building they would qualify for a sign program, or use the exception process which
would permit an exception to the rule to place the sign at another location. He confirmed this
goes through the Planning Commission, using the criterion of special and unusual
circumstances, i.e., excessive building setback from the street, or a major tenant occupying a
lot of area who would not normally receive signage, etc.
Regarding the total square-footage on a given building, Mr. Jensen explained for Mayor Boro
that with the sign program, more sign area could be requested than that allowed by the
ordinance. Referencing the San Rafael Corporate Center, he explained that since this is an all-
office complex, each of the buildings is only allowed 36 square-feet; however, a lot more sign
area was approved by a sign program for that building. It was determined, however, that
because of the scale of the building and number of tenants, the additional sign area was
reasonable, and as could be seen from the building, there was not that much signage. He
noted the Sign Program allowed more sign area to be proposed, in addition to the distribution
and number of signs.
Councilmember Cohen agreed that should an exception be granted, there ought to be some
specific criteria, and he understood the notion that any building owner could apply for a sign
program at any time, making an argument for justifiable circumstances or how it would look.
Regardless of the circumstances, whether it be a new or remodeled building or new tenant,
they could apply and make their case, as opposed to the alternative of either banning it
altogether or putting in a sign program, permitting anyone to put in multi-tenant signs.
Councilmember Cohen favored some control through a sign program.
Councilmember Phillips stated he would like the record to reflect that the possibility of an
“exception” was discussed, with the recommendation to the Planning Commission in general
that should there be justification for an exterior sign that would add value and visibility for the
tenant, it was his opinion the City Council would generally be in favor. While not completely
comfortable with this, Councilmember Phillips indicated he was willing to go along with it at this
point.
The title of the ordinance was read:
“
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE SAN RAFAEL
MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 14 – ZONING, CHAPTER 19 – SIGNS, CHAPTER 3 –
DEFINITIONS AND CHAPTER 25 – ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMITS
(SIGN ORDINANCE) (ZO03-005)”
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page
7
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page 8
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense with the
Charter Ordinance
reading of the ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and pass
No. 1825
to print by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller
Regarding the temporary procedures, Councilmember Miller complimented and thanked
Joanne Webster of the Business Improvement District, indicating she epitomized exactly what
citizens of this great City were all about. Noting the BID only goes to E Street and putting the
onus on them to go further appeared unfair, he questioned how the remaining area would be
monitored.
Mr. Brown stated this would have to be done by the City, indicating that initially the fact sheet
could be provided to the business owners, following up with any signs out there. He confirmed
that the entire downtown would be monitored.
Mayor Boro inquired as to what Mr. Brown considered a reasonable time.
While staff suggested a year, Mr. Brown stated the minimum amount of time to really test this
would be at least nine months. He indicated it would take businesses two months to get their
signs, permits, etc., and he did not believe they would be interested in going to the expense of
both the permit and creating the new A-frame if they could only display it for three months. At
the end of the process, Mr. Brown stated there would be approximately a month’s worth of
evaluation and preparation of a report for Council. He reported that the BID had indicated they
would conduct a survey which would also be very helpful; therefore, he anticipated nine months
would actually provide six months of signs on the street.
Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods’
raising this issue. Pointing to the language, he stated it was mandated that a report would be
provided after six months; however, more important was the language on the conditions which
indicated that at any time the program could be brought to the City Council for review to
consider amendments, extension, or termination. Therefore, it was clear that even doing this
for a year was not specifying that regardless of how it turned out, the City was bound to live with
it for a year. Councilmember Cohen stated that should it prove to be a hazard to public safety
and the navigation of city sidewalks, he did not believe the City Council would have any
hesitation in revisiting the program up to and including ending it on the spot. It was not locked
into a year. Evaluation would take place, residents would also evaluate it, apprising the City of
any problems perceived; therefore, he believed a year was reasonable given this insurance
policy.
Regarding the issue of ADA compliance and the 4-foot clearance, Councilmember Cohen
referred to language in Exhibit A, Page, A-3 – Portable A-frame Signs in the Downtown Districts
- which he indicated was not entirely clear. Section 2, b. states - “The sign shall not exceed 24
inches in width and 36 inches in height.” Page A-4 – 2,g. states - “The sign may be located on
a sidewalk within the public right-of-way, provided that it does not obstruct pedestrian or
vehicular movement. A minimum unobstructed width of four (4) feet shall be maintained on the
sidewalk.” Continuing, he indicated the sentence was not really clear - “Portable A-frame
signs are not permitted along streets that have a sidewalk width of less than four (4) feet.”
Councilmember Cohen stated his basic math suggested they were not permitted along streets
with a sidewalk of less than six feet, i.e., a 2-foot wide sign, plus 4-feet of clearance, He
believed the last sentence under 2,g. clouded rather than clarified the issue and suggested
striking that sentence, thus permitting the other two provisions taken together to provide the
standard.
Regarding the equity of doing this here and not in other districts, Councilmember Cohen stated
that in his opinion there was a real distinction between downtown and any other commercial
district in the City. He believed San Rafael’s history over the past ten years had demonstrated
this is how it was viewed by this City. A lot of time, energy and resources had been put into
improving the downtown, supporting businesses and ensuring that downtown remained a
vibrant place.
Councilmember Cohen stated that the difference between downtown and both of the other
examples discussed by Councilmember Phillips was that both were shopping malls. Downtown
was a mixture of shopping, restaurants, entertainment, office use, etc., and he believed the
focus was on pedestrian orientation for retail in the downtown. Noting the malls had large
anchor stores advertising almost on a weekly basis to draw people in, he stated this was not the
case downtown, which was one of the reasons the City supported a lot of the events downtown.
He believed distinguishing downtown from other retail districts was easy and he would not have
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page
8
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page 9
a problem supporting this and opposing A-frame signs in other districts. Given this was an
official policy, Councilmember Cohen anticipated tighter regulation, and on this basis, was
willing to give the program a try.
Councilmember Phillips stated some of his concerns related to the cluttering effect plus
policing, and he thanked the BID for their offer to police portion of the downtown; however,
indicated he would vote against the proposal for these two reasons. He commented that
Councilmember Cohen’s distinction with regard to businesses within San Rafael escaped him
as it appeared he was attempting to promote business to San Rafael in one selected portion of
the downtown, which was unfair to those trying to make their businesses work in other parts of
the City. Councilmember Phillips believed the sidewalks were wide enough in the other areas
cited and to “advantage” the downtown over other businesses within San Rafael appeared
inconsistent and unjustified in his view. While wishing to promote the downtown, he indicated
he did not make a similar distinction and did not think it “fair” to disadvantage one over another.
With perhaps the exception of Novato, Councilmember Phillips stated he was not aware of any
other city in Marin County that permitted A-frame signs. He believed they cluttered, distracted
from and cheapened the downtown and reiterated he would vote negatively. Councilmember
Phillips stated he felt very strongly about other parts of the City not being disadvantaged by
action taken that was exclusive to a particular part of San Rafael.
Mayor Boro inquired whether the City had jurisdiction over the Montecito Center. In terms of
sign enforcement, Mr. Brown stated the City had authority. The proposed A-frame allowances
would not apply outside the downtown if A-frame signs were allowed, and the sidewalks being
private, the same type of liability and encroachment issues would not pertain.
Regarding the Mall at Northgate, Mr. Brown confirmed the City could only regulate exterior
signage.
Mayor Boro reiterated his sentiments from the last meeting that he was not enamored with
these signs; however, believed that through the entire process, the Chamber of Commerce and
BID worked with the planning staff and community meetings were held, and he noted very little,
if any, opposition had been raised to date. He acknowledged and appreciated the opposition
and concerns raised this evening and while there was general concern, he believed that to
honor the process that had gone forward, it should at least be given a trial.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 11569 – RESOLUTION APPROVING TEMPORARY PROCEDURES,
PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA FOR THE
DISPLAY OF TEMPORARY BANNERS (CITYWIDE) AND
PORTABLE A-FRAME SIGNS IN THE DOWNTOWN
DISTRICTS (ZO03-005)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, and Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
17. Sign Ordinance: - File 125 x 9-3-85 x 10-3 x 10-7
City Manager Gould expressed relief that Elissa Giambastiani, President, San Rafael Chamber
of Commerce, could finally write her article on the City’s overhaul of the Sign Ordinance.
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
18. Legislation Affecting San Rafael: - File 116 x 9-1
a) Regarding AB 2690 (Hancock) addressing the issue of use of volunteers on environmental
restoration projects, Councilmember Cohen believed the Department of Industrial
Relations (DIR) was wrong on this issue. The legislative fix as drafted was fairly narrowly
tailored and would not address the City’s concerns with respect to restoration of the (Del
Ganado) Creek, where it was hoped to utilize high school student volunteers for planting.
He stated that the issue would continue to have to be wrestled with, with a view to
persuading the DIR to change their view.
b) Regarding AB 2702 (Steinberg) Housing: Second Units – Mayor Boro stated he had
requested Mr. Gould to bring this to the Mayors and Councilmembers Legislative
Committee next week with the idea of going to all cities and hopefully having them oppose
the legislation, particularly the issue regarding no-owner occupancy. He believed no-owner
occupancy would change the complexity of neighborhoods and was key to the City’s
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page
9
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page 10
ordinance. Mayor Boro expressed the hope that all Mayors would sign a letter to be
published in the newspaper, and communicate with Senator Burton, Board of Realtors,
etc., pointing out the fact that this would have a devastating effect on the community.
Elissa Giambastiani, President, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated this Bill was
discussed at their Workforce Housing Committee meeting last week, and believing it really
would change the character of the neighborhood, they were not advocating its support.
Mayor Boro suggested that perhaps the Chamber of Commerce could join in the letter.
There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:55 p.m.
____________________________
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS ______ DAY OF __________, 2004
___________________________________
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 06/07/2004 Page
10