Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1992-07-20SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 1 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 201 OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 20, 1992, AT 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS - File 1.4.1.a No. 92-12(b) - #2 No. 92-12(c) - #7 No reportable action was taken. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JULY 20, 1992, AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE None CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Shippey moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM 3. Resolution to Approve Lease of Parking Lot at Third and Lindaro Streets from PG&E (RA) - File 2-9-20 4. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract - Repainting and Signing of Fifth Avenue & "C" REPAINTING Street and Third Street & Lootens Parking AND Structures (PW) - File 4-1-444a 5. Resolution Approving Extension of Time for Completion of Subdivision Improvements - Smith COMPLETION Ranch Homes (PW) - File 5-1-290 6. Resolution Approving Extension of Time for Sub- division Improvements - Spinnaker Point Unit 5 COMPLETION (PW) - File 5-1-263 RECOMMENDED ACTION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8704 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A LEASE WITH PG&E FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THIRD AND LINDARO STREETS IN SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA FOR A PUBLIC PARKING LOT ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8705 - AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR AND SIGNING OF FIFTH AVENUE C STREET AND THIRD STREET AND LOOTENS PARKING STRUCTURES TO ABBOT CONSTRUCTION (lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $50,930.00) (To be funded thru the Parking District) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8706 - EXTENDING TIME FOR THE OF IMPROVEMENT WORK - SMITH RANCH HOMES SUBDIVISION (Extension to and including Dec. 31, 1992) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8707 - EXTENDING TIME FOR THE OF IMPROVEMENT WORK - SPINNAKER POINT UNIT V SUBDIVISION (Extended to and including 10/1/92) SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 2 7. Resolution to CALTRANS Committing the City of San ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8708 - Rafael to Perform Certain Work Associated With the TO CALTRANS COMMITTING THE West Francisco Storm Drainage Master Plan (PW) - CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO PERFORM File 11-16 x 12-9 x (SRRA) R-54 CERTAIN WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE WEST FRANCISCO STORM DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN 8. Resolution Approving Extension of Time - 240 Canal Street - to Obtain Building Permit to Retrofit Building "C" (PW) - File 3-3-46 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8709 - EXTENDING TIME TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT TO RETROFIT BUILDING "C" LOCATED AT 240 CANAL STREET, SAN RAFAEL (from 7/18/92 to and including 8/1/92) 13. Resolution Authorizing Expenditures From Park and ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8710 - Recreation Facility Fund: (Rec) - File 9-3-66 x AUTHORIZING $20,000 EXPENDI- 9-3-65 TURE FROM THE PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES FUND FOR ALBERT PARK LOT a. $15,000 - Albert Park Renovation Plan b. $ 5,000 - Albert Park Parking Lot Improvements 14. Resolution Approving Second Amended Agreement with Canal Community Alliance (CCA) for Joint Use of Pickleweed Community Center (Rec) - File 4-10-164 RENOVATION PLAN AND PARKING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8711 - AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A SECOND AMENDED AGREEMENT BETWEEN x 9-3-65 THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND CANAL COMMUNITY ALLIANCE (CCA) FOR JOINT USE OF THE PICKLEWEED PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 15. Resolution Designating the Marin County Congestion ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 8712 - Management Agency as Recipient of and Overall DESIGNATING THE MARIN COUNTY Program Manager for AB 434 (SHER-1991) Vehicle CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY AS Registration Fee Revenues (CM) - File 170 x 11-1 RECIPIENT OF AN OVERALL PROGRAM MANAGER FOR AB 434 (SHER-1991) VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE REVENUES AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1992 (CC) Councilmember Cohen noted on Page 4, Item #13, the last paragraph, should state "Councilmember Breiner" at beginning of item; and on Page 12, Item #20, fourth paragraph from the bottom, he noted his intent under this discussion was to state that "If we believe this site was simply not feasible, there was no point in encouraging someone to bring forward an application." He stated he believed the conversation went on to resolve that it was at least worth considering. Mayor Boro stated he believed it was swallowed up in the next paragraph where they stated it was premature to discuss this until someone actually came forward with a proposal and, even if it was for that site, we would have to work those issues out and it might not be possible on that particular site, but if someone chose to do that we would have to work it through. Mayor Boro asked City Clerk Leoncini to clarify this in the Minutes. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to approve the Minutes of June 15, 1992, as amended. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 3 9. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1620 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 12.40 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SETTING FORTH AN UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING MITIGATION PROGRAM (PW) - File 13-11 x 13-1 x 9-3-40 x 1-6-1 x 4-3-235 Councilmember Breiner stated she thought there were still some questions unanswered from the first reading of the Ordinance. City Manager Nicolai responded there were quite a few questions with regard to the Planning components of this, but they were not going to be resolved as part of this Ordinance. Ms. Nicolai stated this Ordinance is the engineering standards and none of the discussion had to do with engineering standards and staff felt they wanted to proceed ahead with this, but would be coming back with the timing issues, also involving the Downtown Plan and the General Plan Amendments which will be required to give bonuses and incentives, etc. Councilmember Breiner asked about the occupancy numbers on some of the buildings, noting the occupancy load is calculated over a possible eight hour period. Assistant Public Works Director Strom stated he was not sure about the technical issues with regard to the Building Code, which relates to this question. Mayor Boro asked if Mrs. Breiner had a particular building she wanted an answer on. Mrs. Breiner stated on Page 3 of the table attached to the Ordinance, for example, Gordon's Opera House at 1327 Fourth St., showed an occupancy load of 360 people and then Dominican Sisters, on Page 4, showed an occupancy load of 500. She stated her concern that these occupancy loads seemed high and have obviously affected some of the ratings because this relates to the occupancy. Mrs. Breiner stated she had no problem in going ahead and approving the Ordinance, but hoped that in the up -coming discussion on this, staff would be on firm ground with these statistics. Mayor Boro clarified that what Councilmember Breiner was asking was that part of the implementation would be that the occupancy load determines the sequencing of the building and he stated they could have this looked at again and have it as part of the implementation plan, when it comes back to the Council. Councilmember Shippey asked with regard to an appeal procedure wherein when an owner felt that his building is being improperly classified, he/she can appeal; also he thought these numbers were not written into the Ordinance. Councilmember Breiner stated she felt the Council should be aware that there are some discrepancies. Mayor Boro asked the Public Works Director to provide clarification of this. The title of the Ordinance was read: "ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 12.40 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SETTING FORTH AN UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDING MITIGATION PROGRAM" Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and adopt Charter Ordinance No. 1620 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 10. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1621 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING AND MODIFYING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 11.38 ABANDONED VEHICLES, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 11.38.010, 11.38.020, 11.38.050, 11.38.140 AND ADDING SECTIONS 11.38.160 AND 11.38.170 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE (PD) - File 13-9 x 9-3-30 Councilmember Breiner stated that on Page 3, Section 11.38.160, in the title there should be a comma after the word " . . Abandonment. . ." The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING AND MODIFYING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 11.38 ABANDONED VEHICLES, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 11.38.010, 11.38.020, 11.38.050, 11.38.140 AND ADDING SECTIONS 11.38.160 AND 11.38.170 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE" Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only, and adopt Charter Ordinance No. 1621 by the following vote, to wit: SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 3 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 11. RESOLUTION REDESIGNATING THE COUNTY OF MARIN AS LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (Fin) - File 13-2 Councilmember Thayer asked with regard to the funding for the LEA (Local Enforcement Agency) how this might be related to AB 939, which also requires an LEA. She then stated her concern about this particular resolution, asking whether this would transfer the cost to the Ratepayer? Finance Director Coleman stated it was his understanding that the operation of this particular program is funded by fees which are levied on the dump sites and the garbage companies and the LEA may eventually be administered by the proposed JPA, although the Department of Health and Human Services would probably do the work, but they may contract with them rather than having this as part of the County function. He stated the fees are paid by the garbage companies and the land sites, which is how they fund the operation. Mrs. Thayer asked if the LEA has been paid this way since 1977? Mr. Coleman stated they were charging a permit fee, such as $300, which has historically been paid by the garbage companies and the dump site. He stated that within the last year or so they have changed so the operation is now more cost covering than it was in the past. He stated his understanding was this was based on the amount of hours and time spent at each location, and LEA is covered by the fees paid by the garbage companies and the dump site. Mrs. Thayer stated she questioned which portion of the tipping fees ($2.00 or $2.20) goes for the Household Hazardous Waste collection days. She stated there was another $2.00 which goes for the implementation which includes the elements for AB 939 and then the remainder of the money was either for administrative costs at the County level or odds and ends. She wondered which portion of the fee is funding the LEA. Mr. Coleman responded he understood that the tipping fee does not fund this particular operation, it goes primarily to fund the Office of Waste Management, whereas the operation of the Department of Health and Human Services is funded by direct billings to the various people who are being inspected by them. Councilmember Thayer moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 8713 - REDESIGNATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES BUREAU OF THE MARIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AS LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 12. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FALKIRK TRIBUTE FUND (Cult.Affs.) - File 9-3-84 Councilmember Breiner stated this was a lovely idea and she was happy to see this being proposed; however, she did believe it would be important to have a policy established soon if there are larger amounts so that the public knows how they will be dealt with. She stated, in her opinion, handling them on a case-by-case basis is not as appropriate. Mayor Boro introduced Mr. Kurt Hayden, son of Mrs. Alice Dollar Hayden, to speak on this item. Kurt Hayden spoke for his mother, Alice Dollar Hayden, stating she has a very strong interest in Falkirk and maintaining Falkirk, and recognizing the City has a lack of funds for this, she finds this an appropriate way for the public to be able to make contributions to Falkirk in honor of different friends who may have passed away or to honor a special friend who is still living. Mr. Hayden stated his mother has been working with Library Director Vaughn Stratford and Falkirk Director Carol Adney on this project and is delighted the Council agrees with this. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to adopt the Resolution establishing the Falkirk Tribute Fund. RESOLUTION NO. 8714 - AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ESTABLISH AN ONGOING DONATION VEHICLE, THE FALKIRK TRIBUTE FUND, TO ACCEPT VARIOUS DONATIONS TO FALKIRK CULTURAL CENTER SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 5 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 16. PUBLIC HEARING - BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT (PW) - File 6-48 a. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-1993 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Assistant Public Works Director Strom gave a brief summary of the staff report, stating this District was formed primarily for the purpose of maintaining the Baypoint Lagoon, also known as the Spinnaker Lagoon. He noted that at the last Council meeting, July 6, 1992, Council received an Engineer's Report and adopted a Resolution of Intention to Order Improvements and the action before the Council tonight was to confirm the Assessment Diagram and levy the assessments for this district this fiscal year 1992-1993. With no response from the public, Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 8715 - CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-1993 - BAYPOINT LAGOONS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT (Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 17. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TITLE 5, TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 5.40 STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 5.40.040, "PARKING FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES PROHIBITED" AND ADDING SECTION 5.40.045, "PARKING VEHICLE FOR SALE" RELATING TO PARKING VEHICLES ON STREETS FOR SALE (PD) - File 11-8 x 11-1 x 9-3-30 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. Acting Chief of Police Krolak stated when the Department increased the parking fines they asked that enforcement of this particular Ordinance not be done because of the vague wording within it. He stated they have since worked with the City Attorney's Office on the wording and definitions which make it much more clear as to what they mean by "parking for sale" or "parking of a vehicle", and this is the Ordinance being presented to the Council tonight. Councilmember Cohen stated his concern for the individual who is forced to park his vehicle on the street outside of his residence overnight with a "For Sale" sign on it as opposed to areas in the City where many vehicles are parked for days at a time with "For Sale" signs on them. He asked Acting Chief Krolak if the temporarily parked vehicle would also be cited under this Ordinance. Acting Chief Krolak explained that they have, and will continue to do so, enforced this activity by complaint alone. He stated this Ordinance provided for vehicles parked more than six hours and at that time they will be marked or the owner will be advised of the situation, and the vehicle can be moved 150 feet from that particular site. City Attorney Ragghianti stated Councilmember Cohen's example would not apply here, because the individual is able to drive his vehicle whenever, wherever and as long as he wants with a "For Sale" sign in the back of the vehicle. This applies only to parked vehicles. Mayor Boro stated his understanding of this was Mr. Cohen's concern about someone parking his vehicle with a "For Sale" sign at his house, and according to Acting Chief Krolak, patrol would act on this only if someone filed a complaint. Acting Chief Krolak stated part of the definition in this Ordinance is the principal purpose of sale, and they would take a look at where the sign was located, etc. Councilmember Thayer stated her concern with Section 5.40.045, the Parking of the Vehicle for Sale, Part 2. She stated she understood the purpose of this Ordinance was to keep vehicles with unseemly signs off the street. She asked how this would solve the problem by moving the vehicle 150 feet up the road? She stated her other concern was whether there was any illegality about this because of the fact that SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 6 people are allowed to drive vans, etc., to advertise a particular company or particular wares on that vehicle, but why are they not allowed to advertise their vehicle for sale? Mr. Ragghianti stated even though he did not work directly on this Ordinance, he understood that one of the purposes of the Ordinance was to prevent a number of vehicles from being assembled in the same public thoroughfare, all of which were placed there for the purpose of offering them for sale. He stated one prime example of this was at the bottom of Wolfe Grade which created the problem that Supervisor Brown heard about and ultimately had an ordinance adopted for the County. He stated he believed a city, a municipality with its police power has the right to restrict where vehicles may be offered for sale on the streets and the City has the right to maintain the streets and also to regulate the purposes for which they are used, and in this instance what is being attempted is certainly not to prevent individuals from placing signs in their vehicles, but simply to address an issue, that is, leaving a vehicle for a substantive period of time on a public street and offering it for sale. He stated this would be like a used car lot that is on a thoroughfare. He stated he sees a distinction between the two and he believes that it is permissible from a legal standpoint. Councilmember Thayer clarified that this was essentially geared towards preventing a congregation of vehicles. Mr. Ragghianti stated he assumed it was. Mayor Boro asked about the areas the County was involved with, Strawberry and the foot of Wolfe Grade, did they actually post it specifically for the selling of vehicles. Acting Chief Krolak stated this Ordinance copies almost the same Ordinance that the County is using. He stated he believed that the County, in fact, has actually posted signs for those specific areas. Mayor Boro then asked about the logic behind moving the vehicles 150 feet after the six hour limit. He stated if the Department was trying to prevent this, why were these vehicles not marked after the stated time limit. Acting Chief Krolak stated that primarily it was to allow the owner who is not parking his vehicle on the street for the sole purpose of selling it some leeway as to when to move it. He stated they were not looking for the small "For Sale" signs posted on the side or back windows, but the large posters put on top of cars or the entire windshield, etc. He stated patrol would be using some discretion, realizing some of these vehicles are being driven during the day with the owner attempting to sell them, but are not parking the vehicle there for the specific purpose of selling it; however, if the owner does park it and put a large sign across the windshield, that would lead them to believe it was parked there for the specific purpose to sell it and not just coming and going with it. Councilmember Breiner stated she had a two-part concern: 1) There might be someone trying to sell a car who is also a commuter taking a bus or car pooling and parking this vehicle in a place where it would be difficult to determine if this vehicle is parked there for the sole purpose of selling it. 2) The issue of the size of signs. She asked if it could be included in the Ordinance or added some time soon, because if there is a big sign on a vehicle that would seem to indicate that the intention was to sell it, but this might be very hard to enforce. Mr. Ragghianti stated that in Councilmember Breiner's example, this Ordinance creates a presumption only, so that the individual who receives the citation has a right to come forward and to disprove the intent for which he/she left his/her vehicle on the public streets, so just parking it for over six hours with a "For Sale" sign on it does not automatically cause a person to violate the statute; it merely creates the presumption, which he thinks is important because Mrs. Breiner raised a good point. He stated the City has the right to conclude that if the person is commuting every day and parks in the same spot every day, with a "For Sale" sign on his/her vehicle, the assumption would be that the vehicle is for sale. Mr. Ragghianti stated this is what happened at the foot of Wolfe Grade and at Strawberry. City Manager Nicolai stated this Ordinance was intended to prevent the congregation of vehicles in specific high visibility locations where it was becoming a used car lot, not just a random vehicle parked in different spots. She stated they were aiming at the cars parked in semi -illegal areas such as railroad rights-of-way, off the streets, etc., not the person parking on Fourth Street while running an errand. Councilmember Shippey stated he was concerned about the principal purpose, which he understood meant that Mrs. Breiner's commuter and Mr. Cohen could argue they have a principal purpose other than selling the vehicle. He stated it looked like an easy way out of this Ordinance. Mr. Ragghianti stated he did not agree, because assuming that someone would receive a citation, the City would have to demonstrate that the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 7 vehicle was parked for six or more hours on a public street with a sign offering the vehicle for sale. He stated it would fall to the registered owner or the driver of the vehicle to demonstrate to a court's satisfaction that their purpose was other than that, but the statute creates the presumption and places the burden of proof on the person receiving the citation and common sense has a lot to do with what the court may say. He stated any number of reasons could be invented by an individual as to what they were really doing, but in the end it is the Judge who is hearing the case, who will conclude that the person has or has not overcome the presumption. Councilmember Shippey asked about Councilmember Breiner's concern with regard to the 150 feet required to move the vehicle after the time limit, could this be made somewhat larger, therefore somewhat less ambiguous. Mr. Ragghianti stated it could be made whatever the Council wanted it to be. Mr. Shippey stated he might support that to get away from that concern. Mr. Shippey stated his final concern was dealing with repairing vehicles on the City streets, which has been a concern of his for some time. Mr. Bill Weeks, representative of the Canal Area Property and Business Owners' Association, thanked the Council for considering this Ordinance, because this has become a real problem along Bellam. He stated most of the vehicles parked together in this location have the large signs across the front of the vehicle. He noted that, hopefully, this Ordinance will address this problem. He stated he had made some calls to some of the phone numbers, which turn out to be the used car lots in the area, who are putting their vehicles on the City streets instead of their used car lots. Mr. Weeks also stated he believed, along with Councilmembers Thayer and Shippey, that the distance to move these vehicles after the time limit was up was not enough and should be changed. Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing closed. Mayor Boro asked City Attorney Ragghianti and Acting Chief Krolak with regard to moving the vehicle 150 feet, what would happen if the owner took the sign out of the window while it is parked. Mr. Ragghianti answered it would not violate the statute. Mayor Boro stated he supported the idea of making the distance more than 150 feet. Acting Chief Krolak stated that in Section 2, it was incumbent upon the Department to mark the vehicle and issue a warning, so the owners of these vehicles would be allowed time to take evasive action to prevent receiving a citation. Councilmember Shippey suggested making the distance to move the vehicle longer than a city block, so it would have to be moved at least a block away. Assistant Public Works Director Strom responded that the city blocks in San Rafael are about 350 feet in length and this is relatively small for a normal city block which would be 400 feet to 500 feet. Mr. Shippey suggested changing it to 500 feet. Councilmember Cohen stated his concern was that the Council have some reasonable basis for this, not just picking a number out of the air, and longer than an average city block is reasonable basis. Councilmember Thayer stated she realized what the purpose of the Ordinance is and having it explained by the City Attorney and City Manager, however this Ordinance casts too broad a net; in other words, innocent people whose intent was something else when parking on the street are going to be wrongfully cited. She stated the language in this Ordinance is not really geared towards what we would like to address, that is, a collection of cars and, basically, an informal parking lot for the purpose of selling cars. She noted she thought it was not spelled out in any certain way, and that the Ordinance was rather vague as to what the purpose is, especially the second section. Ms. Nicolai stated the language in it is intended to be more clear than what we had before, so the concept is not new. She stated they were trying to come up with language that makes it more enforceable. She stated Mr. Ragghianti can probably answer the second part of this, but they would have to write it so that the City has the ability to cite the individual cars which create the collective problem. She stated it then becomes a judgment call on the part of the Police Department who will probably not be patrolling with the sole intent of looking for random cars with "For Sale" signs in them; it will be specific problem locations and the Ordinance has to give them the authority to cite the individuals. Councilmember Thayer stated that looking at Section 5.40.040, it states, "#2. Advertising a business, an address, a name, a trademark, a product, an event, or the sale of any real or personal property." She stated many times she has seen business SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 7 Page 8 W. Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 trucks parked downtown, which are legitimate, with their trade name or sign on the side and who was to say if they were parking there for business or to advertise. She stated this is very vague and anyone could get cited for that. Councilmember Shippey responded to the second question, stating it was principal reason again. The limit on parking is six hours and if these vehicles are parked at that location for six hours they have the principal reason for being there. He stated he had no problem with this. He then stated with regard to her first question, he thought she was trying to cover collections of vehicles, and he did not see how the City could do that because the vehicle owners need to be cited individually. Mrs. Thayer stated that under Section 5.40.040 it does not specify six hours and, in her opinion, it is very vague in terms of who gets cited. Mayor Boro asked Acting Chief Krolak with regard to Paragraph 1 of Section 5.40.045 which talks specifically about parking with a "For Sale" sign for six hours, after which the vehicles will be cited. He asked about the preceding paragraph, Section 5.40.040, where it talks about advertising, etc., and is there a linkage between the two sections? Acting Chief Krolak responded he was not sure. He stated the City Attorney's Office wrote the Ordinance for the Department based on the problems and issues that were discussed earlier. Mayor Boro asked what the connection was if Section 5.40.040 talks about washing vehicles or advertising a business, and in Section 5.40.045 it talks about vehicles parked on the streets for sale. Acting Chief Krolak stated this Ordinance was amending an existing Ordinance and he would need to research that. Mayor Boro clarified that Section 5.40.040 was not about vehicles for sale. Councilmember Cohen stated he agreed with Councilmember Thayer with regard to the fact that there are a large number of commercial vehicles on the streets which could be construed as advertising of business, name, trademark, etc. and he felt they do not want to put a six hour time limit on these vehicles, because many of these vehicles, particularly construction industry vehicles, have a specific name on them and they are going to park for eight hours while they are working at their particular job site. He stated the reality of this is we are relying on our Police force to use some discretion in the enforcement of this Ordinance and it will be relatively easy to make a common sense judgment about someone who has parked a truck which has a company name on it for the purpose of doing business, and the individual that parks the pick-up truck with the large sign that says "Butcher Block Tables for Sale" in a position so it is visible to the on-ramp to Highway 101 from downtown San Rafael and is there every day. This vehicle should be cited under this Ordinance. He stated that, in his opinion, any lack of clarity here is requesting some exercise of judgment on the part of the Police Department and he felt he had confidence in them. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TITLE 5, TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 5.40 STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 5.40.040 AND ADDING SECTION 5.40.045 RELATING TO PARKING VEHICLES ON STREETS FOR SALE" Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1622 to print, as amended on Page 1, Section 5.40.045 - #2, to read, "To avoid a violation of this Section, a vehicle must be moved five hundred feet after a Police Department employee has marked the vehicle and placed a warning notice on such vehicle", by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1593 AND 1607 INCREASING PARAMEDIC TAX RATE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (Fin) - File 9-3-31 x 8-5 Finance Director Coleman stated based on the budget which was passed by the Council on July 6, 1992, staff is coming back to the Council recommending that the Paramedic Tax for this year be set at $28.40 per living unit and .02540 per square foot for commercial, which is an increase of approximately 1.4% over the existing rates of $28.00 and .025G. Councilmember Shippey asked Fire Chief Marcucci with regard to putting a Paramedic unit north of Puerto Suello hill, if there was a record of the origin of the calls SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 generated throughout the City so they could get an idea of these statistics. Chief Marcucci responded that 2/3rds of the calls were south of Puerto Suello Hill and 1/3rd from north of the hill. He stated these statistics have existed over many years and were included in the Hughes, Heiss study, and he would provide these statistics to the Council. Mr. Shippey stated he would like to see the statistics in the near future. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ORDINANCE 1593 (PARAMEDIC SERVICE SPECIAL TAX) AND SETTING THE PARAMEDIC TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES" Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Shippey seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance 1623 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 19. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS None. Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro None None Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to place an item on the Agenda as an urgency item, after the Agenda was posted. ADD ITEM: I. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO SUSAN SOUTHARD, SENIOR SECRETARY, SAN RAFAEL SANITATION DISTRICT - File 102 x 4-12-2a Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt a San Rafael Resolution of Appreciation to Susan Southard to recognize her assistance to the City. RESOLUTION NO. 8716 - RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO SUSAN SOUTHARD, SENIOR SECRETARY, SAN RAFAEL SANITATION DISTRICT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 1992 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 7/20/92 Page 9