HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1995-06-05SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JUNE 5,1995, AT 8:00 PM
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Gary 0. Phillips, Councilmember
David J. Zappetini, Councilmember
Absent: None
Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary
OPEN SESSION - CITY COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE ROOM 201
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Paul 0. Cohen, Councilmember
a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (c):
• Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, Cal. Supreme Court Action No. S033642.
(Request for City of San Rafael participation as amicus party).
• City Attorney Ragghianti reported the Council voted unanimously to have the
City file an amicus participation.
• Vickie Edwards v. City of Santa Barbara, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Case No. CV 94-2243 RG. (Request for City of San Rafael participation
as amicus party).
• City Attorney Ragghianti reported the Council voted unanimously to have the
City file an amicus participation.
b. Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Negotiator: Suzanne Golt
Employee Organization: San Rafael Firefighters' Association.
• Item was not discussed.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE:
COMPLAINT - RE: TRAMPOLINE ON ROOF OF RESIDENCE AT 609 WOODBINE DRIVE, TERRA LINDA
- File 100
Jerry Moore of 615 Woodbine Dr., Terra Linda stated that he lives in central Terra Linda and that he has a problem with his
neighbor across the street who has a trampoline on the garage roof of an Eichler style home, surrounded by a yellow mesh net
that is an incredible visual eye sore. He stated he has no privacy, i.e., when his drapes are not completely pulled on Sunday
morning when he gets up, there are his neighbors kids on the roof jumping up and down; and recently after his wife wrote a letter to
Planning Director Bob Pendoley, he learned nothing could be done.
Mr. Moore reluctantly conceded that no law could be passed that could retroactively remedy the situation. He assured the Council
that if one fool could do something like this then someone else might too, not to mention the liability issue with kids jumping all over
the roof. Mr. Moore showed photographs of his neighbor's house with the trampoline and a 22 foot high junk sculpture affixed to
the side of the roof, stating that his neighbor built this second story without applying for a permit, housed illegal pets (parrots and a
full size pig) and parks his R.V. for days in front of his house. In conclusion, he stated if there is no law making the roof illegal for
use of recreational equipment, then what is to prevent someone else from doing the same thing.
Mayor Boro requested this matter (with the photos) be forwarded to the City Attorney, and informed Mr. Moore that he would be
contacted regarding this matter.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to approve the recommended action on the following
Consent Calendar items:
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 2
ITEM
RECOMMENDED ACTION
2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of
Approved as submitted.
May 1, 1995 and Special Meeting of May 15,
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
1995 (CC)
ADOPTING THE TENETS OF THE
3. Authorization to Call for Applications to Fill
(See Redevelopment Agency Agenda
Five (5) Four -Year Terms on the Citizens Advisory Committee on
Item No. 2.)
Redevelopment Due to Expiration
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
of Terms of Bob Cooper, Herb Moran, Rob Simon,
ADOPTING THE TENETS OF THE
John Touchstone and Abraham Yang (CC) - File 140
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
5. Approval of Special Meeting Dates for 1995/96
Approved staff recommendation:
City Budget Hearings (CM) - File 8-5
Special Meeting Dates set for
for Flea-Tique Events on June 17, July 29
Monday, June 26; Tuesday, June 27;
and September 23, 1995 (RA) - File 11-19
and Thursday, July 6 (if needed).
Meetings to take place at 7:00 pm in the
12. Resolutions of Appreciation to Marin Coupe & Roadster Club,
Council Chamber.
7. Adoption of Resolution Re: Telecommunications
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.9365 -
Policy (CM) - File 9-1 x 9-3-11
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
for Fourth Street Water Main Project (RA)
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
- File 102 x 151
ADOPTING THE TENETS OF THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY.
9. Approval of Parking Lot and Street Closures
Approved staff recommendation.
for Flea-Tique Events on June 17, July 29
MAGGIORA & GHILOTTI, INC. FOR
and September 23, 1995 (RA) - File 11-19
FOURTH STREET WATER MAIN
10. Approval of Street Closure for Second Annual Canal Approved staff recommendation.
Community Festival on Sunday, July 23, 1995 (RA)
- File 11-19
11. Resolutions of Appreciation to Marin Municipal
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9366 -
Water District and Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc.
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
for Fourth Street Water Main Project (RA)
MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
- File 102 x 151
FOR FOURTH STREET WATER MAIN
PROJECT.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9367 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
MAGGIORA & GHILOTTI, INC. FOR
FOURTH STREET WATER MAIN
PROJECT.
12. Resolutions of Appreciation to Marin Coupe & Roadster Club,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9368 -
Business Improvement District (BID) and Patty Dailey (RA) - File
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
102 X 183
MARIN COUPE & ROADSTER CLUB.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9369 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9370 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
PATTY DAILEY.
13. Authorization to Transfer 1994/95 Surplus School
Approved staff recommendation: Total
Property Tax to the Capital Improvement Fund
transfer from the General Fund to the
(Fin) - File 8-5 X 8-10
Capital Improvement Fund will be
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 3
16. Resolution of Appreciation to Ed Anchordoguy, Supervising
Groundsworker, Parks Division (PW)
- File 102 x 9-3-66
$350,000 ($260,000 in 1994/95 and
17. Resolution Authorizing the Signing of Lease Agreement for Use of
$90,000 in 1995/96).
14. Resolution of Findings Granting Appeal of Building
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9371 -
Official's Enforcement of State Mandated Disabled Access Improvements at
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
1050 Northgate Drive; AP No. 178-240-20, G.A. Heckscher,
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (IN ITS
Representative (PW)
CAPACITY AS THE BOARD OF
- File 13-1-1 x 9-3-40
APPEALS) GRANTING CONDITIONED
APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL FROM
STATE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
1050 NORTHGATE DRIVE, SAN
RAFAEL.
commencing 5/1/95 and terminating on
15. Authorization to Call for Bids - Repair and Repainting of Pickleweed
Approved staff recommendation.
Recreation Center (PW)
- File 4-1-476
16. Resolution of Appreciation to Ed Anchordoguy, Supervising
Groundsworker, Parks Division (PW)
- File 102 x 9-3-66
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9372 -
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO
ED ANCHORDOGUY.
17. Resolution Authorizing the Signing of Lease Agreement for Use of
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9373 -
Radio Tower at San Quentin Prison (FD) - File 2-8-28 x 9-3-31
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
AUTHORIZING THE FIRE CHIEF TO
ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT
WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON) FOR
THE MOUNTING AND INSTALLATION
OF ANTENNAS AND RECEIVER ON
THEIR RADIO TOWER. (5 yr. lease,
commencing 5/1/95 and terminating on
4/30/2000.)
The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion:
4. LEGISLATION AFFECTING SAN RAFAEL (CM) - File 9-1 x 13-7-1
Councilmember Zappetini stated that the Resolution opposing the misleading "Mobilehome Rent Assistance" Initiative
should be supported at another level such as sending a letter. He stated that it really needs to be looked at further to
support these people.
Mayor Boro stated that Mr. Coleman Persily was present from the Mobilehome Park and would inform us regarding any
additional way he wanted support from the Council.
Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 9374 - RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE MISLEADING "MOBILEHOME RENT ASSISTANCE"
INITIATIVE (RE: THE MOBILEHOME RESIDENCY LAW)
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
6. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN AND SELF
EVALUATION FOR THE CITY (CM) - File 13-1-1 X9-3-11
Councilmember Zappetini stated he presumed this would be addressed in the budget in the next couple of weeks and asked if
there was a priority list for funds as they come in.
Suzanne Golt, Assistant City Manager, stated there was a priority list for the Projects to be completed in 1994-95, developed by the
ADA Committee and some additional department representatives. The list for 1995-96 had not been developed as yet, but
the report established certain priorities that had to be adhered to as the basic criteria, i.e., the Committee selects projects that
fall into top level priority, those that impact the most people positively. Currently, $100,000 was budgeted in 1994-95 and the
same amount was recommended for 1995-96.
Councilmember Zappetini asked if there was an obligation to comply with the requirements any faster. Ms. Golt stated all of the
accessibility barrier removal should have been completed in January, 1995; however, that proved to be impossible for San
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 4
Rafael as well the other public and private agencies that she was familiar with. So now in essence, a long term approach
has been developed, in good faith, slowly working to remove the barriers.
Mayor Boro questioned if one of the findings that Ms. Golt was asking the City to make tonight was the determination of an undue
financial hardship to complete access at this time.
Ms. Golt answered that each year the Council would be asked for information (as a legal necessity) to establish the fact that the
City did not have $8,000,000 to $20,000,000 free to apply towards barrier removal work and underlined the fact that it would
be a financial hardship for the City. She stated that the report delved into why, and each year similar information would be
brought back to the Council.
Councilmember Zappetini moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 9375 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT SELF
EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN, INCLUDING THE CURB RAMP ADDENDUM REPORT, AS A LIVING
DOCUMENT TO BE REVISITED AND UPDATED PERIODICALLY, AND MAKING FINDINGS OF AN UNDUE
FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AT THIS TIME WITH RESPECT TO THE BARRIER REMOVAL MODIFICATION ALL
IDENTIFIED CITY FACILITIES
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Heller complimented staff and Assistant City Manager Golt, for the excellent job done on this report.
8. RESOLUTION CHANGING THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL'S DENTAL INSURANCE PROVIDER
FROM DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY TO CALIFORNIA DENTAL HEALTH PLAN (CDHP) (PER)
- File 7-1-40 x 7-1-29
Mayor Boro stated the Council had received a letter from one of the Unions asking to speak and asked Daryl Chandler,
Director of Personnel, if he wanted to comment on this.
Mr. Chandler reported that work on the review of the dental plan had been on-going since early March, 1995, noting he
offered to hold two meetings with employee organizations (including MAPE/SEIU) and that without explanation,
MAPE/SEIU did not attend the first meeting. In spite of that fact, Mr. Chandler stated he provided them with the
handout materials, and responses to questions that were later generated. A second meeting was held in May with
MAPE/SEIU, the Police Association and Firefighters' Association all in attendance and further questions were
answered. Mr. Chandler stated that in between those two meetings there was one MAPE/SEIU labor management
meeting at which time the possibility of a change in dental provider was addressed and that throughout this entire
sequence of meetings, Bill Castellanos, the MAPE/SEIU Representative presented no questions. Mr. Chandler noted
he was surprised by Mr. Castellanos' letter today, noting we have written support of the change from the San Rafael
Police Association and that the Chief of Police advising him that the Police mid -management association was
supportive of the change. Mr. Chandler underlined the fact that the change provided enhancements to the dental
program for all the employees without reducing their benefit level. He further explained that the contract with the
employee organizations did not require meeting and conferring over dental provider coverage, only the coverage, and
the present coverage was enhanced by the change. He stated that the change would provide a minimum of
$80,000/yr. (first year savings) to the City and therefore there was no reason not to continue support for this change.
Mr. Chandler then reported that Mr. Castellanos stated he had some additional questions and that he had asked Mr.
Castellanos what those were today. Mr. Castellanos only provided him with two. The first question was "What was
the City going to do with the $80,0007 Mr. Chandler answered that it would help balance the budget next year. Mr.
Castellanos stated that some of his members were not aware of CDH P,(California Dental Health Plan) (the kind of
company it was); that he had previously provided his members with information about CDHP, and, that it had been in
existence since 1972 in the State of California. Mr. Chandler stated that he was willing to meet with Mr. Castellanos
next week to answer his questions and did not believe it was necessary for the City to delay its recommendation to
switch to CDHP, effective July 3, 1995. He noted regarding the $80,000 savings issue; the City would be required to
give 15 days notice to Delta Dental and the change would cost the City $7,000 in savings if the City delayed until the
next meeting, or one month's savings.
Mayor Boro asked for further comments or questions from the Council and noted that Mr. Castellanos was not present.
Councilmember Zappetini restated the fact that the "the rank and file" were aware of what was going on, that it was "the
head --their negotiator" who was not aware. Mr. Chandler said he assumed Mr. Castellanos had kept his membership
advised; that there was a membership meeting this afternoon, and that Mr. Chandler assumed that was what generated
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 5
his letter, noting that as of his last meeting Mr. Castellanos was in support of this change since it did not effect the
benefit level to his members.
Councilmember Zappetini reiterated if the employees' benefits were not changed and the only party to benefit was the City,
then he thought the resolution should be adopted.
Mayor Boro agreed, adding that it seemed the City had worked with three of the bargaining units plus the management
bargaining units; that this came about as a result of the meeting here today and possibly Mr. Castellanos was not able
to answer some questions. The Mayor inquired of Mr. Chandler if there were some way to approve this tonight with
the understanding that he would possibly meet with Mr. Castellanos over the next week, get the answers to his
questions and report back to the City Council if there was anything new or different; otherwise they would go forward
with adopting the resolution. Mayor Boro reiterated, the penalty issue -- that if the City misses the July 1 deadline,
there was a $7,000 penalty.
Mr. Chandler stated he had already worked with Mike Lynch, the City's Insurance Broker, who was in constant contact with
CDHP, and that they would have a representative here next week to respond to the questions and that it was a major
contract for them. He reiterated that the contract required a minimum of fifteen days notice, and that the staff report
outlined the program enhancements and that disagreement with it was unclear. Mayor Boro asked if he had explained
the problems to Mr. Castellanos regarding timing and potential penalty. Mr. Chandler answered "No"; that he had
spent his time trying to learn what questions Mr. Castellanos had and asked Mr. Castellanos to give some examples of
questions in his letter to the Council. He noted Mr. Castellanos did not do that.
Councilmember Cohen commented that a fifteen day notice was required and that June 19th was the next City Council
meeting. Mr. Chandler noted that put him a couple of days short. Mr. Cohen asked if there was some way to "hedge
a bet", could the Council approve this in concept this evening, and if lack of information was the issue that could be
provided within the next week, noting that apparently was what MAPE/SEIU had in mind since they stated they wanted
to delay this to the next regular Council meeting. He stated that it sounded like Mr. Castellanos was not aware of the
difficulties the deadline created and that it was unfortunate he was not in attendance at this meeting. Councilmember
Cohen asked if there is some way to approve this in concept and yet leave room if there was a substantive
disagreement with the impact of this (rather than just a lack of familiarity with the provider) and; to review it again as
necessary on June 19th. He stated if there was a substantive issue here, it was worth waiting another month to revisit
and discuss it, underlining the fact that the City has had an excellent relationship with these bargaining units and
employees which cannot be trampled in a rush to save the $7000. On the other hand, if it was just a lack of information
that could be provided in the next week, the City Council could go ahead and implement it.
Mayor Boro stated if the City Manager and Mr. Chandler agreed, he would suggest the City approve this, with the
understanding that Mr. Chandler and Mr. Castellanos have their meeting and if the issues were substantial and could
not be resolved, then they bring them back for further discussion. Mayor Boro stated if the issues were considered
minor and Mr. Chandler has given the employee organizations the information and Mr. Chandler's call was that he
thought they understood, then Mayor Boro thought the motion should go forward. Mayor Boro asked for further
comments or questions.
Councilmember Heller asked if there was another Representative from the MAPE/SEIU group present that could discuss
this.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was a little surprised that Mr. Castellanos was not there to make his own pitch that this be
delayed. He felt it was a little awkward for the City Council to carry both his message and the Council's.
Councilmember Cohen stated the main concern was that some of the members have called their own dentists to ask about
the CDHP Plan and their dentists have not heard of CDHP; that they were concerned they would not be covered in
some ways.
Mayor Boro reiterated that the staff report stated an employee received the same coverage, noting it was simply a matter of
the members understanding that and if their dentists have to be informed of the plan, they could be informed.
Mr. Chandler said there were over 700,000 enrolled members in CDHP in the State of California.
Councilmember Heller stated she thought the problem was that Mr. Castellanos did not attend the meetings and get the
information out to his membership. What happened today was that some questions were passed that could have been
answered earlier and it now needs to be delayed. She stated we could delay one month if we feel there are substantial
differences, noting the fact that there is a cost to do that.
Mayor Boro stated that basically this was approved with the understanding that the City Manager and the Personnel
Director would have the opportunity to review the questions with MAPE/SEIU and if there was a problem with the
substance they could bring it back and delay it with the understanding that there was a cost in doing so. Otherwise this
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 6
would go forward.
Councilmember Cohen repeated that he would prefer it be brought back if there was substantive disagreement even though
it was a cost saving and a better plan, though he did not foresee any substantive issues. If there were, he would rather
delay even though there was a preferred savings.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt a Resolution changing the City's dental
insurance provider from Delta Dental Insurance Company to California Dental Health Plan (CDHP), with the stipulation
that it could be rescinded at the next meeting if they came back with something substantive.
RESOLUTION NO. 9376 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL CHANGING
THE CITY'S DENTAL INSURANCE PROVIDER FROM DELTA
DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY TO CALIFORNIA DENTAL
HEALTH PLAN (CDHP).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
18. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AND
MAGGIORA & GHILOTTI, INC. FOR FOURTH STREET WATER MAIN PROJECT (RA) - File 102
Mayor Boro was to have made the presentation to MMWD Board Chairman, Joe Nation, for the efforts of Marin Municipal Water
District. Shirley McClung accepted for Mr. Nation, who was attending a computer show rehearsal at the school of his twin
daughters, and further commented that Mr. Nation was very grateful and thanked the Council and the City of San Rafael.
Mayor Boro presented Glen and Greg Ghilotti with the Resolution of Appreciation for Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc., commenting they
were excellent in working with the City staff. He mentioned that one of the merchants came up to him personally, as he was
walking down Fourth Street, to say how pleased he was with the work that was done and the manner in which it was
performed with minimum disruption.
19. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION TO MARIN COUPE & ROADSTER CLUB,
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) AND PATTY DAILEY (RA) - File 102
The Representative from Marin Coupe and Roadster was again Greg Ghilotti. For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Boro
mentioned there were estimates of up to 10,000 people during the entire day in downtown San Rafael and the parade itself
was quite successful. He further explained the members of the Roadsters Club were the people who enter their cars in
parades and were marshals who made sure the people and the crowds had a level of acceptance and space between them,
and the key was to make sure the cars came back to disburse. He noted the Club did an excellent job as a volunteer
group.
Eda Lochte, representing BID received the acknowledgment for the BID. Mayor Boro underlined that this event was really a
partnership between the City and BID, mentioning this was the 8th annual car parade and it was a success in large measure
due to BID. Mayor Boro stated there was always one person that made it happen and Patty Dailey, the General
Chairperson, was that person, noting she offered abundant sustained enthusiasm throughout the event.
20. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO ED ANCHORDOGUY, SUPERVISING
GROUNDSWORKER, PARKS DIVISION (PW) - File 102 x 9-3-66
Mr. Anchordoguy (who has left the City and moved to the County) was not present and his Resolution was given to Mr. Bernardi
to pass on to him.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
21. PUBLIC HEARING -CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO AMEND SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTER 10.36 WHICH REGULATES THE OPERATION OF CARD ROOMS (CA) - File 9-10 x
9-3-16 x 9-3-20
Mayor Boro opened the public hearing and asked for a report from the City Attorney.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 7
City Attorney Ragghianti addressed the Mayor and members of the Council stating he would try to be succinct although the staff
report was somewhat long. He started out by advising the public and members of the Council what the hearing was not
about; that there was no action which was being requested to be taken by the Council on the substance of the proposed
Ordinance. He continued, in March of this year a proposal was submitted to the City to amend card room regulations to
permit a transfer of one of the two licenses that currently existed, the one held by Mrs. Abrahamian in corporate entity form.
Staff decided that prior to that time a full staff report would be made and public hearings conducted on the merits of the
proposed changes to the Ordinance, that a threshold policy issue would be addressed; namely, whether or not Council felt it
was wise or in the best interest of the City to permit the Card Room Ordinance to be amended so as to permit the transfer.
Keeping that in mind, he stated the point tonight was not to decide whether or not the proposed Ordinance was to be
adopted, but merely to address the policy issue as to whether the current Ordinance requirement that prohibited transfers of
the two card room permits should be amended in the manner requested by the Applicant or in some other manner that may
be the result of conducting public hearings in the future.
Furthermore, he stated that the present Code regulated the operation of card rooms within the City limits by requiring individuals
who maintain card room businesses to obtain both a permit, approved by the Council, as well as a regular business license
with tax imposed upon the operation. Since 1968, the Council had been required by its Ordinance provisions to deny any
application for a new card room permit. He explained, the current Ordinance provided that card room permits and licenses
were non -transferable, and a look at the legislative history revealed those two card rooms that currently exist in the City of
San Rafael will eventually phase out (which existed on Sept. 1, 1968 when that prohibition was enacted into the Code). He
stated the Abrahamians, who brought this matter to the Council, operated the Patio Club, located at 848 Fourth Street; and
the Pellolios operated the 881 Club, located on Lincoln Avenue; that both these individuals had incorporated the card room
permits and licenses that they had in a corporate entity.
Mrs. Abrahamian was now in the process of applying for permission from the Council to move her card room to a new location
within the City and to increase the permitted number of tables from two to sixteen. She also proposed to sell a controlling
interest in her corporation to outside investors (as previously indicated in the February letter to Bob Pendoley, Planning
Director). Mr. Ragghianti stated it was his opinion that such a sale would violate the transfer restrictions contained in the
City Code. He noted a copy of the February letter to Mr. Pendoley was attached for Council's review. In light of this
interpretation, Mr. Ragghianti stated his staff report indicated Mrs. Abrahamian had requested that the Council consider
amending the Card Room Ordinance to allow her to carry out her business plan.
The first question was whether or not such request could be granted and the answer was "Yes". Mr. Ragghianti noted they had
determined that the proposed amendment Mrs. Abrahamian advanced was a lawful exercise of the City's police power.
There were two alternate courses of action which the staff report outlined as follows: 1) to continue with the present goal of
eventually phasing out the existing card rooms by retaining the current Ordinance intact which prohibits transfer of existing
permits and licenses, and; 2) to increase revenues from card rooms while increasing regulatory control over card room
operations which could be accomplished by adopting proposed amendments to the current Card Room Ordinance in the
form proposed by Mrs. Abrahamian. Mr. Ragghianti pointed out his office had suggested they be considered by the Council
with certain additional substantive modifications, which he did not state, but were detailed in his staff report. Mrs.
Abrahamian's amendment proposed several important substantive changes to card room regulations (detailed on Pg. 3 of
the staff report). First, the card room permit requirement was folded into the business license requirement and a business
license application fee was set at $5,000 which was non-refundable. Transfers or assignments of card room licenses were
no longer prohibited. Transfers were treated in the same manner as a new application for a card room license. The
number of card room licenses in the proposed amendment, as compared to the present Card Room Ordinance, was linked
to the size of the City's population. San Rafael's current population was slightly in excess of 53,000 and under the present
amendment this population level would authorize a maximum of two card room licenses. Under the proposed amendment
the population of the City would have to increase to 80,000 to permit one additional license to be granted. Card room
licenses were required to pay monthly business license taxes which ranged from 0 to 13% depending on the revenue
monthly (the first $15,000 of which must be paid in advance on the first day of operation). Card room license taxes would
not be applicable to persons holding card room permits as of the date of the adoption of the proposed amendment but were
expressly applicable to any transferee. Mr. Ragghianti indicated it was not clear under the proposed amendment whether
the sale of the controlling interest in a corporation which owns an existing card room permit should be treated as a transfer or
an assignment. However, based on his February memo to the Planning Director, he believes it should be considered a
transfer or an assignment of the permit.
The proposed amendment requires annual financial audits of the books and records of the operator and no longer prohibits
under the proposed amendment, the sale or consummation of alcoholic beverages in the rooms where the tables were
maintained; but it did maintain the current provision prohibiting intoxicated individuals from participating in any game.
Mr. Ragghianti further explained the attached information concerning other Card Room Ordinances in the Bay Area.
Information about them was detailed in the report, particularly in San Pablo and Mountain View. Several legal issues were
raised by restricting the number of card rooms as follows; 1) whether limiting the number of card rooms in the City was a
valid exercise of the City's police power (which Mr. Ragghianti determined for the reason stated), and; 2) he concluded that
it would not be an anti-trust violation linking the number of card rooms to the population size of the City. In conclusion, Mr.
Ragghianti stated it was possible to grant the proposed amendment or permit it; however, it was a policy decision that
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 8
needed to be made by Council. He indicated in the February letter to Director Pendoley and also for historical purposes,
that the 1985 memo written by Mr. Ragghianti in connection with a request made by the Pellolio family at that time, added
Junior Pellolio's name (Randy) to the card room license, which was granted. Also attached were memos from the Mountain
View Police Dept. as well as from the City Finance Director seeking to give the Council some expectation as to revenue that
may be realized in the event the card room was permitted to expand from its present two tables to sixteen or forty tables.
Mr. Ragghianti stated the Applicants were present to make their presentation and answer any questions.
Mayor Boro asked if there were any questions for the City Attorney.
Councilmember Heller inquired regarding information on San Pablo, asking if the information was simply that one sentence on
Page 4. Mr. Ragghianti answered affirmatively.
Mayor Boro then asked if there was an Applicant that wanted to address the Council.
Mrs. Eunice Abrahamian, owner of one of the card room club permits approved by the City of San Rafael, (who lives at 312
Ricardo Road, Mill Valley), addressed the Mayor and Members of the City Council requesting the City of San Rafael's
approval to an amendment to the City's Card Room Ordinance. She explained the following points with regard to the
essence of the proposed amended Ordinance: 1) it would set up a procedure whereby the City would be entitled to receive
substantial revenues from card club license taxes from operation of the card clubs; 2) it would provide the City even greater
controls over such operations; 3) it gave the City the resources to monitor and enforce those controls, and; 4) it permitted
Mrs. Abrahamian the opportunity to transfer her part of the license to responsible purchasers under the guidelines set forth in
the proposed amendment. In her opinion, approving her request provided the City with an excellent opportunity to add to its
revenues without any significant deterrence whatsoever, as to the business and social climate of the City. At the same time,
she stated the amendment was fair to her and to the owner of the second card room in that it permitted the opportunity for
them to transfer their businesses for a fair price after several decades of contributing to San Rafael's business climate.
Dr. Phil Warner, a physician in San Jose for 30 years, and previous owner of a card club in San Jose for fifteen years, who had
considerable business experience with regard to card clubs, addressed the Council on behalf of Mrs. Abrahamian's
proposal. He commented that he and his partner Mel Weiss, formerly of Mel's Drive Ins joined with Ms. Abrahamian and
would like to see this amendment considered. He highlighted the following important points: 1) they visualize an entity that
was very well run, regulated and would present itself visually extremely well; 2) the games included bridge and other games,
not just poker; 3) the card club offered a positive image builder in business to the City, and; 4) revenue production was key.
Dr. Warner then gave each City Councilmember a copy of a revenue analysis projection chart using San Jose as the model and
stated he was quite familiar with the two clubs operating in San Jose. The tables of each of the two clubs listed had their
current gross annual revenues, maximum city tax allocation (13% in the case of the two San Jose clubs) which brought to
the City of San Jose, $11,000,000/year between the two clubs.
Dr. Warner stated he included two L.A. clubs which were not applicable because they were much larger, but for purposes of
comparison, to notice that revenues continued to increase assuming that the market was present. The Golden Gate Club
(the proposed name of their project if they proceeded) if able to go with the number of tables as mentioned in the last two
items, would add projected revenues to the City of between $800,000 to $3,000,000. He summarized, in essence what
they were presenting was a vehicle whereby revenue production could be obtained very readily, and in reality nothing had to
be sacrificed to get those revenues because the type of project presented was very well regulated and would not carry a
negative impact to the City. His experience in this business with other clubs indicated that police actions required are
minimal if at all; that the security would be well run; that regulatory issues would be up front in every respect; that books
would always be available, and; that most importantly if an adverse situation happened to arise, the absolute power to close
the club under those sets of circumstances would be with the City Council.
He stated when this project went forth (if allowed), it would present a very positive situation in all respects. His partner Mel
Weiss had extensive experience in the Bay Area restaurant business and his son Mike would be available to run the food
aspect of the business, thereby again allowing another avenue of service to the community in terms of providing meals in the
area. He thought it was important to consider all aspects of the project, including the positive impacts.
Regarding the issue of Mrs. Abrahamian herself, it seemed to him that she has had a valid license for a number of years and has
really not had the opportunity to either sell her license to another investor group as she had been restricted from doing that,
and now she was looking to be able to join with Dr. Warner and Mel Weiss to produce this project and allow her to move
forward with her business. She could open the business herself under her current license with no change in Ordinance,
getting the money from the Bank of America. However, the City would get no revenue except the business license tax.
Also, regarding the enclosure from the City of Mountain View Police Chief, that the City Attorney addressed, Mr. Warner
stated he felt a little paranoid as that letter was relatively negative and he did not know why it was enclosed or where it came
from. In response he brought with him five letters from the Mayors of cities all over the Bay Area, all very favorable to their
card clubs, including Petaluma, Santa Cruz, San Mateo and San Bruno.
Mel Weiss addressed the Council stating he was moving back to San Rafael from San Francisco, and that in addition to building
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 9
Mel's Drive Ins, he had built tennis clubs and bowling alleys and had always tried to do it first class. He cited that the
citizens of the Bret Harte Association, his neighbors, were going to be very happy with what they were trying to do. Mayor
Boro reminded the Council and the audience that the discussion was not about a specific proposal but the policy issue as to
whether or not to change the existing Ordinance.
Richard St.John, San Rafael and Bret Harte area resident, stated he believed the existing Ordinance should be changed to be
tighter. He stated that his first image of a card club was a typical sleazy, criminal activity, attracting all kinds of undesirable
images. He said he did not care how much the City would generate if you had those elements; he would not want it as a
third generation "Marinite" and as part of Bret Harte. However, after looking into it he found it completely different. He
stated that one of the things that was not mentioned was that Mel and his group were going to take a substantial part in
assisting the community association and he thought that all the images that card rooms bring up after taking the time to
research them did not exist. He stated he came 180 degrees around; that this had been a highly charged issue and that
people who had opposed it really had not taken the time to look into it. He did and he changed his mind.
Kent Dondero, resident of the San Rafael Bret Harte area (who for 28 years lived in this City and raised two kids) stated he was
totally opposed. He commented that the thing they said about the revenues was not necessarily so. If San Rafael turned
into the tenderloin of Marin County he thought it should be stopped. He stated, "You don't poison your own community, i.e.
you would not put a crack house in so revenues could be raised to support community functions". Los Angeles and/or
Garden Grove have had card rooms for 40 years and they have nothing but severe problems with revenues. Now the
entire police department essentially depends on the revenues from these card rooms and the government has taken them
over because of the IRS. He felt that Mel Weiss and the good doctor were speaking like they were community philanthropic
partners, like they were hereto help the community. They had nothing to do with this community. If this was so good for
their community why didn't they build it in their community. They have nothing to do with San Rafael; that this really was a
cash cow for these two gentlemen that has nothing to do with this community and the benefit of this community. He
mentioned that Sixty Minutes or Frontline, about two years ago, did a complete expose of this, discussing what really
happened to the community of the LA area.
Roger Rosenbaum, a resident of Novato, spoke in support of the transfer. He enjoyed playing cards though not a professional
gambler. Through playing cards he met Mr. Weiss and struck up a friendship with him. He thought it made sense to
transfer the license because he had to travel to Petaluma, Santa Rosa and/or Emeryville to play cards. He played cards
because he wanted to. He didn't do drugs or rob anybody. Sometimes he lost a little money and sometimes he won. He
didn't understand why he should have to drive all the way to Emeryville to play cards when he could play here and keep the
revenues that he and his fellow players generated in Marin County. He thought Mel Weiss and Dr. Warner would create a
club that would please the members of this Council in the way that it was run. He stated after talking to Mel about this, he
knew that Mel wanted an establishment where anybody could come and feel at ease and most of the people he had met
playing cards were people like himself and Mel who were not people who crawled out of the gutter, and; that equating the
patrons of card rooms with the patrons of crack houses was unfortunate. He would be happy to bring his business here as
would other people he knew who felt the same way, and he urged the Council to support transferring the license.
John Rumsey, of 33 Marquard View in San Rafael, was a homeowner there since 1986, and also the Executive Director of Marin
Ventures and Able (two programs that serve adults with developmental disabilities). He was also a poker player. He was
not a crack user or a sleazy person and didn't feel he was an unusual representative of the people who play poker. There
were many card rooms in the area which he encouraged Councilmembers to visit to get an idea of the clientele and the
nature of the people and problems like Sonoma Joe's and the Winner's Circle in Petaluma and Santa Rosa area, Diamond
Lil's and California Grand in Contra Costa and perhaps Artichoke Joe's in San Bruno; that the clientele were people just like
himself and the earlier speaker who liked gaming, a little socialization and having fun and would like to not have to drive so
far to do that. He stated it was a common misperception about what goes on in card rooms. He stated that modern
gaming today takes sophistication, knowledge of statistics and probability. People who play have to stay cognizant and
can't afford to drink or do drugs because they would quickly go broke. Also, he stated that security and community image
were very important to card rooms for their success. These communities didn't experience the type of crime that people
thought; that if you're a card room owner and some of your patrons get mugged in the parking lot, then those card rooms
would lose money. He concluded that he encouraged the Council to support the amendment and said he would be pleased
to personally show the Councilmembers a card room.
Randy Pellolio, owner of the other card room license that had been operating since 1951 under his name and his father's, stated
the problem of whether the Council decided to grant the transfer of the licenses or not, was deciding does San Rafael need
20 tables? If one card room gets 20, do they all get 20 tables? Who wins? He suggested keeping the limit low, like 2 to 4
tables as it always had been. He concluded by presenting each Councilmember and the Mayor an informational hand out.
Shirley McClung, resident of 253 Irwin Street, San Rafael, and member of the Bret Harte Association, commented that this
situation not only applied to her backyard (i.e., "N.I.M.B.Y." issue..."Not In My Backyard"), this situation was very serious
throughout all of California and she didn't think it should be permitted anywhere. While she was researching this project,
she noticed in 7/15/85 there was quite a discussion regarding the transfer of license from father to son of the Pellolio's card
room. At that time, it was alright to transfer licenses because it was from father to son vs. selling an outside party a new
permit. She added as Mayor Mulryan had said at that time, "the intent of this current Ordinance was to sunset card rooms
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 10
in San Rafael to prevent transferring licenses and phase out the present ownership." The idea was not to amend an
Ordinance but to get rid of card rooms all together. However, because of the goodness of the Council at that time they
decided since it was going from father to son they would let this concept continue and at some later date come back and
sunset these card rooms.
As the case was so often in life, one of the members of the Council died, one was ill, two were voted out of office and the entire
thing was overlooked.
She stated that Mr. Weiss once phoned her and said his idea would be nothing but a few guys getting together to play poker.
Mrs. McClung told him that when she wanted to play bridge with her friends she'd call them up, they'd come over and they'd
play bridge; but it never brought the City an income of $200,000. She doubted that Mel Weiss's idea was merely a friendly
poker game, with a few guys dropping by to play cards with one another. She envisioned a serious investment. In her
research she discovered a January 3, 1955 San Francisco Chronicle article about a card room in Emeryville (as one of the
earlier speakers mentioned); that there was a gang called the "Red Fire Gang" who had already been involved in drive by
shootings and traced as having connections with other California card rooms in Long Beach and Gardena. "The devious
part of this entire thing," she said, "is that card rooms loan money to the people who gamble there", and she gave the
example of a woman who was threatened and beaten when slow at making $200/week payments on her $1,000 loss. In
another case, she discovered a gang shot the owner of the Emeryville card room (not killing him), however, eight bullet holes
went into his Mercedes Benz. She had all the names of the people in this incident. She underlined the fact that there was
a real danger here because gambling had a disease element to it just like alcoholics anonymous and there were those
people who couldn't resist. She stated it was unfortunate that in 1985 these weren't phased out because it would have
saved this Council a great deal of decision making. Understanding how difficult these times were, she commented if she
could she would help raise huge amounts of money for the City of San Rafael. She stated San Rafael had a vision and
someday it was going to have a really fine base, i.e., the PG&E developed lot, a wonderful theater, Fourth Street looking
great and terrific bookstores. She granted that these businesses didn't make the City $200,000 in a short amount of time,
but what does; besides what was the guarantee for private citizens to benefit from this. In the lottery the people who benefit
are the people who run the lottery, not the schools. She didn't support the transfer of licenses and thought it best to stay
with the two little existing tables.
Req NaCourt spoke in favor of the transfer of licenses; that he had been a resident of San Rafael for 18 years and was very
familiar with this community. He had a business on Fourth Street. The last few years he stated the businesses on Fourth
Street were failing. A lot of people who lived in this community and loved it were so concerned about it yet were never going
to encourage new businesses.
Patty Thayer, resident of Bret Harte, stated she didn't think there was anybody in the room that didn't feel the City of San Rafael
needed further financial resources, but that this route was absolutely wrong. She felt it was very short sighted with longterm
consequences. She noted when the PG&E site came up for consideration with potential for retail development, there wasn't
any discussion by the Council as to how much criminal activity would be attracted. She asked why these businesses were
being given exception here. She stated it was grandiose to envision there would be no problems; there were problems in
some cities and no problems in other cities, but to say that there would absolutely be no problems made no sense. Card
rooms should not be discussed until there were enough police resources to respond to the current need in the City. In the
1'/2 months since a major burglary at her home, she had talked to the Police Chief and the robbery detective routinely once
or twice a week, learning that there were insufficient resources to not only investigate the serious robberies that had
occurred in Bret Harte in the 1'/2 months, but also that there was no way the robbery detective (who was the only one in the
City of San Rafael which also included Terra Linda) could possibly thoroughly investigate all the robberies before him. She
stated he does a very good job with the resources he had but it was not enough. The argument that the use permit could
be revoked if there were problems was not realistic. She stated that it was very hard to take away a use permit from a
developer; that it was very hard to prove (no matter how good it was on paper). She thought the people behind this card
room have really shown their cards and they should fold.
Ben Parsons, a resident of the Bret Harte area of San Rafael stated he supported a change in the Ordinance and the opportunity
to pursue it further. He said the problems that had been discussed should be addressed at the time of the actual issuance
of the use permit or whatever the next appropriate step was for the card club; that restrictions be put in place to avoid
anticipated problems. At this point he suggested going forward with the amendment and obtaining the additional revenue
for the City.
Deborah Stapleton, another resident of the Bret Harte area, expressed concerns about changing the zoning ordinances but
thought that a business use like card rooms would be more appropriate on Fourth Street where there were restaurants,
billiard halls, nightclubs and regular police attendance rather than a very desolate unused area once 5:00 PM came around.
Her true concern was that a precedent was being established for accommodating each new person and their unique
situation as they came before the Council; where was the end to this once this happened. She asked if part No.7 in the
amendment as written in Mr. Ragghianti's memo to the Council, didn't in fact broaden the use of alcohol and if so, how was
that of benefit to the community at large. How would it be policed (as #7 says "that intoxicated persons would not be
allowed to play)" ---but how would intoxication or not be determined? She asked if the Ordinance was amended wouldn't
that be simply adopting the proposed amendment as it was. Mayor Boro answered "No". She said she saw a packet in
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 11
her neighborhood association, that was the same set of letters as the Council had received from other City Mayors and that
it did not seem too substantive. She added that the specific letter from the Mountain View Police Chief gave her great
concern because he cited other communities were tightening regulations and limiting card rooms so they didn't get more
activity and that told her there must be some kind of overall problem or the Chief of Police wouldn't be mentioning this, and;
he recommended eliminating them or tightly controlling them. All in all, she concluded was this a door which should be
opened very carefully, not opening it any wider than it already was?
Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter to the Council for discussion and potential resolution. He stated
that the basic issue before the Council was whether or not to support the basic Ordinance that was in place or should staff be
advised to proceed with some type of amendment to the existing Ordinance.
Councilmember Cohen stated there was a comment by one of the proposed partners that Mrs. Abrahamian could in effect do
this with or without change in the Ordinance as long as the license wasn't transferred. Addressing Mr. Ragghianti,
Councilmember Cohen mentioned that Mr. Ragghianti's letter to the Planning Director, dated 2/6/95, made reference to the
previous use permits that were granted specifically"...the last relocation of the card room in 1987 also involved City approval
of a use permit to convert a second floor residential unit to a card room location with two tables." He asked was that simply
because it was converted from a residential unit or were they operating under a use permit that limited the number of tables?
Mr. Ragghianti answered that it had to do with the fact that the residential units were being removed and that Mr. Pendoley
would clarify.
Councilmember Cohen stated that the specific question was, "Could they have an unlimited number of tables with that regulation
on the current Ordinance?" City Planning Director Pendoley answered they could not; that Dr. Warner was correct stating
that Mrs. Abrahamian could request the location of her card room be moved to a different location, (and that had happened
before and been approved on three occasions). However, to increase the number of tables she had to come before the
City and ask for permission. So in one sense that was true, but in order to expand the number of tables under the current
Ordinance it did inhibit Mrs. Abrahamian from transferring the permit that she had to another individual.
Councilmember Heller asked Mr. Ragghianti if the Ordinance had anything in it regarding guidelines about the number of tables?
Mr. Ragghianti said "No", and that he thought Mountain View had limited the number of tables to six. He said
Councilmember Heller would have to ask the operators present to go back through the history, that he was uncertain how
many tables existed in these clubs when they first started forty years ago, (maybe there were more than two he didn't know);
that the Ordinance was silent on the number of tables. The Ordinance could restrict the number of tables to a certain
number and in some instances in the bay communities and that was exactly what they did. Mayor Boro noted that would be
handled through the use permit process.
Councilmember Phillips stated that in looking at the history and the fact that matters change over time, the City of San Rafael had
a history that to him implied this was not a desirable activity in 1968; that policy was designed to eliminate card rooms over
time. He asked whether or not Mr. Ragghianti knew first or second hand what San Rafael experienced that lead to its
conclusion that card rooms should be eliminated over time. Mr Ragghianti stated he didn't know the answer. He stated
that he came to San Rafael in 1985 and three months after he arrived the application was made on behalf of the Pellolios for
the Junior's name (Randy) to be added to the permit with the father's name (Pete). He stated he only knows that from
looking at the history that the idea was that eventually card rooms would sunset.
Councilmember Phillips stated another somewhat related question looking at the experience other cities have had, with regard to
billiard pool halls, that he might have had the same reservation about substantial expansion of billiard pool halls. Yet when
he was on the Planning Commission, Classic Billiards was approved and it had worked out quite well. He suggested
perhaps that was analogous to what the City was looking at (at least he was questioning if it was because these things did
change over time). With regard to information from other cities, some expressing concern, others saying the activities have
worked out just fine, he asked has Mr. Ragghianti been able to draw any conclusions from the other cities experience
applicable to the City of San Rafael? Mr. Ragghianti answered, that he thought the Police Chief would be the person to ask
regarding that question; that it was unusual that City Attorneys ever talked about experiences dealing with card rooms; that
with regard to Petaluma or Sonoma Joe's, he frequently spoke to the City Attorney of Petaluma which had never had any
problem with this in connection with the operation of card rooms. However, from the general perspective Mr. Ragghianti
couldn't comment; that the pluses are clearly revenue producing and the minuses seem to be whether rational or irrational
that the words "bar, nightclub, billiard hall" created one reaction and the words "card room" another reaction. So in the end
it was just an expression what the legislative body members felt would be in the best interest of the City. Those cities who
have had them seem to continue to have them and he couldn't say where one had been closed down, but there must be
some in the State of California that had been closed down and that he had no experience with it.
Councilmember Phillips stated he wanted to make a decision on something more than a stereotyped image. He said, certainly
there were more cities in California that had card rooms, that had experience with regard to law enforcement and many other
considerations. He asked was there anything out there in the State that might have addressed issues applicable in this
decision?
Councilmember Heller stated that she knew as part of a Redevelopment Conference about 1'/2 month ago, there was a session
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 12
relating to that and there were literally panels saying "this is a great kind of revenue" -- "entrepreneurial businesses are
coming to communities throughout California"-- "this brings all kinds of problems, etc.". She noted that one of the things
they were looking at prior to spending a great deal of staff time was if there was enough interest to take the time to start to
dissect this and research the communities that were having success with card rooms vs. those that were not. She said it
could be that a lot of it had to do with the size of each of the card rooms, number of tables, number of card rooms, and the
physical location in a community, etc.; that it would take some time to research. She commented all those things were
things that if you were wanting philosophically to even consider them, would take a great deal of time dissecting and asked if
it was worth pursuing further? She mentioned some of the questions in the original letter had been researched to a degree
about the various ways of creating financing mechanisms and Mr. Coleman commented on those, but she knew they hadn't
really focused on communities that had a positive experience and how they were differentiated from those that have had
some problems.
Councilmember Heller stated if the Council made a change tonight in the Ordinance wouldn't that send the Applicants out on a
very expensive road to bringing the Council some kind of project which would be more difficult to turn down at that point.
She suggested rather than immediately making an amendment to the Ordinance it would be better to evaluate the following
issues: various financing mechanisms as suggested by Mr. Coleman, regulation of the number of tables as well as the
number of permits, and what kind of a population formula would regulate the number of tables; then give the matter further
consideration and research. She stated, there were many ways of looking at the Applicant's request, and one way was that
their proposal in one sense was allowing a transfer and preserving a monopoly. She added that on the State level there
was a great deal of interest in gambling and gaming; that it was losing its negative stigma and many people were looking
again at cards and gaming, billiards rooms, etc.
Mayor Boro commented that he felt the existing Ordinance had served well for 27 years and was obviously put in place to
achieve the goal of eliminating card rooms; on the other hand the City had been asked to amend that Ordinance which
would basically create a monopoly. His concern was that society was changing and the Ordinance adopted in the
environment of 1968 didn't reflect the present interest in gaming; (i.e., a recent news article he sent to the Council stated the
State legislature was currently holding sessions on creating a gaming commission similar to those already existing in the
Nevada). California was taking a completely different look at how this issue would be addressed in the future. At this time, it
seemed to the Mayor, that to amend the present Ordinance to accommodate strictly a sole user and basically create a
monopoly would be very short sighted even if the Council wanted to do it. He suggested this issue be pursued on a global
level at a time when things were clearer at the State level, and; that to go forward tonight and direct staff to look at this
particular issue wasn't in the best interest of the City at this time for a lot of reasons.
Councilmember Cohen reiterated that the limited record of the City as presented indicated that the overall policy of the City of
San Rafael was to phase out existing operations. The issue was choosing which direction for the City to take now (i.e.,
either the City changes the policy or clarifies the underlying mechanics of the Ordinance). If a monopoly of card rooms
were created and if that line were pursued wouldn't a request for proposals be appropriate? He stated that more research
was required before making a substantive change in the policy with regards to card rooms. He was not particularly
interested in directing staff to take time researching other cities' experiences. The City had to be aware of new sources of
revenue and must be entrepreneurial but not driven by that need for revenue to adopt bad public policy. Furthermore, he
felt very shortly the State of California was going to take a position on regulating gaming as a whole (much broader than card
rooms) and would thus regulate and tax accordingly. He recommended prudence in waiting to see what the State level
mandated before acting on the present Ordinance policy.
Councilmember Zappetini commented he liked the idea of a new type of business. Over the years attitudes had changed
towards this type of business and looking into it further seemed worthwhile. He also repeated the fact that the Council
would have the power to regulate a monopoly.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Mayor Boro seconded, that the Council retain the current Card Room Ordinance and deny
the request for amendment.
Councilmember Heller questioned how the City would continue to review this issue though she was not uncomfortable with
denial of the motion as neither holder of card room licenses were being given an advantage. She felt the need for further
study as a City policy issue.
Councilmember Cohen stated that the City Attorney's memo gave two policy choices: 1) to increase revenue from card rooms
and increase regulatory control over card room operation; 2) eventual phase out of existing card rooms (which was existing
City policy). He explained the intent of his motion sustained the existing policy to stay with the eventual phase out. If the
State policy changes had material impact on the City of San Rafael's operation of businesses, then it would be looked into at
that time.
Mayor Boro reiterated that this whole issue was evolving and after living with this Ordinance for 27 years, now was not the time
to amend it to meet a certain group's needs. Review was required in a much more global environment and then review of
options and applicability to San Rafael vs. review of the Ordinance in the existing environment.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 13
Councilmember Phillips agreed the City shouldn't turn their back on this possibility; that State wide policy was fairly eminent, and;
significant issues with regard to policy and how other cities operated could be looked at in further detail later.
Councilmember Cohen added that one of the issues was whether this type of establishment and other types of gaming were
going to be under State regulation or continue under local regulation. If it turned out the State decided to leave gaming
under local control, then at some point in the future the City could look at what the policy ought to be without looking at a
specific change in Ordinance. He agreed with the Mayor, that the community should look together with the Council at large
policy issue changes and he thought there were a lot of people who would want to comment on the policy.
City Manager Nicolai commented that not only were the decisions being made whether gaming was going to be controlled by the
State or local government but some of the bills currently going through the legislature would put the decision into the hands
of the voters. Then each jurisdiction that wanted to do that would have to put an issue on the ballot to expand the number of
tables and/or issue permits.
Mayor Boro restated the motion to sustain the current policy and that activities at the
State level regarding this issue be monitored.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
22. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND SIGN
PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A 62 -UNIT ST. ISABELLA'S AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT ON 2.67 ACRES: 1
TRINITY WAY, SAN RAFAEL; LAFAYETTE NOAH, APPELLANT; ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO,
OWNER; MERLE MALAKOFF, C/O CATHOLIC CHARITIES, REPRESENTATIVE; AP 175-181-26 (PL) - File 10-7
Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing explaining the issues and that Mr. Lafayette Noah was the Appellant.
Planning Director Pendoley explained the Appeal was taken from a decision by the Planning Commission approving an
amendment to the Design Review Permit for the St. Isabella Project. He highlighted the four basic points of the Appeal
followed by the Planning Department's comments) as:
1) the design wasn't consistent with the rest of Terra Linda [i.e., the "village like" appearance of the project was
maintained];
2) the Appellant's belief that the change of material from stucco to wood on some of the rear patio fences would cause a
rapid deterioration [i.e., wood fencing was a commonly used material in residential construction and allowed in multi -family
residences at least in some circumstances there was less maintenance cost than for stucco];
3) the Appellant's belief that there wasn't enough money to build the project the way it should be built [i.e., cost issues
were not part of the Design Review Permit consideration. A financial feasibility analysis of the project was originally approved
and information was cited from the Applicant, Catholic Charities, which explained the cost issues at stake for them. The
pertinent issue for the Design Review Board (DRB) was, "is this an acceptable design". The DRB and the Planning
Commission advised it was and that it was consistent with the original approval], and;
4) the Appellant's concern that no common kitchen was provided in this project; further commenting that the original
project approved back in February, 1994 also didn't include a common kitchen. [When first proposed the Applicants made clear
that someday they might apply for an amendment to their use permit which would allow for residential care or board & care, in
which case meals would be served. If that day ever arrived it was anticipated that part of their application would be for a
common kitchen for which the plan had room. As it stood, the project was approved for individual kitchen units and individual
apartments].
Mr. Pendoley stated the Planning Department had received a letter at 4:00 PM today from Mr. Alan Titus who had been involved
with this project over the course of several years and Mr. Titus raised the following six points:
1) STATUS OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW UNCERTAIN --
Improper recommendation for exemption from CEQA. The City Planning Commission agreed it was incorrect
and a short memo was given to the Planning Commission with lengthy discussion. A copy was enclosed with the staff report
demonstrating that the Planning Commission was well aware of CEQA issues; nevertheless to clarify the record, Mr. Pendoley
added, should adoption be favored, a revised resolution, clarifying the action would be taken if Council sustained the Planning
Commission with regard to CEQA (that was if the Council would be in agreement with the recommended exemption); see
enclosed staff report.
2) INCOMPLETE LISTING OF ACTIONS APPEALED --The Planning Commission didn't agree; from the language in
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 14
Mr. Noah's letter it inferred it wasn't appealing the CEQA termination, nevertheless the complete record was included for
Council's consideration, including the Planning Commission's deliberation on CEQA and as indicated before, a revised
resolution;
3) PLANNING REVIEW BOARD DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DRB MINUTES --Mr. Pendoley explained this
was pointed out to the Planning Commission at the time of their meeting; that they had the option of continuing their hearing until
the Minutes had been completed. The DRB Meeting had only been a couple days before and the Planning Commission chose
not to do that, instead relying on the testimony of staff, Mr. Pendoley and two other members indicating the DRB had made a
recommendation for approval;
4) PROJECT COSTS IMPROPERLY USED TO DETERMINE STANDARDS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE --Mr. Pendoley stated that was simply not correct; that the DRB's recommendation and the Planning
Commission's conclusions were based on design, (the most important design objective --to achieve a scale compatible with the
neighborhood) suggesting that they were both aware that this change was being
proposed to deal with cost issues and that design was not the basis of their decision;
5) THE REPORT TO THE MAYOR OMITS AN IMPORTANT MEMO RE CEQA--(Previously referred to in oral remarks
made by Mr. Pendoley and distributed to Council. Mr. Pendoley was available to answer questions as needed.)
6) ADOPTION OF NOTICE OF EXEMPTION WAS IMPROPER --Essentially in Mr. Pendoley's view it wasn't necessary
to prepare a new initial study, a new negative declaration and/or environmental impact report prior to the Planning Commission
making its decision on this change. In his view, the whole of the project was analyzed in the negative declaration when the
entire project was last approved and subtle changes proposed were reviewed against the initial study and the original negative
declaration to determine whether there were any potentially significant adverse impacts related to the proposed change that
were not examined in the initial study or the negative declaration. He said there were none.
Mayor Boro asked for any questions of the Planning Director.
Councilmember Phillips stated, regarding the "village like feeling" and the conclusion which made reference to the initial study,
he asked for a discussion on the next to the last paragraph.
Mr. Pendoley responded saying, essentially it was Mr. Titus' belief that a new initial study was necessary to evaluate the project.
The Planning Department disagreed. The project was evaluated by the DRB which analyzed the proposed changes and
compared them with the approval and found there wasn't a significant departure from the original approval. The original
approval had an initial study done and a negative declaration adopted. The study and the negative declaration analyzed all
the potentially significant, adverse impacts and found there were none and any that might have been were mitigated to a
level of insignificance. In comparing this subtle change to the original approval, Mr. Pendoley stated there was no possibility
in the Planning Commission's view (and the view of the DRB) that any other adverse impact could have been caused by the
simple changes to the roof line or the decks and minor changes to the material.
Councilmember Cohen noted the issues that Mr. Titus raised pointed out a lack of clarity and said the record should clarify which
section of CEQA was referenced. He then asked, when the Appeal was filed were the points to be considered limited to the
points raised in the Appeal?
Mr. Ragghianti explained that was correct, however, in Mr. Titus' letter, his opinions and observations were brought to the
Council's attention, which was his right as a member of the public, and; that out of an abundance of caution, Mr. Titus'
comments were included in the context of this Appeal so that the entire record of the proceeding before the Planning
Commission was before the Council. This was a "de novo hearing", an Appeal that gave the Council a blank slate to work
with (saying "they could do whatever they wanted with it). In seeking to address the arguments made by Mr. Titus, Mr.
Pendoley stated they weren't agreeing with him, that the Planning Department was simply indicating Mr. Titus' remarks be
included in the full context of the information presented so the decision could be made. Mr. Pendoley said they weren't
attempting to preclude the information which Mr. Titus brought before the Council from being heard.
Councilmember Cohen asked if Mr. Ragghianti was satisfied with the City's response on the CEQA issue that Mr. Titus raised?
Mr. Ragghianti stated he was satisfied with the response and added that Mr. Pendoley inadvertently did not mention this (that he
could correct Mr. Ragghianti if wrong), but he believed the record proceedings before the Commission indicated that each of
the members were polled with respect to whether they felt the proposed revisions being contemplated were significant.
Mr. Pendoley stated he appreciated Mr. Ragghianti's comment and noted that point should be emphasized and stated for the
record. (See Page 11 of the March 21, 1995 Meeting Minutes of the DRB near the very end of their deliberations where the
point was recapped regarding the Board's comment saying "the basic issue of suitability and scale has been resolved").
That comment came after Mr. Pendoley had asked each of the board members (one at a time) if they were satisfied the
appropriate scale had been maintained from the last design so the "village like appearance" was maintained. He referred
very specifically to the General Plan findings that needed to be made in regard to the General Plan Policy RES -1 and upheld
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 15
each of them one at the time at the meeting. They all indicated in the affirmative. Some of them made more elaborate
comments than others and some of them simply nodded their agreement that this was the basis of his recap in which he
said "it's clear you have reached consensus on suitability and scale".
Mayor Boro asked Mr. Noah if he'd like to address the Council.
Mr. LaFavette Noah, (resident of 96 Elena Circle, San Rafael) stated he had been at the City Council Meetings several times;
that he was more senior than he was before; that this home was for seniors, and that he was thinking of seniors and how
things changeover the years. He mentioned one of his letters in which he asked the Council if they had given thought as to
how their grandparents were taken care of and what their own parents' experiences have been. He requested the Council
look from that perspective of life because when aging really begins there are a lot things to learn. Referring to his former
letter of March, 1992 about the "Original Homeowners Aging In Place (OHAIP)" (an organization consisting of the owners of
the single family homes surrounding the proposed 62 unit senior housing complex that was to be built in one small section of
St. Isabella's parish property in the Terra Linda region of San Rafael, the neighborhood Mr. Noah lived in for over 30 years,
and now senior citizens themselves (living in the first senior homes), he stated that they were extremely concerned this
massive project was being approved without sufficient consideration to its impact on their neighborhood. He inferred that
because of everyone's political needs to go on record in supporting senior housing, this huge project had sailed through the
planning process and legitimate concerns about density, traffic and impact on Mr. Noah's single family neighborhood had
been ignored. He added that St. Isabella's Project was strenuously supported by Marin Catholic Charities, which had
received sufficient governmental funding for the project. He made the point that no one had informed OHAIP who ultimately
owned this massive complex, though Mr. Noah suspected Catholic Charities stood to reap significant financial reward
towards the successful construction. He suggested that was likely the reason the Church had gone to great lengths to use
political muscle to speed this project through the planning phase just after the most recent local election. Even though this
project consisted of 62 separate apartment units in a large complex setting adjacent to single family homes in a single family
neighborhood, the Planning Commission determined that an environmental impact study was unnecessary. Mr. Noah
stated because the occupants of these 62 units would be seniors didn't mean that cars wouldn't increase the traffic and that
the massive building would somehow become invisible. Furthermore, he stated the architectural plans included provisions
for converting some or all of these units from simple apartments to some sort of nursing care facility. This use would
obviously add even more traffic to the neighborhood. Mr. Noah commented that the developers have refused to include this
use in their current application; that it appeared they would wait for the complex to be constructed and then argue that the
additional use be allowed since the building already existed.
Mr. Noah indicated the full scope of the project should have been disclosed, discussed and approved or denied from the start.
Nothing should have been deferred to a later more expedient time. He said OHAIP was not just another example of
"Nimbyism" (Not in My Backyard). He stated they enthusiastically supported the construction of senior housing quite
literally in back of their homes as long as the project was scaled to meet the need of their neighborhood as well as those of
their future neighbors.
In reviewing his earlier letter in which he stated, "The San Rafael City Council will discuss final approval on March 3, 1992 at 7:30
PM. For more information contact LaFayette Noah --with his phone number", Mr. Noah said he realized how much had
changed since then as at that time he had the availability of a computer to type his letter and now he didn't have access to a
computer. His current Appeal letter stated his objections in handwriting, as an example of how he felt his abilities were
diminishing with age. He said he wrote this on April 4th while standing in the City Clerk's Office to make the deadline. He
repeated the point about the effects of the aging process, mentioning that he didn't have notes, and informed the Council that
as a person gets older the tendency was to jump from one thing to another in ones thinking (that this was characteristic of
difficulty in focusing). He added that in the design of this home, the Commission on Aging said any senior housing should
have home care and that every application for money from HUD mentioned that housing needed to include home care; that
having home care was very important and was significantly excluded in the existing project. He mentioned the letter
included in the staff report from Affordable Residential Care Home (ARCH), pointed out the Feasibility Study for Low -Income
Board and Care conducted in 1991 and how this had been around as a question for long time. He mentioned ARCH works
with Merle Malakoff and home care wouldn't be included in the plans. He noted that Home Care's most recent letterhead
listed their sponsors as National Council of Jewish Women, Ross Valley Ecumenical Housing Authority and the Ross Valley
Rotary Club; that ARCH received their funds from the Federal government and were very close in talking with Catholic
Charities. Mr. Noah questioned if Catholic Charities was still directed by Merle Malakoff, assuming that was still who paid
his check. Also, he questioned who was and/or will be the owner of the project...the corporation Maria Freitas Senior Home,
Inc.? He asked, what did "corporation" mean in the context if something were to go wrong with the project, who would be
accountable, responsible... the Arch Group, the corporation, who?
Mayor Boro replied the ARCH Group was dissolved. Mr. Noah said he knew that, that his point with regard to financing was,
what was the financing decision of Mercy Housing (though uncertain of the name); that this was their first project in
California, (though they had several projects in Colorado to his understanding); who were they, will they be the owner, and;
that he was amazed that this same thing came up many years ago. Relative to Mr. Noah's question about ownership of the
property, Mayor Boro said the Council would ask Mr. Malakoff.
Mr. Noah then asked if there were sufficient funds for good design and maintenance for the entire Catholic property under the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 16
Arch Diocese. Regarding maintenance issues, he suggested the Council when driving up Trinity Way look over at the
green newly installed
baseball field, that now and for the last few years had been a high weed patch blowing in the wind and requiring maintenance.
Mr. Noah further commented that he had also been attending the Community Development Agency and County Wide Priority
Setting Committees and showed the 94-95 reports and 95-96. He asked how much of the funding was from the Church
organization and mentioned he thought they were doing it completely on Federal funds. He stated that the new designs
were made specifically to reduce the cost and the cost had, in fact, reduced the design. Furthermore, part of the design of
senior housing should include making the people comfortable inside. He mentioned the beautiful stainless steel refrigerator,
stoves, and cabinets that he thought Councilmember Dave Zappetini put into the senior housing in Ignacio, they had begun
to use one night a week. He stated that was what senior housing should have and that the food was good. He spoke to
some of the residents of this home and said he got a good feeling of fellowship as he saw people greeting one another
coming and going. This was the feeling he would have, he said when his back gate was open so he could go over and visit
with the people and they would be welcome to come through his back gate for coffee and something on his patio to visit with
him, though this wasn't the issue for Mr. Noah (that the project was in his backyard). His issue was that the housing didn't
have the facilities that it should have and that were promised.
Mayor Boro stated there were a few other people that wanted to speak. Mr. Noah said fine and asked if he would have an
opportunity to speak to the people from the Commission on Aging. Mayor Boro said he was not sure; that he would see
who else wanted to speak and if there were something he wanted to respond to he would be able to respond.
Norman Gravdahl, resident of Terra Linda and member of the Marin County Commission on Aging, informed the Council that
The Commission on Aging had been a proponent of this project since January, 1982 and had been in attendance at about
every meeting. He wanted Mr. Noah to know that he represented the Commission because at another meeting Mr. Noah
took issue with him on it. Mr. Gravdahl stated that some of Mr. Noah's statements were not completely accurate and Mayor
Boro suggested that he focus on his facts rather than mention Mr. Noah. He continued stating that the Commission
advocated in-home supportive services; that the project didn't contain any kind of skilled nursing care but did advocate there
be in-home supportive services and that this had nothing to do with any special services at the building. He said that the
changes that had occurred at the last public meeting of the Planning Commission on this project were sent to the Planning
Commission and the Commission on Aging was told they were non -substantial changes and the main recommendation was
that they be accepted and the project be approved and that's what happened. Since that time Lafayette Noah had
appeared at the Meeting of the Commission on Aging and stated publicly that he approved this type of housing on the
property right next door to him. Mr. Gravdahl, clarified saying that he saw Mr. Noah this afternoon at the City Clerk's Office
and he still reiterated that he supported senior housing on that property but added "not this project". Mr. Gravdahl
suggested that no project would be satisfactory to the people whose property abuts this property. He mentioned he lived in
Terra Linda a short distance from this property and when Mr. Noah mentioned "a village look", he'd never been aware in the
30 years he lived there that this area had such a thing as a "village look". He said the neighborhood was small homes, quite
modest like what Mr. Noah and the rest of the people had; that if Mr. Noah talked about apartments he should look at Nova
Albion Way where there was a string of apartment houses. He was sure Mr. Noah would find that an anathema, though he
didn't see anything wrong with it looking like an apartment complex. He hoped the Council would not be led astray by
unsubstantiated comments proposed by those who object to the project. He requested that they remember in San Rafael
there were at least three senior housing units that were extremely good (i.e., Parnow House, Rotary Manor and Nazareth
House). He said every one of those units had more units for taking care of seniors than this proposed project, so when the
statement was made that this project was taking care of a large number of people and inconsistent with the neighborhood
design, he asked the Council to look at these other fine senior housing projects that were well run and had no objection from
the adjacent neighborhoods. He hoped and urged that the project would be approved as was submitted.
Alan Titus, resident of 289 Arias in Terra Linda, stated he opposed the project as it is too massive for the site. He added he was
a member of a smaller group which put forth the idea there should be 40 units. However, he was not before the Council to
argue; that he had heard the Council's position more than once and accepted their position. Tonight he said his purpose
was to come before the Council regarding the procedure by which the City reviewed the applications before it (and this
application specifically).
Mr. Titus addressed the following points: 1) that the project costs were improperly used and that he thought Mr. Pendoley
disagreed. [He sited two examples from the DRB Meeting Minutes of 3/21/95: first on (Page 9) where Mr. Trapolin made a
statement that "there should be some way within the dollar limit to articulate the roof forms in a better way", and; secondly,
(Page 11 in the middle of the paragraph) where Mr. Olmsted (an Architect on the DRB) said, "this building will be on the site
for many years and he was convinced that the Applicant has objectives in mind to build the richest looking building possible
within the cost constraints". He said if you go through the Minutes for the DRB you would see more examples than those
two. In fact, he said the only reason the Applicant came up with this modified design was because of the cost constraints
and the need to try and redesign this to save money. Mr. Titus noted that he didn't think that it was proper in deciding if the
project meets the General Plan policies requiring neighborhood scale that the Applicant can come and bargain with the City
and said they can't really afford that qualitative design and then ask for approval of lesser quality. He especially didn't think
that was proper when the City had held a long debate over what was going to be required. For seven meetings, it came
before the City Council twice and the Council all knew how much work was involved; that there were certain designs
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 17
required and now for the Applicant to come back and say "Well, I know you thought originally that was what was needed and
now we can't do that. Would you please reconsider and let us do something else?". He asked what does the policy
require? He said they found that it required one thing and he noted that now to change that because of cost constraints was
to let the wagon pull the horse.
Mayor Boro stated it would be interesting if he could show the Council how the changes being proposed were changing the
impactor the original design of that project in a significant degree; that it would be worthwhile hearing. He said they do have
a right to come back if they choose to whether or not they should have or not is not before the Council. Mayor Boro
reiterated they do have that right; they've made the application before us so the Council was really looking at the merits of
those changes.
Mr. Titus deferred to the comments. He sited the Minutes of 3/21/95 (Page 8), showing that one member of the DRB stated that
it simplified the roof a little too much; and another comment (Page 9) that Mr. Trapolin stated "that further articulation of the
roofs would be nice", and; Mr. Huntsberry, said (Page 10) "this plan was too linear". Mr. Titus addressing Mayor Boro said
though he wasn't an architect he thought the project from the start was too massive and didn't fit into the neighborhood; that
the people the City relied on in making the decision originally were now giving these comments of criticism and he was
bothered by the fact that the City didn't seem to being paying full attention to them and seemed to be letting cost constraints
drive the horse. He asked if they wanted him to comment further.
Mayor Boro stated that they had an issue before them that the Planning Commission had approved that came from the DRB, but
that he was more interested in what Mr. Titus' point of view was regardless of what the DRB said.
Mr. Titus stated that his point of view was that a "village look" design didn't fit into this neighborhood; that this wasn't San
Francisco where there was crowded together housing which had different articulation and forms; that San Francisco was
famous for that and San Rafael and Terra Linda were not famous for that. He didn't feel the village look fit in but the Council
had apparently judged that it would fit in well enough.
Mr. Titus concluded with a couple of other unrelated points commenting with regard to the need for another negative declaration,
that Mr. Pendoley said the changes he reviewed against the original study and negative declaration had not seemed
significant enough. Mr. Titus took umbrage with Mr. Pendoley's comment. His argument was that judgment needed to be
done after an initial study was undertaken, not before; and that the exemption which was being relied on by the City was
used very rarely to not at all. He wasn't aware of a case where that exemption was used and upheld, and; that type of
exemption says if someone was making an argument that this type of project didn't fit into the neighborhood, that you had to
at least do an initial study and determine whether it did not.
Mr. Titus' last comment had to do with the Minutes of the DRB; that tonight Mr. Pendoley said there was a determination by the
members that there was no significant departure from the original approval; that determination was made by the DRB. Mr.
Titus stated he was unaware of such a thing in the Minutes; that he wasn't at the meetings and he didn't know, but from the
evidence presented there was no evidence of that."
Dan Beittel, resident of Terra Linda and also the San Rafael Appointee to the Commission on Aging, briefly stated this project
had been delayed unconscionably for a very long period of time and he hoped the Council would go ahead and approve it
tonight. He thought as he drove past the proposed site almost everyday that it clearly fit with his idea of what a reasonable
project on this site would be. He hoped everybody could remember that there are seniors who desperately need this
housing and that they can do something about it.
Mayor Boro asked Merle Malakoff if he wanted to address this with respect to the questions that were raised regarding
ownership.
Merle Malakoff, representing Mercy Charities Housing of California, said the owner of the property was the Arch Bishop of San
Francisco; that the Arch Diocese sponsored a social service agency that served people of all faiths in the Arch Diocese, and
that agency is called Catholic Charities. He noted that Catholic Charities had a program called The Housing Development
Department and he was a member of the staff of the Housing Development Department of Catholic Charities two or three
years ago; that they spun off their Housing Development Department; that they felt as a social service agency real estate
transactions were a little difficult for them to manage appropriately, and they felt it would be better if it was within an agency
that was focused on housing development. Mr. Malakoff added that there was another Catholic affiliated Housing
Development Agency sponsored by the Sisters of Mercy principally called Mercy Housing, Inc.; that Catholic Charities was a
spin off from the Housing Development Department; which affiliated with the Sisters of Mercy, sponsored Mercy Housing
California and hence the cumbersome name Mercy Charities Housing California.
Mr. Malakoff further explained that Mercy Charities Housing California was the regional developer responsible for housing
development for Mercy Housing in the State of California; that Mercy Housing, Inc. sponsored seven other statewide
non-profit housing development corporations in the West (Idaho, Washington, Arizona, etc.). So while there had been an
organizational change, he thought there was also continuity in purpose and mission.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 18
Mr. Malakoff continued stating that the ownership questions Mr. Noah was interested in were prescribed by the principal funding
agency which was the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and Development in the program
called Supportive Housing for the Elderly referred to in the housing community as a Section 202 program and they required
a non-profit sponsor the program. (Access to the funding was unavailable for profit developers; that they must be non -profits;
that they often tended to be religious congregations or other social service agencies; that they required a sponsor to be
behind the project, and they also required the sponsor to create a separate single asset holding corporation (that was
non -profit --to own, operate, manage and oversee development.) Catholic Charities had created a non-profit corporation,
whose records could be found with the Secretary of State called the Maria B. Freitas Senior Housing Corporation and its
mission and purpose was to develop, own and operate the Maria B. Freitas Senior Housing Development. This was the
way the program operated. For example, the Parnow House that somebody mentioned earlier, was an outstanding
example of affordable housing created with sponsorship of Catholic Charities and that it was owned by the Parnow
Friendship House Senior House Corporation or something to that effect.
Mr. Malakoff added that it was a really beautiful project. He stated they had an outstanding local architect who brought a lot of
creativity and skill to the development and architectural design and would love the opportunity to review the plans with the
Council at their convenience and leisure because it was a beauty and over time he believed it would grow, mature, age in
place and become a real asset to the Terra Linda community.
Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing and brought the discussion back to the Council.
Mr. Noah stated he saw the senior housing in Ignacio on the EAH tour and said it was difficult to distinguish between the
expensive housing and the senior housing unless you noticed there were carports, as the outside of the buildings looked
identical. He noted that you couldn't say they looked like San Rafael ranch houses or even across the street in the Eichler
section either. Furthermore, he stated when Dick Rector was elected to the Commission on Aging he was also an applicant
and he thought Mayor Boro was in office then as well. At that time he was concerned about this project and that it had
changed in that it looked like one long apartment house from Freitas to the neighbors on the other end (with their backyard
on Arias). He said he attended the Commission on Aging Housing Committee and has spoken there frequently. He stated
the Commission supported St. Isabella's in theory only; that they think it would be a good place for Senior Housing.
However, when Mr. Noah asked them to come look over the situation, Dick Rector was the only one who came with Liz from
the Aging staff. Also, the DRB said a lot of the asphalt should be taken up and that had been dropped by the way side. He
noted when driving down Freitas Parkway that it was impossible to not notice a big area. He also noted that Catholic
Charities should not be named a charity because they put no money in the pot to build that housing. It was all financed by
somebody else. They were housing builders. Regarding the DRB not having their roof lines and so forth paid for by HUD,
he asked if the DRB had any papers on that or anything? Didn't they know what HUD would pay for? They knew HUD
would pay for an elevator in a three story building and they would not in a two story building unless the law was changed that
any two story building had to have an elevator. He stated that the lot next to him had been terribly maintained. He said that
two of the Commissioners on Aging had moved into the Redwoods within the last couple weeks and the wife of one of the
Commissioners and she loved going out into the hallway and finding people to talk with and she loved the meal service that
was available.
Mayor Boro pointed out this project was never proposed to be a residential care facility from the beginning.
Mr. Noah stated the application for funds from HUD always stated that and he could prove it. When the plan was made, Mr.
Noah stated that Mayor Boro said they would have to come back in four years, but yet they still talk about the making of the
kitchen.
Councilmember Cohen said he had listened carefully and felt comfortable with the resolution as presented, that he had reviewed
all the records and he agreed with the findings presented. He noted the fundamental issue was first whether or not the
design change was significant enough to change the fundamental nature of the project and the conclusion of the DRB as far
as he could see from reading the Minutes, including the Planning Commission's, was that the design changes were not
significant enough to change the fundamental nature of the project. Regarding comments made by Mr. Titus, he didn't see
how they could at least fail to acknowledge that projects cost money and that money has to come from somewhere; that they
could have design standards in San Rafael that said every building had to look like the Taj Mahal but it wouldn't be realistic;
that the money wasn't there to do that and the reality had to be understood. He said he didn't hear any argument nor read
any argument that convinced him that there had been a substantive change in the design of the project. Mr. Titus never felt
the village look would fit and still didn't. There was a disagreement on that point that had been there since the first time the
project was approved and the changes had not changed the nature of that disagreement. He found that it was consistent
with the City's policies and it appeared from reading the record that the DRB and Planning Commission found the same
thing.
In looking at the DRB Minutes that Mr. Titus referred to, Mr. Cohen stated he was most struck by Mr. Huntsberry's comment
"This was a very important project and a very large one and didn't want a better design to go to mediocrity. If they had not
seen the better project this one would be fine". He thought what was being said was if the money were there "to put some
more bells and whistles on it that would be a good thing, but that this fundamentally did not change the project".
Councilmember Cohen moved and Mayor Boro seconded, to adopt the Resolution denying the the appeal.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 19
Under discussion, Councilmember Phillips stated he realized the appeal did center around a design change and that he had a
slight preference to the original but if that was not feasible then he understood costs were an element of feasibility and he
was satisfied with the resulting design that was affordable. He thought that some of the comments exploring a contrary
position to the DRB were taken out of context. He noted he was in favor of the project along with the DRB and Planning
Commission.
Councilmember Heller stated the Appellant's four points didn't persuade her and that she felt the design changes were very
minor in the design of the project and still very consistent with the previously approved plan, and that she would vote to deny.
Councilmember Zappetini agreed.
RESOLUTION NO. 9377 - RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL
OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A 62 UNIT AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING
PROJECT --1 TRINITY WAY, APN 175-181-26
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, Zappetini & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
After a brief intermission the meeting resumed.
23. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A SIGN ADJUSTMENT FOR THREE
BUILDING MOUNTED TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS; 1600 LOS GAMOS ROAD, SAN RAFAEL; ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER 165-010-96; PHILIP MURPHY, THE GNU GROUP, APPELLANT; KRONOS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, N.V.,
OWNER; J. EDGAR FENNIE, AIA, REPRESENTATIVE (PL) - File 10-11
Mayor Boro opened the Public Hearing and ask for the Planning Department's report.
Mr. Pendoley gave a brief introduction, stating that the Commission had considered this appeal on two occasions and in
between referred back to the DRB request for signage on the Lucas Green Property. He reported that most of the request
was approved, though the two remaining points at issue were the subject of the appeal. First they asked for an additional
number of signs over and above what the sign ordinance allowed and second they asked for more total square footage than
the ordinance would allow.
Mr. Pendoley stated, first with regard to the number of signs, six signs had been requested. The zoning ordinance permitted
two and the Planning Commission approved an adjustment allowing four, so their appeal was from the denial of the last two.
Essentially the two signs allowed them to put along with what had already been approved one rather large sign on each of
the three modules (which looked like separate buildings as seen facing the freeway). In order for the Planning Commission
or the Council to approve an adjustment to the number of signs permitted the findings must show that additional signs were
necessary to compensate for inadequate visibility or to facilitate good design balance. The Planning Commission noted this
was one of the largest buildings in Marin County and clearly visible from the freeway. They did not feel it was necessary for
good design balance, further pointing out that the DRB said the design was appropriate.
The second issue dealt with the request for additional signage over and above what the original ordinance permitted. In this
case Mr. Pendoley explained, the Ordinance permits 36 sq.ft. of signage. The Applicant asked for 373'/2 sq.ft. of signage
and the Planning Commission approved 247'/2 sq.ft. At issue here was the Planning Commission's denial of the last 126 ft.
He said that had to do with the same two signs, and the additional 126 ft. which would allow for two more signs facing the
freeway on two of the three modules of buildings. As a point of information he noted the standards for those signs could
vary within the parameters of no more than 24 in. high and 46 ft. long, and that in order to make adjustments to allow for the
additional square footage there must be positive findings on one of the six criteria listed in the staff report. The Planning
Commission in making its adjustment was able to make positive findings on criteria No.4 which had to do with signage within
proper scale of the buildings. They did not feel they could go as far as they were being asked to go.
Mayor Boro asked if there were any questions for the Planning Director and asked Mr. Pendoley himself how many feet the sign
was on the SBT building, at 1401 Los Gamos? Mr. Pendoley believed it was 20 sq.ft. Mayor Boro noted the Planning
Commission already approved 247 sq.ft. but comparing the SBT sign to what was asked in the appeal, Mr. Pendoley said
the one large sign was 150 sq. ft. that had been approved.
Councilmember Phillips said he drove by the building to get a perspective and wanted to be sure he understood when
perspective was mentioned. He clarified that SBT Accounting Systems letters were essentially a letter with a rectangle
around it.
Councilmember Heller questioned if the 150 sq.ft. would be the same size as the sign saying "City of San Rafael" that was put up
at Christmas time. Mr. Pendoley said it was comparable. Councilmember Heller, clarified --two more names would be
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 20
added making that one smaller (like the photos). Mr. Pendoley said the proposal would have to be a sign approximately the
size of what was seen during the holidays and then two other signs on each of the other two modules of the building; that the
sign that said "City of San Rafael" was 46' high and approx. 70' to 75' in length, noting that the height was comparable to the
City of San Rafael sign. The big difference would be in the length. Mayor Boro asked to hear from the Applicant.
Mr. Albert Bianchi, representing the Applicant and Appellant, said he felt like he had lived with this project a very long time and
felt a little bit at a psychological disadvantage at the late hour of the meeting; that the main presentation of the technical
details of the application would be made by Phil Murphy, whose expertise was in the area of designing architectural signs all
over the country, but his offices were in the Bay Area. He stated he recognized that they had been to the DRB and the
Planning Commission a couple of times and it has taken up a great deal of effort on the part of the City and the staff. He
hoped it was justified for this 340,000 sq.ft. structure (the largest being the Civic Center) and, he stated its location was very
important as well. He noted this building was 600' long (the length of two football fields); that the need for these signs as
perceived by the Owner and the Applicant was admittedly market driven. They wanted the signs because business
dictated they get them if possible. He stated they had been told by real estate experts who deal in commercial properties
every day that these signs were necessary or at least would provide something that prospective tenants would want to have.
He explained aside from that, most importantly he had heard the Council made their judgments based on the adopted
regulations that apply equally to all people. He said he felt they had failed in their ability to present these signs criteria in a
meaningful way to the Planning Commission. He mentioned six criteria in the staff report and later stated Mr. Murphy would
make a graphic demonstration of at least three criteria for the Mayor and Council. He explained that the City regulation
states that in order to be entitled to an affirmative consideration for these signs, subject to the Council's discretion, an
Applicant must meet at least one of the criteria. He said they met three criteria described as follows: 1) to allow a sign to
be in proper scale with the building; 2) to overcome a disadvantage resulting from an exceptional setback. (i.e., the setback
of this building as compared to others along that same stretch of highway), and; 3) the final criteria -compatibility with other
conforming signs in the vicinity. He reiterated that three of the criteria were met and they needed only one. He stated there
was no precedent if these signs were approved in this location because anyone that came in before must have met at least
one of these criteria. If so they are entitled to the sign or at least the Council's affirmative consideration of such a sign. If
they didn't meet at least one they weren't entitled to it. So he concluded, there was no argument that this application should
be denied on the basis that it created a precedent. If there were a precedent it was created by the City's regulations and he
knew from having appeared before the Council on other occasions that the City adhered to its regulation and requirements.
Phil Murphy, presenting the application's specifics for Mr. Bianchi, introduced himself as "Mr. Fault" (a nickname as a result of his
inability to portray the hardship regarding the unique size and configuration of these three buildings.) He said they clearly
felt they met the three criteria Mr. Bianchi mentioned for a sign adjustment; that thus far he had been unable to graphically
illustrate they met three criteria. Mr. Murphy cited the letters on the sign the Council talked about on the building saying
"The City of San Rafael" which were 31" tall making the square footage dependent on how tall and vertical the letters were
and how long the name was, (i.e., the name "IBM" would obviously have less square footage). Their proposal was to take
three signs and place them equal distance from each other on the building because the building looked like three separate
buildings. The "City of San Rafael" sign was placed on the right corner of the building showing what a sign looked like with
31" letters. Originally letters were 48" tall because there was an 8' facia. When the 31" letters were put on the building they
felt going through the drive by and the "video take" of the site that the letters were larger than they needed to be, to be read.
He stated, the proposal they had before them was about reducing the vertical height 7" from 31" letters to 24" letters. Mayor
Boro stated he understood that the approval Mr. Murphy got for the one sign was twice the size of the signs, and he was still
asking for one on the other buildings. Mayor Boro questioned this as he thought that all three buildings were to have the
same basic appearance.
Mr. Murphy explained when they went back to the DRB and they approved them to go before the Planning Commission, it was
for three signs each being a tenant's name (i.e., tenant 1, tenant 2, and tenant 3). Those signs were to be 24" letters not to
exceed a certain length, so the total square footage of those three signs wouldn't exceed 276 sq.ft. The Planning
Commission said "No", but that they would give us a 150 sq.ft. sign that said Marin Technology Center. He added now
while they were in front of the Council for two signs, they were really back to that same issue of three tenant signs.
Mayor Boro said he understood that part, however, he asked were the remaining two signs going to be 63 sq.ft. each? Mr.
Murphy replied, the total three signs requested would not exceed 276 sq.ft. Mayor Boro asked was his proposal to make
the ones already approved smaller and the other two larger (i.e., were they all going to be the same or were they going to
have one large sign and two smaller signs?) Mr. Murphy said they were looking for three signs of equal size. In other
words, each sign would not exceed 96 sq.ft. Mayor Boro said he understood. Mr. Murphy said a 150' sign was thrown in
on the end. He then asked for their patience with this as his office had been struggling with graphically how to portray this;
that usually the mock up did a very good job, but he thought going back and forth confused the issue. He said what he
wanted to show the Council graphically was how the sign code applied to a building of approximately 10,000 sq.ft. (The
sign code was written with buildings about 20 sq.ft. in mind, he said when it was designed, i.e., 20' tall x 80' wide, with the
frontage and then deep, which probably sat 50' off the street). After stating that, Mr. Murphy then placed a square, [a white
space representing what 20 sq.ft. would be on an elevation of that size, with the coverage approx. 1 % of that area.] Then
he took the square to the back of the room (four or five times greater distance than he was at the front of the room
(analogous to what they thought the sign code was written for). He then suggested they would easily be able to see what
he was trying to say about their hardship in that the 20 sq.ft. did not work because of their extreme setback (as was
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 21
demonstrated by taking his white square sample to the back of the Council Chamber by the rear doors).
When at the back of the room he showed them another board (with a larger square on it) to illustrate the coverage that was
allowed; that the coverage they were looking for was no more coverage on this building (which was substantially greater
than what they thought the sign code was written for); that they have a building that sets back farther; that 20 sq.ft. can't work
and the proposal they brought before the Council they believe was in proportion with the sign code. Mr. Murphy asked the
Council to squint and notice the two examples basically looked the same at the greater distance. He said, as silly as it
sounded, the entire issue with signage was really readability and placement on the building, continuing to point out again that
at least three criteria were clearly met, and if it turned out the owner didn't need the signs they requested, they wouldn't be
there. Nonetheless, in a comprehensive sign plan they had to develop a criteria that they could live with and that's how they
came up with the three signs 24" tall by x amount lineal, added together to total 296 sq.ft.
Councilmember Phillips questioned were the letters to the 24" scale attached to the building in the plans indicating the three
signs and as he viewed the demonstration he asked, what he would be looking at in proportion to the actual sign in place?
Mr. Murphy replied "Yes", that the facia they were looking at was an 8' high facia; that the white space between the facia top
and bottom should be 3' and the letters 2' and another 3which added up to Fin scale.
Mayor Boro asked were they planning on having one tenant (one single user) of the building? Mr. Murphy said "No". Mayor
Boro asked then who gets their name on the building? Mr. Murphy said the concept had been that the larger tenant would
be the one who gets their name on the building.
Councilmember Cohen stated they kept referring to the total square footage of the plans as presented to them and in showing
sample slides, it brought maximum tenant sign length to 46'. He asked would that be the case if a shorter business name
required less space? Mr. Murphy stated "Yes". Councilmember Cohen clarified this wasn't necessarily an approval for 276
sq.ft. but an approval for 3 signs up to 276 sq.ft. total. Mr. Murphy said they had now defined the three locations, the letter
size, the letter lighting and maximum length.
Mayor Boro asked them to put in perspective the sign on Embassy Suites Hotel and then what the signing was for their project.
Mr. Pendoley said he didn't know the dimensions on the sign at the Embassy Suite. Mayor Boro asked was it 150 sq. ft.?
Mr. Pendoley replied it was not that big. Mayor Boro noted it was set back a lot further than their prospective building. Mr.
Pendoley said "Yes", however, there were some others that might be comparable to recent office projects like the Regency
Center. It has been allowed a 20 sq.ft. wall sign in addition to an existing 36' monument sign which was slightly in excess of
what the ordinance would permit but that was the kind of adjustment the Planning Commission was able to make. Mayor
Boro asked if he was talking about Smith Ranch road a few weeks ago. Similarly, Mr. Pendoley replied Smith Ranch Plaza
and Civic Center Plaza both had small monument signs and a 20 sq. ft. tenant identification sign. The recently remodeled
4040 Civic Center Drive on top of the hill had been granted a total of 48 sq.ft. of sign, that again was an adjustment. Mayor
Boro noted that one of the things which concerned him was that Mr. Bianchi argued there was no precedent found here
against the criteria each time, but how far back from the freeway is it before there was no longer a relationship to the
freeway? Was Regency Center that much further back from the freeway than these buildings they were considering? Mr.
Pendoley stated, they simply didn't recognize that. They said "No" to those that fronted on Smith Ranch Road and those
buildings under consideration that fronted on Los Gamos not on the freeway. He stated the City sign ordinance really did
not contemplate signage for office buildings at all, thus the very small dimensions that were allowed. Nevertheless, the
Planning Commission said in effect, this was different because this building was so big, 620 ft. long, so they had to allow
larger standards that were at least in proportion. He said he gets concerned when they begin to treat these adjustments as
if every building had to have "stellar" advertising facing the freeway. He thinks they were starting to set a precedent and
departing from a rather careful line the Planning Commission had tried to draw even though its been somewhat flexible.
Mayor Boro asked a question before Mr. Bianchi could respond, that Mr. Bianchi made the comment if they met the criteria they
could get the signs, but that didn't necessarily mean they could get the amount of square footage that they were asking for.
Mr. Pendoley said "No", what the ordinance provided was that the Planning Commission may grant right of appearance, not that
there was entitlement.
Mr. Bianchi suggested he may not have made it clear, but what he was trying to say was that the criteria entitled them to
affirmative consideration, and that the discretion of course, was with the Planning Commission (and the Council ultimately).
With respect to the Planning Director, he said he felt he did not need to argue very long or very hard about whether or not
this building related to the freeway; that he was the one who processed it through and got it approved in the first place and
that major consideration at that time was the impact that it would have along the freeway.
Mayor Boro commented that there was an excessive amount of signage on the building based on the entitlement under the
ordinance vs. what had already been given. At the same time he felt there was a need to have these kinds of identification
(and he wouldn't argue about trying to identify all three buildings); but he thought it could be done in a scale that wasn't so
massive. (He saw this as a very, very, large sign and for instance the sign that was up there at Christmas was huge in the
Mayor's opinion). He noted the building was so huge that it wouldn't matter how big the sign was if you had a sign, anybody
could still find that building. However, as a matter of identification, the Mayor understood why a national or local client would
want that identification. He repeated that the Applicants had already been granted 247 sq.ft. of signage within an ordinance
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 21
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 22
only allowing 36'. He thought maybe they (the Council, DRB & Planning Commission) hadn't done a good job of distributing
the footage and he wanted to see if within what had already been granted they could make do vs. granting another 126'.
Comparable to AUTODESK he commented, they were requesting a lot of sign square footage, and; the Embassy Suites
sign from the freeway was no where near the size they were discussing and they depended on freeway traffic. The Mayor
stated he wasn't trying to argue what they were trying to achieve. He was just trying to achieve signing on three buildings
within what had already been approved vs. another 126 feet. He asked was it at all possible? As an example, he
mentioned one could easily see SBT and their name was small, but you could see it. Mr. Pendoley said they could certainly
work on that.
Councilmember Phillips stated the City of San Rafael sign was 150 sq. ft. and that he wasn't clear what the Mayor was stating.
Councilmember Phillips asked if the Mayor meant redistributing 150 sq.ft.?
Mayor Boro said either that or look at the total amount of square footage that already had been approved (247 sq.ft.) and see if
their signing can be put on the three buildings within that total vs. throwing another 126 sq.ft. more. Bottomline, the Mayor
said was he thought there was an excessive amount of square footage already granted on the building and now they
wanted to achieve further identification. Again he asked could it be achieved within the total 247 sq.ft. already granted?
Councilmember Phillips stated he disagreed with that opinion slightly. He said it struck him that the DRB upon the issue being
returned to them, found the three signs to be acceptable. He said he was on the Planning Commission when it came out.
He recalled when the request for the seven signs came out he would have suggested it be returned to the DRB to consider 3
signs instead. He was struck more by the plans and the fact they were in scale. He did not find the view he had been
presented particularly affrontive. He felt the owner of the building had not made a big issue over the economics, but
nevertheless it was a factor and if you looked at the type of businesses they were trying to attract to this City, this certainly
represented that type. He thought the Council should agree to accommodate the businesses so it could do that. Since
there was at least one of the criteria (No.4) that the Planning Commission or the staff had agreed met the criteria, and since
he was comfortable with the visual impact based on the scale drawing, he was satisfied that this should be accepted and
approved.
Mayor Boro stated the SBT building was 20 sq.ft. and asked what was the size of that building in relationship to one of the three
buildings under consideration as far as the width? Mr. Murphy stated he did not have those dimensions. Mayor Boro
stated what he was trying to get at was that they were talking about was a sign five times bigger than that on each of these
buildings, and; that he was trying to understand the justification for that. Mr. Bianchi stated SBT was not as far back; that it
was 250 ft. back at the closest distance from the freeway. Mr. Murphy stated that is why they did the mock-up and agreed
to change the contrast color because it really made a difference in perspective in the sign five times farther back from the
freeway. Mr. Murphy stated proportionately they wanted to do here what SBT looked like out there only five times further
back.
Councilmember Heller stated she agreed with Councilmember Phillips to divide it into three visual buildings and personally she
felt they needed to allow signage for a building where a street was almost impossible to find. She did not feel that Los
Gamos was a street for anyone attempting to find their way around the county; something they were easily going to find
unless that had a map. In their particular case it was justified to give them a little bit more signage not only for that one
reason, but also because they did meet the criteria.
Councilmember Zappetini stated if they were going to put up a sign they were still going to have to come back with a permit for
that sign. It seemed to him they should have the flexibility to allow them to have the sign and the extra space so this did not
have to come back again. With the kind of investment and highway usage that he felt they needed to have there, an extra
120 sq. ft. when and if needed was what they should be considering.
After further discussion, Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to uphold the appeal and directed
staff to come back with a resolution with appropriate findings regarding the adjustment.
Under discussion, Councilmember Cohen stated he did find that the building orients towards the freeway; that it was an unusual
situation because the building sits between the frontage road and the freeway; that Los Gamos Road at that point clearly
was a mere frontage road that happened to run on the opposite side of the building, but to say because of that, the building
was turned in its orientation he thought was strange. Councilmember Cohen stated this building did clearly front on the
freeway though quite a distance back from the freeway and based on the scale as compared to the building and its use, an
adjustment was appropriate. Mayor Boro stated the motion was that they have the staff bring back a resolution that
basically supported a request for 150 sq. ft. of signage with the appropriate findings to overturn the decision of the Planning
Commission.
Councilmember Cohen stated he wanted to make one more comment; that he thought it was worth observing the issue
regarding the use of the building - that it had to be one of the largest buildings in Marin County and the use was going to
change significantly; that they were not going to see single tenant buildings of this size much longer. The use of this building
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 22
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 23
had changed significantly and the City was delighted there was this much effort going into finding a way to reuse this building
this quickly and the adjustment was appropriate not only because of the change of scale but because of the change of use.
Mayor Boro stated he would vote against this motion not because he was against the use. He applauded them for their effort
and thought it was exactly what they needed. However, he also felt there was an excessive amount of sign adjustment to
date and felt they could make the signing work with what they had, but there was obviously a difference of
opinion.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Phillips, & Zappetini
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
OLD BUSINESS
24. POLICE RADIO SYSTEM UPDATE (PD) -File 4-1-467 x4-2-233 x 9-3-30
Chief Krolak addressed the Council on the key issues highlighted in the staff report regarding the approximate five hour radio
system failure on May 29th. He mentioned that E.F. Johnson, the manufacturer of the radio system, was able through
modem and telephone lines to plug into the system and monitor it to determine what was the failure. In the meantime Bay
Area Service Center (BASC), the current radio maintenance company, arrived from Santa Clara and discovered there were
wires connecting two power sources, and the connections within the two power units themselves were malfunctioning which
caused the lack of power and the entire system to go down. It was determined that this had a direct impact on the amount
of power the system was receiving and when it was reduced the system was not able to function properly. Chief Krolak
added that the problem wires were tested and replaced and that would not be the source of future problems.
Mayor Boro commented that the most critical thing was that in the future the power sources for the main push of the system and
the back-up be different. He asked were they now looking at a way to separate the back-up system from the main system
power source in the event this happens again. Chief Krolak stated that at this particular site there was a UPS
(Uninterruptible Power Supply) rating, as well as some batteries, which were put in place over 5 years ago when the system
was installed, and that those have not been changed since. Chief Krolak stated one of the things they are in the process of
correcting now with BASC is getting the original UPS systems and batteries replaced with new ones.
Councilmember Zappetini asked, when E.F. Johnson was here, was part of their maintenance procedures going through all the
systems, checking the batteries, etc. He stated if the system has been here five years, it obviously should have been
methodically checked.
Police Chief Krolak assumed that was something that would have been routinely checked, however, if the batteries were working
at the time and there was power to the system there would necessarily be no indication that those batteries did not work.
He explained the problem was that when you lose power to the site the batteries do not work for any number of reasons.
Councilmember Zappetini asked if checking the batteries was part of the current maintenance company's program. Chief
Krolak said he would check. Mayor Boro added, that you would think they would have tested the alternate power supply as
part of the maintenance.
Chief Krolak stated unlike their computer system at the office which has a back-up system gauge that told you if the thing was
working or not, these were remote sites so they rely on electronic alarms to tell us if the system is working or not.
Councilmember Cohen stated that the discussion had answered his questions. However, what was troubling him was that it
seemed ridiculous that the back-up system was on the same power supply as the primary system. Compared to what the
City had for their computers, a $500,000 radio system back-up system ought to be relatively high tech. He stated there has
to be some way to test that equipment, (thinking of something analogous to a computer back-up system, i.e., something that
tells you when the power is fluctuating and gives you notice). Given all the problems that have been studied,
Councilmember Cohen questioned why wasn't someone responsible for checking into the health of those batteries and
radio system? Why wasn't anybody asked to look at them?
Chief Krolak then introduced Mr. Leo Rehmann, the BASC Representative, the current maintenance vendor supervisor and
stated he would address that question. Mayor Boro then asked Mr. Rehmann if he could explain if the testing of the
alternative power supply (the UPS) was tested during the normal maintenance, and if not, why not?
Mr. Rehmann stated the system had been recently tested and recently failed. He explained in detail that there were two
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 23
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 24
separate power supplies and that the failure that occurred on Memorial Day had to do with the power supply that was
internal to the radio system on what is called the "Voter" (the component that basically listens to the remote receivers,
selects the strongest signal coming in from the officer and puts that in the main radio system.) When the Voter failed, it
locked up the system. He underlined the fact that inherent in the design of this system was the fact that if the Voter fails it
will lock up and there is not anything anyone can do about it. What caused the failure was a faulty connection. Mr.
Rehmann continued to explain that they went through the radio system two weeks ago and their technician spent about four
days up here, going through the system and did not find those faulty connections because those connections are internal to
the radio system itself. He cited the example of how a mechanic approached tuning up a car when brought in for a
"tune-up". The mechanic is not going to tear the whole motor apart for a faulty head bolt or connector rod when he is doing
a tune-up. Likewise he stated there was no way for our technicians to find it failed. Since then, he stated, the BASC
technicians have taken the system apart, repaired it all properly and the system will not fail again. He stated, they cannot
tell if that is the way they came from the manufacturer. They noticed that somebody had worked on it a long time ago before
it was a problem. He illuminated the fact that somebody else knew it (anticipated it) and fixed a couple of them, but one of
them failed. The City has a back-up UPS power supply at all the sites, i.e., Dollar Hill has its own UPS, as does San Pedro.
The two receiver sites have recently been checked and batteries replaced on each site with the exception of San Pedro. At
San Pedro the UPS failed and when it failed the batteries were removed (every one of them --24 batteries up there were
currently in Mr. Rehmann's shop on the floor getting ready to get charged up to be brought back to San Pedro next week).
Mayor Boro made the point that what he was hearing Mr. Rehmann say, was that there was no UPS system that could have
saved this system once it happened; that the system took a hit ... somehow there was a connection that just locked it up so
even if you had power coming through there it would not have mattered.
Mr. Rehmann explained in detail that what actually happened was that the crimp connection (a wire with a crimp that slides on a
connector) was improperly crimped and over time had corroded with salt air and temperature fluctuations indigenous to this
area and literally over time one of them went. He said there was a total of 12 connections; two of which had been soldered
on before; one someone had striped part of the insulation off, fiddled around with it and tried to recrimp (but did not crimp it
properly). He repeated, his technicians basically took off six of the other ones, held the crimp in one hand, the wire in the
other and pulled six of them apart. At that point he cut them all off, replaced them the right way, put the thing back together,
and reinstalled it into the system.
Councilmember Cohen asked, would not your technician upon seeing this type of crimp, take them apart and do them correctly
rather than after the fact?
Mr. Rehmann answered they have corrected a huge amount of things that technicians have seen over time and that the only
way to access those particular power connectors is to shut the system down because they are inside the radio system itself.
Given the way the back-up system works, everything humanely possible has been done to not put your officers on that
back-up system. Basically, he stated, BASC technicians have shut down the system, torn it apart, and gutted it to go into
every single connector inside the system itself. There are boxes full of mortars and crimps that have been cut off that
technicians have found.
Councilmember Cohen asked, are these repairs documented? Mr. Rehmann replied "No". Councilmember Cohen asked
what happens if something fails and its your responsibility and you do not have anything documented...who then is liable?
Mr. Rehmann said the maintenance technicians filled out a work sheet documenting what they did. There were extensive
records and a copy was given to the City. He stated, they did not have one for every single nut they pulled out of the thing
that was replaced, however, they did have quite substantial records. Councilmember Cohen stated it made sense then that
there could be similar problems in the system in the other station sites? Mr. Rehmann answered, "internally anything is
possible". Councilmember Cohen asked "Don't you think we should check those or was that something that was out of the
question to ask?" Mr. Rehmann replied that it could be done, but in order to properly go through the thing from A to Z they
would have to pull it off the air and tear it apart, literally wire by wire. He said they have done this to the extent of ripping it
down to the nuts and bolts and have replaced wires off the backside of almost every piece of radio equipment in the system.
Mayor Boro summarized, stating "If we know we are vulnerable at this one site, isn't it safe to assume that something similar can
happen at the other sites?" Again, Mr. Rehmann answered, "Anything is a possibility". Mayor Boro noted, based on our
experience whatever can go wrong will with this system, the question is ---would it be better to plan to get a block of time to
do that and have the officers know in advance (say from 12:00 PM to 4:00 PM on a Sunday --whatever a low period might
be) this is coming so some kind of alternate radio system can be established and these locations can be checked out and
certainty established that they are okay? He stated "Wouldn't it make more sense to create a controlled failure with some
kind of an alternate back-up system in place, than
if the system went down unexpectedly with uncertainty as to what caused it? He asked that this be looked at that further.
Councilmember Heller asked if it is physically feasible to do that kind of immense project in that short a block of time?
Mr. Rehmann explained it is an involved process where the system would literally be taken apart from A to Z and would
eventually be economically incorrect to do so.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 24
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 25
Mayor Boro stated he was hearing something all together different --- that the preventive maintenance check could be
accomplished in 3-6 hours on all (three) sites; that there is some kind of junction box with some loose wires in it; that when
they were discovered they found they had already been fixed and the system was off and on in only five and one-half hours.
Mr. Rehmann pointed out that for them to go through the system to his company's standards would be a major undertaking
as there were two sites, each with 10 foot long panels.
Councilmember Heller asked for an estimate of hours, per site? Mr. Rehmann stated days.
Councilmember Phillips questioned, would not part of normal routine rotating maintenance check include checking and replacing
the connectors on a rotating basis? Mr. Rehmann stated they have done that with the exception of shutting the system
down and tearing the inside out; that they have gone through all of the external
connections... everything the technicians can get at from outside without striping it apart.
Councilmember Phillips stated that what bothered him was the number of pieces that have had to be replaced; that if there were
many in that particular site, then at the other sites the same kind of problem could exist with the same kind of aging. He
asked, "Aren't we remiss in not doing something somewhat preventive at the other sites as well, rather than wait till the
doggone thing goes down again". He asked Mr. Rehmann, "Wouldn't you recommend shutting down the system if that was
necessary?"
Mr. Rehmann, agreed the whole thing should be striped apart, however, with the understanding that the maintenance philosophy
taken when his company came on board to this system was to take the primary system and make it "the best it could be and
as reliable as it could be" because the back-up system which San Rafael had was not in his humble opinion, adequate
enough to serve the officers over an extended period of time; that what was required to really go through the inside was an
extended period of time -- i.e., a week each on the two main sites and probably a day and one-half on the remote sites.
Councilmember Phillips asked "Do we just wait until it goes down and then do it?"
Mr. Rehmann replied "No"; that the main philosophy was to take the existing system and do everything possible to ensure that it
operates properly all the time.
Councilmember Phillips stated that it bothered him because Mr. Rehmann described the history of one site as similar to the
others and that a similar problem on the other locations was obviously anticipated.
Mr. Rehmann stated you cannot discount anything, that "Murphy's law is alive and well".
Mayor Boro stated he was troubled that Mr. Rehmann knows the City's system has been through a lot but he cannot believe that
this piece of the system is that unique as far as the appropriate maintenance approach on it. What he thought he heard Mr.
Rehmann say was that five hours worth of work was required to fix it and now there was another problem ... days worth of
effort at that same location and others requiring the same kind of work with the equipment. He stated there were other
connectors at the Dollar site that could be in the same position that you have not found yet so it was bigger at least than he
first thought it was. "Would you please help us understand how other jurisdictions do maintenance on these kinds of
things ... do they just wait until they go .... what do they do?", he asked.
Mr. Rehmann explained a lot of them have a regular scheduled maintenance program, that they also have back-up systems if
the main system fails that switches easily over to the back-up system because the back-up system operated identically or
very close to the way that the main system worked. He stated, it was no big deal if you pull a lot of the other police
department's system down. The difficulty San Rafael had was that the back-up system did not adequately service the
officers and it was a big deal to put them on a back-up system.
Councilmember Cohen stated the rest of the system may be falling apart internally and we will just have to wait for it to fall apart
again. He did not know if it was productive at this point to spend thousands of dollars prospectively replacing all wiring since
he thought the City needed to be looking for a new radio system and it did not make sense to rebuild it when you are not
going to get the money out because it may fail again. He expressed his concern about the back-up system and noted he
wanted more information regarding the quality or lack thereof of the back-up radio system at another time; that he was not
previously aware of this.
Councilmember Cohen stated he wanted to know why the system crashed when the power failed and why the back-up power
supply had nothing to do with it? Mr. Rehmann explained again that there were multiple supplies within in the system.
These power supplies provided voltage for different components of the radio system, i.e., Dollar Hill and other power
supplies operating various components. What happened is that a power supply that powers to a unit called the Voter failed.
When that particular power supply failed the Voter locked up which basically shut the system down and would not let
anybody in and anybody out.
Councilmember Cohen asked was there no back-up power supply for that Voter? Mr. Rehmann stated that was correct --there
was one power supply for the Voter. Councilmember Cohen stated would it not make sense to have some kind of back-up
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 25
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 26
power supply for each crucial segment of the system; that he did not understand why there was not back-up for those power
supplies? Mr. Rehmann stated at one point you were building redundancy upon redundancy!
Mayor Boro commented that now he heard Mr. Rehmann say that a connection came loose which caused the power supply to
fail. Mr. Rehmann again repeated what happened in depth, stating again that the power supply remained on, that the wire
between the power supply and the Voter connection failed and locked the system. The power supply was fine, however,
the power never got from the power supply to the Voter.
Councilmember Cohen stated that when Mr. Rehmann went in there and looked at this particular part of the system and your
technician found that several of the connections had been soldered, that several others were about to come loose and that
some had been crimped a little bit, did not that indicate that at some point somebody was in this component of the system
doing some soldering. He added that from what Mr. Rehmann had said they would have had to shut the system down to do
that. Mr. Rehmann agreed, more than likely. Councilmember Cohen then ascertained that the City has copies of Mr.
Rehmann's maintenance records and wanted to know who was doing the maintenance prior to Mr. Rehmann's company.
Mr. Rehmann replied it was CRC and/or E.F. Johnson doing the maintenance prior to his company. Councilmember
Cohen asked if CRC or E.F. Johnson was in there and ignored some soldering that lead to the system failure. Mr.
Rehmann, stated that the only way his technicians found them was that the technician went up to every wire, took them up
and started pulling them and by doing this they failed, meaning they were an accident waiting to happen. Whoever was
servicing them before did not do that. They found whatever failed, fixed it and left the rest of them because they looked
okay just the way they were, adding that the technician cannot tell from looking at them what is good and what is bad.
Councilmember Cohen commented whatever state the system was in there was still one component that has failed and six other
wires were obviously the same; that the prudent person would stop and check the condition of those while they have that
open. He wondered if there was an issue of liability that needed to be looked into further. One of the things that was
frustrating to him about this was that it was not anybody's fault it did not work, it did not do what it's suppose to do, that it kept
failing and cannot be fixed. Given that someone was in this particular section of the radio system and did work on similar
wires and ignored these, he said he would like the records of what work was done and who did it looked into and if
information was available on any kind of warranty (implied or expressed). He said if he had a mechanic that worked on his
car like this he would sue him.
Chief Krolak commented this was done sometime between the present and the time it was installed, or at the time it was
installed; that he did not know if that could be determined.
Councilmember Cohen stated if records were available on what was done, it should be possible to go back and look at what was
done on this component of the radio system, that it, might be worth looking into.
Councilmember Phillips stated he was not sure that was the correct direction to take, but rather learn from experience. He
stated he would like to meet with Chief Krolak and City Manager Nicolai and review the maintenance system in light of what
has been discovered and come back with a recommendation with what might be appropriate with regard to cost benefit.
Mayor Boro concurred that it would appropriate to understand more about the back-up system and what needs to be done to
make that more adequate in the current environment. Thus, even if it is decided to do something different, it is not going to
happen overnight. He suggested that perhaps Councilmember Phillips could assess if there is anything that could be done
to enhance the system in the short term with a reasonable amount of money and determine if was it worth doing.
Councilmember Heller added that sitting on the Police Radio Committee she had learned that radios were not simple, even after
our consultants spent three of the four hours teaching us about radios; that Mr. Rehmann was an excellent communicator
and perhaps he could come in and give us all a basic media lesson. She added that, Commander Pennington did just give
them the radio system status report and it was in the Friday packet. She requested that everyone read and understand it
because it was a high ticket item (thousands and thousands of dollars needed in the next month and/or year). She stated it
was essential that everyone understand what was involved. From what she had heard and understood, Councilmember
Heller thought that Leo Rehmann and his technicians were doing an excellent job.
25. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES (CM) - File 9-1
Mayor Boro announced that this item was being postponed and would be discussed at a Special Meeting to be
held at 5:30 PM, Monday, June 19, 1995, in the Council Chamber.
Councilmember Phillips requested feedback with regard to the five year budget projection to incorporate this in
the budget process, and stated he would work with Finance Director Coleman on a Summary to be presented at the special
meeting.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO MCCMC LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE TO REPLACE GARY
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 26
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 27
PHILLIPS (CC) - File 113x9-1
Councilmember Heller agreed to become the Council Representative to MCCMC Legislative Committee, as their
meetings were held on Monday mornings and Councilmember Phillips was unable to attend at that time.
c. UPDATE ON NORTH BAY DIVISION LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MEETING HELD THURSDAY, JUNE 1,
1995 - File 9-11-1
Councilmember Heller briefly reported that the North Bay Division of the League of California Cities met
Thursday, June 1st, in the City of American Canyon, noting there were no dues this year as there were sufficient funds in the
bank. An overview was given on utility deregulation, with the Utility Citizens Oversight Group (TURN) offering their perspective.
She added that the Mayor of the City of American Canyon would speak at the Mare Island Closure Ceremony in March, 1996,
and they were inviting a representative from each city in each county to be on this committee, so any member interested should
contact City Manager Nicolai for information. She noted the next meeting would be held on September 7, 1995 in Sonoma
County.
here being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 AM, June 6, 1995.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1995
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 6/5/95 Page 27