HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1998-05-04SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 4, 1998 AT 8:00 PM
Regular Meeting:
San Rafael City Council
Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Barbara Heller,
Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember
Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember
(through Agenda item #19).
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION:
Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items.
CLOSED SESSION:
la. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(Government Code Section 54956.9 (a))
Case Name: Spirit Enterprises, Inc. vs. City of San Rafael, Marin County
Courts, Case No. 168084
lb. Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property Address: 1000 Francisco Boulevard, San Rafael
(Scotland Yard site)
APN 08-102-04
Negotiating Parties: Jake Ours, Economic Development Director, Senior
Redevelopment Specialist Nancy Mackle, and Owners of
Underlying Fee and Business Owners of Scotland Yard
Under Negotiation: Instructions to negotiator with respect to price and
terms.
OPEN SESSION:
Mayor Boro announced no reportable action was taken on items la and lb.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00
PM
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the
following Consent Calendar items:
ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION
`a
3.
4.
5
Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Public
Hearing and Regular Meeting of Monday,
April 20, 1998 (CC)
Reappointment of Dr. Stephen Mizroch to a Four -
Year Term as Fire Commissioner, Term to Expire
End of March, 2002 (CC) - File 9-2-5
City Work Plan Review (CM) - File 237
Approved as
submitted.
Approved staff
recommendation:
Dr. Stephen Mizroch
reappointed to a four-year
term on the Fire
Commission, term to expire
end of March, 2002.
Resolutions of Appreciation Re: E1 Nino
(31) .
Storms of February, 1998 - File 205-C x 13-11 x 102
The following Resolutions were issued:
Accepted report.
Adopted Resolutions
FIRE DEPT.: #10170 - Michael Angeli, #10171 - Kenneth Ball,
#10172 - James Coffey, #10173 - Howard Gold, #10174 - Alex
Harvey, #10175 - Alfred Hibler, #10176 - Gary Hofstede,
#10177 - Bruce Hudkins, #10178 - John Jones, #10179 - Paul
LeVeque, #10180 - Marcus Mathis, #10181 - Kevin
Meiswinkel, #10182 - Gary Mennick, #10183 - James Perry,
#10184 - John Polacchi.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 1
N
VA
8
0
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 2
POLICE DEPT.: #10185 - Katie Benninger, #10186 - Gregory Cella, #10187 -
Lori Coen, #10188 - Michael Costello, #10189 - David Cron,
#10190 - Jennifer Johnson, #10191 - David Jones, #10192 -
Arnold Juge, #10193 - Richard Martin, #10194 - Kelly
Mauel, #10195 - Gregory Miller, #10196 - John McGinnis,
#10197 - Steven Piotter, #10198 - William Snyder, #10199 -
Wanda Spaletta, #10200 - Nellie Woodard.
Resolution of Appreciation to Nader Mansourian, RESOLUTION NO. 10201
Employee of the Quarter Ending March 31, 1998 RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION
(CM) - File 102 x 7-4 x 9-3-40 TO NADER MANSOURIAN,
EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER
ENDING MARCH 31, 1998.
Resolution of Appreciation to Sheila Delimont, RESOLUTION NO. 10202
Acting Community Development Director (CM) RESOLUTION OF
APPRECIATION
- File 102 x 9-3-85 TO SHEILA DELIMONT, ACTING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR.
Resolution Authorizing Execution of Addendum
RESOLUTION NO. 10203
to Joint Powers Agreement for the Major Crimes
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE
Task Force - File 4-10-114 x 9-3-30
SIGNING OF AN ADDENDUM TO
THE 1995 MARIN COUNTY
MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS
AGREEMENT (Adding CHP as a
voting member).
Approval of Street Closures for Greg Borrelli
Approved staff
recommendation:
May Madness Classic Car Parade, May 16, 1998
Closures include:
Court Street
(RA) - File 11-19 x 11-22
from Fourth Street to the
Bank of America driveway
from 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM;
"A" Street from parking
structure driveway to
Fifth Avenue from 9:00 AM
to 10:00 PM; Fourth Street
between Lootens Place and
"A" Street from 9:00 AM to
10:00 PM for stage set-up;
Fourth Street from Lincoln
Avenue to "D" Street from
1:00 PM to 10:00 PM; Cijos
Street from south of
Commercial Place to Fourth
Street from 1:00 PM to
10:00 PM; Lootens Place
from Commercial Place to
apartment building
driveway from 1:00 PM to
10:00 PM; "B" Street from
parking structure driveway
to Fifth Avenue from 1:00
PM to 10:00 PM; "C" Street
from parking structure
driveway to Fifth Avenue
from 1:00 PM to 10:00 PM.
Approval of Street Closures for the Dignity Day
Approved staff
recommendation:
March, June 6, 1998 (RA) - File 11-19 x 11-22
(Parade from 10:00 AM
to 1:00 PM). Closures
include westbound lane of
Fourth Street between
Tamalpais Avenue and "B"
Street, and east side of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 3
"B" Street from Fourth
Street to Albert Park.
11. Resolution Authorizing $20,000 in Additional
Funding for the "B" Street Recreation Center
A.D.A. Toilet Rooms Remodel (PW)
- File 12-15 x 13-1-1 x 13-18
12. Subdivision of Lands of Laurel Properties -
Extension of Time for Subdivision Agreement
(PW) - File 5-1-316
RESOLUTION NO. 10204
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING $20,000
IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING
FOR THE
"B" STREET RECREATION
CENTER A.D.A. TOILET ROOMS
REMODEL PROJECT FROM THE
GENERAL FUND OUT OF THE
1998/99 A.D.A. PROJECT
ALLOCATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 10205
RESOLUTION TO EXTEND
TIME FOR
THE COMPLETION OF
IMPROVEMENT WORK -
"SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OF
LAUREL PROPERTIES"
(FAIRHILLS DRIVE AT
IDLEWOOD PLACE - A 4 LOT
SUBDIVISION) (Extended to
and including 5/18/99).
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 3
13
14.
Fl•7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 4
Resolution Authorizing Execution of Sun Valley
Resolution not
adopted.
School Multi -Purpose Room - Joint Use Application Item carried over to
meeting
(Rec) - File 4-7-29 of 5/18/98 at request of
staff.
Resolution Approving and Authorizing Execution
of Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for
163 Merrydale (CD) - File 229
Appointment of Two New Members to the North
San Rafael Vision "Guardians Committee" (CD)
- File 9-2-52 x 238
RESOLUTION NO. 10206
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE
SIGNING OF A BELOW MARKET
RATE (BMR) RENTAL HOUSING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN JOHN
DIEGO; JAMES DIEGO; T & J
FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, AND THE CITY
OF SAN RAFAEL FOR TWO
BELOW MARKET RATE RENTAL
UNITS RE: 163 MERRYDALE
ROAD APARTMENTS.
Approved staff
recommendation:
Appointed Ben Lowe
and Sarah
Haynes, Terra Linda High
School students.
Appointed for 6 months,
with an optional renewal.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
16. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO NADER MANSOURIAN, TRAFFIC
ENGINEER, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1998 (CM) - File 102 x
9-3-40
Mayor Boro introduced Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian, announcing Mr.
Mansourian had recently been selected by his fellow employees as Employee
of the Quarter for the period ending March 31, 1998. Mayor Boro reported
Mr. Mansourian has been with the City since 1987, and has worked diligently
throughout San Rafael, particularly in the areas of the Freitas Park
Interchange in North San Rafael and in the Canal area of East San Rafael.
Mayor Boro stated Mr. Mansourian had come up with very innovative ways to
solve long-standing problems, not only solving a lot of concerns and needs
of the community, but saving the City a substantial amount of money, as
well. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Mansourian for his
work.
Mr. Mansourian thanked Council for the Resolution, and acknowledged his co-
workers for their teamwork.
17. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO SHEILA DELIMONT, ACTING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR - File 102 x 9-3-85
Mayor Boro introduced Planning Manager Sheila Delimont, who served as
Acting Community Development Director for the past several months. He
stated Ms. Delimont had carried the City through a number of very difficult
processing periods with several major projects, at a time when the
Community Development Department was extremely busy. Mayor Boro was happy
to note there was a lot of positive development currently going on in the
community, much of which occurred during the time Ms. Delimont was serving
as Acting Director. Mayor Boro stated the City was very pleased she had
done so well, and on behalf of the Council, wished her much success in the
future, and thanked her for her fine work.
Ms. Delimont thanked her staff for helping out, particularly Fred Vincenti
from the Building Division, and also the members of the Management Team for
their support during the past several months.
ADD ITEM:
RE -INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR - File 9-3-85 x 7-4
(Verbal)
City Manager Gould re -introduced new Community Development Director Bob Brown,
who began his service with the City last Monday (April 27, 1998), and Mr.
Brown's wife, Nanette, and daughter, Ashley. Mayor Boro welcomed Mr. Brown to
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 5
the City. Mr. Brown thanked the City for the welcome he had received, stating
he and his family were very happy to be a part of San Rafael.
PUBLIC HEARING:
18. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADD THEATERS AS
A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE SECOND/THIRD MIXED USE EAST DISTRICT (AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 14.05.022 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE) (RA) - File 10-3
Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for a staff
report.
Senior Planner Katie Korzun reported this proposal had been recommended by
the Planning Commission, and was now before Council because when work was
begun on the Request for Proposals (RFPs) for the cineplex Downtown, they
discovered that of the seven Zoning Districts in the Downtown, theaters
were not allowed in two of them, the Hetherton Office area and Mixed Use
East. She stated in reviewing this, they noted minor gradation differences
between Mixed Use, Mixed Use West, and Mixed Use East, and it appeared that
leaving theaters out of Mixed Use East had been a typographical error. She
reported they studied the impacts, and believe it would provide a positive
benefit.
Ms. Korzun explained a theater would have a large auditorium with no
windows, and while it would be allowed on Fourth Street, a theater would
not want to take up a large retail frontage, pointing out, for example, the
Rafael Theater's auditorium is at the back of their property. However, Ms.
Korzun explained that in doing this on Fourth Street, as soon as a project
gets back any distance it is in another District, and we would find
ourselves forcing theaters onto Fourth Street, which we do not want to do.
Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended this Ordinance change,
which would mean the only District in the Downtown that would not allow
movie theaters would be the Hetherton Office District, which is almost
exclusively Office in nature.
There being no public comment, Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing.
Councilmember Miller stated, as a member of the Downtown Vision Committee,
that while theater use in the Downtown may not have been included in the
"letter" of the Vision, it certainly fit the "spirit" of the Vision. He
was certain that if anyone had thought of theaters at the time the Vision
was developed, they would have been included.
The title of the Ordinance was read:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION
14.05.022, TABLE 14.05.022, LAND USE REGULATIONS TO ADD THEATERS AS A
CONDITIONAL USE IN THE SECOND/THIRD MIXED USE EAST (2/3MUE) ZONING
DISTRICT".
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to dispense
with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title
only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1725 to print by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips, Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
OLD BUSINESS:
19. REPORT ON REVIEW OF SIGN ORDINANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
CAMPAIGN FOR EAST SAN RAFAEL TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (PW) - File 125 x 11-11
x 11-1
Public Works Director Dave Bernardi noted the first item for Council's
consideration was the adoption of a Resolution authorizing him to execute a
professional services agreement, and the second was discussion of a
temporary signage program, with direction from Council.
Mr. Bernardi referred to a meeting held at the San Rafael Chamber of
Commerce on April 8th, which had been attended by business owners and
others who were going to be directly affected by the one-way plan, noting
the proposal now before Council incorporated the ideas discussed during
that meeting. Mr. Bernardi reported Christine Hildebrand, Manager of
Integrated Marketing Solutions, and David Rowley, Manager of RPM
Advertising had attended the meeting, and Mr. Bernardi asked them to submit
a joint proposal for consideration.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 6
Mr. Bernardi stated the proposal was very detailed, and he believed if it
were to be implemented it would provide a very adequate and proper public
notification to the business owners, as well as customers who wished to
shop in that area. Mr. Bernardi stated it was suggested the name of the
area be "the Loop", noting it provides a good marketing tool. He reported
there were teaser ads listed in the Newspaper Media Schedule, such as "To
Be In The Loop", "Introducing the Loop", and "Loop da Loop". Mr. Bernardi
stated he had reviewed the proposal with the Chamber of Commerce, reporting
the Chamber agreed with the recommendation.
Mr. Bernardi explained the second item before Council was a review of the
possibility of a temporary signage program, noting he had discussed the
issue with Community Development Director Bob Brown, who reported the
City's Sign Ordinance currently allows only temporary banners, for a
maximum of 21 days, and the banners are restricted to grand openings. Mr.
Bernardi stated that although the Ordinance does include a definition of
temporary signs for up to 60 days, it includes no authorization for such
signs. He noted another option Council might want to consider, rather than
having a number of individual applications, was for the City to be the
"applicant" in this case, putting together a proto-type sign to be used by
anyone interested in putting up a temporary sign. This way, since the
process would involve the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission,
we would only have to go through the process once, instead of doing it
separately for each applicant.
Mr. Bernardi stated if Council were to consider this option, staff
recommended an Addendum to the existing proposal, and then letting the
consultants develop a proto-type sign, which staff would take through the
review process.
Mayor Boro asked if the intent was that there would be an exception to the
present Sign Ordinance, as a one-time approach, with something that would
expire in approximately five or six months, and not be permanent? Mr.
Brown explained this would essentially be a sign program application, which
provides a great deal of flexibility, and as part of that, the Planning
Commission would establish a maximum time period for these signs. Mayor
Boro asked what timeframe was being considered, and if it would run through
the end of the year? Mr. Brown stated it could potentially be as short as
three to six months; however, he believed we needed to discuss the timing
with the business owners, and also look at the construction schedule. Mr.
Bernardi noted the timing could also be tied to the ad campaign, which
would run to the beginning of October.
Mr. Bernardi stated the proposal was $45,836, and staff was recommending
Council authorize the amount not to exceed $46,000, explaining it would be
paid for out of Traffic Mitigation Fees collected for traffic improvements
in the area.
Councilmember Heller referred to the meeting of April 8th, and asked Mr.
Bernardi if he felt the business owners were satisfied with this approach,
and with what we plan to do, and the way we are doing it? Mr. Bernardi
stated he had been surprised by how much excitement was generated at the
meeting, noting one business owner in particular, who owns a printing
company in the area, came up with a number of ideas, and seemed to be very
excited about the process and the whole idea of having an advertising
campaign. Mr. Bernardi stated they were planning one more meeting with the
business owners, to let them know what is coming up, and to provide them
with information packets, which will include a check -list they can refer to
when doing their own advertising for their businesses, information from the
City that can be incorporated into their advertisements, and descriptions
of the things they should consider because of the new changes.
Councilmember Phillips noted the staff report states this idea would be
reviewed with the attending businesses at an information meeting scheduled
for late May, before any advertising strategies are developed, and he
wondered how this might impact the overall program if it has not been
reviewed, and if their thoughts are going to be integrated. He asked if
that would materially change the proposal, and if so, if the proposal was
premature, since there are ideas still to be floated? Mr. Bernardi stated
the idea of "the Loop" was heartily endorsed by everyone at the Chamber
meeting, but they also felt that before they began marketing the campaign,
it would be good if the idea was discussed at an informational meeting, as
part of the overall strategy of making the business owners aware and
prepared for the changes. Mr. Phillips asked if Mr. Bernardi was confident
this proposal would be accepted? Mr. Bernardi stated he was.
Mayor Boro referred to the budget, noting the last page shows the
insertions for the Chamber of Commerce Newsletter and the City's
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 7
Newsletter, with the cost to be determined, yet on Page 4 the report states
an insert would be developed, and the printing costs are shown on Pages 6
and 7 of the budget. Mr. Bernardi reported we would be doing some "in
kind" printing, noting the City's print shop can do some printing for the
Chamber. He pointed out we do our own printing for the City's Newsletter,
so that would not be a cost associated with this program.
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt a
Resolution approving the selection of Integrated Marketing Solutions and
RPM Advertising to do the campaign, up to $46,000.
RESOLUTION NO. 10207 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING OF A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH INTEGRATED
MARKETING SOLUTIONS AND RPM ADVERTISING IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $46,000.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
Mayor Boro announced the related item concerned a temporary signage
program, and asked if Council agreed Mr. Bernardi should meet with
Community Development Director Brown and develop a common approach to be
used by all the businesses, have it approved by the Design Review Board and
Planning Commission, and then bring it back to Council for approval?
Councilmember Heller asked if the temporary process would apply Citywide,
or just for the East San Rafael location? Mr. Bernardi stated it would be
only for the specific area.
Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to direct
staff to develop a temporary signage program, present it to the Design
Review Board and Planning Commission, and return to Council for approval.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen
NEW BUSINESS:
20. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS RE: THE MARIN COUNTY TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES POLICY PLAN - DRAFT PLAN REVIEW (CD) - File 4-13-101
(Councilmember Cohen arrived during discussion of this item).
Mayor Boro excused himself from discussion and action on this item, due to
a conflict of interest, and turned the meeting over to Vice -Mayor Phillips.
Mayor Boro then left the Council Chamber.
Associate Planner Bill Tuikka reported this item was being presented to
Council as an informational item, noting the staff report summarizes the
highlights of the draft Marin County Telecommunications Facilities Policy
Plan. He pointed out this Draft was an update of the 1990 County Plan,
which mentioned wireless services, but did not address them in terms of
detailed siting or design regulations. Mr. Tuikka explained this up -date
builds upon the objectives of the 1990 plan, and sets forth policies and
programs that respond to major issues raised by the introduction of
wireless networks and wireless facility sites. Mr. Tuikka reported that
after tonight's meeting, he would be forwarding Council's comments to the
County.
Mr. Tuikka explained many of the standards in this Draft Plan were based on
the interim standards and criteria for Commercial Wireless Facilities,
approved by the Board of Supervisors in November, 1996. He stated one of
the principal goals of this plan update was to encourage uniform
development of regulations for telecommunication facilities throughout all
of the jurisdictions of Marin County. He reported in 1996, San Rafael also
prepared draft Design Review criteria, which was used by the Design Review
Board in evaluating sites for wireless facilities throughout the City,
noting those standards were obtained from reviewing the County's interim
standards, as well as the City's own General Plan Design Review policies.
Mr. Tuikka stated the major policy objectives recommended by the County
Plan Update include: 1) establishing comprehensive standards for use by all
jurisdictions; 2) requiring providers to submit long-range network plans,
so local agencies and the public can fully understand what is being
proposed; 3) minimize the impacts of the new facilities by co -location and
clustering, and also integrating into the landscaping or to the existing
building. Mr. Tuikka explained this was called "stealth design", meaning
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 8
it is integrated into the building and cannot be seen; 4) implementing the
EMF Exposure Standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission; 5)
requiring adequate and complete submittal material that would include
visual simulation site analysis, landscaping plans, and other technical
material, in order to have full review; 6) requiring removal of abandoned
facilities.
Mr. Tuikka stated the Draft Plan also discusses three levels of
discretionary review to be applied by the County; Master Plan, Use Permit
with Design Review, and Design Review only. Explaining these three levels,
Mr. Tuikka stated the County was proposing that on all but very minor
telecommunications applications, they would be subject to the Master Plan
or Use Permit with Design Review, noting the Master Plan would be required
for major facilities, or the major remodel of facilities. He pointed out
the plan does not explain exactly what the County means by Master Plan, but
pointed out the City has its own version of that in our Interim Standards.
Mr. Tuikka stated this would be determined on a case by case basis, which
would take into consideration the land use and the location of the
facility, and the applications would then be acted upon at a Public Hearing
by the Planning Commission, and then the County Board of Supervisors. Mr.
Tuikka explained Use Permits with Design Review would be required for minor
facilities, and would be acted upon by the Planning Commission or Zoning
Administrator. He noted Design Review with no Use Permit would be required
for minor projects that are appropriate in scale and character, and are
located in Industrial Zones, for example, or small facilities that are
integrated into the design of the building so they cannot be seen. He
stated the Use Permit requirement would also be waived when co -location is
involved, or for minor modifications to approved facilities. Mr. Tuikka
reported the County prioritizes preferred locations, with Industrial being
the most preferred, and Residential the least preferred.
Mr. Tuikka stated San Rafael's Draft Policies used by the Design Review
Board have not been adopted by Ordinance, and have only been used by the
Design Review Board and staff to evaluate the proposals. He pointed out
many of these are similar to the County's requirements, and also include
standards from our General Plan. He noted the differences between the
County's standards and San Rafael's standards are primarily that the County
uses a Use Permit and Design Review for most facilities, whereas San Rafael
requires Design Review Permits only, because at the time these applications
were before the City, the City Attorney stated such facilities were
utilities, and not subject to Use Permits. Mr. Tuikka noted there had been
one site where a Use Permit amendment was required, the church site in
Terra Linda, because it was determined there was an existing Use Permit
which stated only church related activities were allowed, so the Use Permit
was amended.
Mr. Tuikka reported San Rafael, like the County, has also required that
each operator submit a Master Plan; in addition, the City's Master Plan
shows all proposed locations. The City also requires a visual analysis,
and removal of abandoned facilities. Mr. Tuikka stated the County also
discussed adopting the FCC EMF Standards, and requiring monitoring reports;
however, the City did not address this in our standards because we were
prohibited, based on the FCC regulations at the time, from denying sites
based on EMF emissions. Mr. Tuikka stated if the City were to consider
adopting the County's plan, staff did not believe it would be necessary to
monitor emissions from these facilities, nor did they believe Use Permits
would be necessary, except perhaps for monopoles, or sites that would be
in, or near, residential districts. Mr. Tuikka noted the primary impacts
of the telecommunications facilities were visual, and staff felt
appropriate conditions could be placed on Design Review Permits.
Mr. Tuikka reported that over the past three or four years the City has
reviewed over twenty sites, and almost all of them have been installed,
noting most had been reviewed using the Draft Standards discussed earlier.
He stated only two had been controversial; one was the church site noted
earlier, and the other was an open space area in the Mount Marin area, both
of which were located near Residential Zones. However, none of the sites
located in Industrial Zones were ever controversial, and those integrated
into buildings were quite successful with the Design Review Board, as well.
Mr. Tuikka stated the next step could be a possible addition to our Draft
guidelines, which would prohibit monopoles and sites in residential areas,
or would require them to have Use Permits, which would create a
disincentive for these types of locations, and cause the operators to put
them in areas that would be more appropriate.
Councilmember Miller stated he liked the approach the City has used in
bringing the issues before the Design Review Board, noting it was within
the Design Review that the City was going to have some kind of control and
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 9
governance, particularly in the area of co -location. He noted that if we
have co -location at a site, it would be done in a such a way that they
would be "stealth", pointing out that had been the City's intent when
Council discussed the facility at the church. He noted that while it had
really caused a great deal of concern to some of the neighbors, the
discussion had not really been about the placement, but about whether it
was a "utility" or a "use", and as the City Attorney aptly described to
Council in that case, it was a matter of a "utility", and did not change
the "use". Mr. Miller believed that was a very substantial argument, and
should be maintained in the area where the City is truly able to have
control as a City governance, in terms of Design Review.
Councilmember Heller referred to the major difference between the County
Plan and the Standards used by the City of San Rafael, described on Page 4
of the staff report, noting the County drafted its plan so they did not
have any standards of monitoring for the EMFs. She asked if the County was
under different standards than the cities, because we are precluded from
going against the Standard. Mr. Tuikka stated the City was precluded from
denying an application on the basis of EMF's; however, he believed the
County was planning to monitor these to make sure they are in compliance
with FCC Standards. He did not believe their Review Process would deny the
proposal, because all of them must meet FCC Standards as they are built.
Ms. Heller asked if it should be put forward as a suggestion to the County
that they not monitor, but simply adhere to the standards? Mr. Tuikka
explained the City's approach would be not to monitor, because it would
involve a lot of unnecessary staff work; therefore, he would suggest to the
County that perhaps it was something that was not necessary to do.
Councilmember Heller asked if San Rafael had to accept the County Plan as
it is being presented, or if we could add our own specifics when it comes
back as a Final Plan, or adopt the County's Standards, and then add our own
addendums or conditions? Planning Manager Sheila Delimont stated the
County had prepared this in the hope that all jurisdictions within the
County would have similar standards and regulations; however, she noted we
were under no obligation to adopt all of these. She stated the City had
already pointed out some issues it was felt would not be appropriate for
San Rafael, when we bring our plan forward. She noted one of those issues
was that the County has adopted the FCC Standard, and they are requiring
monitoring and reporting, which becomes a very complex process, and under
which the City has no final control, because the FCC overrides the City.
Therefore, staff believed this was something that would be unnecessary in
San Rafael, and a duplication of FCC rules. Ms. Heller asked if San Rafael
could adopt the County Standards, but without that condition? Ms. Delimont
stated we could, verifying the City could pick and choose the conditions we
want to incorporate. Ms. Heller stated she agreed with staff's decision,
noting the City does not have the staff to worry about monitoring this all
the time.
Councilmember Heller stated we had to be very aware of the Open Spaces, as
it was not the best idea to have antennas sticking up in public view. She
noted she was pleased Ms. Delimont had addressed this in her letter to
Brian Crawford, Principal Planner for the County. She stated she would
like to be certain the City has something in its standards which very
clearly points out this is not something we would like to have happen, and
that the City is going to be very careful in looking at site locations.
Ms. Heller stated she had been pleased to note all the sites around the
County that were shown in the report.
Vice -Mayor Phillips noted Ms. Delimont's letter to Mr. Crawford addressed
the appropriateness of locating telecommunications facilities on water
tanks and other public or private utilities near open space, and asked if
there had been any response to that observation? Ms. Delimont reported the
County was working on additional standards. Vice -Mayor Phillips noted the
staff report states the County Plan Objectives require removal of abandoned
facilities, while the City requires facilities to be removed after a two-
year period of abandonment. Mr. Tuikka explained the two-year period was
included in our draft standards because it was felt that technology might
change, and if the facilities became abandoned, they could certainly be
removed. Mr. Tuikka noted that while the County has not actually placed a
specific time on this, it was felt that technology would be changing fast
enough that this would not be a problem, because the facilities would be
changing faster than that anyway.
Vice -Mayor Phillips believed it was appropriate to have the Design Review
Board review these matters. He stated it alleviated his concerns to know
that if we ultimately receive a Final Plan from the County, we can adopt it
to our own liking, and factor some differences into the overall plan.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 9
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 10
Councilmember Cohen asked where we go from here, and what staff was
requesting of Council at this time? Mr. Brown stated he proposed amending
the Zoning Ordinance where necessary, and adopting the majority of the
County Plan by Resolution, so there is an official action incorporating
most of the County's policies, except those noted by Council. Mr. Cohen
asked if that would be done after the County had adopted their plan,
bringing it back to Council for discussion of the specific points? Ms.
Delimont stated that was correct, noting it would go through the normal
public hearing process.
Councilmember Miller stated he would like the City to be very proactive in
working with the County and the other cities, so this is as uniform as we
can get it within the County, because he felt this was a regional issue,
and influenced everyone.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to direct
staff to forward Council's comments to the County of Marin on their Draft
Telecommunications Facilities Policy Plan.
AYES:
COUNCIL ERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT/DISQUALIFIED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor
Phillips
None
Mayor Boro (due to conflict of
interest).
(Mayor Boro returned to the Council Chamber).
21. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
a. POLICY RE: COUNCIL ENDORSEMENT OF STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS AND
PROPOSITION 226 (CM) - File 9-1
City Manager Gould noted that at the meeting of April 6th, Councilmember
Cohen suggested Council take a position in opposition of State Proposition
226, which appears on next month's ballot. Mr. Gould reported the thrust
of Proposition 226 was to prevent labor unions or employee associations
from taking political action, funded by member dues, without the express
permission of their members. Mr. Gould recalled Council stated they would
like to revisit its historic policy with regard to taking positions on
Statewide issues, particularly Initiatives, prior to taking a position on
Proposition 226.
Mr. Gould reported he had asked City Clerk Leoncini to assist him in
researching Minutes of past City Council meetings that would provide the
most recent example of when Council last grappled with the issue of whether
or not to take a position on a Statewide Initiative, and she directed him
to the Minutes of January 18, 1994, at which time the Council had looked at
the Three Strikes Initiative. He stated those Minutes make clear Council's
historic policy has not been to take positions on Initiatives or Statewide
issues, unless they have direct impact on municipalities, or the City of
San Rafael in particular. Therefore, Mr. Gould reported he had confined
his analysis of Proposition 226 not to its merits on a policy basis, but
strictly as to whether or not it has any impact on our City.
Mr. Gould stated if this Proposition were to pass, each employer, whether
public or private, would be required to have written consent from each
employee who is a member of a union, before it could deduct money from that
employee's wages to be given to the union, who could then use it for
political purposes. Mr. Gould noted the Proposition also states that in
order for the labor union to use a portion of the dues or fees it collects
for campaign purposes, it too must have a signed form from each worker
authorizing the use of the money for such activities. He noted there was
nothing in the Proposition that would provide for the employers, including
public employers, to be reimbursed for the additional record keeping. He
reported, as best as he could determine, after having researched this on
the Internet and with the League of California Cities, it appears the FPPC
(Fair Political Practices Commission) would come up with a simple form if
this Initiative were to pass, and all the members of the employee
associations within the City of San Rafael would be asked to vote "Yes" or
"No" as to whether they wished to have a portion of their dues used for
political purposes. The City would be required to keep the forms on file
for a year, and update them periodically thereafter.
Mr. Gould reported no one really knew much more than this about the
Initiative, because the actual procedures had yet to be worked out and
determined by the FPPC. He noted this appeared to be another type of
unfunded mandate, the likes of which the City has, in the past, opposed.
He also pointed out the City has taken a position in opposition of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 11
Proposition 224, which also appears on the June ballot, as it was believed
this would drive up the cost of Public Works projects very significantly.
Mr. Gould stated he lacked greater detail on the exact amount and type of
record keeping that would be required under Proposition 226, and could not
provide an exact dollar amount or number of hours that it would take;
however, it would be an administrative task that currently is not required
of municipal governments.
Mr. Gould felt it would be appropriate, under Council's historic policy, to
take a position against Proposition 226.
Councilmember Heller stated it was her understanding the employee forms
would need to be updated on an annual basis, which would be an even greater
burden to the City and businesses involved. Mr. Gould also noted it was
not clear whether the forms must also be updated as employees join or leave
the City, although he believed they would; therefore, he did not believe it
would be only annual updates, but would be an ongoing process. Ms. Heller
pointed out we did not know if it would be the unions' burden to do the
paperwork, or the City's responsibility. Councilmember Cohen stated the
employer would be responsible for making sure there is a current, valid
form on file, if the employer has reason to believe any portion of the
money withheld would be used for political purposes. Therefore, while it
would certainly put the onus on the union, if they wish to have a political
program, to gather signatures from its members, the burden is on the
employer, or in this case the City, to not withhold any money unless the
form is on file. Mr. Cohen acknowledged the language was vague.
Councilmember Phillips asked for clarification on how this would actually
work, asking if the union would notify the City that a certain portion of
the dues were going to be used for political purposes, and if that would
initiate the form, or if there was a presumption that a portion of the dues
are going to be used for political purposes and, therefore, it is done
regardless? Mr. Gould felt the union would likely have to give some
notification to the City that, indeed, it wished to use some portion of the
dues for political purposes, thereby triggering the Proposition, and the
City's responsibility for having the consent forms on file. Mr. Phillips
asked if it could be any amount, and if the amount was immaterial? Mr.
Gould stated the amount was immaterial, noting $1.00 would trigger the
Proposition.
Councilmember Cohen stated in terms of record keeping, it was his
understanding that in addition to an employer having to keep a record of
which employees have signed the form, the employer would also be
responsible for keeping a record of the uses to which the union put the
money, or intended to put the money, since the language states that if we
know, or have reason to believe, that the money is going to be used for
political purposes, we, as an employer, would have to ask the unions how
they intend to spend the money, what portion of the money would be spent
for political purposes, and how the money has been spent, and we would be
responsible for being able to demonstrate that. Furthermore, we would also
be responsible for reporting to the FPPC, which brings up the additional
issue that once we report to the FPPC, those would become public records.
Therefore, Mr. Cohen felt, as an employer, the City really needed to look
at this, because it would mean those of our employees who are union members
would have to file with the City, and, therefore, with the FPPC, any amount
of contribution they might make, as opposed to current California law,
which states if you choose to make a contribution of $100 or more your name
becomes public. He explained if Proposition 226 becomes law, the political
contribution of any employee who becomes a union member, even if it is mere
pennies, becomes a matter of public record, simply because they are a
member of a union. Mr. Cohen stated, as an employer, he had no interest in
knowing which of his employees choose to take part in their union's
political program, and he believed it was none of the employers' business.
Councilmember Cohen stated the issues, and the incredible lack of clarity
about the impact of this Proposition on business, have led a number of
attorneys to oppose this. He noted a position paper had been written which
states this Proposition would have broader impact than just on the labor
unions. He stated that because of the way it has been written, it would
not have an impact on any withholding, but if a portion of any withholding
might be used for political purposes, we might need to require the same
form, whether or not the individual involved was a member of a labor union.
Mr. Cohen noted that position had been written by a Labor Attorney, and it
has since found credence in an article in the Sacramento Bee newspaper,
written by a partner in the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, a firm which
represents employers, who agree this would be bad for business. In
addition, the Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce and the League of
California Cities have voted to oppose the Proposition.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 12
Councilmember Phillips asked if two people voted "Yes" to withhold, and one
voted "No", what the consequence would be of the majority vote, and if the
amounts would be withheld from all of them? Mr. Gould stated it would not,
noting on that basis the City would not have the right to withhold any
money from the paycheck of the employee who voted "No". Mr. Phillips asked
if that meant there would be no withholdings from the person who voted
"No", or just not that amount attributed to political activities?
Councilmember Cohen stated there would be no withholding for that portion
of the money that was to be used for political purposes. Mr. Phillips
noted someone would have to tell us how much that portion would be.
Coleman Persily, resident of San Rafael, urged Council to oppose
Proposition 226, which will be on the June 2nd ballot, noting they would be
joining many organizations in this opposition. He stated campaign
financing had become a big issue in politics, and because the working
class, through their unions, participated successfully in funding anti -
right -wing candidates and anti- right-wing laws, the ruling class of this
Country, consisting of wealthy individuals, are, in essence, attempting to
prevent the unions from participating in the electoral system by making
impossible demands of the unions via Proposition 226. On the other hand,
no Proposition limiting the large corporations and rich individuals from
financing candidates or laws had been submitted. Therefore, he urged
Council to join the many other organizations in raising their voice in
opposition to this Proposition. Mr. Persily noted tomorrow County
Supervisor John Kress would be presenting this same Resolution to the Board
of Supervisors, asking them to oppose the Proposition. Mr. Persily stated
labor was the only hope of the poor people, and the only way they were
going to be taken care of; therefore, he asked Council to oppose this
Proposition.
Fielding Greaves, member of the Marin United Taxpayers Association and two
AFL-CIO unions, and a resident of San Rafael, stated that to suggest this
Measure, if it passed, would prevent labor unions from taking part in the
political process was the height of absurdity. He believed this Measure
was meant to prevent the labor union bosses from sequestering funds from
the individual members of their union, who happen to be opposed to whatever
position the labor union bosses want to tackle in the political arena. Mr.
Greaves referred to an article by Thomas Donahue, President and CEO of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, dated April 20, 1998, in which he states unions
do not have a right to compel dues -paying workers to finance their
political activities. In addition, the Supreme Court stated, in the Beck
decision, that workers could get refunds for the portion of union dues not
used for collective bargaining purposes, in other words, used for political
purposes. However, one of President Clinton's first acts in Office was to
repeal the requirement that Federal Contractors post notices in the
workplace that employees were entitled to such refunds.
Mr. Greaves reported a Measure similar to Proposition 226 had been approved
in the state of Washington in 1992, noting that before the Measure was
approved, the State Teachers' Union had 48,000 members who were
contributing their dues, and from whom the dues were taken for political
purposes. However, when the teachers were given the option of whether or
not they wanted their dues used for political purposes, that number dropped
from 48,000 to 8,000, and only one-sixth were willing to let the union
judge how they were going to spend their money. Mr. Greaves stated
approximately 40% of union members are Republicans, and it was absurd to
state that Republican union members should be supporting Democratic
political programs; however, that was what almost every labor union
supports. Mr. Greaves stated he was speaking personally, as an individual,
because he felt strongly that the union had no right to use his dues for
anything but its normal labor negotiation purposes, and
not for political purposes, whatever they may be. He noted that only 40%
of union members are Republicans, yet according to the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, unions spend 97% of their funds to support Democratic candidates.
Mr. Greaves stated the polls taken recently show labor members are
overwhelmingly in favor of Proposition 226, noting an article in the San
Francisco Chronicle's Open Forum section mentioned a recent California
field poll showing 71% of likely voters, and 67% of union members,
supported Proposition 226. In addition, an ABC News/Washington Post poll
reported 82% of Americans believed unions should get workers' permission
before using their union dues for politics, and a CNN/USA Today Gallup poll
found 72% of Americans believed unions should get written permission before
spending members' dues on politics. Mr. Greaves stated that was what
Proposition 226 aimed to accomplish, to get the workers' permission to use
those funds for political purposes.
Mr. Greaves noted Mr. Persily had raised the issue that corporations are
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 13
not addressed in this particular Measure; however, he noted this was not
about corporations, it was about the unions. He stated if the heads of the
labor unions were interested in that issue, they should mount their own
initiative process to enroll the corporations in a similar set of
restrictions. Mr. Greaves stated 100 years ago a highly respected
philosopher stated the purpose of law was to prevent injustice from
reigning; however, Mr. Greaves felt that today injustice was reigning in
the labor field, when 40% of the labor movement is required to spend their
dues to support subjects, policies, and politics they do not favor, and he
believed Proposition 226 would be such a law that would prevent injustice
from reigning, and prevent the unjust taking of employees' wages.
Mr. Greaves asked that Council not take a position opposing Proposition
226, although he applauded the Council taking a position opposing
Proposition 224. He reported the Marin United Taxpayers Association had
voted unanimously to oppose Proposition 224, just as they voted almost
unanimously to support Proposition 226. Mr. Greaves believed if the
Councilmembers supported the proposal to oppose Proposition 226, they
would, in essence, be giving a slap in the face to the people who work for
them, and would not be looking out for their own employees' best interests.
He noted if the City's employees match the figures the Teachers' Union in
the State of Washington displayed, when they were given the option of
signing or not signing a permission statement for the use of such dues for
political purposes, then the City may find it will incur a considerable
amount of hostility from its workers. He suggested Council think about
that very strongly.
Councilmember Cohen stated the issue before Council was whether or not to
take a position on this Proposition, relative to its impact on the City of
San Rafael, noting he had addressed his earlier comments in the role of an
employer. However, Mr. Cohen pointed out Mr. Greaves had raised the
philosophical argument which the proponents of this are making. Mr. Cohen
noted the last paragraph of the article by Thomas Donahue, which Mr.
Greaves had referred to earlier, quoted Thomas Jefferson, "To compel a man
to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
disbelieves is sinful, and tyrannical". However, as an example, Mr. Cohen
stated he believed his good friend, Councilmember Miller, was solidly
opposed to the death penalty, yet the State of California, which enforces
the death penalty, collects Mr. Miller's taxes every year, and uses some
portion of that tax money for the propagation of an idea Mr. Miller finds
repugnant. Mr. Cohen stated examples of that process could be found
anywhere one looks in our democratic system, and he found it ironic the
proponents of Proposition 226 were so concerned about the union members
that they want to take away the exercise of democracy from labor unions.
Mr. Cohen reported in his labor union the members vote on whether the money
is to be withheld from their paychecks, they elect officers who decide how
that money is to be allocated, and those allocations are voted on either by
the members, or by delegates to a Regional Council, depending on the level
at which the organization operates. He stated that was the democratic
process in action. Mr. Cohen assured Mr. Greaves that if 80% of the
members were opposed to any kind of political program, it would not happen,
noting 80% of the members taking a position on an issue would be sufficient
to ensure the money was not spent. Mr. Cohen pointed out unions were one
of the most heavily regulated private organizations that exist in this
Country.
Mr. Cohen stated he believed the intent was to remove labor unions from the
political process, noting that was stated by no less a supporter than
Grover Nordquist, a close confidant of Newt Gingrich of Washington, D.C.,
who is one of the people trying to make this issue a national campaign, and
who has stated his goal is to crush labor unions as a political entity.
Mr. Cohen stated there was a whole other current going on here, and it was
not about people who have suddenly developed a conscience, and decided the
rights of workers are being trampled and they have to ride to the rescue.
He stated there was another agenda, and it was one he did not believe the
Council should get caught up in.
Councilmember Cohen stated he supported the policy previously adopted by
the City, and believed Proposition 226 had the potential for a direct
impact on the City. As an employer, he noted it would create an additional
burden on the City in terms of record keeping and expenses, and as City
Manager Gould pointed out, provides no benefit to the City delivering
excellent services to the citizens of this community.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, that the City
of San Rafael go on record as opposing Proposition 226 on California's June
ballot.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 14
Under discussion, Councilmember Phillips stated he was going to abstain,
explaining he felt the arguments ran much deeper than the justification for
bringing it to the table, such as the incremental cost of having the
employees fill -out a form. He noted that while that may be the
justification for bringing it before Council, he did not believe that was
really the issue. Mr. Phillips stated the real issue runs much deeper than
that, and there are pros and cons, many of which have not yet been brought
forward sufficiently enough for him to draw an adequate conclusion, or to
pass on to those who value how the Council views the issue. Mr. Phillips
stated he had heard an advertisement for Proposition 226, and realized he
was not prepared to draw judgment as to whether this was a good Proposition
or not. Mr. Phillips stated he agreed with the earlier policy adopted by
the prior Council, which stated each individual member of Council could
take a stand as an individual, noting he felt more comfortable taking that
posture on issues such as this. Therefore, Mr. Phillips stated he was not
going to vote for or against the Proposition, he was going to abstain, and
if someone wanted to know how he felt about the issue, he would tell them
how he personally feels about it, after he has studied it in more detail.
Councilmember Heller agreed the Proposition was a little convoluted, noting
many in the voting booth will have to take a hard look at themselves when
they vote on this. However, in addressing the issue now, she stated she
was not looking at this as a "good" Proposition or a "bad" Proposition,
noting the people would vote on whether they like this as a law. She noted
the problem with Propositions is that we are finding, time after time,
when they come from special interest groups they are not well written, and
are immediately challenged (in court) and often thrown out, leaving people
asking, "Why did we vote". Ms. Heller believed at some point we needed to
look at a new process that takes privately funded and privately written
Propositions through a legal "stepping -stone" or legal court, something
that looks at the law being put into the Constitution.
Addressing the issue now before Council, of whether this Proposition
impacts the City, and if it does, whether they should be voting on it as a
Council or not, Ms. Heller stated she would vote to support Mr. Cohen's
motion.
Councilmember Miller stated he viewed this Proposition as a direct attack
on the representative nature of governance of the associations with whom
the City bargains in good faith. As such, he felt it was an attack on the
very essence of the associations and, therefore, would make it very
difficult for the City to be able to bargain with them. Mr. Miller stated
there was a real "social justice" nature to this.
Mayor Boro stated he believed the Council walks a very fine line when they
entertain a position on a State Ballot Measure. He noted they have done
very few of these, but when they have, as a Council, they have done it on
the basis that there is an impact on the City, whether it is positive or
negative. He stated from what they know of this Proposition, and its
impact on the City as an employer, it appears to have a negative impact.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Phillips
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 5/4/98 Page 14