HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1998-09-08SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 1
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 AT
8:00 PM
Regular Meeting: Present: Gary O. Phillips, Vice -Mayor
San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen,
Councilmember
Barbara Heller, Councilmember
Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember
Absent: Albert J. Boro, Mayor
Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager
Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney
Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk
OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM:
Vice -Mayor Phillips announced Closed Session item.
CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM:
• Conference With Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
Name: Pedersen & Lohse v. City of San Rafael
No reportable action was taken.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00
PM
RE: ALTERNATIVE HOUSING IN THE GOLDEN HINDE AREA - File 13-16 x 100 (Verbal)
Paul Smith, Chairman of the Board of M.A.R.C. (Marin Association of Retarded
Citizens) reported the Association was relocating one of its group homes in
Terra Linda, and it was his understanding the Terra Linda Valley Property Owners
Association had expressed some concerns to Council regarding their presence in
the neighborhood. Mr. Smith explained M.A.R.C. was a Marin based, community
operated charitable organization providing services in our neighborhoods to
people who have developmental disabilities, and to their families. He stated
they viewed themselves as providing an important service to our neighborhoods.
Mr. Smith reported that for many years M.A.R.C. had operated a group home with
six clients in Terra Linda; however, that home has become unsuitable for their
clients, and they were moving to a new location on Golden Hinde Avenue, just a
few blocks from its present location. He stated it was their intention, once
they relocate the facility, to close down the existing home on Anchorage Court.
Mr. Paul stated the new home will be subject to strict control by the State of
California, noting the Department of Health Services regulates group homes of
this kind. He stated they would also be subject to restrictions by the State
and City Fire Marshals.
Mr. Smith stated they would not present a threat of any kind of danger or
nuisance to any of the new neighbors. He acknowledged some particular concern
had been expressed regarding the swimming pool on their new property; however,
he noted they did not intend to use the swimming pool for any purpose other than
the recreation of the residents and their guests.
Mr. Smith stated it was important to them that their clients be welcome in the
neighborhoods in which they live, and they strived to be a good neighbor, noting
their relations with the neighbors at their other homes were good. Mr. Smith
reported their Executive Director had met with the Terra Linda Valley Property
Owners Association, and it was their impression that following the meeting, most
of the concerns expressed by the property owners had been withdrawn. He stated
they were quite confident that if there were any lingering concerns, once they
move into the neighborhood those concerns will be quickly dispelled.
RE: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROJECT AREA - File 140 X (SRRA) R-140 (Verbal)
Patricia Cantmeyer, 3644 Kerner Boulevard, stated she is on disability, and
lives within the Redevelopment Agency Project Area, and is concerned her
condominium might be condemned. She noted she had lived there for ten years,
and did not know if she could afford to live anywhere else. Ms. Cantmeyer
stated she really did not know what her legal position would be, should her
property be condemned or acquired, and asked for an explanation. City Manager
Gould stated he did not believe Ms. Cantmeyer needed to worry that the
Redevelopment Agency would condemn her property, pointing out she was in
ownership housing. He noted the Redevelopment Agency was interested in bringing
existing housing up to Code, which was done through the City's Code Enforcement
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 1
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 2
Program, and did not require condemnation. Mr. Gould reported the Agency was
interested in preserving multi -family rental housing in Ms. Cantmeyer's
neighborhood, but her living situation was different. Mr. Gould stated that in
its twenty-six year history, the Redevelopment Agency had not engaged in
condemnation of residential housing, and there were no plans to do so. Mr.
Gould explained the purpose of redevelopment was to eliminate blight and slum
conditions, and to create affordable housing; and he did not believe this
applied to her property, in any way.
Ms. Cantmeyer stated the little she had read mentioned the sewers and storm
drains, which she acknowledged had been a problem in her area when she moved
there. She asked, if her property were to be condemned or acquired, what would
be the cost to her, and would she lose her entire investment, or would she be
paid fair market value? Mr. Gould stated he could not imagine a scenario of
this kind; however, if the Agency were to acquire her property, Ms. Cantmeyer
would be paid more than the Fair Market Value for her property, and she would be
paid relocation assistance; therefore, she would be made whole, and would find
herself in equal or better housing as a result.
SAN RAFAEL FIRE DEPARTMENT - File 9-3-31 (Verbal)
Councilmember Cohen, on behalf of the Sun Valley School community, expressed
thanks to Chief Marcucci and the San Rafael Fire Department. Mr. Cohen reported
the children charged with raising the flag at the Sun Valley School managed, on
the first day of school, to get the flag stuck on top of the flagpole, and our
Fire Department was of great assistance in rectifying the situation, and going
beyond the call of duty in taking steps to improve its functioning, and ensure
it never happens again.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to approve the
following Consent Calendar items:
1
2.
ITEM
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, Approved as
submitted.
August 3, 1998, Special Meeting of Monday,
August 10, 1998, and Regular Meeting of Monday,
August 17, 1998 (CC)
Designation of Voting Delegate for League of
California Cities Annual Conference (CC)
- File 9-11-1
3. City Work Plan Review (CM) - File 237
4. Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 8597
and Appointing Assistant City Manager as
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Coordinator for the City of San Rafael (CM)
- File 13-1-1 x 9-3-11
Councilmember Barbara
Heller
designated as voting
delegate
for the League of
California Cities
Centennial Annual
Conference Friday, 10/2/98
through Sunday, 10/4/98 in
Long Beach.
Accepted report.
RESOLUTION NO. 10303
RESOLUTION RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO. 8597
AND
APPOINTING KENNETH
NORDHOFF,
ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER, AS THE AMERICANS
WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(ADA) COORDINATOR FOR THE
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL.
6. Monthly Investment Report (MS) Accepted report.
- File 8-18 x 8-9
7. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE Approved final
adoption of
NO. 1730 - An Ordinance of the City of San Rafael, Ordinance No. 1730.
Amending the Zoning Map of the City of San Rafael,
California, Adopted by Reference by Section
14.01.020 of the Municipal Code of San Rafael,
California, so as to Reclassify Certain Real Property
from P/QP (Public/Quasi-Public), R-10 (Single Family
Residential, 10,000 Sq. Ft. Minimum Lot Size), and
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 2
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 3
Rla-H (Single Family Residential, 1 Acre Minimum,
Hillside Overlay) to PD (Planned District) for the
Dominican College Campus Development Plan (CD)
- File 115 x 4-3-318 x 10-2 x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7
8. Appointment of Committee Member to the
St. Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Task Force
- File9-2-45 x 10-2 x 4-13-103
Approved staff
recommendation;
(CD)Council appointed Doug
Elliott
to replace Stephen Roulac
on the St.
Vincent's/Silveira
Advisory Task Force.
9. Declaration of Hazardous Fire Area and Closure
of San Rafael Hill (FD) - File 9-3-31
10. Amendment to Resolution No. 9921, Master Fee
11
12
13.
Schedule, to Increase Fine for Violation of
San Rafael Municipal Code Section 5.40.030,
Re: Abandoned Vehicles (PD) - File 9-3-30
Request for Temporary Street Closures of
Fourth Street, From Lincoln Avenue to Lootens
Place, and Cijos Street From Fourth Street to
the Parking Lot Entrance, From 10:00 AM to
7:00 PM on Sunday, October 18, 1998 for
Brewfest (RA) - File 11-19
Request for Temporary Street Closures of
Grand Avenue, Rafael Drive, Belle Avenue,
Locust Avenue, Highland Avenue, Jewell Street,
Magnolia Avenue, and Palm Avenue in the
Dominican Area in Connection With the
Groundbreaking Ceremony for the Sister Samuel
Conlan Recreation Center, Saturday, October 10,
1998 (RA) - File 11-19
Approved staff
recommendation.
RESOLUTION NO. 10304
RESOLUTION APPROVING
AN
AMENDMENT TO
RESOLUTION 9921,
THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE,
TO INCREASE THE FINE FOR A
VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 5.40.030,
ABANDONED VEHICLES (from
$75.00 to $150.00).
Approved staff
recommendation.
Approved staff
recommendation.
Resolution Commending Marin Literacy Program (Lib)
NO
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
10305 -
- File 9-3-61 RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE
MARIN LITERACY PROGRAM.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, & Vice -Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
ABSTAINING: COUNCIILMEMBERS:Cohen (from minutes of regular meeting of
Monday,
8/17/98 only, due to absence from
meeting).
The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion:
5. APPOINTMENT TO THE SONOMA/MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT COMMISSION (CM)
- File 245 x 170
Vice -Mayor Phillips noted Councilmember Miller had asked that this item be
removed from the Consent Calendar so that public comment could be taken.
Gregory Andrew, 213 Las Gallinas Avenue, Vice -Chairman of the San Rafael
Meadows Improvement Association, explained their neighborhood lies along
the railroad track, between the railroad track and Highway 101, and they
have a number of concerns about the potential for a rail line running along
the track again. Mr. Andrew stated those concerns included safety issues
related to train speeds and the potential for accidents, as well as the
potential for hazardous spills. He reported they were a neighborhood of
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 3
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 4
families, with a lot of children in their neighborhood who could be on or
near the tracks. In addition, he reported they also had concerns regarding
property values. He stated there were approximately twenty homes which
abut the railroad, and they were concerned about the aesthetics of a
railroad line, as well as the noise and vibration from a commuter rail line
running through there. Of particular concern was the pedestrian crossing,
which they all use, and which gives them access to Los Ranchitos. He
stated there was also some concern about drainage and flooding from the
streams that flow down the hills of Los Ranchitos, under the railroad
track, and then through their neighborhood. In a broader sense, they were
also concerned about the potential for this rail line to have a dramatic
effect on their neighborhood, with regard to having a train station at the
Civic Center, and other possible future development that might be spurred
by the railroad track.
Mr. Andrew stated they would like to have the most environmentally sound
rail line in their neighborhood, pointing out the North San Rafael Vision
calls for designing attractive crossings at the transit lines, which are
safe for pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles, and which minimize visual
and noise impacts along the rail line. He stated it had also been
supported, to some extent, in the text of Measure A, which calls for a
thorough environmental review for any of the transportation measures that
may be put before the voters. Mr. Andrew stated he was not saying Council
should not be in favor of the best rail line possible; however, as this
goes forward, if there is a budget crunch, the citizens are going to have
to rely on Council, and particularly Mayor Boro. as a representative to the
Commission, to watch out for them, and keep their concerns in mind.
Vice -Mayor Phillips stated that although Mayor Boro was on vacation, he
would review the minutes and Mr. Andrew's comments. Vice -Mayor Phillips
felt certain Mayor Boro would be open to further discussions regarding this
subject, noting that from his own discussions with Mayor Boro, he believed
he shared Mr. Andrew's concerns.
Councilmember Cohen reported he had served as an alternate with the group
that put together the planning for the Sales Tax Measure going before the
voters in November, which will fund, among other things, a resumption of
passenger service on this rail line at some point in the future. Mr. Cohen
assured Mr. Andrew that while Mayor Boro, throughout that process, was a
supporter of getting this in front of the voters, and a supporter of reuse
of the existing rail lines for passenger service, he was, at every point in
those conversations, a strong advocate for the interests of the San Rafael
community as a whole, and of its individual neighborhoods, including Mr.
Andrew's neighborhood and the Downtown, insisting that any plan put
together respect the kinds of concerns Mr. Andrew has addressed. Mr. Cohen
stated Mr. Andrew need have no doubt that Mayor Boro would continue to
approach his interest in support of this concept in that fashion.
Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to appoint
Mayor Albert Boro to represent the City of San Rafael on the Sonoma/Marin
Area Rail Transit Commission.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen,
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor
Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips
Boro
14. RESOLUTION DECLARING A LOCAL EMERGENCY IN THE SUN VALLEY OPEN SPACE LANDS
BELOW CRESTWOOD DRIVE, AND AUTHORIZING DEVIATIONS FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TO PERMIT THE MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO BEGIN IMMEDIATE LANDSLIDE
REPAIRS (CA)
- File 13-11 x 4-13-69
Councilmember Heller asked that the City send a letter or postcard to all
of the residents of the Sun Valley Area, as well as Crestwood Drive, and
also notify the new Neighborhood Association, informing them construction
will be taking place, and how long it is expected to last, so the neighbors
are aware they will be going through a noisy session for the few weeks.
Councilmember Cohen stated staff should also include basically everyone at
the top of the hill, noting the construction was going to be very visible,
and noisy, as well.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the
Resolution declaring a local emergency in the Sun Valley Open Space Lands,
as presented by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 10306 - RESOLUTION DECLARING A LOCAL EMERGENCY IN THE
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 4
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 5
SUN VALLEY OPEN SPACE LANDS BELOW CRESTWOOD DRIVE,
AND AUTHORIZING DEVIATIONS FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TO PERMIT THE MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO
BEGIN IMMEDIATE LANDSLIDE REPAIRS.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
SPECIAL PRESENTATION:
15. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION COMMENDING MARIN LITERACY PROGRAM (Lib) - File
9-3-61
Vice -Mayor Phillips explained the Marin Literacy Program was a joint effort
between the San Rafael City Library and the Marin County Free Library,
reporting this program had served over 5,400 residents, providing the
fundamental skills necessary to secure employment, to provide for the needs
of families, and to be functioning citizens of the community. Vice -Mayor
Phillips stated they had done an outstanding job within the community for a
great number of people.
Vice -Mayor Phillips introduced Barbara Barwood of the Marin Literacy
Program, and presented the Resolution of Appreciation to her.
Barbara Barwood, one of the Directors of the Marin Literacy Program,
thanked the Council, as well as Library Director Vaughn Stratford, for his
assistance in helping them operate the program, noting it had been at the
San Rafael City Library since 1988. Ms. Barwood introduced Estella
Sandoval, noting she was very special to those involved with the Literacy
Program, because not only was she a student, she was also currently working
at the Canal Learning Center at Pickleweed. Ms. Barwood asked Ms. Sandoval
to describe what it was like to be a student in the Program.
Estella Sandoval, a native of E1 Salvador, stated she came to the United
States in 1989, and at that time the only job she could find was in
domestic services; however, her husband encouraged her to take classes in
order to obtain a better job, particularly in her former area of training
as a Vocational Nurse. Ms. Sandoval stated she first attended school in
Southern California, and upon moving with her family to Marin County in
1994, she became involved in the Marin Literacy Program, and has been a
student for the past three years. Ms. Sandoval stated the Program has
given her confidence when she speaks, reads, and listens to English, and
reported she has just completed the Medical Assistant Program. In
addition, she has a job at the Canal Learning Center, where she encourages
the parents to become involved with the Literacy Program. Ms. Sandoval
stated she and her family gave thanks to those who founded this program,
and to the volunteers, who do their job with love.
PUBLIC HEARING:
16. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION OF AUGUST 11, 1998
GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
(ED98-69) FOR A NEW MURAL TO BE PAINTED ON THE PICKLEWEED COMMUNITY CENTER
BUILDING LOCATED AT 50 CANAL STREET (CD) - File 10-5 x 10-7 x 9-3-65 x 9-
2-24
Vice -Mayor Phillips opened the public hearing, and asked for the staff
report.
Dean Parsons, Senior Planner, explained this was an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to approve a mural at the Pickleweed Community
Center, which he described as being an 8 foot x 8 foot mural, depicting
several members of the Canal community. He noted the mural was to be
located on the west building elevation, facing the playground.
Mr. Parsons reported the Pickleweed Advisory Committee had reviewed the
mural at its August 10th meeting, and while they did not have a quorum at
that meeting, several of the members did recommend approval of the project.
The Planning Commission and Cultural Affairs Commission reviewed the
proposal at a joint meeting on August 11th, where the Cultural Affairs
Commission acted as an advisory body on this issue. Mr. Parsons stated the
Cultural Affairs Commission did discuss the item, and while there were some
who felt the mural was appropriate, they felt it should be placed on the
inside of the building, not the exterior. The Planning Commission stated
they felt the mural was appropriate, embodied the spirit of the community,
and was appropriate for the exterior of the building. They also commented
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 5
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 6
that the mural was likely to be visible from only one residence located on
Sorrento Way.
Mr. Parsons reported that on August 18th, Terry Hermone appealed the
Planning Commission's approval, based on several reasons, including
misinformation that had been sent out. Mr. Parsons reported the public
hearing notice stated the mural would be painted directly on the building;
however, that was not the case, and the mural was painted on two plywood
panels, to be mounted to the building. Mr. Parsons stated that consistent
with the public hearing requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, staff sent
out a public hearing notice that indicated it would be a joint public
hearing between the Planning Commission and the Cultural Affairs
Commission, and stated the date, time, and location of the meeting. He
stated the notice was sent out ten days prior to the meeting, as required.
Mr. Parsons noted it was a Consent Calendar item on the Agenda, and the
Planning Commission pulled it off the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mr.
Parsons clarified that when items are placed on the Consent Calendar, they
are not automatically approved, and it is still up to the hearing body to
make that decision. Mr. Parsons reported there was also a comment that the
Planning Commission had circumvented the law by declaring they did not need
an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for the mural; however, he explained
the mural was categorically exempt, which is allowable by CEQA. He stated
the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines included a list of
projects which are exempt, and noted this was considered a Class I Existing
Facilities Exemption under CEQA. He explained an Existing Facility is
described as a minor exterior alteration or addition to a building, which
would not require CEQA review, noting the only time a minor project such as
this would require CEQA review, beyond what was done, was if there was a
hazardous site, a wetlands, or things of that nature.
Mr. Parsons reported there had also been a concern that the Planning
process was circumvented by not having public input prior to the approval
of the Agenda. He reiterated a public hearing notice had been sent out,
inviting public input, and the public did have an opportunity to speak at
the public hearing. The Planning Commission, after closing the public
hearing, then made their determination.
Mr. Parsons stated there had been concern about the susceptibility of the
artwork to the weather, particularly the sun and rain, and also to
vandalism. Mr. Parsons explained the artwork was to be waterproofed, and
was intended to withstand the elements; however, it was to be reviewed
annually, or more often than that, to make sure that it was holding up. He
noted the Planning Commission had approved this application, based on the
condition that if the mural was not holding up, it should be repaired, re -
weatherproofed, or removed, pointing out that requirement was in the
Planning Commission's Conditions of Approval. He reported there was also
concern that the Cultural Affairs Commissioners were uncomfortable with the
process. Mr. Parsons explained that because there was an Environmental
Design Review Permit, this item went before the Planning Commission;
however, staff had felt the Cultural Affairs Commission should review it at
a joint meeting with the Planning Commission, so they could communicate
more freely. Mr. Parsons noted that if it were determined necessary by the
City Council, Council could direct staff to review the policy procedures
for the future review of public art.
Mr. Parsons reported there was also been concern by the neighborhood that
only neighborhoods with poor or bad reputations had murals; however, staff
and the Planning Commission felt that was not necessarily true. He pointed
out this mural did represent the community, and was to be mounted on a
public building, and would be open to everyone. He also noted there were
other cities with murals, not necessarily located in neighborhoods that had
bad reputations, citing the City of Palo Alto as an example, as well as the
City of Martinez. He stated these murals were often done for the purpose
of showing civic pride, pointing out they had been very successful in the
two cities he had mentioned. In addition, Mr. Parsons stated it was very
common for public buildings or schools to have murals, especially oriented
toward a playground, as this mural was. He pointed out another example of
a recently approved mural was the San Pedro Elementary School, where the
traffic barrier in front of the school was painted by children to dress it
up, because of its bleak nature.
Mr. Parsons noted concern was also expressed that mounting the artwork to
the wall would damage the integrity of the building; however, the intent
was that it would be very securely mounted to the building, and would be
weatherproofed. He stated the integrity of the building would not be
sacrificed by the penetration of water, which could easily be addressed.
Mr. Parsons reported the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the mural
on September 10th, and recommended by a 4-1 vote that Council approve the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 6
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 7
mural. The Park and Recreation Commission also recommended four
conditions, which were different than the Planning Commission's, and those
conditions have been included in the staff report. Mr. Parsons stated he
did not believe the Planning Commission would have any problem with the
Community Services staff reviewing and monitoring the condition of the
artwork, noting that would be appropriate, as it was their building, and
Community Services staff was there quite often. Mr. Parsons noted the
fourth condition stated the Park and Recreation Commission would review the
mural six months after installation, and recommend to continue or
discontinue the exhibit, based upon the condition of the mural, and its
impact to the Community Center, Pickleweed Park, and the surrounding
neighborhoods. He noted that was agreeable with staff, as well, explaining
this would be discussed at a public hearing, which would be posted, and the
public would have another opportunity to speak on its condition. Mr.
Parsons reported staff was recommending the Park and Recreation Commission
conditions be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, and that
Council deny the appeal, and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of
the proposed mural, with the recommended modifications to the Conditions.
Vice -Mayor Phillips invited public comment.
Terry Hermone, appellant, believed neighborhoods do end up becoming
stigmatized by murals on the wall, stating her neighborhood, even with as
much as the people keep putting into it, still has a stigma of being a bad
neighborhood. She noted they were spending lots of money and time down
there, to take steps forward, and she was afraid a mural would be taking a
step back. She stated the problem was that the whole of East San Rafael
was nothing but condominiums and PD's (Planned Developments), and nothing
could be done on the structuring of them, noting that even on the inside,
they could not be restructured. Therefore, 80% of their value was the
surrounding neighborhood. She stated this was one of her reasons for
wanting an EIR, or an outside study of how murals affect neighborhoods,
because their property values were determined by the neighborhood.
Referring to the City's own regulations regarding business signs, Ms.
Hermone pointed out the reason the City began regulating the signs was to
safeguard and enhance property values, to protect the private investments
of businesses and open space, and to preserve the visual appearance of the
City as a place to live and work. She noted the City did this because
businesses were a necessity for the City's survival, while their signs were
a necessity for the businesses' survival. However, she stated the
residents did not believe the mural was a necessity for the neighborhood's
survival, nor did it enhance the already natural beauty the park brings,
noting it is surrounded by wetlands, the bay, water canals, and boats. She
stated it was very beautiful out there, and they did not believe further
enhancement was needed in the form of a painting on the wall.
Ms. Hermone stated it was the artist's own admission that the painting,
even waterproofed, was not going to last more than a few months once it was
mounted, and he had relinquished all responsibility. She recalled
Spinnaker's gazebo was built by the City, and when they wanted it removed
because it attracted undesirables doing business there, the City made them
pay for the removal themselves. She stated her concern was, once the mural
is mounted and starts to disintegrate, were the taxpayers going to be
responsible for it? She noted the grant was finished, and the artist had
already stated he was not going to be responsible for the mural's upkeep.
Ms. Hermone stated they were also concerned because of the type of weather
at that location, noting it is landfill on the bay, and it does have bay
weather. Being on the Board of Directors of her condominium association,
she knows that if the walls are breached, wood rot runs rampant, noting
they have had to do large, major repairs on the wood of the condominiums.
She pointed out it could be very damp, and they did not believe the
painting would hold up; in addition, they were concerned that if the
building was breached, that may not hold up.
Ms. Hermone stated the Master Plan for the park called for a plan a mural
or painting to be hung outside. She stated they had no objection to the
painting being hung inside, and pointed out that when the residents had
first seen the mural, it had been displayed over the stage in the
recreation room, where it was a nice attraction for the barren stage. She
noted it had also been mentioned that perhaps other artwork might be done
by the children, and a rotation could be started.
Ms. Hermone respectfully requested that Council reject the hanging of the
mural, or at the very least do an EIR, as the value of their property was
in jeopardy, dependent upon the condition of their neighborhood. She noted
they did not want to see it go one step backward, since they have gone so
many steps forward.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 7
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 8
Mike Meenan, long term resident of Marin County and owner of multiple
properties, stated he could remember when 400 Canal Street was a prestige
address. He noted he lives at 104 Canal Street, at the corner of Canal and
Sorrento Way, and he also expressed concern for the identity of the
neighborhood, stating they have been fighting an uphill battle. Mr. Meenan
reported he was a member of the Newport Boating Association, pointing out
they have been very active in getting a number of things done, as have many
of their neighbors, to improve their community, and the perception of their
community by outsiders, as well as those who live in San Rafael. He stated
the residents had begun to see a turnaround, and he thanked the City for
the efforts that have been invested in the neighborhood, and the community
focus meetings.
Mr. Meenan stated he believed the hanging of the mural on the outside of
this building, while it may be appropriate in many other locations, would
only compound the perception they have in the Canal neighborhood, and he
felt it was inappropriate material, in an inappropriate location. He
stated he had been interviewed by a reporter from the Marin Independent
Journal regarding this issue, and he referred the reporter to Picante
Restaurant at the end of Kerner Boulevard, where they have wonderful tile
murals which he felt were expressive of the type of art and the subjects
the people in the community would find appropriate.
Mr. Meenan asked Council to consider other locations for this work. He
stated he was very much in favor of local artists being encouraged, whether
they are adults working under a grant, or children developing their
artistic ability, and he felt perhaps a rotating display within the
Community Center would be very appropriate. Mr. Meenan stated the
location, and ultimately the material, were their biggest concerns. He
noted they had all invested a substantial amount of money in their homes,
and they wanted to do everything they could to upgrade their neighborhood,
as well as support their community, letting their neighbors be represented
in the appropriate medium, and in the appropriate venue.
Olivia Beltrane, resident of Marin County for fourteen years, first read a
letter written by Delfino Herrera, a resident of the Canal area, "I am in
favor of the mural to be placed at the Pickleweed Park area. I work three
jobs to support a family of four, and I live in the Canal area. I see the
importance of the City Council to support the mural that our youth did.
For my part, I will try to keep the youth busy through instructing self-
defense, and hope that it will inspire them to appreciate the art form of
the Shaolin "KEMPO". I asked Olivia to read my statement, as I will not be
able to attend the meeting, since I will be instructing on self-defense
until 9:00 PM. Again, please take into account the positive work that our
youth made. Sincerely, Delfino Herrera".
Ms. Beltrane, a Latino single mother, living and working in Marin County,
stated she would be very glad to see a mural of the Canal community, noting
she was proud to be Latino, and she saw the mural as something constructive
for everyone, allowing them to learn from one another, and to appreciate
their colors and differences. She asked Council to approve the mural,
stating it was important to see a mural showing the artwork of the youth in
the Canal area, and they needed to see that their work is appreciated.
Dorothy Vesecky, 400 Canal Street, noted, for the record, that while 400
Canal may no longer be a prestigious address, it was still a very nice
place to live. Ms. Vesecky pointed out there was not just one artist on
this project, there was one adult male, who supervised five teen -aged
artists from the community, and she felt that was very important to keep in
mind. She noted the grant had been given to this
group to do the mural, with the idea that the mural would be on the outside
of the building. Ms. Vesecky stated she believes art comes alive when
people see it, noting if someone buys an expensive painting, but puts it in
a vault where no one can see it, then it is no longer art when it is locked
away. She pointed out this was a piece of art that was meant to be
displayed on the outside of the Pickleweed Community Center, which was
where she felt it belonged. Ms. Vesecky believed the mural was beautiful,
and gave the message that the City's community centers were not just sports
centers, but centers that provided a wide range of cultural and
recreational activities.
Jeanne Bogardis, Executive Director of the Marin Arts Council and resident
of San Rafael, reported the Marin Arts Council made the grant for this
mural, explaining it was a community arts grant made by a local community-
based panel, comprised of local business, civic, and education leaders,
noting this had been a highly competitive process. Ms. Bogardis explained
they make several grants such as this in the community, having made several
for artists to work within their communities. She stated this particular
grant was also made based upon the reputation of the artist, Mr. Maloney,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 8
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 9
noting he has had an enormous success rate working with young people,
managing to be one of the few unsung heroes in terms of crime
detention/prevention/intervention in the County, in his work with at risk
kids. She pointed out the results that are seen after they do this process
is incredible. She noted he also involved these young people in the
process, and part of the reason the Arts Council gave this grant was
because they would be involved in the process from start to finish, and
would understand the democratic process and the hearings.
Ms. Bogardis stated they had funded other mural projects throughout Marin
County, noting there was one current project in Bolinas, and she did not
believe this had caused a negative, crime -ridden attachment to the
community of Bolinas. She explained murals have had a long history in our
Country, noting they are part of public art, and part of the neighborhood
beautification movement. She pointed out that murals could be traced back
all over the Country, as far back as the early 1800's, and before. Ms.
Bogardis explained they had found that in almost any neighborhood where
there are murals, they see improvements in that neighborhood; improvement
in civic pride and the esteem of the community, because people feel as
though they "belong" to the community. She reported she had just received
a brochure listing such publications as Books on Public Art, Painting the
Town, and California Murals, noting there were books coming out on
California murals, Los Angeles murals, and San Francisco murals. She
stated she had the pleasure, prior to taking her current job, of working
for the San Francisco Arts Commission in the 19801s, noting she was there
at a time when she watched murals bloom in the Mission District of San
Francisco, as well as other parts of the City. She stated there was
nothing that contributed more singularly to the improvement of those
neighborhoods, the esteem, and the community relations than the creation of
those murals. She pointed out that now one could go to the Visitors and
Convention Bureau in San Francisco and get a brochure and a map of those
murals, noting there were even bus trips through those neighborhoods
because of the impact and beauty of the murals. She stated they created
islands of beauty.
Ms. Bogardis stated the Arts Council had given the grant with the
understanding that the mural would be outside, and she gave her personal
commitment that she would drive past the site every week to see if the
mural looked as though it were rotting or deteriorating. She assured
Council that the Arts Council had no intention of supporting something that
was going to rot or be unattractive, stating their goal was to beautify and
improve.
Ms. Bogardis stated the Arts Council makes these grants regularly, noting
that perhaps they could work with the Cultural Affairs Commission, and
provide information to pass on to grantees so there is a more cohesive
process. Again, she noted the Art Council's experience with funding art in
the Canal has been wonderful, and they have seen a great reflection of the
community, pointing out that part of this particular mural was to reflect
the people and the population who use Pickleweed Community Center, and who
live in the community. She urged Council to endorse the mural.
Anita Wah, ten-year resident of the Canal and owner of property on Canal
Street, stated she had, at one time, lived on Canal Street, and while she
no longer lived there, she still owned the property, because the
condominium she purchased in 1989 could not be sold for half the price in
1997. Therefore, she had a great deal of sympathy for those people who are
concerned about their property values. She believed one of the things that
made the Canal not a good place to live is that people are not able to sell
condominiums, they turn into rentals, and there is too much rental
property. However, having made that statement, Ms. Wah stated she was in
favor of the mural, because what made the Canal the kind of place it has
been, in terms of instability, and not being safe or peaceful, was that
many of the people who live there do not have civic pride. However, she
pointed out Patrick Maloney had worked with the kids in this neighborhood
in a way that gave them civic pride, noting that when they look at the
mural, and know they have done it, and when people look at the mural and
know their child or their friend has done it, that is going to be the thing
that will create civic pride, will make people want to take care of their
neighborhood, and will actually keep the neighborhood the kind of
neighborhood those homeowners who are concerned about their property values
and the environment want their neighborhood to be, a safe, peaceful and
stable neighborhood.
Ramon Lopez, resident of 400 Canal Street since 1985, addressed the
Council. He recalled in 1994 he took over the management of the apartment
building, because the building had been a very bad place, and made the
decision to take over management of the building before there was a
disaster. He reported it is now a clean, safe, wonderful place, and the
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 9
tenants are happy, pointing out that
were sixteen or eighteen apartment v
list of ten to fifteen people, and e
are any vacant apartments.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 10
when he took over as manager, there
cancies, and now there is a waiting
ery day people come and ask if there
Mr. Lopez stated that when he moved to the Canal in 1985, he used to see
children as young as six to ten years old hanging around with older
teenagers, who were drinking and doing drugs. Mr. Lopez reported that in
June, 1994 he made a deal with eight of those kids, telling them he did not
want to see them hanging around with the older teenagers who were doing
nothing good, and offered to take them to Pickleweed Park to play ball. He
noted that four year later, this has developed into the Canal Youth Soccer
Academy, with an estimated 200 kids taking part in the program this year.
Mr. Lopez stated there were many foundations helping the organization, and
this year they expected to raise close to $200,000 to support this program.
Mr. Lopez stated he could not understand how people could be opposed to
this mural, as he felt its message was for the kids to come to the park,
rather than going out into the streets doing drugs. Mr. Lopez stated that
what he wanted to do in the Canal was just to do his best to be in harmony,
even with those people who do not enjoy it, noting he would like to meet
with them someday, so they could all work together to solve the problems of
the Canal. Mr. Lopez referred to the 200 kids who were spending their time
playing sports rather than taking part in vandalism or other criminal
activity, noting that if he had not begun this program, the Canal would
have been worse by now.
Bill Weeks, resident of Sorrento Way, felt it was interesting the
discussion had gotten around to children doing artwork, because he
encouraged his own son to do artwork, and hangs his work at Pickleweed Park
whenever they have a show there. Mr. Weeks stated he, too, encouraged more
artwork being done in the Canal, noting no one had actually objected to the
painting, even though painting is a subjective thing, and what is pretty to
one person may not be pretty to someone else. Mr. Weeks believed the
objections started when they came to the joint meeting of the Planning
Commission and Cultural Affairs Commission to discuss a proposed mural;
however, when they arrived, they found a mural had already been painted,
and was ready to be hung. Mr. Weeks reported the Cultural Affairs
Commission had felt ill at ease, because they had not realized the
neighbors had not been informed that the mural was already completed and
was going to be put up. Mr. Weeks stated they were given the opportunity
to look at the painting, which he described as 8 feet x 8 feet, and very
bright; however, he pointed out the issue was not whether or not they liked
the painting, but whether it belonged on the outside of an earthtone
building, or if there was a more appropriate use for the mural.
Mr. Weeks acknowledged the mural was to encourage community pride; however,
he suggested that rather than putting just one painting up, they encourage
a program for the kids to produce more paintings, and display them on the
walls. He also felt it was more appropriate to have paintings of this kind
shown inside, particularly in the gym area, where the walls are huge. Mr.
Weeks reported this suggestion had been met with a lot of positive response
from the Cultural Affairs Commission, who agreed to place the mural inside,
and to rotate the paintings, perhaps making the mural the centerpiece of
more art coming in, and encouraging the children to produce more art.
Mr. Weeks stated he did not want this to become another divisive issue,
noting they have had divisive issues in the Canal in the past. He stated
the Canal had become a better place, noting it was cleaner, there was good
street sweeping, vandalized buildings were being taken care of, there were
less hookers, and there was a great graffiti abatement program. He pointed
out they also had great community pride, and were working very hard to
improve their community. Mr. Weeks suggested a non -divisive alternative
regarding the placement of the mural, which may or may not be something
people want to look at.
Mr. Weeks reported the residents in the neighborhood had already lost 50%
of their home values, and now they were just trying to do what they could
to improve their neighborhood. He noted people had stated a cultural mural
brought the people together and improved a neighborhood; however, he stated
he had never seen any proof of that. He recalled when he was in Berkeley
in the 19601s, he had been on a neighborhood committee, and the reason they
put murals up was to cover graffiti, and he believed that was where the
tradition started in the United States. Mr. Weeks noted he was not stating
all murals were bad; however, he did not believe this public art could be
equated with displaying children's handprints on the wall at Sun Valley,
which was the example they were being given. He pointed out this was a
very bright, "in your face" mural, and it was the wrong thing to do to the
neighbors when they were never even consulted, particularly as to the
content. He stated it was blatantly unfair, as they were the ones who
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 10
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 11
would be hurt the most. He pointed out that most of the people who, in the
past, had been involved in divisive issues in the Canal had moved on;
however, they were still there, they were still the neighbors, and they
were the ones who had to live there, and the ones who pay the taxes and
suffer the brunt of it. Mr. Weeks stated he would really like to suggest
that the mural be placed inside, making it a nice focus, and perhaps even
rotating it along with other artwork, noting we should encourage artwork,
not divisiveness in the neighborhood.
Gina Pandiani, resident of the Canal for twelve years, stated she had been
a member of the Cultural Affairs Commission for four years. Referring to
the Marin Arts Council grants, she noted that bringing the community
together was one of the biggest prerequisites of those grants, and believed
a mural on the outside of the facility could do nothing but bring the
community together, and especially encourage the youth of the neighborhood
to use the facility, and take pride in their recreation center. She also
believed it would encourage them to partake in the programs, and would make
the community what it should be, which is a very joyous place to live. Ms.
Pandiani believed the mural would do only positive things for the
community.
John Ortega, 50 Sonoma Street, stated he has been a resident of the Canal
for the past eight or nine years, and each time he has been on the other
side of what Mr. Weeks has had to say, noting he takes it personally
because he believes Mr. Weeks represents a mind -set from the property
owners along Sorrento Way, while most of the other people who live in the
Canal are not property owners, they are living in apartments, and do not
have equity. Mr. Ortega stated the mural represented equity in the
community. He recalled a few years ago there had been quite an incident
over changing the name of Bahia Vista School to Caesar Chavez School, which
was brought before another legislative body, the School Board. He reported
1,300 signatures were submitted in support of changing the name, and in the
compromise offered by the School Board, it was decided to hang pictures of
the heroes of minority people in the Canal. Mr. Ortega noted the four or
five pictures along the walls of Bahia Vista School are still there, and
they are still as bright and untarnished as ever. He stated the point is
that a compromise was made, and the decision makers decided that was the
compromise they were going to make. Mr. Ortega stated that in this
instance, the issue is, again, what is good for the community; however, he
felt that other than the people supporting the issue, no one had mentioned
anything about the community and the people who lived there. He believed
the real issue was how the people who lived in the community could get
equity in the places where they live. He noted one of the ways was to put
something out there that represented them, and glorified their lives.
Mr. Ortega stated he had been personally attacked by someone at the Park
and Recreation Committee meeting, because he had mentioned that the history
of Mexico was the history of murals, which is the poor people's way of
expressing themselves, and is the tradition of Mexico. He stated the mural
was in keeping with the tradition that comes from Mexico, and other South
American countries. Mr. Ortega believed it was time we did something to
distinguish that area of the Canal, whether it was a big sign identifying
the community, or perhaps an archway, a plazita, or cobblestone streets,
something that would belong to everyone who did not have the luxury of
having those equities in the Canal.
Nancy Rosa, resident of the Canal for twenty-nine years, recalled they used
to have murals in the Canal, noting there used to be two of them on Bahia
Vista School, and they never had one incident of graffiti until the School
District painted over the murals.
Luther Wallace, resident of the Canal, stated he had listened to both sides
of the issue, and also to the Park and Recreation Commission. He pointed
out one thing that had not been stated in talking about the history of
murals, which go back several thousand years in history, was that public
art expression was very vivid, alive and well, and that tradition lives on.
He stated it is not relegated to just one part of the planet, noting all
over the planet one could see public art expressed very well. Mr. Wallace
agreed with Mr. Weeks that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. He stated
he had been at Pickleweed Park on the playgound with his grandchildren, and
as he sat watching them, he turned toward the direction of the mural,
noting that by and large, all he saw were trees, and he did not see how the
mural was going to be any kind of eyesore to those who lived on Sorrento
Way, or that particular part of the neighborhood. He stated the only
location where the mural could be seen for long was at the stop sign at
Kerner Boulevard and Canal Street. He stated he was a little disappointed,
because he believes the mural is very fine art, which people should be able
to stand back and look at.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 11
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 12
Mr. Wallace noted one of the conditions the Planning Commission had placed
on the mural was that it was to be in place for six months, and then be
reconsidered. He felt a six month display, before they decide how long it
will stay up, was a fine approach to help them avoid this division Mr.
Weeks had referred to.
There being no further pubic comment, Vice -Mayor Phillips closed the public
hearing.
Councilmember Miller stated he had been involved with this project since
the inception of the grant, having known of Mr. Maloney's desire to paint
the mural, and to work with the children He stated he had attend the
Planning Commission/Cultural Affairs Commission joint meeting, and in
looking at and hearing all the testimony, he saw the mural at temporal art,
just as art is in the Italian Street Festival. Mr. Miller pointed out it
was not permanent, and was not expected to last forever, and all the
materials used in the mural had a temporality about them. However, he
believed temporal art had a unique ingredient, as we know from the Italian
Street Festival, and was as much about process as it was about product. He
pointed out what we saw in this case was inter -generational, noting there
was a grandfather and young children, working together on this mural. He
noted this was also a multi -cultural experience, and everyone was involved,
whether they were Caucasian, Latino, Anglo, or Asian, and it was the
experience of this that made temporal art so magnificent, and so wonderful.
Mr. Miller stated temporal art was also "community art", because it came
from the work, endeavor, skill, creativity, and energy all of the
community, coming more from the future of the community, which is the
youth. Mr. Miller stated this was, indeed, a portrait of this community,
noting it is multi -cultural and multi -generational. Mr. Miller explained
the artist had taken photographs of people who experienced Pickleweed
Center, made a collage from those pictures, and then painted the collage,
showing the community as it is, and the users of Pickleweed. He stated
this was community art for the community, showing pride in the wonders of
the community. Mr. Miller felt this was perhaps the richest cultural area
of the City, and this mural was their portrait, for everyone to look up and
see how a co -community could work together.
Mr. Miller stated he had heard three basic arguments from the tonight's
discussion. The first argument, made by some, was that they did not like
it, they did not like the colors, the art, or the mural as a medium in this
instance. Mr. Miller noted that when discussing art, St. Augustine, Bishop
of Hippo, and perhaps one of the greatest influences on our western culture
had once stated, "According to taste, there is no discussion". Mr. Miller
stated another argument was that the mural was a sign of a decaying
community; however, he believed the opposite was true, noting art was the
true expression of a community, as art speaks of the soul and the value of
the community, not of its decay. Mr. Miller stated it was very interesting
the way murals have been used in this City, pointing out that on "C" Street
at the McPhails Building there are very nice murals of western pictures; on
Fourth Street across from Hellers there is the wonderful work created by
the high school's art department; on Lincoln Avenue we have a brand new
mural, an application mural much like the one that will go up in
Pickleweed; and there is the mural on Vivian Way done by young people,
which was dedicated a couple of years ago. He stated murals were very much
a part of the City, and defined the real wonders of this great community
that we have.
Mr. Miller noted the third argument stated the process was not proper. He
pointed out that first, a grant had been given, which came out of a
community-based foundation for an artist to produce an outside mural. The
artist produced that type of mural, and then took it through the public
process, going to the Pickleweed Advisory Committee; to the Planning
Commission, where the Cultural Affairs Commission advised the Planning
Commission; and then to the Community Services Department. Mr. Miller
stated this was what the public process was all about. He noted that once
the approval was appealed, this public hearing was held. He stated this
was exactly what the public process of this community had set forth to do,
and all the rules were followed. Mr. Miller stated he was not swayed by
the argument that the process was not followed, and he recommended denial
of the appeal.
Councilmember Cohen stated he reviewed each section of the appeal, reading
each of the letters, listening to all the comments made tonight, and giving
the appeal full consideration. He noted he was satisfied with staff's
discussion, and agreed with their analysis that the process had been fairly
and appropriately followed, and that an EIR was not required for this
project. However, he did feel that perhaps the City needed to have a
discussion with the Cultural Affairs Commission regarding how we were going
to review public art projects, although he did not believe that required
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 12
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 13
Council to reject this particular piece of public art, just because the
City needed to have a discussion with the Cultural Affairs Commission. He
felt that was a separate point, although it was well taken that they needed
to follow-up on that issue.
Concerning the argument that the artwork was going to decay and
deteriorate, Mr. Cohen stated the point being made was unclear, because
that argument seemed to be made by the same people who did not like the
artwork. He noted perhaps they should be happy if it were going to decay,
because that would mean it would come down sooner. He believed the Park
and Recreation Commission's four points adequately addressed this issue,
noting if the mural should become decayed, everyone would want to see it
come down, but until that time, it simply came down to what people thought
about public art.
Referring to the comments about the mural's contents, Mr. Cohen agreed with
Councilmember Miller, stating he did not want Council getting into a
situation where they were going to agree, by committee, what should be the
content of artwork. Therefore, in terms of discussing the content, unless
it was something entirely inappropriate for public display, that would be
as far as he would want to go. Mr. Cohen stated it came down to the
notion, repeated several times, that other works of this nature are
generally found in disenfranchised neighborhoods, and a social stigma is
attached to this art. Mr. Cohen stated he wholeheartedly rejected that
conclusion, noting Councilmember Miller had pointed to a number of examples
of public art throughout this community, and several speakers had spoken of
the proud tradition of various communities expressing themselves through
public art, going back hundreds and thousands of years. He pointed out
that, in fact, Mr. Miller and staff had missed one, and asked, if the
notion is correct that public art is only found in declining, decaying, and
disenfranchised communities, then what had Council done allowing youth to
put public art on the Highway 101 overpass? He displayed a recent edition
of the Newspointer, which showed a photograph of the mural recently painted
on the 101 viaduct, something Council had given its blessing to, in
concept, and was promoted by a group of youth in the community who had been
stalwarts in the fight against graffiti. Mr. Cohen stated he did not
believe they would have given all their time in fighting graffiti, and then
turn around to do something that promotes graffiti. He felt they would
likely join with Council and several of the speakers in rejecting that
notion, and argue that art of this kind gives an expression to people's
artistic notions, and reduces graffiti in a community. Mr. Cohen stated he
believed public art was something to be encouraged and celebrated. He
noted there had also been a newspaper article in the Marin Independent
Journal about young people in the community who were painting a mural to
honor and show their love for a departed companion. Mr. Cohen stated
public art had a lot of expression, and had a great place in our community,
and he was sorry there were those who believed approval of this mural would
be divisive, noting he wished they did not feel that way; however, the fact
that some people objected to this was not enough to dissuade him from his
support for public art, and support for this project in particular.
Councilmember Heller stated she had looked at the site and looked at the
mural, walking the neighborhood to see how it would impact on some of the
streets. She noted that from the one street in question there was only one
place the mural could be seen, if one were to step out onto the sidewalk,
while it could not be seen clearly from the rest of the houses in that area
because of such things as jungle gyms and trees. She stated she would like
to see the inclusion of the four conditions recommended by the Park and
Recreation Commission, in addition to the two Conditions of Approval from
the Planning Commission. She noted she would also like to direct staff to
follow-up with the Cultural Affairs Commission and the Planning Commission,
in a review of the policies and procedures for future proposals of public
art displays.
Vice -Mayor Phillips stated he agreed with his fellow Councilmembers, noting
he was particularly struck by the thought that this would actually draw the
community together, and he believed that it did create a sense of pride,
which he felt was very important. He believed this would further enhance
the area for everyone in the neighborhood, noting he was particularly proud
of the end result, and the rallying around by the community, and he looked
forward to the media, and the broader community, supporting and being able
to enjoy the artwork. Vice -Mayor Phillips noted everyone had agreed the
mural needed to be maintained, so it did not become an eyesore and run
counter to the point that was most impacting his decision, which was pride,
noting if it were to be rundown, faded, or tattered, the pride would not be
there, and he looked forward to the mural being maintained. He stated he
believed that with the mural being properly maintained, it would become a
greater magnet for the community, and a greater sense of coming together.
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 13
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 14
Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to adopt the
Resolution denying appeal.
RESOLUTION NO. 10307 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION OF AUGUST 11, 1998 GRANTING CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
ED98-69 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW MURAL ON THE
PICKLEWEED COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING LOCATED AT 50
CANAL STREET (APN 09-032-07).
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
OLD BUSINESS:
17. REPORT ON CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY, 1122 FOURTH
STREET, LINEXPRESS CAFE (PD) - File 9-3-30 X 9-3-85
San Rafael Police Captain Tom Boyd reported this item had been reviewed
since first being presented to Council two weeks ago, and another Condition
was added to the staff report concerning the Criterion #2 in the
Resolution. He explained Criterion #2 had to do with serving a potential
clientele that is unique to the City, or is not being served, and pointed
out that was an issue the Council could consider in approving a Certificate
of Public Convenience or Necessity. Captain Boyd stated the facts of the
issue were still relatively the same, reporting there is an undue
concentration of beer and wine licenses in this particular census tract,
and it is a high crime reporting area. He noted these were all issues that
could be considered, and while they were not absolutes, they were all
things that went into the decision making process. Captain Boyd stated
Council had been presented with two Resolutions, depending upon their
decision this evening.
Councilmember Miller noted his viewpoint concerning liquor licenses was a
societal one, stating he believed alcohol was an addictive substance, which
costs this community considerable human, social, and economic capital. He
explained that for the sake of the common good, and to lower those costs to
the community resulting from the abuse of alcohol, government controls the
selling and distribution of this substance, as it does other addictive
substances and drugs. The State of California controls the use of alcohol
through the issuance of permits, and evolves the authority to issue these
licenses to local government, in this case, to the City Council, and the
State provides basic guidelines for the Council to consider.
Mr. Miller stated the seriousness of the exercise of this government power
was such that he believed that only for a very compelling reason should the
Council set aside the guidelines set by the State. In this case, he noted
the issuance failed the four fundamental guidelines, without offering a
compelling reason to set them aside. The first guideline is whether the
issuance involved would result in an increase of the total number of
licenses in the City, or in the Census Tract. Mr. Miller reported it has
been determined there should be only four licenses in this Census Tract;
however, there were currently eleven licenses issued. Therefore, if this
application were to be issued, there would be twelve licenses in a Census
Tract that calls for only four.
The second guideline asks whether the business, by reason of its location,
character, manner of operation, merchandise, or potential clientele, would
serve a segment of the City's businesses or residents not presently being
served. Mr. Miller believed this application was fundamentally a lounge,
with a secondary service of the use of computers. In terms of a lounge, he
pointed out that people could go innumerable places up and down the street
in order to take advantage of having discussions, and while the ambiance
might be different, nevertheless, it was still essentially a lounge area.
Concerning the use of computers, Mr. Miller noted he had recently heard a
report on television that suggested computers created isolation, not
socialization, and that excessive use of computers brings on depression.
Mr. Miller noted the third Criterion addresses whether the business will be
located within a 1,000 foot radius of incompatible facilities, such as
churches, parks, homeless shelters, and recreation. He pointed out St.
Raphael's church is just up the street from this location. In addition,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 14
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 15
while the Rafael Theatre is not described as an educational facility, he
felt it was more than just a theater, pointing out it was to be a film
center/educational facility, and noting high school students will be bussed
to the back entrance of the theater. Therefore, he did not believe having
a back door, back alley, second floor lounge area was a necessary or proper
location next to the theater, nor did he believe it was necessary to
proliferate these licenses in such close proximity to St. Raphael's Church.
Referring to the last Criterion, whether the location of the license will
be in a high crime area, Mr. Miller pointed out the crime statistics in
Zone 16 were a higher rate of crime than the average of all reporting
districts.
Addressing the conclusions in the staff report, Councilmember Miller stated
he did not believe that in any discussion regarding Julia Street, including
the Vision, there had ever been any discussion of a lounge area coming off
the back door; as a matter of fact, a large part of such discussion
concerned trying to gentrify it, dress it up, and make it more artsy. He
stated that had really been the Vision, until people discovered it would be
impractical, as they could not get into any of the other buildings. Mr.
Miller stated he did not believe this application was consistent with the
"Alive After Five" concept.
Councilmember Miller stated he did not believe the justification for this
certificate was the same as for the Brew Pub and Lugano Imports, stating
that with the Brew Pub and Lugano Imports there was an intricate, immediate
nexus with the delivery of alcohol
in those two businesses; one happens to manufacture the brew, and also
serves it in the restaurant, which is a very essential part of that
service. He stated the same was true of Lugano Wines, where they sell wine
by bottles and cases, noting they have to have a license so people can
taste the wine, which Mr. Miller felt was a reasonable and integral part of
that business.
Mr. Miller stated he did not believe alcohol had to be an integral part of
socialization in this particular spot, and he was afraid that if Council
were to approve this application, it would set an awful precedent, asking
how we could ever refuse someone at the book center if they wanted to serve
wine while people read books?
Mr. Miller stated he saw no compelling reason why this license should be
approved, and he supported Council denying this license. He also noted he
would like to have the Resolution redrafted, to incorporate many of the
points he had made.
Councilmember Heller reported she had made a site visit and looked at the
facility, noting she did not agree with Councilmember Miller, and felt
Council should approve this application. She acknowledged there were a lot
of licenses in this Census Tract; however, the tract was Downtown, and
there were a lot of businesses and restaurants serving liquor, wine, and
beer. She also believed it was going to be just another added social
outlet for the after theater crowd, giving people one more option for a
place to go if they would like to sit down in a quiet area and have a glass
of wine or a cup of coffee. Ms. Heller stated she did not believe this
application would have an undue negative impact.
Councilmember Cohen stated that while his feeling were not as strong as
Councilmember Miller's, he was having a difficult time making a Finding
that supported this application. noting it clearly fell into the criteria
that put it squarely into Council's lap, where they would need to find some
reason why it offered a community benefit. He felt the one Criterion this
focused on was Criterion #2, which asks whether the business, by reason of
its location, character, manner of operation, merchandise, or potential
clientele, would serve a segment of the City's businesses or residents not
presently being served. Mr. Cohen stated that would be where he would have
to look, and that was where he was having difficulty. He acknowledged the
role of computers in society, noting our use of computers was a new thing,
and changed almost on a daily basis. He did note he takes the recent study
with a large grain of salt, stating it was really an open question in terms
of the impact of the use of the Internet and computers, and whether that,
in itself, increased depression. However, he was having a difficult time
seeing the nexus between alcohol and computers, and how the opportunity to
have a drink and surf the Internet was of great community value. Mr. Cohen
stated it almost seemed to be that this was a lounge or bar run in
conjunction with an opportunity to rent computers. Viewed in that light,
he stated it was difficult for him to see why another bar on Fourth Street
really enhanced or provided a public convenience, particularly one open to
Julia Street, as opposed to Fourth Street, and being a second story
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 15
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 16
location, noting there were certain things about the location itself that
were not particularly appealing.
Councilmember Cohen referred to the other examples mentioned in the report,
where the City had found an exception, noting he agreed with Councilmember
Miller, that there was a direct nexus between the operation and the
enterprise, or the business purpose of the enterprise, and the serving of
alcohol. He stated he did not find that nexus here, and he believed Mr.
Miller made a good point when he noted that if Council were to approve
this, they should be prepared to approve almost any business plan that
proposes serving alcohol in conjunction with whatever business they might
conduct in the Downtown area. Mr. Cohen stated he did not know if he was
prepared to do that, noting he had not heard a case being made that there
was a connection between alcohol and computers, although he was open to
listening to a response to that.
Vice -Mayor Phillips stated he, too, was in favor of providing for the
license, primarily because of some of the conclusions drawn by Captain
Boyd. Mr. Phillips referred to the first Criterion, noting the conclusion
was that this application would not have a negative impact on the area, and
also to Criterion #3, pointing out the report concluded this application
would not have a significant impact on the nearby facilities. Mr. Phillips
noted the clientele would likely not be a high consumption group, and also
pointed out, as reported under Criterion #5, that this location had not had
any reported serious crime in the last year.
Vice -Mayor Phillips felt this application would add one more dimension to
the Downtown. He believed it was somewhat unique, although whether or not
it would be financially viable was another question. He thought it was
rather intriguing to consider the clientele, noting it might add some, or
there might be a shifting of the clientele from some of the other
locations, rather than an additional expansion.
Vice -Mayor Phillips stated he just did not react negatively toward this
application, and saw enough justification in each of the Criterion to
believe it was not going to have a significant negative impact on the
Downtown. He noted he was also intrigued with the possibility of further
enhancing the Downtown for some of the evening usage. Mr. Phillips also
believed, to some degree, this application was unique, noting he did not
see any other application like it, nor had he ever heard of another
application like it. Based on staff's comments, the report, and the
comments of his fellow Councilmembers, Vice -Mayor Phillips stated he would
lean toward the Resolution which states the application should be approved.
Councilmember Cohen stated it was his recollection that this was not a
permit the City could call up for review, nor could we put a time limit on
this to see how it operates, and asked if this was correct? Captain Boyd
stated that for the purpose of the PCN (Public Convenience or Necessity) it
was not, it was a one-time approval. However, if there were issues that
could go into the Use Permit to operate the business, which he believed
came under the Cocktail Lounge provisions, that might be another way to put
certain limitations or control measures on it.
Councilmember Heller asked, if there were problems with the use of liquor
on these premises, would those problems come through the City or the Police
Department to the State? Captain Boyd stated that was correct, noting our
policy with any place that deals with the sale or consumption of alcohol is
that if we have problems, we document them on an incident report, and send
a copy to the Alcoholic Beverage Control. They keep the reports on file,
and when they have the time, or feel there is an issue, they come down and
deal with it themselves. He noted they place very significant sanctions on
the businesses. Ms. Heller noted that meant there was oversight, and
Captain Boyd stated there was, not from the City, but from the Alcoholic
Beverage Control.
Community Development Director Bob Brown stated it was his understanding
that this application would require a Use Permit, which would be a
subsequent process; therefore, there would be another vehicle for
operational conditions, and the return of the permit for review.
Councilmember Cohen stated his initial thoughts had been similar to Vice -
Mayor Phillips, in that he believed the enterprise itself was somewhat
unique. He noted it would be interesting to see if it would have long-term
viability, in terms of a business plan. As someone who uses computers on a
daily basis, Mr. Cohen stated he was happy to see this, as it was part of
the high-tech identity of San Rafael the City has been pursuing. He noted
if alcohol expanded the viability of it, and was a minor part of the
operation, then he would not really have a problem with that; however, if
this was done because the enterprise itself, and its concept, was not as
successful as originally hoped, and to a certain extent it was going to
become a lounge or bar in the evenings to supplement the income, then he
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 16
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 17
might have a problem with that. He stated he might look at it a little
differently if someone were to come in and just ask to put in a bar on the
second floor off of Julia Street, and he believed the others would feel
differently, as well. He asked whether or not Council could allow this to
go forward, review it in six months, and get a sense of how it is
operating, and how it actually works? He stated if, in fact, it was going
to be a bar during the evening, renting computers during the day, and then
just become a bar with a bunch of computers sitting around during the
evening, then he did not believe he would be very inclined to support it.
However, if it were an amenity that was subsidiary to the use of computers
and access to the Internet, it would raise less concern for him. Mr. Cohen
acknowledged it may not be possible to know the answer to that question,
pointing out Councilmember Miller clearly believed it would be the former,
rather than the latter, while Councilmember Heller and Vice -Mayor Phillips
believed it would be the latter. Mr. Cohen stated he did not believe we
were going to know unless we allowed them to operate, and then reviewed it.
He asked, if we review it and it turns out to be a bar, and the City is
unhappy with it, would we have the authority to change or revoke the
Conditions of the permit? Vice -Mayor Phillips stated we may or may not
know the answer to that question; therefore, he suggested the
Councilmembers might feel more comfortable waiting until their next meeting
to get further response from staff, noting Mayor Boro would be at the next
meeting, as well.
City Manager Gould agreed Council could defer the issue until its next
meeting, at which time the full Council could make a decision on the matter
of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN). He noted he had just been
discussing with Community Development Director Brown whether there was any
way to tie the Use Permit to the PCN, and Mr. Brown pointed out the PCN
would go before the Planning Commission, and unless it was appealed, there
was no mechanism to get it before the City Council, unless the Council were
to appeal its own Planning Commission's decision.
City Attorney Ragghianti stated the Council could appeal its own Planning
Commission's decision, noting it had been done once before, and although it
was quite unusual, it could be done. He reported other cities in the
County have a procedure which allows any member of the Council to call up
any matter that has been decided by the Planning Commission, although San
Rafael does not have such a procedure, having purposely not legislated that
into existence. However, he reiterated that any member of the Council
could appeal a decision of the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Cohen asked, setting aside the mechanism by which this might
be brought before the Council, could the City, through the Use Permit,
regulate the sale of alcohol; or, if once Council were to vote for this,
and they had their liquor license and could sell alcohol, would it be that
the only thing the City could do with the Use Permit was to tell them they
could not be open in the evening? City Attorney Ragghianti stated he was
reminded of the Unocal (Spirit Enterprises) case, where the City went
through this very point, noting he believed that explicit in the approval
of the Use Permit would be the service of alcohol, or there would be no
purpose in going through this process we were now going through. However,
at the hearing in connection with the Use Permit, the whole of the Use can
be examined by the Council, and regulations or conditions imposed upon it.
However, if the Use Permit is granted, due process requires that in order
for it to be revoked, Findings be made, and the evidence to support those
Findings before the Use Permit that has been granted can be revoked. He
noted it could be conditioned on coming back for review within a certain
time period, but coming back for review did not indicate, in any way, that
revocation was intended. He explained revocation may occur, but it also
may not occur, it was simply a period after which Council wanted to hear
from the Police Department, or others, about how the Use was operating. He
pointed out that in order to revoke the Use Permit, Findings must be made
that one or more of the Conditions imposed had been abrogated in some way.
Councilmember Cohen asked, if the City were able to make Findings that the
Use Permit, as previously granted, or as it was interpreted and operated by
this enterprise, was creating a negative impact on the community, and in
large part that negative impact related to the sale of alcohol, could the
City change the Use Permit in such a way as to limit the sale of alcohol,
or could we merely change the Use Permit to reduce the hours of operation?
City Attorney Ragghianti stated that if the problems being experienced were
the result of the serving of alcohol, the Use Permit could be revoked
entirely, or that portion dealing with the use of alcohol could be
examined. However, once Council makes their decision tonight (for
approval), they are making a Finding that the Public Convenience or
Necessity requires that this license be issued, even in an over -
concentrated area. Mr. Ragghianti believed that implicit in the Finding
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 17
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 18
that this license be issued, if Council should make that Finding, was the
belief that evidence existed that suggests the service of alcohol would
serve a segment of the City's businesses or residents not presently being
served, in addition to each and every other of the criterion. Therefore,
while not impossible, it would be difficult, conceptually, to conceive that
on one hand Council would grant the license, and on the other hand they
would indicate that the problems being experienced related to alcohol
resulted in the withdrawal of the Use Permit. Mr. Ragghianti reiterated
that it was not impossible, but pointed out one would have to examine the
circumstances, and why the problems were the result of the service of
alcohol, rather than some other cause, such as rowdiness or loudness.
Councilmember Cohen appreciated City Attorney Ragghianti referring to the
matter regarding Spirit Enterprises. He stated he would like to hear more
about the current application, noting Mr. Ragghianti's points were well
taken. Mr. Cohen stated he could, in response to his last point, make an
argument that the character of the business, its manner of operation, and
its potential clientele, may serve a segment of the City's residents not
presently being served. He stated he could not necessarily conclude this
would be the case without seeing the businesses in operation. He stated
that if it turns into just a lounge, which happens to have a bunch of
computers sitting around the wall in the evening, then he did not believe
it would meet the description, noting there were a lot of places one could
go in Downtown San Rafael to get a drink. However, if there was something
that somehow enhanced the operation of this business as an Internet access
point, and it then became a place of refuge or socialization for people who
like to use computers, and be around other people using computers, and who
also like to have a little alcohol, then this might well meet Criterion #2,
and give some justification for granting a Finding of Necessity. Mr. Cohen
stated he did not see a way to discover that without letting them operate,
and seeing how it operates. Mr. Cohen asked if there was a way the City
could structure this, either to grant the Use Permit first and then do this
second, or a way to condition the Use Permit so the City could permit them
to operate and discover that? Community Development Director Brown
explained one permit was dependent upon the other, so they could not
operate via a Use Permit without having the PCN through the ABC, which
grants the liquor license. In addition, as the City Attorney pointed out,
the Use Permit could be revoked based on not complying with Operational
Conditions. He stated we could include Operational Conditions requiring
that tables have computers, and that the computers be turned on during the
hours of operation, but beyond that, he did not see how, through a Use
Permit, the City could tie this type of business so that computers and
alcohol were in some way intertwined. However, in terms of any impacts
relating from alcohol, with regard to Police problems, noise, etc., all
those things could be dealt with through Use Permit Conditions.
City Attorney Ragghianti recalled that with Spirit Enterprises we had the
reverse situation, where the Use Permit hearings came first, and then after
that the application for the ABC license, and this permit. He reported the
argument then had been, "Why did you give us the Use Permit, when it was
clear in the Use Permit Conditions that we were going to serve alcohol, if
you later determined you were not going to give us the permit?" He pointed
out that here we had just the obverse. Mr. Ragghianti felt that, either
way, the City was protected. He pointed out that if problems were to
develop, a Use Permit could be revoked; however, it was important to always
keep in mind that Use Permits run with the land, and they vest the owners
of the building and the successors with the right to operate the business,
pursuant to the Permit, unless and until the City gives them notice and an
opportunity to respond, and tells them the City believes the evidence is
sufficient in nature to cause us to revoke the permit. He noted whether
that means the computers are on or off, or people are drinking while they
are there and cause Police problems, the data can suggest that it is not
working, and Council can revoke the permit, it just needs to be done based
on evidence in the record before them.
Vice -Mayor Phillips noted that based on tonight's discussion, his
inclination would be to table this issue, unless there was a time sensitive
issue that had not been brought to his attention. City Manager Gould
stated Council was struggling with the fact that since the end of
Prohibition, the State had preempted local control and regulation of the
sale of alcohol, and instead chose to regulate it itself, offering local
government precious little discretion in this whole area. He felt
Councilmember Cohen's question about tying the Use Permit to the PCN was
probably outside the bounds of the City's authority at this time, and
believed Council really had to make this decision based on whether they
believed the public would be well served by allowing Linexpress to serve
alcohol to those who are patronizing that business, noting that was the
basis of the decision this evening. He also felt the City owed it to the
applicant to make a decision as soon as possible; therefore, if a decision,
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 18
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 19
on that basis, could not be reached tonight, Mr. Gould recommended Council
hold this matter over until the next Council meeting, and perhaps make the
decision at that time.
Vice -Mayor Phillips stated that would be his inclination, noting it would
also allow staff further opportunity to explore what the Use Permit would
look like, as well as the Conditions the City could impose under the Use
Permit.
Councilmember Miller stated he would also like to know whether or not this
would set a precedent. Mr. Ragghianti stated it did not, explaining it was
clear the law has indicated, and cases so state, that the fact that a Use
Permit was granted in one instance does not mandate that it be granted in
another, and vice versa, pointing out that each of these must come before
Council on the basis of its own facts. Mr. Ragghianti stated the most
important thing, and something that had already been pointed out, was that
there were certain Criterion, and there were Findings that must be made,
and most importantly, there must be evidence in the record sufficient to
satisfy the Councilmembers. Mr. Ragghianti noted there had been no public
comment at all, so Council had only the staff report prepared by Captain
Boyd. He stated if Council was satisfied with that, they could make the
Findings; however, if they were not satisfied, they need not make the
Findings. He explained if two of the Councilmembers believed they could
make the Findings, while two others believed they could not, then Council
could take no action, as they were required and bound to adopt Resolutions
only by a vote of at least three. Therefore, options are available to
Council, one of which is to continue this matter to the next meeting, when
the Mayor will be available, noting Mayor Boro could read the staff report
to familiarize himself with it, and then Council could vote again.
Community Development Director Brown added that any discussion tonight or
at the next meeting regarding potential Use Permit Conditions would be very
speculative because, as the City Attorney pointed out, those decisions and
Conditions would have to be based on an application and public review
process. Councilmember Cohen stated nothing precluded Council, or any
individual Councilmember, from testifying orally or in writing to the
Planning Commission, recommending potential Conditions that might address
concerns held by members of the Council. Mr. Ragghianti stated that was
correct. Mr. Cohen stated if the Commission chose not to address those
concerns, then the Council could appeal the action; however, if the
Commission chose to address that in a way that satisfied those concerns,
there would be no need for Council to hear the matter. City Attorney
Ragghianti referred to the question of whether, if a decision was made to
grant this Permit, would Council be compelled to grant the Use Permit, and
stated he did not agree that was the case. He stated there was different
criteria involved, and the City did not even have an application yet.
Councilmember Cohen noted there was additional information he would like,
which he did not believe was available at this time. He stated he would
like to hear a little more about the City's authority to regulate, and to
address some of the concerns Council had identified, and a way they could
structure the Use Permit that might give them the opportunity to do that.
He wanted to know if it was possible that a Use Permit could address some
of the concerns, and that granting this was not the last opportunity to
address those concerns. He stated he would like staff to come back with
that information, noting he was willing to tell the applicants they needed
to wait two more weeks before Council could make a determination, noting
some of his concerns and hesitation might be addressed through other
vehicles, and he needed to hear more about that. Additionally, Mr. Cohen
stated he was focused almost exclusively on Criterion #2, "Whether the
business, by reason of its location, character, manner of operation,
merchandise, or potential clientele will serve a segment of the City's
businesses or residents not presently being served". Mr. Cohen pointed out
Councilmember Miller was convinced that Criterion was not met; however, he
stated he was not convinced it had not been met, noting it was possible
that case could be made. Mr. Cohen stated he would actually like to hear
again from the applicant the next time Council hears this issue, noting he
would be willing to hear an argument that Criterion #2 could be the basis
for a Finding that Public Convenience and Necessity is served by granting
the license. He also pointed out he would feel more comfortable if the
entire Council made the decision.
Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to hold this
item over for two weeks, to the next regular Council meeting of September
21, 1998, and direct staff to address the questions raised by Council, and
provide the applicants with an opportunity to address the Council.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice -Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 19
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 20
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro
MONTHLY REPORT:
18. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT - File 9-3-11 (Verbal)
City Manager Gould reported the discussion of the precise location of the
new St. Vincent de Paul Dining Room was to be postponed until after the
City requests proposals from Developers to develop a hotel on the parcel,
along with a new and improved Dining Room facility, with input from the
development community regarding what they see as the most advantageous
position on the parcel for the new Dining Room. In addition, Mr. Gould
reported the Board of St. Vincent de Paul reported they would be commencing
a Neighborhood Outreach Committee no later than October 1st. Mr. Gould
stated the Marin Community Foundation would present the full design for its
proposed new facility at a public hearing on or about January 1st, noting
staff recommended conceptual approval much sooner than that, and the City
would be encouraging the Foundation to do so. He reported representatives
from Mace Rich would be meeting with staff to discuss plans to expand
Northgate Mall, noting they would be adding a fourth department store. Mr.
Gould also stated the CORO Foundation, a group of twelve young people
studying the City of San Rafael, would be meeting this week with
representatives of various institutions, and talking to people on the
street, and would offer a public presentation of their findings on Friday,
September 11th, based on their conversations within the community.
COUNCIL ER REPORTS:
19. REPORT ON "THE LOOP" IN EAST SAN RAFAEL - File 11-1 x 11-11 x 11-14 x 9-3-
40 (Verbal)
Councilmember Miller reported he had the opportunity to spend two days with
Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian, and Police Officer Tom Smiley, to
determine how well the new traffic patterns were working in East San
Rafael.
Mr. Miller stated the press coverage of this had been very unfortunate,
because it had been very inaccurate. He recalled that prior to the new
one-way traffic pattern there had been eight hours of congestion, and that
had now been reduced to thirty minutes. He noted that was the first thing
to keep in mind, so when people are reporting on this, and they want to see
the facts, we should follow-up with this information. Mr. Miller stated it
was very interesting that coming down Francisco Boulevard, where Scotland
Car Yard is located, the que has been eliminated. Referring to where this
is connected to Andersen Drive, Mr Miller explained that every time he
leaves his office, near Kerner Boulevard and Irene Street, the first stop
he comes to is at Bellam and Kerner Boulevards. After that stop sign, he
has twice had to stop at Francisco Boulevard, but in every other instance,
he has been able to drive, without stopping, as far down Andersen Drive as
Irwin Street. He noted he has been assured by Mr. Mansourian that his
observation shows that drive has been reduced to one stop, although Mr.
Miller stated his experience has proven to be even better than what they
have found.
Mr. Miller noted the choke point had always been at Francisco and Bellam
Boulevards, and now, with the new traffic pattern, this has moved down, and
there is a tentative choke point at Kerner and Bellam Boulevards. He
explained the reason it gets to that is because in the City's planning, we
were not aware Lucas Films was adding 200 to 300 new employees, increasing
the number of people driving in that area.
Mr. Miller reported that two days into the monitoring of the traffic under
the new configuration, the Police were so bored they left, noting there
were no difficulties, and no complaints that they heard. He noted the City
was still working on adding more parking, working with the business owners
on such suggestions as painting the red zones white near the car wash. As
an example, Mr. Miller stated the owner of the car wash had completely
reversed his stand, and now thought the one-way configuration was a very
good deal, compared to what it was. Mr. Miller noted that not only were
they working with the business owners, but at any place where people might
even think there is going to be confusion, staff is putting up directional
arrows.
Councilmember Miller noted the greatest moments in the entire process were
because of Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian. Mr. Miller reported Mr.
Mansourian had increased the parking by approximately 35% on Kerner
Boulevard, and he was still working with changing some of the red zones to
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 20
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 21
see where additional parking could be added. Mr. Miller stated they were
also working with the striping for the "Keep Clear" zones, so people do not
jump ahead of the signals. He pointed out one of the difficulties with the
turn at Irene Street and Kerner Boulevard was because people were coming
down Irene Street so fast they would slide all the way over; however, by
putting a very heavy, solid line there, now only one out of four drivers
slide over. He noted soon people would be used to the striping, and would
be expecting it, and then this problem should be almost eliminated.
Mr. Miller noted the City was going to have an outside report on all of
this, explaining Mr. Mansourian had gotten a $10,000 grant to have CCS, a
firm from Sunnyvale, monitor all of this, and give the City a real "report
card" on it. Mr. Miller reported the real difficulty comes at
approximately 5:30 PM, and involves the left -turns at Lisbon Street,
Belvedere Street, and Kerner Boulevard. He stated the way staff perceived
the problem with the left-hand turns at Lisbon Street, Belvedere Street,
and Kerner Boulevard was that everyone is returning home at that hour, and
they want to get into the residential areas. He noted the reason people go
down to that location is because, in the past, no one dared to try to make
a left -turn at Francisco and Bellam Boulevards. However, those locations
were now all cleared out, and our traffic model shows people will begin
making left -turns on Francisco Boulevard, and then going down Medway, which
will begin to alleviate the current problems. He reported that in the
second round of improvements, when we make three lanes going up Belvedere,
that should take care of the loop at the end.
Mr. Miller stated this whole project was going very well, noting the City
had a superb and sparkling staff.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:35 PM.
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1998
VICE -MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 9/8/98 Page 21