Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2003-08-18SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Pagel IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2003 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Ken Nordhoff, Assistant City Manager Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:00 PM: None CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM: None Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Barbara Heller Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Absent: Gary O. Phillips, Vice -Mayor ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM a) Homeland Security Fraud and Stopping Optional Conflict I House Joint Resolution #20 Amendment: - File 9-1 Christopher Maes read the following: "The people of the United States please take notice: Any registered voter who refuses to sign in support of Tamara's Amendments to end strike first policy (presented below) is aiding and comforting the enemies, foreign and domestic. This is treason. Here is fraudulent House Joint Resolution 20 that pretends to repeal our repugnant strike first policy. It has brought on murder of over 11,000 third world people for oil and robbed our treasury of $139 billion that we don't have plus another $40 billion for secret government to hide it. To repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, new language to be added to inert House Joint Resolution 20: Whereas, we the people authorize Congress to declare war and it has not done so; Whereas, no one man should have the power to get us into optional conflict; Whereas, the free and the brave do not strike first for any reason; Whereas, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 114 that authorized the use of force (striking first)abroad and it is in conflict with the basic law of our land; Whereas, all Members are sworn `to support and defend' our Constitution `against all enemies, foreign and domestic,' and 70% failed to do so by approving HJ114; Whereas, it appears that the 1071" Congress violated basic law by authorizing our striking first in Iraq to destroy nonexistent weapons of mass destruction; The 108`" Congress seeks to uphold our Constitution and cease strike -first policy. Resolution by the Senate and House of Representatives of the U.S. of A. in Congress assembled, Section 1 Repeal of Law — Rescission of HJ114. Whereas, Public Law 107-243 grew from rescinded HJ114, it no longer lives, Section 2. `Repeal of Public Law 107-243.' The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq or any foreign land (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498) is hereby repealed." Kris Recend requested the City Manager update Councilmembers in the areas of federal grants and federal monies that come by way of the State, for 2002 and 2003. She stated she suspected the City had been directly affected by President Bush's Strike First Policy and explained this dangerous policy was established when 7% of Congress approved House Joint Resolution 114, which had caused every city, county and state in the country to face huge budget cutbacks and had also endangered every American. She indicated that House Joint Resolution 114 led to Public Law 107-243; House Joint Resolution 20 pretends to repeal this Public Law. Ms. Recend stated that since legislation cannot repeal public law, House Joint Resolution 20 appears to be fraudulent. She indicated that the 9/11 truth campaign was working to amend HJ20; an amended HJ20 would end Strike First Policy and prevent a $79 billion deficit financed occupation. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 2 Ms. Recend reported requesting Councilmembers to write to Senators Feinstein and Boxer, Representatives Pelosi and Woolsley and Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, Henry L. Hyde. She stated that Congress should amend fraudulent and inert HJ20 in order to stop optional conflict that thus far had killed 11,000 civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. She quoted City Manager Gould "So unless and until the House Regulatory #20 or 114 had a direct effect on the provisions of municipal services, you would not be taking a position on it, unless you wished to change your long held policy." She indicated that Mayor Boro then stated "Unless someone indicates otherwise, I believe that is the position of the Council." Ms. Recend stated it was her contention that the citizens of San Rafael had and would continue to incur the loss of money through reduced grants and federally backed state funding. Through her research of 2002 and 2003 fiscal reports, Ms. Recend stated she discovered the budgetary losses were incurred mostly in the Police and Fire Departments. This is also reflected in the decline of hotel merchant tax revenues from a failing economy. She indicated that after updating the Councilmembers, they would be in a position to know the numbers would indicate otherwise. In light of City Manager Gould's statement and Mayor Boro's comment at the previous City Council meeting, Ms. Recend stated it appeared the City Council must schedule a publicly held consideration of the Council urging Congress to amend House Joint Resolution #20. John Jenkel, Greighton distributed copies of the proposed amendments to Council. Stating that at the August 4t" meeting they called Council's attention to the need to fix fraudulent House Joint Resolution 20 which claims to repeal law, he indicated that no legislation repeals law. He stated they would like Representative Woolsley and Senators Boxer and Feinstein to take these amendments to Congress to end the strike first policy. He noted Council had declined to become involved in federal matters that it mistakenly considered did not affect its constituents. Mr. Jenkel reported that Strike First Policy had resulted in $139 billion going out of the country for the benefit of an Enron agenda and weapons manufacturers and San Rafael's constituents were paying for this. He requested Council's support. b) Homeless Encampment: - File 100 x 9-3-30 x 240 Melany Kramer, 1476 Lincoln Avenue, reported the existence of a series of homeless encampments along the railroad tracks east of the properties between Lincoln Avenue and Highway 101. She stated that in her particular situation, CALTRANS had condemned one of her two buildings for purposes of widening Highway 101 when and if federal funds became available. Ms. Kramer stated there had been a homeless encampment in, under and behind the buildings. Having talked to Code Enforcement, Ms. Kramer reported they indicated they would help on receipt of her official written complaint; however, she anticipated being countered by CALTRANS. She stated CALTRANS had already sent a notice indicating they blamed the tenants for the additional garbage and would raise rents to cover the expense. Ms. Kramer stated it was a difficult situation and a health and fire hazard and having contacted the Police Department, she was informed the police are there constantly as CALTRANS had not demolished the back building and had done nothing to secure it. She requested Council's support in dealing with the problem, indicating Emily Panning, with CALTRANS in Oakland — Telephone 510-286- 5373 was the right-of-way agent who manages the property. Mayor Boro requested Assistant City Manager Ken Nordhoff to check with the Police Department and should the position be as described, he suggested contacting the office of Senator Burton or Assemblymember Nation to seek help with CALTRANS. He suggested CALTRANS could be contacted directly also. Mr. Nordhoff stated he would request Code Enforcement and the Police Department to evaluate the situation tomorrow (Tuesday) and report back. Councilmember Cohen noted conversations had taken place with CALTRANS concerning responsibility for those buildings, and this should be pursued. He stated that with Senator Burton's assistance, CALTRANS did agree to comply with the City's Rent Stabilization Ordinance terms and he was distressed to learn their response to complaints about the property was to blame it on the tenants and threaten to raise the rent, and he hoped this would cease. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Milller seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: ITEM Acceptance of Statements of Disclosure from Joanne Webster, Newly -appointed Member to the Citizens Advisory Committee on Redevelopment, and Andrew J. Preston, Interim Public Works Director (CC) — File 9-4-3 x 9-3-40 x 9-4-4 x (SRRA) R-140 IVB RECOMMENDED ACTION Accepted Statements of Disclosure from Joanne Webster, Citizens Advisory Committee on Redevelopment and Andrew J. Preston, Interim Public Works Director. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 3 2. Resolution Approving Professional Services RESOLUTION NO. 11400 — Agreement with Traffic Consultant to Prepare RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Environmental Analysis of Circulation Impacts for CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A the Draft Environmental Impact Report for San PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Rafael General Plan 2020, for Services Ending AGREEMENT WITH CCS PLANNING June 30, 2004 (P03-02) (CD) — AND ENGINEERING INCORPORATED File 4-3-423 x 115 (2020) x 10-2 TO PREPARE THE APARTMENTS II" (APNs: 155-370-07 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION SECTION OF THE 9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESOLUTION NO. 11403 — FOR THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN Analytics, LLC for the Pavement Management 2020 (P03-02) 3. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael Approved staff recommendation: (CM) — File 116 x 9-1 SB 18 Traditional Tribal Culture Sites. and Authorizing the Director of Public Works to Senator Burton — OPPOSE 5. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF Approved final adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 1808- An Ordinance of the Ordinance No. 1808. City of San Rafael Rezoning Certain Real UPDATE 2003 IN THE AMOUNT OF Property from Planned Development (PD) District to a Revised PD District (ZCO2-003) with Specific Single-family Development for a Two -lot DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO Subdivision of a 13.88 -Acre Parcel Located at 374 Margarita Drive (APN: 015-250-56) (CD)— File 10-3 x 10-7 x 10-8 SERVICES AGREEMENT 6. SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION OF Approved final adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 1809 - An Ordinance of the Ordinance No. 1809. City of San Rafael Amending San Rafael Municipal Code Section 6.10.010 to Adopt by COUNCILMEMBERS: Vice -Mayor Phillips Reference, with Appropriate Modifications, the Animal Control Regulations Contained in Title 8 of the Marin County Code as Recently Amended, and Section 6.10.050 Prescribing the Applicable Penalties for Animal Control Regulation Violations (CM) — File 4-13-54 x 13-3 7. Resolution Approving Subdivision Improvement RESOLUTION NO. 11401 — Agreement and Final Map of the Subdivision RESOLUTION APPROVING Entitled "Map of Chapel Cove" (PW) — SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT File 5-1-342 AGREEMENT AND FINAL MAP ENTITLED "MAP OF CHAPEL COVE" (APN: 184-052-08) 8. Resolution Approving Parcel Map of the RESOLUTION NO. 11402 — Subdivision Entitled "Parcel Map of McInnis Park RESOLUTION APPROVING A Apartments II" and Authorizing City Clerk to Sign PARCEL MAP ENTITLED "PARCEL Same (PW) — File 5-1-348 x 5-1-290 MAP OF MCINNIS PARK APARTMENTS II" (APNs: 155-370-07 AND 155-370-08) 9. Resolution Accepting a Proposal from Geodata RESOLUTION NO. 11403 — Analytics, LLC for the Pavement Management RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A System Update 2003 in the Amount of $33,900 PROPOSAL FROM GEODATA and Authorizing the Director of Public Works to ANALYTICS LLC FOR THE Execute the Professional Services Agreement PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (PW) — File 4-3-424 x 9-3-40 UPDATE 2003 IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,900 AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Vice -Mayor Phillips SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 3 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 4 The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion, at the request of Councilmember Cohen: 4. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROCESS PROPOSED BY THE MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT TO EXPLORE THE VIABILITY OF DESALINATION AS A PARTIAL SOURCE OF MARIN COUNTY'S WATER (CM) — FILE 151 x 9-3-11 Councilmember Cohen reported that both he and Mayor Boro attended a meeting of the statewide task force on desalination. He believed the Marin Municipal Water District was taking a very thoughtful, measured approach to studying the issue and the resolution indicated the City supported that process. He considered it worthy of evaluating whether or not this offered a way to reduce dependence on Russian River and particularly, Eel River water and secure more independence in that arena. Councilmember Cohen stated attention should be paid to the "Be it Further Resolved" in the last paragraph of the resolution, to the effect that potential impacts on San Rafael and its residents need to be considered. The City should be part of the process, being an active participant, commenting on the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) and scoping of the EIR, etc. He indicated that the Central Marin Sanitation Agency would certainly be taking a similar approach. Community Development Director Bob Brown confirmed the public scoping session would take place on Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at Pickleweed. He also confirmed having submitted a letter on behalf of the City, essentially making many of these points. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11404— RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROCESS PROPOSED BY THE MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT TO EXPLORE THE VIABILITY OF DESALINATION AS A PARTIAL SOURCE OF MARIN COUNTY'S WATER AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Vice -Mayor Phillips PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10. Public Hearing — CONSIDERATION OF: a) ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.34 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, ESTABLISHING A FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPARISON SYSTEM; b) RESOLUTION ADOPTING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE; AND c) RESOLUTION ADOPTING SCHEDULE OF FINES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS (MS) — FILE 9-10-2 x 9-3-20 x 240 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Assistant City Manager Ken Nordhoff stated this was a Business Cost Study. He explained it was the process by which master fees were set and approved for all services provided in the City for which fees are charged or fines established. Mr. Nordhoff reported that Management Services staff had been working with the other departments to evaluate the Cost of Service and time spent in the various services and had generated three documents for Council consideration: Ordinance - this goes back to an initial ordinance adopted by the City Council in 1997, establishing to what extent Council wished to recover the costs of various services through fees. In reviewing the ordinance it would be evident that the full costs (100%) were being sought, with some exceptions noted for items such as appeal fees or other minor alternations suggested by staff. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff would be willing to discuss any specific item with the City Council. 2. Resolution - Master Fee Schedule — the comprehensive fee schedule for services throughout the City, a copy of which, in a slightly different format, was presented at the Study Session of August 4, 2003. Minor notations had been made to this evening's document. Mr. Nordhoff explained that to the extent 100% of the cost, or whatever level specified, was being recovered, the related fees were included in the table or the related attachments. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 5 3. Resolution — Administrative Citations — Some changes proposed under a separate resolution; these were also presented at the Study Session on August 4, 2003. Mr. Nordhoff indicated that staff had attempted to identify on both resolutions what the current fees are, together with the proposed new fees, to afford Council a sense of the changes occurring. He stated that most of these were driven by the fact that the study had not been updated in four years. There had been an increase in Cost of Business and Mr. Nordhoff stated staff was requesting Council consider passing this on to the consumer who chooses to select these services. Indicating he would not discuss any specific fee recommendations unless requested to by Council, Mr. Nordhoff noted a clerical error in table 1, and requested it be amended as part of the approval of the resolution: Page 20 — Oversize Load Review Permit (the process for approving and moving large vehicles through the City limits). RECOMMENDED CHARGE column — $57.00 for Permit should be eliminated. $170 for Police Escorted Load should read: $170 for the first two hours of the Police Escorted Load with any additional hours to be billed at hourly rates. Mr. Nordhoff stated he would be happy to answer questions and reminded Council that staff had spent some considerable time working with the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce and the Business Improvement District reviewing these over the month of July. They, therefore, had input and an opportunity for review. There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. a) The title of the ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.34 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A FEE AND SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE/COST COMPARISON SYSTEM, BY REVISING SECTION 3.34.040" Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety, and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1810 to print, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro None Vice -Mayor Phillips b) Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution, with the amendments noted above. RESOLUTION NO. 11405 — RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS AND FOR LICENSING AND SERVICES BY THE ANIMAL SERVICES AGENCY AND RESCINDING THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING THE EXISTING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (with amendments to Master Fee Schedule — Table 1) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro None Vice -Mayor Phillips c) Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11406 — RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF FINES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Vice -Mayor Phillips SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 6 11. Public Hearing - CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTERS 10.48 AND 10.50 AND SECTION 5.40.110 AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 10.48 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS AND ITINERANT MERCHANTS" (CA) — FILE 9-10 x 9-3-16 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan reported that several years ago staff began work on this project, initially with the intention of revising Chapter 10.48 dealing with solicitors and peddlers in order to add provisions concerning mobile units and use of vehicles in the sale of itinerant merchant goods. He indicated, however, that as staff got into the process, it became obvious that because Chapter 10.48 dealing with peddlers and solicitors as well as the Charitable Solicitation Ordinance of the City had become extremely outdated, the project was enlarged to revise the whole scheme of peddler, itinerant merchant and solicitor regulation. Mr. Guinan stated that several drafts of the ordinance were prepared and circulated amongst the Federation and Coalition of San Rafael Neighborhoods, as well as the Business Improvement District and the Chamber of Commerce. However, the United States Supreme Court took a hand as a result of its decision in the case of Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton. Mr. Guinan explained that in that case, they invalidated a typical type of ordinance that had been upheld by the courts for more than 50 years - a simple registration requirement that anyone who went door to door would have to first obtain a permit from the Police Department identifying them; there was never any discretion, rather it was always a pure registration requirement. He reported that the Watchtower case threw that type of ordinance out, which made staff take a moment to reflect. Mr. Guinan stated that after several months of discussion with other municipal lawyers, staff decided to return to the original focus and address the problem of itinerant merchants and vendors out of mobile units and to leave the door-to-door solicitation for another day when it was clear exactly what could and could not be controlled. He indicated that the ordinance before Council required that itinerant merchants and peddlers, as defined in the ordinance itself, apply for and obtain a permit prior to conducting sales within the City. He stated that a permit application could be denied or a granted permit revoked upon the finding of certain facts, i.e., lying on the application form, non-compliance with the rules and regulations annunciated in the ordinance. Indicating that door-to-door solicitors are controlled in one provision of the Code, Mr. Guinan explained this is called a "Green River Provision." Should an individual property owner post their property "No Solicitors, No Peddlers" or words to that effect, then no person may go to their door soliciting, proselytizing or any such action, as it would be illegal. He stated the U.S. Supreme Court in the Watchtower case again validated such provisions in local ordinances; therefore, staff had focused the provision to regulate door-to-door solicitors with this "No Soliciting" posting option. Regarding the outreach, Mr. Guinan stated that the numerous drafts over the past two years had been circulated to the various neighborhood groups and the Chamber of Commerce and Business Improvement District. A lot of their comments and helpful suggestions were incorporated. Lieutenant Jim Kelly stated that the benefit of the ordinance to the Police Department was enforcement. Currently, with merchants dealing out of carts, cars, vans, etc., very few regulations could be enforced - not having a business license being one of the few. He explained that the ordinance allowed a permit to be granted to any merchants wishing to conduct business in San Rafael and in so doing, it would be possible to properly identify the person, and ensure they had no criminal background. They also would be issued ID cards and placards; therefore, observing a mobile unit without a placard would generate probable cause for Police Officers to detain the person and investigate further. Lieutenant Kelly stated the ordinance would satisfy the Police Department's ability to enforce the law and take care of the many complaints received regarding such activity. Code Enforcement Manager Lynda Ferris stated that historically, Code Enforcement had received numerous complaints basically because of the health hazards imposed with corn vendors and similar food sales. Commenting that the assistance of the Police Department had always been available, she thought it was a wonderful idea to have the permit process to be able to make identifications and establish the legal vendors. Councilmember Heller inquired as to who could legally go door-to-door, i.e., Sierra Club, Girl SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 7 Scouts, etc., or whether with a "No Solicitation" sign they would be precluded. Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan explained that the sign was important as in its absence, solicitors were perfectly entitled to go to a door. With a sign posted, technically, anyone who goes door-to-door is in violation of the requirement; however, Mr. Guinan stated the provision also afforded an exception in the event of an appointment having been made for a charitable solicitor, etc., providing information. He confirmed there was provision for certain groups to be excepted if an appointment was made. Councilmember Cohen stated that on reading the definitions of "peddler" and "solicitor" he believed the example given blended some of these. He acknowledged that selling Girl Scout cookies would fall under the definition of soliciting; however, the Sierra Club, which was political speech, did not appear to fall under either the definition of peddler or solicitor in the ordinance. He noted the distinction of one obviously soliciting the sale of goods and inquired whether requesting donations for political or religious purposes was defined as "soliciting" under the ordinance. Mr. Guinan stated it was his understanding that the intent was to include it, at least with the posting provision of the ordinance. He explained that most of the ordinance applies to itinerant merchants and peddlers and the only provision applying to solicitors is the posting, and the idea was to try to define solicitors as being more non-commercial than itinerant merchants or peddlers who would appear to be commercial. Whether that came out in the various iterations of this definition, Mr. Guinan was not certain; however, should it be unclear, it could be revised. Using the scenario of the Sierra Club coming to his door requesting he sign a petition opposing something, yet not requesting a contribution, and being purely political speech, Councilmember Cohen inquired whether this was considered soliciting, noting a reference from the Supreme Court regarding regulating political speech. Mr. Guinan explained that in the Watchtower case the issue was not political speech, rather proselytization by members of a religious sect, which is also protected by the First Amendment, just like any other type of free speech. In that case, Mr. Guinan reported that the posting provision was upheld to prohibit those folks from coming to the door if, in fact, the owner of the residence had posted a sign. He indicated that his understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court provision, at least with regard to religious proselytizers, i.e. those going to a door to discuss religious beliefs, not necessarily to solicit funds, is that a posting provision is sufficient to prohibit them from going to a door. Whether or not the individual posting the sign would make use of it when Girl Scouts come to the door, he doubted; however, that is what the Court stated. Rene Rushin stated she had been working with Code Enforcement and the Police down in the Canal area, indicating she had lived in Marin since 1978, approximately half this time in the Canal area. Ms. Rushin stated she was very disturbed about happenings in the Canal area with street vendors, clarifying that there was no problem with Girl Scouts or the Sierra Club, etc. She stated there were two issues with street vendors: quality of life and a real lack of respect for the law. Explaining the Quality of Life issue, Ms. Rushin stated ice cream vendors, corn vendors, the balloon man, fresh fruit vendors, etc., come by two to four times daily. She indicated that the fruit vendors come onto private property to conduct their business; she had threatened to call the police as they unload their trucks and carts on private property. Ms. Rushin commented that former Mayor Rudy Guilliani cleaned up crime in New York by pursuing the "small stuff." She indicated that these vendors have no business licenses, do not adhere to the health code, are not paying taxes and do not carry any identification. Having discussed the issue with Code Enforcement, Ms. Rushin was informed they could not do anything because these vendors purposely do not carry identification and therefore, cannot be cited. She noted also that the carts being used are stolen property, i.e., taken from the grocery stores. Ms. Rushin believed (not substantiated) that truckloads of stolen property were arriving from Los Angeles to be sold on the streets in the Canal Area. Regarding not paying taxes, Ms. Rushin stated this is what would pay for the services they are availing of, i.e., streets, lights, utilities, street cleaning, fire, etc. She stated that this lack of respect for the law indicated they believed it to be all right, and this spreads and grows. Ms. Rushin stated she would like to go beyond this ordinance and she proposed the following be implemented in this area: • An anti -litter campaign — she expressed her abhorrence at the amount of litter, indicating she routinely picks up empty 6 -packs which are dumped. She stated that beer bottles are also smashed in the street, all of which costs money to clean up; SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 8 • Loitering and Trespassing — she frequently finds people on her steps drinking and smoking who do not reside in her apartment building. Ms. Rushin stated she understood many of those in the Canal Area were immigrants with varying customs and manners; however, when in America, these people needed to follow the laws. Eric Fransen, Bahia area of San Rafael, concurred with the previous speaker's remarks. He stated he was on the Board of Directors of the Condominium Association, which had 56 buildings, and they deal with these vendors on a regular basis, particularly the food vendors. He explained that they sell their food items and the residue is discarded on the ground, i.e., corn cobs, sticks, etc., which invite vermin, and the sharp sticks pose hazards for children playing in the area. He commented that animals could consume the corncobs and choke on them. Mr. Fransen noted that shopping carts being pushed through the narrow streets cause driving hazards. He recalled an instance from last summer whereby an ice cream vendor sold a piece of dry ice from the cart to an eighteen year old who put it into a plastic water bottle and told a young child to play with it; the bottle exploded in his hand, severely injuring the child. He reported having requested the corn vendor to leave his property at least ten times; however, he continues to return regularly. Mr. Fransen stated he had spoken with the Police Department and Code Enforcement and was fully in support of the ordinance. Jim Redpath, Canal area resident, concurred with the previous speakers, noting that generally, this issue did not concern the Sierra Club or Girl Scouts, rather those who push the carts. Explaining that the initial vendors came from the East Bay; however, the addresses on the sides of the carts were now covered so it is impossible to ascertain their origin. He stated that the ringing of bells, honking, etc., lowers the quality of life. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Heller inquired whether the ordinance would now permit the police to remove the goods, arrest the vendors or move them on to prohibit them from conducting business without licenses. Lieutenant Jim Kelly stated the ordinance could range from an infraction to a misdemeanor, explaining that someone violating the law without identification who is arrested could be booked into the Marin County Jail. Councilmember Heller noted a very fine line over free speech and what's not allowed; therefore, she was hoping the ordinance would sort through all of these questions. Mayor Boro stated that since a couple of Councilmembers expressed concern on the issue, he suggested there should perhaps be some clarification about the issue of free speech and a sign on the property. He understood the intent was that the Sierra Club or someone in the community wishing to communicate with a resident could ring a doorbell; however, should there be a "No Solicitors" sign they were prohibited from doing so, and this was predicated on the Watchtower case. Mr. Guinan concurred and explained that staff picked up this provision from the prior ordinance Mayor Boro stated the concern was that the ordinance was not explicit on this point. Referring to Page 3 G), quoting "for noncommercial purposes or causes" he indicated the ordinance then states "travels either by foot, motor vehicle, mobile unit or any other type of conveyance, from place to place taking or attempting to take orders for the sale of goods" and it does not address the free speech issue. Mr. Guinan stated that should it be Council's preference he could clarify this issue and return the ordinance in two weeks for a first reading. Councilmember Heller stated she would like to see a separate section on this issue. Councilmember Cohen stated he was not entirely comfortable with that and noting several comments from members of the audience, indicated he wanted to be clear. He noted the ordinance proposed to regulate two different types of behavior and his concern was not with the language that regulates street peddlers and requires a license. He fully supported giving the Police Department the authority and clarity necessary to do the job on behalf of the community and he did not hear anything other than support for those clauses. Councilmember Cohen SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 9 questioned, however, the meaning of the language concerning peddling and soliciting in the context of going door-to-door. He stated the language contained in the ordinance addresses regulating commercial behavior and he was comfortable with that; however, he was unsure he was comfortable with having the City and the Police Department pursue free speech issues. Councilmember Cohen reported that in the course of political campaigns he had gone to doors posted "No Soliciting" and on realizing nothing was being sold nor donations sought, very rarely had he had someone point out the "No Soliciting" sign. He stated he was not inferring staff should return with an ordinance regulating political speech on properties that demonstrate "No Soliciting," rather he was seeking an understanding of what he was being requested to vote on. Councilmember Cohen stated he was comfortable with the ordinance as presented, as the definition of both peddler and solicitor really addressed commercial behavior, not political speech. Mr. Guinan stated the section of the ordinance dealing with prohibition addresses peddlers and solicitors being prohibited from a particular property that is posted. Should the property be posted, both a solicitor and peddler are prevented from approaching the door. Understanding this, Councilmember Cohen stated he also read on page 3 of the ordinance — 10.48.010, paragraph G — "'Solicitor,' for the purpose of this chapter means any person who, for noncommercial purposes or causes, travels either by foot, motor vehicle, mobile unit or any other type of conveyance from place to place taking or attempting to take orders for the sale of goods, wares, merchandise, foods, farm products, or provisions, or personal property of any nature whatsoever for future delivery, or for services to be furnished or performed in the future....." and indicated that was commercial. Concurring, Mr. Guinan suggested perhaps striking "for noncommercial purposes or causes" would satisfy Councilmember Cohen's concern. Councilmember Cohen suggested striking "non" from commercial. Councilmember Heller stated her confusion arose from reading the staff report, page 2 — the Watchtower decision - and then the reference to anonymous political speech. She wondered whether this included the Sierra Club, Green Peace, etc., as it was her understanding that all groups would be banned from going to a door posted "No Solicitation" even though nothing was being sold. Mr. Guinan explained his understanding of the Watchtower decision was that it upheld what is called the "Green River Ordinance," which is basically a "No Trespassing" statute. He stated that to distinguish between the types of speech leads into content, at which time the Court would evaluate it with strict scrutiny, resulting in some significant problems. In the Watchtower case, Mr. Guinan explained the situation that was taken to the Supreme Court involved not having a posted sign, rather it concerned people going to a door with no posting at all evident; therefore, the circumstance was somewhat different. In its decision, he stated it commented that while it was invalidating this particular ordinance of the Village of Stratton, it was still upholding ordinances relating to "No solicitors, no peddlers, no trespassers," which were still valid. In the context of the decision they were rendering which dealt with religious speech, Mr. Guinan stated it appeared to him this would also apply to all types of speech, otherwise, again it would get into discriminating based upon the content of the speech. If the word "non" was stricken from "noncommercial" in paragraph G on Page 3 of the ordinance, Mayor Boro inquired whether this ordinance would then meet the intent of the title, i.e., "Peddlers, Solicitors and Itinerant Merchants." Mr. Guinan indicated it would; however, it would not address the other issue The title of the ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REPEALING CHAPTERS 10.48 AND 10.50 AND SECTION 5.40.110 AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 10.48 TO THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS AND ITINERANT MERCHANTS" Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety, and refer to it by title only, and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1811 to print, with the following amendments, by the following vote, to wit: Include the word "Commercial" in the Title and replace the word "noncommercial" with "commercial" on Page 3. G. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 10 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Vice -Mayor Phillips COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: NEW BUSINESS: 12. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE §65858, IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON ISSUANCE OF ALL DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS, INCLUDING ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, FOR, OR IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED WITH, THE APPROVAL OR CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND STORY BUILDING ADDITIONS IN DEFINED PORTIONS OF NORTH SAN RAFAEL (CD) — FILE 10-7 x 10-2 x 9-3-85 Community Development Director Bob Brown reported that at the last meeting, Council directed staff to include analysis of problems with second story additions to Eichler and Alliance homes as part of a larger study about to be commenced on the single-family design review process in general. He indicated that Council also requested staff to return with an Interim Urgency Ordinance that would place a temporary moratorium on second -story additions to these Eichler and Alliance homes while the study was underway, and this ordinance was available for adoption this evening. Mr. Brown explained that the moratorium would be effective for 45 days and could be extended for an additional ten months and fifteen days. Mr. Brown reported having received a lot of telephone calls today and read several articles in the newspaper. Having also heard a lot of misinformation, Mr. Brown stated he would use some slides to summarize what the moratorium was about and what the study was and was not about. Mr. Brown explained that the purpose of the moratorium would be to preclude second -story additions to Eichler and Alliance homes while the planning study was underway, i.e., a temporary timeout on the issuance of any building permits. As mentioned at the last meeting, staff's intention was to get this study done fairly quickly and certainly, before the end of the year; therefore, the moratorium did not entail a significant amount of time. Mr. Brown stated that with fall approaching, building permit activity drops off quite rapidly because it is difficult to engage in a process that would expose a roof, etc., during the winter months. Regarding the moratorium, Mr. Brown stated it would affect approximately 1,230 properties. He also made clear that discussing limiting second -story additions would not affect the ability to modify or replace a roof, and in Eichler and Alliance homes, sometimes this is important as people who intend to add either heating ducts or air conditioning systems will often raise or modify a roof pitch, etc., to deal with that. He confirmed this moratorium would affect only second -story additions, i.e., creating additional living space above the ground floor. Mr. Brown stated that the forthcoming planning study would be looking at the design review process for single-family homes. Staff would be evaluating issues such as "when is design review triggered." He stated that presently, design review is done only on new homes and second -story additions that exceed 500 square -feet; therefore, staff would be examining whether or not that was the correct trigger to initiate design review. Mr. Brown stated that the level of design review would also be evaluated, i.e., who does it? staff, the Design Review Board, or the Planning Commission. He indicated the criteria for design review would also be examined, i.e., whether findings relating to privacy, the scale of the home, the architectural compatibility of the addition, view, solar access, etc., need to be evaluated and discussed. As directed by Council at the last meeting, Mr. Brown stated staff would also look specifically at whether or not to consider a prohibition on second stories for Eichler and Alliance homes based on their unique architecture. Mr. Brown stated that consideration of zoning ordinance changes related to zoning regulations would not be on the list; therefore, staff would not be looking at height limits, floor area ratios, site coverage or setbacks. He indicated these issues would be evaluated on re-examining the single-family zoning criteria, probably in approximately eighteen months, after the General Plan is adopted. Mr. Brown commented that he wished to give members of the public a sense that this action was really beginning a process that would be fairly extensive, although hopefully, fairly short in time duration. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 11 Reporting on what staff would be doing, Mr. Brown stated that presently, they were accumulating data and looking at what other cities do regarding design review, together with evaluating the number of second -story additions processed, their sizes, etc. Mr. Brown reported having tentatively set a date for a meeting with the Terra Linda Neighborhood for September 17, 2003, to discuss the problems they see with second -story additions to Eichler and Alliance homes and the options available. Based on the outcome of that meeting, he intended to survey all of the homeowners in the moratorium area regarding these options and their preferences. Mr. Brown stated that a meeting would be held with the Federation and Coalition of San Rafael Neighborhoods, as the umbrella neighborhood organizations, to look beyond just the Terra Linda issues to citywide design review issues also. Reporting that the American Institute of Architects had volunteered a sub -committee to work with staff on this and make suggestions, Mr. Brown stated staff would be meeting with them for their ideas. Finally, he stated staff would take all of this information and develop a staff recommendation, subsequently holding hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, and he hoped to have this completed by the end of the year. In terms of the area of the moratorium, Mr. Brown explained that the boundaries were provided by the Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association. He stated the intent was to capture all of the Eichler and Alliance homes that were originally built as one-story tracts. Referring to a map, he explained that essentially, the area, approximately 1,200 lots in total, extended from Las Gallinas, north of Freitas Parkway up to Las Colindas and along Del Ganado up to Santa Margarita Park. He indicated there also was an area to the south which included Golden Hinde, Nova Albion and Devon Drive. Based upon some very initial staff research, Mr. Brown stated it appeared that from these 1,230 properties, there could possibly be fourteen second -story additions, i.e., approximately 1 %, or a very small proportion. Mr. Brown stated the intent this evening was to look at adopting a moratorium during the study; it was not to argue what the ultimate outcome should be. Noting Mr. Brown referred to the Terra Linda Neighborhood, Councilmember Heller inquired whether staff would be going out to the other neighborhood associations as there were several in the Terra Linda Area in addition to the Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association, to ensure no one felt left out. Mr. Brown stated they would be happy to. Noting the item before Council this evening was adoption of the Interim Urgency Ordinance, Mayor Boro invited comment from the audience. Greg Knell, Vice -President, Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association, stated they were strongly in favor of taking this pause to evaluate second stories, as currently, there were virtually no restrictions on the building of second stories. He reported they had been steadily canvassing since the last meeting and of the 308 people they had spoken with face to face, 289 were in favor of a permanent ban. Mr. Knell stated he had never seen such unanimity on any issue in the neighborhood. Having talked to 28 people yesterday in the Golden Hinde, Sao Augustine and Nova Albion areas, he reported that 100% adamantly stated "No." He stated he had copies of the revised survey and would have more of these in the future. Mr. Knell stated he supported the adoption of the Interim Urgency Ordinance, not the outcome. He also stated that the Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association had contacted everyone in their neighborhood; they distribute a newsletter twice yearly requesting a response and he believed those who indicated they had never been contacted were those who had not bothered to respond. Kyle Keilman stated he lives in an Eichler and would appreciate the ban, not only the temporary ban, rather a permanent one, to be accomplished as quickly as possible. Patrick O'Hara stated he lives in the area in question and was involved in some of the canvassing. He reported that one of those he met had been part of the original Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association, which was responsible also for purchasing with the other homeowners, the open space surrounding the area. He stated he moved there approximately four years ago with his wife and the views were important to them; therefore, a permanent taking of those views, privacy and light should also be taken into consideration in conjunction with the moratorium. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 12 Lyle Simon stated he was the owner of the house on Wisteria Way currently under construction. He commented that according to the opposition he should feel honored that his Alliance house is in such elite company as the "world renowned architectural gem, the Eichler" and he was not. In comparison to today's standards, Mr. Simon stated what they own are quite small, quite dated, poorly built tract homes. He indicated he did not purchase his home for its architectural status, rather because it was affordable. With a growing family, Mr. Simon stated he needs a larger home than the 1,300 square -foot rectangular box he owns. He reported that several years ago as he and his wife planned for a family, they made the decision to remain where they were in San Rafael instead of purchasing elsewhere. The reasons were numerous: great schools, great location, great neighborhood and until recently, great neighbors, and again, affordability. Mr. Simon stated they began the process of putting an addition on their house, which eventually included submitting plans to go through the rigorous design review process. He indicated he was somewhat shocked; however, nonetheless very impressed at how carefully the process scrutinizes the issues of legal setbacks, overall neighborhood compatibility and most importantly, neighbor privacy. He stated this process also includes neighborhood notification, whereby surrounding neighbors are notified of the project and given the opportunity to voice their concerns. Mr. Simon stated this notification process came only after careful review and modifications required by the design review process to ensure compliance with all the issues mentioned. He indicated that at that time not a single person came forward with any objection, including Santa Margarita Neighborhood Association, which at the time was also notified of the project. Furthermore, stated Mr. Simon, before a building permit could be issued he was required to submit a complete architectural landscape plan for Planning to approve, which he did not believe was necessary under normal circumstances. Mr. Simon read the findings on his design review from the City of San Rafael: 1) The project design as conditioned is in accord with the San Rafael General Plan 2000, the objectives of the City of San Rafael's zoning ordinance and the purposes of Chapter 25 of the zoning ordinance and that the project: a) Proposes modifications that are appropriate for the single-family residential setting; b) Proposes development that is consistent with the development criteria, i.e., setbacks, lot coverage, height, etc., for the subject R5 zoning district; and c) Minimizes impacts on adjacent properties. 2) The project design as conditioned is consistent with all applicable site, architecture and landscape design criteria and guidelines for the district in which site is located, in that: a) The upper story addition is less than 75% of the maximum allowable area of the floor below; b) The privacy of adjacent properties will not be affected due to existing fencing and building location; c) Windows facing the side and rear yard are minimized and will not have a direct line of site into adjacent structure's windows or private yard areas; and d) The proposed project's gently sloped rooflines, low two-story profile, linear building arrangement and tan horizontal wood sidings are consistent with the design, character and scale of the neighborhood buildings." Mr. Simon stated this was the City of San Rafael's findings Mr. Simon indicated it was quite ironic that presently from the his patio in his backyard, they have a complete view of his neighbor, Ms. Quirke's, back and side yards, as well as views into her house. He indicated these were not taken advantage of and were only mentioned to make the point that from his new second -story, they would have absolutely no line of site onto those areas. This, he stated, was due completely to the privacy concerns of the design review process that required them to move the window placements on their second story. Mr. Simon stated he believed all of this spoke volumes to how well the current process works. Mr. Simon noted that Ms. Quirke made some very moving statements to the City Council at the last meeting. He quoted one: "When I am eating dinner, it will be like my neighbors are eating dinner with me." Mr. Simon stated the only way this would be possible would be for Ms. Quirke to physically invite them into her house. He extended an invitation to all Councilmembers to visit his home so he could demonstrate how each and every one of these complaints was unfounded. As could be seen, Mr. Simon stated the design review process is not a careless or arbitrary one. He believed that with some possible changes and improvements to the notification SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 13 process, currently under review by the City, that the process was more than sufficient to address what should be an issue between neighbors, not neighborhoods. Mr. Simon stated he did not believe that anyone living possibly miles from another homeowner planning an addition should be allowed the ability to stop them from building, which is what would happen by allowing the moratorium to be put in place. Rather, he indicated it should be decided through the current process by immediate neighbors who could possibly be affected. He inquired why someone such as he should be treated any differently than any other tax- paying citizen of San Rafael. By setting the precedent of putting a moratorium in place on this issue, he questioned what would be next for these neighborhoods, or any other neighborhood. Would no building modifications or additions be allowed, even single -story additions, or what if the opposition decided that a certain color house would destroy the integrity of these architectural gems, etc. Mr. Simon questioned what other neighborhoods might be next to come to the City Council stating their style house was world renowned and they also wanted a moratorium put in place. Mr. Simon inquired how much possible revenue and other benefits the City of San Rafael was willing to give up for this issue, i.e., revenue from additional property taxes generated, also additional monies going directly to the City school systems, to which he paid $1,800 for his addition. Regarding the benefits to Terra Linda and its residents, Mr. Simon inquired regarding the fire sprinkler system that must be installed according to City Code, which helps reduce the strain on City resources. Also the $900 he paid to help the City upgrade the fire hydrant across the street from his house, not only for his benefit, rather for that of his neighbors also. Mr. Simon reported he was born and raised in San Rafael and from time to time likes to go back to the areas in which he grew up to see how they had changed and evolved in 45 years. He stated that what was commonplace 50 years ago when these homes were built is certainly not commonplace today, rather there now was progress, and he urged the City Council not to allow progress to be halted in these neighborhoods. Mr. Simon stated this was an issue of personal property rights and he requested Council preserve their rights and their desire to make their small, dated, poorly built tract homes serviceable for homeowners, including growing families living here now and those who may purchase in the future. He urged the City Council to evaluate all the issues a moratorium would affect and not cave in to a small group of boisterous homeowners who were bent on taking away their personal properties. Cliff Meneken, Santa Margarita Homeowners Association, stated that when talking about a small group, it should be reiterated that that small group consists of those supporting the construction of these buildings and this was reflected in the poll results and the numerous letters and materials received, which were available for inspection. Mr. Meneken stated that if 94% of the neighborhood sampling was against this, it was not a tiny percentage, rather an overwhelming majority. Mr. Meneken stated that if Mr. Simon was really into preserving the neighborhood and considering the neighborhood's issues, he could have notified his next-door neighbor when she moved in a year ago. He stated their concerns were for the community, not only of Eichler owners, but also Alliance owners, i.e., the neighborhood should be considered. He stated they did not conduct the poll and survey to push a particular agenda, rather to get a feeling from the community; the community had spoken and this should be seriously considered. Scott Goodwin stated he owned the home at 1024 Las Reposas. He explained that when he moved in he was somewhat naive about what a neighborhood is, believing it to be everyone who lived in the neighborhood; however, it appeared that certain sections were opposed to certain issues. He disagreed with the 1 % of two -stories in the neighborhood in question as his house was close to the corner of Del Ganado and Las Reposas and within two blocks of Del Ganado, there were at least eight two -stories and three blocks, or less than 700 -feet from home, there were 25 two -stories. Mr. Goodwin stated he had pictures of these; however, did not bring them as he believed this was pretty much a done deal. He stated he disagreed with the terms of the neighborhood as defined. Gayle Napell, Architect, Woodbine Drive, stated she had lived in this particular neighborhood of San Rafael for approximately three and a half years. She congratulated the City Council on considering this temporary moratorium on second -story additions and also on it being specifically a moratorium only for second -story additions, and not for roof repairs, other alternations or modifications that might be necessary. As an architect, Ms. Napell stated she liked her Alliance home, which she found to be very well built compared to a lot of other houses she had lived in or been in. She stated she was particularly fond of that neighborhood and urged the City Council to adopt the temporary moratorium to afford time for a cooling off. She believed it to be an emotional issue with everyone upset and she favored a calm process, taking all thoughts into account and arriving at the very best results for the entire neighborhood and for San Rafael. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 13 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 14 Councilmember Miller stated it was his understanding the purpose of the hearing was to consider a moratorium by which the City could work with the community to understand the problem and opportunities, to be in a position to move forward with a better San Rafael. He stated it was not a matter of outcomes, rather taking a time out as a community with diverse interests, to arrive at the wisest decisions. He supported the moratorium for that purpose. Councilmember Cohen stated he believed the last speaker from the audience captured the essence of what was being attempted, i.e., to take a breath and think about the issue. In response to the testimony at the last meeting, he recalled stating he believed a moratorium was appropriate, believing that the risk of not acting in this manner while discussions take place, exposed the community to more permanent damage. He favored taking the approach contemplated this evening to adopt a moratorium which would afford time for a reasoned discussion. Councilmember Cohen stated he appreciated the work of the Neighborhood Association in talking to members of the community. However, to use the Palo Alto model of surveying the community, he believed it should be City sponsored rather than a survey sponsored by one position or the other. He stated it should be a City survey, inviting everyone to participate and respond, and similar to an election, only the votes of those responding would be counted. He believed that relying on nothing happening while the issue is considered would be a mistake. Adopting the moratorium could mean taking a little more time to reach the final resolve; however, he did not believe anything further of permanence on one side or the other would happen. He commented that should someone applying for a permit be temporarily disadvantaged by this moratorium, this was a price that would have to be paid. To the speaker who believed this to be a done deal, Councilmember Cohen stated he did not believe it to be so. He had heard a lot of concern from the community and some fairly compelling arguments for the position advocated by the Neighborhood Association that there is something unique to the design of Eichler and Alliance homes that make second -story issues such a concern; however, he fully intended to have meaningful public hearings while listening to the testimony of those with a different view. He reiterated Councilmember Miller's comments that the community should be engaged in a reasoned discussion and arrive at a responsible decision, and he believed the moratorium would afford the time and opportunity to do that. Councilmember Heller reported having a very busy two weeks thinking this over as she had heard from many people on both sides, and she appreciated both points of view and thanked all who had taken the time to discuss the issue and make telephone calls. Councilmember Heller stated she would vote for the Interim Urgency Ordinance this evening as she believed the City needed to move forward with the Planning Study and evaluate it. Her mind, however, was not made up and she had many concerns regarding the issue, as she believed public policy had to be looked at and the way this impacted on the rest of the City. Councilmember Heller indicated she would make up her mind at a future time; however, she believed the community wanted and needed the study and it should be done. For the benefit of the audience, Mayor Boro stated that Councilmember Phillips wished to express his regret for not being in attendance this evening, due to a business conflict. Mayor Boro concurred with the Council in the belief that the Interim Urgency Ordinance was the right thing to do. He believed the timing to be critical and the ordinance, at least on a short- term basis, would not only calm issues down but also prevent any further such development to resolve whether or not it should happen, and should it happen, how. Mayor Boro indicated this would afford the opportunity over the next several months to review the issue and get the community involved and he supported the ordinance. The title of the ordinance was read: "AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ENACTING A MORATORIUM TO TEMPORARILY PROHIBIT GRANTING OF APPROVALS FOR, OR ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR, SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO EICHLER AND ALLIANCE HOMES IN SPECIFIED NEIGHBORHOODS OF NORTH SAN RAFAEL, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §65858" (as amended to include a revised Section 2, page 3) Councilmember Miller moved and Councilmember Cohen seconded, to dispense with the reading of the ordinance in its entirety, and refer to it by title only, and adopt Charter Ordinance No. 1812, as amended to include a revised Section 2, by the following vote, to wit: SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 14 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 15 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Vice -Mayor Phillips For the benefit of the public, Community Development Director Bob Brown stated he had been informed by the City Clerk that printing the maps with the text of the ordinance in the newspaper would render them illegible. He indicated these would be available in the City Clerk's office and in the Community Development Department for review. He confirmed for Mayor Boro that the notice in the newspaper would contain the street locations. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 13. International Fireworks Festival in Vancouver: - File 9-1 Councilmember Cohen reported having watched thirty minutes of the most spectacular fireworks he had ever seen at the culmination of the International Fireworks Festival last week in Vancouver. He indicated they would be a wonderful theme for a future Marin County Fair. There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12003 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 08/18/2003 Page 15