Minutes 1994 0502 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - May 2, 1994 Page - 14 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued] Ijanda Oudemieur, 4339 Balboa, San Francisco, Treasurer of SFWA, said the Planning Commission was told by the Assistant City Attorney they could not rule on the content of the mural . She said Mrs. Campbell decided to proceed with the mural so people could see what it was all about. She said the SFWA appreciates the contributions from the project and hopes Mrs. Campbell does not suffer more penalties. Kim Larson, 764 Collier Drive, said she likes the mural and knows how expensive it can be to remove graffiti . She said Mrs. Campbell made every attempt to comply with the City's procedures, and it should not have taken three months to get a response to her September inquiry. She said the change of jurisdiction has lengthened the process. Jonathan Ladue Swifter Turtle, a tribal representative, 2165 - 158th Avenue, said the mural looks at human and spiritual issues, not a singular purpose of women artists. He said he feels very strongly about activities that do not harm children or people on the earth. He said if the Council feels it must, they should fine Mrs. Campbell ; but then they should go about the business of running the City. Lou Filipovich, 15376 Laverne Drive, said safety is controlled by the laws that cover safety. He said there was one dissenting vote on the Planning Commission. He said the City Council should walk away from this matter, and Mayor Corbett and Council Member Perry should not vote on it because it is a women's issue. Alice Campbell discussed petitions that had been submitted at the Planning Commission Meeting, said 17 of the artists were from San Leandro and said the parents of the child who was at the site were watching the child. She said the work on the mural is a very powerful statement and a great celebration that helps women's image in the world. She discussed murals in other communities and said San Leandro should be supporting the arts, as occurs in other cities. There being no further comments from the public, on motion of Council Member Kerr, seconded by Council Member Galvan, and carried unanimously, the Public Hearing was closed. The City Attorney reviewed the criteria for the City Council 's decision. He said the issue of non-commercial murals has been included in the draft of the Zoning Code ordinance since April 1992. He said the mural is free expression entitled to First Amendment protection and described the methods by which the City Council could make its decision. He said they can only consider whether the public safety was at risk or whether the mural posed a hazard. They could not act as to content. He said the City Council could not be concerned with whether there was a violation of the Code in making the decision; the decision was based only on public safety, and the Zoning Code violations would be addressed in another manner: He said staff had included a request that the City Council impose an administrative fine for violation of the zoning ordinance.