Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2003-04-07SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2003 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBER — 7:00 PM: Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items: CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 —7:00 PM: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Gary O. Phillips, Vice -Mayor Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember 1. a) Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation — Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Name: Robert Lee May vs. City of San Rafael WCAB No.: SFO 454450; 454449; 454448 b) Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation — Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Case Name: City of San Rafael v. Alioto, et al. Marin County Superior Court Case No. CV024726 c) Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation — Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) Facts and Circumstances Exist Creating a Significant Exposure to Litigation Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(3)(B) City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 8:00 PM Mayor Boro announced that two groups of people wished to address the City Council at this time. He reminded those who had indicated to the City Clerk they wished to speak to keep their comments from one to two minutes. While comments expressed this evening would not be discussed, Mayor Boro stated staff would apprise the speakers of where the City is with respect to their concerns. a) Re: General Plan 2020 — San Pedro Cove Homeowners Association: - File 115 (2020) x 10-2 Mike Nelson, San Pedro Cove resident, stated he and a lot of his neighbors had been very much involved in this design process, noting he and his wife attended the Charette and many of the Steering Committee meetings. They had talked to City Planners, Loch Lomond developers and architects and had done all of this because the development of the Plan is important to their community. Mr. Nelson stated that when reading the minutes of some of the meetings he attended, he did not see his or his group's opinions reflected; therefore, he wished to summarize some of these views. He stated that the majority are not against development and strongly support workforce housing in the community. They believe that any new development or design in these areas should reflect the spirit of the community. Giving an example, Mr. Nelson stated that should it primarily be single-family, i.e., one and two stories, to construct three, four or five stories, was something the community was totally against. Mr. Nelson stated they believed density and traffic in LOS (Level of Service) areas were major issues, as were the impacts on views, and he did not see these reflected in the plans. His observation was that ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments), not the City of San Rafael, appeared to be driving the process, and this did not seem right. Joan Gosliner, San Pedro Cove Homeowners Association Board member, reiterated Mr. Nelson's sentiments. Believing they had gone through the processes without being heard, she indicated they felt strongly they must now be their own advocates. She questioned whether they were under- represented on the Steering Committee as it appeared their strongest issues were of little concern to others. Ms. Gosliner indicated she was learning there would be a total rezoning of the now primarily recreational Marina to strictly residential; however, area residents considered it an important recreational jewel. She indicated they wished to be on the same side as the City and the developers, and believed this could happen if the numbers were reduced fairly significantly. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 2 John Linser, San Pedro Cove resident, stated that on evaluating the plans proposed for the Cove it was found that the goals of developers were to try to make it as economically viable as possible, which has resulted in putting maximum density in the area to be developed. Along with this comes the pressure to find housing in San Rafael and the ABAG goals, and consequently, inappropriate development was being proposed for the area. Giving an example, Mr. Linser indicated that the view from his back yard would be three-story buildings and cars parked out on a spit which goes out into the Bay. He stated that parking would be out on the streets when boats arrive, due to inadequate parking given the buildings, and he believed that at the Steering Committee, people did not appreciate what was going on out there. Mr. Linser requested that the City Council direct the Steering Committee to visit the Cove to evaluate and appreciate the character of the neighborhood and the proposed development, with a view to moderating the plans. Community Development Director Bob Brown stated a lot of issues were involved, including the issue of how to provide for diversity of housing in San Rafael. He clarified there was no suggestion to change the basic zoning of the property, which now is "Neighborhood Commercial" not "Recreational." This would essentially be retained with the addition of allowances for housing. Mr. Brown reported that these issues would be discussed at every meeting of the Steering Committee from now until the end of the process, anticipated to be completed by early summer. Once the preferred plan is sent to the Planning Commission from the Steering Committee, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be commenced and would be available to both the Planning Commission and residents when hearings begin late this year or early next year. He confirmed there would be a great deal more analysis as part of the EIR process. Mayor Boro recalled there were people on the Steering Committee who reside in East San Rafael and he believed the idea of hosting a meeting with residents could make some sense. Regarding the ABAG numbers, he explained that ABAG had taken its direction from the State of California. The legislature was driving the numbers, not ABAG; therefore, this was not an option for the City, rather something to work with and implement. He confirmed this was a statewide mandated program and ABAG happened to be the local Agency overseeing it. On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Boro thanked the speakers for their diligence. He indicated that Council understood the issues and was confident they would be discussed further. b) Re: Proposed Crematorium — Keaton's Mortuary: - File 13-1 x 10-2 Sally L. Seymour, San Rafael, stated she sold her business in San Francisco four years ago and moved to San Rafael, indicating she particularly loved San Rafael, considering it to be a charming and lively place. Ms. Seymour stated she received no notification of the proposed crematorium until approximately three weeks ago. Although renting, she noted she had a financial interest in the house, and was appalled that a crematorium would be located in the middle of the "civic center" of San Rafael. She inquired as to how many people were notified, how many would be impacted and how perfect the technology is. She believed it was City Government's responsibility to monitor this, noting Keaton's was now a giant corporation. Chris Rogers indicated he rented and worked in San Rafael. Having worked in the business and lived over a crematorium, he expressed concern regarding the discharge that would emanate. Doctor Ted Hiatt, former Marin County Health Officer and San Rafael resident, stated he has lived one block from the mortuary since 1971. He indicated the first notice he received was approximately three weeks ago, and was from the Air Quality Board, affording an opportunity to comment via a telephone recording. Understanding the point of view that it was now a "done deal," in the event it could be undone, he urged the City Council to take this course of action. Responses he received when discussing this issue with his neighbors included "oh, I never heard of this" or if they had heard of it ".... they can't do that, can they?" Dr. Hiatt noted that from the literature he had received from the Air Quality Board, their only concern was whether the discharge caused cancer, and he indicated this was not an issue, as it would not cause cancer in any measurable amount. He believed it was unpleasant to consider having this type of service in this particular location and those with whom he had spoken were upset, and questioned how the proposal got this far without their knowledge. Brad Sears stated this was a massive failure on the part of the Planning Commission. He indicated he was proud of San Rafael, noting many moved to and stayed in San Rafael for various reasons, and he objected to being subjected to this type of pollution. He stated there would be an industrial incinerator and being a Canadian corporation, the funds would be sent out of town. He questioned the benefit to San Rafael. Mr. Sears reported that having walked the streets handing out leaflets, he realized that 99% of the people were not aware of the proposed crematorium and believed the 300 -feet required noticing to be SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 2 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 3 absurd. He urged the City Council to reverse this decision, indicating that the residents of San Rafael deserved better. Noren Schmitt, Forbes Avenue resident and Fifth Avenue business owner, reported he had learned of the proposed crematorium two days ago. Indicating he was a little more than 300 feet from the proposed site, he stated it was not in the interest of the neighborhood or the City. In terms of future generations, he believed this operation would be ongoing for the next ten to twenty years and he hoped the City Council would make a difference and vote to make a change. Summarizing the history, Community Development Director Bob Brown reported that the application for a Use Permit was filed in July, 2002. The required 300 -feet was noticed, i.e., 30 property owners. The Zoning Administrator hearing took place on September 4, 2002, and was attended by one member of the public. Mr. Brown reported that the analysis conducted by staff for the Use Permit hearing was twofold: 1) At the beginning of the process, staff checked with the experts (engineers at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District - BAAQMD), which ultimately must issue an air emissions permit, to determine whether the equipment had the potential for creating a significant impact, in which case an Environmental Impact Report of some nature would have been completed. Mr. Brown stated staff was informed that this equipment in this location would not exceed their threshold of significance - a conservative assumption of people living next to the facility for 70 years and the facility operating twenty-four hours per day; and 2) Regarding odor impacts, Mr. Brown stated that on checking, staff found similar equipment was installed and is operating in very similar circumstances in Santa Rosa and Vallejo, both situations immediately adjacent to residential and commercial. In both cases, the operators, BAAQMD and the cities were contacted, and it was ascertained that no concerns of odor impacts had been reported from those operating facilities. On this basis, Mr. Brown stated the permit was issued on September 4, 2002. No appeal was filed and there was no challenge to the CEQA determinations. While the permit is valid, it was conditioned upon the receipt of an air quality permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management Agency. As indicated, staff at BAAQMD noticed the neighbors over a greater distance than the City. A risk assessment was carried out and as initially indicated to staff, they found it did not meet their level of significance. Mr. Brown stated it was his understanding they revised that assessment based upon input from the neighborhood. Staff had not as yet seen a copy of the revision; however, Mr. Brown believed the conclusions were the same. As of Friday, they indicated they were ready to issue the permit; however, he was unaware of whether they actually had done so as yet. Should the permit be issued, the only outstanding condition of the application, Mr. Brown indicated it is valid and at this point, cannot be challenged. Commenting that the third issue appeared to relate to the nature of the use, i.e., unpleasant, creepy, etc., Mr. Brown stated the City cannot incorporate this type of comment or rationale in a permit decision-making process. Rather, a denial has to be based on hard evidence that this use would create an impact on public health, safety and welfare. He believed staff did as required in analyzing the permit, and he believed it is valid if the conditions are met upon receipt of an air emissions permit. City Attorney Gary Ragghianti observed that since this is a conditional Use Permit, if after the use becomes operative it constitutes or is perceived to be a nuisance, or evidence supports the fact that it is a nuisance, it may be revoked upon notice to the permittee, and affording an opportunity to be heard. He stated that Conditional Use Permits are always subject to revocation proceedings, as long as the evidence supports the revocation. Responding to Mayor Boro's question as to how many people were noticed by BAAQMD, Mr. Brown indicated they use a much greater notification provision than San Rafael. He explained they notified property owners and renters and sent notices to all of the students at Marin Academy and Saint Raphael's schools; therefore, this noticing was clearly in the thousands. Mr. Brown indicated he believed this took place approximately thirty days ago. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Minutes approved as submitted. Monday March 3, 2003, and Special and Regular Meetings of Monday, March 17, 2003 (CC) SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 3 3. Resolution Authorizing the Closure of Mission Avenue Between C and E Streets on Saturday, April 19, 2003 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. to Accommodate Pedestrian Traffic to the Alice in Wonderland Egg Hunt at Falkirk Cultural Center (Cult. Aff.) — File 11-19 x 9-3-84 4. Resolution Authorizing Agreement Between the County of Marin and the City of San Rafael Regarding the Marin Literacy Program (Lib.) — File 4-13-86 x 9-3-61 5. Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending February, 2003 (MS) — File 8-18 x 8-9 6. Resolution of Appreciation to Peacock Garden Club Re National Arbor Day Tree Planting at Davidson Middle School (PW) — File 102 x 109 7. Resolution Authorizing a Home Loan Agreement for Police Chief Michael Cronin (CM) — File 4-10-334 x 9-3-30 x 7-4 8. Summary of Legislation Affecting San Rafael (CM) — File 9-1 9. Implementation of Joint Services Committee Recommendations (CM) — File 4-13-112 x 4-4-6(b) x 9-3-11 x 9-1 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 11284— RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF MISSION AVENUE BETWEEN C AND E STREETS FOR THE ANNUAL FALKIRK "ALICE IN WONDERLAND EGG HUNT" ON APRIL 19, 2003, FROM 1:00 PM — 5:00 PM RESOLUTION NO. 11285 — RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF MARIN FOR THE MARIN LITERACY PROGRAM TO PROVIDE LITERACY SERVICES FOR THE MARIN COUNTY FREE LIBRARY Accepted Monthly Investment Report for month ending February, 2003, as presented. RESOLUTION NO. 11286 — RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO PEACOCK GARDEN CLUB RE NATIONAL ARBOR DAY TREE PLANTING AT DAVIDSON MIDDLE SCHOOL ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 11287 — RESOLUTION APPROVING A HOME LOAN FOR POLICE CHIEF MICHAEL CRONIN AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A HOME LOAN AGREEMENT ADDroved staff recommendation: AB 136 Workers Compensation. Disability: Leave of Absence — Assembly Member Kehoe — OPPOSE; AB 1388 Massage Therapy and Bodywork Registration — Assembly Member Kehoe — SUPPORT Approved staff recommendation. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mayor Boro announced that with regard to the following three items which related to one particular project, he would rearrange the sequence and commence with number 11. He stated the record should show that Councilmember Cohen was absent this evening, being out of the State on personal business. 11. Public Hearing - CONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE ST. VINCENT'S VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INCLUDING PREZONING, ANNEXATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, USE PERMIT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATIONS; APN: 155-010-27,64, 69,70 AND 77; PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN FRANCISCO, ST. VINCENT'S DIVISION (CYO) (CD) — FILE 5-5 x 4-13-103 x 115 (2000) x 115 (2020) x 10-2 x 4-3-400 x 9-2-45 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened. Community Development Director Bob Brown reported that on January 13, 2003, the City Council indicated a change in perspective with regard to the future annexation of the lands of SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 4 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 5 St. Vincent's and Silveira. He explained the Council concluded that it was no longer in the City's best interests to annex and serve future development on these properties, and directed staff to have the sites removed from San Rafael's Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area with the Local Agency Formation Commission. Mr. Brown stated that at the City Council meeting of January 13, 2003, and subsequently, the applicants for the St. Vincent's Village proposal asked that the City continue to process their development applications. This was the purpose of this evening's action, i.e., to take action on the applications filed by St. Vincent's. Mr. Brown explained that the cornerstone of these applications was the prezoning, which must occur before annexation could be considered. He stated the property is currently in the County and zoned by the County and to annex into San Rafael, the property must be prezoned with San Rafael's own zoning designations that conceivably would accommodate the proposed development. Explaining that prezoning is a legislative action over which the Council has broad discretion, Mr Brown stated there is no compulsion to prezone the property even if the current General Plan discusses future development and annexation of these lands. Rather, it must only be found that the decision is in the interests of the public health, safety and welfare. Mr. Brown stated that the resolution as drafted by staff sets forth numerous findings for denial of the prezoning, including the likely impacts of the project on freeway congestion, which is severe, the lack of a partnership with the County Board of Supervisors over the planning of these properties, and Council's desire not to expend substantial City time and resources in processing these development applications. Should Council decline to prezone the property, Mr. Brown stated that then all other entitlement applications must also be denied, since they are dependent upon the prezoning for consistency with the General Plan and zoning designations. He reported that the current County zoning is A-2 on the developable portions of the St. Vincent's property, allowing one unit per every two acres, and this would not be consistent with the level of development proposed by the St. Vincent's Village applications. Mr. Brown also noted that denial of the applications is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, initiation and completion of the project EIR is not necessary. Mr. Brown indicated that either he or the City Attorney would be happy to answer questions. Mayor Boro invited a representative for the applicant to address the Council. City Attorney Gary Ragghianti announced that at 6:13 p.m., a facsimile was received from the attorney for the applicant, Mr. Michael Durkee, consisting of a two-page letter, the last paragraph of which indicated that Mr. Durkee would not be attending the meeting, nor would any representative of the applicant, Shapell. Mr. Ragghianti indicated this letter had been copied and made available to the public. Roger Roberts, 223 Southern Heights Boulevard, San Rafael, stated he had been a resident of San Rafael since 1981. He reported that some years ago, he was on the City Council of the City of Larkspur, at which time there was a proposal to take over the Kentfield Fire District Station at the corner of Sir Francis Drake and College Avenue. Having evaluated this very carefully, Mr. Roberts stated that due to the costs involved, the proposal was denied, which he believed was a wise decision. He believed a similar situation was being faced in this case. Having generated some estimates of the cost to the City should the property be annexed and the anticipated revenues should the project go forward, Mr. Roberts stated that under reasonable assumptions, it is likely that the City property and business tax revenue from the proposed built -out Shapell project would probably be somewhere between $800,000 and $1 million per year. He indicated this was based upon a build -out value of the property of approximately $742,000,000, plus the commercial space to be developed, for a total value of the property of approximately $743,000,000. Mr. Roberts stated that the property tax rate of 1 % against that property value would be $7.44 million per year, of which the City's share would be 11 %, or roughly $818,400. Therefore, even to disagree with these particular numbers, he believed it reasonable to assume that somewhere between $800,000 and $1 million would be the expected return from this project. Questioning the important issue of whether the project would be a fiscal drain on the City, Mr. Roberts stated it probably would, and at best would be fiscally marginal. To meet the response time standards of the City, he indicated it was likely that the project would require additional Fire SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 5 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 6 and Police facilities on site, plus additional equipment to service the site, and additional staff to provide 24-hour service support. He estimated, therefore, that the annual cost of servicing the project, not including the capital or recreation costs, rather the core costs of Fire and Safety, would amount to approximately $1 million per year. From his analysis, Mr. Roberts concluded it probably was not prudent for the City to even consider annexation of the site for this development if the project is only marginally fiscally sound, and he urged the City Council to reject the application on this ground, together with the others presented by staff. Having ascertained that approximately 6 people wished to address Council, Mayor Boro requested that they limit their comments to approximately 3 — 5 minutes. Art Gray, Terra Linda, reiterated his sentiments of a previous occasion concerning the denial of a 200 -unit student dormitory in San Luis Obispo. He indicated no one was sued in this connection. Kathy Lowry, Marin Conservation League, stated she was here to support and compliment staff on the thorough job they had done sorting this issue out. She urged the City Council to accept the staff recommendation and deny the application. Don Dickenson stated he had been a resident of San Rafael since 1980 and on going through some papers recently, realized that the first occasion he spoke to the City Council on this item was April 20, 1988 during hearings on what became General Plan 2000. He indicated it had been a long and sometimes, bitter road; however, while he believed this would be the eventual result, he had not been clear as to how it would happen. In terms of tonight's issue, Mr. Dickenson stated it was important to stress that this property is not in the City. A prezoing application is entirely a discretionary legislative matter and the City could not be forced to approve it. He indicated staff, with legal advice, had developed very strong arguments for Council in terms of why the applications should be denied, and for the record, he highlighted some: Prezoning of the property as requested by Shapell clearly would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and would result in a large undeveloped property continuing to exist between the City limits and the St. Vincent's property. Such leapfrog development results in inefficient provision of City services, higher cost of infrastructure to City residents, increased impacts on traffic and transit services, greater impacts on air quality and loss of agricultural land in an important community separator. Inefficient use of land in this manner contravenes policies specific to these properties contained in the City's General Plan 2000. Additionally, such leapfrog developments proposing only development of the St. Vincent's property, contravenes principles and land use policies established by the Cortese -Knox Act and by LAFCO policies. Prezoning of the St. Vincent's property as requested by Shapell would also be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare in that it would result in an increase in traffic on Highway 101, which is already operating at an unacceptable level of service during the morning commute hours. As indicated in the staff report, the proposed project would add between 4% and 5% to the traffic volume on Highway 101. The staff report points out that this exceeds the Congestion Management Agency's standards for significant impact for highway segments already operating at Level Service F by 400 — 500%. The City's General Plan 2000 also sets forth a plan for development phasing that envisions certain improvements would proceed or occur simultaneously with the development of the St. Vincent's property. As described in detail in the staff report, these improvements have been neither funded nor are they even currently planned. Traffic congestion during the commute periods has also increased significantly since preparation of General Plan 2000 back in 1986. Highway 101 has deteriorated from Level of Service E in the morning commute to Level of Service F. • General Plan 2000 also states that development should occur at the same time as or after completion of needed roadway improvements. As described in the staff report, only one of those needed roadway improvements had actually occurred to date. Additionally, General Plan 2000 requires that development should not occur until a decision is made on use of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Mr. Dickenson stated this was a very complete and comprehensive staff report, outlining for the City Council all the reasons why these applications should be denied, and with mixed feelings, he indicated he realized this may be the last occasion for him to appear before the City Council on this matter. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 6 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 7 Nona Dennis, Mill Valley resident, stated she was a member of the most recent Task Force on St. Vincent's/Silveira and indicated she would make four brief comments that derive from the staff report, which she found very thorough. The four points consisted of: Opposition, Non - Contiguous Development, Traffic Impact and Housing. She stated that these came from her own experience as a member of the Task Force. Opposition — Ms. Dennis reported it is stated several times in the Findings of Fact and in the staff report and documents that two members of the Task Force "backed out" of the agreement to the recommendations. Pointing out the reasons for doing this, she stated it was felt there was not agreement in a major way, rather a wide disparity in opinions, as to the level of development appropriate at St. Vincent's. Secondly, they were assured, having signed the recommendations that they would be forwarded to the Steering Committee to be reviewed and considered in the General Plan Update process. Ms. Dennis stated it took two years for those recommendations to finally emerge into public view. Had this occurred perhaps two years earlier, the current situation and the expense of the process thus far could have been avoided. She stated the City now finds that perhaps that opposition is shared by a broader segment of the citizenry than previously considered. Non -Contiguous Development — Ms. Dennis stated it was refreshing to see in a staff report such terms as: not infill development, leapfrog, inefficient use of land, etc. She stated that during the Task Force process, they were reminded a number of times that in fact, they were in the City Centered Corridor and it was not infill. She indicated there was a wide difference of opinion within the Task Force as to whether this would or would not be infill development; they felt it would not. Traffic Impact — Ms. Dennis reported the Task Force early on was given an analysis of regional traffic impact and were assured there would be a net improvement with developing St. Vincent's/Silveira on the regional network. She expressed relief it was found that traffic would have a significant impact, given the present Level of Service F on that segment. Housing - Indicating that even the environmental representatives agreed to a limited amount of housing at the low end of the spectrum, Ms. Dennis stated they cared about housing and were very concerned that it is provided. They were reassured staff found that perhaps, the City could meet the 2006 housing goals through infill. Ms. Dennis stated she wished to support the resolution Alex Foreman, Gerstle Park resident, stated he represents most of San Rafael on the Marin Municipal Water District; however, was present this evening as the Chair of the Marin Group Sierra Club, which supports the staff recommendations strongly. Mr. Foreman stated they believe this project was ill-conceived and is not the best way to meet the need for affordable workforce housing, nor is it an appropriate project for San Rafael, rather belonging in the hands of the County. He stated the Sierra Club is willing and pledges to work with the City of San Rafael and the other government entities in the County to find solutions for the housing crisis. He stated they had been supportive of recent affordable housing projects in Point Reyes Station, Corte Madera, Mill Valley and those also in San Rafael that are genuine infill projects, and would continue this active support. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing Councilmember Miller stated he was present this evening engaged in the legislative process for which he was elected and in which he puts the common good ahead of all individual and institutional interests. He indicated he had come to this evening's legislative duty and public hearing fully prepared, with extensive and comprehensive study of the St. Vincent's Village project and ancillary issues. Councilmember Miller stated he did not wish to argue with the testimony presented this evening by the speakers and that submitted in the letter by Mr. Durkee on behalf of Shapell Industries of Northern California. He acknowledged, however, he had heard, appreciated and understood the espoused positions and their foundations. He stated he would vote for the resolution denying the applications for the proposed St. Vincent's Village development project based on the rationale and steadfast arguments in the 38 Whereases and 6 Findings of Fact forthrightly stated in the resolution. Of the history of the St. Vincent's Village proposal and the multiple reasons for denial expressed in the 38 Whereases, Councilmember Miller stated that for him, number 36 was the prevailing and chief determinant as to why he was voting for the denial of the applications. He quoted: SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 7 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 8 "WHEREAS, without the previously anticipated and necessary partnership, cooperation and support based upon the previously referenced MOU from the County, the enormous amount of City time and resources necessary for processing the Shapell/CYO applications, including preparation of an EIR pursuant to CEQA and the conduct of numerous hearings over possibly several years, all as required by City code provisions and State law, are perceived by the Council to be overly burdensome and likely doomed to inability to produce a project that would be feasible." Councilmember Miller stated he also reached his conclusions to deny all the applications of this project based on the following thoughts found in the 6 Findings of Fact in the resolution. He stated he believed it would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare to approve this project. He indicated that the message he hears over and over from his constituents is "don't add another car onto 101 until their is some congestion relief." Councilmember Miller stated that the benefits of the HOV Gap Closure project had not been experienced. The voters had not supported the SMART train, Countywide bus service is about to be cut by 25% and the County of Marin cannot place a minimal transportation measure on November's ballot because of the near certainty that the measure would fail, as did the last one. He explained it was his belief that circumstances had changed and there was no longer a partnership with the Board of Supervisors to go forward with the proposed St. Vincent's Village project. The Board of Supervisors does not support the level of development for the properties recommended by the St. Vincent's/Silveira Task Force, rather the Board of Supervisors clearly prefers the advice and counsel of the distinguished, knowledgeable, experienced environmental activist who organized and publicly voiced opposition to the St. Vincent's Village proposal. Councilmember Miller stated he believed tonight's legislative act is consistent with the City of San Rafael's General Plan. As he understood Council's authority, he stated the City Council is not required by law to agree to annex and prezone lands outside the City's boundaries if they believe it not to be in the best interests of the City, regardless of the vision in the 1988 General Plan. He stated that the property in question is in the County and is zoned by the County. The Board of Supervisors is entitled to its own vision for the use of the St. Vincent's properties and would have to make wise decisions about how to balance the community interests expressed in the St. Vincent's/Silveira Task Force recommendations, the rightful economic interests of the owners of the property and the protection of the ecological systems of the earth itself. Even without the St. Vincent's project, Councilmember Miller stated the City of San Rafael would meet its housing goals mandated by the State of California. To accomplish the required housing goals, he indicated the City would have to do with more mixed use and infill developments in neighborhoods throughout the City, as proposed in the Draft Housing Element submitted to the State of California. In conclusion, Councilmember Miller stated that if this Council, acting in its capacity as legislators, chooses not to prezone this property for annexation, then all other applications must be denied, since they require the prezoning and do not comply with the County's current A-2 zoning or with the Countywide Plan. Councilmember Miller stated a fork in the road had been reached in the community's discernment on the use of the beautiful lands of St. Vincent's. Should the City Council vote to deny the applications for the St. Vincent's Village development proposal, County government is at the helm of the discernment process at this junction. He stated the common good cries out for sustainable development that Herman Daly defines as "a progressive, social betterment, without growing beyond the ecological caring capacity." Councilmember Miller expressed the wish that the individual interests of all parties and stakeholders in these properties find sufficient and just satisfaction in the achievement of the common good. Councilmember Heller stated that through the past ten years of looking at this project, she had a huge education in the planning process. She thanked staff for the excellent report. She commented on the eloquence of the speakers, noting students were present this evening who perhaps, were trying to catch up with the process, and indicated everyone was available to answer questions at the conclusion of tonight's meeting. Indicating she would vote to deny the prezoning application at this time, Councilmember Heller stated she believed it to be to the benefit of the City and in the interests of the health, safety and welfare of citizens to do so. Committing to a long, expensive time-consuming and planning process she did not believe to be in the City's best interest at this time. She noted the City faces a huge amount of problems, including the State budget and its ancillary issues. Councilmember Heller stated that comments from the Board of Supervisors and the public indicate that the Task Force recommendations agreed to by both the County and the City are not supported at this time. She stated it was understood that an agreed upon tax sharing agreement between the County and the City could be changed, and financially, it could SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 8 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 9 definitely be a detriment to the City to go ahead with a huge project at this time She noted the findings had shown many reasons, including approving this development could result in non-contiguous property development, which is not allowed for in the General Plan, and as she had learned from LAFCO, would create an island, again, not allowed under LAFCO policies and procedures. Councilmember Heller reported she had read with great interest that traffic would be increased by a huge amount by allowing this project to go forward. Circumstances have changed since adoption of the General Plan 2000. Roadway improvements have not been provided and no plans have been or are being considered at this point, to provide a lot of these roadways. She stated that disapproving this legislative prezoning proposal is consistent with the General Plan 2000. The additional adequate and available sites needed for housing would be provided to get the City's Housing Element through the State in the coming years. She thanked everyone for their help and advice with this issue. Councilmember Phillips acknowledged the points made this evening. As both sides had, he also had given this matter a lot of consideration to reach a conclusion. He explained he tried to reach this conclusion so that he could be comfortable with himself in the process; however, he also took the input received into consideration. Indicating that he understood the principal points with regard to both sides of the argument, Councilmember Phillips noted that those in favor of the development certainly had good intentions. Affordable housing was often cited and he believed many in the community would be sympathetic to that argument, and as was pointed out, with or without this property, the City believed the State needs could be satisfied, and also as perceived by many, the needs of the City. Councilmember Phillips also believed there was an issue of fairness to the property owners that was taken into account in reaching this conclusion. This has been "open space" and had been preserved for a great number of years; therefore, as a community, a debt of gratitude was owed to the owners of the property for maintaining it for as long as they had. He understood the economic need, particularly of St. Vincent's and their ongoing program, which is a real asset to the community; however, he believed there was a balance and this related to the environmental impact. Councilmember Phillips indicated that traffic and the beauty of the land had been discussed, and while no one had come forward with a satisfactory solution for the traffic, in balancing the principal issues, these certainly came to mind. In his decision-making, Councilmember Phillips reported he did look at it from a practical standpoint. He explained that even if a prezoning were to occur, he queried the eventual outcome as best it could be envisioned. He stated the eventual outcome is not very attractive from the City of San Rafael's viewpoint and therefore, it would be foolish beyond the good arguments presented in the staff report, and this evening, to prezone as a precursor to further development of the property. He referred to an article written some time ago by Dick Spotswood, which he believed summarized, in many ways, the City of San Rafael's position rather nicely. The article was written on January 23, 2002 and he quoted — "There are likely a majority of Supervisors opposed to the development at St. Vincent's. Since the suits can block annexation, San Rafael may return the responsibility of handling any development application back to the County. The bottom line is that San Rafael does not need the hassle if ultimately, the County will not permit annexation." Councilmember Phillips stated that even to go through the process, incurring the time and expense, the City could end up, as Mr. Spotswood continues: "Then if the County denies the development permit and the County cannot raise the money to buy the land, it will be the County and not the City of San Rafael that is in the hot seat. Then the County will have to defend an inevitable lawsuit that contends that denial of reasonable development is an unconstitutional taking of the land without compensation." Councilmember Phillips stated it appeared to him that the City would find itself in a situation of either being sued by housing advocates, environmentalists or perhaps the property owners. Beyond the reasons cited in the excellent staff report, Councilmember Phillips stated that additionally, there are some real practical considerations, i.e., what does the City gain to go this way, other than "heartburn" and a two-year process, ending up with a lawsuit. He did not consider the City needed this; therefore, he would vote in favor of denial of the application for prezoning. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 9 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 10 Councilmember Phillips hoped all concerned appreciated the thought process gone through by Councilmembers, and the conclusions drawn, whether there was agreement or not. He hoped recognition would be given to the fact that they spent a lot of time considering the viewpoints of those in the audience this evening and those constituents talked to. He appreciated the well- written staff report, documenting the many concerns and considerations. Mayor Boro stated that in preparing for this evening's meeting and reviewing the documentation, he also reviewed the minutes of the meeting of January 13, 2003. He indicated having thought back to a City Council meeting in December, 2002, when he asked staff to look at the City's options "in light of recent events." He recalled that Councilmember Phillips had just used the word "practical" and stated it was necessary to be very practical and real in attempting to achieve something in the public sector, as is done in the private sector. Mayor Boro stated that prior to last November, a lead Supervisor was supporting this project, and it was pretty apparent, albeit silent, that he had the majority of his Board with him at that time. There was a real change. While the one person did not make a difference, Mayor Boro believed the one person gave courage to others. He recalled having stated back in January, 2003, that should anyone from the County feel differently, they could certainly inform the City; however, three months, almost to the day, even while personally meeting Supervisors weekly, there had been no communications, oral or written, that the City was going down a path they would not support. Mayor Boro stated this led him to believe the basic principle, talked about in January and evident this evening, is the fact that this City has a very full plate and a lot of issues to deal with, not only the General Plan, but the daily running of the City with decreasing resources. While more than willing to take on any issue he believed could be achieved, Mayor Boro stated that to take on an issue such as this causing concern and anxiety, and ultimately not being able to deliver the product, did not make sense to him. He indicated this was his feeling in January, he felt this way this evening and he did not believe the City had the cooperation of the County of Marin to go forward. On the other hand, Mayor Boro stated he did not consider this a victory for one side or the other. He believed these property owners would not go away. There needed to be fairness to those who owned the property, they had a right to develop it, there had to be some provision for housing in the community, whether it be under the County's or City's jurisdiction, it was a needed commodity and foremost on this site, the environment needed to be protected. While he believed it could happen, Mayor Boro felt it would happen in a different venue from the City of San Rafael. Reiterating that he was more than willing to support some reasonable use of that site, Mayor Boro stated he did not believe it could just sit there, rather it needed some opportunity, which he did not think the City could deliver. This was his basic concern and the reason for his supporting the resolution. Mayor Boro reported he had gone through the many elements of the motion before Council this evening and from his point of view, believed it was in the best interest of the City of San Rafael not to process this application because the City could not control it, as previously believed, in a partnership that had now evaporated. Conversely, he strongly believed that whomever had this authority, now the County of Marin, would have to be accountable to the property owners and the environment, and had a responsibility to those who desired to live here in the future. City Attorney Gary Ragghianti suggested that should a Councilmember wish to make a motion, it should be to deny the prezoning application for the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties as requested, and to deny each and every of the other pending applications, on the basis of the resolution wording contained on page 6. For the record, Mr. Ragghianti requested that the party making the motion read into the record this paragraph so that everyone was certain as to the basis upon which these pending applications were being denied. Moving the motion, Councilmember Heller read the following paragraph into the record: "NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED based upon all of the matters referred to herein above as well as the specific and detailed findings which follow that the City of San Rafael does hereby decline to prezone the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties as requested in the applications on file so as to permit the development proposed in the Shapell/CYO applications and further does hereby decline to amend at present the General Plan to incorporate the Task Force recommendations concerning these lands. Be it further resolved that, absent prezoning of the St. Vincent's property, the Shapell/CYO Vesting Tentative Map is inconsistent with the current land use designations for the property, and therefore may not be approved. Accordingly, and be it further resolved, the Shapell/CYO applications for a Planned Development, Use Permit, and Environmental and Design Review Permit, are also disapproved. This resolution is based on the preceding and the Findings of Fact, which follow, SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 10 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 11 which are incorporated herein by reference in full." Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11288 — RESOLUTION DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR: (1) PREZONING (ZCO2-001), (2) ANNEXATION (AX02-001), (3) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA02-001), (4) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (ZCO2-001), (5) USE PERMIT (UP02-106), (6) ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW (ED02-034) AND (7) VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (TS02-001) FOR THE PROPOSED ST. VINCENT'S VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (APN: 155-010-27764,69,70 AND 77) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 10. Public Hearing — CONSIDERATION OF TERMINATION OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND THE COUNTY OF MARIN PERTAINING TO THE LANDS OF ST. VINCENT'S AND SILVEIRA - FILE 4-13-103 x 5-5 x 115 (2000) x 115 (2020) x 10-2 x 4-3-400 x 9-2-45 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened Community Development Director Bob Brown reported that this action follows from the previous actions of January 13, 2003 and tonight's denial of the St. Vincent's development applications. He indicated that the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) entered into between the City and the County in 1998 states that the City would act as the lead agency in the processing of development applications. Mr. Brown stated that since the City is now indicating that the County is the land use agency that should process any permits for entitlements on the St. Vincent's and Silveira properties, the MOU should be terminated. Mr. Brown stated that notice had been provided to the County Board of Supervisors as required by the termination provisions of the MOU. Jerry Frate stated he resided off Smith Ranch Road in San Rafael, near the project, and indicated he attended a lot of Task Force meetings. He inquired whether the City would advise the County of anything other than development. Mr. Frate stated that during the Task Force meetings, there were a number of ideas that were not development heavy, i.e., truck farming, vegetable farming, testimony that park and recreational facilities were needed, and a lot of people had different ideas concerning the site being a park, open space, having trails, etc. By cutting off the MOU, Mr. Frate questioned whether anything was being sent to the County in this respect. Responding, Mayor Boro stated that dropping the MOU was with respect to the process that was in place. He indicated the County was well represented in that process, the County Community Development Director was part of it and the record would indicate that the County certainly knew what the City and those on the committee talked about; therefore, they were aware of the options. Mayor Boro stated he did not believe that at this point, the City was in a position, or would wish, to advise the County as to what they might want to do. He believed it was their issue to deal with and they had all the data available to them. Mr. Frate stated it appeared there still was interface and the City by just turning its back, left it up to the County to see what they wanted to happen there. Renee Silveira stated she was present on behalf of her father, Tony Silveira and uncle, Joe Silveira, owners of the property. Ms. Silveira requested clarification, as it appeared to her there was a lot of County input and interaction in terms of drawing up the MOU; however, there was no discussion in terms of this process. She had heard about newspaper articles, public comments by various Supervisors, Mayor Boro seeing Supervisors frequently; however, no discussion. To her, it appeared very irresponsible to make a decision of this importance that initially involved a lot of interaction and now, suddenly there was this big chasm. She believed it irresponsible of the County and the City not to talk; it was unfair and was a very sad, dismal statement on how the City and the County should work together. Ms. Silveira stated this spelled waste to her. There were years of planning involved and the Silveiras were in this situation because of the County. She indicated that the County SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 11 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 12 designated these properties in the urban corridor and the City did what it was supposed to do. She stated the City did not decide these things on its own, rather it was on the marching orders of what the County did; therefore, to her, it appeared that not having a discussion was ridiculous. Ms. Silveira stated they were disheartened and shocked. While understanding the City's anxiety concerning controversy, she stated there always had been controversy and if the County and City wanted to be responsible, they would both come to a mid line and discuss the situation in a responsible manner, rather than one party being intimidated by the other. She stated the City had been the compass on this property for the past few years and she believed they really wanted to do the right thing. In her opinion, Ms. Silveira stated the County had been acting irresponsibly in terms of the property. Inquiring as to the County's position on the property, she stated they collected property taxes each year that amounted to the market potential of the property. She believed there were double messages and the Silveiras were at a point of incredible disappointment, and sadness for those who had put a lot into the process. Ms. Silveira acknowledged the City had put a lot into the process and believed it was a big waste and a real loss for a lot of people. For the record, Ms. Silveira stated her father was supportive of annexation and she did not understand the "leapfrog" concept in terms of the annexation. Mayor Boro stated that he was not concerned with the issue of anxiety, rather he was frustrated at not being able to deliver the project. To go through the anxiety and hearings and then be stopped, the question was whether it made sense. The County had not talked to the City, and no comments had been received, outside of those seen. Mayor Boro stated he believed the County would be pleased they now had this land to process; it would be their responsibility and he had stated his concerns about this earlier. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to adopt the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11289— RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND THE COUNTY OF MARIN PERTAINING TO THE LANDS OF ST. VINCENT'S AND SILVEIRA AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen 12. Public Hearing — CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE CITY'S DETERMINATION OF INCOMPLETENESS OF A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION FOR THE ST. VINCENT'S VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND CONFIRMATION OF INCOMPLETENESS OF VARIOUS OTHER APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING PREZONING, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT; APN: 155-010-27,64,69,70 AND 77; PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN FRANCISCO, ST. VINCENT'S DIVISION (CYO) (CD) - FILE 5-5 x 4-13-103 x 115 (2000) x 115 (2020) x 10-2 x 4-3-400 x 9-2-45 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened City Attorney Gary Ragghianti stated the record should reflect that the last sentence in Mr. Durkee's April 7, 2003 letter, written on behalf of the applicant states: "On behalf of Shapell Industries of Northern California, Inc., we hereby authorize the City to conduct the hearing on our Permit Streamlining Act appeal in our absence." Mr. Ragghianti stated this was that hearing. Anne Moore, Contract Planner for the project, stated she had prepared a status staff report for this evening; however, it was rather an anti -climax item, and concerned the appeal of whether the applications, particularly the Vesting Tentative Map, are complete or not. She explained there were two letters from St. Vincent's in the packets concerning this matter — the St. Vincent's legal representatives' letters of February 18 and 21, 2003 - putting forth numerous bases for appeal that the Vesting Tentative Map was deemed complete by passage of a 30 -day period of time after submittal of materials in November of 2002. SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 12 SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 13 Ms. Moore stated all of the points raised by Mr. Durkee in his letter were responded to. Not just the Vesting Tentative Map was discussed, rather it was assumed because of some of the language in his letter, there was a possibility of an appeal concerning other incompleteness items. She stated the concern about whether the application was complete or not was raised by the applicant only after the January actions concerning the lands of Silveira and St. Vincent's. It had not come up in any of the two years' worth of meetings held with the applicants, nor in all of the time that had passed since their March, 2002 applications had been deemed incomplete in April of 2002. Ms. Moore stated the Annexation application is complete, having been deemed complete in August, 2002; therefore, the issue concerns all of the other applications. Ms. Moore stated that what happened on November 18, the date that supposedly 30 -days later a Vesting Tentative Map was deemed complete, relates to what happened in August and September, when the applicant had revised their project description document, and that was the result of the many months of work they had done on their project. She stated staff was very concerned because there was not a set of graphics accompanying the revised project description dated September 3rd, that accurately described the revised project. The applicant was informed this was necessary so this information could be distributed to all other City departments, agencies and organizations to which the September project description document had been distributed. Ms. Moore reported it took them quite a while to get those materials together; they began submitting materials on October 23 and by November 18, finally had the requisite number of plans and of all the pages therein that were needed to accompany the project description document. She indicated that those materials were then distributed to other City departments and other public agencies and organizations. Ms. Moore reported that at that point in time there was no letter indicating that this was a substantial resubmittal of an application. In fact, the only real material was a document entitled "Graphics for St. Vincent's Projects" which was exactly what was requested in September. Ms. Moore stated staff recommended adoption of the resolution denying the appeal of the City's determination that the Vesting Tentative Map is incomplete and confirming that the other applications, Prezoning, General Plan amendment, Planned Development Application, Use Permit and Environmental and Design Review applications are also incomplete. There being no comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Heller seconded, to adopt the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11290 — RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE CITY'S DETERMINATION THAT THE ST. VINCENT'S VILLAGE PROJECT APPLICATION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP IS INCOMPLETE AND CONFIRMING THAT APPLICATIONS FOR PREZONING, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT ARE ALSO INCOMPLETE AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips and Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 13. None. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:30 p.m. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 12003 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC Minutes (Regular) 04/07/2003 Page 13